It can indeed fignify nothing in this place, but making an object distinguishable, which before was unperceived; for how did Jefus Christ enlighten the doctrine of life and immortality, but by making it visible in the regions and the fhadow of death, where it had hitherto been invifible? His Lordship seems to think, it makes for his purpose to observe, that the word fignifies to illuminate and enlighten. But he then hould confider, that it must needs imply fuch a degree of illumination as would make an object visible, which before was invifible.

The word our therefore, when applied to the doctrine of life and immortality, will force us to conclude, if we will have any regard to the integrity and uniformity of the metaphor, that this doctrine had till then been abfolutely unknown. However, his Lordship will have it, that the word imports only such an acceffion and increase of light, as would afford a perfect and exact view of objects, which were in a good measure difcerned before, though not thoroughly, nor, in every diftinct and minute part, "diftinetly. But then, the Jews could never be said to fit in darkness, if they had a good general view of the object; nor could their eyes want open■ Sermons, vol. i. p. 189, 190, 191. Sermon 6th.

ing, nor could they be described as blind, if they in a good measure faw already what they were afterwards enabled to difcern only more accurately.

St. Paul fays, that Jefus Chrift opened their eyes; his Lordship, that Jefus only cured fome defects in their fight, which was very good, though not eagle-eyed, before. In excefs of charity, he calls that a mote which the Apostle calls a beam. Old Zacharias affirms, that the day-fpring gave light to men in darknefs; his Lordship, that the days of thick darkness were paft, and that nothing more than fome thin clouds remained, to be diffipated and difpelled by this fun of Righteousness.

But as his Lordship contends that "the "word wriw can only fignify enlightening "and illuftrating fuch doctrines as had not been "perfectly revealed," we must inquire what were the particular defects and imperfections, which attended the revelation of a future ftate, under the law. Now these, we are told, were, that it exhibited only a shadow, and not a perfect image, of the good things brought to light by the Gofpel. These good things, it did not reveal in plain and express terms, but under the veil and cover of fuch bleffings • Sermons, vol. i. p. 189.

as

as were purely temporal. Which at best could be confidered only as a faint and imperfect delineation, a mere fhadow and outline of bleffings fpiritual and future. Now, this faint delineation and mere fhadow, was what Jefus Chrift was (pre) to illuftrate and enlighten, to embody and fill up. When he had done. this, he might be properly faid, to bring to light, what till then had lain hid. For what could the people know of the nature and perties of that thing, of which they had feen nothing more than a fhadow, or a few faint out-lines ?

pro

His Lordship infifts much that the word fignifies only to illuftrate, enlighten, and make plain. But what was this which was to be illuftrated, &c.? Nothing fubftantial, nothing imbodied; but a mere fhadow, a few faint outlines only. The word therefore muft at leaft import fuch a degree of illumination, or such an acceffion and increase of light, as was fufficient to bring out an object into open day, which before lay hid in obfcurity, and was but just distinguishable from nothing.

He seems to reft much on this diftinction, that the word cannot fignify to bring a thing into being and existence, but only to illustrate and enlighten something which had a being

and

and existence before. P But the distinction; though well grounded, is of no manner of fervice to his argument, fince those he reasons against, are agreed with him, that this light illuftrated what was already in being, namely, the typical representations of a future ftate in

the Law.

The only point in difpute is concerning the degree of darkness and obfcurity which encompaffed these typical representations, and which was scattered and difpelled by the Gofpel light. We are to inquire then whether the doctrine so enveloped was obvious and vifible to the body of the Jews.

Now his types were intended for a veil or cover; and therefore he muft own that they would not have anfwered the end propofed, unless they had kept the doctrine out of fight, and hid from the notice of the people. If then Jefus Chrift took off, and entirely removed this veil or cover; and openly and nakedly held up to fight the doctrine which had been concealed under it, we may strictly and properly say, that

Lordship himself afferts, that the

P P. 189.

9 In his difcourfes on Prophecy, p. 34. he obferves, that "figurative language was intended for a veil or co"ver." And he will allow that the typical descriptions were highly figurative.

life and immortality was brought to light by

him.

His Lordship tells us, that the doctrine of a future ftate was involved in doubts and uncertainties under the Law, which were cleared up by the knowledge of the refurrection, revealed in the Gospel. Here I would defire to know, Whether the Jews had fuch quick and piercing apprehenfions as to penetrate through the carnal veil or cover of these types and figures, and to difcern the spiritual doctrine of a future state, which lay hid beneath? If they were not able to do this, then they could have no good proof of a future life, fo industriously placed out of their fight, and fecreted from them. If they faw into the fpiritual fenfe, they could have no doubts and uncertainties: If they faw not into the fpiritual sense, they could have no good proof.

Take it which way you will, his Lordfhip's hypothefis will not hold water: whether you allow, or whether you deny ther the spiritual fenfe, the whole doctrine contained in this hypothefis flips away from us. On the first fuppofition the Jews must have feen the whole power and fubftance of the Gospel in the Law, and then, contrary to the hypothefis, they must have been as well ac