Page images

the full enjoyment of the freedom and privileges of the gospel, Hagar, who had no divine spiritual connexion with Abraham, though admitted to a near outward relation to him, typified a carnal church, in bondage to the elements of the world, and capable only of bringing forth children after the flesh. Thus also the Israelites, the elect seed, typified the spiritual church of the New Testament, all the members of which are elect, according to the foreknowledge of God; and in the hostile relation occupied towards them at different times, by such powers as Egypt, Edom, Assyria, and Babylon, we cannot but see the type of a similar relation held by enemies of the truth towards the Christian church. In strictness of speech it is the one class of relations alone, which is appointed and ordained by God; but as according to the natural course and order of providence, the things belonging to that serve to call into existence those of an opposite character belonging to the other, the latter may also be regarded as having a kind of fixed and ordained connexion. Types of this nature stand much on the same footing as the prophecy of Caiaphas, concerning Christ's death, (John xi. 50,) which, as meant and designed by him, was spoken in bitterest malice, and with the worst intention, but still was a word put into his mouth by God, who used him as an unconscious instrument for declaring the divine will. It was, therefore, a prophecy, for prophecies are “simply words of God put into the mouths of men, who sometimes prophesied without foreseeing it; sometimes again without knowing it; and sometimes even without being willing to do it."* In like manner the various forms and manifestations of evil, with which the church of God in ancient times had to contend, though in itself the offspring of wicked and forbidden malice, was yet allowed by God, and directed by him into the particular form it assumed, with a view, not merely to the trial of the church then being, but also to the instruction and warning of the church in future times, regarding similar trials yet to

II. We pass on now to a second conclusion, which is, that the existence and meaning of particular types is to be ascertained, not from the light possessed by the ancient worshippers concerning their prospective fulfilment, but from the light thrown on them by the great truths and realities of the gospel.

Whether we look to the ritual or historical types, neither their own nature, nor God's design in appointing them, could warrant us to draw any very determinate inference respecting the insight which the Old Testament worshippers might have into their prospective or gospel import. The one formed part of the religion, the other of the providential dealings of God; and in that point of view it is proper, and necessary, indeed, to inquire what truths they imbodied, or what lessons they taught for those, who were primarily interested in them. It was their fitness for unfolding such truths and lessons, for the time then present, which formed


* Gaussen on Inspiration, p. 376. Eng. Trans.

the ground-work, as we have seen, of their typical connexion with gospel times. But though they must have been understood in that first aspect by the ancient believers, it does not follow that this secondary and ultimate reference must also have been understood; nor does the reality, or the precise import of their typical character, at all depend upon the fact of its having been perceived, or the extent to which it was perceived by those ancient believers. The connexion they implied between the Old and the New Testament dispensations, was not of the church's forming, but of God's; and the greater part, if not the whole of the design, which they had to serve with the Old Testament church, may possibly have been accomplished, with the knowledge of their prospective, but simply by their immediate and primary reference. In their further and prospective reference, that is to say as types, they were just a concealed prophecy-concealed, because the events and institutions, in which they consisted, had a certain use and significance by themselves, apart altogether from any respect they bore to the future purposes of God. Now we are expressly told, in regard even to those prophecies, which were not concealed, but which spoke in plain and undisguised terms of Christ, that not only the persons to whom they were first addressed, but the very individuals, by whom they were indited, did not necessarily understand their meaning, and had diligently to search for any measure of light they possessed, concerning them, (1 Pet. i. 12.) That the old Testament prophets must have fully understood the meaning of the predictions they uttered, and that the writers of the New Testament understood and applied their predictions in a different sense, when they gave them a Christian interpretation, were the two groundless assumptions, on which the infidels of the last century based one of their most plausible arguments against Christianity. The falsehood of the assumptions has been repeatedly and thoroughly exposed; and that of the first was declared by the Apostle Peter in the passage just referred to. The prophets were not properly the authors of their own predictions, but spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; and whatever knowledge the prophets themselves possessed of the events foretold, so far from being necessarily involved in the mere exercise of the prophetic gift, it required in their case, as well as in that of private individuals, to be obtained by subsequent inquiry and direction. Their knowledge, therefore, of the real meaning of the prophecies they uttered, was an entirely separate thing from the prophecies themselves; it was neither indispensable to the existence of these, nor conclusively fixed their import. The prophecies would have stood precisely as they were, though no particular information had either been sought or found respecting them by the persons, who were employed to declare them. And this being the case, in regard even to the verbal and direct prophecies, how preposterous would it not be to make the insight of the Old Testament believers into the purport of the typical, or what may be called the indirect and veiled prophecies, the ground and measure of the truth concerning them? In both cases alike, it is the mind of God, not the discernment or faith of the Jewish worshipper, which we have properly to do with.

