will deserve that title which Pascal observes is so unjustly given to those who deserve best of the public.

But to return to those with whom I have principal concern. I make no question but my freethinking adversaries, to whose temper and talents I am no stranger, will be ready to object.

I. "That the giving a solution of a difficulty in the Old Testament by the assistance of the New, considered together as making up one entire dispensation, is an unfair way of arguing against an unbeliever: who supposing both the Jewish and Christian religions to be false, of consequence supposes them to be independent on one another; and that this pretended relation was a contrivance of the authors of the later imposture to give it strength, by ingrafting the young shoot into the trunk of an old flourishing superstition. Therefore, will they say, if we would argue with success against them, we must seek a solution of their difficulties in that religion alone, from which they arise." -Thus I may suppose them to argue. And I apprehend they will have no reason to say I have put worse arguments into their mouths than they are accustomed to employ against revelation.

I reply then, that it will admit of no dispute, but that, if they may have the liberty of turning JUDAISM and CHRISTIANITY into two phantoms of their own devising, they will have a very easy victory over both. This is an old trick, and has been often tried with success. By this slight of hand conveyance TINDAL hath juggled fools out of their religion. For, in a well-known book written by him against revelation, he hath taken advantage of the indiscretion of some late divines to lay it down as a principle, that Christianity is ONLY a republication of the religion of nature: the consequence of which is, that CHRISTIANITY and JUDAISM are independent institutions. But sure the deist is not to obtrude his own inventions, in the place of those religions he endeavours to overthrow. Much less is he to beg the question of their falsity; as the laying it down that the Jewish and Christian are two independent religions, certainly is: because Christianity claims many of its numerous titles to divinity from and under Judaism. If therefore deists will not, yet Christians of necessity must take their religion as they find it. And if they will remove objections to either economy, they must reason on the principle of dependency. And while they do so, their reasonings will not only be fair and logical, but every solution, on such a principle, will, besides its determination on the particular point in question, be a new proof of the divinity of both, in general; because such a relation, connexion, and dependency between two religions of so distant times, could not come about by chance, or by human contrivance, but must needs be the effect of divine prevision. For a deist, therefore, to bid us remove his objections on the principle of independency, is to bid us prove our religion true on a principle that implies its falsehood; the New Testament giving us no other idea of Christianity than as of a religion dependent on, connected with, and the completion of Judaism.

But now suppose us to be in this excess of complaisance for our adversaries; and then see whether the ingenuity of their acceptance would not equal the reasonableness of their demand. Without doubt, were we once so foolish to swallow their chimeras for the heavenly manna of revelation, we should have them amongst the first to cry out upon the prevarication. I speak not this at random. The fact hath already happened. Certain advocates of religion, unable to reconcile to their notions of logic, the sense of some prophecies in the Old Testament, as explained in the applications of the writers of the New, thought it best to throw aside the care of the JEWISH RELIGION, a burden which they could as ill bear as the rebellious Israelites themselves, and try to support the CHRISTIAN, by proving its divine original, independently and from itself alone. Upon this Mr COLLINS, for I have chosen to instance in these two general dealers in freethinking; the small retailers of it vanishing as fast as they appear; for who now talks of Blount or Coward? or who hereafter will talk of Strutt or Morgan?* that the world may see how little they agreed about their own principles, or rather how little regard they paid to any principles at all; Mr Collins, I say wrote a book to exclaim against our ill faith; and to remind us of, and to prove to us, the inseparable connexion between the Old and New Testament. This was no unseasonable reproof, howsoever intended, for so egregious a folly. I will endeavour to profit by it; and manage this controversy on their own terms. For whatever prevarication appeared in the objectors, I conceived they had demanded no more than what they might reasonably expect. But the advantages arising to us from this management soon made them draw back, and retract what they had demanded; and now they chicane with us for calling in the assistance of the New Testament to repel their attacks upon the Old;† while, at the same time, they think themselves at liberty to use the assistance of the Old to overthrow the New. Let the friends of revelation, however, constantly and uniformly hold the inseparable connexion between the two dispensations; and then, let our enemies, if they will, as they fairly may, take all the advantages they fancy they have against us, from the necessity we lie under of so doing.

