« PreviousContinue »
stand good against him. He was in haste to do their business for them : and, it must be confessed, by an argument that does equal credit to his logic and his piety.
Fair reasoners of all parties will see, though Dr. Stebbing will not, that the question is not particular concerning the inspiration of the Old and New Testament; but general, of the connexion between them; and those will not be so unreasonable to expect I should prove this connexion, of which they ask a proof, any otherwise than by applying each reciprocally to explain and to support the other. If the two Testaments be shewn to do this; while on the other hand, when singly considered, and without each other's mutual assistance, they are inexplicable, the connexion between them is fairly made out. The objection of Unbelievers stands thus. “You pretend” (say they) “ that these two Dispensations are two constituent parts of God's great moral Economy: If this be true, they must needs have a strong connexion and real relation to one another. Shew us this connexion and relation : and amuse us no longer with proving the divinity of this or that Dispensation separately, as if each were independent on the other.” I comply with their demand: And now Dr. Stebbing tells me, I take this or that Revelation for granted which I should have proved. Whereas in truth I take nothing for granted but what Unbelievers are ready to prove against me, if I did not : namely, that between two Dispensations, the one pretended to be preparatory to the other, there must needs be a strong and near connexion and relation. And if, in the course of evincing this connexion, I urge some circumstances in the Jewish to support the Christian, and others in the Christian to support the Jewish, this, I suppose, is not taking for granted the truth either of one or the other, but proving the divinity of both.
P. 201. III. Hence we see the vanity of Mr. Whiston's distinction, who is for retaining Types (necessitated thereunto by the express declarations of Holy Writ) and for rejecting double senses. “ Mr. Whiston” (says the author of the Grounds, &c.) “justifies typical arguing from the ritual laws of Moses, and from passages of History in the Old Testament.-Indeed he pretends this last to be quite another thing from the odd (typical) application of prophecies. For” (says he) “the ancient ceremonial institutions were, as to their principal branches, at least in their own nature, Types and shadows of future good things—But the case of the ancient prophecies to be alledged from the old Scriptures for the confirmation of Christianity is quite of another nature, and of a more nice and exact consideration.” p. 227, 228. It appears, indeed, they are of a more nice and exact consideration, even from Mr. Whiston's so much mistaking them, as to suppose they are of a nature quite different from Types. But instead of telling us honestly that he knew not what to make of them, he plays the courtier and dismisses them, for a more nice and exact consideration.
P. 202. KKK. The Bishop of London, in his Discourses on the Use and Intent of Prophecy, seemed to have but a slender idea of this use when he wrote as follows—“ There was no occasion ” (says he) “to lay in so long beforehand the evidence of prophecy, to convince men of things that were to happen in their own times : and it gives us a low idea of the administration of Providence in sending Prophets one after another in every age from Adam to Christ, to imagine that all this apparatus was for their sakes who lived in OR AFTER the times of Christ.” p. 37. But such is the way of these Writers who have a favourite doctrine to inforce. The truth of that doctrine (if it happen to be a truth) is supported at the expence of all others. Thus his Lordship, setting himself to prove that Prophecy was given principally to support the Faith and Religion of the World, thought he could not sufficiently secure his point without weakening and discrediting another of, at least, equal importance - That it was given to afford testimony to the mission of Jesus.
P. 205. LLL. This account of Types and secondary senses, which supposes they were intended to conceal the doctrines delivered under them, is so very natural, and, as would seem, reasonable, that Dr. Stebbing himself subscribes to it. And hence occasion has been taken by a most acute and able Writer to expose his prevarication, in maintaining that the Jews had the revealed Doctrine of a Future State : For the Doctor not only confesses that the Doctrine was revealed under Types, but that Doctrines, thus conveyed, were purposely secreted from the knowledge of the ancient Jews. See the Argument of the Divine Legation fairly stated, p. 125. And the free and candid Examination of Bishop Sherlock's Sermons, &c. chap. ii. where the controversy on this point is fairly determined, as far as truth and reason can determine any thing.
