Types of it, yet it does not follow that his death was a real Sacrifice, like the Jewish. On the contrary, we affirm, that this alone is fufficient to fhew, that if the Type was a real Sacrifice, the Antitype must be so likewife. For (to enter a little more particularly into this mode of reprefentation) a TYPE differs from a SYMBOL in this, that the Type represents fomething future; the Symbol, fomething past or present.-The commanded Sacrifice of Ifaac was given for a Type; the Sacrifices of the Law were Types. The Images of the Cherubims over the Propitiatory were Symbols; the bread and wine in the laft Supper were Symbols,

So far they agree in their genus, that they are equally REPRESENTATIONS; but in their species, they differ widely.

It is not required that the Symbol fhould partake of the nature of the thing reprefented: the Cherubims fhadowed out the ́celerity of Angels, but not by any physical celerity of their own; the bread and wine shadowed out the body and blood of Christ, but not by any change in the Elements.

But Types being, on the contrary, repre fentations of things future, and so partaking of the nature of Prophecy, were to convey information concerning the nature of the Antityfes, or of the things reprefented; which they could not do, but by the exhi bition of their own nature.

Hence we collect, that the command to offer. Ifaac, being the command to offer a real Sacrifice, the death and fufferings of Chrift, thereby reprefented, was a real Sacrifice. And the piacular and vicarious Sacrifices of the LAW being real Sacrifices, the Death on the Crofs was a real Sacrifice likewife.

Were this otherwise, the Type, as a Type, would contain more than was contained in the antitype. An abfurdity, which makes the Shadow convey more than the Subftance; when, by its very nature, it should convey lefs. On this Truth, the reafoning in the Epistle to the Hebrews is founded.—

Chrift (fays the Apoftolic Writer) was once offered to bear the fins of many, For the Law having the SHADOW Of "good things to come, and not the VERY

"IMAGE of the things, can never with "thofe Sacrifices, which they offered, year

66

by year, continually, make the comers "thereunto perfect; for then would they "have ceased to be offered *."

The Jewish Sacrifices are here called SHADOWS, not in an abfolute, but in a comparative sense. The Type is inferior to the Antitype, juft as, in visible things, a natural shadow is to an artificial image. For the Typical Sacrifices of the Law, having, befides their property of Types, a MORAL IMPORT, (and not like the Typical Sacrifice commanded to be offered by Abraham, a mere fhadow, without any moral import,) are called Shadows, not in oppofition to realities (for having a moral import, they are realities; but called Shadows, only in comparison to the vast difparity between the virtues of the Types and the Antitype, thus explained and enforced by the fame infpired Writer" For if the blood of

bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an

Heb. ix, 28. x. I, 2. See B. VI. § 6. of the Di

vine Legation.

M 4

"heifer,

"heifer,. fprinkling the unclean, fancti"fieth to the purifying of the flesh, How "MUCH MORE fhall the blood of Chrift, "who offered himself without fpot to God, "purge your confcience from dead works to serve the living God *?"

Again; though, from hence, it appears. that these Types with the Antitype are occupied in the elucidation of the same great fubject, yet it will not follow, that every feveral Type is equally expreffive of the Antitype. Some of them fhall present a more perfect image of the Antitype than others; yet they do not exclude the most imperfect from a fhare in the honour of fo august a representation. For though the divine Author of the System had ordained, that the whole of the Jewish Ritual, con cerning Sacrifices, should typify or prefigure the great SACRIFICE OF CHRIST; yet as thofe Sacrifices, at the fame time, conftituted an effential part of the Mofaic Oeco nomy, which, on several occafions, I have expreffed more generally by the terms of

*Heb. ix. 13, 14.

3

their bearing a MORAL IMPORT, it could not but be that fome would carry fainter, and others ftronger, Shadows or images of what as Types they reprefented; juft as the various Jewish service, in its moral nature, afforded more or lefs occafions of evidence. Thus, the Type of the Pafchal-Lamb was a more perfect reprefentation, than the Type of the Victim burnt without the Camp.

It might, and probably would have been otherwise, had these Types borne no moral import, like the command to offer Ifaac, for then nothing could have hindered all the Types from being as complete representations of the Antitype as that command to Abraham was; and if nothing hindered, it is reasonable to fuppofe, it would have been done.

We have obferved, that these Types, in the Mofaic Ritual, were a kind of Prophecy by action; in which Providence was pleased to manifeft to the world, the real connexion between the Jewish and the Chriftian Revelations. But this was not all. The other fort of Prophecy was not wanting, which, by way of eminence, has

com