« 前へ次へ »
otherwise it would have given us much satisfaction to have exhibited some of the more prominent, as expounded by Mr. A. Our readers will find in them a rich treasury of sound prophetic exposition, and triumphant refutations of those attempts which have been made to set aside the direct and positive nature of prophecy.
To the concluding lecture we attach a higher degree of importance than to any in the volume. It is on the subject of types, than which none within the whole range of theological science has been more mystified, and upon which less fixed or definite principles have been found to obtain. In consequence of the mistaken notion, that every thing in the Old Testament was typical of something in the New, and that resemblance, it matters not under what aspect, constitutes the only criterion of a type, the pulpit as well as the press has teemed with interpretations the most fanciful, not unfrequently the most ridiculous, and sometimes the most awfully profane. It is, however, a mode of teaching to which, there is reason to fear, many will continue firmly to cling, because they feel that to let it go would be to part with one of the most convenient vessels in their laboratory, and shut themselves up to processes of severe thinking, and habits of close and accurate investigation for which they have no predilection. Mr. Alexander's definition and explanation of a type is as follows :
"A type, in the sense in which that word is used in such discussions as the present, is a representation of spiritual truth by means of actions or objects placed before the senses, and calculated to convey through them to the mind a lively conception of the truth which they are designed to represent. A type is not anything in the Old Testament, between which, and certain doctrines of the New, a lively imagination may succeed in tracing some analogy or resemblance : it is something which the Divine Author of Scripture announces to us as having been specifically contrived and appointed for the one purpose of adumbrating certain religious truths, and foreshadowing certain future transactions with which these truths were connected. Viewed simply in itself it is a hieroglyph or symbolical representation of Divine truth; viewed in its relation to Christianity it served the purpose of a pre-intimation or memorial, to those who lived before the advent of Christ, of the great facts connected with him, on which Christianity, as a religious system, rests. Its parallel is prophecy. Like it, it teaches a present truth, and announces a future fulfilment of it; like it also, it has, in its capacity of a type, one definite meaning, and one definite fulfilment, to both of which it was intended and designed to point. The difference between a prophecy and a type lies only in this, that the former teaches by words, the latter by things; the former by an artificial combination of signs, the latter, by a scenical representation of the whole truth at once. A word, is the symbol of an idea ; a type is the symbol of some principle or law, and the prediction of some great general fact in the economy of redemption." pp. 383–385.
It is distinctly insisted on, as it had been by Bishop Marsh years ago, that the express and assertained design of God, that to the Hebrews, and to those in after ages who should read the Hebrew Scriptures, such and such facts or things should convey the ideas of certain corresponding future facts or things, is essential to the nature of a type. Whatever cannot be shown to have this Divine warrant, possesses no typical claims, and ought not to be represented in this light. The only possible source of information, as to what are types and what are not, is the Scriptures themselves. Those things which our Lord and his inspired apostles have declared to have been ordained to prefigure things under the Gospel dispensation, and those only, are, with certainty of conviction, to be received as types. Our author rightly discriminates between types, and comparisons, and allegories, with which they have often been confounded. The brazen serpent was not a type, nor was Jonah a type ; but the elevation of the one upon a pole as an appointed means of cure to the bitten Israelites, and the continuance of the other three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, are employed by our Lord for the purpose of illustrating by comparisons drawn from the Jewish history, his work and death upon the cross, the period of his residence in the grave, and his resurrection from the dead. Sarah and Hagar were not types : their history is merely allegorized by the apostle, i. e. it is transferred from the proper and literal subjects of which it treats, and applied for the sake of illustration to something totally different, as the verb αλληγορέω, i. e. άλλος απother, and αγορέωI speak, clearly shows.
The appendix contains several articles of a critical nature, * which we should have liked to have seen extended, had it been compatible with the limits within which the author was circumscribed. We hope, however, it will not be long before we shall be gratified with a work from his pen more directly critical in its character, as we know but few who are capable of bringing to the discussion of such subjects the qualifications which he so eminently possesses. Most cordially do we thank him for the present effort, and we again earnestly recommend the volume to the diligent study of our readers, as containing a condensed, luminous, and convincing exhibition of the most important principles involved in the relative bearings of the Old and New Testaments, and in the satisfactory interpretation of these Divine records.
