that of the gofpel of our Lord Jefus Chrift; and that, in the fecret meaning of the Mofaic hiftory, he had intimated as much.' Whereas St. Paul was far from faying or intending any fuch thing; as the learned author of the Differtation, annexed to Mr. Pierce's paraphrafe and notes on Philippians, has made abundantly appear. The fum and fubftance of what is there faid is, "The proper tranflation of the words, ver. 24. Ατινά έτιν ἀλληγορώμενα, is,which things are allegorized;' that is, the history of Mofes, "concerning Abraham and his family, is allegorized' by the pro"phet [Ifa. liv. 1.]. And, in the prophet's allegorical difcourfe, "the two women, Sarah and Hagar, reprefent the two covenants, or "the two difpenfations, of the law of Mofes, and the gofpel of our "Lord Jefus Christ.” Now, what occafion is there to fuppofe a double sense in that part of the Mofaic hiftory? We may take a paffage out of Rapin's Hiftory of England; and allegorize that, if we please. But that would not by any means prove that Rapin himself, befides the literal, hiftorical fenfe of fuch a paffage, intended alfo that allegorical meaning; or, befides the literal fenfe, comprehended the use and fignification to which we apply his words. In the book of Mofes, called Genefis, the hiftorical, literal fenfe, of the account of Abraham and his family, is the one, true fenfe. In Ifaiah's allegory, the one true fenfe is the allegorical fenfe. That allegorical fenfe has St. Paul quoted from the prophet. And, therefore, the one true fenfe of the words, as ufed by St. Paul, is not the historical or literal, but the allegorical sense. SECT. VI. Objections, with their Anfwers. Object. I." HAVE not divines, and other writers, in all ages of "the church, ufed the words of Scripture by way of allufion or ac"commodation; turned history into allegory; and often used texts "at their pleasure in a very different fenfe from that of their primary "fignification? And would you condemn fo general a practice? have "authors keep rigidly to the one true fenfe? take away all the orna"ments of ftyle, and fpoil fo much fine writing? How foon would "the orator be ftruck dumb? What a poor figure would the man " of elocution make, if your one, true fenfe muft always be found "out, and ftrictly kept to, throughout the whole difcourfe, founded "on any particular text of Scripture ?" Anfwer. I fhould be forry to offend the orator, or ftrike the man of eloquence dumb. But I am confidering what is required in a commentator. And it seems to be his bufinefs to find out the one, true fenfe of Holy Scripture; and to fet it before his reader in as clear a light as he can. However, it might not be amifs for preachers to attend a little more to the one, true fenfe of Holy Scripture than is frequently done. And that it would not spoil their eloquence, but increase and exalt it, was the opinion of one who will be allowed to be a very good judge. [See the archbishop of Cambray's Dialogues on Eloquence, English edition, p. 158.]. It mangles the Scripture to fhew it to Chriftians only in separate paffages. And, however great the beauty of fuch paffages may be, it can never be fully perceived, unless one knows the con"nection of them. For every thing in Scripture is connected. And this coherence is the most great and wonderful to be seen in the facred writings. For want of a due knowledge of it, preachers • mistake those beautiful paffages, and put upon them what sense they please. They content themfelves with fome ingenious interpretation; which, being arbitrary, has no force to perfuade men, ‹ and to reform their manners.' P. 159. I would have them at least not think it enough to join together a few paffages of Scripture that have no real connection. I would have them explain the principles and the series of the "Chriftian doctrine; and take the fpirit, the ftyle, and the figures, of it that all their difcourfes may ferve to give the people a right < understanding and true relifh of God's word, there needs no more to make preachers eloquent.' For, by doing this, they would imitate the best models of antient eloquence.' And again, p. 161. It is here that our preachers are most defective. Most of their fine fermons contain only philofophical reafonings. Sometimes they prepofterously quote the Scripture, only for the fake of decency or ornament. And it is not regarded as the word of God, but as the invention of man.' Thus far the eloquent Monfieur Fenelon, archbishop of Cambray Let me further add, that the true eloquence of a preacher is to make the people wife unto falvation; that the one, true sense of Holy Scripture will do more towards this, than all the eloquence of Tully or Demofthenes without it; and that, however fine allufions, accommodations, allegories, and figures of rhetoric, may be, yet they can only ferve to embellish and illuftrate the truth. They cannot prove any thing. That must be done by the one, true fenfe of the various texts alledged. And can be done no