T Y P 



T Y P 



\vithout proving them as much as poffible, and (hewing that 

 they were really intended for types, in order to juftify the 

 folidity of the rcafoning of the apoilles, who argued from 

 them. 



An author, in reference to this fubjeft, maintains, that 

 not the fathers only, but St. Paul himfelf, was of the opi- 

 nion, " th^t Chriftianity was all contained in the Old Teila- 

 ment, and was implied in the Jewifti hiftory and law ; both 

 ■which are to be reputed types and fhadows of Chriftianity." 

 In order to which, he quotes Hebrews, viii. 5. x. I. and 

 Colof. ii. 16, 17. He adds, " that the ritual laws of 

 Mofes, being in their own nature no other than types and 

 ftiadows of future good things, are to be confidered as hav- 

 ing the effeft of prophecies." This is likewife the fenfe of 

 Mr. Wliifton, and others ; but the fame author even quotes 

 our Saviour fpeaking in behalf of this typical reafoning in 

 that palTage, Matth. xi. 13. where he affirms that, "the 

 law prophefies ; and that he came to fulfil the law as well 

 as the gofpel." (Matth. v. 17. Difc. of the Grounds, &c.) 

 An ingenious divine takes this occafion to obferve, that 

 had the ancients, with the modern retainers to the typical 

 way, exprefsly defigned to have expofed Chriftianity, they 

 could not have done it more effeftually than by thus making 

 every thing types and prophecies. 



Not that he denies the reality of fuch things as types. It 

 is manifeft there were many under the Old Teftament ; fuch 

 were Zechariah's ftaves, beauty, and bands, ch. xi. 7. lo. 

 14 ; fuch was Hofea's adulterous wife, chap. i. 2 ; and fuch 

 were his children, ver. 4. 6. The prophets defigned by 

 thefe to prefigure future events ; but in thefe inftances the 

 reader is at once, by the declaration of the prophet, made 

 to underftand as much, and not left to his own conjeftures 

 about them after the events are over. 



In effeft, all that is urged from Scripture for the typical 

 or allegorical interpretations of the Jewifti law, hiftory, 

 ceremonies, &c. it is afterted, may be fet afide, without any 

 violence to the Sacred Text, which may be explained on 

 more natural and intelligible principles, and more confift- 

 ently with grammcir. 



The word tutoc, we have obferved, literally denotes no 

 more than a copy or impreilion of any thing ; and accord- 

 ingly, in our tranflation, we find it fometimes rsndcred by 

 print, fometimes hjjigure, fometimes hy fajhlon, and fome- 

 times hj form. 



Hence alfo the word is figuratively applied to denote a 

 moral pattern ; in which fenfe it fignifies no more than ex- 

 ample andjlm'tlitude. 



Again, the word avTirviro--, antitype, in Scripture, fignifies 

 any thing formed according to a model or pattern ; and 

 thus, in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, the tabernacle, and 

 holy of holies, being made according to the pattern ftiewn 

 to Mofes, are faid to be antitypes, or figures, of the true 

 holy places. In the like fenfe, St. Peter, fpeaking of the 

 flood and the ark, by which eight perfons were faved, calls 

 baptifm an antitype to them ; by which he expreffes no more 

 than a fimilitude of circumftances. 



The other words ufed in Scripture to imply a future 

 event, prefigured by fome foregoing aft, are, — uTrooiiyiJ.ce., 

 rendered by imitation and example ; and a-wy., Jhadow. 



Such being the import of all the terms ufed in the New 

 Teftament writers, feeming to imply any prefiguration of 

 future events under the Gofpel, it is obferved, 



I. That to argue from types, is only to argue from ex- 

 amples or fimilitudcs ; and, confequently, that all inferences 

 drawn from fuch reafonings are no farther conclufive than 

 leafonings from fimilitudes are. The intent of fimilitudes 

 J5 only to help to convey fome ideas more clearly or ftrongly ; 



fo that to deduce confequences from a fimile, or infer anr 

 thing from other parts of the fimile, than what are plainly 

 fimilar, is abfurd. 



