come."

[Book VI. farther illustration of the subject. JESUS declares, of John the Baptist-This is the ELIAS that was for to "Wherein (says the Author of the Grounds, &c.) "he is supposed to refer to these words of Malachi, "Behold I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord; which, according to their LITERAL sense, are a Prophesy that Elijah or Elias was to come in person, and "therefore not LITERALLY but MYSTICALLY fulfilled " in John the Baptist." pp. 47, 48. And again, in his Scheme of literal Prophecy considered, speaking of this passage of Malachi, he says, "But to cut off all pretence "for a literal Prophecy, I observe, first, That the literal interpretation of this place is, that Elias, the real Elias, was to come. And is it not a MOST PLEASANT "literal interpretation to make Elias not signify Elias, "but somebody who resembled him in qualities?— Secondly I observe, that the Septuagint Translators "render it, Elias the Tishbite,- and that the Jews, "since CHRIST's time, have generally understood, from "the passage before us, that Elias is to come in person.— “But John Baptist himself, who must be supposed to

know who he was himself, when the question was ...“ asked him, whether he was Elias, denied himself to be "Elias; and when asked who he was, said, he was the "voice of one crying in the Wilderness, &c. which is a "C passage taken from Isaiah." p. 127.

1. The first thing observable in these curious remarks is, that this great Advocate of Infidelity did not so much as understand the terms of the question. The words, says he, according to their literal sense, are a Prophesy that Elijah was to come in person, and therefore not literally but mystically fulfilled in John the Baptist. He did not so much as know the meaning of a primary and secondary sense, about which he makes all this stir. A secondary sense indeed implies a figurative interpretation; a primary implies a literal: But yet this primary

SENSE

SENSE does not exclude figurative TERMS. The primary or literal sense of the Prophecy in question is, that, before the great and terrible day of the Lord, a messenger should be sent, resembling in character the Prophet Elijah; this messenger, by a figure, is called the Prophet Elijah. A figure too of the most easy and natural import; and of especial use amongst the Hebrews, who were accustomed to denote any character or action by that of the kind which was become most known or celebrated. Thus the Prophet Isaiah: "And the Lord

shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian seu, " and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over "the river, and shall smite it in the secen streams*" Here, a second passage through the Red Sea is promised in literal terms: But who therefore will say that this is the literal meaning? The literal meaning, though the prophecy be in figuratice terms, is simply redemption from bondage. For EGYPT, in the Hebrew phrase, signified a place of bondage. So again Jeremiah says; "A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping: RACHEL weeping for her children refused

66

66

to be comforted because they were not f." The primary sense of these words, according to Grotius, is a prediction of the weeping of the Jewish matrons for their children carried captive to Babylon by Nabuzaradan. Will he say therefore that this Prophecy was not literally fulfilled, because Rachel was dead many ages before, and did not, that we read of, return to life on this occasion? Does not he see that, by the most common and easy figure, the Matrons of the tribe of Benjamin were called by the name of this their great Parent? As the Israelites, in Scripture, are called Jacob, and the posterity of the son of Jesse by the name of David: So again, Isaiah says, Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of "SODOM; give car unto the Law of our Gon, ye people "of GOMORRAH." Will he say, the people of Sodom * Ch. xi. ver. 15. ↑ Ch. xxxi. ver. 15. + Ch. i. ver. 10.

and Gomorrah are here addressed to in the primary sense, and the people of the Jews only in the secondary? Bụt the preceding words, which shew the people of Sodom and Gomorrah could not now be addressed to, because there were none left, shew likewise that it is the Jewish Nation which is called by these names. Except the Lord of Hosts had left us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah*. Would not he be thought an admirable interpreter of Virgil, who should criticise the Roman Poet in the same manner?-Virgil seems the most plain of all ancient writings: And he says,

"Jam redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna.

