TheTypologyofScripture

VIEWEDINCONNECTIONWITHTHEWHOLESERIESOF

THEDIVINEDISPENSATIONS

BY

PATRICKFAIRBAIRN,D.D.,

PRINCIPAL,ANDPROFESSOROFDIVINITY,FREECHURCHCOLLEGE,GLASGOW.

InvetereTestamentonovumlatet,etinnovovetuspatet.

AUGUST.QUAEST.INEX.LXXIII.

VOLUMEI&II.

FOURTHEDITION.

EDINBURGH:

T.&T.CLARK,38,GEORGESTREET.

LONDON:HAMILTON,ADAMS,&CO.DUBLIN:JOHNROBERTSON&CO.

MDCCCLXIV.

MURRAYANDGIBB,PRINTERS,EDINBURGH.

Showing,Whatitis,andhowdistinguishedfromthatwhichitisnotso.Also,Whenceitcomes;whohasit;whataretheeffects;andwhattheprivilegesofthosethathaveitintheirhearts.

"Andwhosoeverwill,lethimtakethewateroflifefreely."—Revelation22:17

LONDON,PrintedforN.Ponder,atthePeacockinthePoultry,overagainsttheStocksmarket:1679.

TableofContents

VolumeI

PrefacetoTheFourthEdition.

BookFirst.—InquiryintoThePrinciplesofTypicalInterpretation,withaView Chiefly to The Determination of The Real Nature and Design ofTypes, and The Extent to which they Entered into God's EarlierDispensations.

—ChapterFirst.—Historical andCritical Survey of thePast andPresentStateofTheologicalOpiniononTheSubject.

- Chapter Second.—The Proper Nature and Province of Typology.—1.Scriptural Use of The Word Type Comparison of This with TheTheologicalDistinctiveCharacteristicsofaTypicalRelationship,ViewedwithRespecttoTheReligiousInstitutionsofTheOldTestament.

-ChapterThird—TheProperNatureandProvinceofTypology—2.TheHistoricalCharactersandTransactionsofTheOldTestament,ViewedasExemplifying The Distinctive Characters of a Typical Relationship—Typical Forms inNatureNecessity of The Typical as a Preparation for

TheDispensationofTheFulnessofTimes.

—Chapter Fourth.—The Proper Nature and Province of Typology—3.God'sWorkinCreation,howRelatedtoTheIncarnationandKingdomOfChrist.

—Chapter Fifth.—Prophetical Types, or The Combination of Type withProphecy—AllegedDoubleSenseofProphecy.

—Chapter Sixth.—The Interpretation Of Particular Types—SpecificPrinciplesAndDirections.

—Chapter Seventh.—The Place Due to The Subject of Typology as ABranchofTheologicalStudy,andTheAdvantagesArisingfromitsProperCultivation.

—BookSecond.—TheDispensationofPrimevalandPatriarchalTimes.—PreliminaryRemarks.

—Chapter First. The Divine Truths Embodied in The HistoricalTransactionsonwhichTheFirstSymbolicalReligionforFallenManwasBased.

—ChapterSecond.—TheTreeofLife.

—ChapterThird.—TheCherubim(andTheFlamingSword).

—ChapterFourth.—SacrificialWorship

—ChapterFifth.—TheMarriageRelationandTheSabbaticalInstitution.

—ChapterSixth.—TypicalThings inHistoryDuringTheProgressofTheFirstDispensation.

—SectionFirst.—TheSeedofPromiseAbel,Enoch.

—SectionSecond.—NoahandTheDeluge.

—SectionThird.—TheNewWorldanditsInheritorsTheMenofFaith.

—SectionFourth.—TheChange inTheDivineCall fromTheGeneral toTheParticular—Shem,Abraham.

—Section Fifth.—The Subjects andChannels of Blessing—Abraham andIsaac,JacobandTheTwelvePatriarchs.

—SectionSixth.—TheInheritanceDestinedforTheHeirsofBlessing.

Appendices.

—AppendixA.—TheOldTestamentinTheNew.P.138.

—AppendixB.—TheDoctrineofaFutureState.—P.215.

—AppendixC.—OnSacrificialWorship.—P.299.

—AppendixD.—DoesTheOriginalRelationofTheSeedofAbraham toTheLandofCanaanaffordanyGroundforExpectingtheirFinalReturntoit?—P.405.

—AppendixE.—TheRelationofCannantoTheStateofFinalRest(Heb.4:1,10)—P.422.

VOLUMEII.

—Book Third.—Chapter First.—The Divine Truths Embodied in TheHistorical Transactions connected with The Redemption from Egypt,Viewed as Preliminary to The Symbolical Institutions Brought in byMoses.

—SectionFirst.—TheBondage.

—SectionSecond.—TheDelivererandHisCommission.

—SectionThird.—TheDeliverance.

—SectionFourth.—TheMarch throughTheWilderness—Manna—WaterfromTheRock—ThePillarofCloudandFire.

—ChapterSecond.—TheDirectInstructiongiventoTheIsraelitesbeforeThe Erection of The Tabernacle, and The Institution of its SymbolicalServices The Law.—Section First.—What Properly, and in The StrictestSense, Termed The Law, Viz., The Decalogue—Its Perfection andCompletenessBothastoTheOrderandSubstanceofitsPrecepts.

—Section Second.—The Law continued—Apparent Exceptions to itsPerfectionandCompletenessasThePermanentandUniversalStandardof Religious and Moral Obligation—Its References to The SpecialCircumstancesofTheIsraelites,andRepresentationofGodasJealous.

—SectionThird.—TheLawContinued—FurtherExceptions—TheWeeklySabbath.

—SectionFourth.—WhatTheLawcouldnotdo—TheCovenantStandingandPrivilegesofIsraelbeforeitwasgiven.

—SectionSixth.—TheRelationofBelieversunderTheNewTestamenttoTheLaw—InwhatsensetheyareFreefromit—AndwhyitisNoLongerPropertoKeepTheSymbolicalInstitutionsconnectedwithit.

—ChapterThird.—TheReligiousTruthsandPrinciplesEmbodiedinTheSymbolical Institutions and Services of The Mosaic Dispensation, andViewedintheirTypicalReferencetotheBetterThingstocome.—SectionFirst.—IntroductoryonTheQuestionwhyMoseswas instructed inTheWisdomofTheEgyptians,andwhatInfluencethismightbeexpectedtoexerciseonhisFutureLegislation.

—SectionSecond.—TheTabernacleinitsGeneralStructureandDesign.

—Section Third.—The Ministers of The Tabernacle—The Priests andLevites.

.—Section Fourth.—The Tabernacle in its Several Divisions—1. TheForecourt, with its Two Articles, The Laver and The Altar of Burnt-Offering—Sacrifice by Blood in its Fundamental Idea and RitualAccompaniments (Choice of The Victims, Imposition of Hands, andSprinklingofTheBlood).

—Section Fifth.—The Different Kinds of Offerings connected with TheBrazenAltar in The Court of The Tabernacle—Sin-Offerings—Trespass-Offerings—Burnt-Offerings—PeaceorThank-Offerings—Meat-Offerings.

—Section Sixth.—The Holy Place—The Altar of Incense—The Table ofShew-Bread—TheCandlestick.

—Section Seventh.—The Most Holy Place, with its Furniture, and TheGreatAnnualServiceconnectedwithitonTheDayofAtonement.

—ChapterFourth.—HistoricalDevelopments.

—SectionFirst.—TheConquestofCanaan.

—SectionSecond.—TheTheory,Working,andDevelopmentoftheJewishTheocracy.

—SectionEighth.—SpecialRitesandInstitutionsChieflyConnectedwithSacrifice—The Ratification of The Covenant the Trial and Offering ofJealousy—Purgation from anUncertainMurder—Ordinance of the RedHeifer—The Leprosy and its Treatment—Defilements and PurificationsConnectedwithCorporealIssuesandChild-Birth—TheNazariteandHisOfferings—DistinctionsofCleanandUncleanFood.

—Appendices.—Appendix A.—Views of the Reformers Regarding theSabbath.—P.142.

—AppendixBTheAltar.—P.301.

—Appendix C.—P. 302.—Supplementary Remarks on the Subject of

SacrificebyBlood.

—Section Ninth.—Stated Solemnities or Feasts—TheWeekly Sabbath—TheFeastofthePassover—OfPentecost—OfTrumpetsandNewMoons—TheDay ofAtonement—TheFeast of Tabernacles—The Sabbatical YearandYearofJubilee.

—AppendixD.—OntheTermAzazel.—P.388.

VolumeI

PrefacetoTheFourthEdition.

THE issue of a Fourth Edition of the following Treatise, howevergratifying in one respect, is in another not unaccompanied with ameasureofregret.Thisarisesfromthenumberofalterationswhichithasbeenfoundnecessarytointroduceintoit,andwhichwillnaturallyproveof injurious consequence to the Editions that have preceded. But, intruth,noalternativewas leftme, if theworkwas tokeeppacewith theage,andmaintainrelativelytheplaceitoccupiedintheearlierstagesofitsexistence.WhenIfirstgavetothepublicthefruitofmyinvestigationsuponthesubjectofScriptureTypology,notonlywastheregreatdiversityofopinionamongtheologiansrespectingitsfundamentalprinciples,butmanyspecifictopicsconnectedwithitwereonlybeginningtoreceivethebenefit of modern research and independent inquiry. It is muchotherwisenow.

Evenduring the last tenyears, since theSecondEditionwaspublished,from which the Third did not materially differ, productions, in veryconsiderable number and variety, have appeared, especially on theContinent, inwhichcertainportionsof the fieldhavebeensubjected tocareful examination not unfrequently have become the occasion ofearnest controversy; and to have sent forth another Edition of myTreatise, without regard being had to the fresh discussions that havetaken place, [[@Page:4]]would only have been to leave it in a state ofimperfectadaptationtothepresenttimes.

It is proper tomention, however, that the alterations in question haverespect to the literature of the subject andmodes of representation onparticularparts,ratherthantotheviewsandprincipleswhichhavebeenexhibitedinconnectionwithitsgeneraltreatment.Thesehaveundergonenoessentialalteration;indeed,withtheexceptionofafewminorpoints,whichitisunnecessarytoparticularize,theyremainmuchastheywereinthe two last Editions. The progress of discussion, however, with itsvaryingtidesofopinion,naturallycalledforanextensionofthehistorical

reviewintheintroductorychapter,whichhasbeencoupledwithaslightabridgmentinsomeofitsearlierdetails,andinthelaterwithasofteningofthecontroversialtone,whichseemedoccasionallytopossesstookeenanedge.Theviews,also,whichincertaininfluentialquartershaveoflatebeenventilated, respecting therelationofGod’swork increation to thedestined incarnation of the Son, appeared render the introduction of anewchapter(thefourthinVol.I.)almostindispensible,thatthesubject,with referencemore especially to its typological bearing,might receivethe consideration that was due to it. These additions, with some otherchangesgrowingoutofthem,andtheemploymentofasomewhatlargertype for the Notes and Appendices, have together brought anenlargementofaboutfiftypagestotheFirstVolume.