Yet obvious as this seems, it was generally overlooked by the older divines. They are constantly telling us, not only how Christ was prefigured in the transactions and services of the Old Testament, but also how men looked through these, in the exercise of faith, to Christ and the things of salvation. Thus, one affirms of Adam, “ that he believed the promise concerning Christ, in whose commemoration he offered continual sacrifice; and in the assurance thereof, he named his wife Eve, that is to say, life, and he called his son Seth, settled, or persuaded in Christ."* Kanne, in like manner, affirms, that Zipporah, in what she spoke, Ex. iv. 26, "announced through one of her children, the Jehovah as the future Redeemer and Bridegroom.”+ Even the judicious Edwards speaks of Moses turning aside to see the great sight of the bush burning, yet not consumed, “because the great mystery of the incarnation and sufferings of Christ was there represented,—a great sight he might well call it, when there was represented, God manifest in the flesh, suffering a dreadful death, and rising from the dead." I And Owen, speaking of the Old Testament believers generally, says, “Their faith in God was not confined to the outward things they enjoyed, but on Christ in them, and represented by them. They believed that they were only resemblances of him and his mediation, which, when they lost the faith of, they lost all acceptance with God, in their worship." It is not merely the old writers, however, who speak so determinately of the spiritual foresight of the ancients, and make that occasionally, at least, the ground and measure of the truth contained in the types. Warburton, it is well known, is at great pains to prove, that the transaction of Abraham's offering up his son Isaac, was a typical or prophetical vision, done on purpose to represent to his view, the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Christ, maintaining, in his usual style, that there can be no right understanding of the matter, excepting on this supposition.|| In this also Graves and Faber concur, the latter of whom asserts, that Abraham must have “clearly understood the nature of that awful transaction, by which the day of Christ was to be characterized, and could not have been ignorant of the benefits about to be procured by it." And to mention no more, Chevallier expresses himself as doubtful about receiving the ordinance of the brazen serpent into the number of the historical types, on the ground of its “not being plainly declared, either in the Old or the New Testament, to have been ordained by God purposely to represent to the Israelites, the future mysteries of the gospel revelation."**

* Fisher's Marrow of Modern Divinity, p. 1. ch. 2. † Kanne Christus in Alt. Test. 1. p. 100. | History of Redemption, Period 1. Part IV. Ś Owen on Heb. vii. 5. || Divine Legation of Moses, B. VI. T. 5. 1 Treatise on the Three Dispensations, Vol. II. p. 57. ** Historical Types, p. 221.

The quotations show how current the opinion has been, and still is, that the persons, who lived among the types, must have perfectly understood their typical character, and that by their knowledge in this respect, we are bound in great measure, if not entirely, to regulate ours. Now it is a very difficult question, and one toward the settlement of which we can in no case make more than a probable conjecture, how far the events typified, even by the most important symbols and transactions of Old Testament times, were distinctly perceived by any individual, at any period, before their actual accomplishment. The reason of this is, the same with that which has been so admirably applied by Horsley, to the refutation of the infidel objection, in the closely related field of prophecy. It was necessary, for the very ends of prophecy, that a certain disguise should remain over the events it foretold, till they became facts in providence, and therefore, "whatever private information the prophet might enjoy, the Spirit of God would never permit him to disclose the ultimate intent and particular meaning of the prophecy.' Types being just a species of prophecy, so far as they bore respect to the events of gospel history, must have been placed under the veil of a certainly not inferior disguise; whatever insight believers might have had into their ultimate design, they could not be permitted to put that on record; it could only serve, at the very most, as a light for their own encouragement, but not for our direction; and whether it might be full or defective, whether vague and general, or minute and particular, we should not be bound, even if we knew it, to abide by its measure; for here, as in the case of the prophets, the judgment of the early church “must still bow down to time as a more informed expositor.”+

