3. Relation to Comparison. — The New-Test, teachers occasionally, for the sake of illustrating their meaning, introduce a comparison, drawn from some well-known fact in the history of the Jewish people, between which and the point they are discussing there exists some ob- vious analogy. In this way our Lord makes use of the fact of ]\Ioses' erecting the brazen serpent in the wil- derness for the purpose of illustrating his own character as a deliverer, who was to be " lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlast- ing life" (John iii, 14, 1.5). On another occasion he in- stituted a comparison between his own case, as about to be consigned for a season to the tomb, and that of Jo- nah, who bad been '• three days and three nights in the belly of the fish" (Matt, xii, 40). From this it has been hastily concluded that these events, and others alluded to in the New Test, in a similar manner, were real types and prefigurationsof the facts they are brought to illus- trate. It is obvious, however, that there is a great dif- ference between a historical event — whether occurring in the natural course of things, or by the special inter- position of the divine power, and which a subsequent writer or speaker may make use of to illustrate, by com- ])arison, some fact or doctrine of which he is treating — and a symbolic institute expressly appointed by (lod to prefigure, to those among whom it was set up, certain great transactions in connection with that plan of re- demption which, in the fulness of time, he was to unfold to mankind. In the two cases above referred to there is the absence of any express evidence that the events recorded possess anj' other than a simple historical char- acter. In the case of the brazen serpent, indeed, we have divine appointment ; but along with the appointment we have the specific mention of the purpose for which it was set up, which was not to teach any religious truths at all, or to form any part of religious worship, but simply that it might act as an instrument of cure to the Israel- ites who were bitten by the fiery flying serpents. See Brazen Seiu'est. Yet even in this case it is clear from the whole tenor of the narrative that the act was significant of more than a mere physical remedy; and our Lord's reference to the event confirms its higher import. It is also possible that such a thing as the brazen serpent mir/ht possess a symbolical character; but if any will from this argue that it really had such a character, and that it was a symbol of Christ, it will be incumbent ujion him, in the first [)lace, to show some ev- idence in favor of his inference, and, in the next, to ex- plain how it should' come to pass that the express sym- bolical antithesis of the Messiah, the sei-pent, could form part of an institute intended to prefigure his work as the Saviour of men. As to the case of Jonah, we do not find in it so much as the appearance of anything typical; and, indeed, it would have been very strange had (iod caused the prophet to perform an action typical of the burial and resurrection of Christ, under circumstances in which there was no human being to receive any instruc- tion by it except himsfelf. A type is an acted lesson — a visilile representation of invisible truths. To its util- itv, therefore, spectators are as indispensable as actors; and where the former are not present, to say that tiod appoints the latter to go through their performance is to charge him with iloing something in vain. See Similitude.
4. Relation to Allefjnry. — "An allegory," says bishop Marsh, "according to its original and proper meaning, denotes a representation of one thing which is intended to excite the representation of another thing." Adopt- ing this as a just explanation, it is obvious that type and allegory are closely allied. In both there is an original representation which has a meaning of its own, and there is the use of that for the purpose of calling ui)
TYPE
611
TYPHON
to the mind the conception of another thing analogous to the former. The two, however, are very distinct. They ditfer in two respects: the one is that the subject of an allegorv is a more historical event occurring in the ordinary course of things, whereas a type is an act or in- stitute expressly appointed by God to teach some im- portant truth; the other is, tliat the allegorical sense is a fictitious meaning put upon a narrative for the sake of illustrating something else, whereas the explanation of a type is its true and only meaning, and is adduced sole- ly for the sake of unfolding that meaning. Thus Paul, in order to explain the doctrine of the covenants, allego- rizes the anectlote of Sarai and II agar recorded by Moses, making Sarai represent the Abrahamic or new or ever- lasting covenant, and llagar the Sinaitic or old cove- nant ((Jal. iv, 24, '25). In the same way he allegorizes the fact of the water from the rock following the Israel- ites through the wilderness, speaking of it as represent- ing Christ in the blessings he confers upon his church (1 Cor. X, 4). These allegorizings (aXXz/yopo/'/fEva) are only comparisons without the form ; and their use is ob- viously merely to explain one thing by another. The radical ditftrence between the exposition of a type and an allegorical intrepretation of history, is apparent from the use which the apostle makes of them respectively. His allegorizings are mere illustrations on which, b\' themselves, nothing is built; whereas his typical ex- planations are all brought forward as forming the basis of arguments addressed to those who, admitting the type, were thereby pledged to the admission of the truths it embodied. See Allegory.