rank the passages of the New, in which an appeal is made to the Old on these points, among the misapprehensions or accommodations of the speakers, or of the writers. In Matt. xxvi. 24, the death of the Son of Man is mentioned, as a thing recorded of old; and at ver. 54, it is stated to be in fulfilment of the Scriptures; as also at ver. 56, with which Luke xviii. 31 may be aptly brought into comparison. In Luke xxiv. 25, 44-46; Acts iii. 18; xvii. 3; xxvi. 22, 23; 1 Cor. xv. 3; 1 Pet. i. 11, the same assertion is repeated; and authorities for this assertion will be found in Isa. xlii., xlix., l., liii.; Zach. xi., xii., xiii.; Ps. xvi., xxii., xl. If we inspect the Old Testament, the different offices and each various point in the character of Christ will appear accurately displayed. In the Prophets he is described as a king, and as such David is the substratum of his character, whose name is even transferred to him; for, in the various events of David's public life, the prophets found a clearly typical analogy to the revelations which they had received concerning the Messiah and his kingdom. When they described him as a divine teacher, the prophetic institutions and fortunes were the foundation of their descriptions; poverty, persecutions, incarcerations, and death, were the allotment of that life which they devoted to God; in deserts and caves they often concealed themselves, and had not where to lay their heads; "they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword;" to which Matt. xxiii. 29, sqq. appears directly to allude. The third theocratical office which was combined with the character of the Messiah, was the priestly; and in this the expiations and sacrificial offerings of the law typified the oblation and death of Christ. What was figuratively predicated of the legal removal of sin, of restoration to God, of the communication of purity and holiness, was individually made a characteristic of the times of the Messiah, and applied in a real sense to the mediation which they expected him to effect, "when he should make himself an offering for sin."

The passages in the ancient Scriptures which relate to the sufferings and death of Christ, are divisible into three classes. The first consists of those which, in general terms, mention his humiliation and passion; the second, of those in which his death is announced; and the third, of those in which the object of his passion and death is distinctly set forth. Nor are passages wanting, in which the causal connexion between his sufferings and the forgiveness of sins, e. g. Ps. xxii., Isa. liii., is accurately exhibited. The opinion that the Jews, in the time of Christ, possessed the doctrine of an atoning and suffering Messiah, has found both its supporters and opponents; nevertheless, it is manifest from the New Testament, that the prevalent popular expectation was, that he would come in pomp and unparalleled splendour. To the Jews the cross thus became a stumbling

block in it the Scribes and Pharisees sought an evidence that Jesus was not the Messiah: "He saved others, himself he cannot save. If He be the king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him." In John xii. 34, we perceive that the populace imagined that the Messiah would remain perpetually; and even the disciples, for a considerable period, had no comprehension of a dying and suffering Redeemer, and hesitated in admitting the fact, after the most express and the most unambiguous explanations of their Master. But although such carnal notions occupied not only the mass, but the dogmatizing partizans of particular sects, a better part of the Jews in that age was assuredly aware, as we may even collect from the oldest rabbinical writings, that the Messiah would both suffer, and atone for sins. The words of Simeon, kaì σoũ dè avτñs τὴν ψυχὴν διελεύσεται † ῥομφαία (Luke ii. 35), were expressive of intense sufferings; and taken in connexion with the description of the speaker, as one who was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and with the presentation of Christ in the temple, must be accounted prophetic of the crucifixion, whence these sufferings would arise to Mary (cf. John xix. 26, 27); at the same time they show what were Simeon's ideas respecting the advent of the Messiah. To what, but to the atonement, could the words of the Baptist (John i. 29), "Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world," have referred? in what sense removed from an allusion to the Paschal Lamb, and the other expiatory lambs of the law, could they have been understood? If the Jews had in no degree deduced this doctrine from their scriptures, what means the expression in their early writings? For that the notion of the two Messiahs was of a later date than Christ,-that, according to many, it arose from a misapprehension of the prophetic passages, which mentioned Christ's divine and human natures, that Zach. xii. 10 was in a great degree its foundation, as a comparison of the Gemara of Jerusalem with the Gemara of Babylon proves,-has been fully shown by Hengstenberg, and many other authors. Also, that the Jews believed the preexistence of the Messiah, and his appearance to have been delayed by human sins, at a time closely approaching to our Saviour's day, is manifest from Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho.

