fulfil, we ought to understand the whole body of the law both moral and ceremonial, and the prophecies relating to the Meffiah. Thus likewifes when fpeaking of himself, he faid to the Jews Deftroy this temple (e), he thereby intimated to them that he was the true temple of God, of which theirs was only a figure; that he was the only true expiatory facrifice, without which there could be no remiffion of fin, and confequently that he was the Meffiah whom they expected. For this reafon it was, that St. John faid, The law was given by Mofes, but grace and truth came by Jefus Chrift (f); that is, our bleffed Redeemer was the reality and fubftance of what the ceremonial law was only a fhadow and faint representation. This typical way of reafoning is moftly used by St. Paul in his epiftles, and especially in that to the Hebrews. And it may very reasonably be fuppofed that the method he hath followed in applying the Jewish ceremonies to Jefus Chrift and the Chriftian religion was familiar to the Jews, fince he takes it for granted and argues from them, as from truths generally owned and received; though fome paffages in the epifle to the Hebrews may now seem to be very hard and obfcure to us that are not accustomed to fuch a way of reafoning, it is very probable that they were plain and intelligible to those whom it was at firft directed to. Upon the whole, it is certain, that whoever rejects and condemns abfolutely all typical reafoning, doth manifeftly depart from the end and defign of the law, and contradicts Chrift and his Apoftles. But if it be a very great rashness to cenfure and find fault with the allegorical interpretations which the facred writers of the New Teftament hath given of feveral parts of the Old, it is on the other hand of a pernicious confequence to give too much fcope to one's fancy in this particular, and to find types and allegories every where. Some authors have long ago complained of the exceffive liberty which fome of the fathers have taken in turning the whole Bible into allegory. St. Jerome, for inftance, who was himself a noted allegorift, accufed Origen of departing from the truth of fcripture hiftory, and of delivering his own inventions and witty conceits for facraments of the Church (g), i. e. for effential parts of the chriftian religion; and St. Bafil compared fuch as gave into the allegorical way, to thofe men that endeavour to make their own conceptions and whimfical dreams become fubfervient to their private interests or systems. The defign of thefe allegorical writers was, as they pretended, to give mankind a more exalted notion of the holy fcriptures; but they did not confider that they brought in at the fame time a very bad precedent; for this way of reafoning proved afterwards a great differvice to true religion; the /chool-men, treading in the fteps of the fathers, had recourfe to allegories, in order to make out and confirm fome odd opinions, and unaccountable ceremonies, which were no way countenanced by the word of God. Our first reformers therefore, and after them feveral learned proteftant (e) John ii. 19. (f) John i. 17. (g) Ingenium facit Ecclefiæ Sacramenta. Hieron (de Orig. Loqu.) Commentar. in Etai, proteftant divines (b), have very justly obferved what pernicious confequences fuch a method as this muft inevitably be attended with, fince it renders the only rule of chriftian faith equivocal and ambiguous; and makes it as capable of as many fenfes as the fruitful fancy and copious invention of fuperftitious men are able to frame. It muft indeed be owned, that the immoderate ufe of allegories, which hath been in fafhion for a long time, and is not yet out of date in fome places, deftroys the very fubftance of all true religion, and found divinity. By means of them, holy fcriptures become a mere quibble, or at best, a perpetual riddle, which will admit of as many different folutions and meanings, as there are perfons to read them: this fhamefully betrays and exposes them to the fcorn and contempt of profane and unbelieving perions, and to the reproaches and infults of hereticks. Moreover, fuppofing this allegorical way of expounding fcripture to be the best, or the only true one, then what occafion was there, that God (in order to adapt himself to the capacities of his rational creatures) should reveal his will by the miniftry of men, if quite another fenfe is to be put upon the facred writings, than what the words naturally convey to one's mind. Befides, it would be entirely needless to learn the original languages, in which the Old and New Teftament are written, or to get an infight into the customs and manners of the Hebrews; if, in order rightly to explain the holy fcriptures, nothing more was requifite, than aftrong and lively imagination, and to fill one's head with airy and metaphyfical notions. There is, in fhort, no one thing in the world, though never fo out of the way, or fo contradictory in itself, but what may be reprefented as countenanced by the facred writings, with the help of forced and unnatural types; especially, if a maxim laid down by fome divines be true, That the words of fcripture mean every thing they are capable of fignifying. By this maxim, the glorious objects which the word of God fets