Imágenes de páginas

to make new again what has become old; which is so near akin to an act of creation as to require power beyond that allotted to finite beings.

ART. III.-The Typology of Scripture. By the Rev. PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, of Salton. Edinburgh: Clark. London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co. 1845.

ARBITRARINESS of interpretation has, at all times, too much characterized the expositions of those who have undertaken to explain the types of Scripture. Whilst one school finds Christ everywhere-in every act, in every event, and in every minuteness of circumstantial detail-others, equally orthodox, but dissatisfied with the over-strained exposition consequent upon the opinion that each and every portion of Scripture typifies and adumbrates Gospel truth, refuse to admit the Messiah to be anywhere, save only in those few detached and scattered instances which have been expressly recognized as types by New Testament authority.

Doubtless, one main reason which led to the adoption of this strict and more cautious proceeding was the uncertainty and even extravagance of exposition occasioned by the want of some strict and definite canon, whereby the liveliness of fancy might be curbed; though, at the same time, there can, we think, be little doubt that, in Germany especially, the canon which would so reduce the number of types as to leave us only those few which are actually and expressly pronounced by the New Testament to be such, arose partly from a spirit of antichristian rationalism. We cannot but fear that it was under this spirit that Dathe, in his edition of the "Sacred Philology" of Glass (which in other respects, also, was so changed that Glass himself would scarcely know his own), quietly and altogether omits the section upon types.

We would not, however, (and we feel sure that we shall not) be understood as throwing out any insinuation against the orthodoxy of such interpreters as Marsh, Van Mildert, Conybeare, Chevalier, and others, sound and eminent divines, who, in our own country (anxious to guard against all extravagance and unsatisfactoriness of exposition), have advocated the excessively and over-cautious principle. Nevertheless, the opinion advocated by them, that those only can be considered types which are in Scripture expressly declared to be such, lies open to one very great objection, in common with that of

the school to which they stand opposed. They might with truth have said that no others can be so considered, with equal certainty; and this perhaps is all they really mean. If it be not, we can only say that their canon is equally arbitrary, and the correctness of their opinion equally incapable of direct and positive proof. Scripture nowhere so limits the number of its types. Such a canon furnishes us, indeed, with a welldefined rule of interpretation, and with such a rule, it is scarcely possible to be guilty of extravagance. But it is important to observe that it breaks the entire, and continuous, and all pervading connexion, which most certainly subsists between the Old Testament dispensation and the New throughout; it necessitates the conclusion that the Jewish and patriarchal ordinances were an incongruous admixture of the typical, and of mere formalities; and it proceeds, likewise, and is even based upon the assumption, that the difficulty of typical interpretation is so great as to demand nothing short of inspiration, in order to reach correct conclusions.

Inspiration, however, is not held to be necessary to correctness of prophetical interpretation; yet, from the analogy subsisting between the two, prophecy and type, both being revela tions more or less obscure, and both referring mainly to Christ, there is most certainly a previous probability that a capacity to interpret the one is no less attainable than a capacity to interpret the other.

We have, however, more than the probability furnished by analogy to guide us to the conclusion for which we feel disposed to contend: for as our Lord upbraids his followers with slowness of perception in reference to the import of Old Tes tament prophecy, so does the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews complain of dulness of apprehension as to the typical meaning of the types of Scripture; and his complaint, also, evidently proceeds upon the assumption that they who were in possession of the great discoveries of the Gospel, might, of themselves, and without express instruction as to particulars, recognize without difficulty, the same truths in the types and shadows of the law.

But the unsoundness of the principle of the safe school becomes especially apparent when we consider how small, out of the many probable types, is the number of those which in the New Testament are actually asserted to be such; and, also, how incidentally the assertion is made, or the fact implied, with reference to the greater portion of those that are so recognized-so incidentally, indeed, that it seems impossible to avoid the conviction that, in adducing particular examples,

the New Testament writers merely singled out a few as specimens of a class, and as occasion required, leaving unadduced a far greater number than the few which were actually and specifically given.

Nowhere, for instance, are we told what it was that was symbolized by the shew-bread, by the golden candlestick, by the ark of the covenant, by the cherubim of glory, nor even (except by implication) by the holy place itself. Indeed, scarcely any of the services or materials connected with the Jewish ritual are explained, with the exception of some few of its sacrificial rites. Yet we cannot but believe that they had all a high and mystic meaning, for the dispensation as a whole is asserted to have been typical; and the fact (which is indeed admitted), that the whole was typical, involves the necessity of examination and enquiry as to the meaning of its details.

There is doubtless much risk of forced, false, and extravagant exposition in the supposition that anything is typical for which we have not the express authority of Scripture. Yet this risk is quite consistent with the truth of the supposition. Nor is the risk less when we attempt to investigate the meaning even of types, which by New Testament authority are expressly declared to be such, if their precise meaning have not been also, by the same authority, explained. Nevertheless, the risk does not warrant, much less necessitate, the abandonment of our best investigation. Scripture, indeed, must be our alone authoritative guide; yet not in the straitened sense for which those who so deprecate all possibility of risk, contend. It furnishes us with general principles, and illustrates these by particular examples, and thus, indeed, it is our alone authoritative guide; yet so few and so isolated are the instances specified and explained, that we are obviously left very much to ourselves to apply and carry out these principles, and, by searching the Scriptures, even to scrutiny, and by comparing spiritual things with spiritual, to add to these specified examples.

