gument and address used by the apostles. How much do both their language and their ideas savour of the sanctuary! How constantly do they throw themselves back for illustration and support, not only on the prophecies, but also on the sacred annals and institutions of the Old Testament! They spake and reasoned on the assumption, that the revelations of the Gospel were but a new and higher exhibition of the principles, which appeared alike in the events of their past history and the services of their religious worship. An appropriate language was already furnished by means of these to their hand, through which they could discourse aright of spiritual and divine things. But more than that, as they had no new language to invent, so they had no new ideas to discover, or unheard-of principles to promulgate. The scheme of truth, which they were called to expound and propagate, had its foundations already laid in the whole history and constitution of the Jewish commonwealth. In labouring to establish it, they felt that they were treading in the footsteps, and, on a higher vantage-ground, maintaining the faith of their illustrious fathers. In short, they appear as the heralds and advocates of a cause, which, in its essential principles, had its representation in all history, and gathered as into one glorious orb of truth the scattered rays of light and consolation, which had been emanating from the ways of God since the world began. Thus wisely were the different parts of the divine plan adjusted to each other; and, for the accomplishment of what was required, the training by means of types could no more have been dispensed with, than the glimpse-like visions and hopeful intimations of prophecy.

CHAPTER FOURTH.

PROPHETICAL TYPES, OR THE COMBINATION OF TYPE WITH PROPHECY---ALLEGED DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.

A TYPE necessarily possesses something of a prophetical character, and differs in degree rather than in kind from what is usually designated prophecy. The one images or prefigures, while the other foretels, coming realities. In the one case representative acts or symbols, in the other verbal delineations, serve the purpose of indicating beforehand what God was designed to accomplish for his people in the approaching future. The difference is not such as to affect the essential nature of the two subjects, as alike connecting together the Old and the New in God's dispensations. In distinctness and precision, however, simple prophecy has greatly the advantage over informations conveyed by type. For prophecy, however it may differ in its general characteristics from history, as it naturally possesses something of the directness, so it may also attain to something of the exactness of historical description. But types having a significance or moral import of their own, apart from anything prospective, must, in their prophetical aspect, be somewhat less transparent, and possess more of a complicated character. Still the relation between type and antitype, when pursued through all its ramifications, may produce as deep a conviction of design and pre-ordained connection, as can be derived from simple prophecy and its fulfilment, though, from the nature of things, the evidence in the latter case must always be more obvious and palpable than in the former.

But the possession of the same common character is not the only link of connection between type and prophecy. Not only do they agree in having both a prospective reference to the future, but they are often also combined into one prospective exhibition

of the future. Prophecy, though it sometimes is of a quite simple, and direct nature, is far from being always so; and can scarcely ever be said to delineate the future with the precision and exactness that history employs in recording the past. In many portions of it there is a certain degree of complexity, if not dubiety, and that mainly arising from the circumstances and transactions of the past being in some way interwoven with its anticipations of things to come. Here, however, we approach the confines of a controversy on which some of the greatest minds have expended their talents and learning, and with such doubtful success on either side, that the question is still perpetually brought up anew for discussion, whether there is or is not a double sense in prophecy? That some portion of debateable ground will always remain connected with the subject appears to us more than probable. But, at the same time, we are fully persuaded that the portion admits of being greatly narrowed in extent, and even reduced to such small dimensions, as not materially to affect the settlement of the main question, if only the typical element in prophecy is allowed its due place and weight. This we shall endeavour, first of all, to exhibit in the several aspects in which it actually presents itself; and shall then subjoin a few remarks on the views of those who espouse either side of the question, as it is usually stated.

