Part 1 shows that while Edwards and Berkeley both regard nature as God's discourse and speak of this discourse in similar ways, Edwards differs from Berkeley in believing that the signs of this discourse signify spiritual and divine realities. Part 2 explains why Edwards thought it reasonable to believe that our world is a world of types and images. Because our world is a world of resemblances and imitations, because spiritual things are its alpha and omega, and because its beauty is a reflection of God's beauty, our world can be expected to contain images or shadows of divine things. Scripture provides evidence that this expectation is realized. Part 3 shows that these images are not symbols but emblems, and that because emblems are consciously invented, their occurrence implies theism. Part 4 attempts to show that, given the assumptions of classical Christian theism, it is in principle no more difficult to decipher the meaning of the book of nature than to decipher the meaning of an allegorical poem or tale. Part 5 criticizes Perry Miller. Edwards's reflections on types were not influenced by the new science. He did not anticipate Coleridge on the imagination, nor did he elevate nature to a level of authority coequal with revelation. William J. Wainwright is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of Philosophy of Religion: An Annotated Bibliography of 20th Century Writings in English (Garland, 1978). Recent articles have appeared in Sophia, Philosophical Studies, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, and elsewhere. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.114 on Thu, 26 May 2016 06:25:35 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 520 William J. Wainwright S n this paper I shall attempt to do five things: first, show that although Edwards and Berkeley both regard nature as God's discourse and although both speak of this discourse in similar ways, Edwards differs from Berkeley in believing that the signs of this discourse signify spiritual and divine realities; second, show why Edwards thinks it reasonable to believe that the world of nature and ordinary human affairs is a world of types and images; third, show that these images are emblems, not symbols, and that this implies theism; fourth, show that, within the context of classical Christianity, the investigation of the meaning of types need not be subjective or capricious; finally, suggest that Perry Miller's interpretation of Edwards's reflections on images is a paradigm case of overreading. My purpose in doing this is to cast light upon an aspect of his work which Edwards clearly thought important, correct an influential misinterpretation, viz., Miller's, and show that, in spite of the fact that typology is no longer taken seriously, the investigation of types is reasonable given the assumption that classical theism is true and Scripture accurate.