crofs, according to the prophet, was the great characteristick of his power and go vernment. Thus Origen (x) directly advances fuch a diftinction, and defends the mystical sense of the prophefies of the Old Teftament against CELSUS, who attack'd the christians for their myftical and forc'd 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 fon, faid to be fulfill'd in JESUS by St. MATTHEW, refers it primarily to the prophet ISAIAH's own fon, whom he exprefly makes a type of CHRIST; as does alfo (z) St. BASIL. And EUSEBIUS (a) affirms in general, that there are many allegorical ex•plications of the PROPHETS in the gospels and epiftles of the apostles, and efpecially in the epiftle to the Hebrews; and that fuch was the method of explaining fcripture ufed by the doctors of the chriftian church. The gospel according to the Egyptians, which (x) Origen contra Celf. p. 39, 343. -335. See Simon Hift. Crit. du Nov. Teftam. p. 261. which was extant before any of the four gofpels, and fuppos'd to be one of those gofpels referr'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 thofe few fragments which remain of it, there appear no allegorical interpretations of prophefies, yet it may be justly fuppos'd, to have as much or more abounded with them than St. MATTHEW's gospel it felf; which being written chiefly for the ufe 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 fuppos'd to be thofe chriftians of Egypt that receiv'd the gospel according to the Egyptians) explain'd all the fcriptures of the Old Teftament in an allegorical and myftical manner; and took the golpels and epiftles of the New Teftament to be myftical books, and proper to guide them in their myftical explications of the Old Tefta ment. We (b) Whiston's Effay on the Apoftol. Conftit. p. 74, &c. Grabe Spicil. Vol. 1. p. 31. We may also fairly judge (d) the gospel according to the Hebrews, which was alfo publifh'd before our four gofpels for the ufe of the Nazarenes, (as the first chriftians were call'd) was written in the fpirit of allegory: fince their fucceffors allegoriz'd 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 Testament do always bear that fenfe they afcribe to them, yet he thinks they GENERALLY, if not wholly, believ'd 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 fenfe. [6] The fyftem therefore or scheme of things fet up by Mr. W. feems to me to com (d) Simon Hift. des Comment. p. 1-3. combat the chriftian fcheme receiv'd in all ages and times, and afferts what is contrary to the most notorious fact, and to the most univerfal practise of all christians before, as well as after, JEROM. For if any one chriftian fact be true, it is, that christians in all ages and times, and more efpecially in the primitive times, have both understood the apostles to have argu'd allegorically from the prophefies cited by them out of the Old Teftament, or have themselves argu'd allegorically from the prophefies they themselves cited out of the Old Teftament; which last feems fufficient to prove the apostles to have been allegorical interpreters of the Old Teftament, according to the common topick of divines, who contend that the earliest fathers beft teach us the fenfe and doctrine of the apoftles. And Mr. W. is the first Theorift-divine, who, to affert the autority of the New Teftament, has pretended, that the Old Testament (in really genuine paffages) is corrupted; all other chriftians afferting the integrity of the Old (and fome even with refpect to corrupted paffages) to prove the autority of the New: And I believe he is the first chriftian author, who ever afferted, either that all the prophefies cited by the authors of the New Teftament from the Old, were fulfill'd in their literal fenfe; or that to confider the apostles as applying any of them in an allegorical manner, was was a weak and enthufiaftical scheme: all others, as far as I can learn, contending at most for the literal fenfe of fome prophefies only: and fome (f) making it the glory of chriftianity to be founded on allegory, and not in criticism, which, they fay, would have render'd the writings of the apostles ten times more liable to exceptions than now they are; and alfo to be a wonderful confirmation of chriStianity, that the apoftles, who were men of no literature and education, and never spent their time in the schools of the Rabbi's, should be fuch eminent mafters in allegory or Rabbinical learning, and should be fo excellently vers'd in their traditionary explications of prophefies. It feems therefore most destructive of christianity to suppose; that typical or allegorical arguing is in any refpect weak and enthufiaftical, and that the apoftles always argu'd in the matter of prophefies according to the literal fenfe of the prophefies, and the way of reafoning used in the fchools: fince it is most apparent; that the whole gospel is in every refpect founded on type and allegory; that the apostles in most, if not in all cafes, reafon'd typically and allegorically; and that, if the apostles be fuppos'd to (g) reafon always after the rules (f) Nichols's Conf. with a Theift, Vol. 3. p. 64,65. |