PROP. XXXIII.

The Application of the Types and Prophecies of the Old Teftament by the Writers of the New does not weaken the Authority of thefe Writers, but rather confirm it.

FOR the objections, which have been made to the writers of the New Teftament on this head, have been grounded principally upon a fuppofition, that when an obvious literal fenfe of a paffage, or a manifest use of a ceremony, fuited to the then prefent times, is discovered, all others are excluded, fo as to become mifapplications. But this has been shewn in the last propofition to be a prejudice arifing from the narrowness of our faculties and abilities. Whence it follows, that, if the fcripture types and prophecies be remarkably suited 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 first 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 reasonable they should be taken by us.

Let our inftance be the second pfalm, which we are to suppose 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 himself, whether he feemed to himself to compofe it from his own proper fund, or to have it dictated immediately by the Spirit of God, would have David principally in view. At the fame time it is evident, that there are fome paffages, particularly the lait, Bleffed are all they that put their trust in him, i. e. in the Son, which it would be impious, efpecially 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 fupposed therefore, that many, or moft, confidered such 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 prefent times both to respect 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 this chofen people, their return and deliverance, their having their fcriptures collected into one view by Ezra, and read in their fynagogues during the interval from Ezra to CHRIST, 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 ceremonies of their law, of the historical events of the pfalms appointed for the temple worship, and of the infpired declarations 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 narrowmindednefs, which makes fome in these 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 CHRIST, and for fome time afterwards, appears from the New Testament, from the Chriftian writers of the first ages, and from the Talmudical ones.

A great part, however, of the fcripture types and prophecies appeared to the Jews to have no relation to their promised 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 paschal 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 vesture, fhould contribute to afcertain him. However, it is certain, that to persons who had for fome time confidered their fcriptures in the typical,

prophetical view mentioned in the last 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 for miracles, or prophecies of undoubted import, to have been laid previously. Nay, fuch coincidences may be confidered not only as arguments to the Jews of CHRIST's time, but as folid arguments in themfelves, and that exclufively of the context. For though each of thefe 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 circumstances of CHRIST'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 pafchai lamb, are types of the Meffiab. And when the whole evidence of this kind, which the industry of pious Chriftians has brought to light in the firft ages of Christianity, 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 Christian 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 fcripture 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 well-meaning perfons feem to be prejudiced against typical and double fenfes, I will add fome arguments, whereby the writers of the New Testament may be defended upon this footing alfo.

First, then, Since 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 sense to the times of the Meffiah, this would be a common foundation for thefe 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 present time, though it would not extend to the world in general, to diftant ages, and to perfons of different educations, as that they should be left to the workings of their own acquired natures in many other refpects, notwithftanding the fupernatural gifts beftowed upon them in fome; or as it is to conceive, that GOD fhould confer any thing, existence, 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 Taftament were fometimes guilty of erroneous reasonings in these or other matters, ftill this does not affect their moral characters at all; nor their