The Gofpel of theperfonal Types. 57 Yea they had Typesnot only of the Blefings and Benefits of Chrift, but ofour Miferies without him. They had their Ceremonial Unclean- neffes , as the Leprofie, for inftance, was a Type ; of what ? Neither of Chrift, nor of his Benefits but of our natural Pollution. So they had a Type of the Covenant of Works, viz. Hagar and Ifhrael. They hada Type ofthe Church of Rome, viz.. Babylon: So Antiochus may pafs for a Type of Antichrift. Doeg and Achitophel of 7udas. Pharaoh for a Type of the Devil. Sodom and Gomorrah for a Type of Hell. For as the Types look chiefly and principally at Chrift and his Bene- fits, in the clear and full Exhibition and Communication of them under the Gofpel : So they reprefent other things alto, tho' not by way of Primacy and principal intention ; but by way of concomitancy and il- luftration of the Principal. Therefore there Types of New- Teflament evils, it will not be neceffary always to handle them by themfelves For the moll; of them will come in better under the feveral Types or: Shadows of good things, the further illuftration whereof by the con- trary was the thing chiefly aimed at in them. Rule q.. As there is a Similitude, a Refemblance and Analogy be- tween the Type and the Antitype in fame things : So there is ever a d:f fimilitude and a difparity between them in other things. It is fo in all fimi- litudes. It is a Rule in Reafon. There is a mixture of Confentaneity and Diffentaneity ; or elfe inftead of Similitude, there would be Iden- tity. So here in thefe facred Similies, it is not to be expe&ed, that theType and theAntitype fhould quadrareper omnia, that they fhould a- gree in all things. Therefore the Apoftle, tho' he makes Adam a Type ofChrift, whom he calls the fecond Adam; yet he !hews the difparity alfo, and that the fecond Adam did infinitely tranfcend and excel the ftrft, i Cor. 15. 4.7. thefirfi man is of the Earth earthly, thefecond man is the Lord from Hea- ven. So the Priefts of old were Types of Chrift ; but Chrift did in- finitelyexcel them, and his Priefthood was infinitely more glorious, as the Apoftle difputes at large in the 7, 8, 9. and to. ofthe Hebrews, fee particularly chap. 7. v. 23, 24, 27. There is more in the An- titype, than in the Type. Oportet figuram minus habere quam ino : 61. veritatem, Chryfff. For fuch is the Glory and Excellency of Chrift the Antitype, that no Type could reach it. Hence that Diftinaion ofTypespartial, and Types total, mutt be un.. derftood with force limitation thus That force Things or Perfons were only Types ofChrift in force oneparticular thing, others in ma- ny things : But there never was any that did,or could pofibly referable him perfeftly in all Things. so
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=