From the general resemblance between type and prophecy, we are prepared to expect that they may sometimes run into each other; and especially, that the typical in action may in various ways form the ground-work and the materials, by means of which the prophetic in word gave forth its intimations of the coming future. And this, it is quite conceivable, may have been done under any of the following modifications. 1. A typical action might, in some portion of the prophetic word, be historically mentioned, and hence the mention being that of a prophetical circumstance or event, would come to possess a prophetical character. 2. Or something typical in the past or the present might be represented in a distinct prophetical announcement, as going to appear again in the future; thus combining together the typical in act, and the prophetical in word. 3. Or, the typical, not expressly and formally, but in its essential relations and principles, might be embodied in an accompanying prediction, which

foretold things corresponding in nature, but far higher and greater in importance. 4. Or, finally, the typical might itself be still future, and in a prophetic word might be partly described, partly pre-supposed, as a typical ground for the delineation of other things still more distant, to which, when it occurred, it was to stand in the relation of type to antitype. We could manifestly have no difficulty in conceiving such combinations of type with prophecy, without any violence done to their distinctive properties, or any invasion made on their respective provinces-nothing, indeed, happening but what might have been expected from their mutual relations, and their fitness for being employed in concert to the production of common ends. And we shall now shew how each of the suppositions has found its verification in the prophetic Scriptures.1

I. The first supposition is that of a typical action being historically mentioned in the prophetic word, and the mention, being that of a prophetical circumstance or event, thence coming to possess a prophetical character. There are two classes of Scriptures which may be said to verify this supposition; one of which is of a somewhat general and comprehensive nature, so that the fulfilment is not necessarily confined to any single person or period, though it could not fail, in an especial manner, to appear in the personal history of Christ. To this class belonged such recorded experiences as the following-"The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up" (Ps. Ixix. 9, comp. with John ii. 17); “He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me" (Ps. xli. 9, comp. with John xiii. 18); "They hated me without a cause" (Ps. lxix. 4. comp. with John xv. 25); "The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner” (Ps. cxviii. 22, comp. with Matth. xxi. 42, 1 Pet. ii. 6, 7.) These passages are all distinctly referred to Christ in the Gospels, and the things that befel him are expressly said, or plainly indicated to have happened, that such scriptures might be fulfilled. Yet

It is proper to state, however, that we cannot present here anything like a full and complete elucidation of the subject; and we therefore mean to supplement this chapter by an appendix on the Old Testament in the New, in which the subject will both be considered from a different point of view, and followed out more into detail. See Appendix B.

as originally penned they assume the form of historical statements, rather than of prophetical announcements-recorded experiences on the part of those who indited them, and experiences of a kind, that in one form or another, could scarcely fail to be often recurring in the history of God's church and people. As such it might have seemed enough to say, that they contained general truths which were exemplified also in Jesus, when travailing in the work of man's redemption. But the convictions of Jesus himself and the inspired writers of the New Testament go beyond this; they perceive a closer connection-a prophetical element in the passages, which must find its due fulfilment in the personal experience of Christ. And this the passages contained, simply from their being in their immediate and historical reference, descriptive of what belonged to characters-David and Israel—that bore typical relations to Christ; so that their being descriptive in the one respect necessarily implied their being prophetic in the other. What had formerly taken place in the experience of the type, must substantially renew itself again in the experience of the great antitype-whatever other and inferior renewals it may find besides.

To the same class also may be referred the passage in Ps. lxxviii. 2, "I will open my mouth in a parable (lit. similitude); I will utter dark sayings (lit. riddles) of old," which in Matth. xiii. 35 is spoken of as a prediction that found, and required to find, its fulfilment in our Lord's using the parabolic mode of discourse. As an utterance in the seventy-eighth Psalm the word simply records a fact, but a fact essentially connected with the discharge of the prophetical office, and, therefore, substantially indicating what must be met with in Him, in whom all prophetical endowments were to have their highest manifestation. Every prophet may be said to speak in similitudes or parables in the sense here indicated, which is comprehensive of all discourses upon divine things, delivered in figurative terms or an elevated style, and requiring more than common discernment to understand it aright. The parables of our Lord formed one species of it, but not by any means the only one. It was the common propheticopoetical diction, which was characterized, not only by the use of measured sentences, but also by the predominant employment of external forms and natural similitudes. But, marking as it did,