That the sincere worshippers of God, in former ages, especially inquiring and believing Israelites, were acquainted, not only with God's general purpose of redemption, but also with the leading principles and results involved in it, we not only admit, but take it as one of the more prominent points, which it is our business to unfold. Indeed, it is impossible to read some of those portions of Old Testament scripture, which disclose the views and feelings of particular believers, concerning their spiritual condition,-to hear David, for example, bewailing his foul disease, expressing the horrors of his soul under a sense of guilt, imploring and obtaining forgiveness, even when sacrifices and burnt-offerings were of no avail, nay, being washed even as with hyssop,—without being convinced, that the enlightened and believing mind must have had some apprehension of the higher things of that salvation, which was preparing for all flesh. At the same time it may well be doubted, if, in the case even of the most favoured worshippers, the mere symbolical institutions of worship, could be any further serviceable, as means of instruction, than that through them were continually brought out and impressed upon the mind, certain great ideas and principles respecting the condition of men, sin and holiness, the purposes and character of God, as connected with the final deliverance and well-being of his people. Believers must have felt, that the ideas and principles in question, were but feebly and inadequately provided for in the outward and carnal services of the worship then established, and must consequently have expected a much loftier exhibition of them in the age to come,” though by what precise objects and events, they could not properly understand, at least not till prophecy had uttered some of its more lucid and circumstantial predictions.

† Ibid. p. 273.

• Horsley's Works, Vol. I. p. 271.

VOL. 1.-6

“To the Jewish worshipper,” says Davidson,*--and such a worshipper, it must be remembered, had many advantages over those, who lived before the introduction of the law,—"to the Jewish worshipper, his rites of offering, lustration, and sacrifice, presented perpetually the idea, that some medium of purification and atonement was necessary to him, in his service, whether of practice or worship. This was an idea obtruded upon him by the frequent and indispensable exaction of such rites. In the next place, I argue, that the insufficiency of these appointed means of approach to God, their insufficiency in respect of the soul and conscience, would become more truly felt and understood, in proportion to the piety, seriousness and probity of mind, of the individual worshipper; and that God designed to make them a vehicle of this instruction, concerning their own inutility and inefficacy to the great purposes of pardon and acceptance. The majesty of God could not be propitiated, the sanctity of his moral law could not be satisfied, by the appointments in being; they were too weak for those ends, being an institution ‘for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.' Their imperfection, indeed, is confessed; but what I think may be inferred, is, that it could not be unknown to the Jewish disciple, if he were studious to consult his conscience, and explore the revealed character of God and his law.

“For the moral law prescribed great and substantial duties,duties of love to God and man; it was a rule of precept and discipline to the conscience; it fixed the essential principles of good and evil; and gave a strong commanding conviction of the demerit and penalties of sin. By the law is the knowledge of sin.' It created more terrors than the ceremonial could relieve. For to the greater transgressions of the moral code, the ceremonial offered no visible relief whatever; it stood aloof from them; and this open chasm in its provisions, duly considered, might conspire with the sense of its general insufficiency, to set men upon some wish or secret inquiry, after another more efficacious mode of atonement, than was to be had by the ordinances of a Levitical worship; or if it could not prompt the idea of such an unseen atonement, might yet dispose to the acceptance of it. The action of the moral and

* Davidson on Prophecy, p. 142.

« PreviousContinue »