to which I refer the Reader. His Dialogue with Trypho alfo abounds with fuch; of which Work BASNAGE, the learned Author of the late Hiftory of the Jews, gives (p) us this Account. Je remarquerai, fays he, feulement que comme JUSTIN avoit lu fort exactement les Ecrits des Prophetes, il a fait fon fort de les entaffer les unes fur les autres fans beaucoup d'Art, & peut-etre fans beaucoup des Choix; & le Juif auroit eu Raifon de lui dire plus fouvent qu'il n'a fait, que ces Citations ne prouvent pas ce qu'il veut prouver.

Thus alfo do IRENEUS, TERTULLIAN, ORIGEN, LACTANTIUS, EUSEBIUS, BASIL, and all the other (q) Fathers, both before as well as after JEROM, who cite the Books of the Prophets, as fulfill'd in the Gospel, make Application of the Paffages they cite from thofe Prophets; whofe Words are only pertinent to the Purpose, for which they produce them in an allegorical Senfe. This the Learned well know. And SIMON, in particular, fpeaking of EUSEBIUS'S EVANGELICAL PREPARATION, (r) fays, that if you will examine with any Care many of the PROPHESIES, which EUSEBIUS understands of JESUS CHRIST, bis Reafonings are not always conclufive, because thefe PROPHESIES feem to have another literal Senfe; but therein he fol

(p) Bafnage Hift. des Juifs. 1. 8. c. 1. §. 13.

(9) See Whitby Stricture Patrum apud Differ. de Scrip. Interp.

() Simon Bib. Chois. Vol. 1. p. 40.

low'd

low'd the Method, which was (s) received before him in the Church. How could JUSTIN MARTYR (t) pretend to prove from the Books of the PROPHETS; that JESUS, who was to come into the World, was to be born of a Virgin, fhould cure every Disease, and Malady in Nature and raife the Dead, and be treated with Spite and Ignominy, and at length fhould be faftened to a Crofs, and dye, and rife again, and afcend up into Heaven; and that he was truely the Son of God, and should be worship'd under that Title; and that he should Jend out fome to preach thefe Tydings to every Nation; and that the Gentiles fhould come over to the Faith in greater Numbers than the Jews; and that thefe very Prophefies went of him, thousands and hundreds of Years, before his Coming; but by arguing from the allegorical Senfe of thofe Prophefies, which, literally understood, have no Manner of Relation to these Matters, and fo vifibly relate to other Matters, that it is hard to conceive JUSTIN could be fo ignorant as not to know he argued allegorically, and not from the literal Sense of them?

[5] But feveral Chriftian Authors before JEROM not contenting themselves with ar-. guing (and That knowingly, as it ought to be judged) from the Prophefies of the Old Teftament, in the fame allegorical Manner with the Apostles, do directly affert (contrary to

(s) See Grabe apud Thirlbii J. Martyr, p. 82, &c. (†) Justin Martyr's Apology, by Reeves, p. 62, 63. 25

what

what Mr. WHISTON affirms of them) a twofold Senfe of thofe Prophefies, a literal and a myftical, and make them applicable in a myftical Senfe only to our Saviour.

Thus JUSTIN MARTYR (u) afferts a double Senfe of fome Prophefies. He gives us an Account, how the Devils introduced into the Pagan Religions several Things in Imitation of what they found prophefied of CHRIST, in the Old Teftament; but fays, they did not caufe (w) one of Jove's Sons to be crucify'd, becaufe That being SYMBOLICALLY reprefented in the Old Teftament, they could not Spell out the Meaning of the SYMBOL; tho' the Cross, according to the Prophet, was the great Characteristick of his Power and Go

vernment.

Thus Origen (x) directly advances fuch a Distinction, and defends the mystical Senfe of the Prophefies of the Old Teftament against CELSUS, who attack'd the Chriftians for their myftical and forced Interpretations of the Old Teftament.

Thus EUSEBIUS (y) of Cefarea, in interpreting the celebrated Prophefy of ISAIAH of a Virgin's conceiving and bringing forth a Son, faid to be fulfill'd in JESUS by St. MATTHEW, refers it primarily to the Prophet ISAIAH's own Son, whom he exprefly

(u) Justin Martyr's Apol. by Reeves. §. 71. (w) Sect. 72.

(x) Origen contra Cels. p. 39. 343

See Simon Hift. Crit, du Nov. Tellam. p. 261. (y) Eufebii Demon. Evang. 1. 7. p. 328. 335.

makes

makes a Type of CHRIST; as does alfo (*) St. BASIL. And EUSEBIUS (a) affirms in general, that there are many allegorical Explications of the PROPHETS in the Gospels and Epiftles of the Apostles, and especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews; and that fuch was the Method of explaining Scripture used by the Doctors of the Chriftian Church,

The Gospel according to the Egyptians, which was exant before any of the four Gofpels, and supposed to be one of those Gospels refer'd to by LUKE; was, as (b) appears by the remaining Fragments, a Gofpel fufficiently MYSTICAL and ALLEGORICAL, according to the Genius of the Egyptian Nation. And tho' among those few Fragments, which remain of it, there appear no allegorical Interpretations of Prophefies, yet it may be juftly fuppofed, to have as much or more abounded with them than St. MATTHEW's Gospel itfelf; which being written chiefly for the Use of the Jews, has in it more allegorical Application of Prophefies than the other Gofpels, according to the Genius of the Jewish Nation at that Time. Nor can This be much doubted, if it be confider'd, that the (c) Therapeute (who are fuppofed to be thofe Chriftians of Egypt, that received the Gospel according to

(z) Bafil apud Haetii Dem. Evang. p. 355. (a) Eufebii Hift. Ecclef. 1. 2. c. 17.

(b) Whilton's Effay on the Apoftol. Conftit. p. 74, &c. Grabe Spicil. Vol. 1. p. 31.

(c) Whifton, Ib. p. 74. Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 2. c. 17.

1

the Egyptians) explain'd all the Scriptures of the Old Teftament in an allegorical and myftical Manner; and took the Gospels and Epiftles of the New Testament to be myftical Books, and proper to guide them in their mystical Explications of the Old Teftament.

We may also fairly judge (d) the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was alfo publish'd before our four Gofpels for the Ufe of the Nazarenes, (as the firft Chriftians were call'd) was written in the Spirit of Allegory; fince their Succeffors allegorized the Bible in the fame Manner with the Pharifees, who began the Method of allegorizing among the Jews, which was afterwards follow'd in the Chriftian Church. But however That be; the Nazarenes before JEROM's Time were undoubtedly Allegorifts, as appears by the Proofs SIMON brings out of JEROM.

In fine, Mr. W. (e) himself says, He will not affirm, that what Predictions the Fathers alledge out of the Old Teftament do always bear that Senfe they afcribe to them, yet he thinks they GENERALLY, if not wholly, believed them to do fo. So that he hereby allows; that the Fathers did argue after a typical and allegorical Manner from the Predictions of the Prophets; and that they might fometimes, tho' not generally, believe they interpreted those Predictions, not in a literal, but allegorical Senfe.

(d) Simon Hift. des Comment. p. 1 — 3. (e) Lectures, p. 28.

[6.] The