Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

6

asked in relation to the asserted proof contained in 1 Cor. v, 7, is, Do the words of the Apostle declare that pre-ordained connexion which is essential to constitute a type? Was the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, designed to pre-figure Christian baptism, and is it explicitly declared in the bove passage? Neither Doddridge, nor Whitby so represents the sentiment of the Apostle. This,' says the former, in his paraphrase, was so wonderful and solemn an event, that I may say, they were all baptized into Moses, that is, initiated into the profession of that religion which he was to teach them from God; which is most certainly a very different thing from saying that the Israelites' passing through the Red Sea, was designed to pre figure the baptism of believers in Christ. "When comparisons are instituted in the New Testament be"tween antecedent and subsequent persons or things,' we must, as Dr. Marsh cautions us, be careful to distinguish the examples where a comparison is instituted merely for the sake of illustration, from the example, where such a connexion is 'declared, as exists in the relation of a type to its antitype.' Is the passage in question, of the former, or of the latter kind?

The Margaret Professor represents the interpretation of type, as analogous to the interpretation of prophecy. But is the one exactly parallel to the other? Is there not evidently a considerable difference between them? The existence of a prophecy is palpable: the persons to whom it was originally addressed, had a clear perception of its true character. They might be totally unacquainted with its application, but they would understand that it had a reference to futurity, and was to receive its accomplishment in a period subsequent to that in which it was delivered. It would appear to them in its proper character, as a prediction; which they could not confound with either a history of past, or a description of present occurrences. But in typical representation, which, according to Dr. Marsh, is prophecy conveyed by things, the persons among whom the typical events occurred, and to whom the typical ceremonies were delivered, had no perception of their relation to other and subsequent persons or things. There is then so far a radical dis tinction observable in the two cases, and no analogy can be established between them. We next inquire whether Christ and the Apostles have made the same declarations in relation to the one, as they have in reference to the other. To the existence of prophecy the most distinct testimony is exhibited both by Christ and his Apostles. "These are they which testify of me," was the direct appeal of Christ to the Jews, when he referred them to the predictions of their own prophets : and Peter (Acts iii, 18.) expressly declares, that the transactions which

:

then had recently taken place, were the fulfilment of "those "things which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his "prophets, that Christ should suffer." A declaration of this kind applied to an event or person, supposed to be typical, would immediately establish the existence of a pre-designed relation to its antitype but is such declaration ever made in the New Testament? Many circumstances pertaining to the Mosaic ritual, evidently correspond to others in the evangelical economy, in such a manner as to impart to the former an analogous character; but the point of pre-ordained connexion, is not we apprehend established, by any thing that the Margaret Professor has adduced. Typical theology has not, on the present occasion, received any elucidation from his pen.

It was not to be expected that the Margaret Professor would neglect the opportunity afforded by the last example of typical interpretation, of delivering his sentiments on the Baptismal Regeneration controversy, agitated by the clergy of the endowed sect in this country. Accordingly, he introduces a digression from the direct business of the Lectures, for this purpose. We have already extracted the principal paragraphs from this part of the work, and shall therefore but slightly touch upon the subject. As an interpreter of the formularies of the Church in which he is now a mitred dignitary, he appears to us, on this branch of her doctrine, to interpret correctly; and to have produced unanswerable arguments in support of the tenet, that regeneration is, in the view of his Church, an essential part of baptism. We cannot perceive on what ground this can be denied, since every clergyman does, in terms most unequivocal and definite, declare, immediately after the application of the water of the font to the child, that the child is regenerated by the Holy Spirit words which are plain and positive, and which cannot possibly mean any thing else than regeneration by the Holy Spirit. The explanations of the Professor must, however, be judged by other laws than those of Queen Elizabeth's ap pointment. The Scriptures are to us the sole rule of determining the doctrines of Christ; and they are the standard by which every tenet purporting to correspond with it must be examined. Let the following sentence abide its trial.

Repentance and Faith, therefore, expressed either by ourselves or by our sureties, are the causes which operate in producing that spiritual grace which is conferred at Baptism.'-p. 9.

This is, we think, a most extraordinary sentence. It is intended as an answer to the charge of the Professor's opponents in the Church, who, it seems, accuse him and his associates, of imitating the Church of Rome, in believing that grace is conferred at baptism merely ex opere operato. The grace of

