the
adumbration must be inadequate--a _shadow only_ of the antitype, and not
its substance. Thus the paschal lamb was a type of Christ, though there
is infinitely more in the antitype than in the type. (2.) The symbol
must be _of divine appointment_, and as such, designed by God to
represent the antitype. We must carefully remember, however, that, from
the very nature of the case, the divine intention cannot be clearly
announced when the type is instituted. The paschal lamb typified "the
Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world;" but it was not
till centuries after the institution of the passover that God began to
intimate by the prophets the approaching sacrifice of the great Antitype
(Isa. chap. 53; Zech. 13:7), and the full import of the type was
revealed only when the sacrifice of "Christ our passover" had been
accomplished on Calvary. (3.) Since the type is "a shadow of good things
to come," it follows that the antitype must _belong to the future_. A
pure symbol may belong to the present or the near future. It may
represent something that now exists, or is coming into existence, in
respect to which concealment is not necessary. Hence we find the sacred
writers freely explaining the meaning of the symbols which they employ
(Numb. chap. 17; Josh. 4:1-7; 1 Sam. 7:12; 10:1, and the same symbol of
anointing often elsewhere; 1 Kings 11:29-39; 22:11, where a false
prophet uses a symbol; Isa. chap. 20; Jer. 1:11-14; 13:1-11, and
elsewhere; Ezek. chap. 3, and in many other passages; Amos 7:1-9; 8:1-3;
Zech. 1:8-11, and elsewhere). The true type, on the contrary, reckoned
from the time of its institution, looks forward to the distant future.
The high reality which it foreshadows may be intimated by the prophets
"as in a glass darkly," but the appearance of the antitype can alone
furnish a full explanation of its meaning.

The types of the Old Testament have been variously classified. We
propose to consider them under the two divisions of _historical_ and
_ritual_ types.

I. HISTORICAL TYPES.

4. The extravagance of a class of Biblical expositors in converting the
Old Testament history into allegory typical of persons and events under
the gospel dispensation has produced a strong reaction, leading some to
deny altogether the existence of historical types. But this is going to
the other extreme of error. No man who acknowledges the writers of the
New Testament to be true expositors of the meaning of the Old ca