Christ no antitype to a lamb, but to the lamb-sacrifices of the law. Hence it follows that all pictorial representations of Jesus as a lamb, are based upon a mistaken conception. The passage in Isaiah liii. 7, "He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth," is therefore in our view a simple prophetic comparison between Christ and a lamb or sheep, in this, that both are led to a violent death without resistance, and that both suffer without complaint. In this example the idea of sacrifice scarcely appears. When St. Peter speaks of the merit of Christ's sacrifice, he draws a comparison between the personal perfections which qualified Jesus to suffer acceptably, and the physical perfections of a lamb fitted for a sacrifice. In this case then, the physical perfection of the lamb refers us to the typical institution of the law bearing upon that particular (1 Pet. i. 19). In the Apocalypse, by a bold metaphor, Christ is often called a Lamb; but the allegories of this book stand very much alone, and scarcely justify us in detaching individual symbols and introducing them into literal compositions.

The preceding remarks will not be wholly useless, if they induce us to exercise sound judgment in enquiring after typical relations. For instance, Was David a typical person? If so, In what respect was he typical, and of what was he a type?

Some would briefly answer to these questions, that David was a typical person, that he was typical in his character and experience, and that he was typical of Christ. They would say that David was by divine ordination a type of Christ, as sprung of Judah, as a shepherd, as a king, as greatly persecuted and afflicted, as triumphant over his enemies, and in various other respects. There have been those who have pushed this typical relation so far as to find it illustrated in almost every event of David's life. A comparatively sober writer upon the subject, viewing David as rightful claimant to the throne, in opposition to Saul, who, by a divine arrangement, was permitted to fill it, and regarding all this as typical of Christ's just claim to the throne among men, in opposition to Satan the usurper, who has been suffered to seize it,-not only makes David a type of Christ, but Saul a type of Satan. Whatever our estimate of Saul may be, we are surely not justified in treating him as a type of the Devil. The very idea of a Biblical type is, that it is of divine appointment and institution; if then Saul was a type of the Devil, he was so by divine appointment. We confess our love of theory is not strong enough to enable us to hazard the consequences of such an opinion. However, as our concern is now more especially with David, we leave the case of Saul, though we shall not forget it.

The first thing to be done towards a solution, is to ask what the Scripture says, for upon its statements, rightly interpreted, our conclusions must be based; and here we shall do well to ascertain the sense of certain words.

The Greek word type (Túπos, Latin typus), occurs frequently in the Greek Scriptures. It is a word of rather diversified meanings. It may be a pattern or model, after which something is made; a mould in which something is cast; or an example which is or may be followed: it may even be the impression produced by a blow, or the mark left by a wound, and these in fact are its primary uses. From things it is transferred to modes of speech, etc. Under such circumstances, it is apparent that caution and consideration are required when we would explain the word as it occurs in the Bible. The New Testament examples are as follows, with the renderings they bear in the Authorized Version :

John xx. 25, "The print of the nails."

Acts vii. 43, "Figures which ye made to worship them."
Ver. 44, "The fashion that he had seen."

Chap. xxiii. 25, "A letter after this manner."

Rom. v. 14, "The figure of him that was to come."

Chap. vi. 17, "That form of doctrine which was delivered

you."

1 Cor. x. 6, "These things are our examples."

Ver. 11, "These things happened unto them for ensamples.” Phil. iii. 17, "As ye have us for an ensample."

1 Thess. i. 7, "Ye were ensamples to all that believe."

2 Thess. iii. 9, "To make ourselves an ensample unto you." 1 Tim. iv. 12, "Be thou an example of the believers." Titus ii. 7, "In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works."

Heb. viii. 5, "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things-the pattern shewed to thee."

1 Pet. v. 3, "Being ensamples to the flock."

In how many of these texts is the word type employed in the modern sense of the term?

In Acts vii. 43, it means "models" or "copies," and in the next verse a "model" or "pattern." In chap. xxiii. 25, it is like "fashion Our or manner;" after this fashion or manner. Rom. v. 14, seems to mean that Adam was a proper type of Christ; i.e., we suppose, as a federal head or in his representative character; but in Rom. vi. 17, it plainly denotes a mould in which anything is cast. 1 Cor. x. 6, must not be understood to say that the experience of the Israelites was typical, for types are as much to be fulfilled as prophecies; here, the types are

NEW SERIES.-VOL. V., NO. IX.

C

warnings, or examples to be avoided. So in ver. 11, the divine judgments upon Israel were warnings to all future time. All the other passages except Heb. viii. 5, plainly have the word in the sense of an example to be imitated; the exception declares that the Jewish priests serve after, or according to the similitude and shadow of heavenly things, a view justified by the case of Moses, who was to make everything according to the pattern shewed him in the mount. What Moses saw is called a "type," but it was doubtless more perfect than what he made, in which it differed from what we call types, which are less perfect than what they represent, and which are therefore like the Jewish service, the "type and shadow" of heavenly things.

We have, then, two places only in the New Testament in which the word type is apparently used in its theological sense, and of these two passages one might plausibly be disputed (Heb. viii. 5). However, we readily accept them both as justifying us in speaking of typical persons (e.g., Adam), and of typical things (e.g., the Mosaic liturgy).

In two places of the New Testament we have the word antitype (avτITUTOS), but merely as equivalent to type.

Heb. ix. 24, "Christ has not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true."

