greater than can be fuppofed to refult from chance, or human forefight. When this is evidently made out from the great number of the types and prophecies, and the degree of clearness and precifeness of each; the fhewing afterwards, that these have other ufes and applications, will rather prove the divine interpofition, than exclude it. All the works of God, the parts of a human body, fyftems of minerals, plants, and animals, elementary bodies, planets, fixed ftars, &c. have various ufes and fubferviencies, in refpect of each other; and, if the Scriptures be the word of God, analogy would lead one to expect fomething correfponding hereto in them. When men form defigns, they are indeed obliged to have one thing principally in view, and to facrifice fubordinate ones to principal ones; but we must not carry this prejudice, taken from the narrow limits of our power and knowledge, to Him who is infinite in them. All His ends centre in the fame point, and are carried to their utmost perfection by one and the fame means. Thofe laws, ceremonies, and incidents, which best fuited the Jewish ftate, and the feveral individuals of it, were also moft apt to prefigure the promifed Meffiah, and the ftate of the Chriftian church, according to the perfect plan of these things, which, in our way of speaking, exifted in the Divine Mind from all eternity; juft as that magnitude, fituation, &c. of our earth, which beft fuits its prefent inhabitants, is also beft fuited to all the changes which it muft hereafter undergo, and to all the inhabitants of other planets, if there be any fuch, to whom its influence extends.

The following inftance may perhaps make this matter more clearly understood. Suppofe a perfon to have ten numbers, and as many lines, prefented to his view; and to find by menfuration, that the ten numbers expreffed the lengths of the ten lines refpectively: this would make it evident that they were intended to do fo. Nor would it alter the cafe, and prove that the agreement between the numbers and lines arofe without defign, and by chance, as we exprefs it, to alledge that these numbers had fome other relations; that, for inftance, they proceeded in arithmetical or geometrical progreffion, were the fquares or cubes of other numbers, &c. On the contrary, any fuch remarkable property would rather increase than diminish the evidence of defign in the agreement between the numbers and lines. However, the chief thing to be inquired into would plainly be, whether the agreement be too great to be accounted for by chance. If it be, defign must be admitted.

PROP. XVIII:

THE APPLICATION OF THE TYPES AND PROPHECIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BY THE WRITERS OF THE NEW DOES NOT WEAKEN THE AUTHORITY OF THESE WRITERS, BUT RATHER CONFIRMS IT.

Ти

FOR the objections which have been made to the writers of the New Teftament on this head, have been grounded principally upon a fuppo

fuppofition, that when an obvious literal fenfe of a paffage, or a manifeft ufe of a ceremony, fuited to the then present times, are difcovered, all others are excluded, fo as to become mifapplications. But this has been shewn in the last propofition to be a prejudice arising from the narrownefs of our faculties and abilities. Whence it follows, that if the Scripture types and prophecies be remarkably fuited to different things, which is a point that is abundantly proved by learned men, they cannot but, in their original defign, have various fenfes and ufes. And it is fome confirmation of the divine authority of the writers of the New Teftament, that they write agreeably to this original defign of God.

It may perhaps afford fome fatisfaction to the reader, to make fome conjectures concerning the light in which the types and prophecies which have double fenfes, would appear firft to the ancient Jews, and then to those who lived in the time of our Saviour. From hence we may judge in what light it is reafonable they fhould be taken by us. Let our inftance be the fecond Pfalm, which we are to fuppofe written by David himself, or at least in the time of his reign. It is evident that there are fo many things in this Pfalm peculiarly applicable to David's afcent to the throne by God's fpecial appointment, to the oppofition which he met with both in his own nation and from the neighbouring ones, and to his victories over all his oppofers through the favour of God, that the Jews of that time could not but confider this Pfalm as relating to David. Nay, one can fcarce doubt, but the Pfalmift him felf, whether he feemed to himself to compose it from his own proper fund, or to have it dictated immediately by the fpirit of God, would have David principally in view. At the fame time it is evident, that there are fome paffages, particularly the laft, "Bleffed are all they that put their trust in him," i. e. in the Son, which it would be impious, especially for an Ifraelite, to apply to David, and which therefore no allowance for the fublimity of the Eaftern poetry could make applicable. It may be fuppofed, therefore, that many, or most, confidered fuch paffages as having an obfcurity in them, into which they could no ways penetrate; whereas a few perhaps, who were peculiarly enlightened by God, and who meditated day and night upon the promises made to their ancestors, particularly upon those to Abraham, would prefume, or conjecture, that a future perfon, of a much higher rank than David, was prefigured thereby. And the cafe would be the fame in regard to many other Pfalms: they would appear to the perfons of the then present times both to refpect the then prefent occurrences, and alfo to intimate fome future more glorious ones; and would mutually fupport this latter interpretation in each other.