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

'God,' says this Master in Israel, 'accompanies the outward act, but the outward act is not the efficient cause of it.' Re'pentance and Faith, expressed either by ourselves or by our sureties, are the causes which operate in producing that 'spiritual grace which is conferred at baptism. If there be any one so gifted as to attempt the explanation of this passage, and to shew its accordance with the New Testament, he will certainly be the proper person to elucidate the doctrines of the Cabbala, and to interpret the reveries of Behmen and of Swedenborg. 'Repentance and Faith expressed by our sureties'! What is repentance? Sorrow for our sins, accompanied with amendment of life. What is Faith? The assent of the mind to the promises of God. And are these things to be done by sureties? Does Dr. Marsh really maintain that persons may repent by proxy, and believe by substitute? And is this doctrine to be asserted by a Protestant Divine, and to be delivered in public lectures before the University of Cambridge? Repentance and Faith are things which it is impossible for one man to devolve upon another, or for one person to express for another: they are incapable of commutation. It would be quite as rational to assert that we may die by proxy, and be saved by proxy, as to assert that we may repent and believe by proxy. The claims of a creditor may be satisfied by a surety, votes may be given by proxy, and marriages may be celebrated by proxy; but every man must repent and believe for himself, as he will be judged in person, and be lost or saved personally. No man can possess a more sober understanding than the Margaret Professor; how then does it happen that he is the advocate of opinions so preposterous? On topics which require acute perception, to the determination of which the most accurate judgment alone is competent, Dr. Marsh is entitled to be heard as a scholar possessed of first-rate qualifications: it is only as the Expositor of the Formularies of a secularized Church, that he becomes extravagant and absurd. No Popish dogma is either more irrational or more unscriptural, than the tenet which he publishes. The notion that spiritual grace is conferred at Baptism, by the repentance and faith of a surety, may take its place by the side of the Tridentine decree, that grace is conferred at baptism merely ex opere operato,' as an unspeakable absurdity, alike repulsive to reason and to Scripture. To find such a sentiment as this maintained, by a Professor of Divinity, in Lectures on the Interpretation ' of the Bible,' may well excite our astonishment. We recollect the details and the arguments employed by the Lecturer, at an early period of the course, to demonstrate the necessity of learning for the interpretation of the Bible, and the ad

[ocr errors]

vantages of the learned above the unlearned interpreter; but if absurdities like the above are to be ushered into the world, sanctioned by such a name as that of the Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, in what can the utility of learning consist? The interpreter whose eyes have never looked upon a page of Greek or Latin, and to whom the whole apparatus of Biblical Criticism is unknown, cannot be either misled himself, or in danger of misleading others, in teaching religious doctrines, more than is the very learned writer whose production is now before us. Is he to be informed that every declaration and promise of the Bible, which implies repentance and faith, implies these in a personal sense, restricting in the most perfect manner the expression and benefit of them to the individual who repents and believes? Where did Dr. M. learn, that a man's repentance and faith can produce spiritual grace in another person? This is a strange doctrine, which never could have occurred to a writer adopting the theology of the Scriptures only. It may be the doctrine of our Church,' our and Bishops may gravely assert it, but the Apostles were unacquainted with it.

[ocr errors]

Strange as this doctrine is, it is common to the opponents and to the assertors of baptismal regeneration; for though Dr. Marsh's explanation of the causes which produce the spiritual ' grace conferred in baptism,' may not be adopted by the party in the Church against which he is contending, yet that party agree with him in maintaining the sentiment, that repentance and faith are expressed by the sureties of a baptized infant, as his representatives. The case is this: an infant, incapable of moral perception and obligation, is presented to a clergyman of the Established Church, for baptism. The Church requires repentance and faith in every person who is admitted to its baptismal rites. Three persons, to whom the strange appellations God-fathers and God-mothers are given, present themselves as the child's sureties, and in this character deliver the child's profession of repentance and faith. The child is then baptized, and is declared to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit. But what a gross absurdity is this! As well might repentance and faith be required from the font, or the water which it contains, either of which is just as capable of a moral act as is the child. Where the New Testament requires repentance and faith, it requires them from persons capable of personally expressing them. It admits no sureties. It allows of nothing to be done by substitutes. It prescribes" a reasonable ser"vice." We think of the Margaret Professor and his opponents with surprize amounting to astonishment; and for the rest-"Beware lest any man spoil you through vain deceit, "after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

On the qualifications necessary for an interpreter of Hebrew prophecy, the Margaret Professor writes with his accustomed perspicuity and force, at the close of the Nineteenth Lecture. The whole of the Twentieth is entitled to our commendation. The remarks which are made on The Interpretation of prophecy,' and on the connexion which subsists between the truth of our religion, and the prophecies which relate to the Messiah, are important and satisfactory. Almost the whole of the Twenty-first Lecture, is occupied with examples of literal prophecy; that is, of predictions which literally and strictly foretell the coming of Christ.

The Twenty-second Lecture comprises an inquiry into the secondary senses attributed by many writers to Hebrew prophecy; a subject which is attended with real difficulties, but which, as it does not involve the truth of Christianity, or affect any of its doctrines, cannot be considered as of primary importance. Still, however, it is of sufficient consequence to challenge the attention of every student of the sacred writings, particularly those whose duty it is to expound them. We wish we could say that Dr. Marsh has guided us into satisfactory conclusions on this very perplexing topic: we can award him praise for the pains which he has taken to state the subject of secondary senses correctly, and to guard us against the ingenious and plausible, but dangerous and untenable system proposed by the Author of the Divine Legation; but we cannot report that he has succeeded in furnishing us with the means of discriminating and applying the uses of prophecy otherwise than in its literal acceptation. On the question of secondary senses, the Professor concludes,

After all, then, it appears 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, therefore, as at the beginning of the preceding Lecture, to resolve the question of secondary senses, into a question of authority. In whatever case a passage of the Old Testament, which, according to its strict and literal sense, relates to some earlier event in the Jewish history, is yet applied, either by Christ, or by an Apostle of Christ, to what happened in their days; and moreover is so applied as to indicate that the passage is prophetic; of such passage we must conclude on their authority, that besides its plain and primary sense, it has also a remote or secondary sense.'-p. 76.

In the paragraph which immediately follows our last quotation, Dr. Marsh states that some passages of the Old Testament really have a secondary sense. While he admits the difficulty of ascertaining the particular passages of the New Testament, which afford examples of prophecy applied in a secon

« AnteriorContinuar »