As used by theologians, the word type has received a special technical meaning not exactly equivalent to any of these usages, though approaching to that of Rom. vi, 14, where Adam is said to be the type of Christ. They mean by it any object, whether office, institution, person, or action, by means of which some truth connected with Christianity was prefiguratively foretold under preceding dispensations. Such an ob- ject the apostles call a (jKia, a shadow or adumbration of that which it indicated (comp. Heb. x, 1 ; Col. ii, 17). This shadow became a type because it presented the model or representation of something yet future. Some-
limes, also, the term 7rapa/3o\jj is used with a similar meaning (Heb. ix, 9; xi, 19).
H. Eundamental Principles. — There are certain no- tions which must be assumed as lying at the basis of typology.
1. Spiritual truths, ideas, thoughts, may be represent- ed by material symbols, whether actions, institutions, or objects. This the usage of all nations establishes. More especially was this a favorite method of commu- nicating thought among the imaginative Orientals; in general, it is found to prevail most in the earlier stages of a people's history, while as yet the use of objects that ajjpeal to the senses is more effective than the use of written documents. In Scripture, frequent instances occur of such symbolical methods of conveying ideas; as, for instance, the placing of the hand under the thigh for confirmation of an oath; the boring of the ear of the servant who declined to avail himself of the liber- ty brought by the year of jubilee; the rending of the garments in token of grief; and such acts as those of Abijah when, in announcing to Jeroboam the secession of the ten tribes from the house of Solomon, he tore his garment into twelve pieces and gave to Jeroboam ten (1 Kings ix, 29) ; that of Elisha when he indicated to the king of Israel the victories which by divine help he should obtain over the Syrians by commanding him to shoot an arrow from the window eastward after he had placed his hand on the king's hand (2 Kings xiii, 14-19) ; and those of Jeremiah and Ezekiel when they were signs to the people (Jer. xix, 1-11 ; Ezek. xii, 3- 16).
2. Such symbolical representations may be employed to convey religious truth. This usage we find also to have prevailed among all nations, especially in the ear-
llier stages of their history. Among the Jews it was abundantly used ; not, however, according to human caprice or ingenuity, but always in obedience to the express ordinance of God. The symbolical observ- ances of an earlier age introduced into the service of God, it may be presumed, were also of divine appoint- ment, on the general principle that, as God alone can declare what worship he will receive, it is only as he appoints that any service can be properly offered to him.
3. The true religion has in all ages been essentially the same, so that the truths symbolized by the institutions of the earlier dispensations are identical with those more directly and fully made known to us under the Chris- tian dispensation. The substantial identity of the pa- triarchal and Mosaic religions with the Christian must be assumed in all attempts to argue from the Old Test, to the New, or vice versa, and will not be denied by any who receive these books as divine. From this it neces- sarily follows that what was taught bj' symbol under the ancient economies as part of religious truth will be found identical with what is taught in loords under the new dispensation.
4. The religion of Jesus Christ is one resting on the facts of his personal appearance and work. Out of these all its truths flow directly or indirectly; and to these they all have respect. Hence the truths taught symbolically to the Old-Test, saints, being identical with those of Christianity, must also rest on, and have respect to. these facts.
5. A twofold character was thus of necessity given to the religious institutions of the ancient economies. They were primarily symbolical of religious truth. They were secondarily predictive of facts in the future on which these truths rested.
III. Natu7-e of Types. — Proceeding on these data, we may attempt to construct a typology, the design of which shall be to show what are the types in the Old Test, and the correspondence between them and their antitypes in the New Test. The most important step towards this is to determine from the preceding data what is the proper idea of a type. This we would ex- press as follows: A type is an institute or act appointed by God to s}-mbolize a religious truth, and to prefigure
TYPE
609
TYPE
bv means of analogy or resemblance those facts in the mediatorial work of Christ on which these truths rest. This definition involves the' following elements:
1. A type is an institute or act. We use these terms in a wide sense, understanding under the former not only formal organizations and religious offices, but times, places, implements of religious service; and un- der the latter not only rites and ceremonies, but special acts or series of acts determined bj' the proper crite- rion to be typical. By this definition, how e.\er, persons and thimjs simply as such are excluded. A person per se,ov a thing simply as such, cannot possess a symboli- cal character; and cannot be the okui, or prefigurative sign, of another person or thing, much less of a fact or series of facts. A person may sustain a typical office or may perform a typical act, and a thing tnay be used in a typical service or cereiiiony, but in and by itself it cannot be a type. This sets aside a whole host of types which the ingenuity of inter[)reters has construct- ed out of the historical personages of the Old Test. That many of these sustaineil typical offices and per- formed typical acts is admitted; but that they were in themselves — in their proper individual personality — types of our Lord, we cannot believe. The assertion, indeed, is to us uniiitelHgible except in a sense which would be profane and untrue — viz. that their personal character and conduct were a representation of the char- acter and conduct of our blessed Lord. It is true that for this doctrine of personal types the authority of the New Test, has been pleaded. But we are unable to find a solitary instance in the New Test, of any histori- cal character mentioned in the Old Test, being brought forward as having been personally a <T(ctd of Christ or his work. In one passage, indeed, Adam is called a TVTTOQ of Christ, but tvtvoq is not there equivalent to CTKtd; and, even if it were, it would not follow that it was Adam as a^je^'so?* who was the type of Christ, for the apostle is speaking throughout that context of our first parent in liis official, federal, or representative char- acter. The words of Peter also (1 Pet. iii, 21) have been cited as showing that a simple historical occur- rence may be the type of a Christian truth ; but, what- ever the apostle may mean in that passage by calling salvation by baptism the cii'Tirinroi' of Noah's salva- tion by the ark, he certainly cannot mean that the lat- ter was a divinely appointed prefiguration of the for- mer. The utmost that can be drawn from his words is that an analogy subsists between the two, whereby the one is fitted to illustrate the other. The strongest case in favor of the opinion we are opposing is our Lord's representation of himself as the true bread of which the manna was the prefiguration. We cannot understand this as intimating less than that the manna was a type of him. Still it was the manna, not as a natural phenomenon, but as a special and peculiar pro- vision made by God for the feeding of the people, that was the type of Christ; and in this divine appointment we find what reduces this under the head of proper types.