When the prophets appeared in the declenfion and captivities of the kingdoms of Ifrael and Judah, the fame interpretation would be ftrengthened, and the expectations grounded thereon increased, by the plainer and more frequent declarations of the prophets concerning fuch a future perfon, and the happiness which would attend his coming. The great and various fufferings of those chofen peo

E 4

ple,

ple, their return and deliverance, their having their Scriptures col Jected into one view by Ezra, and read in their fynagogues during the interval from Ezra to Chrift, the figurative fenfes put upon dreams, vifions, and parables, in their fcriptures, &c. would all concur to the fame purpose, till at laft it is reasonable to expect, that the Jews in our Saviour's time would confider many of the inftitutions and cere→ monies of their law, of the hiftorical events, of the Pfalms appointed for the temple worship, and of the infpired declaration of the prophets, as refpecting the future times of the Meffiah; and this, in fome cafes, to the exclufion of the more obvious fenfes and ufes, which had already taken place; being led thereto by the fame narrow-mindedness which makes fome in thefe days reject the typical and more remote fenfe, as foon as they fee the literal and more immediate one. Now, that this was, in fact, the cafe of the Jews in the time of Chrift, and for fome time afterwards, appears from the New Teftament, from the Chriftian writers of the first ages, and from the Talmudical ones.

A great part, however, of the Scripture types and prophecies ap peared to the Jews to have no relation to their promifed Meffiah till they were interpreted by the event. They expected a perfon that fhould correfpond to David and Solomon, two glorious princes; but they did not fee how Ifaac, or the pafchal lamb, fhould typify him; or that the circumftance of being called out of Egypt, the appellation of Nazarene, or the parting garments, and cafting lots upon a vefture, fhould contribute to afcertain him. However, it is certain, that to perfons who had for fome time confidered their Scriptures in the typical, prophetical view mentioned in the laft paragraph, every remarkable circumftance and coincidence of this kind, verified by the event, would be a new acceffion of evidence, provided we fuppofe a good foundation from miracles, or prophecies of undoubted import, to have been laid previously. Nay, fuch coincidences may be confidered not only as arguments to the fews of Chrift's time, but as folid arguments in themselves, and that exclufively of the context. For though each of these coincidences, fingly taken, affords only a low degree of evidence, and fome of them fcarce any; yet it is a thing not to be accounted for from chance, that feparate paffages of the Old Teftament should be applicable to the circumftances of Chrift's life, by an allufion either of words or fenfe, in ten or an hundred times a greater number, than to any other perfons, from mere accident. And this holds in a much higher degree, if the feparate paffages or circumftances be fubordinate parts of a general type. Thus the parting the garments, the offering vinegar and gall, and the not breaking a bone, have much more weight, when it is confidered, that David and the pafchal lamb are types of the Meffiah. And when the whole evidence of this kind, which the induftry of pious Chriftians has brought to light in the firft ages of Chriftianity, and again fince the revival of letters, is laid together, it appears to me to be both a full proof of the truth of the Chriftian religion, and a vindication of the method of arguing from typical and double fenfes.

It

It may be added, in favour of typical reasoning, that it corresponds to the method of reafoning by analogy, which is found to be of fuch extenfive use in philofophy. A type is, indeed, nothing but an analogy; and the Scripture types are not only a key to the Scriptures, but feem alfo to have contributed to put into our hands the key of nature, analogy: And this fhews us a new correfpondence or analogy between the word and works of God. However, fince certain wellmeaning perfons feem to be prejudiced against typical and double fenfes, I will add fome arguments whereby the writers of the New Teftament may be defended upon this footing alfo.

