Partii. CANONS OR RULES EXPOUNDING TYPES. •concludes it necefl'ary, that Chrift ' alfo facrifice Bread and 'N ine, &c. Bm befides this, that Articles of Fgith are not to be proved by typical Accommodations, (if not in the Scriptures, as this is not) but by certain and illu!tric cF Evid~nces of Scriptures, .which Bellarmine * himfelf grants. We will encounter this papiftical Qgibble, and .affirm, that this Application of the Type to the Antitype is not only in the leaft little confonant to Scripture, (for the Parallel is quite mherwife propofed, Heb. vii.) but .quite contrary to ir, and a Difparagement to, if not a jul1:ling out the only Sacrifice of .ehrill: and his evedafting l'riellhood. C A N 0 N V. When there are -many partial Types of one and the fame Thing, t'hen we are !o judge 1101 from one Antitype, but of alljoin;jy takm. , 'THE Reafon of this Canon depends upon the foreg;ing Canons. For in as muclt as the Things of the New Teft•mem are prefigured in the Old, "'A"i'·'fu;, at jim– dry Times, and in divers Manners, Heb. i. s. therefore if a right Judgment of the Thing prefigured ought to be made by Types, we mufl: not examine or meditate upon •one Type fingly, but many of them together. Here Socinus and his Followers err, when he parallels the Redemption and Mediation of Mofes, with that purchafed and -done by Chrift. But befides that Mofes is here a Type of Chrift only with refpeCl: to the Thing, (ratione rei) but not (ratione modi) with refpeB: to the Manner, as we faid, Canon 3· For we may alleclge that we bring our J udgmerit according to the Canon con– ·cerning our Redemption by Chrifl:, and his mediatorial Office, not from that fingle Type of Mofes, but from others joined with it. For the Manner of our Redemption, which confifl:s in the appeafing of divine Wrath and SatisfaCtion for our Sins, was more proximately and immcdiatdy, though not fully, adumbrated by the facrificial Types, chieBy the Scapegoat, Lev . xvi. 21. The red Heifer, Numb. xix. 2. Neverthelefs you are to note here, that the grand Foundation of our Belief in this Point, is not buih upon Types, but upon dear Scripture Texrs, that unfold the Myfl:ery of our Redemption. C A N 0 N VI. In expounding the Types of the Old Tefl:ament we are to e:(amine accurateb·, whether the Shadow; or the Truth, reprefented by a Shadow, be propofed: That is, whether the Prophets prophefj of Chrifl: under the Umbrage or Shadow of Types, or in exprefs Terms, viz• .JPeaking of our Savior in a literal Swfe. THE Reafon depends upon that Cu!tom of prophetical Speech, yea of God himfelf, fpeaking by the Prophets, hy which they are wont to make a fudden Tranfition from rhe 'Type to the Antitype, from a corporeal to a fpiritual Thing; and when the Speech is of another Thing, to turn themfelves to Chri!t, the Kernel, as it were, of the Scripture, and prophefy of him, not under ·the Shadow of Types, but in exprefs Terms. As for Inftance, it is faid, Pfal. ii. 7· Thou art my Son, this Day have I be– gottm thee. Calvin, in his Commentary upon this Pfalm, fays, That it is to be under– flood literally of David, but typicalb· of Cbrift. So the Place, Micah v. 2. But thou Beth– lehem Ephrata, &c. out of thee jha/1 come forth unto me a Ruler, or Captain. This the fame Calvin expounds not literally of Cluift, but of fome politic Governor, as a Type of Chrifl:. When yet thefe, and all Texts of the fame Purport are to be un– .-der!tood of Chrift literally, which the Coherence and Scope of the Text does clearly prove, &c. C A N 0 N VII. The Wicked, as jiah, are by no Means to be 'made Types of Chrilt, & c. THE•Adultery of David, and what is related of the two Harlots, and the Incefl: of Amnou and Thamar were accommodated by certain Writers to Chrift, as Azoriru 0 Lib. 3· de F. D. C<P· 30. the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=