two questions, and to have answered them separately and diftinctly, Ver. 4-35. he anfwers the firft queftion, viz. "When fhall thefe

things be i. e. When fhall the temple be deftroyed, fo that "one ftone fhall not be left upon another? When hall fuch a "defolation come?" To that our Lord anfwers, by fetting before them several of the figns and tokens of its approach; and by defcribing the defolation itself. And then adds, "This generation

fhall not pafs away, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven "and earth fhall fooner pafs away, than any of my words fail of "being accomplished." But what anfwer to that question would it be to fay, "The Jews fhall continue a diftinct people down to "the day of judgement, or to the end of the world?" Or, according to Mr. Mede, "The nation of the Jews fhall not perifh "till all these things be fulfilled?" What anfwer (I fay) would that be to the question put by the difciples? or how would fuch a declaration connect with the preceding or following context?

Ver. 32, &c. Our Saviour intimates, that fome of his difciples fhould live to fee the figns and forerunners of that defolation, which was coming upon the Jews. And accordingly he fays, "Now learn a parable from the fig-tree. When its branch is yet "tender, and it putteth forth leaves, then you know that fummer 66 is near. So alfo ye, when ye fhall fee all these things, know ye

that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I fay unto you, This "generation fhall not pafs away, till all thefe things be fulfilled. "Heaven and earth fhall pass away; but my words fhall not pass "away."

Now, what connection has the Jews continuing a diftinct people throughout all ages with the figns and forerunners of that amazing defolation? or with the rest of our Saviour's difcourfe in that place?

Ver. 36, &c. Our Saviour proceeds to answer their other question, viz." What shall be the fign of thy coming, and of the end of the "world?" And his anfwer, with refpect to the time of his fecond coming, and of the world, is, "But of that day, and hour, know"eth no perfon, no not the angels, but my father only." Dr. Clarke's note upon this 36th verfe is, "It is an extraordinary ingenious conjecture of Grotius, to make [nuépa ixsivn, that day] "here opposed to [Tauru wávra, all these things], ver. 34. So that the fenfe may be, rauta wávra, the destruction of Jerusalem shall "be prefently. But pipa ixsivn, the last day of judgement, is known Яuipa

66 to none.'

Indeed, I would propose it as a much more juft divifion, that the 25th chapter of St. Matthew's gospel thould begin at what is now the 36th verfe of the 24th chapter. For that would preferve a proper connection with what is at prefent the beginning of the 25th chapter; in which it is faid, Tore, "Then fhall the kingdom of hea "ven be likened unto ten virgins, &c." And yet no period of time is affigned when that fhall be. Whereas, if, from Matth. xxiv. 36, &c. our Lord is fpeaking of the day of judgement, and of

Kk 3

the

the end of the world, it may very properly be faid, "Then fhall the "kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, &c."

Upon the whole: our Saviour's difcourfe [Matth. xxiv. 1–35.) relates to what was to come to pafs, during that generation.' And, therefore, muft relate to " the deftruction of Jerufalem" only, and cannot relate to "the day of judgement, and to the end of the "world." In the former fenfe, it was fully accomplished, and does not now remain to be accomdlished.

(6.) By raifing Lazarus fo publicly from the dead, Jefus increased the number of his difciples [John xi. 46, &c.]. This alarmed the chief priefts and Pharifees, who thereupon held a council, and deliberated what they fhould do. "For (faid they) if we let him go "on thus, all the nation will believe on him; and, taking him for "the Meffiah, they will fet him up for their king. Upon which "the Romans will come and take from us our country; and that "fhare of power and government which ftill remains among us." And yet, on the other hand, if they had rafhly apprehended Jefus, and put him to death; and it had, after all, appeared that he was an innocent perfon, that alfo might have proved of dangerous confequence.

Upon hearing them debate thus, and obferving that they feemed at a lofs to know what to refolve upon, Caiaphas, who was one of the council, and alfo high priest that year, ftanding up, faid, "You "know nothing at all; nor confider, that it is expedient for us, "that one man should die for the people; and that the whole na"tion perish not.”

Concerning which fpeech of Caiaphas, the evangelift adds, This fpake he, not of himfelf; but, being high prieft that year, "he prophefied that Jefus fhould die for that nation. And not

for that nation only; but that he should also gather together into "one the children of God who were scattered abroad. Then, from "that day forward, they took counfel together to put him to "death."

