« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
him, that he finds in my service ; nor leave any thing unpurified that has once passed through my hands. To this passage of the noble Lord he replies, “ The cases
widely differ. God did not open precisely what he “ intended to do with these wicked cities; only said,
Judgement was passed. But what has this to do with " Isaac, who did not stand as a sinner before God; but
as a Sacrifice, acknowledging God's sovereign domi" nion. For Abraham to intercede here would have “ inferred a reluctancy to do homage, which would have “ destroyed the perfection of his resignation.” [Hist. of Abr. pp. 41, 42.] So, Isaac's innocence, and his not standing a sinner before God when he was doomed to death, makes him a less proper object of Abraham's intercession and compassion, than a devoted City, inhospitable, murderous, impious, and incestuous. This is our Doctor's HÚMANITY: and a modest petition of the Father of the faithful, like that of the Saviour of the world, If it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt, would have destroyed all the perfection of his resignation. And this is our Doctor's DIVINITY! Strange! that this Father of Orthodoxy could not see, that what might be done by the divine Antitype himself, without destroying his perfection of resignation, might likewise be done, without that loss, in behalf of the Type. After so fine a specimen of what great things he is able to do against this formidable Enemy of Revelation ; what pity is it, he was never set on work by his Superiors, in a more avowed and open manner !
P. 43. [T]. This man, not long since, wrote against the D. L. under the name of a Society of Free-thinkers : by the same kind of figure, I suppose, that He in the Gospel called himself Legion, who was only the forwardest Devil of the Crew.
P. 43. [U]. But I mistake. Unbelievers, I think, are not yet quite so shameless. The objection, in form,
comes from another quarter. It is Dr. Stebbing, who, for the honour of the Church, makes it for them. He will not allow that the words of Jesus are of any validity to support my interpretation of the Command to Abraham, because Unbelievers will not admit the inspiration of the New Testament. But what then? they have not yet disputed with me my interpretation of the Command. Nobody hath done this but Dr. Stebbing. And I hope the Authority of Jesus will stand good against him. · He was in haste to do their business for them ; and, it must be confessed, by an argument that does equal credit to his logic and his piety.
Fair reasoners of all parties will see, tho' Dr. Stebbing will not, that the question is not particular, concerning the inspiration of the Old and New Testament; but general, of the connexion between them; and those will not be so unreasonable to expect I should prove this connexion, of which they ask a proof, any otherwise than by applying each reciprocally to explain and to support the other. If the two Testaments be shewn to do this; while on the other hand, when singly considered, and without each other's mutual assistance, they are inexplicable, the connexion between them is fairly made
The objection of Unbelievers stands thus. pretend (say they) that these two Dispensations are two constituent parts of God's great moral economy: If this be true, they must needs have a strong connexion and real relation to one another. Shew us this connexion and relation : and amuse us no longer with proving the divinity of this or that Dispensation separately, as it each were independent on the other.” I comply with their demand : And now Dr. Stebbing tells me, I take this or that Revelation for granted which I should have proved. Whereas in truth I take nothing for granted but what Unbelievers are ready to prove against me, if I did not : namely, that between two Dispensations, the one pretended to be preparatory to the other, there must needs
be a strong and near connexion and relation. And if, in the course of evincing this connexion, I urge soine circumstances in the Jewish to support the Christian, and others in the Christian to support the Jewish, this, I suppose, is not taking for granted the truth either of one or the other, but proving the divinity of both.
P.49. [X]. Hence we see the vanity of Mr. Whiston's distinction, who is for retaining Types (necessitated thereunto, by the express declarations of Holy Writ) and for rejecting double senses. “ Mr. Whiston (says the author “ of the Grounds, &c.) justifies typical arguing from " the ritual laws of Moses, and froni passages of History “ in the Old Testament - Indeed he pretends this last
to be quite another thing from the odd (typical) appli“cation of prophecies. For (says he) the ancient cere“monial institutions were, as to their principal branches, os
at least in their own nature, Types and shadows of “ future good things—But the case of the ancient proco
phecies to be alleged from the old Scriptures for the " confirmation of Christianity is quite of another nature,
andof a more nice and exact consideration.” pp.227,228. It appears, indeed, they are of a more nice and exact consideration, even from Mr. Whiston's so much mistaking them, as to suppose they are of a nature quite different from Types. But instead of telling us honestly that he knew not what to make of them, he plays the courtier, and dismisses them, for a more nice and eract consideration.
