( 597 ) REVIEW. "Still pleased to praise, yet not afraid to blame."-POPE. ART. I.-A Course of Lectures, contain ing a Description and Systematic Arrangement of the several Branches of Divinity: : accompanied with an Account both of the principal Authors, and of the Progress, which has been made, at different Periods, in Theological Learning. By Herbert Marsh, D. D. F. R. S. Margaret Professor of Divinity. Part IV. On the Interpretation of Prophecy. Cambridge, Printed, Sold there by Deightons, &c. and in London by Rivingtons. 1816. 8vo. pp. 86. HE subject here discussed by the tant, curious and difficult, and his reputation, as a theological scholar, so deservedly high, that we opened this pamphlet with more than common eagerness: an examination of it's contents, will shew in what degree our expectations have been gratified. At the conclusion of the third part of his Lectures, he treated of typical interpretation, "with which," says he, "the interpretation of prophecy is so far connected, as types are prophetic of their antitypes." In our review of that publication, we hinted our doubts with respect to the correctness of his definition of a type, and, at the same time, expressed a hope that the matter would be more largely and satisfactorily considered in some of" Dr. Marsh's "succeeding Lectures." It is resumed, accordingly, in No. XIX. the second paragraph of which begins with the following sentences: "To constitute a type, something more is requisite, than a mere resemblance of that, which is called it's antitype. For one thing may resemble another, when the things themselves are totally unconnected. But it is the very essence of a type, to have a necessary connexion with it's antitype. It must have been designed, and designed from the very beginning, to prefigure it's antitype; or it partakes not of that character which belongs to a real type; a cha racter, which implies, not an accidental parity of circumstances, but a pre-ordained and inherent connexion between the things themselves. Where this character is wanting, there is wanting that relation of type to antitype, which subsists between the things of the Old Testament, and the things of the New." (Pp. 1, 2). The Margaret Professor's representation of "the very essence of a type," is perfectly agreeable to certain systems of theology: we are convinced however that it receives no countenance from the Scriptures. If our readers will look into their English Bibles, they will find only a single passage which speaks of types: this is 1 Cor. x 11.; and even this is nothing more than the marginal reading examples being preferred in the text and adopted by Newcome. On examining, too, the places in which the corresponding Greek substantive occurs, we can discover no support to the doctrine that a type is a designed resemblance. Dr. M. indeed says (ib:), the only mode of distinguishing the cases, where this relation [of type to antitype] actually exists, from the cases where it is only supposed to exist, is to examine what things in the Old Testament have been represented by Christ and his apostles as relating to things in the New. For then we have authority for such relation: then we know, that one thing was designed to prefigure the other." To this authority we implicitly subscribe: but we shall soon perceive that it does not warrant the conclusion at which the Lecturer arrives. Before he considers (3) the prophetic character of a type, he ought to shew indubitably that a type, such as he describes it, has an existence in the volume of Revelation. Here, we think, his reasoning and his illustrations fail: "Whether a future event is indicated by words, or indicated by other tokens, the connexion of that event with the words in one case, or the tokens in the other, will be equally a fulfilling of prophecy." True if the connexion be in both instances designed; which is exactly the point to be proved, instead of being assumed. On this proof the Professor enters in the course of his third para graph. According to Dr. M., "We cannot have a more remarkable, or a more important example, than that of 698 Review-Marsh's Lectures. Part IV. the paschal lamb, as applied to the death of Christ. For not only was the paschal lamb sacrificed for the sins of the Jews under circumstances resembling those, under which our Saviour was sacrificed for the sins of the world, but we have the authority of Scripture itself for the assertion, that the sacrifice of the paschal lamb was from the very beginning designed to indi cate the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. When John the Baptist first saw our Saviour, he exclaimed, Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.' St. Paul is still more particular: for he says, Christ, our passover is sacrifived for us: and St. Peter declares, that we were redeemed with the precious blemish and without spot, who verily was fore-ordained, before the foundation of the world. From a comparison of these pasBages we learn, not only that the two sacrifices resembled each other, but that the sacrifice of the paschal lamb was originally intended to designate the sacrifice of Christ. The former sacrifice therefore has all the qualifications, which are necessary to constitute a type." (3, 4). blond of Christ, as of a lamb without Does this conclusion flow legitimately from the premises? The resemblance is granted: but proof is wanting