Now this fpeech is alledged as a paffage which contains a double fenfe, and requires a twofold interpretation. But in whose defign were the words intended to convey a double meaning? If we regard the intention of Caiaphas, it is plain he defigned to say, “that one man had better fuffer death, whether he was innocent or no, "than that the whole nation of the Jews fhould perish."-The Holy Spirit prophefied by the mouth of wicked Balaam, and by the mouth of the falfe prophet, who deceived Jadon, and led him to tranfgrefs the divine command, which occafioned his being flain by a lion. And the fame fpirit of truth and power could eafily caufe Caiaphas to pronounce a prophecy in words whofe juft meaning and propriet, and full extent and comprehenfion, he did not understand. Accordingly, the Spirit of God had but one fingle meaning to the words, viz. that Jefus fhould die as a facrifice for "the people; i. e. for the nation of the Jews; and not for that "nation only, but for all mankind. And that he might gather together,

*together, out of all the nations of the earth, the difperfed fervants "of God, into one holy church, united under one head, which is "Chrift Jefus; and joined together in one holy communion and "fellowship; in the profeffion and practice of one faith and wor

fhip."-So that, in Caiaphas's intention, the words had but one fignification. And, in the intention of the Holy Spirit, they had but one fignification. And the intention of the Spirit is mentioned by the evangelift; otherwife we should not have known that that meaning was to be affixed to the words.

(7.) will mention another paffage; which, though not a prophecy, yet has been thought to contain a double fenfe. The paffage is, Deut. xxv. 4. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox, when he treadeth out the corn." Which St. Paul applies thus [1 Cor. ix, 8, &c.] to prove that minifters ought to be fupported by those to whom they preach the gofpel. Say I these things as a man? [Do I argue thus, from the principles of mere natural reafon "only?] Doth not the law fay these things alfo? [Yes, it doth, "in effect, fay fo]. For, in the law of Mofes, it is written, "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox, that treadeth out

66

66

the corn.' Now, doth it not fay this chiefly for our fakes? For "our fakes it was certainly written, that he, who plougheth, "fhould plough in hope; and that he, who threfheth in hope,

fhould be partaker of his hope." From hence it has been inferred that this, which the apostle hath mentioned, was the allegorical fenfe of what Mofes had faid. And that, befides giving a law about oxen, Mofes intended thereby to intimate" that they, who

preach the gofpel, fhould live by the gofpel." But what occafion is there for that, when the apoftle's argument is good without it? $6 If the ox, which treadeth out the corn, is ordered to be unmuzzled, "that he may eat of that, about which he labours; a fortiore, the

minifters of the gofpel of Chrift fhould not be denied a fupport "from that about which they labour." Thus the law of Mofes afforded St. Paul an argument to his prefent purpose. And it is a very good one. But it does not appear, that Mofes, in that law, had any regard to the fecuring a maintenance for those who preach the gospel of Chrift.

(8.) Gal. iv. 21, &c. St. Paul, having related the hiftory of Abraham's having Ifhmael, by Hagar; and Ifaac, by Sarah; adds, as in our tranflation, ver. 24. I" Which things are an allegory"]. Mr. Locke's paraphrafe of these words, is, "These things have an allegorical meaning." Whereby it is intimated, that, befides the literal fenfe, the Mofaic hiftory of Abraham and his family had alfo a fpiritual, myftical, or allegorical mening; or that, ⚫ in the intention of Mofes, or of the Spirit of God which infpired Mofes, the fame paffage in that history had two meanings; the one, a plain, obvious, and literal meaning; the other, an hidden, obfcure, myftical, or allegorical meaning: that God originally intended, that, by these two women, Sarah and Hagar, fhould be prefigured the twe covenants; viz. that of the law of Mofes, and

Kk 4

that of the gofpel of our Lord Jefus Chrift; and that, in the fecret meaning of the Mofaic hiftory, he had intimated as much.' Whereas St. Paul was far from faying or intending any fuch thing; as the learned author of the Differtation, annexed to Mr. Pierce's paraphrafe and notes on Philippians, has made abundantly appear. The fum and fubftance of what is there faid is, "The proper tranflation of the words, ver. 24. "Ατινά έςιν αλληγορέμενα, is, which things are allegorized; that is, the hiftory of Mofes, concerning Abraham and his family, is allegorized' by the prophet [Ifa. liv. 1.]. And, in the prophet's allegorical dicourse, "the two women, Sarah and Hagar, reprefent the two covenants, or "the two difpenfations, of the law of Mofes, and the gospel of our "Lord Jefus Chrift."