The work before us proceeds upon the supposition for which we have contended, that there is much that is typical for which we have not express New Testament authority. It is by far the soberest, most systematic, and most satisfactory work of the kind that we have yet seen, and will, we trust, very speedily obtain extensive reputation. Whilst, in common with the cautious school, rejecting as fanciful a large proportion of the unsatisfactory, unsubstantial, and unsubstantiated notions of such writers as Mc. Ewen, Mather, and Guild, it gives us much that is new, and at the same time well supported. Mere originality, indeed, is of very doubtful value; yet, if well sus

tained, we do think that original remark is a recommendation of the very highest kind, especially upon points that have been variously, yet never satisfactorily, explained. It can hardly be expected that we should coincide in all Mr. F.'s opinions; nevertheless, we cannot but believe that the great bulk of them are satisfactorily, and that all of them are plausibly maintained. The types discussed merely respect the patriarchal period—those belonging to the Mosaic dispensation being reserved for a supplemental volume.

As a specimen of the work, we select his sentiments as to the truth intended to be taught by the cherubim, which, if not fully substantiated, (for the point is a quæstio vexata) are such as at least to merit attention.

Passing over as unsatisfactory and uncertain all speculations grounded upon the possible derivation of the word, he fastens upon the name so often applied to these cherubim, both in the Old Testament and in the New, "the living ones," and infers therefrom that life, in some very peculiar sense, is their especial and essential characteristic. Assuming this, as a starting point, he then supposes that the life personified (the component parts of the cherubim being all of the creature kind), must be the created and derived, as contradistinguished from the independent and creative; that (inasmuch as the creatures composing the cherubim are all of them inhabitants of this our earth), the created life, so symbolized, is in some way connected with this lower region of existence rather than with the angel world; and that (the creatures composing the cherubim being all of special excellence), this life is life of the very highest kind.

Thus far Mr. Fairbairn's sentiments and arguments are, in a great measure, those of a work published not long sincé, (1837) by Baehr. But with regard to the truth more especially symbolized, his opinion is that they are not, as supposed by Baehr, mere symbols of the divine attributes as displayed in creation, nor indeed that they are mere symbols at all; but that they do truly predict and typify that which at some period shall be a reality(of course, not as to bodily appearance, but as to the thing symbolized)-in short, that they are both symbolical and typical: typical of that which shall be, though symbolical of that which is meanwhile only in purpose and idea. The truth typified he believes to be the ultimate glorification of redeemed manhood.

But in justice to Mr. Fairbairn we must give his own, in his own words:

"What then do we hold to be the proper antitype to the cherubim?

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

We answer, without hesitation, redeemed and glorified manhood. They were symbolical, as has been said, of the highest properties of creature-life, and of these as outgoings and manifestations of divine life; but they were typical of redeemed and glorified manhood, or prophetically representative of it.

This opinion we rest on the following grounds:

[ocr errors]

"1. The considerations just advanced [of which for want of space our review takes no notice] go to establish the conviction that the idea symbolized was to be embodied and fully realized in something belonging to the ultimate dispensation of the Gospel-the symbol of the preparatory religion being the shadow or imperfect representation of a better thing to come.

"2. That this better thing to come, in the present case, is redeemed and glorified manhood, appears from the correspondence between the design of the cherubic emblems and the primary destination of man. The former were a complex and combined image of the most perfect manifestations of God in creation; and, of all the objects in creation, it is said of man alone that he was made in the image of God. Hence, in the ideal representation of divine qualities exhibited by the cherubim, though there was a combination of four animal forms, the appearance of man was the preponderating one, implying that it was he whom the representation chiefly respected-man, however, not as he now isfor then the human figure alone had been sufficient-but man raised to a new sphere of life and being, and endowed with properties which he did not possess even in paradise.


3. The same, further, appears from the place originally assigned to the cherubim, and the purpose for which they were appointed. It was man's original ground they occupied, and his office in connection with the tree of life that they entered into. The tree of life still being allowed to stand, (though the way to it was barred till a righteousness should be provided that might prevail to open the way to it, which sin had barred) was a sign, as we have seen [in preceding chapter], of a coming restoration. A ray of hope shone out from the gloom which attended man's exclusion from his first home, for the tree of life not only stood, as if in reserve for its proper possessor, but was meanwhile committed to the keeping of creatures whose form at once bespoke their alliance to man, and implied a superiority to him as at present constituted. It was thus seen that the region of life was not finally lost to man. He still manifestly had an interest in it; and, though his person was for the present debarred, his nature was represented in it; and not only represented, but combined with powers and manifestations of life, such as had not belonged to it, even in its unfallen state.

"4. The other places in which the cherubim are represented as appearing, such as in the most holy place, or in immediate connection with the throne of God, comport best with the idea of their being an ideal representation of redeemed and glorified manhood. For what does this bespeak but the wonderful fact that man's nature is to be exalted to the dwelling place of Godhead? Hence, while the cherubim in the most holy place looked toward the mercy-scat to intimate that it was

« AnteriorContinuar »