Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/773

 EXEGESIS

695

EXEGESIS

X, 18 (cf. Ps. xviii, 5), II Cor., viii, 15 (cf. Ex., xvi, 18), Heb., xiii, 5 (cf. Jos., i, 5), Apoc, xi, 4 (cf. Zach., iv, 14). The liturgical books and the writings of the Fathers are so replete with the use of accommodation that it is needless to refer to any special instances. P'inally, there is no good reason for interdicting the proper use of accommodation, seeing that it is not wrong in itself and that its use does not involve any inconvenience as far as faith and morals are concerned. But two excesses are to be avoideil: first, it cannot be maintained, that all the citations from the Old Testa- ment which are found in the New are mere accommo- dations. Similar contentions are found in the writ- ings of those who endeavour to destroy the value of the Messianic prophecies; they are not confined to our days, but date back to Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Socinians. The Fifth Oecumenical Synod rejected the error of Theodore; besides, Christ Himself (Matt., xxii, 41 sq.; cf. Ps. cix, 1), St. Peter (Acts, iii, 25 sq.; cf. Gen., xii, 3; xviii, IS; xxii, 18), and St. Paul (Heb., i, 5; v, 5; Acts, xiii, 3.3; cf. Ps. ii, 7) base theo- logical arguments on Old-Testament citations, so that these latter cannot be regarded as mere accommoda- tions. Secondly, we must not exceed the proper limits in the use of accommodation. This we should do, if we were to present the meaning derived from ac- commodation as the genuine sense of Scripture, or if we were to use it as the premise in an argument, or again if we were to accommodate the words of Scrip- ture to ridiculous, absurd, or wholly disparate sub- jects. The fourth session of the Council of Trent warns most earnestly against such an abuse of Sacred Scripture.

(2) Typical Sense. — The typical sense has its name from the fact that it is based on the figurative or typi- cal relation of Biblical persons, or objects, or events, to a new truth. This latter is called the antitype, while its BibUca- correspondent is named the type. The typical sense is also called the spiritual, or mysti- cal, sense: mystical, because of its more recondite nature; spiritual, because it is related to the literal, as the spirit is related to the body. What we call type is called shadow, allegory, parable, by St. Paul (cf. Rom., v, 14; I Cor., x, 6; Heb., viii, 5; Gal., iv, 24; Heb., ix, 9); once he refers to it as antitype (Heb., Lx, 24), though St. Peter applies this term to the truth signified (I Pet., iii, 21). Various other desig- nations for the typical sense have been used by the Fathers of the Church; but the following questions are of more vital importance.

(i) Nature of the Typical Sense. — The typical sense is the Scriptural truth which the Holy Ghost intends to convey really, actually, but not immediately. In- asmuch as its meaning is really conveyed, the typical sense differs from accommodation; inasmuch as its meaning is actually expressed, it differs from the con- sequent sense; inasmuch as its meaning is not immedi- ately signified, it differs from the literal .sense. While we arrive at the latter immediately by way of the lit- erary expression, we come to know the typical sense only by way of the literal. The text is tlie sign con- veying the literal sense, but the literal sense is the sign expressing the typical. The literal sense is the type which by a special design of God is directed to signify its antitype. Three conditions are necessary to con- stitute a type: (a) It must have its own true and his- torical e.xistence independently of the antitype; e. g., the intended immolation of Isaac would be an histori- cal fact, even if Jesus Christ had not died, (b) It must not be referred to the antitype by its very na- ture. This prohibits the similitude from .serving as a type, on account of its antecedent likeness to its olv ject. (c) God himself mu.st have established the refer- ence of the type to its antitype; this pxchidcs objects which are only naturally related to others. The neces- sity of the.se three conditions explains why a type can- not be confounded with a parable, or an example, or a