1 Pet. iii. 21, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us."

In the first of these texts the earthly sanctuary is represented as an image or rather as a copy of the heavenly sanctuary. The heavenly sanctuary is the archetype or original, of which the sanctuary below is the shadow, symbol, portrait, or representation. It is manifest that the heavenly exceeds the earthly, as an original excels an inanimate portrait or statuc.

The other passage (1 Pet. iii. 21) is more obscure. The Apostle says that by the spirit, Christ preached in the days of Noah, to those spirits which (now in prison) were disobedient when God's long-suffering waited, while the ark was prepared in which eight souls were saved by water. "The like figure whereunto" (i.e., water in) "baptism doth also now save us." A reference to the Greek ᾧ or ὅ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σώζει BáπTIOμа, will shew that our translators have not closely followed their original. They have put a full stop between udaroS and its relative or ő, and have given a turn to the words which they will hardly bear by using the word "like" apparently in the sense of "same;" which (same) antitype or "the antitype to which (that is to say) baptism now saves also us." The thought seems to be that as water in Noah's case was symbolical of a greater salvation than that from death, so water in baptism.

is symbolical of eternal salvation. That the mere rite, or the water, does not actually save, is evidenced by what follows, and also by the very word avτíTUTTOV-a figure or resemblance: those who are saved by a figure are only figuratively saved; and we wish this expression to bear its full meaning. There is a sense in which the water of the deluge was symbolical of baptism.

There are some other words to which we shall have to refer, but in the meantime we have a remark or two to make upon the two, type and antitype, already specified. They both often signify a resemblance in the sense of a copy from an original. Hence the type may be the original of the antitype (as in Heb. ix. 24), and the antitype only secondary and subordinate (1 Pet. iii. 21). This is contrary to the currently received modern phraseology, according to which the tabernacle for example is a type of the heavenly temple; whereas in the language of the New Testament, the tabernacle would be the antitype of the heavenly temple. And properly so, because in strict propriety of speech, the type, or die, and its original must exist before the antitype, or impression, or copy. No one ever imagined that Antichrist existed before Christ. The type, archetype, or prototype, exists naturally before the antitype. The New Testament writers, like many others, however, do not always adhere to the notion that a type is the original from which the copy is taken; an example to be copied or avoided is often represented by "type," once by Seiyua (Jude 7); more frequently by vπóderyμa (John xiii. 5; James v. 10; Heb. iv. 11; 2 Pet. ii. 6). This latter word, however, has the meaning of "copy" in Heb. viii. 5; ix. 23. For a "pattern" again, they have TоTÚπWσis (1 Tim. i. 16), where the idea is rather that of an example, or specimen, and illustration of the power of grace. In 2 Tim. i. 13, we have the same word translated "form;" "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me." We do not think any creed, symbol, or confession of faith is here meant. Paul would have the teaching of Timothy to bear the stamp of his own, and to be another form of its expression. There is one case (1 Pet. ii. 21) in which the notion of an example to be followed is conveyed by the word vπoypappòs, of which Schleusner gives the following account: "1. Proprie, exemplar, typus, quem artis Scriptoriæ Magistri discipulis, quos, informant, et pictores novitiis quos imbuunt, proponunt et ante oculos sistunt, at ad illud in pingendis litteris et imaginibus respiciant . . . . . 2. Metaphorice, exemplum, ad imitandum propositum." It is, therefore, as a copy to be followed by the pupil of the writer or of the painter, and as the master's example to be followed by his disciples, that this word is used.

Пapaßon is one of the words employed by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews in reference to the spiritual significance of earthly things. Thus Heb. ix. 9, the "tabernacle figure-a parable for the times in which it existed; a representation and monitor of something higher and better; we may say, a type. Then again, Heb. xi. 19 tells us that Abraham received Isaac from the dead "in a figure," in a parable; i.e., figuratively and not actually; dramatically and not literally, for Isaac had not actually died. Perhaps the full import of the word is only to be perceived when we remember especially these circumstances: 1. The father's intention to put his son to death. 2. The complete preparations made for his death. 3. His own utter inability to deliver himself from death. 4. The divine injunction that he should be offered in sacrifice. 5. The divine acceptance of the will for the deed. 6. The divine reversal of the injunction at the moment when he was about to die. So far as Abraham and Isaac were concerned, "the bitterness of death" was past; and, comparatively speaking (ev πaρаßoλî), when the decree was reversed the dead was recalled to life. Some regard "in a figure" here as meaning that Isaac's restoration to the world of life was a type of the resurrection of Christ. St. Paul does not say this; and hence, if the event under consideration was typical, we are as much at liberty to suppose it typical of salvation and the resurrection, as others are to limit its typical allusion to Christ. That he was about to be offered in sacrifice will not meet the difficulty, for all bleeding sacrifices, and perhaps all others had a doubly symbolical reference, one to the giver and one to the receiver. In this case the ram became the substitute for Isaac, and represented him; but it was also a figure or type of the great sacrifice in which all such were to find their realization and efficacy upon the cross.

Image, or elkov, properly signifies a "likeness," and hence it is applied to anything which is, or is considered, as a representation of something else. The head of Augustus or of Tiberius was his "image" (Matt. xxii. 20); the idols worshipped by the pagans were "images," although certainly they often only represented the creatures of the imagination (Rom. i. 23). Believers are predestinated to be conformed to the "image" of God's Son; by which we understand that they are to be made like him as far as he is imitable. But how are we to understand the phrase which describes a man as "the image and glory of God?" This is no doubt based upon Gen. i. 26, and like passages, but it is spoken of man as distinct from woman, and of man in his actual fallen state. Doubtless there are respects in which the human race still bears the impress and