But befides (says he) it introduces fuch "an ambiguity, fuch an uncertainty, into the "facred writings, as no books, of even human compofition, are liable to."

This ambiguity and uncertainty are fupposed to arise from our not being able to determine the particular fubject and perfon predicted by the fecondary fenfe. The objection therefore has been already answered.

Let the Dr. tell us, whence it comes, that a myftical and fymbolical cover would not create the fame ambiguity and uncertainty in the writings of the ancient fages, as in those of the Old Teftament.

Ambiguity and uncertainty do not arise from the fuppofition of two fenses, but of many. Every reader will allow that the ode of Horace, mentioned before is fo far from being obfcured and perplexed, that it receives new light, dignity, and force from the fecondary sense. And why may it not have as happy an effect in illuftrating the facred, as the profane writers? Or why fhould it be fuppofed to change its nature, and to become fantastic and groundless, as foon as Jefus and his Gospel are confidered as the subjects of it?

The

The objection, which imputes ambiguity and uncertainty to the double sense of prophecies, had been fufficiently obviated by the author of the D. L. "If, fays this writer, men, in the communication of their thoughts, agree to give, on fome occafions,

a

double fenfe to propofitions, as well as, on "others, afingle, the interpreting the first in two meanings is as agreeable to all fcholaftic rules, as interpreting the fecond in one : "And propofitions with a double and single "fense, are as easily diftinguishable from each

other, by the help of the context, as words "with a literal and figurative meaning *."

But to proceed. "It is, and must be "confeffed (says Dr. Sykes) that in all other writers, there is but one literal fenfe of the "words of any author y."

It is and must be confeffed --- By whom? Sure not by any body who has learned to read. Certainly not by any who have read antiquity; or have fo much as heard of the writings of those ancient fages, who delivered their doctrines under a myftical or fymbolical cover.

The learned Doctor owns, that the Jewish prophecies were given both to prefigure and ́conceal the doctrines of the Gofpel. Now by this conceffion he puts a wide difference between these and other writings, or makes a fecondary fenfe very commodious and useful in the first, whatever may be the cafe of other compofitions.

* Vol. ii. p. 673

L

3

"Tis

Preface to paraphr. p. 31.

Tis forange he should contend, that the prophetical books were written with a view proper and peculiar to themselves, and yet fhould contend that they must be exactly circumstanced like other writings, compofed with a purpose and defign entirely different.

But, to difcredit and expofe the notion of fecondary fenfe, he tells us, that perfons of a lively fancy may pretend to find one where nothing of that kind was intended.

it every

And so, such a sense could be intended no where, because some persons have sought for where. There are no allegories in Homer, because every part of him has been allegorized by his commentators. There is no fecondary fenfe in the famous ode of Horace (O navis referent, &c.) because there is none in the following lines of Virgil, quoted by the Dr. Hi motus animorum, atque hæc certamina tanta Pulveris exigui jactu compofta quiefcunt.

These two lines were quoted by the learned Dr; and furely they were quoted by him for no other purpose, than to fhew his happy talent at parody".

All he says, therefore, amounts only to this, that we are not to suppose a

Paraphrafe on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 42.

Thefe lines originally relate to a battle of the bees; and the Dr. obferves, that they may be applied to the cure of the fever by bark. He would infinuate, that this fecondary fenfe is as rational and proper, as that affigned to the ancient prophecies. To juftify this infinuation, he muft fuppofe that there is no more connexion between the O. and N. Testament, than between a battle of the bees and a' fever: In other words, he muft fuppofe that there is no connexion at all between the O. and N. Teftament.

fecondary fenfe, merely because words, originally denoting one thing, are capable of being applied to another, which had no fort of relation to the first. And who fuppofed any fuch thing? Or what is this to the instances produced in the D. L. where the two senses have a strict relationship and dependency, or are nearly connected in the views and interefts of the writer? What is it to the double prophecies, where the subjects are ftrongly connected, and belong to two fucceffive difpenfations, whereof one was defigned to prefigure the other, and to prefigure it in a covert and obfcure manner ?

The question is, whether we may reasonably look for a fecondary fenfe in the first of thefe difpenfations. Now in fupport of the negative, the Dr. obferves, that we find no such sense in writings of quite another nature, fuch as had nothing to do with two Religions connected with one another, in both which the writers and the readers were intimately concerned.

His prejudices against these prophecies, feem to have arifen, in part, from the apprehenfion that we shall never be able to establish a double meaning, without giving a loose to the extravagancies of fanatics, and permitting L 4

them

them to invent new fenfes as long as their imaginations will hold out. But this is a panic terror, fince we have fhewn that the two fubjects will neceffarily reftrain us to two fenfes.

His prejudices might, in part, arise from obferving that fome paffages in the Old Teftament are applied to certain facts and circumstances in the New by way of accommodation only, or as being applicable to the laft as properly as to their original occafion. Now this accommodated fenfe may indeed be applied to as many fimilar events as you please, or to two and twenty as he expreffes it, as well as two. But are we to suppose the Secondary prophecies may be as loosely and variously applied, notwithstanding they relate only to two fubjects? You may as well say the natural relationship of brother is precarious and uncertain, because civil ufage has applied that term to perfons exercifing the fame profeffion, discharging the fame office, or executing the fame defigns.

Thus I have examined the main arguments alledged by the learned Doctor to invalidate the existence of types and fecondary prophecies.