to progressive minds, like our own? The Bible teaches that this growth of mind, is to be continued in heaven. Christ is to "feed," instruct, his people, "and to lead them to living fountains of water." Eternal life is to consist in learning to know the only true God, which we shall learn, as all intelligences must, by a study of his works.

But there are some objections to making nature the standard, in examing the Bible, which claim attention.

1. It is said we must take the Bible as a book of authority, and quietly submit to its teachings. We reply, that its authority must first be established; and how shall that be done unless we prove that it came from God? and how shall we prove that it came from God, unless we find that its revelations are worthy of God? and how shall we know that they are worthy of God, unless we know something of the character of God? and how can we know any thing of God unless we learn it from his works, i. e. from nature? Proving the Bible to be true and authentic, therefore, is nothing more nor less, than measuring its teachings by those of

nature.

2. It is said that the Bible's own harmony with itself, is sufficient evidence of its truth. But where do we get our first ideas of harmony except from nature, and what teaches us that this ought to be a characteristic of the Bible, except some teacher distinct from the Bible? That teacher is nature.

3. But it is said, we are inwardly convinced of its truth. But what do we mean by being inwardly convinced of the truth of the Bible? Why we evidently mean that

the Bible teaches us some of the same truths taught us by our own minds, and hence we believe its truth. What the Bible teaches of God and of man so well accords with our own internal sense of what a true revelation ought to teach, that we believe it true. Here then, as in all objections raised to our position, is a direct reference to nature as the only proper standard.

4. But it is still urged that nature cannot be the standard, since the Bible goes far beyond nature. Perhaps we have sufficiently answered this objection, by the figure of the eyes and the telescope. True, the Bible goes far beyond nature, and so the telescope goes far beyond human eyes, yet, after all, the telescope is modelled according to the principle of the eye, the eye must judge of its correctness, and without the eye it is useless. The Bible goes, in its revelations, far beyond the research of human minds, though to the full extent of their capacity, human minds may agree with the Bible. All men have a firm conviction that God ought to be a being of goodness, and not of malevolence, that men ought to do right, and not wrong, and this revelation of the human mind, as far as it goes, runs perfectly parallel with the Bible, and forms the basis, the standard by which we should judge of its truth. We may therefore, know the word which the Lord hath not spoken, when it is contradictory to this standard to which we are to bring all books professing to be revelations.

LECTURE VI.

GLIMPSES OF THE MESSIAH IN THE PENTATEUCH-TYPES.

FOR THE LAW, HAVING A SHADOW OF GOOD THINGS TO COME, &c.--Heb. 10: 1.

In this lecture we shall refer to those types or shadows which clearly personate Him who was to come, and whose resemblance to the antitype forms a most striking proof of the superhuman character of both Testaments.

The types of the law have been divided into several kinds.

1. Persons typical; such as patriarchs, priests, prophets and kings.

2. Things typical; as Jacob's ladder, the manna, and the brazen serpent.

3. Actions typical; as the deliverence from Egypt, the passage through the red sea, the sojourn in the wilderness, the passage over Jordan, entrance into the holy land, and restoration from Babylon.

4. Rites typical; as the various offerings, sacrifices and purifications.

5. Places typical; as the land of Canaan, the cities of refuge, the tabernacle, and the temple.*

* Kitto's Cyclopædia-article, Types.

We shall take up the subject in the order of their occurrence in the Pentateuch, noticing those only, for which we have the authority of some inspired writer that such are to be regarded as truly typical of Christ or of his gospel. In passing through the books of the Pentateuch, we shall not notice any type that occurred in a previous book, but those only, that are for the first time introduced.

1. First, let us notice the types of the book of Genesis. Adam is the first that meets our attention. We are expressly told by Paul, in Romans, that he was the figure of him who was to come. (Romans 5: 14.) The special points of resemblance between Adam and Christ, were— 1st, Each Each were the head, father, and representative of the human race. Adam was the temporal father of all; Christ was "the everlasting Father," and all spiritual persons are his seed-Isaiah 53: 10. 2d, They resemble each other in lordship and dominion. Paul shows that, that very dominion which was originally given to Adam, was committed to Christ, the second Adam. Compare Psalms 8:5, 6, 7, 8, with Ephesians 1: 22, and Hebrews 2: 6-10.

The points of contrast between Adam and Christ, are no less striking, and are not less regarded by the inspired writers, than the points of resemblance. The first Adam was earthly, the second was heavenly; the first Adam fell by temptation, the second withstood all temptations; the first Adam brought sin and death upon his offspring, the second brings salvation and life; by the first Adam the earthly paradise was lost to his race, by the second the heavenly paradise is regained. See the argument of Paul in 1st Cor. 15.

Can we fail to recognize a Divine hand in this arrangement? Is there not a resemblance and a contrast quite natural and philosophical between the type and antitype, which, though no man could have invented, becomes exceedingly striking when once laid before our minds?

2. The next type found in Genesis is Melchizedek. This name is a compound of two Hebrew words, signifying king of righteousness. He is also called king of Salem, which signifies king of peace, and priest of the most High God. Whoever this noted individual might have been, who blessed Abraham, and to whom Abraham paid tithes, he is typical of the Messiah chiefly in that, 1st. He united in one person, as was often the case in ancient times, the regal and priestly offices. This was not the case with the Levitical priesthood. For attempting to perform the peculiar work of the priest in burning incense, king Uzziah was smitten with leprosy, while the censer was yet in his hand, (2d Chron. 26: 18.) Jesus Christ, however, like Melchizedek, was to be both a King and a Priest. In allusion to this fact, it was predicted of him, that he should be a Priest upon his throne.-(Zech. 6:13.) The Psalmist, also, in prophesying of the Messiah, clearly establishes the connection between the type and the antitype. "The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek,"-Psalms 110: 4, with which compare Hebrew 6: 20 and 7.

Christ resembled Melchizedek, in that his priesthood was interminable. Under the Levitical law, priests were not suffered to continue because of death, and hence the priesthood descended from father to son. (Hebrews 7: 23.) It does not seem that Melchizedek received his priesthood