P. 51. [Y]. The Bishop of London, in his Discourses on the Use and Intent of Prophecy, seemed to have but a slender idea of this use when he wrote as follows“ There was no occasion (says he) to lay in so long “ beforehand the evidence of prophecy, to convince men “ of things that were to happen in their own times : and “ it gives us a low idea of the administration of Provi“ dence in sending Prophets one after another in every
from Adam to Christ, to imagine that all this apparatus was for their sakes who lived in OR AFTER “ the times of Christ.” p. 37. But such is the way of these Writers who have a favourite doctrine to inforce. The truth of that doctrine (if it happen to be a truth) is supported at the expence of all others. Thus his Lordship, setting himself to prove that Prophecy was given principally to support the Faith and Religion of the World, thought he could not sufficiently secure his point without weakening and discrediting another of, at least, equal importance,—That it was given to afford testimony to the mission of Jesus,
P. 55. [Z]. This account of Types and secondary senses, which supposes they were intended to conceal the doctrines delivered under them, is so very natural, and, as would seem, reasonable, that Dr. Stebbing himself subscribes to it. And hence occasion has been taken by a most acute and able Writer to expose his prevarication, in maintaining that the Jews had the revealed Doctrine of a Future State: For the Doctor not only confesses that the Doctrine was revealed under Types, but that Doctrines, thus conveyed, were purposely secreted from the knowledge of the ancient Jews. See the Argument of the Divine Legation fairly stated, p. 125. And, the free and candid Eramination of Bishop Sherlock's Sermons, &c. chap. ii. where the controversy on this point is fairly determined, as far as truth and reason can determine any thing.
P. 70. [A A). Hear what a very judicious Critic observes of the line in question.
6. The comment of “ SERVIUS on this line is remarkable. Hunc versum " notant Critici, quasi superfluè et inutiliter additum,
nec convenientem gravitati ejus, namque est magis · neotericus,
Mr. ADDISON conceived of it in the same manner when he said, this was the only witty “ line in the Æneis; meaning such a line as Ovid would
“ have written. We see they esteemed it a wanton play “ of fancy, unbecoming the dignity of the Writer's work, " and the gravity of his character. They took it, in “ short, for a mere modern flourish, totally different from " the pure unaffected manner of genuine antiquity. And " thus far they unquestionably judged right. Their « defect was in not seeing that the use of it, as here “ employed by the Poet, was an exception to the general " rule. But to have seen this was not, perhaps, to be
expected even from these Critics. However, from “ this want of penetration arose a difficulty in deter
mining whether to read facta or fata nepotum. And as we now understand that Servius and his Critics
were utter strangers to Virgil's noble idea, it is no " wonder they could not resolve it. But the latter is the " Poet's own word. He considered this shield of " celestial make as a kind of Palladium, like the ANCILE “ which fell from Heaven, and used to be carried in “ procession on the shoulders of the SALII, 2uid de “ scutis (says Lactantius), jam vetustate putridis dicam?
Quæ cum portant, DEOS IPSOS SE GESTARE HUMERIS suis arbitrantur. [Div. Inst. lib. i. c. 21.] Virgil, in
a fine flight of imagination, alludes to this venerable “ ceremony, comparing, as it were, the shield of his hero
to the sacred ANCILE; and, in conformity to the
practice in that sacred procession, represents his hero “ in the priestly office of religion,
“Attollens HUMERO famamque et rata Nepotum. “ This idea then, of the sacred shield, the guard and
glory of Rome, and on which, in this advanced situation,
depended the fame and fortune of his country, the “ Poet with extreme elegance and sublimity tranfers to " the shield which guarded their great Progenitor, while “ he was laying the first foundations of the Roman
Empire.” Mr. HURD--Notes on the Epistle to Augustus, pp. 68, 69. 3d ed.