SUPPLEMENT, &c. IN offering some remarks on Mr. Sibthorp's defence of his former publication, it is not my intention to enter at large on all the topics embraced in his pamphlet, more especially as the subject has already engaged the attention of several able writers. In the following pages then it is proposed only to notice a very few of the leading points in Mr. Sibthorp's reply. 1. The defence which is set up for the argument from the Levitical types, is advanced with much plausibility, and with a tone of great confidence ; but it will be found on examination to be wholly unavailing. My argument was, that since a type must be something of a different nature from its antitypesince the type is but a shadow, while the antitype is a substance-since the former is of an inferior or carnal nature, and the latter of a superior, spiritual nature the external visible unity of the Jewish people (when it existed); their "strict, perfect, and evident unity of faith, of worship, of laws, of discipline, of religious ordinances;" their high-priest, "in his person, offices, and residence, a centre of unity to the whole nation far and near;" their priests and levites with mystical vestments; their magnificent ritual, and their feast-days, could not have typified circumstances or institutions of the same nature under the Gospel. Mr. Sibthorp's own proofs and admissions establish this argument in the most satisfactory manner. He cites (p. 6.) Schleusner's statement that the word "shadow," used by the Apostle to signify the typical character of legal institutions, "notat omnem levem adumbrationem, symbolicam expressionem, imaginem levem ac obscuram alicujus rei." He admits that the Jewish institutions are "a faint outline or sketch" of the Gospel dispensation, and that "there must always be" an "inferiority" of the type to the antitype "in some important respects." This being the case, I would ask, Whether the external visible unity of a Christian Church, or even its unity in faith, was obscurely and slightly shadowed forth by the very same sort of unity in the Jewish? Was the latter a mere "faint outline or sketch" of the former ? And again, Was the Jewish high priest "an obscure image," a "faint sketch" of the Priest imagined to preside with the same powers over the Christian Church? Were the feast-days, the vestments, and the magnificence of the Jewish ritual, mere "slight adumbrations" of similar things in Christianity? How, in short, can unity in communion, be a mere adumbration of unity in communion? or, unity in faith, of unity in faith? or, an Both are alike earthly Head of the Church, of a similar earthly Head? There is nothing like "adumbration," or "shadowing forth" in all this. The one portion is not a "faint sketch" of the other. substantial and complete. There superiority of one over the other. repetition of the other-or a close imitation of the other; and therefore they cannot possibly stand in the relation of type and antitype. : : is no marked The one is a All the examples of types and antitypes adduced in reply by Mr. Sibthorp, only confirm still more what has been already said. "The blood of one creature shed before God on earth, was the type of the blood of another creature, far more dignified, and to nobler ends, shed before God on earth." (p. 71.) Certainly the one was the blood of an irrational animal, shed for the sins of those who offered it the other was the blood of One who was both God and Man: and it was shed for the sins of the whole world. "The sacrifice of the paschal lamb was a shadow of another more excellent sacrifice." Certainly it was a shadow of the sacrifice of the INCARNATE GOD for the sins of the world. "The water of the flood prefigured or was a type of the water of baptism." Certainly in the one case there was a salvation from temporal death; in the other from eternal. Is it then Is it then "overstrained" or "mistaken" to maintain, that a type is something of a very different nature from its antitype; and that the latter must be something of a far higher and more spiritual character than the former? It is a mere fallacy to argue that, because "the man Isaac bearing the wood of his offering is a type of the man Christ Jesus bearing His cross," (p. 8.) there is not necessarily any difference in nature between a type and its antitype. I have not contended that they must differ in every respect. I cited "the High Priest entering the earthly temple as a type of Jesus entering Heaven," though they shared the same human nature. All that is contended for is, that there must be some material difference in nature between a type and its antitype; and Mr. Sibthorp's instance proves this: for the man Isaac bearing the wood of his offering, is the type-not of another man engaged in any similar act, but of the INCARNATE GOD bearing His cross for the redemption of the whole world. To what a sublime elevation does the antitype rise above the type ! I need not point out how the other types adduced by Mr. S. (p. 8.) establish my position. Their consideration would add strength to the assertion "that the types of the Old Testament were always of a different nature from the things which they prefigured." Mr. Sibthorp infers (p. 8.) from my statement that the Fathers "speak of bishops, priests, and deacons, as holding offices corresponding to those of Aaron, the Priests, and Levites," that those writers "regarded the sacred priesthood and holy offices of the Old Testament Church as prefiguring those of the New." Here we have again the same sort of confusion between a correspondence or resemblance, |