The alterations in the SecondVolume, thoughmorenumerous, arenotquitesoextensiveinrespecttoquantityofmatter;and,partlyconsistingofmorecompressedstatements,wheresuchwerepracticable,theyhavenot added verymaterially to the entire bulk of theVolume.Theyoccurmost frequently in the [[@Page:5]] portions which treat of theinstitutions and offerings of the Mosaic economy, on which there hasrecentlybeenmuchdiscussion;and,inparticular,thequestionrespectingtherelationofthesin-offeringstotransgressionsofamoralkind(Ch.III.,sec.5),andthetopicshandledinoneortwooftheAppendices,areherefor the first time formally considered. On the whole, I trust it will befound that the work has been, both in form and substance, materiallyimproved; and having now again (probably for the last time) traversedthe field with some care, and expressed what may be considered mymaturedviewsonthetopicsembracedinit,Ileavethefruitofmylaboursto the candid consideration of others, and commend it anew to theblessingofHimwhoseworditseekstoexplainandvindicate.

Asregardsthegeneralplanpursuedintheinvestigationofthesubject,Ihave only in substance to repeatwhatwas said in previous editions. Itmight, no doubt, have been practicable to narrow at variouspoints thefield of discussion, and especially to abridge the space devoted to theconsideration of the law in Volume Second (which some have thoughtdisproportionate), if the object had been simply to extract from theearlier dispensations suchportions asmorepeculiarly possess a typical

character. But to have treated the typical in such an isolated mannerwouldhaveconducedlittleeithertotheelucidationof thesubject itself,or to the satisfaction of thoughtful inquirers. The Typology of the OldTestamenttouchesateverypointonitsreligionandworship.Itispartofacomplicatedsystemoftruthandduty;anditisimpossibletoattaintoacorrect discernment and due appreciation of the several parts, withoutcontemplating themin therelation theybearboth to eachotherand tothewhole.Hence theprofessed aimof thework is to [[@Page:6]] viewtheTypologyofScripture,notbyitself,butinconnectionwiththeentireseriesoftheDivinedispensations.

Itispossiblesomemaythink,thatthereisanoccasionalextremeontheother side, and that less has been said than might justly have beenexpectedoncertaincontroversialtopics,whichareeverrisingafreshintonotice, andwhich find, if not their root, at least a considerable part oftheir support, in the view that is taken of things pertaining to theinstitutionsof formertimes.Theproperaim,however,ofaworkof thissort is hermeneutical and expository, rather than controversial: itmay,and indeed ought, to lay the foundation for a legitimate use of OldTestament materials, to the settlement of various important questionsbelongingtoChristian times;but theactualapplicationof thematerialsto the diversified phases of polemical discussion, belongs to otherdepartmentsoftheology.Incertaincasestheapplicationissonaturalandobvious, that itcouldnot fitlybeavoided;buteveninthese ithadbeenimproper to go beyond comparatively narrow limits; and if I have noterredbyexcess,Iscarcelythinkjudiciouscriticswillconsidermetohavedonesobydefect.

Stillmorelimitedistherelationinwhichtheinquirypursuedinaworklike the present stands to the much agitated question respecting thehistoricalverityoftheearlierbooksofScripture,andinparticulartotheauthenticity and truthfulness of thebooks ofMoses. Incidentally,notafewopportunitieshaveoccurredofnoticing,andtosomeextentrepelling,theobjectionsthathavebeenthrownoutuponthesubject.But,asarule,it was necessary to take for granted the historical truthfulness of thesacred records; for, apart from the reality and Divine character of thetransactions therein related, Typology in the proper sense has no

foundation to standupon.The [[@Page:7]] servicewhich investigationsofthiskind,whenrightlypursued,arefittedtorendertotheinspirationandauthorityofScripture, isofa less formaldescription,andrelatestopointsof agreement, of a somewhat veiled andhiddennature, betweenone part of the Divine scheme and another. To obtain a clear andcomprehensiveviewoftheseonemuststand,asitwere,withinthesacrededificeofGod’s revelation, and surveywith an attentive eye its interiorharmony and proportions. They who do so will certainly find in thecarefulstudyoftheTypologyofScripturemanyvaluableconfirmationstotheirfaith.

Evidences of the strictly supernatural character of the plan it discloseswill press themselves on their notice, such as altogether escape theobservation of more superficial inquirers; and to them such evidenceswill be the more convincing and satisfactory, that it is only throughpatient research they come to be perceived in their proper variety andfulness.Ifonemayhave,asDeanMilmanjustlystates(Hist,ofJews,i.,p.133,3ded.),“greatfaithininternalevidence,whichrestsonbroadandpatent facts, on laws, for instance, which belong to a peculiar age andstate of society, and which there can be no conceivable reason forimagining in later times, and during the prevalence of other manners,andforascribingthemtoanancientpeople,”notlessmaysuchfaithbecalled forth and exercised by that evidence, which arises from theperception of a profound harmony of principle and nicely adjustedrelations, preserved amid the endless diversities of form and methodnaturallyincidenttoaschemeofprogressivedevelopment.

P.F.

GLASGOW,2dNovember1863.

BookFirst.—InquiryintoThePrinciplesofTypicalInterpretation,withaViewChieflytoTheDeterminationofTheRealNatureandDesignofTypes,andTheExtenttowhich

theyEnteredintoGod’sEarlierDispensations.

BookFirst.—InquiryintoThePrinciplesofTypicalInterpretation,withaViewChieflytoThe

DeterminationofTheRealNatureandDesignofTypes,andTheExtenttowhichtheyEnteredinto

God'sEarlierDispensations.

ChapterFirst.—HistoricalandCriticalSurveyofthePastandPresentStateofTheologicalOpiniononThe

Subject.

THE Typology of Scripture has been one of the most neglecteddepartmentsoftheologicalscience.Ithasneveraltogetherescapedfromthe region of doubt and uncertainty; and some still regard it as a fieldincapable, from its very nature, of being satisfactorily explored, orcultivatedsoastoyieldanysureandappreciableresults.Henceitisnotunusual to find thosewhootherwiseareagreed in theirviewsofdivinetruth, and in the general principles of biblical interpretation, differingmateriallyintheestimatetheyhaveformedoftheTypologyofScripture.Where one hesitates, another is full of confidence; and the landmarksthataresetupto-dayareagainshiftedto-morrow.Withsuchvariousandcontradictorysentimentsprevailingonthesubject,itisnecessary,inthefirst instance, to take an historical and critical survey of the field, thatfromthecarefulrevisionofwhathasbeendoneinthepast,wemaythemore [[@Page:18]] readily perceive what still remains to beaccomplished, in order that we may arrive at a well-grounded and

scripturalTypology.

I.WenaturallybeginwiththeChristianFathers.Theirtypologicalviews,however,areonlytobegatheredfromtheoccasionalexamplestobemetwithintheirwritings;astheynowherelaydownanyclearandsystematicprinciples for the regulation of their judgments in the matter. Someexceptionmight, perhaps, be made in respect to Origen. And yet withsuch vagueness and dubiety has he expressed himself regarding theproper interpretation of Old Testament Scripture, that by some he hasbeenunderstood tohold, that there is a fourfold,byothersa threefold,and by others again only a twofold, sense in the sacred text. The truthappears to be, that while he contended for a fourfold application ofScripture, he regarded it as susceptible only of a twofold sense. Andconsidered generally, the principles of interpretation on which heproceededwerenot essentiallydifferent from thoseusually followedbythegreatmajorityoftheGreekFathers.Butbeforestatinghowtheseboreonthesubjectnowunderconsideration,itwillbenecessarytopointoutadistinction too often lost sight of, both in earlier and in later times,betweenallegoricalandtypicalinterpretations,properlysocalled.Thesehave been very commonly confounded together, as if they wereessentiallyone inprinciple,anddifferedonly intheextenttowhichtheprinciplemaybecarried.Thereis,however,aspecificdifferencebetweenthe two, which it is not very difficult to apprehend, and which it is ofsome importance to notice in connection especially with theinterpretationsofpatristicwriters.

Anallegoryisanarrative,eitherexpresslyfeignedforthepurpose,or—ifdescribing facts which really took place—describing them only for thepurpose of representing certain higher truths or principles than thenarrative, in its literal aspect, whether real or fictitious, could possiblyhave taught.Theostensiblerepresentation, therefore, ifnot invented, isat leastused,simplyasacoverforthehighersense,whichmayrefertothings ever so remote from those immediately described, if only thecorrespondingrelationsarepreserved.SothatallegoricalinterpretationsofScriptureproperlycomprehendthetwofollowing[[@Page:19]]cases,andtheseonly:1.Whenthescripturalrepresentation isactuallyheldtohave had no foundation in fact—to be a mere myth, or fabulous

description, invented for thesolepurposeofexhibiting themysteriesofdivinetruth;or,2.When—withoutmovinganyquestionabouttherealorfictitious nature of the representation—it is considered incapable as itstandsofyieldinganyadequateorsatisfactorysense,andisconsequentlyemployed,preciselyasifithadbeenfabulous,toconveysomemeaningofanentirelydifferentandhigherkind.Thedifferencebetweenallegoricalinterpretations, in either of these senses, and thosewhich are properlycalledtypical,cannotbefullyexhibitedtillwehaveascertainedtheexactnature and design of a type. It will be enoughmeanwhile to say, thattypicalinterpretationsofScripturedifferfromallegoricalonesofthefirstorfabulouskind,inthattheyindispensablyrequiretherealityofthefactsor circumstances stated in the original narrative. And they differ alsofromtheother,inrequiring,besidethis,thatthesametruthorprinciplebeembodiedalikeinthetypeandtheantitype.Thetypicalisnotproperlya different or higher sense, but a different or higher application of thesamesense.

