Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

as there is in the two following typical argu ments in the Apoftolick Conftitutions, which Mr. W. deems the most facred of the cononical books of the New Teftament? (b) Tythes belong to those who minifter to CHRIST, becaufe tenths of falvation are the firft letter of the name of Jesus, i. e. I, IOTA.- Hear, O thou holy catbolick Church, who haft receiv'd the TEN Commandments, and haft efcap'd 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 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 "circumcis'd three hundred and eighteen men of his boufe. But what therefore <c was the mystery that was made known દુઃ unto him? Mark firft the EIGHTEEN, and

next the THREE HUNDRED. For the nu"meral letters of Ten and Eight, are I. H.

" And

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

(i) Ib. 1.3. c. 6.

(k) Wake's Genuine Epiftles, c. p. 175, 176.

• Crofs).

"And thofe denote JEsus. And because the "crofs was that by which we were to find CC grace; therefore he adds, three hundred; "the note of which is T (the figure of his Wherefore by two letters he fignify'd Jesus, and by the third his Crofs. 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 ancient fathers concurr'd with BARNABAS in this, and he refers us to authors for proof thereof.

[ocr errors]

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 history of the PHENIX, which he (m) makes a type of the Refurrection, I defire Mr. W. attentively to confider the following paffage.

СС

[ocr errors]

(n) The fpies gave RAHAB moreover a Sign; that the fhould hang out of her "house a (0) Scarlet Robe: fhewing thereby, that by the blood of our Lord there

Q 4

"should

(1) p. 175. (m) Ib. p. 21. (n) lb. p. 10, II. (0) Jofh. 2. 18.

"fhould be redemption to all that believe " and hope in God. Ye fee, beloved, how "there was not only faith, but PROPHESY "too in this woman." Which words contain not only a typical argument for chriftianity, (which was deem'd fo ftrong as to be (p) apply'd by many of the fathers to the Same purpose), but affert RAHAB to make a prophefy in hanging out the Scarlet Rope. From whence it appears, that types are prophefies, and that the diftinction Mr. W. would make between them, is groundless and falfe.

2. Mr. W. (q) fays, JEROM was one of the first chriftian writers now extant, that ever gave fuch Strange interpretations of thefe ancient 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 hypothefes. But yet, he feems to me, to have acted liked all others before him, and not to have been one of the first chriftian writers, now extant, who gave allegorical interpre

(p) Wake, Ib. p. 11.

(1) Whifton's Effay, p. 91, 92.

(r) Surenbufu Prefat. ad Concil. p. 4. Ib. Concil. p. 177.

pretations of the prophefies cited in the New Testament.

[1] First, it is notorious, and has been made (s) appear by others, and is confeffed by Mr. W. himself, that the apoftles and primitive fathers interpreted the ritual ceremonies of the law, and the hiftorical paffages of the Old Teftament, typically: which, as appear'd just now, is interpreting prophefies in that manner. As to the commentaries of the fathers on, and their interpretations of, the Old Testament, they are fo wholly allegorical, that it would be difficult to find many paffages, not fo interpreted, if interpreted at all by them. They were no criticks, and defpis'd the literal fenfe of the Old Testament as low and mean, and imploy'd their invention to find out fublime senses thereof.

[2] Secondly, Mr. W. (t) says, that the Apostles themselves do fo feem to have cited and apply'd the prophefies they take from the Old Testament, that if you confider them as taken from the prefent Old Testament, it is in a manner impoffible to expound or apologize for thofe applications of the Old prophefies

(s) Platonisme Devoilé, p. 162—197.
Simon Hift. Crit. du V. T. p. 97.
Whifton's Left. p. 27.

Wake's prelim. to genuine Epift. p. 71-75.
(t) Whifton's Effay, p. 92.

phefies upon any other foundation, than by the faid typical, mystical, fecundary, or allegorical way of application; and that (4) the ancient predictions concerning the MESSIAS and his character, tho' of fo great importance to be easily understood, are (originally) fome of them fo obfcure and doubtful in their defignation of perfons, or in their expreffions, and others of them fo bidden in unfuitable places, and introduc'd upon very remote occafions, in a word, (w) fram'd on purpose to be long conceal'd, as to have given a handle to the introduction of the allegorical hypothefis. Which two confiderations make it feem a very difficult matter to lay afide the allegorical Scheme, and not to admit it as the fcheme by which the apostles themfelves proceeded. For, if the prefent ftate of the Old and New Teftament, in refpect to the quotations made from the former in the latter, does admit of no other fcheme to justify their application but the allegorical scheme; and, if the original: tate of the ancient predictions was fuch, that they were obfcure and doubtful in their defignation of perfons (that is, that they feem'd as applicable or more applicable to others, than to the MESSIAS,) or hidden in

0072

(u) Ib. Boyl. Lect. p. 58. (w) lb. p. 15.

« ForrigeFortsæt »