« PreviousContinue »
P. 76. [BB]. 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 surprised to find he had talked prose all his lifetime, without knowing it.
P. 77. [CC]. 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 Messiahcharacter 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 * Sec Hist. of Abr. pp. 61, 62, 63, &c.
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 us, 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 relate 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, overconfident 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
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 Philosophy 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 suppose, it may 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
"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 Demon"stration 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, pp. 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. 87. [DD]. 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. 96. [EE]. 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. 103. [FF]. 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 Volumes, is
---"La Loi Mosaïque, considerée comme fondement d'un etablissement 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 Israelites 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 faveur 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