Returning,then,tothewritingsoftheFathers,andusingtheexpressionstypical and allegorical in the senses now respectively ascribed to them,therecanbenodoubtthattheFathersgenerallyweremuchgivenbothtotypical and allegorical explanations,—the Greek Fathers more toallegoricalthantotypical,—andtoallegoricalmoreinthesecondthaninthefirstsense,describedabove.Theydonotappear,forthemostpart,tohavediscreditedtheplaintruthorrealityofthestatementsmadeinOldTestamenthistory.Theyseemrathertohaveconsideredthesenseofthelattertrueandgood,sofarasitwent,butofitselfsomeagreandpuerile,that itwaschiefly toberegardedas thevehicleofamuchmorerefinedand ethereal instruction. Origen, however, certainly went farther thanthis,andexpresslydeniedthatmanythingsintheOldTestamenthadanyreal existence. In his Principia (Lib. iv.) he affirms, that "when theScripture history could not otherwise be accommodated to theexplanationofspiritualthings,mattershavebeenassertedwhichdidnottake place, nay, which could not have taken place; and others again,which,thoughtheymight[[@Page:20]]haveoccurred,yetneveractuallydidso."Again,whenspeakingofsomenotices inthelifeofRebecca,hesays—"In these things, I have often told you, there is not a relation ofhistories,hut a concoctionofmysteries."[1]And, in likemanner, inhis

annotationsonthefirstchaptersofGenesis,heplainlyscoutstheideaofGod's having literally clothed our first parents with the skins of slainbeasts—calls it absurd, ridiculous, and unworthy of God, and declaresthat in sucha case thenaked letter isnot tobeadhered toas true,butexistsonlyforthespiritualtreasurewhichisconcealedunderit.[2]

StatementsofthiskindareoftoofrequentoccurrenceinthewritingsofOrigen to have arisen from inadvertence, or to admit of being resolvedintomerehyperbolesofexpression.Theywere,indeed,thenaturalresultofthatvicioussystemofinterpretationwhichprevailedinhisage,whenitfell, as it did in his case, into the hands of an ardent and enthusiasticfollower. At the same time itmust be owned, in behalf of Origen, thathowever possessed of what has been called a "the allegorical fury," hedoesnotappeargenerallytohavediscreditedthefactsofsacredhistory;andthathedifferedfromtheotherGreekFathers,chieflyintheextenttowhich he went in decrying the literal sense as carnal and puerile, andextolling the mystical as alone suited for those who had becomeacquaintedwiththetruewisdom.Itwouldbeoutofplacehere,however,togointoanyparticularillustrationofthispoint,asitisnotimmediatelyconnected with our present inquiry. But we shall refer to a singlespecimenofhisallegoricalmodeofinterpretation,forthepurposechieflyofshowingdistinctlyhowitdifferedfromwhatisofasimplytypologicalcharacter. We make our selection from Origen's homily on Abraham'smarriage with Keturah (Horn. vi. In Genes.). He does not expresslydisavow his belief in the fact of such amarriage having actually takenplacebetweenthepartiesinquestion,thoughhislanguageseemstopointin that direction; but he intimates that this, in commonwith the othermarriagesofthepatriarchs,containedasacramentalmystery.Andwhatmightthisbe?Nothinglessthanthesublimetruth,"thatthereisnoendto wisdom, and that old age sets no bounds to improvement inknowledge.The[[@Page:21]]deathofSarah(hesays)istobeunderstoodastheperfectingofvirtue.Buthewhohasattainedtoaconsummateandperfectvirtue,mustalwaysbeemployedinsomekindoflearning—whichlearningiscalledbythedivineWord,hiswife.Abraham,therefore,whenanoldman,andhisbodyinamannerdead,tookKeturahtowife.Ithinkitwasbetter,accordingtotheexpositionwefollow,thatthewifeshouldhave been received when his body was dead, and his members were

mortified.ForwehaveagreatercapacityforwisdomwhenwebearaboutthedyingofChristinourmortalbody.ThenKeturah,whomhemarriedinhisoldage,is,byinterpretation,incense,orsweetodour.Forhesaid,even as Paul said, (We are a sweet savour of Christ. Sin is a foul andputrid thing;but if anyof you inwhom thisno longerdwells,have thefragrance of righteousness, the sweetness of mercy, and by prayercontinuallyofferupincensetoGod,yealsohavetakenKeturahtowife."Andforthwithheproceedstoshow,howmanysuchwivesmaybetaken:hospitality is one, the care of the poor another, patience a third,—eachChristianexcellence,inshort,awife;andhenceitwas,thatthepatriarchsarereportedtohavehadsomanywives,andthatSolomonissaidtohavepossessed them even by hundreds, he having received plenitude ofwisdom like the sand on the sea-shore, and consequently grace toexercisethelargestnumberofvirtues.

We have here a genuine example of allegorical interpretation, if notactuallyholdingthehistoricalmattertobefabulous,atleasttreatingitasif itwereso.It isofnomoment, foranypurposewhichsuchamodeofinterpretationmight serve, whether Abraham and Keturah had a localhabitationamongthisworld'sfamilies,andwhethertheirmarriagewasarealfactinhistory,oranincidentfitlythrownintoafictitiousnarrative,constructed for the purpose of symbolizing the doctrines of a divinephilosophy.Ifithadbeenhandledafterthemannerofatype,andnotasanallegory,whateverspecificmeaningmighthavebeenascribedtoitasarepresentationofgospelmysteries,thestorymusthavebeenassumedasreal, and the act of Abraham made to correspond with somethingessentially the same in kind some sort of union, for example, betweenparties holding a similar relation to each other, that Abraham did to[[@Page:22]]Keturah.Inthis,thoughtheremighthavebeenanerrorintheparticularapplicationthatwasmadeofthestory,therewouldatleasthavebeensomeappearanceofaprobablegroundforittorestupon.Butsublimated into the ethereal form it receives from the fertile genius ofOrigen,thewhole,historyandinterpretationtogether,presentlyacquiresan uncertain and shadowy aspect. For what connection, either in thenatureofthings,orintheactualexperienceoftheFatheroftheFaithful,canbeshowntoexistbetweenthedeathofawife,andtheconsummationofvirtueinthehusband;ortheweddingofasecondwife,andhispursuit

of knowledge?Whymight not the loss sustained in the former case aswellrepresentthedecayofvirtue,andtheacquisitioninthelatterdenotea relaxation in the search after the hidden treasures of wisdom andknowledge? There would evidently be as good reason for asserting theoneastheother;and,indeed,withsuchanarbitraryandelasticstyleofinterpretation, there is nothing, either false or true indoctrine,wise orunwiseinpractice,whichmightnotclaimsupportinScripture.TheBiblewouldbemadetoreflecteveryhueoffancy,andeveryshadeofbeliefinthose who assumed the office of interpretation; and instead of beingrenderedserviceabletoahigherinstruction,itwouldbeturnedintoonevastseaofuncertaintyandconfusion.

In proof of this we need only appeal to the use which Clement ofAlexandria, Origen's master, has made of another portion of sacredhistory which relates to Abraham's wives (Strom. L. I. p. 333). Theinstruction which he finds couched under the narrative of Abraham'smarriage successively to Sarah andHagar, is that a Christian ought tocultivatephilosophyandtheliberalartsbeforehedevoteshimselfwhollyto the study of divine wisdom. This he endeavours tomake out in thefollowingmanner:—Abraham is the image of a perfect Christian, Sarahthe image of Christian wisdom, andHagar the image of philosophy orhumanwisdom(certainlyafarfromagreeablelikeness!).Abrahamlivedforalongtimeinastateofconnubialsterility;whenceitisinferredthataChristian, so long ashe confineshimself to the studyofdivinewisdomand religion alone, will never bring forth any great or excellent fruits.Abraham, then, with the consent of Sarah, takes to him Hagar,[[@Page:23]]whichproves,accordingtoClement,thataChristianoughttoembrace thewisdomof thisworld,orphilosophy,and thatSarah,ordivine wisdom, will not withhold her consent. Lastly, after Hagar hadborneIshmaeltoAbraham,heresumedhisintercoursewithSarah,andof her begat Isaac; the true import of which is, that a Christian, afterhaving once thoroughly grounded himself in human learning andphilosophy, will, if he then devotes himself to the culture of divinewisdom, be capable of propagating the race of true Christians, and ofrendering essential service to the Church. Thus we have two entirelydifferentsensesextractedfromsimilartransactionsbythemasterandthedisciple; and still, far from being exhausted, as many more might be

obtained, as there are fertile imaginations disposed to turn the sacrednarrativeintothechanneloftheirownpeculiarconceits.

It was not simply the historical portions of Old Testament ScripturewhichwerethusallegorizedbyOrigen,andtheotherGreekFatherswhobelonged to the same school. A similar mode of interpretation wasapplied to the ceremonial institutions of the ancient economy; and ahighersensewasoftensoughtforinthese,thanwefindanyindicationofintheepistletotheHebrews,Clementevencarriedthemattersofarastoapply the allegorical principle to the ten commandments, anextravaganceinwhichOrigendidnotfollowhim;thoughwecanscarcelytellwhyheshouldnothavedoneso.For,eventhemoralpreceptsoftheDecaloguetouchatvariouspointsonthecommoninterestsandrelationsof life; and it was the grand aim of the philosophy, in which theallegorizing then prevalent had its origin, to carry the soul above theseinto thehighabstractionsofacontemplative theosophy.TheFathersoftheLatinchurchweremuch less inclinedtosuchairyspeculations,andtheir interpretations of Scripture, consequently, possessed more of arealistic and common sense character. Allegorical interpretations are,indeed, occasionally found in them, but they are more sparinglyintroduced, and less extravagantly carried out.[3] [[@Page:24]] Typicalmeanings,however,areasfrequentintheoneclassasintheother,andequally adoptedwithout rule or limit. If in the Eastern churchwe findsuchobjectsas the treeof life in thegardenofEden, the rodofMoses,Moseshimselfwithhisarmsextendedduring theconflictwithAmalek,exhibitedastypesofthecross;intheWesternchurch,asrepresented,forexample, byAugustine,wemeetwith such specimens as the following:—"Wherefore did Christ enter into the sleep of death? Because Adamslept when Eve was formed from his side, Adam being the figure ofChrist,Eveas themotherof the living, the figureof thechurch.Andasshewas formed fromAdamwhilehewasasleep, sowas itwhenChristslept on the cross, that the sacraments of the church flowed fromHisside."[4]So,again,Saulisrepresentedasthetypeofdeath,becauseGodunwillingly appointedhimkingover Israel, asHeunwillingly subjectedHispeopletotheswayofdeath;andDavid'sdeliverancefromthehandofSaul foreshadowed our deliverance through Christ from the power ofdeath; while in David's escape from Saul's hand, coupled with the

destructionthatbefellAhimelechonhisaccount,ifnotinhisstead,therewas a prefiguration of Christ's death and resurrection.[5] In thetreatment of New Testament Scripture also, the same style ofinterpretationisoccasionallyresortedto,—aswheninthesixwaterpotsofJohn'sGospelhefindsimagedthesixagesofprophecy;andinthetwoorthreefirkinswhichtheyseverallyheld,thetwoaretakentoindicatetheFatherandtheSon, the three theTrinity;or,ashealsoputs it, the tworepresent the Jews and the Gentiles, and the third, Christ,making thetwo one (Tract ix. in Joan.). But we need not multiply examples, orprosecute the subject further into detail. Enough has been adduced toshow,thattheearlierdivinesoftheChristianchurchhadnojustorwell-definedprinciplestoguidethemintheirinterpretationsofOldTestamentScripture, which could either enable them to determine between thefanciful and the true in typical applications, or guard them against theworstexcessesofallegoricallicence.[6]

[[@Page:25]] II. Passing over the period of the middle ages, whichproduced nothing new in this line, we come to the divines of theReformation. At that memorable era a mighty advance was made, notonlybeyondtheagesimmediatelypreceding,butalsobeyondallthathadpassed from the commencement of Christianity, in the soundinterpretation of Scripture. The original text then at last began to beexaminedwithsomethinglikecriticalexactness,andastedfastadherencewasgenerallyprofessed,andingoodpartalsomaintained,tothenaturalandgrammaticalsense.TheleadingspiritsoftheReformationwereherealso the great authors of reform. Luther denounced mystical andallegorical interpretations as "trifling and foolish fables,withwhich theScriptures were rent into so many and diverse senses, that silly poorconsciencescouldreceivenocertain[[@Page:26]]doctrineofanything."[7]Calvin,inlikemanner,declaresthat"thetruemeaningofScriptureisthenaturalandobviousmeaning,bywhichweoughtresolutelytoabide;"and speaks of the "licentious system" of Origen and the allegorists, as"undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority ofScripture,andtotakeawayfromthereadingofitthetrueadvantage."[8]In some of his interpretations, especially on the prophetical parts ofScripture,he evenwent to an extreme inadvocatingwhathehere callsthenaturalandobviousmeaning,andtherebymissedthemoreprofound

import, which, according to the elevated and often enigmatical style ofprophecy,itwasthedesignoftheSpirittoconvey.Ontheotherhand,inspiteoftheiravowedandgenerallyfollowedprinciplesofinterpretation,[[@Page:27]]thewritersoftheReformation-periodnotunfrequentlyfellintotheoldmethodofallegorizing,andthrewouttypicalexplanationsofakindthatcannotstandacarefulscrutiny.ItwerequiteeasytoproduceexamplesofthisfromthewritingsofthosewholivedatandimmediatelysubsequenttotheReformation;but itwouldbeofnoserviceasregardsourpresentobject,sincetheirattentionwascomparativelylittledrawntothesubjectoftypes;andnoneofthemattemptedtoconstructanydistincttypologicalsystem.

