Page images
PDF
EPUB

tion of him with the Lord, or Jehovah, who should come to his temple. The covenant was plainly that of the New Testament, which Christ ratified with his blood, that which broke down the wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles, and opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers. The temple indeed primarily meant the second temple, that which was erected in the time of Nehemiah, and evidently of this prophet also: but the full scope of the prediction was more enlarged, and had reference to the Christian religion. The designation of this predicted personage in the sequel as the Sun of Righteousness, who was to arise with healing in his wings, leads back our thoughts to the parallel passages in other prophets, and certifies us incontestably, that we correctly apply the words of Malachi to Christ. But the prophet strongly refers to the second advent of Christ likewise, in verses to which we do not extend our discussion, and concludes with a prophecy, which from the first Christian ages has been accounted a præ-indication of John the Baptist, and interpreted in connection with chap. iii. 1 '.

The Jewish opinions founded in the declaration

1 With Ch. iii. 2, Eph. vi. 13, Luke xxi. 36, (as verse 34. with part of Mal. iii. 1.) Apoc. vi. 16, 17, correspond. In James i. 17. we likewise retrace v. 6.; St. Paul too alluded to v. 14. in 1 Tim. iv. 8, and St. Peter, 2 Ep. iii. 9. 15, 17. seems also to have referred an idea to the sixteenth verse.

of Malachi, that Elijah would come before the Messiah, are sufficiently known; and even among the ancient Christians an idea prevailed, that the oracle was but partially and primarily accomplished in the Baptist, but would be plenarily and literally fulfilled by the personal appearance of Elijah, the Tishbite, before the general judgment. This the words, "before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord" have sanctioned; and some contrasting the future time in Matt. xvii. 11. with the past in the twelfth verse, have inferred, that our Saviour corroborated the expectation. Chrysostom in his fiftyseventh homily on St. Matthew, and Theophylact in loco unequivocally make this assertion. Jerome likewise, Augustin, Cyril, Origen, Theodoret, and many more coincided in the opinion. The belief has even passed onwards to the Mahommedans. Its antiquity certainly entitles it to respect.

R

TYPES.

WE come now to consider the second division of our work-TYPES. To avoid overstraining this subject, it will be necessary to adhere strictly to Scripture, because something more is required than a mere resemblance of one thing to another to constitute a type. A type must emphatically be designed by God to prefigure something future; and unless we have this authority, we are not warranted to designate it a type '.

1 Bishop Marsh's observations upon Types are very acute and valuable. He writes thus in his sixth Lecture on the Interpretation of the Bible. "To constitute one thing the type of another, as the term is generally understood in reference to Scripture, something more is wanted than mere resemblance. The former must not only resemble the latter, but must have been designed to resemble the latter. It must have been so designed in its original institution: it must have been designed as some. thing preparatory to the latter. The type, as well as the antitype, must have been pre-ordained; and they must have been pre-ordained as constituent parts of the same general scheme of Divine providence. It is this previous design, and this preordained connexion, which constitute the relation of type and

Were not this rule to be strictly observed, men of heated imaginations would be constantly attempt

antitype. Where these qualities fail, where the previous design and the pre-ordained connexion are wanting, the relation between any two things, however similar in themselves, is not the relation of type and antitype. The existence, therefore, of that previous design and pre-ordained connexion must be clearly established, before we can have authority for pronouncing one thing the type of another. But we cannot establish the existence of that previous design, and pre-ordained connexion, by arguing only from the resemblance of the things compared. For the qualities and circumstances, attendant on one thing, may have a close resemblance with the qualities and circumstances attendant on another thing, and yet the things themselves may be devoid of all connexion. How then, it may be asked, shall we obtain the proof required? By what means shall we determine, in any given instance, that what is alleged as a type was really designed for a type? Now the only possible source of information on this subject is Scripture itself. The only possible means of knowing that two distant, though similar historic facts, were so connected in the general scheme of Divine Providence, that the one was designed to prefigure the other, is the authority of that Work, in which the scheme of Divine Providence is unfolded. Destitute of that authority, we may confound a resemblance, subsequently observed, with a resemblance pre-ordained; we may mistake a comparison, founded on a mere accidental parity of circumstances, for a comparison founded on a necessary and inherent connexion. There is no other rule, therefore, by which we can distinguish a real from a pretended type, than that of Scripture itself. There are no other possible means, by which we can know that a previous design, and a pre-ordained connexion existed. Whatever persons, or things therefore, recorded in the Old Testament were expressly declared by Christ, or by his Apostles, to have been designed as pre-figurations of persons or things relating to the New Testament, such persons or things, so recorded in the former, are types of the persons or things,

ing to produce types from the Old Testament, without the slightest authority or designation by God. We grant that it is an interesting occupation; yet is it one, which is likely to give exercise to the fancy; and more judgment, than that which often falls to the lot of man, is requisite, to keep the mind from erring, especially if it be not directed by that, which alone cannot err. It requires the assistance from on high to keep it from wandering among "the hidden things of God," and from deducing from the simple testimony of truth unwarrantable speculations. An apparent connexion and a casual resemblance are nothing without the determinate authority of the Bible; but when the thing prefigured possesses both, how greatly does the type add to the evidence of Christianity! Types may thus be considered as a part of the foundation, upon which Christianity rests, or rather as the substructure upon which the truth of a revelation is

with which they are compared in the latter. But if we assert, that a person or thing was designed to prefigure another person or thing, where no such prefiguration has been declared by Divine authority, we make an assertion, for which we neither have, nor can have, the slightest authority. And even when comparisons are instituted in the New Testament, between antecedent and subsequent persons or things, we must be careful to distinguish the examples, where a comparison is instituted merely for the sake of illustration, from the examples, where such a connexion is declared, as exists in the relation of a type to its antitype."

« PreviousContinue »