Which, according to its literal meaning, is, that the Virgin returns, and old Saturn reigns again, in persón ; and therefore not LITERALLY, but MYSTICALLY fulfilled in the justice and felicity of Augustus's reign. And it is a MOST PLEASANT literal interpretation, to make the Virgin and Saturn not signify the Virgin and Saturn, but somebody who resembled them in qualities. Such reasoning on a Classic, would be called nonsense in every language. But Freethinking sanctifies all sorts of impertinence. Let me observe further, that this was a kind of compound blunder: LITERAL, in common speech, being opposed both to figurative and to spiritual; and MYSTICAL signifying both figurative and spiritual; he fairly confounded the distinct and different meanings both of LITERAL and of MYSTICAL.

He goes on-I observe, that the Septuagint Translators render it Elias the Tishbite-and that the Jews since CHRIST's time have generally understood from this passage, that Elias is to come in person. And John Baptist himself, who must be supposed to know who he was himself, when the question was asked him, denied himself to be Elias.-Why does he say, Since CHRIST'S time, and not before, when it appears to be before as well

1

as since, from his own account of the translation of the Septuagint? For a good reason. We should then have seen why John the Baptist, when asked, denied himself to be Elias; which it was not Mr. Collins's design we should see; if indeed we do not ascribe too much to his knowledge in this matter. The case stood thus: At the time of the Septuagint translation, and from thence to the time of CHRIST, the doctrine of a Transmigration, and of a Resurrection of the body, to repossess the Land of Judea, were national opinions; which occa→ sioned the Jews by degrees to understand all these sorts of figurative expressions literally. Hence, amongst their many visions, this was one, that Elias should come again in person. Which shews what it was the Jews asked John the Baptist; and what it was he answered, when he denied himself to be Elias: Not that he was not the Messenger prophesied of by Malachi (for his pretending to be that Messenger evidently occasioned thie question) but that he was not, nor did the prophecy imply that the Messenger should be, Elias in person.

But to set his reasoning in the fullest light, Let us consider a similar prophecy of Amos: Behold the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a FAMINE in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing the words of the Lord*. I would ask, is this a Prophecy of a famine of the word in a literal, or in a mystical sense? Without doubt the Deist will own, (if ever he expects we should appeal again to his ingenuity) in a literal. But now strike out the explanation [not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water] and what is it then? Is it not still a famine of the word in a literal sense? Mystical, if you will, in the meaning of metaphorically obscure, but not in the meaning of spiritual. But mystical in this latter signification only, is opposed to literal, in the question about secondary It appears then, that a want of preaching the

senses.

VOL. VI.

* Chap. viii. ver. 11.
G

word

word is still the literal meaning of the Prophecy,. whether the explanation be in or out, though the figu rative term [famine] be used to express that meaning. And the reason why the Prophet explains the term was not, because it was a harsh or unnatural figure, to denote want of preaching, any more than the termi Elijah to denote a similar character, which Malachi does not explain; but because the Prophecy of Amos might have been for ever mistaken, and the figurative term understood literally; the People being at that time, often. punished for their sins by a famine of bread..

66

But this abusive cavil at figurative terms will remind us of his observations on the following Prophecy of Isaiah “ Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, “and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their "burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an "house of Prayer FOR ALL PEOPLE*." This, he says; must needs relate to Jewish, not to Christiam times.. Why? Because sacrifices are mentioned. But how could this truth be told the Jewish People, that all nations should be gathered to the true Gon, otherwise than by: using terms taken from Rites familiar to them; unless the nature of the Christian Dispensation had been pre-viously explained? A matter evidently unfit for their in-formation, when they were yet to live so long under the Jewish. For though the Prophets speak of the little value of, and small regard due to, the ceremonial Law; they always mean (and always make their meaning understood) when the ceremonial Law is superstitiously observed, and observed to a neglect of the moral; which last they describe in the purity and perfection of the Gospel. So admirable was this conduct! that while it hid the future Dispensation, it prepared men for it.

Thus then stands the argument of this mighty Reasoner.. There are no Prophecies, he says, which relate to JESUS Chap.vi. ver. 7.

but