III. We pass on, therefore, to a later period—about the middle of theseventeenth century—when the science of theology began to be studiedmore in detail, and the types consequently received a more formalconsideration.AboutthatperiodarosewhatiscalledtheCocceianschool,which,thoughitdidnotrevivethedoublesenseoftheAlexandrian(forCocceius expressly disclaimed any other sense of Scripture than theliteral andhistorical one), yetwas chargeable inanother respectwithaparticipation in the caprice and irregularity of the ancient allegorists.Cocceius himself, less distinguished as a systematic writer in theologythan as a Hebrew scholar and learned expositor of Scripture, left noformal enunciation of principles connected with typical or allegoricalinterpretations; and it is chiefly from his annotations on particularpassages,andthemoresystematicworksofhisfollowers,thatthesearetobegathered.Howfreely,however,hewasdisposedtodrawuponOldTestamenthistoryfortypesofGospelthings,maybeunderstoodfromasingleexample—hisviewingwhatissaidofAsshurgoingoutandbuildingNineveh, as a type of the Turk or Mussulman power, which at oncesprang from the kingdom, and shook the dominion of Antichrist (cur.Prior, in Gen. 10:11). He evidently conceived that every event in OldTestamenthistory,whichhadaformalresemblancetosomethingundertheNew,was toberegardedas typical.And that,evennotwithstandinghisavowedadherencetobutonesenseofScripture,hecouldoccasionallyadopt a second, appears alone fromhis allegorical interpretationof theeighthPsalm;accordingtowhichthesheeptherespokenof,asbeingputunder man, are Christ's flock the oxen, those who labour in Christ's

service—[[@Page:28]]thebeastsofthefield,suchasarestrangerstothecityandkingdomofGod,barbariansandsavages—thefowloftheairandfishofthesea,personsatastillgreaterdistancefromgodliness;sothat,asheconcludes, there isnothingsowildand intractableonearthbut itshallbebroughtundertheruleanddominionofChrist.

It does not appear, however, that the views of Cocceius differedmateriallyfromthosewhichwereheldbysomewhoprecededhim;anditwould seem rather to have been owing to his eminence generally as acommentator than to any distinctive peculiarity in his typologicalprinciples,thathecametobesoprominentlyidentifiedwiththeschool,which fromhimderived thenameofCocceian. Ifwe turn tooneof theearlier editions of Glass's Philologia Sacra, published before Cocceiuscommenced his critical labours (the first was published before he wasborn), we shall find the principles of allegorical and typicalinterpretations laid downwith a latitude which Cocceius himself couldscarcelyhavequarrelledwith.Indeed,weshall findfewexamples inhiswritingsthatmightnotbejustifiedontheprinciplesstatedbyGlass;andthoughthelatter, inhissectiononallegories,hastothrowhimselfbackchieflyontheFathers,heyetproducessomequotationsinsupportofhisviews, both on these and on types, from some writers of his own age.ThereseemstohavebeennoessentialdifferencebetweenthetypologicalprinciplesofGlass,Cocceius,Witsius,andVitringa;andthoughthefirstwrote some time before, and the last about half a century later thanCocceius, no injustice can be done to any of them by classing themtogether,andreferringindifferentlytotheirseveralproductions.LiketheFathers, they did not sufficiently distinguish between allegorical andtypicalinterpretations,butregardedtheoneasonlyaparticularformofthe other, and both as equallywarranted byNew Testament Scripture.Hence,therulestheyadoptedweretoagreatextentapplicabletowhatisallegoricalinthepropersense,aswellastypical,thoughforthepresentwemust confine ourselves to the typical department. They held, then,thattherewasatwofoldsortoftypes,theoneinnate,consistingofthosewhich Scripture itself has expressly asserted to possess a typicalcharacter; theother inferred,consistingofsuchas, thoughnotspeciallynoticed or explained in [[@Page:29]] Scripture, were yet, on probablegrounds,inferredbyinterpretersasconformabletotheanalogyoffaith,

andthepracticeoftheinspiredwritersinregardtosimilarexamples.[9]Thislatterclasswereconsiderednotlessproperandvalidthantheother;and pains were taken to distinguish them from those which weresometimes forged by Papists, and which were at variance with theanalogies justmentioned. Of course, from their very nature they couldonly be employed for the support and confirmation of truths alreadyreceived, and not to provewhatwas in itself doubtful. But not on thataccount were they to be less carefully searched for, or less confidentlyused,because thusonly, itwasmaintained,couldChristbe found inallScripture,whichthroughouttestifiesofHim.

Itisevidentalone,fromthisgeneralstatement,thattherewassomethingvagueand loose in theCocceian system,which left ample scope for theindulgence of a luxuriant fancy.Nor canwewonder that, in practice, amereresemblance,howeveraccidentalortrifling,betweenanoccurrenceinOld, and another inNewTestament times,was deemed sufficient toconstitute the one a type of the other. Hence in the writings of theeminent and learnedmen above referred to, we find the name of Abel(emptiness)viewedasprefiguringourLordshumiliation;theoccupationofAbel,Christ'sofficeastheShepherdofIsrael;thewithdrawalofIsaacfromhisfather'shousetothelandofMoriah,Christ'sbeingledoutofthetemple to Calvary; Adam's awaking out of sleep, Christ's resurrectionfrom the dead; Samson's meeting a young lion by the way, and thetransactions that followed, Christ's meeting Saul on the road toDamascus, with the important train of events to which it led; David'sgathering to himself a party of the distressed, the bankrupt, anddiscontented, Christ's receiving intoHis Church publicans and sinners;withmanyothersofalikenature.

Multitudesofexamplesperfectlysimilar—thatis,equallydestituteofanyproper foundation in principle—are to be found in writers of our owncountry, such as Mather,[10] Keach,[11] [[@Page:30]] Worden,[12] J.Taylor,[13]Guild,[14]whobelongedtothesameschoolofinterpretation,andwhonearlyalllivedtowardthelatterpartoftheseventeenthcentury.Excepting the two first, they make no attempt to connect theirexplanations with any principles of interpretation, and these two verysparingly. Their works were all intended for popular use, and rather

exhibited by particular examples, than systematically expounded thenatureoftheirviews.They,however,agreedinadmittinginferredaswellas innate types, but differed more perhaps from constitutionaltemperament than on theoretical grounds in the extent to which theyrespectively carried the liberty they claimed to go beyond the explicitwarrantofNewTestamentScripture.Matherinparticular,andWorden,usuallyconfinethemselvestosuchtypesashaveobtainedspecialnoticeof somekind from thewritersof theNewTestament; though theyheldtheprinciple,that"wheretheanalogywasevidentandmanifestbetweenthings under the law and things under the Gospel, the one were to beconcluded (on the ground simply of that analogy) to be types of theother." How far this warrant from analogy was thought capable ofleading,maybelearnedfromTaylorandGuild,especiallyfromthelatter,whohasno fewer than forty-nine typical resemblancesbetweenJosephand Christ, and seven teen between Jacob and Christ, not scrupling toswell the number by occasionally taking in acts of sin, as well ascircumstances of an altogether trivial nature. Thus, Jacob's being asupplanter of his brother, is made to represent Christ's supplantingdeath, sin, and Satan; his being obedient to his parents in all things,Christ's subjection toHis heavenly Father andHis earthly parents; hispurchasing his birthright by red pottage, and obtaining the blessing bypresenting savoury vension to his father, clothed in Esau's garment,Christ'spurchasingtheheavenlyinheritancetousbyHisredblood,andobtainingtheblessingbyofferingupthesavourymeatofHisobedience,intheborrowedgarmentofournature,etc.

Now,wemay affirm of these, andmany similar examples occurring inwritersofthesameclass,thattheanalogythey[[@Page:31]]founduponwas a merely superficial resemblance appearing between things in theOldandotherthingsintheNewTestamentScriptures.Butresemblancesof this sort are so extremelymultifarious, and appear also so differentaccordingtothepointofviewfromwhichtheyarecontemplated,thatitwas obviously possible for anyone to take occasion through them tointroduce the most frivolous conceits, and to caricature rather thanvindicate the grand themeof theGospel. Then, if suchweightwas fitlyattachedtomereresemblancesbetweentheOldandtheNew,evenwhenthey were altogether of a slight and superficial kind, why should not

profane as well as sacred history be ran sacked for them? What, forexample,mightpreventRomulus(seeingthatGodisinallhistory,ifthisactuallywerehistory)assemblingabandofdesperadoes,andfoundingaworld-wide empire on the banks of the Tiber, from serving, as well asDavid in the circumstances specified above, to typify the procedure ofChrist in calling tohimpublicansandsinnersat the commencementofHiskingdom?Asmanypointsofresemblancemightbefoundintheonecaseasintheother;andthetwotransactionsinancienthistory,asherecontemplated, stood much on the same footing as regards theappointmentofGod; forbothalikewere theoffspringofhumanpolicy,struggling against outward difficulties, and endeavouring with suchmaterials aswere available to supply thewant of better resources.Andthus,bypushingthematterbeyonditsjustlimits,wereducethesacredtoa level with the profane, and, at the same time, throw an air ofuncertaintyoverthewholeaspectofitstypicalcharacter.[15]

That the Cocceian mode of handling the typical matter of ancientScriptureso readilyadmittedof the introductionof trifling, far-fetched,andevenaltogetherfalseanalogies,wasoneofitscapitaldefects.Ithadnoessentialprinciplesorfixedrulesbywhichtoguideitsinterpretationssetupnoproper[[@Page:32]]landmarksalongthefieldofinquiry—leftroom on every hand for arbitrariness and caprice to enter. It was this,perhaps, more than anything else, which tended to bring typicalinterpretations into disrepute, and disposedmen, in proportion as theexactandcriticalstudyofScripturecametobecultivated,toregardthesubject of its typology as hopelessly involved in conjecture anduncertainty. Yet this was not the only fault inherent in the typologicalsystemnow under consideration. It failed,more fundamentally still, intheideaithadformedoftheconnectionbetweentheOldandtheNewinGod'sdispensationsbetweenthetypeandthethingtypifiedwhichcametobethrownmainlyuponthemereformsandaccidentsofthings,tothecomparative neglect of the great fundamental principles which arecommonaliketoalldispensations,andinwhichthemorevitalpartoftheconnectionmustbesought.Itwasthismoreradicalerror,whichinfactgave rise to thegreaterportionof theextravagances thatdisfigured thetypicalillustrationsofourelderdivines;foritnaturallyledthemtomakeaccount of coincidences that were often unimportant, and sometimes

only apparent. Andnot only so; but it also led them to undervalue theimmediateobjectanddesignof the types in their relation to thosewholivedamongst them.While theseas types speaka language that canbedistinctlyand intelligentlyunderstoodonlybyus,whoareprivileged toread their meaning in the light of Gospel realities, they yet had, asinstitutionsintheexistingworship,oreventsinthecurrentprovidenceofGod, a present purpose to accomplish, apart from the prospectivereferencetofuturetimes,andwemightalmostsay,asmuchasifnosuchreferencehadbelongedtothem.