We have now reached the point at which we must bring before our readers the Lectures of the Bishop of Peterborough; as the

* Cf. Mark ix. 32; Luke xviii. 34; Matt. xvi. 32. Compare also Luke xxiv. 21, 25-27.

+ Cf. Psalm xlii. 10; lxxiii. 21.

+ Cf. LXX. Is. liii. 4, τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει. Ver. 11, ανοίσει. See also vers. 7, 5, and 12. 1 Pet. i. 19; Apoc. v. 6, 12; vii. 14; xii. 11; xiii. 8.

remaining parts of Dr. Hengstenberg's work, which are adapted to our review, approach in some measure to one of their branches. The classification of theological studies which Bishop Marsh has given, is the most perfect that has been offered to our acceptance; and the branches which he has discussed, are completely sui generis, masterpieces, scarcely possible to be rivalled. The only regret is, that all the subjects are not brought before us,a task which the advanced age of the writer renders hopeless; nor know we to whom we would entrust the completion, unless it be to the Bishop of Lincoln, Professor Turton, or Amiraux Jeremie, of Hayleybury College.

But in this standard work, the former edition of which has been repeatedly reviewed, which in its brilliant remarks on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible, is omnium facilè princeps, we must, in a great measure, confine ourselves to those departments, which have some connexion with the leading points of this article. Yet there are bright remarks which, connected or unconnected with our discussion, force themselves upon us by their very splendour. Such are those on the quotation from the first chapter of St. Matthew in Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, and the reference to the second by Celsus, the Epicurean philosopher. From hence the Bishop argues, that as Celsus lived but little more than one hundred years after St. Matthew, and yet found the first two chapters of St. Matthew in his manuscript of St. Matthew's Gospel, they must either have been original parts of that Gospel, or have been added at a time so little antecedent to the age of Celsus, that one so keen and hostile to Christianity as Celsus was, could not have failed to detect the imposture ;—in which case, he would not have quoted them as parts of St. Matthew's Gospel: consequently, the fact is established, that they are authentic. So also with respect to the churches of England and Rome, as to the possibility and impossibility of erring, the writer's remarks are as searchingly true as they are luminous; and the nicety of distinction which he has drawn discloses a depth of thought, which is as well adapted to the profundities of literature, as to the task of tracing the motives and intricacies of the human mind. Incontrovertibly showing, that similar causes will conduce to similar effects, and that the infallibility assumed by the Romish Church under the plea of the influential operation of the Holy Spirit, (which, by

* 1st, The Criticism of the Bible; 2d, the Interpretation of the Bible; 3d, the Authenticity and Credibility of the Bible; 4th, the Evidences for the Divine Origin of the Religions recorded in it; 5th, the Inspiration of the Bible; 6th, the Doctrines of the Bible, subdivided into (a,) Doctrines deduced by the Church of England, (ẞ,) Doctrines deduced by other Churches; 7th, Ecclesiastical History.

denying the possibility of right to those who dissent from its doctrines, occasions persecution and intolerance,) is in a great degree parallel to that enthusiasm which imagines itself under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; and which would be equally intrusive, persecuting, and intolerant, were the temporal power so conceded to it, he proves, that "it makes no difference in this respect, whether such especial guidance is supposed to be vouchsafed to a general council, or to an individual in his private apartments." For, "the result in either case is the same; in either case, the persons who believe themselves so gifted

will deem it impious to tolerate what the Spirit, as they imagine, has condemned." The inquisitorial acts of these people rank them among the aλorpioεTIσкÓTTоi mentioned by the Apostle, and complete the analogy which the Bishop remarks.