P. 215. MMM. Hear what a very judicious Critic observes of the line in question. “The comment of Servius on this line is remarkable. Hunc versum notant Critici, quasi superfluè et inutiliter additum, nec concenienten gravitati ejus, namque est magis neotericus. Mr. ADDISON conceived of it in the same manner when he said this was the only witty line in the Æneis; meaning such a line as Ovid would have written. We see they esteemed it a wanton play of fancy, unbecoming the dignity of the Writer's work, and the gravity of his character. They took it, in short, for a mere modern flourish, totally different from the pure unaffected manner of genuine antiquity. And thus far they unquestionably judged right. Their defect was in not seeing that the use of it, as here employed by the Poet, was an exception to the general rule. But to have seen this was not, perhaps, to be expected even from these Critics. However from this want of penetration arose a difficulty in determining whether to read facta or fata nepotum. And as we now understand that Servius and his Critics were utter strangers to Virgil's noble idea, it is no wonder they could not resolve it. But the latter is the Poet's own word. He considered this shield of eelestial make as a kind of Palladium, like the ANCILE which fell from Heaven, and used to be carried in procession on the shoulders of the Salii. Quid de scutis (says Lactantius) jam vetustate putridis dicam ? Quæ cum portant, Deos IPSOS SE GESTARE HUMERIS Suis arbitrantur. [Div. Inst. lib. i. c. 21.] Virgil, in a fine flight of imagination, alludes to this venerable ceremony, comparing, as it were, the shield of his hero to the sacred Ancile; and, in conformity to the practice in that sacred procession, represents his hero in the priestly office of religion,
Attollens uumero famamque et Fata Nepotum.
This idea then, of the sacred shield, the guard and glory of Rome, and on which, in this advanced situation, depended the fame and fortune of his country, the Poet with extreme elegance and sublimity transfers to the shield which guarded their great Progenitor, while he was laying the first foundations of the Roman Empire.” Mr. HURD—Notes on the Epistle to Augustus, p. 68, 69, 3d ed.
P. 220. NNN. The Reader sees however, by this, that he at length takes ALLEGORIES and SECONDARY SENSES not to be the same : In which, I must crave leave to tell him, he is mistaken ; Religious allegories (the only allegories in question) being no other than a species of secondary senses. This may be news to our Critic, though he has written and printed so much about ALLEGORIES, that is, about secondary senses ; as Monsieur Jordan was surprized to find he had talked prose all his life-time, without knowing it.
P. 220. 000. Dr. Stebbing, of this some (by one of his arts of controversy) has made all. And charges me * with giving this as the character of double prophecies in general, that without Miracles in their conformation they could hardly have the sense contended for well ascertained. On the contrary, he assures his reader that no Prophecy can have its sense supported by Miracles.—That part which relates to the Morality of the Doctor's conduct in this matter, I shall leave to himself: with his Logic I have something more to say. The Miracles, which the Reader plainly sees I meant, were those worked by Jesus; and the Prophecies, some of those which Jesus quoted, as relating to himself. But the Doctor tells us, “That Miracles are not to be taken for granted in our disputes with Unbelievers." In some of our disputes with Unbelievers they are not to be taken for granted; in some they are. When the dispute is, whether the truth of Jesus' Mission appear from Miracles, it would be absurd to take Miracles for granted : but when the dispute is, whether the truth of his Messiah-character appear from Prophecies, there is no absurdity in taking his Miracles for granted ; because an unbeliever may deny his Messiah-character, which arises from Prophecies, and yet acknowledge this Mission which is proved by Miracles ; but he cannot deny the truth of his mission, which is proved by Miracles, and yet acknowledge his Miracles. But more than this—An Unbeliever not only may allow us to suppose the truth of Miracles when the question is about the proof of the Messiah-character from Prophecies ; but the Unbeliever, with whom I had here to do, Mr. Collins, does actually allow in our dispute with him, to suppose the truth of Miracles : For thus he argues, “ Jesus, you say, has proved his Mission by Miracles. In good time. But he had another Character to support, that of a promised Messiah, for which he appeals to the Prophecies : Now, 1st, these Prophecies relate not to him, but to another. And 2dly, Miracles never can make that relate to him which relates to another.” In answer to this, I proposed to shew, that