IV.TheseinherenterrorsandimperfectionsinthetypologicalsystemoftheCocceianschool,werenotlonginleadingtoitsgeneralabandonment.Buttheologyhadlittlereasontoboastofthechange.Forthesystemthatsupplantedit,withoutenteringatallintoamoreprofoundinvestigationofthesubject,orattemptingtoexplainmoresatisfactorilythegroundsofa typical connection between the Old and the New, simply contenteditself with admitting into the rank of types what had been expresslytreatedassuchintheScriptureitself,tothe[[@Page:33]]exclusionofallbesides. This seemed to be the only safeguard against error andextravagance.[16] And yet, we fear, other reasons of a less justifiablenaturecontributednotalittletoproducetheresult.Anunhappycurrenthad begun to set in upon the Protestant Church in some places whileCocceius still lived, and in others soon after his death, which disposedmanyofhermoreeminent teachers to slight theevangelicalelement inChristianity,and,ifnotutterlytolosesightofChristHimself,atleasttodisrelishandrepudiateasystemwhichdelightedtofindtracesofHiminevery part of revelation. It was the redeeming point of the earliertypology,whichshouldbeallowedtogofarinextenuatingtheoccasionalerrorsconnectedwithit,thatitkepttheworkandkingdomofChristeverprominently in view, as the grand scope and end of all God'sdispensations.Itfelt,ifwemaysospeak,correctly,whateveritmayhavewantedintherequisitedepthandprecisionofthought.Buttowardstheend of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century, ageneral coldness very commonly discovered itself, both in the writingsandthelivesofeventhemoreorthodoxsectionsoftheChurch.Thelivingenergy and zeal which had achieved such important results a centurybefore, either inactively slumbered, or spent itself in doctrinal

controversies; and the faith of the Church [[@Page:34]] Was firstcorrupted in itssimplicity,andthenweakened in its foundationsbytheperniciousinfluenceofawidelycultivated,butessentiallyanti-Christianphilosophy. In such circumstances Christ was not allowed to maintainHisproperplaceintheNewTestament;anditisnottobewonderedatifHeshouldhavebeennearlybanishedfromtheOld.

Vitringa, who lived when this degeneracy from better times hadmadeconsiderable progress, attributed to itmuch of that distastewhichwasthenbeginningtoprevailinregardtotypicalinterpretationsofScripture.With special reference to the work of Spencer on the Laws of theHebrews,—aworknotlessremarkableforitslow-toned,semi-heathenishspirit, than for its varied and well-digested learning,—he lamented theinclination that appeared to seek for the grounds and reasons of theMosaic institutions in the mazes of Egyptian idolatry, instead ofendeavouringtodiscoverinthemthemysteriesoftheGospel.These,hebelieved,theHolySpirithadplainly intimatedtobecouchedthere;andthey shone, indeed, so manifestly through the institutions themselves,that it seemed impossible for anyone not to perceive the type, whorecognised the antitype. Nor could he conceal his fear, that the talent,authority, and learning of such men as Spencer would gain extensivecreditfortheiropinions,andsoonbringtheTypologyofScripture,asheunderstood it, into general contempt.[17] In this apprehension he wascertainly not mistaken. Another generation had scarcely passed awaywhen Dathe published his edition of the Sacred Philology of Glass, inwhichthesectionontypes,towhichwehavealreadyreferred,waswhollyomitted,asrelatingtoasubjectnolongerthoughtworthyofarecognisedplaceinthescienceofanenlightenedtheology.Therationalisticspirit,inthe progress of its anti-Christian tendencies, had now discarded theinnate, as well as the inferred types of the elder divines; and theconvenient principle of accommodation, which was at the same timeintroduced, furnished an easy solution for those passages in NewTestament Scripture which seemed to indicate a typical relationshipbetweenthepastandthe future. Itwasregardedasonlyanadaptation,originatinginJewishprejudiceorconceit,ofthefactsandinstitutionsofan earlier age to things essentially [[@Page:35]] different under theGospel;butnow, since the stateof feeling thatgave rise to itno longer

existed,deservedlysufferedtofallintodesuetude.Andthusthebondwasvirtually brokenby thehandof these rationalizing theologians betweentheOldandtheNewinRevelation;andtherecordsofChristianity,whenscientifically interpreted, were found to have marvellously little incommonwiththoseofJudaism.

In Britain various causes contributed to hold in check this downwardtendency,andtopreventitfromreachingthesameexcessofdishonourtoChrist,which it soonattainedon theContinent.Evenpersonsofa coldand philosophical temperament, such as Clarke and Jortin, not onlywroteindefenceoftypes,ashavingacertainlegitimateuseinRevelation,butalsoadmittedmorewithinthecircleoftypesthanScriptureitselfhasexpresslyappliedtoGospeltimes.[18]Theyurged, indeed,thenecessityofexercisingthegreatestcautionintravellingbeyondtheexplicitwarrantofScripture; and in their general castof thought theyundoubtedlyhadmoreaffinitywiththeSpencerianthantheCocceianschool.Yetafeelingof the close and pervading; connection between the Old and the NewTestament dispensations restrained them from discarding the moreimportantof the inferred types. Jortin especially falls somuch into theveinofearlierwriters, thatheemployshis ingenuity inreckoningupasmany as forty particulars inwhichMoses typically prefiguredChrist. Aworkcomposedabout thesameperiodas that towhich theRemarksofJortin belong, and one that has hadmore influence than any other infashioning the typological views generally entertained in Scotland—theproductionofayoungdissentingministerinDundee(MrM'Ewen)[19]—isstillmorefreeintheadmissionoftypesnotexpresslysanctionedintheScripturesoftheNewTestament.Theworkitselfbeingposthumous,andintended for popular use, contains no investigation of the grounds onwhich typical interpretations rest, andharmonizesmuchmorewith theschool that had flourished in [[@Page:36]] the previous century, thanthat to which Clarke and Jortin belonged. As indicative of a particularstyleofbiblicalinterpretation,itmaybeclassedwiththeproductionsofMatherandTaylor,andpartakesalikeoftheirexcellencesanddefects.

There was, therefore, a considerable unwillingness in this country toabandon the Cocceian ground on the subject of types. The declensioncameingradually,anditsprogresswasrathermarkedbyatacitrejection

in practice ofmuch thatwas previously held to be typical, than by theintroduction of views specifically different. It became the practice oftheologianstolookmoreintothegeneralnatureofthingsforthereasonsofChristianity,thanintothepre-existingelementsandcharacteristicsofformerdispensations;andtoaccountforthepeculiaritiesofJudaismbyitspartlyantagonistic,partlyhomogeneousrelationtoPaganism,ratherthanbyanycovertreferenceitmighthavetothecomingrealitiesoftheGospel. As an inevitable consequence, the typological department oftheology fell into general neglect, from which the Old TestamentScripturesthemselvesdidnotaltogetherescape.Thoseportionsofthemespeciallywhich narrate the history and prescribe the religious rites oftheancientChurch,werebutrarelytreatedinamannerthatbespokeanyconfidence in their fitness tominister to the spiritual discernment andfaith of Christians. It seems, partly at least, to have been owing to thisgrowing distaste for Old Testament inquiries, and this generaldepreciation of its Scriptures, that what is called the Hutchinsonianschool arose in England, which, by a sort of recoil from the prevailingspirit,ranintotheoppositeextremeofsearchingfortheelementsofallknowledge,humananddivine,inthewritingsoftheOldTestament.Thisschoolpossesses toomuch thecharacterofanepisode in thehistoryofbiblicalinterpretationinthiscountry,andwasitselftoostronglymarkedbyaspiritofextravagance,torenderanyformalaccountof itnecessaryhere. It was, besides, chiefly of a physico-theological character,combining the elements of a natural philosophy with the truths ofrevelation, both ofwhich it sought to extract from the statements, andsometimes even from the words and letters of Scripture. The mostprofoundmeaningswere consequently discovered in the sacred text, inrespectaliketothedoctrinesoftheGospelandthetruthsof[[@Page:37]]science.Oneofthemaximsofitsfounderwas,that"everypassageoftheOld Testament looks backward and forward, and every way, like lightfromthesun;notonlyto thestatebeforeandunderthe law,butundertheGospel,andnothingishidfromthelightthereof."[20]Whensuchadepthandcomplexityofmeaningwassupposed tobe involved ineverypassage,we neednot be surprised to learn, respecting the exactness ofAbraham's knowledge of future events, that he knew from precedingtypesandpromises,that"oneofhisownlinewastobesacrificed,tobeablessing to all the race of Adam;" and not only so, but that when he

received the command to offer Isaac, he proceeded to obey it, "notdoubtingthatIsaacwastobethatpersonwhoshouldredeemman."[21]

ThecabalisticandextravagantcharacteroftheHutchinsoniansystem,ifit had any definite influence on the study of types and other cognatesubjects,couldonlytendtoincreasethesuspicionwithwhichtheywerealreadyviewed,andfosteradispositiontoagreetowhatevermightkeepinvestigationwithin theboundsof sobrietyanddiscretion.Accordingly,whilenothingmorewasdonetounfoldtheessentialandpropergroundof a typical connectionbetweenOld andNewTestament things, and topreventabuseby tracing thematterup to itsultimateand fundamentalprinciples, themore scientific students of the Bible came, by a sort ofcommonconsent,toacquiesceintheopinion,thatthoseonlyweretobereckonedtypestowhichScriptureitself,byexpresswarrant,oratleastbyobvious implication,hadassigned thatcharacter.BishopMarshmaybenamedasperhapstheablestandmostsystematicexpounderofthisviewof the subject. He says, —"There is no other rule by which we candistinguish a real from a pretended type, than that of Scripture itself.Therearenootherpossiblemeansbywhichwecanknowthatapreviousdesign and a pre-ordained connection existed. Whatever persons orthings,therefore,recordedintheOldTestament,wereexpresslydeclaredbyChrist orbyHis apostles tohavebeendesignedasprefigurationsofpersonsorthingsrelatingtotheNewTestament,suchpersonsorthingssorecordedintheformer,aretypesofthepersonsorthingswithwhichthey are compared in the latter.But ifwe assert that apersonor thing[[@Page:38]]wasdesigned toprefigureanotherpersonor thing,wherenosuchprefigurationhasbeendeclaredbydivineauthority,wemakeanassertion for which we neither have, nor can have, the slightestfoundation."[22] This is certainly a very authoritative and peremptorydecision of the matter. But the principle involved in this statement,though seldom so oracularly announced, has long been practicallyreceived. ItwassubstantiallyadoptedbyMacknight, inhisDissertationontheInterpretationofScripture,attheendofhisCommentaryontheEpistles, beforeBishopMarshwrote; and it has been followed sincebyVanmildert and Conybeare in their Bampton Lectures, by Nares in hisWarburtonianLectures,byChevalier inhisHulseanLectures,byHomeinhisIntroduction,andahostofotherwriters.

