immediately after the baptism is completed. "Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is by baptism regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church," &c. And the thanksgiving, which immediately follows, begins thus, "We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit." Unless therefore the expression "it hath pleased God to regenerate" is synonymous with the expression "it shall please God to regenerate," unless the past is the same with the future, it is impossible to deny, that they, who wilfully and deliberately detach regeneration from baptism, impugn essentially the doctrine of our established Church, inasmuch as they impugn it in one of our Holy Sacraments.* Having thus illustrated two very remarkable types of the Old Testament, the one applying to the Sacra * As it is impossible to explain away the strong expressions, which have been here quoted, an attempt of another kind has been made, namely, to shew that they are inconsistent with a prayer in the former part of the service, which contains the following passage: "We call upon thee for this infant, that he, coming to thy Holy Baptism, may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration." But there is no inconsistency in believing, that what was only a subject of prayer at the commencement of the service, was a grace already obtained at the close of the service. The grace conferred at Baptism is the effect of Repentance and Faith: and the professions of Repentance and Faith are made after the prayer for regeneration, but before the declaration, that the child is regenerate. The prayer therefore, and the declaration, are perfectly consistent. ment of Baptism, the other to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, we may now proceed with that analogy, which subsists between the interpretation of types and the interpretation of prophecy. Whatever be the mode, in which a prophecy is conveyed, whether it be conveyed by words, or conveyed by things, the connexion between that conveyance, and the event in which we seek the completion, must be clearly established, or the very existence of the prophecy will remain unproved. But it appears from the arguments already used, that an event in the history of the Jews, or a ceremony performed in the temple of Jerusalem, cannot be regarded as typical, and consequently not as prophetical of any rite performed in the Church of Christ, unless it was determined by the Deity, that such event should happen, or such ceremony be instituted, with a view to what the Deity foresaw would take place in later ages. Where no such connexion exists between a former event or ceremony, and a later event or ceremony, the former can in no wise be considered as typical, and consequently not as prophetical, of the latter. The histories of Greece and Rome afford various examples of events at one period, which resemble the events of another period. But we do not therefore regard them as types and antitypes. And why do we not regard them as such? Because we perceive no connexion between them because we perceive nothing more than, that the things are similar: because we have no evidence, that in the general scheme of Divine Providence, the one was intended to represent the other. This evidence can be afforded only by revelation: and therefore we never seek for types and antitypes except in the Sacred Writings. But then, for this very reason we must make the Sacred Writings the basis, and the sole basis, on which we build our theories of types, and typical prophecy. We have therefore no warrant to conclude, that the events or ceremonies of one period were designed by the Deity to be typical, and therefore prophetical, of the events or ceremonies of another period, unless (as in the two examples which I selected as an illustration of types) Revelation itself has declared them to be such. It has indeed been objected by the advocates of a more extensive scheme, that an explanation of types in the Bible itself is in general not to be expected. It has been urged that their very nature requires obscurity and concealment: and consequently that an explanation of them would be inconsistent with their original design. But the explanation, for which we must have recourse to Scripture, is not an explanation to be sought in the Old Testament, or an explanation accompanying the type. It is an explanation to be sought in the New Testament, or an explanation accompanying the antitype. That such explanations, in various instances, are given in the New Testament, no one can deny. Who, for instance, would deny that the sacrifice of the paschal lamb is declared in the New Testament to be a prefiguration of the death of Christ. And if it was deemed necessary to explain one type, where could be the expediency, or the moral fitness, of withholding the explanation of others? Must not therefore the silence of the New Testament, in the case of any supposed type, be an argument against the existence of that type? If it was agreeable to the design of typical representation, that they, to whom the type was originally given, should remain ignorant of its real tendency, or of the thing, which it was meant to prefigure, it must have been agreeable to the same design, that, as soon as the prefigured antitype had taken place, its relation to the type should be clearly revealed. The observance of a type is superseded by the accomplishment of the antitype. It is necessary therefore that we should know the exact period of that accomplishment: or we shall know not the period, when the observance of the type should cease. Whatever advantage therefore the Jews might have derived from their remaining in ignorance, that certain ceremonies performed in the temple of Jerusalem were only shadows of better things to come, yet when those better things were come, it was of the highest importance, that the mystery should be removed, and the types explained. But revelation alone could give the explanation. For that one thing was designed to prefigure another, can be known only to Him who designed it, and to those, to whom he has vouchsafed to reveal it. When we proceed to the interpretation of prophecies delivered in words, we shall find no less caution necessary, than in the interpretation of prophecies delivered by things. We must not imagine that in every instance, where the words of a Hebrew prophet appear to bear some resemblance, or to be applicable to events which are passing in the present age, they were therefore designed to be predictions of those events. If we argue from mere similarity, without taking other things into consideration, the consequence will be, that wherever the meaning of a passage is in itself sufficiently general to admit of more applications than one, various interpreters will compare it with various events, and they will all declare, that the passage is a prophecy of that particular event, to which they themselves apply it. Indeed we know by experience, that passages in the writings of the Hebrew prophets have been applied to as many different events, as the interpreters, themselves are numerous. Yet each interpreter is confident of his own explanation and is persuaded that all other interpreters are mistaken. In this manner is the sure word of prophecy, as St. Peter very justly calls it, exposed to suspicion, on the part of those, who are inclined to question the truth of our holy religion. : But though the difficulties attending the interpretation of the Hebrew prophets are confessedly great, those difficulties are not insurmountable. And if the interpretation of prophecy is really subject to deter |