the first proposition was absolutely false, and that the second very much wanted to be qualified. In the course of this dispute, I had occasion to urge the evidence of Miracles ; and Mr. Collins, while denying the Messiah-character, had permitted me to suppose their truth. Unluckily, the Doctor, who saw nothing of all this, takes what Logicians call the point assumed, and the point to be proved, for one and the same thing. That Jesus was a divine Messenger, and worked Miracles is the point assumed by me; and Mr. Collins, over-confident of his cause, permitted me to assume it. That Jesus was the Messiah foretold, is the point to be proved ; and I did not expect that any other than a follower of Mr. Collins would deny I had proved it. But I will be fair even with so unfair an Adversary as Dr. Stebbing, and urge his cause with an advantage with which I will suppose he would have urged it himself had he known how. It may be questioned whether it be strictly logical to employ this topic (which Mr. Collins allows us to assume) of Jesus's divine mission in order to prove his Messiahship? Now all that can be here objected is, that we assume one Character, in order to prove another, in the same divine Person. And what is there illogical in this? Who ever objected to the force of that reasoning against Lord Bolingbroke, which, from the Attributes of God's power and wisdom which his Lordship allowed the Author of the View of his Philo
• See “ History of Abraham," p. 61, &c.
sophy to assume, inferred and proved God's justice and goodness, which his Lordship denied ? But to satisfy, not the Doctor, but any more reasonable man, I will sup
be asked, “Of what use are Prophecies thus circumstanced, that is to say, such as require the evidence of Miracles to ascertain their sense ?” I reply, of very important use; as they open and reveal more clearly the mutual dependency and connexion of the two Dispensations on one another, in many particulars which would otherwise have escaped our notice: And, by this means, strengthen several additional proofs of the Messiahship of Jesus, on which the Gospel doctrine of Redemption depends. But was there no more in it than this, The rescuing some prophecies quoted in the New Testament as relating to Jesus, out of the hands of Unbelievers, who have taken an occasion, from their generality or obscurity, to persuade the people that they relate entirely to another matter; this, I say, would be no less than clearing the truth of the Messiahship from inextricable difficulties.—I will now take a final leave of this Answerer by profession ; an Answerer of such eminence, that he may indeed be called,
Knight of the Shire who represents them all. But as he displays at parting all the effrontery of his miserable trade, I will just stop to new burnish his complexion.
I had called my Argument a Demonstration, which one would think no one who could distinguish Morals from Physics could mistake, or would venture to misrepresent. Yet hear Dr. Stebbing's last words,—“That Moses was the Legislator of the Jews, and that the Jews were ignorant of a Future State ; these facts must be known by history, which spoils you for a Demonstrator at once : For historical evidence goes no further than probability; and if this must concur to make up the evidence, it cannot be a Demonstration : For Demonstration cannot stand upon probability. The evidence may be good and sufficient, but Demonstration it cannot be ; which is always founded upon self-evident truths, and is carried on by a chain or series of the most simple ideas hanging upon each other by a necessary connexion." Letter to the Dean of Bristol, p. 9, 10. And was it for this, that this wonderful man hath written half a score Pamphlets against the Divine Legation, that he could not find in it the same sort of Demonstration which he hath been told may be seen in Euclid ?
P. 227. PPP. Nothing can be more simple than the principle here inforced, or more agreeable to the rules of just interpretation, than to suppose, that the Language of the Law, in the terms ALTAR, SACRIFICE, &c. is employed to convey these prophetic intimations of the Gospel. The ancient fathers of the Church very improvidently continued the use of these terms, when speaking of the Christian Rites : For though they used them, and professed to use them metaphorically, yet it gave countenance to strange extravagance of Scripture-interpretation amongst the Romanists. The ingenious Author of the Principes de la foi Chretienne, Tom. I. p. 273. brings this prophecy of Malachi for a proof of the divine institution of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
P. 233. QQQ. It is wonderful to consider how little the Writers, on either side the question, have understood of the logical propriety and moral fitness of Types, and secondary senses of Prophecy.
