Everyone has a Type

Mather likewise tries to harmonize the Old and New Testaments by observing parallels, even when they bear minimal resemblance to each other. While typology was losing its power as an interpretive lens in the early Enlightenment, Mather loved spotting “remarkable” similarities between the two testaments. He does not always, or often, call these similarities “types,” but neither does he call them coincidences.

Although he manages to piece together clues to determine it anyway, Mather admits that

“Our Lords Birth-Day is no where mentioned in ye Scripture, nor indeed, is ye Birth-Day of any

one Saint in all ye Scripture” (“BA” 7: Matt. 26:2). This parallel makes the Gospels consistent with the Old Testament history books, Mather notes: “Our Lord would in this point bee of ye Same Condition with Them” (“BA” 7: Matt. 26:2). Furthermore, because the day of Jesus’s death, the Passover, receives special attention in the Gospels, he challenges himself to see if it

had been “signalized by any Remarkable Events in ye Former Ages” (“BA” 7: Matt. 26:2). He does not go so far as to claim that the parallels in the Hebrew Bible foretold Jesus’s death

explicitly, but he does not accept that they are coincidental. On “ye Same Day [Passover], in

several very distant Ages,” Abraham was called from Ur, Israel was called from Egypt, and the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was sent (“BA” 7: Matt. 26:2). The parallels have particular

significance, Mather advises, because each example illustrates God’s gracious mercies to the Israelites. The greatest mercy, Jesus’s sacrifice of himself for the forgiveness of sins, was the most significant of these Passover events. Mather asserts that the historical mercies granted on Passover indicated an additional truth: they are “An Intimation that ye Benefits of His Death,

were Extended thro’ all ye former Ages” (“BA” 7: Matt. 26:2). This striking argument illustrates

Mather’s comfortable placement in the Calvinist church.164

Mather draws attention to consistency problems by ascribing Jesus’s decisions to a deliberate, pre-ordained Hebrew Bible parallel. He reveals that God changes the names of three figures in the Old Testament: Abram, Jacob, and Solomon, “And Christ now in ye New, changed ye Names of only Three Disciples, Simon, James, and John” (“BA” 8: John 1:48).

Characteristically, when Mather observes a numerical parallel between the Old and New Testaments, he mentions it, but does not explain its relevance. He evidently saw it as worthy of note yet hesitated to use this opportunity to explain why.

Likewise, Mather sees “Remarkable” significance in the figuring of a fig tree in the

calling of Nathaniel (“BA” 8: John 1:48). He asserts that “As God saw ye first Sinners under a

164 _{Calvinists believed that Jesus’s sacrifice retroactively extended to pardon the sins of Israelites who had} died before the Incarnation. Calvin notes that in Romans, Paul “carefully distinguishes between the sons of Abraham according to the flesh and the spiritual sons, who are called after the example of Isaac” (2:210). Paul does so, Calvin explains, because to be a son of Abraham did not impact grace, but “the immutable counsel of God, by which he predestinated to himself whomsoever he would, was alone effectual for their salvation” (2:210).

Tree, so Christ saw one of ye first Beleavers under a Tree” (“BA” 8: John 1:48). Nathaniel was one of the first, but certainly not the first; he was the sixth convert recorded in John, converting after John the Baptist, his disciple, Andrew, Simon, and Philip. Mather adds that both Adam and Nathaniel hid under a fig tree, but while Adam deliberately hides, Nathaniel is told about Jesus by Philip and approaches Jesus, who relates having seen Nathaniel “under the fig tree” before Philip intervened (John 1:48). The King James Version does not suggest that Nathaniel was

hiding. Mather finally presents a contrast in his parallel: “Adam when hee was discovered,

Expressed his Fear… Nathanael seen by our Lord, Expressed his Faith” (“BA” 8: John 1:48).

While Mather adds that both appear at the beginning of their respective testaments, the

association he draws from the parallel is that “Nature” is in Adam while “Grace” is in Nathaniel (“BA” 8: John 1:48).

Mather sees similar parallels in Jesus’s renaming apostles. Just as “the Great God

Himself, imposed Names on some of ye Cheef Creatures” such as “the Light, Day; and the

Darkness Hee called, Night” that were “to have a more Extensive consideration in His

Government of ye World,” so “Behold, ye same thing done in ye New Creation!” (“BA” 7: Mark

3:16-17). Even though the “Creatures” specifically named by God in the creation of the world are natural elements, and they were initially named by God, not renamed by God, Mather

excitedly elaborates on this parallel: “As twas in ye Formation of ye World, thus in ye Formation

of ye Church: Those Principal Ministers of our Lord, that were to bee ye more Eminent Leaders

now, & hereafter Judges, of His People; our Lord, ye Maker of this New World, imposed

particular Names upon them” (“BA” 7: Mark 3:17). He mentions that Simon, James, and John

were given new names, as was Saul (“BA” 7: Mark 3:17). In fact, the renaming of James and John only appears in Mark, and it is the addition of a surname, rather than a replacement name as

in the case of Simon and Saul. James and John receive the surname “Boanerges,” which means “Sons of Earthquake, as well as, of Thunder” (“BA” 7: Mark 3:17).165 Evidently drawing on an uncited exegete, Mather remarks that “It is thought” that the surname “had respect unto that

prophesy, in Hag.2.7. I will shake all Nations, and the Desire of all Nations shall come” (“BA”

7: Mark 3:17). He adds that the surname fit, since their preaching had “a Force, Like that of Thunder, thro’ ye Jewish Nation” (“BA” 7: Mark 3:17). Their preaching can only be imagined, particularly since this reference to thunder does not appear in the other Gospels. Mather hints at a less supernatural possibility: “Quaere, Whether they took not some encouragement from ye Appelation, which our Saviour here gives unto them” (“BA” 7: Mark 3:17). They may have felt inspired to preach forcefully after Jesus urged them to do so.

5.2.3 Conclusion

Mather uses several means to illustrate the continuity between the Old and New

Testaments. Perhaps in response to Spinoza, and at least in imitation of his critics, Mather tries to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah anticipated by the Old Testament prophets. Even though Mather’s tone is persuasive, he nevertheless misses the bigger problem that the Old Testament Messiah was not inherently the second person of the Trinity. Mather also links the Old and New Testaments by noting several coincidental parallels between narratives. Possibly realizing that typology lacked authority among contemporary exegetes, Mather hesitates to call these parallels types or even prophecy fulfillments, leaving the similarities as just entertainment, not

illuminations about the Biblical narrative.

165 _{When Boston suffered from alarming earthquakes during the winter of 1727-1728, Mather published a} sermon with this name. In the style typical of his preaching, Mather mentions the two ministers named “Boanerges” and cries, “Oh! That one of the Boanerges were here to have the management of this

EXHORTATION; and that he who is a Son of Earthquake, in Essays to serve the Intentions of the present Commotions, might be a Son of Thunder, in bringing with it the Right Words that shall be Forcible!” (Mather, Boanerges, 20).