ich
brought the type and its spiritual fulfilment together; otherwise
every one could make out of it what he desired. For instance,
that the serpent lifted up by Moses signifies Christ, is taught
by John iii [John 3:14]. If it were not for that passage my
reason might evolve very strange and weird fancies out of that
type. Again, that Adam was a type of Christ, I learn not from
myself, but from St. Paul in Romans v [Rom. 5:14]. Again, that
the rock in the wilderness signifies Christ, is not so stated by
my reason, but by St. Paul in I. Corinthians x. [1 Cor. 10:4]
Therefore, let none other explain the type but the Holy Spirit
Himself, Who has given the type and wrought the fulfilment, in
order that both promise and performance, type and fulfilment, and
the interpretation of both, may be God's own and not man's, and
our faith be founded not on human, but on divine works and words.

What leads the Jews astray but that they interpret the types as
they please, without the Scriptures? What has led so many
heretics astray but the interpretation of the types without
reference to the Scriptures? And though the pope were something
spiritual, yet even then it would count for nothing if I made
Aaron to be his type, unless I could point to a passage where it
is explicitly stated: Behold, Aaron was a type of the pope.
Otherwise who could prevent me from assuming that Aaron was a
type of the bishop of Prague? St. Augustine has stated that types
are not valid in controversy unless supported by the
Scriptures.[50]

But now this poor chatterbox has neither: no spiritual, inward
high-priest and no passage of the Scriptures; he goes at it
blindly with his own dreams, and assumes as his basis that Aaron
was the type of St. Peter, the very thing which is in greatest
need of foundation and proof, and he just goes on prattling that
the law must be fulfilled and not one iota omitted. My dear
Romanist, who has ever doubted that the law of the Old Testament
and its types must be fulfilled in the New? There was no need of
your scholarship to establish that. But here you might make a
great show and demonstrate by your ingenuity that this fulfilment
occurs in Peter or in the pope. You are as mute as a stick when
it is time to speak out, and a chatterbox when speech is
unnecessary. Have you not learned your logic better than that?
You argue your major premises, which no one questions, and assume
the correctness of your minor premises, which eve