But the presumption in favour of the Divine origin and typical nature of sacrifices becomes almost certainty, when we find them embodied by the finger of God in the Law of Moses. Here, fenced round by the strictest ordinances and statutes, the rite of sacrifice was made part of the solemn covenant of God with his people, and continued to be the accepted mode of worship for fifteen hundred years, until the Saviour on the Cross cried out, "It is finished," and the vail of the temple was rent in twain.

In this continuous course of typical prefiguration, which the Bible, as we believe, presents to our view, there are some points which we cannot confidently assert on the warrant of Scripture. But it will appear, we trust, that there is sufficient reason for admitting them as probable. And if there be, on the other hand, no proof which will warrant their absolute rejection, will not the unity of design, which we think may be traced throughout, be itself an argument in favour of those alleged instances which we cannot, with certainty, establish? And will not the harmony of the whole view produce something of the effect of an evidence on the Christian's mind, though there are parts, which singly would have little force?

Once more let us look back. The rite of sacrifice runs throughout the history of the Bible, parallel with the great promise of the Deliverer. We

find it often commanded, always accepted, by God, before the law; in the law expressly ordained; fulfilled in Jesus. Did the sacrifices of the Mosaic dispensation point to the death of Christ, and not the earlier sacrifices? In the absence of conclusive proof on either side, we admit as probable the typical reference of animal sacrifice from the earliest age. And thus, in humble reverence, we leave the question which the Word of God does not enable us to decide.

To the Christian alone, as has been remarked, this view of sacrifice is offered. We cannot urge it for the conviction of the unbeliever, for it is not one of the strong arguments of our faith. But there are other instances of typical prefiguration, which bear a more certain character, and which take their place, as evidences, by the side of the sure word of prophecy. In many successive periods of the Scripture history, we find holy men raised up to bear a faint image of the Messiah in some one or more of his glorious characteristics. We find events having a resemblance to the events of the life of Jesus, and we have evidence that they were designed by God as prophetic facts. Some of these instances will be singly examined; but let it be borne in mind that we must not estimate the force of each singly, and so conclude of all. If one by one they be weak, united they may be strong; the building which one pillar would fail to support

may rest secure on many1. The proper force of the evidence of Types is in the convergent tendency of many circumstances to one point, by which the history of God's chosen people presents a prophecy of the day of Christ.

We will now consider some of the principal objections which have been made to the whole subject of typical prophecy.

1. An objection has been brought against the whole scheme, which, if valid, would certainly weaken very much our faith in this branch of evidence. It is this: "The books of the Old Testament seem the most plain of all ancient writings, and therein appears not the least trace of a typical or allegorical intention in the authors, or in any Jews of their times "." To the former part of this objection, the prophecy of Moses, before quoted, will give a full answer. It declares a correspondence designed by God, between the ministry of Moses, and that of another prophet, who should arise in after times. Here is at least some "trace of a typical intention," in one of the books of the Old Testament.

With regard to the second part of the objection, we may form a judgment of the opinions held by

1 See Davison on Prophecy. Disc. I.

2 Collins, Grounds and Reasons.

C

the earlier Jews, from the writings of the later. In the book of Ecclesiasticus, we find the principle of typical interpretation acknowledged '. "He

that giveth his mind to the law of the Most High, and is occupied in the meditation thereof, will seek out the wisdom of all the ancient, and be occupied in prophecies. He will keep the sayings of the renowned men; and where subtil parables are, he will be there also. He will seek out the secrets of grave sentences, and be conversant in dark parables 3."

The books of the Jewish doctors abound in explanations of the mystical sense of the law and the prophets. They had such a fondness for this mode of mysterious reference, that "they did suppose every where a midrash, or mystical sense; which they studiously searched after: it was their constant opinion that all things in Moses' law were typical, and capable of allegorical exposition +." What is

1 xxxix. 1.

2

4

Compare our Saviour's words, Matt. xiii. 52. "Every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old."

3 See also xlviii. 10.
4 Barrow, Sermon XIX.

See Bp. Bull, Serm. X. "The ancient books containing the mysteries of the Jewish religion, are by the later Jews stifled and suppressed, as making too much for the Christian cause."

See also Bishop Chandler's Defence, ch. iii. sect. 5. Of the second Psalm, R. Solomon Jarchi says, that the ancient doctors

all this but the effect of a right principle carried to excess, an edifice of imagination raised on a foundation of truth?

2. Another objection brought against our doctrine, is entirely founded on the unwillingness of the human mind to admit truths which are removed from common experience. "It is easy," says the objector, "to see the purport of the significant actions of the Prophets; they were performed expressly for the purpose of conveying information: but how can we believe that the characters of individuals and events in the Jewish history were prophetical of future things? Is not this turning a plain history into a fable or allegory?"

To this, and every other objection, it might be sufficient to give the obvious answer, that we must decide by evidence, not by our own notions: Is there evidence for the prophetical connexion of type and antitype? But if, by a further consideration, a scruple can be removed, and the objector satisfied on his own ground, let not that consideration be spared.

It is evident then, that there may be prophecies having very different degrees of clearness. While the prophets frequently spoke of the future in verbal predictions, there might also be wise reasons for foreshewing things to come by a more concealed interpreted it typically, of king Messias; but gives his own advice, that it is more expedient to explain it of David only, to silence the Minnim, or Christians.