symbol, or a similitude, or a comparison, or a meta- phor, or a symbolic prophecy — e. g., the statue seen in the dream of Xabuchodonosor. It should be added, however, that at times the type may be expressed by the Scriptural representation of a subject rather than by the strict literal sense of Scripture. Gen., xiv, 18, e. g., introduces Melchiseilech without reference to his genealogy; hence Heb., vii, 3, represents him "with- out father, without mother, without genealogy, hav- ing neither beginning of days nor end of life", and makes him as such a type of Jesus Christ. Thus far we have spoken about the typical sense in its strict sense. In a witler sense, all persons, events, or objects of the Old Testament are sometimes considered as types, provided they resemble persons, events, or ol> jects in the New Testament, whether the Holy Ghost has intended such a relationship or not. The Egyp- tian Joseph is in this way frequently represented as a type of St. Joseph, the foster-father of Christ.

(ii) Division of the Typical Sense. — The division of the typical sense is based on the character of the type and the antitype. The antitype is either a truth to be believed, or a boon to be hoped for, or again a vir- tue to be practised. This gives us a triple sense — the allegorical, the anagogical, and the tropological, or moral. The objects of faith in the Old Testament cen- tred mainly around the future Messias and his Church. The allegorical sense may, therefore, be said to refer to the future or to be prophetic. The allegory here is not to be sought in the literary expression, but in the persons or thmgs expressed. This division of the typical sense was expressed by the Scholastics in two lines: —

Littera gesta docet; quid credas, allegoria; Moralis quid agas; quo tendas, anagogia. Jerusalem, e. g., according to its literal sense, is the Holy City; taken allegorically, it denotes the Church Militant; understood tropologically, it stands for the just soul; finally, in its anagogical sense, it stands for the Church Triumphant. If the division of the typical sense be based on the type rather than the antitype, we may distinguish personal, real, and legal types. They are personal if a person is chosen by the Holy Ghost as the sign of the truth to be conveyed. Adam, Noe, Melchisedech, Moses, Josue, David, Solomon, and Jonas are types of Jesus Christ; Agar with Ismael, and Sara with Isaac are respectively the tj-pes of the Old and the New Testament. The real types are certain historical events or objects mentioned in the Old Testament, such as the paschal lamb, the manna, the water flowing from the rock, the brazen serpent, Sion, and Jerusalem. Legal types are chosen from among the institutions of the Mosaic liturgy, e. g., the taber- nacle, the sacred implements, the sacraments and sacrifices of the Old Law, its priests and Levites.

(iii) The Existence of the Typical Sense. — Scripture and tradition agree in their testimony for the occur- rence of the typical sense in certain passages of the Old Testament. Among the Scriptural texts which establish the typical sense, we may appeal to Col., ii, 16-17; Heb., viii, 5; ix, 8-9; Rom., v, 14; Gal., iv, 24; Matt., ii, 15 (cf. Os., xi, 1); Heb., i, 5 (cf. II K., vii, 14). The testimony of tradition concerning this subject may be gathered from Barnabas (Ep., 7, 8, 9, 12, etc.), St. Clement of Rome (I Cor., xii), St. Justin (Dial. c. Tryph.jCiv, 42), St. Irenfcus (Adv. ha-r., IV, XXV, 3; II, xxiv, 2 sqq.; IV, xxvi, 2), TertuUian (Adv. Marc, V, vii), St. Jerome (Ep. liii, ad Paulin., S), St. Thomas (I, Q. i, a. 10), and a number cf other pa- tristic writers and Scholastic theologians. That the Jews agree with the Christian writers on this point, may be inferred from Jo.sephus (.4ntiq., XVII, iii, 4; Procem. Antiq., n. 4; III, vi, 4, 77; De bello Jud., V, vi, 4), the Talmud (Berachot, c. v, ad fin.; Quiddus, fol. 41, col. 1), and the writings of Philo (de Abraham; lie migrat. Abraham; de vita contempl.), though this latter writer goes to excess in the allegorical interpre-