« ForrigeFortsæt »
Typical or allegorical Reasoning defended a
gainst Mr. WHIS TON; wherein is a Digression that compares together the allegorical Scheme and Mr. WHISton's lite. ral Scheme, and that proves his literal
Scheme false and absurd. M R. WHIŚTON (a) condemns fo highly 1 1 the typical or allegorical Interpretations of the Prophefes cited from the old in the New Testament, which yet the present State of the Old Testament makes necessary; thật rather than come into that weak and enthuħaftical Method, as he calls it, he runs to the Suppofition of a lojt Text, of the Old Testament.**
1. But yet he (6) justifies typical Arguing from the ritual Laws of Moses, and from Paš fages of History in the Old Testament, by the Example of St. PAUL; who (being bred up (C) at the Feet of GAMALIEL, the great Rabbi, by whom he was instructed in Hebrew Litera ture, and by Consequence in all the Mysteries of the Jewish Cabala) appears by his Writings to be a great Proficient in Types and Allegories, and is esteem'd by some Jews themselves as a
(a) Whiston's Efau. p. 92.
great great Mekubal, and profoundly skilld in the sublime Sense of the Bible. Indeed, he pretends (d) this last to be quite another Thing from the odd (typical) Application of Prophesies. For, says he, the anțient ceremonial Institutions were, as to their principal Branches at least, in their own Nature (e) Types and Shadows of future good Things under the Cbristian Dispenfation. And several remarkable Events, and Histories of old Time, seem to have been particularly recorded for the Sake of some future Truths and Discoveries, which were to be drawn from them. But the Case of the antient Prophehes, to be alledged from the old Scriptures for the CONFIRMATION of Christianity, is quite of another Nature, and of a more nice and exa&t Confideration.
But how are these Things different? For are not the ritual Laws of Moses, by being in their own Nature Types and Shadows of future good Things, Prophefes ? And are not the Events and Histories of old Time, by being recorded for the Sake of some future Truths and Discoveries, which were to be drawn from them, (f) Prophehes also? And does not our Saviour himself say so, when he affirms, that the (8) Law prophepes, and that he came to fulfil the Law, as well as the Prophets? And do not Mr.W's prophetical Types confirm Chrię stianity? And may not typical Prophefes confirm it in the same Manner?
(d) Whiston, Ib. p. 27. :
· Mr. W. therefore ought to own, either that our Saviour and St. Paul talk'd weakly and enthuhastically, when they interpreted the ritual Laws of Moses, and the Passages of Hiftory contain’d in the Old Testament (which they look'd on as Prophehes) typically ; or else to allow the typical and allegorical Method of interpreting the Passages cited in the New Testament from the Prophets (which he now calls weak and enthusiastical) to be excellent and divine. Besides, as to Strength * of Argument; what is the Difference between an allegorical Interpretation of a Prophesy, and an allegorical Interpretation of a Law or Paffage of History? Is not there as much Force in the allegorical Interpretation of any Prophesy, as there is in the two following typical Arguments in the Apostoliek Constitutions, which Mr. W. deems the most facred of the canonical. Books of the New Testament? (b) Tythes belong to those, who minister 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 hast received the Ten Commandments, and hast escaped the Ten Plagues. Ergo, pay Tythes to the Priest.----(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 Prophesies
(b) Apostol. Conftit. l. 2. c. 25. | (i) Ib, 1. 3. C. 6. ,
as of the typical Arguments of St. BARNABAS, who is one of his canonical Authors? BARNABas's Epistle is wholly made up of typical Reasoning; of which take this one Specimen. " (k) The Scripture says, that ABRAHAM cir“ cumcised three hundred and eighteen Men “ of his House. But what therefore was the « Mystery that was made known unto him? “ Mark first the EIGHTEEN, and next the “ THREE HUNDRED. For the numeral Let“ ters of Ten and Eight, are I. H. And those ☆s denote JESUS. And because the Cross was - That, by which we were to find Grace; " therefore he adds Three hundred; the Note « of which is T (the Figure of his Cross). " Wherefore by two Letters he signify'd Je“ sus, and by the third his Cross. He, who " has put the engrafted Gift of his Doctrine “ within us, knows that I never taught to “ 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 concurd with BARNABAS in This; and he refers us to Authors for Proof thereof.
In fine, is there not as much Force in typical Prophesies as in the typical Arguments of St. Clement, another of Mr. W's canonical Authors ? To say nothing here of St. CLEMENT's History of the Phenix, which he (m)
(k) Wake's Genuine Epiftles, &c. p.: 175, 176. (2) p. 175, (m) Ib. p. 21.
makes · makes a Type of the Resurrection, I desire Mr
W. attentively to consider the following Pasfage.
« (n) The Spyes gave RAHAB moreover a “ Sign ; that the should hang out of her “ House a (0) scarlet Rope ; shewing there“ by that by the Blood of our Lord there “ should be Redemption to all that believe “ and hope in God.' Ye see, beloved, how . “ there was not only Faith, but PROPHESY “ too, in this Woman.". Which Words contain not only a typical Argument for Christianity, which was deem'd so strong as to be (D) apply'd by many of the Fathers to the same Purposë ), but affert RAHAB to make a Propbely in hanging out the fearlet Rope. From whence it appears, that Types are Prophefes, and that the Distinction Mr. W. would make between them, is groundless and false.
2 Mr. W. (9) fays, Jerom was one of the firft Christian Writers now extant, that ever gave fucb frange Interpretations of these antient Prophepes.
I find (r) indeed JEROM represented as thinking, that the Passages of the Old Testament were quoted, susq; deq; in the New Tem ftament. Upon which Account he was necefsarily driven into the allegorical Hypatbefes. But yet, he feems to me, to have acted like all
(n) Ib. p. 10. 11. rof Josh. 2. 18.
Wake, Ib. p. 11.