of it's being a designed resemblance. Our Saviour, we know, has been denominated the lamb of God' and our passover: this fact however is no evidence of the paschal lamb and supper being typical of him-with equal reason might it be alleged that, because he speaks of himself as the good shep herd, his pastoral character was the antitype of David's. Such a principle of criticism would conduct us, in truth, to doctrines and inferences which scarcely any theologian, of any denomination, could endure. Nor can Dr. M. fairly lay stress on the word foreordained, in his quotation from the writings of the Apostle Peter. On consulting the original, our readers will be fully sensible that the antecedent is Christ: he it is "who was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world;" a declaration to which we unreservedly and gratefully assent, but which is far from being identical with the proposition" that the sacrifice of the paschal lamb was originally intended to designate the sacrifice of Christ." Our author endeavours to evince that there are "two very remarkable types of the Old Testament, the one applying to the Sacrament of baptism, the other to the Sacrament of the In plainer language, the meaning of Dr. M. is, that of the Lord's supper the paschal supper may be considered as a type. His manner of expressing himself, should not be passed in silence. Instead of saying, totidem verbis, that it is actually a type, or that, on the principles of sound reasoning, we must infer it to be such, he simply remarks, that it may be considered as a type. No doubt, there is a large class of persons by whom it may be so considered: an unscriptural system of theology, combined with fervour of imagination, will behold types in almost every page of the Jewish records. It is highly probable that, under the influence of these causes, men will multiply resemblances of this description, and that they may consider every resemblance as typical. The point at issue between the Professor and us, is the ground on which he considers the paschal supper as typical of the Eucharist. Now this would seem to be the supposed relation of the sacrifice of the paschal lamb [as the type] to the sacrifice of Christ (as the antitype]. However, since no such relation is asserted, or even implied, in Scripture, it follows that the alleged relation of these two ceremonies to each other is also imaginary. foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. The Equally unsuccessful is this Lecturer in his attempt to shew that "the sacrament of baptism was prefigured by an event of great importance in the history of the Jews." Though he labours the point at some length, he only convinces us that the proof of it is too weighty a task for even the abilities and learning of Dr. Marsh. Let us heat the Professor's statement (4): Corinthians (x. 1.), says, Brethren, I "St. Paul, in his first Epistle to the would not that ye should be ignorant, how that our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were bap tized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink ‹ Review-Marsh's Lectures. Part IV. for they drank of that same spiritual rock, that followed them, and that rock was Christ. In this passage (adds Dr. M.] it is evident that St. Paul considered the being baptized unto Moses, as typical of being baptized unto Christ." That the Margaret Professor chuses so to consider it, is sufficiently "evident." But there is no evidence whatever that the case was viewed by the Apostle in the same light. Let the reader determine, whether persons who had never heard of this theological fiction of types would put such a construction upon Paul's words: it is an interpretation which, we venture to pronounce, they will not bear. The passage has some obscurities: we may perhaps admit that it implies comparison and resemblance; concerning a type however it is profoundly silent. The existence of proselyte baptism among the Jews, must not be assumed (5) as an indubitable fact; writers of eminent impartiality and erudition having called it in question. Conceding, nevertheless, to Dr. M. that this was one of their customs, it is altogether irrelevant to remind us that they" appear to have generally considered the passage of their forefathers through the red sea, not as a mere insulated historical fact, but as something representative of admission to the divine favour, by baptism." When we inquire into the doctrine of the Scriptures, on this or any other matter, the comments of the Jewish Rabbins can be of no authority in truth, the language of Maimonides, as quoted by Whitby (in loc:), conveys no further idea than that of an imagined resemblance between the passage of the red sea and the rite of baptism: and this is the sum of Whitby's own commentary on the verse. But if this text will not sustain Dr. Marsh's inference, still less support can he acquire from the words of Paul in the passages which he proceeds to cite. It is a mere assumption that, when the Apostle speaks of baptism, any reference is intended to a memorable event in the Jewish history: his language and his argument require no such explanation. So far then are we from "here" * In particular, Lardner. Works. Vol. XI. 320. Rom. vi. 3. Gal. iii. 27. Acts xxii. 16. Tit. iii. 6. 