ceffarily implies the direct contrary to explanation; namely obfcurity and concealment. What therefore can be more abfurd than to doubt the reality of a type, from the omiffion of a circumftance, which muft have been omitted, on the fuppofition that a type was indeed employed. Is it not enough, that the facts and circumstances are reprefented in the very manner they muft have been, if they were actually defigned for typical representations! According to the Doctor's reasoning, the type and its explanation must have gone together; i. e. the rude draught, or imperfect delineation, and a fair and finished picture, must have been reprefented together in the fame table. And does not fuch a ridiculous conjunction, fufficiently discredit the folly of fuppofing, that the explanation fhould have been originally attached to the type? The fpiritual promises of the Gospel, are fupposed to be the things typified. These, according to the Dr. were to remain a myftery in this age of the world; and confequently could not have been opened and explained, let them be as much the subject of the types as you please°. "Dr. Law has been already quoted as afferting that types were appointed for a cover. But he fometimes fpeaks another language, and pretends that they were Another Another of his objections runs thus: "A * double sense of prophecies, where the pro known in the time of the Law to be figurative of the Meffiah. Confiderations, &c. p, 138. Thus he gives two contrary accounts of these figures. His firft, as has been shown, will oblige him to fuppofe that a future ftate was fecreted from the ancient Jews. Let us now confider how he will fupport his fecond thought against the objections of unbelievers. He fays the Jews "were taught to expect the Meffiah "by numberless preparatory types, and figures." (p.138.) The followers of Lord Bolingbroke deny that the circumftances here alluded to, were intended to be typical or prophetical. The Dr. maintains that they were originally declared to be fo, as they taught the Jews to expect the Meffiah. Who are his vouchers for this original declaration, fay the unbelievers, for furely it is a point of too much importance to be received on his bare authority; and yet we much fufpect he has nothing else to produce for it. If fuch declarations were made; why were they not recorded, as they must have been fo many plain and clear proofs of the miffion of Jefus ? If the types of the Law were opened and explained, or its temporal bleffings were declared to be fignificative of fuch as were spiritual and future, the doctrine of life and immortality would have been clearly manifefted at this time. And then how could the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews fay, that "it begun FIRST to be spoken by, *Fefus Chrift ?” How could it have been so often ftyled a mystery, if it was revealed in the typical fenfe of the Law? How could the Jews have been all their life time fubjected to bondage through fear of death, if the fpiritual fenfe of the Law, and confequently the fpiritual nature and promises of the Gofpel, had been explained to them? On this fuppofition, how could they be faid to fit in darkness, and in the region and shadow of death? phet has not declared fuch a double fenfe, "is making prophecy ufelefs; because when "prophecies have no one determinate sense, they will be equally capable of as many accomplishments as every enthusiast pleases °." From the abuse to the difufe. A ftale fophifm! In fhort, how could the feveral paffages, quoted out of the New Teftament in the preceding chapter, have been delivered by infpired writers, if the typical fenfe of the Law, and confequently the great and leading principles of the Gospel, were opened to the ancient Jews? Thefe are fhrewd queftions; which, when he has anfwered, there are others ftill behind. Not to mention, what fhould have been first of all urged against him, that he is inconfiftent with himself in fuppofing fuch a revelation. For he maintains, that the Law * afforded only a dark, diftant intimation of better "things; and introduced thefe in figurative reprefenta"tions by facrifices, types and emblems." If thefe types and emblems were declared to be figurative at all, they must have been declared to be figurative of fpiritual and future bleffings. Thefe fpiritual and future bleffings therefore would have been not only intimated in a dark and diftant manner, but revealed in plain and exprefs terms. For a declaration that they were couched under thefe figurative reprefentations, types, and emblems, would have been nothing less than a plain and express revelation of them. Again, he fays that types were intended for a carnal COVER +. Now a cover, that was to be taken off, and removed, as foon as it had been laid on, would have been contrived for very little purpose. If the temporal promises of the Law were declared to be fignificative of fuch as were spiritual and future, temporal promifes would rather have been an opening to, than a cover of the fpiritual. Elay, p. 182. And this is all the answer his obfervation deferves. But let us do it full justice. He pretends that we fhall never know where to stop, if we extend a prophecy to more fenfes than one. But the very argument affigned for two fenfes, limits and restrains us to this very number, and will not permit us to suppose more. The Law was to prefigure the Gospel in a covert and obscure manner. From thence we infer, that prophecies, predicting events under the one, may have a remote reference and relation to the other. Thus we make the Jewish difpensation the object of the primary, and the Gospel the object of the fecondary sense. And as the argument confines the prophecy to two fubjects, muft it not neceffarily confine it alfo to two fenfes? Had the Law been given to prefigure a third, or many difpenfations, as well as the Gospel, he might have fome ground to ask, why we restrained a prophecy to two fenfes, and did not extend it to a third, or even to many? But till he has pointed out a third, or many difpenfations, which were to be prefigured by the Law, he has certainly nothing to do but to withdraw his objection. The relation between the Law and the Gospel, makes it reasonable to fuppose, that the the one should prefigure the other, in a covert and obfcure manner. This relation therefore is the foundation of the double fenfe. And as it is peculiar to, or begins and ends with, the Gospel; must not the fe condary fenfe, which refults from it, be pecu liar to, or begin and end with the Gospel alfo? To fupport his objection, the Dr. fhould prove, that the Law has no peculiar relation to, or nothing more to do with, the Gospel, than with any other difpenfation. And this indeed would be proving what perhaps he may aim at, that it had nothing to do with the Gospel at all. He thought the fecondary fense was founded on mere fancy and imagination, and confequently might be multiplied at pleasure. Had he feen that it was fuppofed to be founded on the peculiar relation which the Law bears to the Gofpel; he must have seen that we are no more at liberty to multiply it, than to multiply this relation, by fuppofing, that the Law may as well relate to the Alcoran as to the Gofpel. It will seem strange, that after thirty years spent in confidering, reviewing, and explaining this argument, he should not have difcovered the foundation, on which the fecondary fenfe is built. Efpecially as he was, at the fame |