applications of the Old Testament in the writings of the Apostles, which seem to imply a typical connexion; whereas the truth may be, that the inspired writers intended only to illustrate their subject, without asserting the design of God in the correspondence observed, which is one essential characteristic of a Type.

We must beware of "adding to the word of God." In the humble spirit of enquiry let us search the Scriptures, not seeking "to be wise above that which is written," but desiring to learn of God, and thankfully using the light which He has given to

us.

The following rules of typical interpretation spring immediately from the definition above given.

1. There must be a similarity and correspondence between the type and its alleged antitype, for without this, the one could not prefigure the other.

This correspondence needs not to be so particular, as that every thing in the figure shall find its answer in the substance; the resemblance is general, and embraces some striking features which are abstracted from the subordinate parts, and connect together the type and antitype. It is a resemblance like that of a shadow to the body which causes it, an imperfect outline, not a complete picture: "the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things." As then in the interpretation of parables, every circumstance in the story has not its correspondent in the moral;

so in typical prefigurations, we must not expect to find every thing which is attributed to the type completed in the antitype.

2. A type is the representative solely of something future, which distinguishes it, from the more general class of symbols.

3. Types have a reality in themselves. They partake of the nature of parables and allegories, in that they bear an apt resemblance to the things signified by them; but this is no reason for supposing that, like parables, they are fictitious narratives. Both type and antitype are real facts; the correspondence between them is a correspondence of history with. history, and does not at all contradict their separate truth or reality. It is necessary to observe this, because some have attempted to prove that the narratives of the Old Testament are to be viewed merely as allegories, not as true histories of events, which they certainly are. When the term "shadows" is applied to types, it is only in comparison with the antitypes, which are always more excellent, and have that in substance, which the type possesses either in a figure or in a less eminent degree.

4. The correspondence must be by the design of God; for without this, similarity is nothing. "It is essential to a type, that there should be competent evidence of the divine intention in the correspondence between it and the antitype,-a matter not left to the imagination of the expositor to dis

B

cover, but resting on some solid proof from Scripture itself, that this was really the case1." Without the evidence of Scripture, we cannot from similarity alone, conclude with certainty that any event was ordained as a type. We do not deny that there may be types which are not declared to be such in the sacred writings; this would be to affirm that God in his wisdom must have declared every type which exists to be such; an assertion which it does not seem that we are warranted to make.

It has been asked, "if it was deemed necessary to explain one type, where could be the expediency, or the moral fitness of withholding the explanation of others? Must not, therefore, the silence of the New Testament, in the case of any supposed type, be an argument against the existence of that type 2 ?" With reverence for such high authority, we offer the following considerations. The silence of the Scriptures is an argument against the existence of a type, exactly proportioned in force to the probability that all the types were explained to the Apostles, and the explanations recorded by them. Now can we suppose that all the conversations of our Saviour with his disciples have come down to us? That we should not have many more expositions of Scripture, could we have a full record of his discourse as he walked to Emmaus, when

beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself?"

Is it not the same with regard to our Saviour's miracles? Doubtless many were performed, of which we have no account in the Gospels; but were they therefore of no use? They were; they confirmed the faith of those who saw them. "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that ye might believe '."

Again, in the preaching of the Apostles, when they "proved by the Scriptures that Jesus is Christ," many prophecies and types may have been applied to the events of the Gospel history; and the arguments which convinced their hearers, have not all been written. But enough is written that we may believe.

Will it not then be safe to say, that though the strongest resemblance does not enable us to argue the certainty of a type, for which we have not the warrant of Scripture, yet we may admit it as probable?? May not those types which are declared as such by the word of God, be intended for our guides, that we may rightly follow our Saviour's precept? "Search the Scriptures; for they are they which testify of me."

Let us now consider the relation in which Types

1 John xx. 30.

See Dr. Jortin, Eccl. Hist. vol. I. p. 122.

stand to the verbal prophecies of the Bible. We have before observed that types are in themselves a species of prophecy. Whether the fore-knowledge of future events be recorded in words, or in the representation of similar events, if the designed connexion be manifest, and the correspondence clear, in both cases we have a fulfilling of prophecy. But besides this kindred nature of the two modes of prediction, there are various ways in which they are connected, and in many instances they are so twined together as to afford jointly the strongest evidence of the divine foreknowledge, presiding over and guiding to completion the course of

events.

The prophetical part of the Sacred Volume (comprehending both verbal and typical predictions) offers itself to us in two points of view. We may look at it with regard either to the earlier or the later ages, to the times of the law of Moses on the one hand, or to the day of Christ on the other. To the Jews, prophecy gave an expectation of the Redeemer: to us, by its fulfilment, it affords an evidence. The types of the law were to the Jew a "remembrance of sins:" they are a witness of the great atonement for sin to us ends of the world are come." their connexion with each other, prophecy and types have had a double use; they have reflected mutual light for the instruction of the people to whom "the oracles of God were committed," and they

66

upon whom the And thus also, in