phecies were fo framed as to hide and cover it, and that others were given on purpose to fupply the abfence and omiffion of it.

They will fay, he is no longer at liberty to affign it to them, because he affirms, that "it would have carried them beyond the "bounds of knowledge, which God had "prescribed to that age of the world."

And fure his Lordship's followers will hardly be fo imprudent as to remind them, that he afferts the very contrary in other places. For this will neither fave their master's honour, nor restore the credit of the old fyftem.

Before I conclude this chapter I fhall juft beg a word or two with a pair of wellknown Writers against types and fecondary. prophecies.

Dr. Sykes ftill continues to treat these modes of information with great freedom. And indeed, while he had only to do with the defenders of the old fyftem, had little to apprehend from his perfeverance. The wonder is, that he should perfift in talking the fame language after he had to do

See Paraphrafe on the epiftle to the Hebrews, and fecond edition of his Effay on the Chriftian Religion, printed 1755.

d

with fo very different a writer, and had received fuch an answer, as fhould have induced him, in mere prudence, not to revive this exploded argument. For this answer, I muft refer the reader to the D. L. where he will find the fubject handled with that force, folidity, and precifion of argument, which fo eminently diftinguifh the author from all his co-temporaries, and do indeed fhew, that he' is not inferior to any writer of any age.

But it is ftill more remarkable, that the celebrated Dr. Middleton likewife, notwithstanding his avowed oppofition to all types and fecondary prophecies, has yet afferted fuch principles, as will oblige him to concur with the author of the D. L. in all he has advanced on this subject.

These learned perfons both own, that there is a ftrict connexion between the Old and New Teftament, or, that the laft was to be predicted and prefigured by the firft. The queftion is, in what manner this prediction and prefiguration was to be made. The nature and reafon of the thing tells us, it could not be plainly and openly, becaufe this would have prejudiced the Jews against the Law. The learned perfons themselves tell us, it could not be plainly and openly, because the Vol. ii. Sect. 6. p. 634.

d

peculiar nature and genius of the new Religion, was to remain a mystery, and to be kept fecret, at the time of giving the prophecies. Now if it was to be predicted for the use of future times, and yet to be kept out of fight of the prefent, the fecondary sense of prophecy must have been a proper mode of conveyance, as it was excellently well adapted for the performance of both these services at the fame time.

Now Dr. Middleton and Dr. Sykes both suppose, that the things to be prefigured, were to be put under a veil, or cover; and yet both deny the propriety of a fecondary fenfe in prophecy. On the other hand, the Lord Bishop of London, and Dr. Stebbing, both affert the propriety of a fecondary fenfe, and yet both take the use of a veil or cover, as they suppose the prediction and prefiguration were intended for the use of the times in which theywere delivered.

away

The two firft oppose the secondary sense on such principles, as neceffarily tend to establish it: And the two other defend it on fuch principles, as neceffarily tend to overthrow it. Dr. Middleton and Dr. Sykes, hold, that there was fomething to be veiled and covered, yet deny there was any veil or cover: My Lord Bishop and Dr. Stebbing hold that there was a

veil or cover, yet deny there was any thing to be veiled or covered.

But let us confider the feveral fyftems of these learned men a little more precisely.

Dr. Middleton obferves, that the scheme of falvation, revealed in the Gofpel, was all along a mystery, which had been hid from ages and generations, and kept fecret fince the world began.

He obferves too that the Chriftian was a new Religion, wholly frange and incon"ceivable, not only to the wifeft of men, but "to the apprehenfions even of angels." However, he affirms, that this scheme of falvation, wholly new, ftrange, and inconceiv able, was the common fubject of the ancient prophecies; or was exhibited and prefigured by them, but in fuch a manner as would keep it out of fight, fince it was to continue a mystery, notwithstanding the prefiguration and exhibition here fuppofed. g

Since he afferts therefore the propriety and use of such prophecies, as were to have a veil caft over them, in fuch a manner, that the

• Pofthumous piece againft Dodwell and Church, p. 46, 47.

f Examination of the Bishop of London's difcourfes, p. 94. Preface of his Letter from Rome, p. 85, 86. Examination of the Bishop of London's Difcourfes,

P. 93, 94.

K 2

thing

thing prefigured in them fhould not be then understood, how could he difpute the propriety and use of secondary prophecies, which afforded that very veil whofe ufe he fo frankly

confeffes?

Dr. Sykes too obferves, that the scheme of falvation, revealed in the Gospel, was appointed to be the fubject of the ancient prophecies, and yet was to remain a perfect myftery, 'till the publication of the Gospel h. It was therefore, to be predicted, and yet to be kept out of fight, i. e. it was to be exhibited under a veil or cover. And what could he have faid more, had his profeffed defign been to inculcate the ufe and expediency of types and fecondary prophecies?

The author of the D. L. attempts to evince the use of these prophecies, by fuppofing, that the Gospel was to be predicted by the Law; and yet predicted in fuch a manner, that a veil was fpread over its fpiritual naThe learned Doctors concur with

ture.

h Paraphrafe on the Epiftle to the Hebrews, p. 205,' 206.

Effay on the Chriftian Religion, 2d edition, p. 37, 44, 47, 175.

He fuppofes, with the author of the D. L. that the falvation of mankind was a myftery, which had been kept. fecret and hid from the beginning of the world, and was not revealed before the publication of the Gofpel.

him