The fame author alfo alleges, 2. That it cannot be 

 proved, that the ceremonies of the Mofaic law were ever 

 defigTied to prefigure any future events in the ftate of the 

 Meffiah's kingdom. No fuch declared prefigurations are' 

 mentioned in the writings of the Old Teftament, whatever 

 notions prevailed among the writers who immediately fol- 

 lowed. It is granted, that the apoftles argued from the 

 rites in the Mofaic inftitution ; but this (he fays) appears to 

 have only been by way of illuftration and analogy. 



There is certainly a general likenefs in all the difpenfa- 

 tions of Providence ; an analogy of tilings in the natural as 

 well as the moral world, from which it is eafy arguing by 

 way of parity, and it is very juft and ufual fo to do ; but that 

 one of thefe difpenfations was therefore given to prefignify 

 another that was future, can never be proved, unlefs it be 

 exprefsly declared. 



It is in the fame way of fimilitude (he maintains) we are to 

 underftand St. Paul, where he fays, " that Chrift our paff- 

 over is facrificed for us." And thus we are to underftand 

 John the Baptift, when he calls our Saviour the " Lamb of 

 God." There was this fimihtude of circumftance, that 

 Chrift was flain on the fame day with the pafchal lamb ; 

 that he died about the fame time of the day when the priefts 

 began their hillel ; that not a bone of the one or the other 

 was broken. Add, that as the pafchal lamb was without 

 blemifti, fo was Chrift without fin. From thefe, and other 

 circumftances, the apoftle apphed the term paffover to 

 Chrift. 



Thus, alfo, we are to account for what St. Paul calls the 

 baptifm of the children of Ifrael in the cloud, and in the 

 fea ; and for the comparifon betwixt the liigh-prieft entering 

 the holy place every year, and Chrift entering into heaven. 

 Sykes's EfFay on the Truth of the Chriftian religion, 1725. 



Type, ■xvzo;, is alfo a name given to an edift of the em- 

 peror Conftans II. publifhed in 648, to impofe a general 

 filence both on the orthodox and the Monothelites. 



It had the name of type, as being a kind of formulary of 

 faith ; or rather a form on which men were to regulate their 

 conduft. 



The type owed its original to Paul, patriarch of Con- 

 ftantinople, who perfuaded that emperor to take away the 

 efthefis, compiled and hung up in all the public places by 

 Heraclius ( as occafioning great complaints from the ortho- 

 dox, by its favouring the Monothelites) ; and to pubhfti an 

 edift to impofe filence on both parties. 



But fuch kinds of pacifications are held inexcufable in 

 matters of religion ; accordingly pope Theodore foon pro- 

 cured the patriarch Paul to be depofed ; the type was exa- 

 mined in the council of Rome, confifting of a hundred and 

 five biftiops, in 649, and condemned ; and an anathema was 

 pronounced againft all fuch as admitted either the impious 

 efthefis or typus. 



Type, Typus, is alfo ufed to denote the order obferved 

 in the intenfion and remifiion of fevers, pulfes, &c. 



Type, among Letter-founders and Printers, denotes the 

 fame with letter. See Foundery. 



TYPHA, in Botany, Cat's-tail, or Reed-mace, iv'!f% of the 

 ancient Greeks, from ti?ioc, a hog or marjh, of which fiuations 

 the plants of this genus are among the moft confpicuous in- 

 habitants. They are often vulgarly miftaken for the Bull- 

 rufh, a very different plant. (See Scirpos, feft. 2.) — 

 Linn. Gen. 479. Schreb. 620. Willd. Sp. PI. v. 4. 197- 

 Mart. Mill. Dift. V. 4. Sm. Fl. Brit. 959. Prodr. FI. 

 Gric. Sibth. v. 2. 225. Ait. Hort. Kew. v. 5. 234. 

 7 Brown 