Dr. Middleton and Dr. Sykes, who agreed with Mr. Collins in laughing at these modes of information, agreed with him likewise, in laying down such principles and inculcating such ideas of the Mosaic Religion, as most effectually tended to evince this logical propriety and moral fitness.
On the other hand, Bishop Sherlock, Dr. Stebbing, and other advocates for Types and secondary senses of Prophecy, lay down such principles, and inculcate such ideas of the Mosaic Religion, as would totally supersede the use of these modes of information, and consequently destroy both their logical propriety and moral fitness.-See the Free and candid Examination of Bishop Sherlock's Principles, &c. chap. ii.
P. 238. RRR. M. BOUILLER, the ingenious Author of the Court Examen de la Thése de Mr. L'Abbé de PRADES et Observations sur son Apologie, having charged de Prades with taking his idea of the Mosaic Economy from this Work, without owning it, goes on, in his own way, to shew that the ARGUMENT of the Divine Legation, as delivered in these two Volumes, is CONCLUSIVE.—“ La Loi Mosaïque, considerée comme fondement d'un establissement national et temporel, n'avoit que des promesses et des menaces, ne proposoit que des peines, des recompenses, temporelles : aulieu qu'à considerer les grandes vues de cet etablissement, par rapport à l'Eglise même, la Loi étoit une espece de tableau emblématique, qui sous l'enveloppe des objets charnels figuroit les spirituels ; ensorte que, en raisonnant selon les principes d'une juste analogie, la foi des Israélites éclairés et pieux, trouvoit dans les promesses de la Loi, qui portoient uniquement sur les biens presens, un nouveau garand de la certitude des biens avenir. Mais comme on doit bien se souvenir, que dans cette Nation, les Fideles ne faisoient QUE LE PETIT NOMBRE, l'argument de WARBURTON, tiré du silence de la Loi sur une Economie avenir, en fareur de la divinité de cette Loi même, conserve toute sa force ; car il demeure toujours vrai qu'il n'a pas fallu moins que la vertu des MIRACLES et l'efficace d'une impression surnaturelle, pour faire ployer le gros de la Nation, c'est à-dire les Juifs charnels, qui ne pénétroient point ces vues Mystérieuses, sous le joug pesant de la Dispensation Mosaïque.” [p. 94, 95.] And again, “Ce double Caractere de la Dispensation Mosaïque met sa divinité hors d'atteinte à tous les traits les plus envenimés du Déisme qui l'attaque par deux batteries opposées. Quoi ? disent nos Libertins, une Religion qui promet uniquement les biens de la Terre, peutelle être digne de Dieu ! Et lorsque, pour leur répondre, ayant recours au sens mystique, on dit que les promesses Légales qui, prises à la lettre, n'offrent qu'un bonheur temporel, doivent s'entendre spirituellement ; ces Messieurs se retournent aussi-tot avec une merveilleuse adresse pour vous demander comment un Oracle, qui trompe les hommes, et qui n'a point d'accomplissement dans le sens le plus clair, le plus propre, et le plus littéral de ce qu'il promet, peut être regardé comme un Oracle divin? Question, qui dans l'hypothese commune me paroit plus difficile à résoudre d'une façon satisfaisante. Mais l'une et l'autre objection tombe, dès qu'on envisage l'ancienne Economie telle qu'elle est ; c'est-à-dire, tout à la fois comme Alliance nationale et comme Economie religieuse. En qualité d'Alliance nationale, ses promesses sont toutes Charnelles, et s'accomplissent à la lettre à l'egard des Juifs. Mais en qualité d'Economie religieuse, essentiellement liée au plan de l'Evangile, elle est pour les Fidéles, la figure et le gage des biens spirituels. Doublement digne du Dieu de vérité, et par l'accomplissement litteral de ses promesses, et par leur usage typique, la réunion de ces deux rapports y annonce l'ouvrage de son infinie sagesse.” [Addition à l’Article IV. p. 104.]
Thus far this ingenious Writer. But now a difficulty will occur. He owns the Author of the Divine Legation hath made out his point, that the Law of Moses is from God : He contends that the Author's system is the only one that can support this Revelation against the objections of Deists and Libertines : Yet when he has done this, he has thought fit to call this