therefore either exclude thefe figures, or admit them under fuch an idea of the Jewish Religion, as is entirely fubverfive of the common system.

Ought it (fays his Lordship) to be "matter of wonder, that the Prophets, who were minifters of both covenants; entrust"ed with the counfels of God for the direc"tion of the temporal affairs of the people "of Ifrael, and commiffioned to cherish the hopes and expectations of a better King"dom, to be given in virtue of God's everlafting covenant: ought it to be wondered "at, I fay, that they often fpeak of both kingdoms together, that they make use of "the temporal deliverances as an argument "to encourage the hopes of the Spiritual? "When in truth the temporal deliverances,

being the actual performance of one cove"nant, were a great fecurity for the per"formance of the other; and it was unnatu"ral to fee the hand of God performing one "promife, and not to reflect upon the cer"tainty of his performing the other §."

He here fuppofes, that these spiritual bleffings were prefigured by types, and those Types explained to the people at the fame time to

: Discourses on Prophecy, p. 129.

fings to come.

be Types, i. e. fignificative of fpiritual blefThus the fame figure ferved equally to inform the people both of the primary and Secondary fenfe of Prophecy. Which we may believe, when it can be proved, that the fame circumftance was both fit to be fecreted, and fit to be revealed, at one and the fame time, and to one and the fame people.

In these Discourses, his Lordship undertakes to illuftrate and explain the use and intent of the ancient Prophecies. But what ufe and intent can he afcribe to Types, if the doctrines, delivered under them, were defigned for popular and vulgar notice?

The question is, why types and Secondary prophecies were used on certain occafions rather than such as were primary, literal, and direct. Now what can be faid to justify this preference, if the doctrines, conveyed under them, were to be nakedly and openly revealed, as being intended for the immediate inftruction and information of the ancient Jews?

The great point affirmed in the paffage just recited, is this, "That the prophets OFTEN "made ufe of the temporal deliverances, as an argument to encourage the hope and expectation of the fpiritual."

One would conclude, from his Lordship's manner of expreffion, that these temporal deliverances had been OFTEN DECLARED to be prefigurative of the fpiritual. And yet, upon examination, we find no declarations of this fort in the Old Teftament; but on the contrary the most profound filence. To proceed. Ought it to be won"dered at (fays his Lordship) that they often fpeak of both kingdoms together; that they make use of the temporal deliverances, as an argument to encourage the hopes of the spiritual? When in truth "the temporal deliverances, being the actual performance of one covenant, were a great "fecurity for the performance of the other." Having fuppofed that the temporal deliverances were previously declared to be figugurative of the fpiritual; he addresses himfelf to fhew, that this is no more than what might be expected from their natural connexion. But this is bufying himself to account for a fact which in reality has no exiftence, fince fuch previous declarations were never made.

If these temporal deliverances were indeed appointed to be figurative; his Lordship thinks that their ultimate intention and design must have been previously opened and explained

in the Old Testament. This is his Lordship's principle fairly collected from the paffage quoted just above. I do not mean to difcredit it by faying it is the very principle which Mr. Collins, Dr. Sykes, and Mr. Chubb, have employed to invalidate the reality and existence of all types whatsoever. For if a principle be well-founded, it is of no confequence what they are who have thought fit to abuse it.

However, these men argue thus, "Had the facts and circumftances, which you fuppofe typical, been really fo, their feveral explanations would have been annexed to them, or previous declarations would have been given to fhew, that they were originally intended for this purpose:

But no fuch declarations are to be found in the writings of Mofes and the Prophets :

Therefore these facts and circumftances were not originally intended to be typical."

How will his Lordship now defend the reality and existence of types against this argument? He agrees with thefe writers in afferting the first propofition; and he will hardly venture, on maturer confideration, to deny the fecond, or perfevere in affirming, that types were originally declared to be figurative. For this would be perfevering in fupport of a fyH 3

ftem,

stem, in oppofition to the clear and direct evidence of sense.

Could he indeed have produced any fuch declaration, he might have put a quick period to his difpute with the Deift. For this would be evincing the existence of types on the plain and pofitive authority of the Old Teftament, which Mr. Collins allows to be decifive in the prefent question.

This learned Prelate labours to prove a priori, or from the nature and reafon of the thing, that types, wherever they are found, must needs have been first delivered with their proper explanation; and from the force of this argument, he will compel us to give up thefe figures, as we are unable to prove that they were delivered in the manner here prefcribed.

His followers would do well to explain, how he came thus to put the labouring oar upon believers, and with fuch circumftances, as lay them under a neceffity either of giving their cause, or of proving what never can be proved.

up

If we would know what conduct the nature and reafon of the thing demand, or whether any previous explanations may be naturally and reasonably expected in this case, we should go to the Old Teftament, and ex