Judging from an article in the American Biblical Repository, whichappeared in the number for January 1841, it would appear that theleadingauthoritiesontheothersideoftheAtlanticconcurredinthesamegeneral view. The reviewer himself advocates the opinion, that "noperson,event,orinstitution,shouldberegardedastypical,butwhatmaybeprovedtobesuchfromtheScriptures,"meaningbythattheirexplicitassertioninregardtotheparticularcase.Andinsupportofthisopinionhe quotes, besides English writers, the words of two of his owncountrymen,ProfessorStoweandMosesStuart,thelatterofwhomsays,—"That justsomuchof theOldTestament is tobeaccountedtypicalastheNewTestamentaffirmstobeso,andnomore.Thefact,thatanythingoreventundertheOldTestamentdispensationwasdesignedtoprefiguresomethingundertheNew,canbeknowntousonlybyrevelation;andofcourseallthatisnotdesignatedbydivineauthorityastypical,canneverbemadesobyanyauthoritylessthanthatwhichguidedthewritersoftheNewTestament."[23]

Now,theviewembracedbythisschoolofinterpretationliesopentooneobjection,incommonwiththeschoolthatprecededit.Whilethefield,asto its extent, was greatly circumscribed, and in its boundaries ruled aswithsquareandcompass,nothingwasdoneinthewayofinvestigatingitinternally, or of unfolding the grounds of connectionbetween type andantitype. Fewer points of resemblance are usually presented to usbetweenthe[[@Page:39]]oneandtheotherbythewritersofthisschoolthan arc found in works of an older date; but the resemblancesthemselvesarequiteasmuchofasuperficialandoutwardkind.Therealharmony and connection between the Old and the New in the divinedispensations, stoodpreciselywhere itwas.Butotherdefectsadhere tothismorerecenttypologicalsystem.TheleadingexcellenceofthesystemthatprecededitwastheconstantreferenceitconceivedtheScripturesoftheOld Testament to bear toward Christ and the Gospel dispensation;and the practical disavowal of thismay be said to constitute the greatdefectofthemoreexact,butbaldersystem,whichsupplanteditwiththegeneralsuffrageofthelearned.Itdropsagoldenprincipleforthesakeofavoidingafewlawlessaberrations.Withsuchnarrowlimitsas itsetstoour inquiries, we cannot indeed wander far into the regions ofextravagance. But in the very prescription of these limits, itwrongfully

withholdsfromusthekeyofknowledge,andshutsusuptoevilsscarcelyless tobedeprecated than those it seeks to correct.For itdestroys toalarge extent the bond of connection between the Old and the NewTestamentScriptures,andthusdeprivestheChristianChurchofmuchoftheinstructionindivinethingswhichtheyweredesignedtoimpart.Weremenaccustomed,astheyshouldbe,tosearchforthegermsofChristiantruthintheearliestScriptures,andtoregardtheinspiredrecordsofbothcovenantsashavingfortheirleadingobject"thetestimonyofJesus,"theywouldknowhowmuchtheywerelosersbysuchanunduecontractionofthe typical element inOldTestamentScripture.And inproportionas amore profound and spiritual acquaintance with the divine word iscultivated,will thefeelingofdissatisfactiongrowinrespecttoastyleofinterpretation that somiserably dwarfs and cripples the relationwhichthepreparatorybearstotheultimateinGod'srevelations.

Itisnecessary,however,totakeacloserviewofthesubject.Theprincipleonwhichthistypologicalsystemtakesitsstand,is,thatnothinglessthaninspired authority is sufficient to deter mine the reality and import ofanything that is typical. But what necessary reason or solid ground isthere for such a principle?No oneholds thenecessity of inspiration toexplain each particular prophecy, and decide evenwith certainty on its[[@Page:40]]fulfilment;andwhyshoulditbereckonedindispensableinthecloselyrelatedsubjectoftypes?ThisquestionwaslongagoaskedbyWitsius, and yet waits for a satisfactory answer. A part only, it isuniversally allowed, of the prophecies which refer to Christ and Hiskingdom have been specially noticed and interpreted by the pen ofinspiration. So little necessary, indeed, was inspiration for such apurpose,thatevenbeforethedescentoftheHolySpiritatPentecost,ourLordreprovedHisdisciplesas"foolsandslowofhearttobelieveallthattheprophetshadspoken."And fromthecloseanalogybetween the twosubjects—for what is a type but a prophetical act or institution?— wemight reasonably infer the same liberty to have been granted, and thesameobligation tobe imposed, in regard to the typicalpartsofancientScripture. But we have something more than a mere argument fromanalogy to guide us to this conclusion. For the very same complaint isbroughtbyaninspiredwriteragainstprivateChristiansconcerningtheirslowness in understanding the typical, which our Lord brought against

Hisdisciples inrespect to thepropheticalportionsofancientScripture.In the epistle to the Hebrews a sharp reproof is administered for theimperfect acquaintance believers among them had with the typicalcharacter ofMelchizedek, and subjects of a like nature—thus placing itbeyondadoubt that it isboth thedutyand theprivilegeof theChurch,withthatmeasureoftheSpirit'sgracewhichitisthepartevenofprivateChristians topossess, to search into the typesof ancientScripture, andcome to a correct understanding of them. To deny this, is plainly towithholdan importantprivilege from theChurchofChrist; todissuadefromit,istoencouragetheneglectofanincumbentduty.

Buttheunsoundnessoftheprinciple,whichwouldthuslimitthenumberof types to thosewhichNewTestamentScripturehas expresslynoticedand explained, becomes stillmore apparentwhen it is consideredwhatthesereallyare,andinwhatmannertheyareintroduced.Leavingoutofviewthetabernacle,withitsfurnitureandservices,which,asawhole,isaffirmedintheepistlestotheHebrewsandtheColossianstohavebeenofatypicalnature,thefollowingexamplesarewhatthewritersnowreferredto usually regard as having something [[@Page:41]] like an explicitsanction in Scripture: 1. Persons or characters: Adam (Rom. 5:11, 12; 1Cor. 15:22;Melchizedek (Heb. 7);SarahandHagar, Ishmaeland Isaac,andbyimplicationAbraham(Gal.4:22-35);Moses(Gal.3:19;Acts3:22-26);Jonah(Matt.12:40);David(Ezek.37:24;Luke1:32,etc.);Solomon(2 Sam. 7); Zerubbabel and Joshua (Zech. 3, 4; Hag. 2:23). 2.Transactionsorevents:thepreservationofNoahandhisfamilyintheark(1 Pet. 3:20); the redemption from Egypt and its passover-memorial(Luke22:15,16;1Cor.5:7;theexodus(Matt.2:15);thepassagethroughtheRedSea,thegivingofmanna,Mosesveilingofhisfacewhilethelawwasread;thewaterflowingfromthesmittenrock;theserpentliftedupfor healing in the wilderness, and some other things that befell theIsraelitesthere(1Cor.10;John3:14,5:33;Rev.2:17).[24]

Now, let any person of candour and intelligence take his Bible, andexamine the passages to which reference is here made, and then say,whether themanner inwhich these typical characters and transactionsarethereintroduced,issuchastoindicate,thatthesealonewereheldbythe inspired writers to be prefigurative of similar characters and

transactions under the Gospel? that in naming them they meant toexhaustthetypicalbearingofOldTestamenthistory?Onthecontrary,wedeemit impossible foranyone toavoid theconviction, that inwhateverrespecttheseparticularexamplesmayhavebeenadduced,itissimplyasexamples adapted to the occasion, and taken from [[@Page:42]] a vaststorehouse,wheremanymorewere tobe found.Theyhave somuchatleast theappearanceofhavingbeenselectedmerelyonaccountof theirsuitableness to the immediate end in view, that they cannot fairly beregardedotherwisethanasspecimensoftheclasstheybelongto.Andifso,theyshouldratherhavetheeffectofpromptingfurtherinquirythanofrepressingit;since,insteadofthemselvescomprehendingandboundingthewhole field of Scriptural Typology, they only exhibit practically theprinciplesonwhichothersofalikedescriptionaretobediscoveredandexplained.

Indeed, were it otherwise, nothing could be more arbitrary andinexplicable than this Scriptural typology. For, what is there todistinguish the characters and events, which Scripture has thusparticularized, fromamultitudeof others, towhich the typical elementmight equally have been supposed to belong? Is there anything on thefaceof the inspiredrecord tomakeus lookon them ina singular light,and attribute to them a significance altogether peculiar respecting thefutureaffairsofGod'skingdom?Sofarfromit,thatweinstinctivelyfeel,if these really possessed a typical character, so alsomust others,whichholdanequally,orperhapsevenmoreprominentplaceinthehistoryofGod'sdispensations.Canitbeseriouslybelieved,forexample,thatSarahandHagarstoodinatypicalrelationtoGospeltimes,whilenosuchplacewasoccupiedbyRebekah,asthespouseofIsaac,andthemotherofJacoband Esau? What reason can we imagine for Melchizedek and Jonahhaving been constituted types—persons to whom our attention iscomparativelylittledrawninOldTestamenthistory—whilesuchleadingcharactersasJoseph,Sampson,Joshua,areomitted?Or,forselectingthepassagethroughtheRedSea,andtheincidents inthewilderness,whileno account should be made of the passage through Jordan, and theconquestofthelandofCanaan?

Wecanscarcelyconceiveofamodeof interpretationwhichshoulddeal

morecapriciouslywiththewordofGod,andmakesoanomalousauseofits historical records. Instead of investing these with a homogeneouscharacter, it arbitrarily selects a few out of the general mass, and setsthemupinsolitarygrandeur,likemysticsymbolsinatemple,fictitiouslyelevatedabovethesacredmaterialsaroundthem.Theexplodedprinciple,which [[@Page:43]] sought a type in every notice of Old Testamenthistory,hadatleastthemeritofuniformitytorecommendit,andcouldnotbesaidtodealpartially,howeveroftenitmightdealfancifully,withthe facts of ancient Scripture. But according to the plan now underreview,forwhichtheauthorityofinspirationitselfisclaimed,weperceivenothing but arbitrary distinctions and groundless preferences. Andthoughunquestionably itwerewrong to expect in theword ofGod themethodicalprecisionandorderwhichmightnaturallyhavebeenlookedfor in a merely human composition, yet as the product, amid all itsvariety,ofoneandthesameSpirit,wearewarrantedtoexpectthatthereshall be a consistent agreement among its several parts, and thatdistinctionsshallnotbecreatedintheoneTestament,whichintheotherseemdestituteofanyjustfoundationorapparentreason.