599 having "another instance of type and antitype, ratified by the authority of a divine Apostle, in all their various relations," that, if we will only be content to make this sacred author his own interpreter, we shall be sensible of his being a total stranger to the comparatively modern doctrine of type and antitype !" We have no inclination to become parties in the controversy now carrying on within the pale of "the Church of England" on baptism and regeneration. The Margaret Professor takes occasion to communicate to his auditors and his readers his he, thoughts concerning it: " if," says baptism, we not only fall into the we detach regeneration from absurdity of making the outward act a visible sign of nothing to be signified, tism as a sacrament altogether"-and, but we destroy the sacrament of bapagain, they who wilfully and deliberately detach regeneration from baptism, impugn essentially the doctrine of our Established Church, inasmuch as they impugn it in one of our holy sacraments." Such then is the claim of the "Established Church" to bestow regeneration by means of baptism: we are less astonished at diference of judgment among her her preferring the claim than at the sons respecting the import of her seasonably employed in ascertaining articles. The disputants might be the sense of the term "regeneration" in the Scriptures. It is deserving of remark that words which are suffi ciently current in systems of theology, rarely present themselves in the New Testament. This is true of the expression before us : we meet with it in only two passages,‡ in neither of which does it describe a personal and moral change, but an improvement in point of religious knowledge and privileges, Dr. Marsh does not reason in a misses the subject of types and antimanner worthy of himself till he distypes. When, apparently unwilling to relinquish it, he asks (16), "Who would deny that the sacrifice of the paschal lamb is declared in the New Testament to be a prefiguration of the death of Christ?" We reply, by ad * See Article xxvii. as quoted. by Dr. M. Matt. xix. 28. Tit. iii. 6. 600 Review-Marsh's Lectures. Part IV. dressing to him another question, with which himself (ib :) has supplied us, "Must not the silence of the New Testament, in the case of any supposed type, be an argument against the existence of that type?" Systematical divines differ not a little among themselves in defining a type: let us compare for example, the statement of Doddridge with that of Dr. Marsh: "One person, or event, or institution in the divine dispensations, of which an account is given us in the word of God, may be said to be TYPICAL of another and greater person, or event, afterwards to appear, when there is a remarkable resem blance between the former and the latter; whether that resemblance be or be not known by the manifestation of the latter. This may be called the theological sense of the word, &c."* the time, which are wanted in the one case, but not in the other. If it be objected therefore, that the sacred oracles are ambiguous, because the explanations of them are various, we may confidently answer, that the fault is in the interpretation, and not in the text. It is no wonder that in the explanations of the Hebrew prophets we should discover inconsistency, when an office, for which so many qualifications are required, is undertaken by men, in whom those qualifications are wanting altogether." The Margaret Professor enters on his twentieth Lecture with a reference to those "general rules for the interpretation of the Bible, which have been fully explained in former Lectures," and which, he says, "are applicable, as well to the prophetic books, as to other parts of the sacred volume." This introductory position being illustrated and vindicated, he proceeds to the particular consideraA type then, agreeably to Dr. Dod-tion of the prophecies, which relate dridge's account of it, is not of the to the Messiah ;" since when we exnature of a prophecy, but consists simamine these, examine every ply in resemblance. Certainly how question of real interest in the subject ever the Margaret Professor's use of of prophecy at large." the word is theological; while the other is, with a single exception, correct and Scriptural. To the received notion of types no plausibility is given by the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, though it contains many comparisons of the Christian with the Jewish dispensation, holds forth no example whatever of a designed resemblance. In the remainder of the nineteenth Lecture Dr. M. assigns two causes of "the variety observable in the expositions of Hebrew prophecy:" these are an inadequate knowledge of the original language and inattention to "the situation and circumstances of the writer, whose works it is proposed to explain." There is scarcely any age of the church in which such remarks as the following (18) could be justly styled unreasonable: 66 though the difficulties attending the interpretation of the Hebrew prophets are confessedly great, those difficulties are not insurmountable. And if the interpretation of prophecy is really subject to determinate rules, the conclusions, to which such rules must eventually lead, will be no less certain, when those difficulties are overcome, than if they had never existed. The sole difference consists in the labour, in the skill, and in * Lectures, &c. Vol. II. (ed. 4.) 