« AnteriorContinuar »
that we have any account of. When the Saviour made his appearance on the earth, the Jewish worship was in a state of great dilapidation ; and at the time his death took place, and he the great Sacrifice, to which all preceding ones had a reference, was offered, the period for its termination having fully arrived, it could be no longer sustained. What shows that the Mosaic dispensation was now to be dispensed with, and that the end for which the Jews had been kept a separate people was accomplished, is the circumstance that God permitted them to fill up the measure of their iniquities in the rejection of his Son, and then their dispersion, as a consequence, took place. It is true, the complete annihilation of the ceremonial worship did not follow immediately upon the casting off the Jewish people ; but still, though they clung to it, their attachment was only like the fondness of one who has seen the object of his dearest desire expire before his eyes. He may cling to a lifeless corpse, but it is only to know more fully that the vital spark has fled. There was no more great day of atonement; no more regular daily sacrifices offered for sin ; and the irregular and defective observance of rites and ceremonies, still kept up for a time by the influence of Jewish advocates who opposed the Apostles, gradually lessened, until they became what they now are: “ So they were shut up to the faith, * and the law was their schoolmaster to bring them to Christ;ť and He is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”I
* Gal. iii. 23. Gal. iii. 24. Rom. x. 4.
CHAPTER II. ON THE DEFINITION OF A TYPE. — HOW THE
TYPES MAY BE KNOWN. — THE EXTENT OF THEIR APPLICATION. — THEIR ARBITRARY
APPOINTMENT, AND THEIR VARIETY. Amongst the various grounds upon which persons have attempted to excuse themselves in the neglect of the Scriptures, one not unfrequently urged is, the difference which exists among divines and learned men themselves in the views which they take, and the explanations which they give of them. That there is a great contrariety in this respect will be admitted by all who are acquainted with the numerous comments extant; but that this justifies inattention to the word of God by no means follows, since it may be easily accounted for by the importance attached to the religion of the Bible-the difference in the structure of the human mind the prejudices of men, and the circumstances in which they are placed. At the same time, it is to be feared that a want of due care as to the consequences of such a variety, if not a disposition to increase it, has often made the contrast greater than necessity required.
This, which is true in regard to all the parts of revealed truth, will apply especially to the subject of the present work.
SECTION I. On the general resemblance of types to their antitypes.
A type has been defined in various ways. Mather says, “It is some outward or sensible thing, ordained of God, under the Old Testament, to represent and hold forth something of Christ in the New.”* Buck calls it, "an impression, image, or representation of some model, which is called the antitype.”+ And it is described by the late Dr. Fletcher as, “a prophecy in action.” Other writers have differed as much as the above, if not still more widely; and some have distinguished between what they call the scriptural and the theological senses of the word " type.”
The criterion by which the old writers appear to have endeavoured to ascertain what were types, and what were not, was likeness, -not a resemblance, such as might have struck those for whose use they were at first designed, but a likeness discovered by the use of the antitypes ; thus explaining the Old Testament types by the fulfilment of them, or what they supposed to be the fulfilment of them, in the New. It has been maintained, however, by a living writer, that likeness is not essential to the nature of a type at all. If there should happen to be a correspondence between the type and the antitype, so much the better; but it is not a thing of absolute importance as entering into its nature. That this is true to a certain extent will be admitted; nor would it be difficult to find instances in which the connection is of an arbitrary kind, as in the ordinary intercourse of men one thing is often chosen and appointed to represent another of a different nature to the mind. This
* “Figures and Types of the Old Testament,” p. 50. † “ Theological Dic. ;” art. Type. I “ Alexander's Con. Lectures," p. 393.
is true, however, of types, as the term is used in a theological rather than a scriptural sense. The word "type" (TUTTOS), as it is employed in the sacred volume, imports likeness. Thus Adam is called, by the apostle Paul, the “figure (type) of Him who was to come.”* Moses was commanded to make all things in the tabernacle after the pattern (type) shown to him in the mount. Believers are said to have obeyed from the heart the form (type) of sound doctrine which was delivered to them. Thomas refused to believe that Christ had actually risen from the dead, unless he could see the print (type) of the nails in His hands. Peter exhorted the ministers to whom he wrote not to act as lords over God's heritage, but as ensamples (types) of the flock.| Paul exhorts the Philippians to mark them that walk so as that they had them (the Apostles) for ensamples (types). So he tells the Thessalonians, that they were ensamples (types) to those who believed. ** Timothy was to show himself a pattern (type) to believers.tt And, in like manner, what took place among the Israelites is said to have happened to them as ensamples (types). It
Now in all these places, and many others that might be selected, the idea that is conveyed to us by the term “ type” is likeness. This likeness seems to have been necessary, in order to the ancient believers making use of them; for if they were not told where a connection had been established between a person, or a thing, and that which was appointed to be the sign of * Rom. v. 14. + Heb. viii. 5. Rom. vi. 17. § John xx. 35. || 1 Peter v. 3. Phil. iii. 17. ** 1 Thess. i. 7. Pt 1 Tim. iv. 12. 11 1 Cor. x. 12.
it; in other words, what was typical and what was not,—and as it was very rarely that they were so informed, how was it possible for them to appropriate them at all in the absence of resemblance? That the old writers on the subject of types often discovered a likeness to Christ, when the inspired authors of the words they profess to explain never intended any should appear, is true; and to point out and correct their error in this respect is necessary, to give an accurate knowledge of the word of Divine truth. It is often the case, however, that in endeavouring to oppose popular errors the truth is strained in the opposite direction; and care is necessary here, lest the mistake of finding Christ where he is not is avoided by that which is still greater-losing sight of him where He ought to be found. The typographers of former days, from Cocceius downwards, were men unimpeachable as to the piety of their motives ; and could the same ardour of piety be always depended upon as entering into the designs of their opponents in contracting the number of the types, the judgment and opinion of he latter writers might be more readily taken; but since there is some reason to doubt this, unless their departure from those from whom they differ can be shown to be supported by Scripture, they are not to be considered as entitled to reliance.
Section II. On what is included in the scriptural authority for a type.
In deciding as to what is and what is not to be considered as typical, the authority of God, and not caprice or conjecture, is to be the rule.