other way. And, when they have done that, I have no objection to their making ufe of allufions, accommodations, or allegories, in order to embellifh their difcourfes, or illuftrate the truth, provided they do not infift upon them as the original and true meaning of fuch paffages of facred Scripture. Object. II. "Several texts of Scripture are difficult; and it is "dubious which is the true fenfe: must you not there allow of "double fenfes ?" Anfer. When a difficult text is confidered, and the perfon, who attempts to explain it, is dubious which is the true interpretation, he may very rationally give all the fenfes which carry any appearance of probability, with the reasons for each interpretation, and leave it to his readers, or hearers, to judge which is the true fenfe. But, in that cafe, there is but one true fenfe. And his not being able to afcertain ascertain what that is can be no proof of the text's being originally intended to have more fignifications than one. Object. III. "Do not you allow of types and fhadows? or that "perfons and actions, under the Old Testament, were types of "Jefus Chrift, or of fomething under the Christian difpenfation? "And, if you allow of types, you must allow of double fenfes in "fome texts; or that fome paffages of Scripture, befides their im"mediate and direct meaning, had alfo a further, i. e. a mystical or "typical fignification." Anfwer. I acknowledge that God was the author of both difpenfations, viz. "the law of Mofes," and "the gofpel of our Lord "Jefus Chrift:" that, before he put either of them in execution, he had the plan of both clear in his own mind; that in several things there is a refemblance between them; and that God not only forelaw that refemblance, but alfo intended it; that, wherever the law or the prophets have declared, that the rites and ceremonies of the Mofaic conftitution were intended to point out a moral obligation, or to prefigure the Meffiah, or something in the Chriftian difpenfation, there that moral intention, or prophetic prefiguration, is the one, true fenfe of the text. But, where neither the law, nor the prophets, have pointed out fuch an intention, there the refemblance between the two difpenfations could not be discovered till the events, which bear a refemblance to former things, were come to pafs. Then, indeed, fuch a fimilitude would illuftrate fuch events; intimate that the two difpenfations had one and the fame author; and facilitate the fpread of Christianity among the Jews. But difcerning that refemblance between the two difpenfations must arife from having them both before us, and comparing the one with the other; and not from the double sense of any text of Scripture in the Old Teftament or in the New. As to types, in the common acceptation of that word, there were feveral under the Old Teftament. [See Ifai. xx. 1, &c. Jer. xiii. I. &c. and xviii. 1, &c. and xix. 1, &c. and xxiv. I, &c. and xxvii. 1, &c. and xxviii. 10, &c. and li. 63, 64. Ezek. ii. 8, &c. and iii. I, &c. and iv. 1, &c. and v. I, &c. and vii. 23. and xii. 1-20. and xxxvii. 1, &c. Hof. i. 2, &c. and iii. 1, &c. Zach. xi. 7, &c.], In this fenfe alfo our Saviour's curfing the barren fig-tree was typical of the deftruction of the nation of the Jews, who had leaves, but no fruit, made a great fhew and profeffion of religion, without bringing forth the fruits of holiness and righteoufnefs. [Matth. xxi. 18, &c. Mark xi, 12, &c. with which compare Luke xiii. 6, &c.] And fo was Agabus's taking up St. Paul's girdle, to bind his own hands and feet, in order to foretell that the apoftle fhould be fo bound at Jerufalem. [Acts xxi. 10, &c.]. In all these cafes, it is evident that the defign was, by fuch perfons, things, or actions, to prefigure fuch and fuch future events. And the typical sense there is the one, true fenfe of the place; as any one may fee by examining the feveral paffages with any tolerable care and attention. Object. Object, IV. "Are not many paffages in the New Teftament "taken from the Old Testament, and ufed in a quite different "fenfe from what they have as they ftand in the original writer? "And must not these be called double senses of the words of facred << Scripture? Anfwer. It is acknowledged that our Lord, and his apostles and evangelifts, have taken feveral paffages from the Old Teftament; and used them in a very different fenfe from what they have as con nected with the place from whence they were taken. But that will not prove a double fenfe of the words. I may quote a paffage from Homer or Virgil, Herodotus or Livy, to exprefs my prefent meaning, and in quite another fenfe from what it has in those ancient authors. But that will not prove that those ancient authors intended their words fhould be understood in two fenfes. In the original intention, they had only one meaning. In my accommodation of them, they had only one meaning. And, though the fame words may have different ideas affixed to them, and be used by fucceffive Speakers or writers in various fenfes; yet that does not prove that, in the criginal intention, they had more than one fignification. Object. V. "Is not the epiftle to the Hebrews a strong proof of "double fenfes? And has not the author of it abundantly fhewn, "that in the fpiritual meaning of the law of Mofes was contained the "gofpel of our Lord Jefus Chrift?" Answer. The author of the epiftle to the Hebrews has argued very justly; as will plainly appear, when the defign of his writing is attended to, and his argument clearly underftood.