before us, to exercise our faith and piety, will be banished, in order to make room for empty trifles, and vain fubtilties; which may indeed amuse and divert the mind, but can never afford any folid inftruction, or lafting fatisfaction. Moft of the facts, upon which the truth of our religion depends, will be converted into types and prophecies. The duties of morality will be allegorized into myfteries, which inethod the corrupted heart of man will readily clofe in with, as more reconcilable with its depraved appetites. Hence it is evident there is a neceffity of fetting fome bounds to the myftical way of explaining fcripture; and of our being sparing and cautious in the ufe of allegories. For this reafon, it will not be improper to lay down here fome general rules and directions concerning this matter. First, then, we ought never to put a mystical or allegorical fenfe upon a plain paffage, whofe meaning is obvious and natural, unless it be evident from fome other part of fcripture, that the place is to be understood in a double fenfe. For instance, St. Paul teaches us that the law was a fhadow of things to come, that it was a fchool-mafter to bring men to (b) Luther, Calvin, Sixtinus Amama, Scaliger, Amyraldus, Dr. Hall, Dr. Mills. to Chrift (i); we must therefore, without any hefitation, acknowledge that the ceremonial law in general, was a type of the myfteries revealed in the gofpel. We must pass the fame judgment upon the brazen ferpent, which Mofes lifted up in the wilderness, and which our bleffed Redeemer makes a type and emblem of his own crucifixion (k); as likewise on Jonas's being three days, and three nights, in the whale's belly (1), which he likewife reprefents as a figure of his own death and refurrection. There are also abundance of types in the epiftle to the Hebrews, which therefore ought to be received as fuch. But it is rafh (not to fay worse) to feek for types and allegories, where there are not the leaft marks of any; and that too, by running counter to the plain and literal meaning of fcripture, and very often to common fenfe. Should not the prudence and moderation of Chrift and his Apoftles in this respect be imitated? Is it not pretending to be wifer than they were, to look for myfteries, where they defigned none? how unreasonable is it to lay an useless weight on the confciences of chriftians; and to bear down the true and revealed, under the unwieldy burden of traditional myfteries. Secondly, We must not only be careful not to encrease the number of types, but alfo not to carry a type too far, but confine ourselves to the relation, which evidently appears between the type and antitype. In a type, every circumftance is far from being typical, as in a parable there are feveral incidents, which are not to be confidered as parts of the parable, nor infifted upon as fuch. Complaints have long ago been made, that under pretence that the tabernacle of Mofes was a figure of the Church, or of Heaven, even the very boards and nails of it have been converted into types. What we have faid concerning types, may be applied to allegories. But it must be observed that there is this difference between them (m); that a type confifts in fome action or event, defigned to be the figure or fign of fome other; as the brazen ferpent, (for inftance) Jonas's being in the whale's belly, the building of the tabernacle, &c. Whereas an allegory confifts rather in certain words or fentences, that have a figurative fenfe, and which are used either to convey more effectually fome truth or doctrine into the minds of men, or to recommend fome moral duty to their practice. Several allegories of this kind are to be found in the facred writings, where an explanation of them is fometimes given at the fame time; as when St. Paul reprefents the new covenant under the emblem of Sarah, and the old under that of Hagar (z). But it would be as abfurd and ridiculous for any one to think himself authorized thereby to turn the whole bible into allegories, as to convert it all into types, because some are clearly and plainly expreffed in it. Care likewife muft be taken, not to carry an allegory beyond the intention and defign of the author. When Jefus Chrift, for inftance, speaking of the temple of his body, faid to the Jews, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (0); we inuft be careful not to push this allegory beyond the defign Galat. iii. 24. (i) Coloff. ii. 17. (*) John iii. 14. () Erafin. de rat. Concionandi, p. 367. (0) John ii. 19. defign of our Saviour, which was, thereby to prefigure his death, and to fignify that he fhould rife again the third day. For if any one fhould from thence apply to Jefus Chrift every thing that could be affirmed of the temple, he must with Irenæus (p), conclude that our Saviour was then 46 years of age. Whoever defires more particular directions concerning the ufe of types and allegories, let him confult the most excellent and judicious obfervations of Erafmus upon this point, in his treatife de ratione Concionandi, or The art of preaching. After we have thus given a general idea of the Jewish ceremonies, it will now be proper to defcend to a more particular examination of them; which we fhall do, by following the fame method a late