The distinction drawn between an allegory and a type,-the first being a fictitious narrative, the latter an historic fact,-should be borne in mind by every student of divinity; as the errors which have arisen from the confusion of the two in the interpretation of the Scriptures have been great, and have exposed the truth to the shafts of infidelity. The observation of this distinction is peculiarly necessary; because these types or historic facts, by their close correspondence to their antitypes, form one of the most striking, and one of the most powerful evidences of Christianity. In them lies a body of proof that Christ had been prefigured both by the institutions of the Levitical law, and by historical events; and the parts of the type are so fitted to the parts of the antitype, that the design of the Almighty in the coincidence is everywhere apparent. The truth which is conveyed in an allegory being moral, not historic,-and the narrative which imparts the moral being fictitious, wherever a narrative that is historical is treated as one purely allegorical, the history must be abandoned. We thus defeat the We thus defeat the purpose for which the history was written. St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, where he instances the two sons of Abraham, has been cited in authority for the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures, because we read in our version, "which things are an allegory:"but St. Paul never pronounced the history an allegory, merely stating, that it was allegorized — ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορού μενα. It is one thing to say that a person allegorizes a history, and another to say that the history is an allegory. Christ's parable of the sower, and Nathan's parable to David are examples of real scriptural allegories.

A fanciful and allegorizing spirit prevailed among the Greeks and the Jews; and thus it passed onwards to the Fathers. In the mystical meanings which the Greek philosophers applied to Homer, and in the writings of Philo-Judæus, are instances which verify the remark; and among the Fathers, Origen may be especially adduced as addicted to the practice. The principles which

had been exercised with respect to heathen mythology, they too often injudiciously transferred to the Bible; yet, whilst by this popular method they silenced their opponents, they degraded the word of God to the level of the fables which they assailed;-for if one thing was written, but another thing was intended, they took away from it the security and authority which they claimed for it. It must indeed be evident that, if by means of allegorical interpretations the Scriptures be involved in perfect ambiguity, it may assume as many forms, and disclose as many doctrines, as the fancies of interpreters are multifarious. To this origin we may retrace the Mystics of the twelfth century. "These Mystics had an utter contempt for human reason and human learning; they supposed themselves especially guided by the Spirit; and hence they compensated by a kind of spiritual interpretation, for that grammatical interpretation which they had never learned . . . They appealed to that passage in St. Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, which in the Latin Vulgate is translated "litera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat," and in our own Authorized Version "the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." In this passage the Mystics imagined that St. Paul was drawing a parallel between two different kinds of interpretation-the literal interpretation, and...the spiritual interpretation; ... that the Apostle had condemned the former, and recommended the exclusive employment of the latter. ・ ・ . He was drawing a parallel between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ:the former does not afford the means of salvation; the latter does afford the means of salvation. It is true that he applied the term Пpáμua to the former, the term ПIvevua to the latter; but then he added explanations of those terms, which remove all ambiguity. The law of Moses he called гpáupa, as being Atakovía ἐν γράμμασι, as being Διακονία ἐντετυπωμένη ἐν λίθοις. The Gospel of Christ he called Πνεῦμα, as being Διακονία τοῦ Πνεύ ματος ἐν δόξῃ.

Thus the Bishop shows, that the Mystics acquired a contempt for every thing that was not spiritual or allegorical, and regarded the plain and literal meaning of a passage as a sort of husk or chaff, fit only for the carnally-minded, and not suited to the taste of the godly. From these he glances at the Mystics of every age, and the mystical expositions of these latter times; rightly observing, that our modern practitioners require no grammatical analysis, no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, no knowledge of antiquity, no knowledge of the situation and circumstances either of the author or of his original readers, for their purpose.

After having critically assigned the limits within which the search for types should be confined, Bishop Marsh proceeds to prophecy, and thus comes immediately to our subject. Types may, in fact, be considered as prophetic; as the analogy of the Paschal Lamb to the death of Christ demonstrates by divine