* Some of our readers may be gratified to know their subjects, which are as follows :- Meaning of the term diadhan as applied to the Sacred Writings.--Opinions of the Christian Fathers respecting the claims of the Old Testament and its harmony with the New.-Works treating of the subject of this course of lectures.—Remarks on some of the quotations in the New Testament from the Old.--Opinions of the Fathers regarding the plural appellations of Deity in the Old Testament.—Tholuck on Heb. xi. 19.-Different versions of Job. xix. 27—27.-Allegorical interpretations of Scripture among the ancient Jews.-Herder on the Doctrine of Accommodation.Knobel on the manner in which the Theocratic Prophecies were fulfilled by Christ. Hengstenberg on Psalm xxv. 6.
“ Remember my Bonds”—Leicester Gaol. By A. Balance, Esq., of the
Middle Temple. 8vo. pp. 34. J. Dinnis, London, 1841.
It is a startling fact, that a most respectable and worthy member of our denomination, Mr. William Baines of Leicester, has been incarcerated in the gaol of that town, upon a church-rate suit, since the 13th of last November ; and yet, that the feelings of the body to which he belongs, have not been generally and strongly excited in his favour, although he is shut up in prison from his wife and little ones, the scenes of his lawful calling, and the services of the church of God. Where then, it may be asked, is the “ care,” that the members should have one for another? It is written, “If one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.” Is there no truth in these statements? or in this degenerate age has all our Christian sympathy been absorbed by the power of a universal selfishness?
It is due to the Christian character of our churches, that these questions should be answered, and that a searching inquiry should be instituted into the merits of Mr. Baines's case, that the causes of the general apathy which obviously exists respecting it may be ascertained.
The Rev. W. L. Alexander, at a meeting in Edinburgh upon the subject, was the first, we believe, publicly to express his dissent from the course Mr. Baines had pursued, and he has since vindicated his Words in a letter to the editor of The Patriot, to which we may presently allude.
The clear-sighted and clever pamphlet at the head of this article has been written with the same object in view; and the author has, in a dialogue of great point and spirit, discussed the several questions involved in this important case, the facts of which we shall briefly state.
Mr. Baines, it seems, entertains conscientious objections to churchrates, for he has frequently suffered his goods to be seized rather than pay them; and he also has equally strong objections to the ecclesiastical court, in which, it being the court of the established church, he would not voluntarily appear, because by that act he thinks he should recognize the authority of that church. Now it is admitted on all hands, that while he suffered the magistrates to seize his property, he was bearing that testimony which his convictions demanded against those unjust exactions. But it so happened, that a rate was made which Mr. Baines thonght invalid in law, and being summoned before the magistrates with twenty-six other parishoners, for non-payment, he urged the legal objection, and the magistrates refrained from adjudicating the matter. Now the law, as it stands at present, makes the ecclesiastical court the judge of the validity of the rate, and Mr. Baines's vindictive neighbours therefore proceeded against him there.
As he would not answer the citation of such a tribunal, the court pronounced him contumacious, and proceeded in his absence to confirm the rate, and ordered him to pay his portion, forty-five shillings, together with £127 8s. for costs ! Had Mr. Baines obeyed this order, he might have saved himself from gaol; but objecting as he did, both to the rate itself, and to the court that levied it, he submitted to arrest and incarceration with felons, rather than pay an impost that he regarded to be unjust, or yield to a court that he believed to be anti. christian.
The animadversions of Mr. Balance, upon the course Mr. Baines has taken, are obviously the production of a mind that thinks with vigour, and that judges with a strictness that many will deem severe. While he has a heart full of benevolent and Christian feeling, that would shrink at the idea of adding affliction to the afflicted, he is obviously jealous of the honour of the sacred plea of conscience, and will not permit a generous enthusiasm to divert his attention from those points of the case which cold, worldly statesmen are likely to assail, as weak in argument or loose in morals.
We shall select a few of the passages in which our author exhibits the vulnerable parts of Mr. Baines's case, not to pain him or his generons friends, but to show others who may be ready to follow his example, the searching scrutiny to which every step of their course will be exposed.
“Mr. B.'s imprisonment is stated to be for "conscientious refusal to pay churchrates.' This is the point always put forth,—Mr. Baines is a sufferer for conscience. Conscience is a sacred thing: he who professes pre-eminently to obey it, necessarily compels us to bring all he does to a high standard, and to exact from him a scrupulous and universal morality. We cannot help doing this; and unless we feel satisfied that the course pursued by him will bear this test, we cannot ourselves, (at least with any conscience,) approve or defend it. Now, my impression is, that the Leicester business will not bear this test. I acquit Mr. Baines of doing anything but what he really thought right and fair : his zeal, however, led him, I think, to deem that to be fair and right, which openness and honour will not sanction. If it were so, his case is tainted. Scrupulous honour and sensative conscientiousness should go hand-in-hand."
