247 
eat) typified the union of both. Jews and Gentiles within the 
Church of Christ. Can there, then, be anything strained in 
the idea that in the Ark and its inmates are typified Christ 
and His Church, or the company of believing people gathered 
from Jew and Gentile alike ? 
According to the view which I have stated above, no lion 
nor any ravenous beast was admitted into the Ark. Such 
animals are elsewhere used as figures of the enemies of God. 
Accordingly we find it written that “ no murderer hath eternal 
life;” “ the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” 
In the universal destruction of all living creatures not 
admitted into the Ark may clearly be seen the death, both 
spiritual and literal, which through the entrance of sin into 
the world has passed upon all men. “ In Adam all die.” 
And in that reproduction or renewal of vegetable and animal 
life, including the carnivora, what a picture-prophecy (for 
such a type is) may be seen of the resurrection both of the 
just and also of the unjust ! 
Now these are only a very few specimens from a certain stratum 
of Divine truth. But few as they are, they of themselves utter 
a voice far clearer than may be gathered from specimens from 
a literal rock as to probable facts and probable periods. 
Connect them however with similar specimens from the same 
stratum, and extend here your analogical reasoning, as you do 
with respect to geological formations ; add to it moreover (as 
in geology you cannot) the few clear facts of history, and you 
get, as I just now stated, both as to the fact or facts which 
typify, and the truths and events typified, instead of mere 
probability and theory, positive, certain truth. 
The Chairman. — I am sure we shall all be glad to return our thanks to 
Mr. Moule for his very remarkable paper, which I hope will lead to a good 
discussion. We must all feel indebted to him for the great care with which 
he has collected together passages of Scripture of the greatest possible im- 
portance on this subject. I now invite discussion. 
Rev. J. H. Titcomb. — I have heard Mr. Moule’s paper with considerable 
interest, and though I cannot say that I agree with it in the main, yet, 
for that very reason I wish to offer a few remarks upon it by way of opening 
the discussion. It appears to me that while there is much that is valuable 
in the line of thought through which he has passed our minds yet still there 
is much which leaves room for divergence of opinion, both from a scientific 
and a religious point of view. Speaking of the paper generally, I would say 
that its science is founded upon theology, which I think is always more or 
less a mistake ; while its theology, so far as it bears upon science, is founded 
upon private interpretations of Scripture - at least, so it seems to me. With 
reference to the first part of the paper, as to the universality of some 
VOL. IV. S 