In a word, we give them Judaism and Christianity as religions equally from heaven; with that reciprocal dependence on each other, which arises between two things bearing the mutual relation of foundation and superstructure. They have it in their choice to oppose our pretensions, either by disputing with us that dependency, or raising difficulties on the foot of it. But while they only suppose it visionary; and then argue against each religion on that supposition, they only beg the question. And while they do that, we keep within the rules of good logic, when we remove their objections on that principle of dependency laid down in scripture. This restrictive rule of interpretation being however still observed, that, in explaining any difficulty in the Old Testament, we * See note GGG, at the end of this book. + See note HHH, at the end of this book. never, on pretence of such dependency, forsake the genius and manners of the times in question, and serve ourselves of those of the later Christian period, as Collins (whether truly or no, let them look to, who are concerned in it) upbraids some defenders of Christianity for doing. This rule is here, I presume, observed with sufficient exactness; the foundation of my interpretation of the command being that ancient mode of converse, so much at that time in use, of conversing by actions.

II. But the adversaries of revelation, how easily soever they may be confuted, are not so easily silenced. They are ready to object, that we fly to the old exploded refuge of a TYPE, which the author of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion hath shown to be visionary and senseless; the mere illogical whimsy of cabalistic Jews. To this I

answer,

1. They are doubly mistaken. This interpretation is not founded in any typical sense whatsoever; the person of Isaac on the mount being no more a type of Christ than the six letters that compose the name are a type of him; but only an arbitrary mark to stand for the idea of Christ, as that word does. So that their cry against types, whatever force it may have, does not at all affect this interpretation.

2. But, secondly, I say, A TYPE is neither visionary nor senseless, notwithstanding the disgrace which this mode of information hath undergone by the mad abuses of fanaticism and superstition. On the contrary, I hold it to be a just and reasonable manner of denoting one thing by another: not the creature of the imagination, made out of nothing to serve a turn; but as natural and apposite a figure as any employed in human converse. For types arose from that original mode of communication, the conversing by actions: the difference there is between these two modes of information being only this, that, where the action is symply significative, it has no moral import: for example, when Ezekiel is bid to shave his beard, to weigh the hair in balances, to divide it into three parts, to burn one, to strike another with a knife, and to scatter the third part in the wind,* this action having no moral import is merely significative of information given. But when the Israelites are commanded to take a male lamb without blemish, and the whole assembly of the congregation to kill it, and to sprinkle the blood upon the door-posts,† this action having a moral import as being a religious rite, and, at the same time, representative of something future, is properly typical. Hence arose the mistake of the interpreters of the command to offer Isaac. These men supposing the action commanded to have a moral import, as being only for a trial of Abraham's faith; and, at the same time, seeing in it the most exact resemblance of the death of CHRIST, very wrongly concluded that action to be typical which was merely significative: and by this means, leaving in the action a moral import, subjected it to all those cavils of infidelity, which, by taking away all moral import, as not belonging to it, are here entirely evaded.

But it being of the highest importance to revelation in general, and not a little conducive to the support of our arguments for the divine legation of Moses in particular, to show the logical truth and propriety of types in action, and secondary senses in speech, I shall take the present opportunity to sift this matter to the bottom. For having occasionally shown, in several parts of the preceding discourse, that the references in the LAW to the GOSPEL are in typical representations, and secondary senses; and the truth of Christianity depending on the real relation (which is to be discovered by such references) between the two dispensations, it will be incumbent on me to prove the logical truth and propriety of TYPES in action, and SECONDARY SENSES in speech.