408. we As the result of "an inquiry into that connexion which subsists between the truth of our religion" and this class of prophecies, Dr. M. gives his opinion in the following terms, "There must be prophecies in the Old Testament, which strictly, literally, and directly predict the coming of our Saviour. There must be something more than pas sages, which may be accommodated" (as it is called) to his life and character." Here, we presume, all theological scholars will agree with the Professor. On a subject concerning which they are less unanimous he offers it as his decided judgment, that "A prophecy which relates to our Saviour in a mere remote or mystical sense, can hardly come within that description of prophecy, by which the preaching of Christ was made manifest." · Before we accompany our author to his next Lecture (No. XXI.), in which he collects and explains those passages which he conceives, " predict the coming of Christ in their plain, literal, and proper sense," we shall concisely notice a sentence pre senting itself in page 23. and part of a note in pp. 33, 34. + XIII-XVII. Review-Marsh's Lectures. Part IV. Speaking of the ability that our own reason gives us "to argue from the past to the future," he adds, by way of illustration, "If, for instance, we compare the *present situation of our church with it's situation at a former period, we must have our apprehensions, and perhaps our forebodings." We think it unfortunate that Dr. M. loses sight, even for a moment, of the character and dignity of the Academical Professor, to re-echo the illfounded complaint of ecclesiastical alarmists. The situation of "the church," is perfectly safe, provided her dignitaries are enlightened, tolerant and candid, and offer no violence to the spirit of the times, by urging claims which are alike discountenanced by the Scriptures and by the genius of 601 prophecy has nothing analogous to the double sense of allegory. From the whole of his investigation he concludes "that there is no system whatever, by which we can either establish the existence of secondary senses, or by which, on the supposition of their existence, we can discover their real meaning. We must be contented," he adds, "to resolve the question of secondary senses into a question of authority." He allows "that there are some passages of the Old Testament, which really have a secondary sense:" In this Matt. ii. 17, 18. Whether it should class he places Jer. xxxi. 15, quoted in be ranked among them, depends however on the meaning of the formula then was fulfilled,' which not improbably, expresses accommodation, rather than the completion of a prophecy. It is with pleasure we make a qurature nothing perhaps is more arduous In the whole range of theological litetation of a very different kind; happy than to ascertain the exact signification when our humble judgment on points of this mode of speech and of some kinof theology is confirmed by the sagacity and research of this learned dred expressions. Indeed, Dr. Marsh is far from having exhausted the topic of the double sense of prophecy; although he has said enough to make us suspect that this notion is untenable. our civil constitution. Lecturer: even a late Prelate of our own church, has very incautiously subscribed to the Jewish doctrine, that evil spirits hare the power of working miracles: a doctrine which tends to destroy the argument from miracles, since the performance of a miracle, if it does not in itself imply divine authority, cannot possibly do so by any accidental circumstances, whether of benevolence or of any other attribute, which may accompany the miracle." [Note pp. 33, 34.] The twenty-first Lecture principally consists of examples of literal prophecies relating to the Messiah ; in the selection of which the Professor follows Bishop Chandler. Though we do not uniformly agree with Dr. M. and his able precursor, in respect of the translation and application of these passages, yet we are in general instructed as well as gratified by their observations. In the remaining Lecture (No. XXII.) an inquiry is made into the foundation of secondary senses ascribed to Hebrew prophecy. The difficulties attending this notion, are justly and strongly represented. And the Lecturer is particularly succcesful in shew. ing that the alleged double sense of Mon. Repos. VI. 237. "The celebrated author of the Divine Legation," explained secondary senses in Hebrew prophecy on the supposition of their logical propriety and moral fitness: he conceived that they were essential to the genius of the Jewish dispensation, in its reference to the Gospel. Dr. Marsh has admirably exposed the difficulties accompanying this hypothesis, and with reason pronounces them "insurmountable." From the fourth part of his Lectures we have derived less pleasure and instruction than we expected. Besides the unsatisfactory manner in which he treats of types and the double sense of prophecy, we have to complain of some. capital omissions in this pamphlet ; and particularly of two. A course of Lectures on the interpretation of prophecy ought in reason to contain remarks on the prophetic style and figures, together with an arrangement of the predictions of the Old and of the New Testament in distinct classes. We are willing to believe that the Professor means to deliver his sentiments on these matters to the University and to the public when he resumes his academical du-. ties; though, to say the truth, he has given no intimation of this design. |