ple, their return and deliverance, their having their Scriptures collected 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 scriptures, &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 ceremonies 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 uses, 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 firft ages, and from the Talmudical ones.

A great part, however, of the Scripture types and prophecies appeared 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 previoufly. 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 fhould 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 may be added, in favour of typical reafoning, that it correfponds to the method of reafoning by analogy, which is found to be of fuch extenfive ufe in philofophy. A type is, indeed, nothing but an analogy; and the Scripture types are not only a key to the Scriptures, but seem also 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 reasonings, and the application of paffages of the Old Teftament in a fecondary sense to the times of the Meffiah, this would be a common foundation for these writers, and those 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 respects, notwithstanding the supernatural 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 Teftament: however, where it is, it entirely removes the objection here confidered.

Thirdly, if we should allow, that the writers of the New Teftament were sometimes 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 manifeft from the general foundnefs and strength 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 first 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 univerfal

love

love to mankind, joined with the greateft humility, felf-denial, meeknefs, patience, prudence, and every other virtue, divine and human. To which we are to add, that, according to the New Teftament, Chrift being the Lord and Creator of all, took upon himfelf the form of a fervant, in order to fave all; that, with this view, he fubmitted to the helpleffnefs and infirmities of infancy, to the narrowness of human underftanding, and the perturbations of human affections, to hunger, thirft, labour, wearinefs, 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 firft fight) to undergo the moft bitter mental agony previously. Here then we may make the following obfer

vations.

First, that laying down the prefent diforders 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 feems to be a neceffity alfo for a fuffering Saviour. At least, 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 Apofiles fhould have thus hit upon a thing which all the great men amongst 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 fecking after wifdom, 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 feems 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 recourfe 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 falsehood of that claim. One can scarce fuppofe, that God would permit a perfon apparently fo innocent and excellent, fo quali fied to impole 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 otherwife.

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

and

and truth of the Gospel-history. There are no direct encomiums upon him, no laboured defences or recommendations. His character arifes from a careful, impartial, examination of all that he faid and did; and the Evangelifts appear to have drawn this greatest of all characters without any direct defign to do it. Nay, they have recorded fome, things, fuch as his being moved with the paffions of human nature, as well as being affected by its infirmities, which the wisdom of this world would rather have concealed, But their view was, to fhew him to the perfons to whom they preached as the promised Meffiah of the Jews, and the Saviour of mankind; and as they had been convinced of this themselves, from his difcourfes, actions, fufferings, and refurrection, they thought nothing more was wanting, to convince fuch others as were ferious and impartial, but a fimple narrative of what Jesus said and did. And if we compare the transcendent greatness of this character with the indirect manner in which it is delivered, and the illiterate hefs and low condition of the Evangelifts, it will appear impoffible that they fhould have forged it, that they fhould not have had a real original before them, fo that nothing was wanting but to record fimply and faithfully. How could mean and illiterate perfons excel the greatest geniuses, ancient and modern, in drawing a character? How came they to draw it in an indirect manner? This is indeed a strong evidence of genuineness and truth; but then it is of fo reclufe and fubtle a nature, and, agreeably to this, has been fo little taken notice of by the defenders of the Christian religion, that one cannot conceive the Evangelifts were at all aware that it was an evidence. The character of Chrift, as drawn by them, is therefore genuine and true; and confequently proves his divine misfion, both by its tranfcendent excellence, and by his laying claim to fuch a miffion.

Here it ought to be particularly remarked, that our Saviour's entire devotion to God, and fufferings for the fake of men in compliance with his will, is a pitch of perfection which was never propofed, or thought of, before his coming (much lefs attempted or attained); unlets as far as this is virtually included in the precepts for loving God above all, and our neigbour as our felves, and other equivalent paffages in the Old Testament.

We come, in the next place, to confider the characters of the Prophets, Apoftles, and other eminent perfons mentioned in the Old and New Teftaments. Here then we may obferve,

First, that the characters of the perfons who are faid in the Scriptures to have had divine communications, and a divine miffion, are fo much fuperior to the characters which occur in common life, that we can scarce account for the most eminent fingle ones, and therefore much lefs for fo large a fucceffion of them, .continued through fo many ages, without allowing the divine communications and affiftance, which they alledge. It is true, indeed, that many of thefe eminent perfons had confiderable imperctions, and fome of them were guilty of great fins occafionally, though not habitually. However, I fpeak here of the balance, after proper deductions are made,

on account of thefe fins and imperfections; and leave it to the impartial reader to confider, whether the Prophets, Apoftles, &c. were not fo much fuperior, not only to mankind at an average, but even to the beft men amongst the Greeks and Romans, as is not fairly to be accounted for by the mere powers of human nature.

Secondly, if this should be doubted, their characters are, however, far too good to allow the fuppofition of an impious fraud and impofture; which must be the cafe, if they had not divine authority. We have therefore this double argument for the divine authority of the Scriptures, if we only allow the genuineness and truth of its common history.

Thirdly, the characters of the eminent perfons mentioned in the Scriptures arife so much, in an indirect way, from the plain narrations of facts; their fins and imperfections are fo fully fet forth by themfelves, or their friends, with their condemnation and punishment; and the vices of wicked men, and the oppofers of God and themfelves, related in fo candid a way, with all fit allowances; that we have in this a remarkable additional evidence for the truth of this part of the Scripture history, besides the common ones before given, which extend to the whole.

Fourthly, the eminent perfons here confidered, are fometimes charged by unbelievers with crimes, where, all circumftances being duly weighed, they did nothing unjustifiable, nothing more than it was their indifpenfable duty to God to do; as Abraham in preparing to facrifice Ifaac, Jofhua in deftroying the Canaanites, &c. We cannot determine an action to be finful from a mere abftracted general definition of it, as that it is the taking away the life of a man, &c. but muft carefully weigh all circumftances. And indeed there are no maxims in morality that are quite univerfal; they can be no more than general; and it is fufficient for human purposes, that they are fo much, notwithstanding that the addition of peculiar circumftances makes the action vary from the general rule. Now the certain command of God may furely be fuch a circumftance.

Laftly, the perfection of virtue being of an ever-growing infinite nature, it is reasonable to expect, that mankind in its infant ftate, foon after the flood, and fo onwards for fome time, fhould be more imperfect, and have lefs of the pure and fublime precepts concerning indifference to this world, and all present things, univerfal unlimited charity, mortification, abftinence, chaftity, &c. delivered to them, than we Chriftians have, and lefs expected from them. And yet, upon the whole, the patriarchs and eminent perfons among the Jews were burning and fhining lights in their refpective generations. However, it is also to be obferved here, that the most fublime precepts of the Gospel do appear from the firft, in the Old Teftament, though under a veil; and that they were gradually opened more and more under the later prophets.