Butthen,ifagreaterlatitudeisallowed,howshallweguardagainsterrorandextravagance?WithouttheexpressauthorityofScripture,howshallwebeabletodistinguishbetweenahappyillustrationandarealtype?InthewordsofBishopMarsh:"Bywhatmeansshallwedetermine, inanygiven instance, thatwhat is alleged as a type,was really designed for atype?TheonlypossiblesourceofinformationonthissubjectisScriptureitself. The only possible means of knowing that two distant, thoughsimilarhistoricalfacts,weresoconnectedinthegeneralschemeofDivineProvidence that the one was designed to prefigure the other, is theauthority of that book in which the scheme of Divine Providence isunfolded."[25]This is anobjection, indeed,which strikes at the root ofthewholematter,anditsvaliditycanonlybeascertainedbyathoroughinvestigation into the fundamental principles of the subject. ThatScriptureisthesolerule,ontheauthorityofwhichwearetodistinguishwhatisproperlytypicalfromwhatisnot,wereadilygrant—thoughnotinthestraitenedsensecontendedforbyBishopMarshandthosewhoholdsimilarviews,asiftherewerenowayforScripturetofurnishasufficientdirectionon thesubject,exceptbyspecifyingeveryparticularcase. It is

possible, surely, that in this, as well as in other things, Scripture mayindicate certain fundamental viewsorprinciples, ofwhich itmakesbut[[@Page:44]]afewindividualapplications,andfortherestleavesthemin the hand of spiritually enlightened consciences. The rather may wethusconclude,asit isoneoftheleadingpeculiaritiesofNewTestamentScripture to develop great truths,muchmore than to dwell onminuteandisolatedfacts.Itisapresumptionagainst,notinfavourof,thesystemwenowoppose,thatitwouldshutuptheTypologyofScripture,insofarasconnectedwiththecharactersandeventsofsacredhistory,withinthenarrow circle of a few scattered and apparently randomexamples.Andtheattempttorescueitfromthisposition,if inanymeasuresuccessful,willalsoservetoexhibittheunityofdesignwhichpervadestheinspiredrecords of both covenants, the traces they contain of the same Divinehand, the subservience of the one to the other, and the mutualdependencealikeoftheOldupontheNew,andoftheNewupontheOld.

V.Wehavestill,however,anotherstageofourcriticalsurveybeforeus,andonecalling insomerespects forcarefuldiscriminationand inquiry.The style of interpretation which we have connected with the name ofMarsh could not, in the nature of things, afford satisfaction tomen ofthoughtfulminds,whomusthavesomethinglikeequitableprinciplesaswell as external authority to guide them in their interpretations. Suchpersons could not avoid feeling that, if there was so much in the OldTestament bearing a typical relation to the New, as was admitted onScripturalauthorityby theschoolofMarsh, theremustbeconsiderablymore; and also, that underneath that authority there must be asubstratumoffundamentalprinciplescapableofbearingwhatScriptureitselfhasraisedonit,andwhateverbesidesmayfitlybeconjoinedwithit.But some, again, might possibly be of opinion that the authority ofScripture cannot warrantably carry us so far; and that both Scripturalauthority, and the fundamental principles involved in thenature of thesubject, apply only in part to what the disciples of Marsh regarded astypical.Accordingly, amongmore recent inquirerswehaveexamplesofeach mode of divergence from the formal rules laid down by thepreceding school of interpretation. The search for first principles hasdisposedsomegreatlytoenlargethetypologicalfield,andithasdisposedothersnotlesstocurtailit.

[[@Page:45]] 1. To take the latter class first, as they standmost nearlyrelatedtotheschoollastdiscoursedof,representativesofitarecertainlynot wanting on the Continent, among whom may be named thehermeneuticalwriterKlausen,towhomreferencewillpresentlybemadein another connection. But it is the less needful here to call in foreignauthorities, as the view in question has had its advocates in our owntheologicalliterature.Itwasexhibited,forexample,inDrL.Alexander'sConnection and Harmony of the Old and New Testament (1841), inwhich,whilecoincidingsubstantiallywithBahrinhismodeofexplainingand applying to Gospel times the symbolical institutions of the OldCovenant,heyetdeclaredhimselfopposedtoanyfurtherextensionofthetypical sphere. He would regard nothing as entitled to the name oftypical,whichdidnotpossessthecharacterof"adivine institution;"or,as he formally defines the entire class, "they are symbolical institutesexpresslyappointedbyGodtoprefiguretothoseamongwhomtheywereset up certain great transactions in connection with that plan ofredemption which, in the fulness of time, was to be unfolded tomankind." Hence the historical types of every description, even thosewhich the school ofMarsh recognised on account of the place given tothem in New Testament Scripture, were altogether disallowed; the usemade of them by the inspired writers was held to be "for illustrationmerely,andnotforthepurposeofbuildinganythingonthem;"theyarenottherebyconstitutedorprovedtobetypes.

Thesameview,however,wastakenupandreceivedamuchkeenerandfuller advocacy by the American writer Mr. Lord, in a periodical notunknown in this country—the Ecclesiastical and Literary Journal (No.XV).Thiswasdone in connectionwitha fierce andelaborate reviewofthe first edition of the Typology, in the course of which its system ofexpositionwas denounced as "amonstrous scheme," not only "withoutthe sanction of the word of God," but "one of the boldest and mosteffectivecontrivancesforitssubversion."Itisnotmyintentionnowless,indeed, when issuing this new edition (the fourth) than formerly toattempt to rebut such offensive charges, or to expose themisrepresentations on which to a large extent they were grounded. Ishouldevenhavepreferred,had[[@Page:46]]itbeeninmypowertodoso,repairingtosomevindicationofthesameview,equallystrenuousin

itsadvocacy,butconductedinacalmerandfairertone,inorderthatthediscussionmightbearlessofapersonalaspect.Butasmypresentobjectispartlytounfoldthegradualprogressanddevelopmentofopinionuponthe subject of Scriptural Typology, justice could scarcely be done to itwithouthearingwhatMrLordhas to say for the sectionofBritish andAmerican theologians he represents, and meeting it with a briefrejoinder.

Thewriter'smodewasacomparativelyeasyoneforprovinganegativetotheviewhecontroverted.Hebeganwithsettingforthadescriptionofthenatureand characteristicsof a type, so tightenedandcompressedas toexclude all from the category but what pertained to "the tabernacleworship,orthepropitiationandhomageofGod."Andhavingthuswithakind of oracular precision drawn his enclosure, it was not difficult todisposeofwhateverelsemightclaimtobeadmitted;foritisputtoflightthemomenthepresentshisexactdefinitions,andcanonlybeconsideredtypical by persons of dreamy intellect, who are utter strangers toclearnessofthoughtandprecisionoflanguage.Inthiswayitispossible,weadmit,andalsonotverydifficult,tomakeoutaschemeandestablishanomenclatureofone'sown;butthequestionis,Doesitaccordwiththerepresentations of Scripture? andwill it serve, in respect to these, as aguidingandharmonizingprinciple?Wemight,inasimilarway,drawouta series of precise and definite characteristics ofMessianic prophecy,—such as, that it must avowedly bear the impress of a prediction of thefuture—that it must in the most explicit terms point to the person ortimes of Messiah that it must be conveyed in language capable of noambiguityordoublereference;andthen,withthissharpweaponinourhand,proceedsummarilytolopoffallsupposedpropheticalpassagesinwhich these characteristics are wanting—holding such, if applied toMessianictimes,tobemereaccommodations,originallyintendedforonething, and afterwards loosely adapted to another. The rationalists of aformergenerationweregreatadeptsinthismodeofhandlingpropheticalScripture,andbytheuseofitdexterouslygotridofagoodlynumberofthepassageswhichintheNewTestamentarerepresentedasfindingtheirfulfilment [[@Page:47]] in Christ. But we have yet to learn, that by sodoing they succeeded in throwing any satisfactory light on theinterpretation of Scripture, or in placing on a Scriptural basis the

connectionbetweentheOldandtheNewinGod'sdispensations.

HowcloselytheprinciplesofMrLordleadhimtotreadinthefootstepsoftheseeffeteinterpreters,willappearpresently.Butwemustfirstlodgeourprotestagainsthisaccountoftheessentialnatureandcharacteristicsofatype,asentirelyarbitraryandunsupportedbyScripture.Thethingsreally possessing this character, hemaintains,must havehad the threefollowingdistinctivemarks:Theymusthavebeenspecificallyconstitutedtypes by God; must have been known to be so constituted, andcontemplatedassuchbythosewhohadtodowiththem;andmusthavebeen continued till the coming of Christ, when theywere abrogated orsupersededbysomethinganalogousintheChristiandispensation.Thesearehisessentialelementsintheconstitutionofatype;andanassertionof the want of one or more of them forms the perpetual refrain, withwhichhedisposesofthosecharactersandtransactionsthatinhisesteemarefalselyaccountedtypical.Weobjecttoeveryoneoftheminthesenseunderstoodbythewriter,anddenythatScripturalproofcanbeproducedfor them, as applying to the strictly religious symbols of the OldTestament worship, and to them alone. These were not specificallyconstitutedtypes,orformallysetupinthatcharacter,nomorethansuchtransactionsas thedeliverance fromEgypt,or thepreservationofNoahin the deluge,which are denied to have been typical. In themanner oftheir appointment, viewed by itself, there is no more to indicate areference to theMessianic future in the one than in the other.Neitherwere they for certain known to be types, and used as such by the OldTestament worshippers. They unquestionably were not so used in thetimeofourLord;andhowfartheymayhavebeenatanypreviousperiod,isamatteronlyofprobableinference,butnowhereofexpressrevelation.Nor, finally, was it by any means an invariable and indispensablecharacteristic, that they should have continued in use till they weresupersededbysomethinganalogousintheChristiandispensation.Someoftheanointingswerenotsocontinued,northeShekinah,noreventheArk of the Covenant; and some of them stood in occasional acts of[[@Page:48]]service,suchastheNazaritevow,initsverynaturespecialandtemporary.Theredemption fromEgyptwas in itselfasingleevent,yetitwascloselyalliedtothesymbolicalservices;foritwaslinkedtoanever-recurringandpermanentordinanceofworship.Itwasacreativeact,

bringing Israel as a people of God into formal existence, and as suchcapableonlyofbeingcommemorated,butnotofbeingrepeated. Itwascommemorated, however, in the passover-feast. In that feast theIsraelites continually freshened the remembrance of it anew on theirhearts. They in spirit re-enacted it as a thing that required to beconstantlyrenewingitself intheirexperience,as intheLord'sSupper isnowdonebyChristiansinregardtotheonegreatredemption-actonthecross.This, too, considered simplyasanact inGod'sadministration, isincapable of being repeated; it can only be commemorated, and in itseffectsspirituallyappliedtotheconscience.Yetsofarfrombeingtherebybereftofanantitypicalcharacter,itisthecentralantitypeoftheGospel.Whyshoulditbeotherwiseinrespecttothetype?Theanalogyofthingsfavoursit;andthetestimonyofScripturenotdoubtfullyrequiresit.

