better Kingdom, " and established and confirmed "the Hopes of Futurity." Thus far, and in this general Senfe, the feveral Facts and Circumstances allowed to be typical under the Old Testament did, from the Nature and Reason of the Thing, carry their own Explanation with them: and in a general Sense only, the antient Prophecies, predictive of Chriff's fpiritual Kingdom, or the Gospel Difpensation, did the same.

Now when Mr. Collins affirms, that fuch Modes of Information as thefe "are neither reason"able, juft, nor proper," the learned Prelate fufficiently answers him, by fhewing (which this Author does no where fay he has not done) “ that . we may naturally and reasonably expect to find

Types and Figures in the Old Testament;" or, to use his Lordship's own Words, that “it can hardly be fuppofed that God, intending to fave "the World by Chrift, and the preaching of the Gofpel, fhould give an intermediate Law, which "had no Respect, nor Relation to the Covenant, " which he intended to establish for ever. Are Types and Figures unfcholaftic, groundlefs, and abfurd, because the Propriety and Reasonableness of them is evinced? Or, does the Bishop, by telling, (and proving to) the Infidel that they are really found in the Old Teftament, leave the first Objection unanswered, and even untouched? Does he

beg

beg the Question by fhewing the Fact? —But there is a fecond Defect, the Examiner has found in his Lordship's Reasoning, that "it does not come up "to the Point which he undertakes to prove; he " is to prove, that in the Old Testament we may reasonably look for Types, or that particular Mode "and Species of Prophecy, diftinguished by this Appellation. All he performs is, that the Law "must have some Sort of Reference and Relation " to the Gospel; it must predict it in some man"ner or other. But to what Purpose is it to fhew "that we may reasonably look for Prophecy in general, or fome kind of Prophecy in the Old "Testament, when the Question relates to that particular Species and precife Mode of Prophecy, "which we call typical? His Lordship, therefore, profeffes one Thing, and proves another. He "afferts the Reasonableness and Propriety of Types "in particular, but labours only to fhew the Rea"fonableness and Propriety of Prophecy in general." (p. 95. 96.) — In order to obviate this, we must once more diftinguish between Types in general, and typical Prophecies in particular; the former were prefigurative indeed of the Gospel; but the latter only were predictive of it. The Manna in the Wilderness, the lifting up of the Serpent, &c. were Types; but no Man fure will call them Prophecies. If therefore his Lordship has proved that Types and Figures are reasonably to be expected

under the Law, that many great Events, and temporal Deliverances were plain, though general Earnests of future and spiritual Bleffings, and that the antient Prophecies did clearly, though typically and figuratively, predict and display fuch Bleffings for the Information and Comfort of the Jewish Church, he has proved as much as he can poffibly be supposed to have undertaken, or the Nature of the Thing could admit.

But again; the Examiner gives us to understand, that though the great Prelate "had evinced the logi"cal Fitness and Propriety of Types, his Argument "had been still infufficient; fince he was to prove, "that they might reasonably be looked for in the « Old Testament, as being well adapted to the "Nature and Genius of the Jewish Religion." (p. 96.) Now he has been so far from doing this, if we believe this Author, that he has "laid down "fuch Principles as would naturally lead one to "maintain that Types are contrary and foreign to "the Nature and Genius of the Jewish Religion, " and confequently are not to be expected in the "Old Testament.” (Ibid.) — The Subftance of what our Author has urged with much Triumph, I had almost faid Infolence, to make good this Charge is as follows; that "if the Jewish Religion was to predict the spiritual Bleffings promised in "the Gospel clearly and openly, for the present In"formation

" formation or Inftruction of the Jewish Church, "there was no Occafion for fo dark a Medium of

Conveyance as that of Types;" that " no Use or In" tent can be ascribed to Types, &c. if the Doctrines "delivered under them were defigned for popular "and vulgar Notice;" that upon this Suppofition Types and fecondary Prophecies would not have "been used on certain Occasions rather than fuch as were primary, literal, and direct;" that to infer "from the very Nature and Intention of

Types, that their Explanations must go along "with them, is to infer from the Propriety and "Ufe of a Veil or Cover that there was nothing to "be veiled or covered; that as his Lordship affures "us the antient Prophecies relative to the fpiritual "Covenant, were given to establish and confirm "the Hopes of Futurity, or the Doctrine of Re

demption and eternal Life, (which by the way his Lordship does not affure us) not only fo thick a "Cover as that of Types, but any Cover whatever " must have been unneceffary;" and that “ Moses, "whose Enemies, accufe him of putting out his

People's Eyes, must rather have lost his own, if " he thought that dark, typical, and ænigmatical Representations were better calculated to convey "the Doctrine of a future State (or indeed any Doctrine) to a carnal and worldly-minded People, than plain, fimple, and literal Expreffions." If then, fays this Author, my Lord Bishop " will " contend

X 3

" contend that Types and fecondary Prophecies are properly connected with the Nature and Genius of the Jewish Religion, he must in confequence "reverse his other Principle, and say that this Religion was not given to reveal, but to hide the "spiritual Bleffings of the Gofpel-Dispensation."

This accordingly, in the Examiner's Judgment, feems to be the only Idea of the Jewish Religion which can fupport us in making it the proper Refidence and Seat of Types and fecondary Prophecies. We must therefore, fays he, " either exclude these Figures, or admit them under fuch an Idea of "the Jewish Religion as is entirely subversive of "the common System."-In short, upon reviewing the Argument" as it ftands between the ce"lebrated Prelate and the Author of The Grounds

and Reafons," the Examiner pronounces, that Mr. Collins's firft Objection, viz. that Types and fecondary Prophecies are unfcholastic and illogical, &c. is left by his Lordship not only unanswered, but even untouched; and that his second Objection, viz. that they must have been useless, as a true Religion could have no Mysteries to hide from it's Followers, is fupported and confirmed by the Authority of his Lordship's pofitive Conceffion; for that his Lordship's Principles are as" destructive of the "Nature and Existence of Types, &c. as any "thing advanced by Mr. Collins with a professed "Defign