-The Hebrew Chriftians were in danger of apoftatizing from the gospel, and of returning to the Jewish religion again. And they were induced to that change, partly out of fear of perfecution from the unbelieving Jews, and partly by the fubtile arguments which they alledged. Befides proper arguments to fupport them under perfecution, or the profpect of it, the apoftle anfwers the arguments of the unbelieving Jews, and that very folidly, q. d. You prefer the law of Mofes as more excellent than the gofpel of Chrift. But let us compare them together, and fee wherein they refemble one another, and wherein they differ. And from fuch a comparifon it will ap pear, that, in both refpects, the goipel has the advantage. And 'will you go back from a better difpenfation to a worfe? Was the law.given by angels? The gospel was given by our Lord Jefus Chriit, who is the head of the angels, and to whom they are all in fubjection. Was Mofes, the fervant of God, the great Jewish lawgiver? A greater and more excellent perfon, Jefus, the fon of God, is the great Chriftian lawgiver. Did joshua give the people of Ifrael reft, after they had paffed through the wilderness; and fettle them in the land of Canaan? That was not the final reft; for king David spoke of another reft long after; even the final reft of God's people, which Jefus will give us in the heavenly Canaan, and which is perfect, and durable. There remaineth, therefore, that everlafting reft for the people of God.-Had the jews a 'fucceffion * fucceffion of mortal men for their high priests? Jesus Chrift is our great high priest, and is not fucceeded by any, but has an un⚫ changeable priesthood; a priesthood which resembles not that • of Aaron, but of Melchizedec, who was both king and priest of the most high God, who is not represented as coming of any 'priestly descent, nor as fucceeded by any priestly line. In like manner, Jesus Christ is actually both king and prieft, not defcend⚫ed from any priestly line, nor has he any successor in his high office ' and dignity. Have the Jews had a tabernacle, or temple, in which their ' priests used to minifter? Jesus Chrift is gone into the holy of ' holies; and is a minister of the true, the heavenly, tabernacle, or temple. The law had only the shadow, the rough draught, or • imperfect delineation, of good things to come. The gospel has the substance, and contains thofe very good things themselves. • Did the Jews offer the facrifices of bulls and goats? Jesus Chrift ⚫ has offered himself as a facrifice; and, by that one offering, has * perfected for ever those that are fanctified.-In short, wherein• foever the law of Mofes and the gofpel of Chrift resemble one ano'ther, there the gofpel has the preference: whereinsoever they dif'fer; there also the gospel is more excellent. And would any wise • man go from a more excellent difpenfation, to one that was evi⚫ dently much less excellent?" All this must be allowed to be very just reasoning. But wherein does it favour double senfes, or double interpretations, of Holy Scripture? Objett. VI. "What! would you limit the wisdom and power of "God? When God fpeaks to men, he can take in a large com" pafs; and can easily comprehend more in one sentence, or one " word, than short-fighted, mortal men can do in a whole volume " of the most profound, elaborate, or comprehenfive writing!" Answer. The matter now in debate is not what God can do, but what he has done. Whatever God can do; whenever he has made a revelation to men, he has always seen fit to reveal his mind and will in such a familiar, condescending manner, as to use words and phrafes in the sense in which they were commonly used at the time, and in the place, where fuch a revelation was first given. And, indeed, if he had done otherwise, men could not have understood him. And revelation not understood would be no revelation at all. But this objection may be turned just the other way; and it may be faid to them that make it, "What! would you limit the wisdom " and power of God? When God speaks to men, will you repre"sent him as speaking with the obfcurity or equivocation of an "Heathen oracle? Cannot he fpeak the language of any age or " country in so clear and intelligible a manner as to have one cer"tain and determinate meaning, so that his words may be under"stood, and his will complied with? Will you allow Homer or " Herodotus, Xenophon or Livy, to exprefs themfelves clearly and " diftinctly? |