TosaynothingofotherpassagesofScripturewhichbear lessexplicitly,thoughtoourmindverymaterially,uponthesubject,ourLordHimself,at the celebration of the last passover, declared toHis disciples, "WithdesireIhavedesiredtoeatthispassoverwithyoubeforeIsuffer;forIsayunto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in thekingdomofGod."—(Luke22:15,16)Thatis,thereisaprophecyaswellasamemorialinthiscommemorativeordinance,—aprophecy,becauseitistherehearsalofatypicaltransaction,whichisnow,andonlynow,goingto meet with its full realization. Such appears to be the plain andunsophisticated import of ourLord'swords.And theApostlePaul is, ifpossible,stillmoreexplicitwhenhesays,"ForevenChristourpassoverissacrificedforus(moreexactly,Foralsoourpassoverhasbeensacrificed,Christ): therefore let us keep the feast," etc.—(1 Cor. 5:7, 8)What, weagainask,arewetounderstandbythesewords,ifnotthatthereisinthedesign and appointment of God an ordained connection between thesacrificeofChristandthesacrificeofthePassover,sothattheone,asthemeansofredemption,takestheplaceofthe[[@Page:49]]other?Inanyother sense the language would be only fitted tomislead, by begettingapprehensionsregardingamutualcorrespondenceandconnectionwhichhadnoexistence.Itisallegedontheotherside,that"Christisindeedsaidtobeourpassover,butitisbyametaphor,andindicatesonlythatitisbyHis bloodwe are saved from everlasting death, as the first-born of theHebrewsweresavedbythebloodofthepaschallambfromdeathbythe

destroyingangel."Werethisall,theApostlemightsurelyhaveexpressedhimself less ambiguously. If there was no real connection between theearlier and the later event, and the one stood asmuch apart from theotherasthelintelsofGosheninthemselvesdidfromthecrossofCalvary,whyemploylanguagethatforcesuponthemindsofsimplebelieversthereality of a proper connection? Simply, we believe, because it actuallyexisted;andour"exegeticalconscience,"touseaGermanphrase,refusestobesatisfiedwithMrLord'smeremetaphor.Butwhenhestatesfurther,that the passover, having been "appointed with a reference to theexemptionofthefirstbornoftheIsraelitesfromthedeaththatwastobeinflictedonthefirst-bornoftheEgyptians,itcannotbeatypeofChrist'sdeath for the sins of theworld, as thatwould imply thatChrist's deathalsowascommemorativeof thepreservationfromananalogousdeath,"whodoesnotperceivethatthisistoconfoundbetweenthepassoverasanoriginal redemptive transaction, and as a commemorative ordinance,pointingback to the great fact, andperpetually rehearsing it? It is as afestal solemnity alone that there can be anything commemorativebelongingeithertothePaschalsacrificeortoChrist's.Viewed,however,asredemptiveacts,therewasasufficientanalogybetweenthem:theoneredeemed the first-born of Israel (the firstlings of its families), and theotherredeems"theChurchofthefirst-born,whosenamesarewritteninheaven."

There ismanifested a like tendency to evacuate the propermeaning ofScripture in most of the other instances brought into consideration.Christ, forexample,callsHimself,withpointedreferencetothemanna,"thebreadoflife;"andinRev.2:17,aninterestinHisdivinelifeiscalled"aneatingofthehiddenmanna,"butitisonly"byametaphor,"preciselyasChrist elsewhere callsHimself the vine, or is likened to a rock.As if[[@Page:50]]therewerenodifferencebetweenanemploymentofthesenaturalemblemsandtheidentifyingofChristwiththesupernaturalfoodgiventosupportHispeople,afteraprovisionalredemption,andontheway to a provisional inheritance! It is not the simple reference to atemporalgoodonwhich, insuchacase,werest the typical import,butthis in connectionwith thewholeof the relationsand circumstances inwhichthetemporalwasgivenoremployed.Jonahwasnot,itisalleged,atype of Christ; for he is not called such, but only a "sign;" neitherwas

Melchizedekcalledbythatname.Well,butAdamiscalledatypeτύποςτοῦ μέλλαντος,Rom. 5:14), and baptism is called is the antitype to thedelugeὃκαὶὑμᾶςἀντίτυποννῦνσῴζειβάπτισμα,1Pet.3:21).True,butthen,wearetold,thewordinthesepassagesonlymeansasimilitude;itdoes notmean type or antitype in the proper sense.What, then, coulddenote it? Is there any other termmore properly fitted to express theidea?And if theprecise term,when it is employed, stilldoesnot serve,why object in other cases to the want of it? Strange, surely, that itspresenceanditsabsenceshouldbealikegroundsofobjection.Butifthematteristocometoameresticklingaboutwords,shallwehaveanytypesat all?Are even the tabernacle and its institutions ofworship calledbythatname?Notonce;butinversely,thedesignationofantitypesisinonepassageappliedtothem:"Theholyplacesmadewithhands,theantitypesofthetrue"(ἀντίτυπατῶνἀληθινῶν,Heb.9:24).

So littledoesScripture, in its teachingsonthissubject,encourageus tohang our theoretical explanations on a particular epithet! It varies themodeofexpressionwithallthefreedomofcommondiscourse,andeven,as in this particular instance, inverts the current phraseology; but still,amid all the variety, it indicates with sufficient plainness a realeconomical connection between the past and the present in God'sdispensations,—suchas is commonlyunderstoodby the terms typeandantitype;andthisisthegreatpoint,howeverwemaychoosetoexpressit.

ThepassageinGalatiansrespectingSarahandIsaacontheoneside,andHagar and Ishmael on the other, naturally formed one of someimportancefortheviewsoughttobeestablishedintheTypology,andassuchcalled forMrLord's specialconsideration.Here,as inothercases,he begins with the statement that [[@Page:51]] the characters andrelations therementionedhavenot the term type applied to them, andhenceshouldnotbereckonedtypical."Itisonlysaid,"hecontinues,"thatthatwhichisrelatedofHagarandSarahisexhibitedallegorically;thatis,that there are other things that, used as allegorical representatives ofHagar and Sarah, exhibit the same facts and truths. The object of theallegory is to exemplify them by analogous things; not by them toexemplifysomethingelse,towhichtheypresentaresemblance.Itistheywhoaresaidtobeallegorized,thatis,representedbysomethingelse;not

somethingelse that isallegorizedby them.Theyareaccordinglysaid tobethetwocovenants,thatis,likethetwocovenants;andMountSinaiisusedtorepresent thecovenant thatgenders tobondage;andJerusalemfromabove—thatis,theJerusalemofChrist'skingdom—thecovenantoffreedomorgrace.Andtheyaccordinglyareemployed[bytheApostle]toset forth the character and condition of the bond and the freewoman,and their offspring.He attempts to illustrate the lot of the two classeswho are under law and under grace; first, by referring to the differentrelationstothecovenant,anddifferentlotofthechildrenofthebondandthe free woman; and then, by using Mount Sinai to exemplify thecharacterandconditionofthoseundertheMosaiclaw,andtheheavenlyJerusalem,toexemplifythosewhoareundertheGospel.Theplacesfromwhichthetwocovenantsareproclaimedarethususedtorepresentthosetwo classes; not Hagar and Sarah to represent those places, or thecovenants that are proclaimed from them." Now, this show of exactcriticism—professingtoexplainall,andyetleavingthemainthingtotallyunexplained—is introduced, let it be observed, to expose an alleged"singular neglect of discrimination" in the use we had made of thepassage.We had, it seems, been guilty of the extraordinarymistake ofsupposingHagar andSarah tobe themselves the representatives in theApostle's allegorization, and not, as we should have done, the objectsrepresented. Does any of our readers, with all the advantage of thereviewer's explanation, recognise the importanceof thisdistinction?Orcan he tell how it serves to explicate the Apostle's argument? I cannotimagine how any one should do so? In itself itmight have been of nomoment, though it isofmuch for theApostle's [[@Page:52]]argument,whetherHagarandSarahbesaidtorepresentthetwocovenantsof lawand grace, or the two covenants be said to represent them; as inHeb.9:24, it is of no moment whether the earthly sanctuary be called theantitypeoftheheavenly,ortheheavenlyoftheearthly.Thereisinbothcasesalikeamutualrepresentation,orrelativecorrespondence;anditisthe nature of the correspondence, inferior and preparatory in the onecase,spiritualandultimateintheother,whichischieflyimportant.Itisthat (though entirely overlooked by the reviewer) which makes theApostle's appeal here to the historical transactions in the family ofAbrahamsuitableandappropriatetotheobjecthehasinview.Foritisbythemothersandtheirnaturaloffspringheintendstothrowlightonthe

covenants,andtheirrespectivetendenciesandresults.Itwastheearlierthat exemplified and illustrated the later, not the later that exemplifiedand illustrated the earlier; otherwise the reference of the Apostle ismisplaced,andthereasoninghefoundsonitmanifestlyinept.

One specimen more of this school of interpretation, and we leave it.Among the passages of Scripture that were referred to, as indicating atypicalrelationshipbetweentheOldandtheNewinGod'sdispensations,isMatt.2:15,wheretheevangelistspeaksofChristbeinginEgypttillthedeathofHerod,"thatitmightbefulfilledwhichwasspokenoftheLordbytheprophet,saying,OutofEgypthaveIcalledMySon."Theallusiontothispassageinthefirst,aswellasinthepresent,editionofthiswork,was never meant to convey the idea that it was the only ScripturalauthorityforconcludingatypicalrelationshiptohavesubsistedbetweenIsraelandChrist.Itwas,however,referredtoasoneofthepassagesmostcommonly employed by typological writers in proof of such arelationship,and in itselfmostobviously implying it.Butwhatsaysouropponent?"ThelanguageofMatthewdoesnotimplythatit(thepassagein Hosea) was a prophecy of Christ; he simply states, that JesuscontinuedinEgypttillHerod'sdeath,sothatthatoccurredinrespecttoHimwhich had been spoken by Jehovah by the prophet, Out of EgypthaveIcalledMySon;or,inotherwords,sothatthatwasaccomplishedinrespect toChristwhichhadbeenrelatedby theprophetof Israel."Wastherenotgood[[@Page:53]]reasonforindicatingacloseaffinitybetweenthe typologicalprinciplesof thiswriter,and the loose interpretationsofrationalism? One might suppose that it was a comment of Paulas orKuinoel that we are here presented with, and we transfer theirparaphrase and notes to the bottom of the page, to show how entirelytheyagree inspirit.[26]If theEvangelistsimplymeantwhat isascribedtohim,itwassurelystrangethatheshouldhavetakensopeculiarawayto express it. But if the words he employs plainly intimate such aconnectionbetweenChristandIsrael,asgavetothetestimonyinHoseathe force of a prophecy (which is the natural impression made by thereference),whohasanyrighttotamedownhismeaningtoasensethatwould entirely eliminate this prophetical element,—the very element towhich, apparently, he was anxious to give prominence?What we haveheretodealwithisinspiredtestimonyrespectingtheconnectionbetween

IsraelandChrist;anditcannothavejusticedonetoit,unlessitistakenin its broad and palpable import. (See further, under Ch. IV., andAppendixA.,c.4.)

2.We turn now to the other class ofwriters,whose aim it has been inrecenttimestoenlargeandwidenthetypologicalfield.Thechief,andforsometimetheonlydistinguishedrepresentativesofitweretobefoundinGermany;as itwastherealsothat thenewandmoreprofoundspiritofinvestigation began to develop itself. Near the commencement of thepresent century the religions of antiquity began to form the subject ofmore thoughtful and learned inquiry, and a depth of meaning wasdiscovered (sometimes perhaps only thought to be discovered) in themythsandexternalsymbolsofthese,whichintheprecedingcenturywasnot so much as dreamt of. Creuzer, in p