Set Forth and Exemplified in the Deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, and Institution of the Mosaic Law;' and contemplated in that relation, his discussions are, in the main, highly interesting. In the remainder of the volume he treats of the types of the Mosaic ritual, and generally with judgment and learning. The truth and beauty of the views he presents on several of the topics he there discusses, excite surprise at his errors on other branches of the subject." Our animadversions were directed exclusively against his theory; our statements in regard to its principles and import were verified by adequate proofs; and our characterisation of its errors expressed in no stronger language than truth justified and demanded. He, however, arraigns it as harsh, contemptuous, and abounding with misrepresentations:

"As an article containing an elaborate review of the first edition of the Typology, and endeavouring to overthrow the views maintained in it as a 'monstrous scheme, not only without the sanction of the Word of God,' but 'one of the boldest and most effective contrivances for its subversion.' This certainly is strong language, yet it is only a fair specimen of the harsh and contemptuous phraseology which pervades the article, and which too commonly characterises both the pen and the school of the writer. We have no intention of taking any particular notice either of these, or the palpable misrepresentations with which they are not unfrequently accompanied. We mean simply to examine the grounds on which the reviewer principally rests his opposition to our typological principles, and succeeds so entirely to his own satisfaction in cutting off much from the typical category in Scripture that we hold to belong to it. So far as we know, the subject has nowhere been so fully argued from the same point of view."—Vol. i., p. 37.

Had Dr Fairbairn informed his readers what the element is of his scheme in respect to which the expressions he here quotes were employed, they would have seen that they are altogether warrantable and appropriate. To have characterised it less strongly, as subversive of the Divine Word, would have been unfaithfulness to the truth. For the branch of his theory in reference to which they are employed, is the doctrine that the prophecies of the Old Testament that remained unfulfilled at Christ's glorification, were completely changed in their meaning by that event, and became predictions, or types rather, only of things of a wholly different order, and purely spiritual. Thus he said :

"From the moment Christ was glorified, as the temple and Jerusalem lost their original character, and were no longer the one the proper dwellingplace of Jehovah, the other the chosen city;-the Jerusalem and temple in this sense, then rose heavenward with its Divine Head, waiting the time of restitution, it is in that higher region, or in the history and destiny of the New Testament Church, that we are to look for what yet remains to be fulfilled of such predictions."-Vol. i., p. 510.

“At the very time Daniel was foretelling the desolation that was to come over the material temple, he was intimating the consummation of a new and

uigher one. And speaking as he does of the Church, in language plainly adapted to the material temple—presenting the spiritual idea under that type and form, he teaches us how to understand such language when used elsewhere; in other words, he confirms the principle of interpretation, that WHEN future things are predicted IN THE SHAPE OF PAST AND EXISTING THINGS, it is the reproduction, NOT OF THE OUTWARD AND LITERAL FORM, but of THE INWARD AND ESSENTIAL IDEA, that is to be expected.”—Vol. i., p. 513.

The law of interpretation he advances thus is, that after Christ's glorification, no predictions of things such as already existed are to be construed as to have their fulfilment in the things they literally foreshew, but only in the inward and essential idea; that is, on his theory, the spiritual things of which those literally predicted are supposed to be types.*

What, then, are the things predicted in the Old Testament under the shape of things already existing, the signification of which, according to Dr Fairbairn, was changed in that manner? Among them were:-1. The renovation of the mind; for that had already been accomplished in thousands and millions of instances. 2. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the discontinuance of the sacrifices and oblations, and the dispersion of the Israelites by the Romans, Dan. ix. 26, 27. 3. Their continuance in exile and the desolation of their country. till the second coming of Christ, Dan. ix. 27. 4. The domination of the powers denoted by the ten-horned beast over the nations of Europe down to the time of Christ's second coming, Dan. vii. 7-14. 5. The apostasy of the Gentile Church under the dominion of those powers, and in connexion with them, Dan. vii. 8, 11, viii. 9–12, 23–26. 6. The persecution of the true worshippers by that apostate Church, Dan. vii. 20–25. 7. The judgment, at length, and destruction of the powers symbolised by the wild beast, Dán. vii. 9, 11, 22, 26. 8. The second coming of Christ, and assumption of the sceptre of the world, Dan. vii. 13, 14, 27; Zech. xiv. 5, 9; Isa. ii. 2-4, 10-21; Matt. xxvi. 63, 64. 9. The restoration of the Israelites to their land, Isa. xi. 10–16; Jer. xxxiii. 10. The concurrence and co-operation of the Gentiles in their return, Isa. lxvi. 19, 20. 11. The gift to the Israelites universally of a new heart and a new spirit, Jer. xxxii. 37-44; Zech. xii. 9-14, xiii. 1. 12. The restoration of their land from desolation to fertility, Isa. xxxv. 1-10, xli. 17-20. 13. The conversion of all nations and submission to Christ's sceptre, Dan. vii. 13, 14, 27. 14. The resurrection of the holy dead and reign with Christ, Dan. xii. 1-3, vii. 13, 14, 27. 15. The creation of new heavens and a new earth, Isa. lxv. 17-25. 16. The pouring out * Or rather, according to the Arminian scheme of contingent or conditional prophecy, (which Dr F. holds) no prediction needs to be fulfilled at all.

of the Spirit on all mankind, and gift to them of miraculous powers, Joel ii. 28-32. We might add a great number of others; but these are enough to test Dr Fairbairn's doctrine. Now, according to him, at Christ's glorification those prophecies lost all their original and proper meaning, and became predictions of wholly different, and merely analogous things of a higher nature; so that we now have no revelation in them respecting the civil rulers of the Roman empire, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the discontinuance of sacrifices and the dispersion of the Israelitish people, the apostasy of the Gentile Church, the persecution of the saints by that apostate power, its judgment and destruction, the second coming and reign of Christ, the restoration of Israel, the conversion of the Gentiles and Israelites, the resurrection of the holy dead, or the redemption of the world. Not a whisper is uttered by them on any of these subjects. They relate only to different, higher, and more spiritual events. But can anything be more unwarrantable?