And I enter on this subject with the greater pleasure, as one of the most plausible books ever written, or likely to be written, against Christianity, is entirely levelled at them. In this inquiry I shall pursue the same method I have hitherto taken with unbelieving writers; examine only the grounds and principles on which they go; and having removed and overthrown these, in as few words as I am able, leave the superstructure to support itself, as it may.

SECT. VI.

THE book I speak of is entitled, "A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion," written, as is generally supposed, by Mr Collins; a writer, whose dexterity in the arts of controversy was so remarkably contrasted by his abilities in reasoning and literature, as to be ever putting one in mind of what travellers tell us of the genius of the proper Indians, who, although the veriest bunglers in all the fine arts of manual operation, yet excel every body in sleight of hand and the delusive feats of activity,

The purpose of his book is to prove that Jesus was an impostor: and his grand argument stands thus, - "JESUS (as he shows) claims under the promised Messiah of the Jews; and proposes himself as the deliverer prophesied of in their sacred books; yet (as he attempts to show) none of these prophecies can be understood of JESUS but in a secondary sense only; now a secondary sense (as he pretends) is fanatical, chimerical, and contrary to all scholastic rules of interpretation: consequently, JESUS not being prophesied of in the Jewish writings, his pretensions are false and groundless."-His conclusion, the reader sees, stands on the joint support of these two propositions, That there is no Jewish prophecy which relates to JESUs in a primary sense; and that a secondary sense is enthusiastical and unscholastic. If either of these fail, his phantom of a conclusion sinks again into nothing.

Though I shall not omit occasionally to confute the first, yet it is the falsehood of the second I am principally concerned to expose-That there are Jewish prophecies which relate to JESUS in their direct and primary sense, hath been proved with much force of reason and learning; but, that secondary prophecies are not enthusiastical and unscholastic, hath not been shown and insisted on, by the writers on this question, with the same advantage. The truth is, the nature of a DOUBLE SENSE in prophecies hath been so little seen or inquired into, that some divines, who agree in nothing else, have yet agreed to second this assertion of Mr Collins, and with the same frankness and confidence to pronounce that a double sense is indeed enthusiastical and unscholastic. To put a stop therefore to this growing evil, sown first by SoCINUS, and since become so pestilent to revelation, is not amongst the last purposes of the following discourse.

I. It hath been shown, that one of the most ancient and simple modes of human converse was communicating the conceptions by an expressive ACTION. As this was of familiar use in civil matters, it was natural to carry it into religious. Hence, we see God giving his instructions to the prophet, and the prophet delivering God's commands to the people, in this very manner. Thus far the nature of the action, both in civil and religious matters, is exactly the same.

But in religion it sometimes happens that a STANDING information is necessary, and there the action must be continually repeated: this is done by holding out the particular truth (thus to be preserved) in a religious rite. Here then the action begins to change its nature; and, from a mere significative mark, of only arbitrary import like words or letters, becomes an action of moral import, and acquires the new name of TYPE. Thus God, intending to record the future sacrifice of CHRIST in action, did it by the periodic sacrifice of a lamb without blemish. This was not merely and so DIRECTLY significative of CHRIST (like the command to Abraham); but being a religious rite, and so having a moral import, it was typical, though NOT DIRECTLY significative, of him. The very same may be said of the temporal rewards of the law; they were properly typical of the spiritual rewards of the gospel, and had a moral import of their own, as being the real sanction of the law.

Again, it hath been shown,* how, in the gradual cultivation of speech, the expression by action was improved and refined into an ALLEGORY or parable; in which the words carry a double meaning; having, besides their obvious sense which serves only for the envelop, one more material, and hidden. With this figure of speech all the moral writings of antiquity abound. But when this figure is transferred from civil use to religious, and employed in the writings of inspired men, to convey information of particular circumstances in two distinct dispensations, to a people who had an equal concern in both, it is then what we call a DOUBLE SENSE; and undergoes the very same change of its nature that an expressive action underwent when converted into a type; that is, both the meanings, in the DOUBLE SENSE, are of moral import; whereas * In the preceding volume.