Y . Interpretation of Types. — As a general rule it may be laid down that we should alwaj'S expect to find in the antitype something higher and more glorious than in the type (Chrysost. in Genes. flom.So: /^u) TravTct dTrairei iv T([i Tvn(})' oiiCe yap ai> iuj tvttoq el jitiXXoi Travrci txfC' rd ry dX>]9d(f (Ti'i.ij3an'0VTa}. This fol- lows from the nature of the case. For if the design of a type be by outward sjnnbols to foreshadow spiritual truths, it follows that, in proportion as the thing signi- tied is more valuable than the mere sign, and as things spiritual and eternal are more glorious than things ma- terial and transitory, the type must be inferior in value and in majesty to that which it is designed to prefigure.
More specific rules having reference especially to the Mosaic ritual are — 1. The symbolical ritual, as a whole and in its individual parts, can set forth only such ideas and truths as accord with the known, and elsewhere clearly announced, principles of Old-Test, theology. 2. An accurate knowledge of tlie outward constitution of each symbol is an indispensable condition of its inter- pretation ; for, as the sole object of the symbol is to con- vey spiritual truth by sensible representations, to at- tempt to discover the former before we understand the latter is to endeavor to reach an end without using the means. 3. The first step in the interpretation of a sym- bol is the explanation of its name; for, as this is gener- ally given with a direct reference to the idea symbol- ized, it forms of itself a sort of exponent of the symbol to w hich it is affixed. 4. Each symbol expresses, in gen- eral, only one grand idea; at the same time, of course, incliuling all subordinate ideas that may be involved in it. Thus, in the case of sacrifices, a variety of truths are presented to the mind, but all going to make up the one grand truth which that rite symbolized. 5. Each sym- bol has always the same fundamental meaning, however ditferent may be the objects with which it is combined. Thus, for instance, the act of purification has the same symbolical meaning, whether it is performed upon a per- son or an animal, or upon a material object. 6. In in- terpreting a symbol, we must throw out of view all that is merely necessitated by the laws of its physical con- dition, and that does not serve to help out the symbol- ical representation. Symbols have often accessories of two kinds: tlie one consisting of such as are in them- selves sj'mbolical, and which go to make up the sum total of the representation; the other, of such as are,
from the nature of things, required by the material ob- jects composing the symbol for their continued exist- ence, Thus, in the case of the candlestick in the sanc- tuary, it was provided that it should have branches and knops aiul flowers, and also that it should be supplied with snuffers and snuff-dishes. Now, of those accesso- ries the former were not indispensable to its serving the purpose for wiiich it was designed — that of giving light; but they, having each a symbolical meaning, added to the symbolical effect of the whole; whereas the latter were merely required in order to prevent the lights from dying out for want of cleansing. Keeping this distinction in view, we need not be afraid of going too minutely into the explanation of the Mosaic ritual. Everytiiing, in fact, of which it was composed was a symbol, with the single exception of such things as the earthly, physical condition of the substance or persons emploved rendered indispensable. Nay, even these, from belonging to a typical institute, such as the nation of Israel was, acquired a sort of secondary typical char- acter; just as the ordinary events of Israelitish history have for the same reason a spiritually doctrinal char- acter. See Syjibol.
VI. Examples of Types. — In tracing out irho and what typified or shadowed forth Christ and his salva- tion under the antediluvian, patriarchal, and IMosaic dis- pensations, we must be careful not to substitute the sug- gestions.of our own imaginations for tlie intimations of Scripture. We must endeavor to learn the mind of God as to what actually constitutes a type, either by the ex- press declarations of Scripture, or by the obvious analogy which subsists between things under the Gospel and its antecedent dispensations. Thus guarding ourselves, we may notice the various types by which God was pleased, at all times, in a sense, to preach the Gospel to man- kind.
1. Among imlividiial persons, before the law, Adam, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph were eminently typical of Christ, but only in certain re- lations. Again, under the law, ]\Ioses, Joshua, Samson, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, Zerubbabel, and Joshua the higli-priest were, in many points, singularly types of Christ.
2. The first-born, the Nazarites, prophets, priests, and kings were typical orders of persons.
3. Under the head of thinys typical may be noticed : Jacob's ladder, the burning bush, the pillar of cloud and fire; and, in the opinion of some, the manna, the rock, and the brazen serpent.
4. A ctions typical were : the deliverance out of Egypt, the passage of the Red Sea, the sojourn in the wilder- ness, the passage over the Jordan, tlie entrance into Canaan, and the restoration from Babj'lon.