learned author hath done (q); from whofe excellent writings we fhall extract all that is neceffary for our prefent purpofe under the following heads; I. The holy places among the Jews. II. Their holy persons; and here we fhal! give an account of their fects, and of their most famous rabbies. III. Their facrifices and oblations. IV. Their holy-days and festivals. Of the Holy Places. WE may reckon among the holy places the land of The holy land. Ifrael, as the Jews term it (a), which is alfo called God's inheritance, or the earth, and the land, by way of eminence. Jews and Chriftians have alfo unanimously beftowed upon it the name of the holy land, though for different reafons. It is not our bufinefs here to describe the bounds and divifions of it, but only to confider it according to it's real or pretended holiness. The whole world was divided by the Jews in two general parts, The land of Ifrael, and the land out of Ifrael; that is, all the countries that were inhabited by the nations of the world, to ufe their own phrafe, i. e. by the Gentiles. We meet with fome allufions to this diftinction in the holy fcriptures (b). All the reft of the world, befides Judea, was by the Jews looked upon as profane and unclean. The whole land of Ifrael was holy, without excepting Samaria, notwithstanding the animofities between the Jews and Samaritans; nor even Idumæa, especially after its inhabitants had embraced the Jewish religion. As for Syria, they thought it between both; that is, neither quite holy nor altogether profane. Befides the holiness afcribed in fcripture to the land of Ifrael in general, as it was the inheritance of God's people, the place appointed for the performance of his worship, the Jews were pleafed to attribute different degrees of holiness to the feveral parts of it, according to their different fituation. They reputed, for inftance, thofe parts which lay beyond (p) Iren. 1. xv. c. 39. (4) Reland Antiq. of the Hebrews. (e) 1 Sam. xiii. 19. Ezek. vii. 2. Hof. ix. 3. Ruth i. (b) Mat. vi. 32. beyond Jordan, lefs boly than thofe that were on this fide. They fancied likewife walled towns to be more clean and holy than other places, because lepers were not admitted into them, and the dead were not buried there. Even the very duft of Ifrael was by them counted pure, whereas that of other nations was looked upon as polluted and profane. Which undoubtedly was the reason why our Saviour ordered his Difciples, when they departed out of any houfe or city that would not receive nor hear them, they should fbake off the duft of their feet. As the Jewish traditions concerning the holiness of their country do not directly come under our confideration, we fhall be contented with having just pointed out fome of them by the way. Of Jerufalem. There was nothing in the whole land of Ifrael, that was fuppofed more holy than the city of Jerufalem (*), otherwife called the holy city, and the city of the great King (c). Before the building of the temple, the Jewish religion and worship were not fixed to any one particular place, the tabernacle having been several times removed from one place to another, for the fpace of 479 years, according to the calculation of fome of their writers. After that time Jerufalem became the center and feat of their religion. As this capital of the holy land is very remarkable, upon the account of the many wonderful works which God wrought therein; and efpecially for the preaching, the miracles, and the death of our Saviour Jefus Chrift, it therefore deferves a very particular confideration. It is, befides, worth while to have fome idea of a city, which was the figure of that heavenly Jerufalem, of which we have fo noble a defcription in the Revelations (d). Jerufalem (which, according to the Jewish notions, ftood in the middle of the world) was formerly called Jebus, from one of the fons of Canaan (e). Some authors imagine that it was the ancient Salem, mentioned in the scriptures (f), of which Melchizedek was king; but this is uncertain. Neither is it well known who was the firft founder of it. After the taking of it by Joshua (g), it was jointly inhabited both by Jews and Jebufites (h), for the space of about 500 (†) years, that is, till the time of king David. This prince having driven the Jebufites out of it, made it the place of his refidence (i), built therein a noble palace, and several other magnificent buildings, fo that he made it one of the fineft cities in the world (4). Upon which account it is fometimes called the city of David (1). Jofephus gives us a full and elegant defcription of it (m), wherein he reprefents it as a very large ftrong place, and divides it into the upper and lower city. The upper was built on mount Sion, and the lower on the hill Acra. The learned are divided in (*) Authors are divided about the etymology of the word Jerufalem, fome imagine it fignifies Fear Salem, because the city was very strong; others, They shall fee peace. But others, with a greater probability, fay it means, The inheritance of peace. (c) Matt. v. 35. (f) Gen. xiv. 18. (d) Revel. xxi. (+) Or 515. See Jofeph. Antiq. 1. vii. c. 3. (i) 2 Sam. v. 6, 7, 8, 9. (7) 1 Chron. xi. 5. (e) Jofhua xviii. 28. (b) Joh. xv. 63. (k) Pfal. xlviii. 12, 13. |