“He who professes to be legally aggrieved, and to call upon the law to see him righted, must be understood as consenting to what he knows to be its form as well as its substance. If a man objects to the validity of a church-rate, it is no longer simply an affair of conscience—it has ceased to be a religious, and has become a legal question. But, in doing this, if he refuses to pursue the legal inquiry, in the way at present provided for pursuing it, he no longer contends with church-rates at all, either legally or religiously—the battle has become a battle with institutions. Many things besides church-rates might place Mr. Baines in precisely the position in which he now stands. He is not in gaol for refusing a church-rate, but for refusing to recognise any authority' in a certain institution."
“ They who consider that by the course he pursued he legally appealed from the jurisdiction of the magistrates to the proper court at present provided to entertain the objection on which he stood, and that he did this with a pre-determination to treat it with contempt—they, of course, must hesitate about his conduct, not merely on the ground of expediency, but on that of morals-not as to its being wise and noble,
or the contrary, but as to its being right. I recur to this again, to say what, perhaps, I should have mentioned before, that I have inquired much into the views and proceedings of the Society of Friends in relation to church-rates. I find that some object to raising the question of their validity at all, since, if opposition to a church-rate be matter of conscience, to conscience nothing whatever can make it valid. If, however, any do raise the question, (as once or twice in flagrant cases they have done,) they do it with the intention of trying the point in the spiritual court, if cited into it for that purpose. They consider that it would not be honest or justifiable to obstruct the due course of the law, however bad that law may be, by making objections which they are not willing and prepared to substantiate, wherever the existing institutions of the country, whether right or wrong, require them to do so."
This leads to the other part of the subject, whether Mr. Baines ought not to have appeared on the citation of the Ecclesiastical Court.
Mr. Alexander, in the paper to which we have already referred, condemns his refusal.
“Mr. B. admits that he refused to recognize the ecclesiastical courts. Allow me to ask, Is this the sentiment which a Christian should avow? In what part of the New Testament is there anything which will justify such a sentiment? When did our Lord or his apostles refuse to go before the bar of those courts, unjust and bloodthirsty as their judges were, to which they were summoned ? It is true, that when commanded by the judges to do a wrong thing, they refused, and so ought we; but this has nothing to do with the present question. It is one thing to refuse to obey a command which would lead us to do anything which God forbids; it is quite another thing to take it upon us to offer contempt to persons who are in power, because we may think it better for the community if they had not that power. The former is clearly right; the latter, I presume to think, is as clearly wrong. Has not God said,
Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God?' and has he not expressly told us that conscience is to operate in leading us not to rebel but to submit even in cases of injustice and oppression ? Ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for consience' sake,' Rom. xii. 2, 5."
On the other hand, Mr. Balance indulges in an argumentum ad hominem, and shows that Dissenters have yielded too much to ecclesiastical courts to allow them “conveniently," as he phrases it, “ to 'go the whole hog.'”
“Mr. Baines, probably, like you and me, when he wedded his wife, had the pleasure of purchasing a piece of parchment, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury condescendingly called him his. WELL BELOVED IN Christ;' spoke of him as one of his flock; and added, moreover, that as he understood he was resolved to proceed to the solemnization of true and lawful matrimony, and greatly desired that the same might be solemnized in the face of the church! he therefore granted him his lordly license for this purpose :- I say nothing of this, though many Dissenters are sufficiently 'inconsistent,' (which I do not defend) to submit to it still. But it cannot escape you, that all wills are carried into effect by the authority' of an ecclesiastical court. No dissenter, that I ever heard of, refuses a legacy on this ground. Nay, what is more to the purpose, every dissenting church, as such, when it builds for itself a local habitation, 'recognizes authority' in ecclesiastical courts! It obtains by this means a legal registration. Let me show you a document of this description. Observe, it is a statement signed by two deacons of a Baptist church-John Dipper and Noah Washim-giving notice of the erection of a building in a certain locality for the purpose of worship, and is addressed, you remark, in Dipper's own hand N. S. VOL. I.