In the first place, it is wholly groundless and arbitrary. He alleges no proof of it, nor could he. There is nothing in the prophecies themselves, or the principles of the Divine government, to authorise such an assumption.

In the next place, it is confuted by the fact that a large part of those predictions have been literally fulfilled since Christ's ascension; such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the dispersion of the Israelites among the Gentile nations, and in the exact manner foretold by Daniel, ix. 26, 28; Matt. xxiv. 15, their continuance in exile to the present time, the rise and domination over western Europe of the civil rulers symbolised by the ten-horned wild beast, the apostasy of the Church, and conversion of itself into a civil power, its persecution of the saints, and the pouring out of the Spirit and bestowment of miraculous gifts on the day of Pentecost, (Joel ii. 28-32; Acts ii. 16-21.) This last is expressly declared by Peter to be in fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel; and the siege and desolation of Jerusalem, it is foretold by Christ, were to be in accordance with the prediction of Daniel, Mark xiii. 14; and all the others are equally accomplishments of the predictions in which they are foretold. Will Dr Fairbairn venture to deny it? Could he offer a grosser contradiction to truth and common sense? If these exact fulfilments of those prophecies, comprising the agency of so many millions of beings, and extending through so many ages, are not accomplishments of them, is it possible to prove that any events are accomplishments and verifications of the predictions in

which they are foreshewn? May it not with as much reason be denied that the incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are verifications of the predictions of those events, and the whole system of prophecy be at a stroke overthrown?

In the third place, it is impossible that this theory can be true, inasmuch as many of these predictions cannot denote a higher class of events than those which they directly foreshew, they being themselves of a purely spiritual nature. Such is the effusion of the Spirit foretold by Joel, on the day of Pentecost, and communication of miraculous gifts. Can anything be more spiritual than the Holy Spirit himself? Such is the conversion of the Israelites and Gentiles. Such also, on the other hand, is the apostasy of the Church to a false worship, and attempt, by persecution, to put an end to the true homage of God. Is there any higher grade of sin; any more impious apostasy from God than that?

In the fourth place, some of these prophecies are made through the medium of symbols, and therefore cannot be spiritualised. The events foreshewn must be taken to be those which the symbols directly denote; not something beyond, supposed to be symbolised by those symbolised events. That were to make the things prophesied, not the events foreshewn, but only the symbols or media of foreshewing a still different set of events; which is not only unauthorised, but would divest the predictions of all certainty. For who could prove that the second series of events, thus supposed to be foreshewn, were not themselves also but the media of foreshewing a still remoter one, and so on interminably? If the prophecies were supposed to be framed on such a principle, no one could ever know that he had at any stage in a series reached the events that were the true and ultimate objects of prediction.

In the fifth place, if the prophecies of the Old Testament have lost their original and genuine meaning, and are now to be interpreted on the principle Dr Fairbairn asserts, then no one can shew that those of the New Testament are not also subject to the same law of construction. It is incredible that they are not. For many of them are predictions of identically the same events as those of the Old Testament; such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the career of persons denoted by the wild beast, the persecution of the true worshippers on the one side; and on the other the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the effusion of the Spirit on all mankind, the conversion of all nations, the endless life, glory, and reign of the saints. If the prophecies of these events in the Old Testament do not foreshew what they na

turally denote, but only a different class of occurrences, how can it be proved that the predictions of the New Testament are not to be interpreted by the same law? What consideration could be alleged against it, that would not be equally applicable to those of the Old Testament? The principle thus strikes from us every certainty derived from the Word of God in regard to the future. There is not a prediction or promise left that assures us of that, which, according to the laws of language and symbols, it denotes. We have no testimony from God that we are to exist for ever. We have no certainty, we have not even a hint, that any forgiveness and acceptance are provided for us through the blood and righteousness of Christ. We have no indication that we are to be judged. We have no pledge of a resurrection. We have no knowledge of the purposes of God on any subject. The Bible is turned into an inexplicable enigma, a gorgeous mockery, and God and ourselves wrapt in unmitigated darkness.

Such is a single branch of the system which we characterised by "the phraseology" Dr Fairbairn denounces as "harsh and contemptuous," and attempts to brand with the discredit of" palpable misrepresentation." We need not appeal to the intelligence and conscientiousness of the reader whether our judgment of his system is not just and fitly expressed. What scheme ever deserved to be branded as monstrous, if this does not? Of what theory could it be truthfully said, if not of this, that "instead of having the sanction of the Word of God, it is one of the boldest and most effective contrivances ever devised for its perversion?" That sentence and its terms are simply expressive of a fact; not exaggerative and harsh. They are the utterance of truth and sobriety, not of misrepresentation or contempt; and they should have roused him to a sense of his responsibility, and prompted him to a reconsideration of the subject, and correction of his mistakes, instead of provoking him to resentment. It makes a very unfavourable impression, that in the presence of this overwhelming demonstration of the error of his theory, in place of recalling it in a spirit of rectitude and meekness, he attempts to veil its revolting character by an unjust assault on us. That he felt the unanswerableness of our objections seems to be indicated by the exclusion from his last edition of the passages in reference to which we employed the sentences he so strongly resents, and reduction of the appendix from which they were taken from more than sixty pages to four. Why did he not erase the doctrine, instead of simply expunging the parts on which we founded our objections?