EXEGESIS
696
EXEGESIS
tation. The foregoing tradition may be confirmed by
the language of the liturgy and by the remains of
Christian archaeology (Ivraus, "Roma sotterranea,"
pp. 2-12 sqq.). Striking instances of the liturgical
proof may be seen in the Preface of the Mass for
Easter, in the Blessing of the Paschal Candle, and in
the Divine Office recited on the feast of Corpus
Christi. All Catholic interpreters readily grant that
in some passages of the Old Testament we have a typi-
cal sense besides the literal ; but this does not appear
to be granted with regard to the New Testament, at
least not subsequently to the death of Jesus Christ.
Distinguishing between the New Testament as it sig-
nifies a collection of books, and the New Testament as
it denotes the Christian economy, they grant that
there are types in the New-Testament books, but only
as far as they refer to the pre-Christian economy.
For the New Testament has brought us the reality m
place of the figure, light in place of darkness, truth in
place of shadow (cf . Patrizi, " De interpretatione
Scripturarum Sacrarum", p. 199, Rome, 1844). On
the other hand, it is urged that the New Testament is
the figure of glory, as the Old Testament was the fig-
ure of the New (St. Thom., Summa, I, Q. i, a. 10).
Again, in Scripture the literal sense applies to what
precedes, the typical to what follows. Now, even in
the New Testament Christ and His Body precedes the
Church and its members; hence, what is said literally
of Christ or His Body, may be interpreted allegorically
of the Church, the mystical body of Christ, tropologic-
ally of the virtuous acts of the Church's members,
anagogically of their future glory (St. Thom., Quodl.,
VII, a. 15, ad 5""). Similar views are expressed by
St. Ambrose (in Ps. xxx, n. 25), St. Chrysostom (in
Matt., hom. Ixvi), St. Augustine (in Joh., ix), St.
Gregory the Great (Hom. ii, in evang. Luc, xviii), St.
John Damascene (De fide orth., iv, 13); besides, the
bark of Peter is usually regarded as a type of the
Church, the destruction of Jersualem as a type of the
final catastrophe.
(iv) Has Everything in the Old Testament a Typi- cal Sense? — If such passages as Luke, xxiv, 44, I Cor., X, 11, be taken out of their context, they suggest the ubiquity of the tj'pical sense in the Old Testament; the context limits these texts to their proper range. If some of the Fathers, e. g. St. Augustine (De doct. Christ., Ill, xxii) and St. Jerome (Ad Dard., Ep.cxxix, 6; Ep. ad Eptes. iii, 6), appear to assert the ubiquity of the typical sense, their language refers rather to the figurative than the spiritual sense. On the other hand, TertuUian (De resurrect, earn., c. xx), St. Augus- tine (De civ. Dei., XVII, iii; C. Faust., XXII, xciv), St. Jerome (in Joann., c. i ; cf . in Jer., xxvii, 3, 9 ; xxix, 14), and vSt. Thomas (Quodl., vii, a. 15, ad 5""), explicitly reject the opinion which maintains that the whole of the Okl Testament has a typical sense. The opposite opinion does not appeal to reason; what could be the typical sense, e. g., of the command to love the Lord our God (Deut., vi, 5)?
(v) How Can the Typical Sen.se be Known? — In the typical sense God does not merely select an existing person or object as the sign of a future person or object, but he directs the coiu-se of nature in such a way that the very existence of the type, however independent it may be in itself, refers to the antitype. Man, too, can, in one or another par- ticular case, perform an action in order to typify what he will do in the future. But as the future is not under his complete control, such a way of acting would be ludicrou.s rather than instructive. The typical sense is, therefore, prfiperly spciiking, confined to God's own book. Hence tin- rritcri:! which serve for the interpretation of pml'ini' lilinii iirc will not be sufficient to detect the t ypi<"d sriise. The latter is a supcniat ural f.'ict dcixMidingcMt ircly on the free will of God ; niithiiig liut revcl;iliiiii can make it known to us, so that Scripture or tradition must be regarded as the
source of any solid argument in favour of the existence
of the typical sense in any particular passage. Where
the typical sense really exists, it expresses the mind of
God as truly as the literal sense ; but we must be care-
ful against excess in this regard. St. Augustine is
guilty of this fault in his spiritual interpretation of the
thirty-eight years in John, v, 5, and of the one hun-
dred and fifty-three fishes in John, xxi, 11. Besides, it
must be kept in mind that not all the minutiae con-
nected with the type have a definite and distinct
meaning in the antitj-pe. It would be useless labour to
search for the spiritual meaning of every detail con-
nected with the paschal lamb, e. g., or with the first
Adam. The exegete ought to be especially careful in
the admission of typical prophecies, and of anything
that would resemble the method of the Jewish Cab-
balists.
(vi) The Theological Value of the Typical Sense. — Father Perrone (Pripl. theol. dogm., IX, 159) believes it is the common opinion of theologians and commen- tators that no theological argument can be based on the typical sense. But if we speak of the typical sense which has been revealed as such, or which has been proved as such from either Scripture or tradition, it conveys the meaning intended by God not less vera- ciously than the literal sense. Hence it furnishes solid and reliable premises for theological conclusions. The inspired writers themselves do not hesitate to argue from the typical sense, as may be seen in Matt., ii, 15 (cf. Os., xi, 1), and Heb., i, 5 (cf. II K., vii, 14). Texts whose typical sense is only probable yield only proba- ble theological conclusions; such Ls the argument for the Immaculate Conception based on Est., xv, 13. If St. Thomas (Summa, I, Q. i, a. 10, ad 1""; Quod- lib., VII, a. 14, ad 4"") and other theologians differ from our position on this question, their view is based on the fact that the existence of the types themselves must first be theologically proved, before they can 'serve as premises in a theological argument.
II. Hermeneutics. — The interpretation of a writ- ing has for its object to find the ideas which the author intended to express. We do not consider here the so- called authentic interpretation or the writer's own statement as to the thought he intended to convey. In interpreting the Bible scientifically, its twofold character must always be kept in view: it is a Divine book, in as far as it has God for its author ; it is a human book, in as far as it is written by men for men. In its human character, the Bible is subject to the same rules of interpretation as profane books; but in its Divine character, it is given into the custody of the Church to be kept and explained, so that it needs special rules of hermeneutics. Under the former aspect, it is subject to the laws of the grammatico-historical interpreta- tion; under the latter, it is bound by the precepts of what we may call the Catholic explanation.
(1) Historico- Grammatical Inlerpretution. — The grammatico-historical interpretation miplies three ele- ments: first, a knowledge of the various significations of the literary expression to be interpreted ; secondly, the determination of the precise sense in which the literary expression is employed in any given passage; thirdly, the historical description of the idea thus de- termined. What has been said in the precetling para- graphs sufficiently shows the difference between the signification and the sense of a word or a sentence. The importance of describing an idea historically may be exemplified by the successive shades of meaning attaching to the concept of Messias, or of Kingdom of God.
(i) Significations of the Literary Expression. — The signification of the literary expression of the Bible is best learned by a thorough knowledge of the so-called sacred languages in which the original text of Scripture was written, and by a familiar acquaintance with the Scriptural way of speaking.
(a) Sacred Languages. — St. Augustine (De doctr.