Now, what occafion is there to fuppofe a double fense in that part of the Mofaic hiftory? We may take a paffage out of Rapin's Hiftory of England; and allegorize that, if we pleafe. But that would not by any means prove that Rapin himself, befides the literal, hiftorical fenfe of fuch a paffage, intended alfo that allegorical meaning; or, befides the literal fenfe, comprehended the use and fignification to which we apply his words.

In the book of Mofes, called Genfis, the hiftorical, literal fenfe, of the account of Abrahami and his family, is the one, true fenfe. In Ifaiah's allegory, the one true fenfe is the allegorical fenfe. That allegorical fenfe has St. Paul quoted from the prophet. And, therefore, the one true fenfe of the words, as ufed by St. Paul, is not the hiftorical or literal, but the allegorical fenfe.

SECT. VI.

Objections, with their Aufwers.

Oje. I."HAVE not divines, and other writers, in all ages of "the church, ufed the words of Scripture.by way of allufion or ac "commodation; turned hiftory into allegory; and often ufed texts

at their pleasure in a very different fenfe from that of their primary finification? And would you condemn fo general a practice? have "authors keep rigidly to the one true fenfe? take away all the orna"ments of ftyle, and fpoil fo much fine writing? How foon would "the orator be ftruck dumb? What a poor figure would the man "of elocution make, if your one, true fenfe niuft always be found out, and ftrictly kept to, throughout the whole difcourfe, founded "on any particular text of Scripture?

Anfwer. Iould be forry to offend the orator, or strike the man of eloquence dumb. But I am confidering what is required in a commentator. And it feems to be his bufinefs to find out the one, true fenfe of Holy Scripture; and to fet it before his reader in as clear a light as he can. However, it might not be amifs for preachers to attend a little more to the onc, true fenfe of Holy Scripture than is frequently done. And that it would not spoil

4

their eloquence, but increafe and exalt it, was the opinion of one who will be allowed to be a very good judge. [See the archbishop of Cambray's Dialogues on Eloquence, English edition, p. 158.], It mangles the Scripture to fhew it to Chriftians only in feparate paffages. And, however great the beauty of fuch paffages may be, it can never be fully perceived, unlefs one knows the con⚫nection of them. For every thing in Scripture is connected. And this coherence is the most great and wonderful to be feen in the facred writings. For want of a due knowledge of it, preachers ⚫ mistake those beautiful paffages, and put upon them what fenfe they please. They content themfelves with fome ingenious interpretation; which, being arbitrary, has no force to perfuade 6 men, and to reform their manners.'

P. 159. I would have them at least not think it enough to join together a few paffages of Scripture that have no real connection. I would have them explain the principles and the feries of the Christian doctrine; and take the fpirit, the ftyle, and the figures, of it: that all their difcourfes may ferve to give the people a ⚫ right understanding and true' relifh of God's word, there needs no more to make preachers eloquent.' For, by doing this, they ⚫ would imitate the beft models of antient eloquence.'

And again, p. 161. It is here that our preachers are moft defective. Moft of their fine fermons contain only philofophical ⚫ reafonings. Sometimes they prepofterously quote the Scripture, only for the fake of decency or ornament. And it is not regarded as the word of God, but as the invention of man.' Thus far the eloquent Monfieur Fenelon, archbishop of Cambray. Let me further add, that the true eloquence of a preacher is to make the people wife unto falvation; that the one, true fenfe of Holy Scripture will do more towards this, than all the eloquence of Tully or Demonfthenes without it; and that, however fine allufions, accommodations, allegories, and figures of rhetoric, may be, yet they can only ferve to embellish and illuftrate the truth. They cannot prove any thing. That must be done by the one, true fenfe of the various texts alledged. And can be done no other way. And, when they have done that, I have no objection to their making ufe of allufions, accommodations, or allegories, in order to embellish their difcourfes, or illuftrate the truth, provided they do not infift upon them as the original and true meaning of fuch paffages of facred Scripture.

Object. II. "Several texts of Scripture are difficult; and it is "dubious which is the true fenfe: muft you not there allow of "double fenfes ?"

Answer. When a difficult text is confidered, and the perfon, who attempts to explain it, is dubious which is the true, interpretation, he may very rationally give all the fenfes which carry any appearance of probability, with the reafons for each interpretation, and leave it to his readers, or hearers, to judge which is the true fenfe. But, in that cafe, there is but one true fenfe. And his not being able to

afcertain