First, then, fince the Jews in the times of the writers of the New Teftament, and confequently these writers themselves, were much given to typical reafonings, and the application of paffages of the Old Teftament in a fecondary fenfe to the times of the Meffiah, this would be a common foundation for these writers, and thofe to whom they wrote, to proceed upon, derived from affociation, and the acquired nature of their minds. And it is as eafy to conceive, that God fhould permit them to proceed upon this foundation for the then prefent time, though it would not extend to the world in general, to diftant ages, and to perfons of different educations, as that they fhould be left to the workings of their own acquired natures in many other refpects, notwithstanding the fupernatural gifts bestowed upon them in fome; or as it is to conceive, that God fhould confer any thing, exiftence, happiness, &c. in any particular manner or degree.

Secondly, there are fome paffages in the New Teftament quoted from the Old in the way of mere allufion. This cannot, I think, be true of many, where the paffage is faid to be fulfilled, without doing violence to the natural fenfe of the words, and of the context, in the New Testament: however, where it is, it entirely removes the objection here confidered.

Thirdly, if we fhould allow, that the writers of the New Teftament were fometimes guilty of erroneous reasoning, in these or other matters, ftill this does not affect their moral characters at all; nor their intellectual ones, which are so manifest from the general foundness and ftrength of their other reafonings, in any fuch manner as to be of importance in refpect of the evidence for the general truth of the Scriptures, or for their divine authority in the firft and lowest sense above confidered.

PROP. XIX.

THE MORAL CHARACTERS OF CHRIST, THE PROPHETS AND APOSTLES, PROVE THE TRUTH AND DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES.

LET us begin with the confideration of the character of Chrift. This, as it may be collected from the plain narrations of the Gospels, is manifeftly fuperior to all other characters, fictitious or real, whether drawn by hiftorians, orators, or poets. We fee in it the most entire devotion and refignation to God, and the most ardent and universal

love

love to mankind, joined with the greatest humility, felf-denial, meeknefs, patience, prudence, and every other virtue, divine and humán. To which we are to add, that, according to the New Teftament, Chrift being the Lord and Creator of all, took upon himself the form of a fervant, in order to fave all; that, with this view, he fubmitted to the helpiefinefs and infirmities of infancy, to the narrowness of human underftanding, and the perturbations of human affections, to hunger, thirst, labour, weariness, poverty, and hardships of various kinds; to lead a forrowful, friendlefs life; to be mifunderstood, betrayed, infulted, and mocked; and at laft to be put to a painful and ignominious death; alfo (which deferves our most ferious confideration, however incongruous to our narrow apprehenfions it may appear at first fight) to undergo the most bitter mental agony previously. Here then we may make the following obfer

vations.

First, that laying down the prefent disorders of the moral world, and the neceffity of the love of God and our neighbour, and of selfannihilation, in order to the pure and ultimate happiness of man, there seems to be a neceffity alfo for a fuffering Saviour. Atleaft, one may affirm, that the condefcenfion of Chrift, in leaving the glory which he had with the Father before the foundation of the world, and in fhewing himself a perfect pattern of obedience to the will of God, both in doing and fuffering, has a moft peculiar tendency to rectify the prefent moral depravity of our natures, and to exalt us thereby to pure fpiritual happinefs. Now it is remarkable, that the Evangelifts and Apoftles fhould have thus hit upon a thing which all the great men amongft the ancient Heathens miffed, and which, however clear it does and ought now to appear to us, was a great ftumblingblock to them, as well as to the Jews; the first seeking after wisdom, i.e. human philofophy and eloquence; and the laft requiring a fign, or a glorious temporal Saviour. Nor can this be accounted for, as it seems to me, but by admitting the reality of the character, i. e. the divine miffion of Chrift, and the confequent divine infpiration of those who drew it, i. e. the truth and divine authority of the New Teftament.

Secondly, if we allow only the truth of the common hiftory of the New Teftament, or even without having recourse to it, only fuch a part of the character of Chrift, as neither ancient nor modern Jews, Heathens, or Unbelievers, feem to conteft; it will be difficult to reconcile fo great a character, claiming divine authority, either with the moral attributes of God, or indeed with itself, upon the fuppofition of the falfehood of that claim. One can scarce fuppofe, that God would permit a perfon apparently fo innocent and excellent, fo qualified to impofe upon mankind, to make fo impious and audacious a claim, without having fome evident mark of impofture fet upon him; nor can it be conceived, how a perfon could be apparently fo innocent and excellent, and yet really otherwise.

Thirdly, the manner in which the Evangelifts fpeak of Chrift fhews that they drew after a real copy; i. e. fhews the genuineness

and