Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

X.

Typical or allegorical Reafoning defended a gainst Mr. WHISTON; wherein is a Digreffion that compares together the allegorical Scheme and Mr. WHISTON'S literal Scheme, and that proves his literal Scheme falfe and abfurd.

MR

R. WHISTON (a) condemns fo highly the typical or allegorical Interpretations of the Prophefies cited from the Old in the New Teftament, which yet the present State of the Old Testament makes neceffary; that rather than come into that weak and enthufiaftical Method, as he calls it, he runs to the Suppofition of a loft Text, of the Old Testament.

1. But yet he (b) juftifies typical Arguing from the ritual Laws of Moses, and from Paf fages of Hiftory in the Old Teftament, by the Example of St. PAUL; who (being bred up (c) at the Feet of GAMALIEL, the great Rabbi, by whom he was inftructed in Hebrew Literature, and by Confequence in all the Mysteries of the Jewish Cabala) appears by his Writings to be a great Proficient in Types and Allegories, and is efteem'd by fome Jews themselves as a

(a) Whifton's Effay. p. 92.

(b) Whilton's Boyl. Lect. p. 27. 43.

Jenkin's Reafonab. of Chr. Relig. Vol. 2. p. 321, 322. CUNEUS Rep. des Hebr. Vol. 1. 1. 3. c. 8. P: 373–376. Simon Hift, Crit. du V. Teft. p. 97:

great

great Mekubal, and profoundly skill'd in the fublime Senfe of the Bible. Indeed, he pretends (d) this laft to be quite another Thing from the odd (typical) Application of Prophefies. For, fays he, the antient ceremonial Inftitutions were, as to their principal Branches at least, in their own Nature (e) Types and Shadows of future good Things under the Chriftian Difpenfation. And feveral remarkable Events, and Hiftories of old Time, feem to have been particularly recorded for the Sake of fome future Truths and Difcoveries, which were to be drawn from them. But the Cafe of the antient Prophefes, to be alledged from the old Scriptures for the CONFIRMATION of Chriftianity, is quite of another Nature, and of a more nice and exact Confideration.

But how are thefe Things different? For are not the ritual Laws of MOSES, by being in their own Nature Types and Shadows of future good Things, Prophefies? And are not the Events and Hiftories of old Time, by being recorded for the Sake of fome future Truths and Difcoveries, which were to be drawn from them, (f) Prophefies alfo? And does not our Saviour himself fay fo, when he affirms, that the (g) Law prophesies, and that he came to fulfil the Law, as well as the Prophets? And do not Mr. W's prophetical Types confirm Chri tianity? And may not typical Prophefies confirm it in the fame Manner?

(d) Whifton, Ib. p. 27.

(e) Heb. 16. 1.

(f) See Juftini Martyris Opera. p. 261.
(g) Matt. 11. 13.

MA

Mr. W. therefore ought to own, either that our Saviour and St. PAUL talk'd weakly and enthufiaftically, when they interpreted the ritual Laws of MOSES, and the Paffages of Hif tory contain❜d in the Old Teftament (which they look'd on as Prophefies) typically; or elfe to allow the typical and allegorical Method of interpreting the Paffages cited in the New Testament from the Prophets (which he now calls weak and enthufiaftical) to be excellent and divine. Befides, as to Strength *of Argument; what is the Difference between an allegorical Interpretation of a Prophefy, and an allegorical Interpretation of a Law or Paf fage of Hiftory? Is not there as much Force in the allegorical Interpretation of any Prophefy, as there is in the two following typical Arguments in the Apoftolick Conftitutions, which Mr. W. deems the most facred of the canonical Books of the New Teftament? (b) Tythes belong to thofe, who minifter to CHRIST, because Tenths of Salvation are the first Letter of the Name of JESUS, i. e. I, IOTA.---Hear, O thou holy Catholick Church, who haft received the TEN Commandments, and haft efcaped the TEN Plagues. Ergo, pay Tythes to the Prieft.(i) Let a Widow, who is the Altar of God fit at home; for the Altar of God never runs about, but is fix'd in one Place.

Why cannot Mr. W. as well allow of the Force of typical Interpretations of Prophefies

(b) Apoftol. Conftit. 1. 2. c. 25.

(i) Ib. 1. 3. c. 6.

as

as of the typical Arguments of St. BARNABAS, who is one of his canonical Authors? BARNABAS's Epiftle is wholly made up of typical Reafoning; of which take this one Specimen. "(k) The Scripture fays, that ABRAHAM circumcifed three hundred and eighteen Men of his Houfe. But what therefore was the Mystery that was made known unto him? "Mark firft the EIGHTEEN, and next the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

THREE HUNDRED. For the numeral Let"ters of Ten and Eight, are I. H. And those "denote JESUS. And because the Crofs was "That, by which we were to find Grace; "therefore he adds Three hundred; the Note "of which is T (the Figure of his Crofs). "Wherefore by two Letters he fignify'd JE

sus, and by the third his Crofs. He, who "has put the engrafted Gift of his Doctrine "within us, knows that I never taught to

[ocr errors]

any one a more certain Truth." And accordingly this Argument was deem'd of fo much Weight, that our learned Archbishop tells us, in a Note, that (1) many others of the antient Fathers concur'd with BARNABAS in This; and he refers us to Authors for Proof thereof.

In fine, is there not as much Force in typical Prophefies as in the typical Arguments of St. CLEMENT, another of Mr. W's canonical Authors? To fay nothing here of St. CLEMENT's Hiftory of the PHENIX, which he (m)

(k) Wake's Genuine Epiftles, &c. p. 175, 176.
(m) Ib. p. 21.

(1) P. 175.

makes

makes a Type of the Refurrection, I defire Mr W. attentively to confider the following Paffage.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

(n) The Spyes gave RAHAB moreover a Sign; that the fhould hang out of her "House a (0) Scarlet Rope; fhewing thereby that by the Blood of our Lord there "fhould be Redemption to all that believe " and hope in God. Ye fee, beloved, how "there was not only Faith, but PROPHESY <c too, in this Woman." Which Words contain not only a typical Argument for Christianity, (which was deem'd fo ftrong as to be (p) apply'd by many of the Fathers to the fame Purpose), but affert RAHAB to make a Prophefy in hanging out the fearlet Rope. From whence it appears, that Types are Prophefies, and that the Distinction Mr. W. would make between them, is groundless and false.

2 Mr. W. (g) fays, JEROM was one of the firft Chriftian Writers now extant, that ever gave fuch frange Interpretations of thefe antient Prophefies.

I find (r) indeed JEROM reprefented as thinking, that the Paffages of the Old Teftament were quoted, fufq; deq; in the New Teftament. Upon which Account he was neceffarily driven into the allegorical Hypotheses. But yet, he feems to me, to have acted like all

(n) Ib. p. 10. 11.

(P) Wake, Ib. p. 11.

(0) Josh. 2. 18.

(2) Whilton's Eay, p. 91, 92.

(r) Surenbufii Prefat. ad Coneil. p. 4.

Ib. Concil. p. 177.

others

« ForrigeFortsæt »