Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/138

 TYRANNICIDE

108

TYRANNICIDE

where there is a manifest typical relationship and connexion. It is true that Calovius (System, theol., I, 663) and Aug. Pfeiffer (Thes. herm., ill, can. 10) insist on admitting only one sense, the hteral, in Scripture; but as the literal sense clearly indicates several types, writers Uke Buddeus, Rambach, and Pfaff point out that such an insistence on the Uteral sense differs only in words from the admission of a limited typical sense. Rambach goes further than this; in order to increase the parenetie force of Scrip- ture, he attributes to each word as v.nde a meaning and as much importance as the nature of the subject matter allows (Instit. herm., 319). The "Myste- rium Christi et christianismi in fasciis typiois anti- quitatimi V. T." by Joachim Lange, "Judische Heil- igthiimer" by Lundius, and "Der Messias im A. T." by Schottegen are other works in which the element of edification is chiefly kept in view.

V. Sodnian Influence. — While in Cocceian and Lutheran circles typology flourished either unre- strictedly or within certain boimds, it began to be considered as a mere accommodation or as a subjective work of parallelizing a number of Scripture passages by the Socianians and by all those who failed to see the unity of God's work in our history of Revela- tion. Clericus, writing on Gal., iv, 22, refers typol- ogy to a Jewish manner of interpreting Scripture. The derivation of the Mosaic worship from Egyptian and Oriental cults, as explained by Spencer, rendered void the typical sense advocated in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hence, Henke considers typology as an exploded system; Semler (Versuch einer frei- eren theologischen Lehrart, 1777, p. 104), does not wish that types should be considered any longer as be- longing to the true religion; Doderlein (Institutiones, 1779, n. 229) requires in a type not a mere resem- blance, but also that it should have been expressly represented in the Old Testament as a figiu-e of the future; moreover, he beUeves that at the time of Moses no one would have understood such figm'es. But how explain the fact that the Apostles and Christ Himself employed the typical sense of the Old Testa- ment? They adapted themselves, we are told, in their use of the Old Testament to the condition of the Jewish people, and to the hermeneutical princi- ples prevalent in the Jewish schools. It followed, therefore, that the use of the typical sense in the New- Testament is nothing but Rabbinic trifling. This point of view is followed in Dopke's "Hermeneutik der neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller" (part I, 1S29), and also in the exegetical works of Ammon, Fritzsche, Meyer, Riickert, and others.

VI. Reaction against the Sodnian View. — On the other hand, there was no lack of defenders of the typical sense of Scripture. Michaehs (Entwurf der typischen Gottesgeliihrtheit, 1752) points out that, even if we follow Spencer's view of the origin of the Mosaic worship, borrowed rites too may have a symbolic meaning; but the writer's bhndness to the distinction between type and symbol is the vulner- able side of his treatise. Blasche shows himself a stout adherent of typology in his "Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews" (17S2). Herder in his thirty-ninth letter on the study of theology (1780) believes that, though each stone of a building does not .see either it.self or the whole building, it would be narrow-mindedness on our part to pretend that we do not see more than any given part can see; it is only in the light of historic development that we can appreciate the analogy of the whole to each of its parts. Rau (Freiniiitliige Untersuchung tiber die Typologie, 1784) reverts to a study of Spencer's derivation of the Mosaic worship, and grants that the Jewish rites may be .symbols of the New Testa- ment, but denies that they are types in the stricter sense of the word.

VH. Revival of Symholism and Pietism. — At the

beginning of the nineteenth century there was a revival of taste for symbohsm, and of an apprecia- tion of Bengel's typicism. Starting from symbohsm, de Wette ("Beitrag zur Characteristic des Hebrais- nius" in "Studien von Daub und Creuzer", 1807, III, 244) concludes that the whole of the Old Testa- ment is one great prophecy, one great type of what was to come, and what has come to pass. F. von Meyer and Stier wrote in the same strain, but they are men of less note. Influenced by Bengel's view , Menken explained in a typical sense Dan., ii (1802- 1809), the brazen serpent (1812), Hebr., viii-x (1821); from the same point of view. Beck wrote his "Bemer- kungen uber messianischc Weissagungen " (Tiibinger Zeitschrift fiir Theologie, 1831, part 3), and also ex-plained Rom., ix (Christhche Lehrwissenschaf t, I, 1833, p. 360). The same principle underhes the view of Bibhcal history as presented by Hofmann, Franz DeUtzsch, Kurtz, and Auberlen. Ed. Boh- mer in his treati.se "Zur bibhschen Typik" (1855) adopts a similar point of view: One idea prevails through the w-hole of creation; in nature the lower grades are types of the higher; the material order is a type of the spiritual; and man is the antitj-pe of universal nature. The same law- prevails in history; for the earlier age is always the type of the subse- quent. Thus the Kingdom of God, which is the climax of Creation, has its types in nature and its types in history.

VIII. Rationalistic Contention and Catholic Doe- trine. — Needless to say rationalistic WTiters repudiate the typical sense of Sacred Scripture. The Catholic doctrine as to the nature of the typical sense, its existence, its extent, its theological value, has been stated in Exegesis. — (2).

Besides the works cited above, see all the introductory works to Scripture, under the heading Hermeneutics; Fairbairn. The Typology of Scripture (3rd ed.. Edinburgh; 1857) ; see also the bibliography to Exegesis and Hermeneutics.

A. J. Ma.4S.

Tyrannicide literally is the killing of a tj-rant, and usually is taken to mean the killing of a tyrant by a private person for the common good. There are two classes of t>-rants w-hose circumstances are widely apart — tjTants by usurpation and tjTants by op- pression. A tyrant by usurpation (tyranniis in titulo) is one who unjustly displaces or attempts to displace the legitimate supreme ruler, and he can be considered in the act of usurpation or in subsequent peaceful possession of the supreme power. A tyrant by oppression (tyrannus in regimitie) is a supreme ruler who uses his pow-er arbitrarily and oppressively.

I. Tyrant by Usurpation. — While actually at- tacking the powers that be, a tjTant by usurpation is a traitor acting against the common w-eal, and, like any other criminal, may be put to death by legitimate au- thority. If possible, the legitimate authority must use the ordinary forms of law in condemning the tyrant to death, but if this is not possible, it can pro- ceed informally and grant individuals a mandate to inflict the capital punishment. St. Thomas (In II Sent., d. XLIV, Q. ii, a. 2), Suarez (Def. fidei, VI. iv, 7), and the majority of authorized theologians say that private individuals have a tacit man- date from legitimate authority to kill the usurper when no other means of ridding the community of the tyrant are available. Some, however, e. g. Crolly (De justitia. III, 207), hold that an express mandate is needed before a private person can take on himself the office of executioner of the usurping tyrant. All authorities hold that a private individual as such, without an express or tacit mandate from authority, may not law-fully kill an usurper unless he is actually his unjust aggressor. Moreover, it sometimes hai)- pens that an usurper is accorded the rights of a bellig- erent, and then a jirivate iiuiiviilual, who is a non- combatant, is excluded by international law from the