On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    dressing to him another question , ¦ with which himself ( ih : ) 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 P r . Marsh : c < 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 , . ot event , afterwards to appear , when there is a remarkable resemblance between the former and the latter ; "whether that resemblance be or be not known by , the manifestation of the latter . Tips niay be ' called the theological sense of the word , &c . " * ii * ' it

    . < A type then , agreeably to Dr . Doddridge ' s account of it , is not of the natufei-of -a prophecy , bat consists simply in resemblance . Certainly however the Margaret ( Professor ' s use of the word is theological ; while the other is , with a single exception , correct

    an * T 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 ofihe nineteenth Lecture Or . M . assigns two causes of * ' tl > e variety observable in the expositions of Hebrew prophecy : " these are an inadequate knowledge of the original language and inattention to v tne situation and -circumstances of

    the writer , whose works it is proposed to explain . " There is scarcely any age or the church rn which such remarks as the following ( 18 ) could be justly styled unreasonable :

    «* though the difficulties attending the interpretation of the Hebrew prophets are confessedly great , those difficulties are pot insurmountable . And if the interpretation of' prophecy is really subject to determinate , rules , the conclusions , to

    which snob rules niust eventually lead * will be fiQ , less certain , when those difficulties a § e <' overcame , than if they had never $ * isted . , The sole difference consists in the la ^ uuV , ) n the skill , and in ¦ ^ '* j

    Untitled Article

    the time , Which arc wanted h * the < m # ' case , but not in the other * Kit beob . jected therefore , that the sabred orach * ' are ambiguous , because the explanations of them ^ re various , we may confidently answer , that the fault is in the interpretation , and not in the text . It U no yf 0 Q ^ der 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 , " -f and which , he says , " 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 consideration of the prophecies , which relate to the Messiah 5 " since . when we ex-, amine these , " we exanune every question of real interest in the subject of prophecy at large . "

    As the result of < c an inquiry into that connexion which subsists between the truth of our religion" and this class of prophecies , Or . M . gives his opinion in the following terms , " There must be prophecies in the Ofd Testament , which strictly , literally , and

    directly predict the coming of our Saviour * There must be something more than passages , which may be Qccommodated ( a 4 it is called ) to his life and character . " Here , we presume , all theological scholars will agree with the Professor , O 11 a suhject concerning which tWy are less unanimotis he offers it as his

    deemed judgment , tjhat " A prophecy which relates to oyt feaviour in ^ a mere remote or mysticd sense , ^ can hardly come within that oescriptioa of prophecy , b y which tw preaching of Christ was made rtiailifest .

    Before we Accompany our aijthpi ^ his next Lecture . ( ISlo . XXI . V . 'W which he collects and exp lains tposf passages which he conceives , nP ^ diet the coming of Chris t in . ^ w plain , literal ^ and prope r * sense * ^ 3 hall concisely notice a ,, sentence m senting itself in page 23 * . and . $ & . * a note in pp . 33 , 34 . - ' " ^ + xin ~^ . vii Z ' 41

    Untitled Article

    6 bO ileview . ' L —Marshs ectures . Part IV *

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Oct. 2, 1816, page 600, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2457/page/36/