others before him, and not to have been one of the firft Chriftian Writers, now extant, who gave allegorical Interpretations of the Prophe fies cited in the New Teftament.

(1.) First, it is notorious, and has been made (s) appear by others, and is confefs'd by Mr. W. himself, that the Apostles and primitive Fathers interpreted the ritual Ceremonies of the Law, and the hiftorical paffages of the Old Testament, typically; which, as appear'd juft now, is interpreting Prophefies in that Manner. As to the Commentaries of the Fa thers on, and their interpretations of, the Old Teftament, they are fo wholly allegorical, that it would be difficult to find many Paffages, not fo interpreted, if interpreted at all by them. They were no Criticks, and defpifed the literal Senfe of the old Teftament as low and mean, and imploy'd their Invention to find out fublime Senses thereof.

(2.) Secondly, Mr. W. (t) fays, that the Apostles themselves do fo feem to have cited and apply'd the Prophefies they take from the Old Teftament, that if you confider them as taken from the prefent Old Teftament, it is in a Manner impoffible to expound or apologize for thofe Applications of the old Prophefies upon any other Foundation, than by the faid typical, myftical, fecondary, or allegorical Way of

(s) Platonisme Devoile. p. 162-197. Simon Hift. Crit. du. V. Teft. p. 97. Whilton's Lect. p. 27.

Wake's Prelim. to Genuine Epift. p. 71-75. (t) Whifton's Elay, p. 92.

Ap

Application; and that (u) the antient Predictions concerning the MESSIAS and his Character, tho' of fo great Importance to be eafily underflood, are (originally) fome of them fo obfcure and doubtful in their Defignation of Perfons, or in their Expreffions, and others of them fo bidden in unfuitable Places, and introduced upon very remote Occafions, in a Word, (w) framed on Purpose to be long conceal'd, as to have given a Handle to the Introduction of the allegorical Hypothesis. Which two Confiderations make it seem a very difficult Matter to lay afide the allegorical Scheme, and not to admit it as the Scheme, by which the Apostles themselves proceeded. For, if the present State of the Old and new Teftament, in Respect to the Quotations made from the former in the latter, does admit of no other Scheme to justify their Application but the allegorical Scheme and, if the original State of the antient Predictions was fuch, that they were obfcure and doubtful in their Defignation of Perfons (That is, that they feem'd as applicable or more applicable to others than to the MESSIAS), or bidden in unfuitable Places and introduced upon remote Occafions (That is, that by their Context. they feem'd not to bear the Senfe put upon them by the Apostles) and thereby gave a handle for the allegorical Scheme; what is fo natural, as to fuppofe, from the faid prefent and original State, the allegorical Scheme to be

(u) Ib. Boyl, Lect. p. 58. (w) Ib. p. 15.

;

the

the Sheme, by which the Apostles made Application of the prophefies they cited from the Old Teftament?

But Mr. W. himself seems to me by many particulars, which he advances, to give up his own literal or rational Scheme, and to lay a juft Foundation for us to fuppofe, that the Apostles proceeded on the allegorical Scheme.

He fays, (x) SCARCE any of the Quotations in the Evangelifts are taken out of thofe Prophefies, which by evident Circumftances belong to any other Perfon but the Meffias. Whereby he owns, or at leaft diftrufts, that fome of the Quotations in the Evangelifts are taken out of Prophefies, which by evident Circumftances belong to fome other Perfons than the MESSIAS. And confequently, he must fuppofe those Quotations out of the Prophefies to be typically apply'd; the very Nature of typical Application lying, in applying Paffages, which, in their literal and obvious Senfe, belong to one Perfon, to another.

Again he fays, (y) MUCH the greatest Part of thofe Prophefies, which are alledged by the Evangelifts are plainly and certainly meant of the MESSIAS. Which implies, that fome Quotations alledged by the Evangelifts are not plainly and certainly meant of the MESSIAS; and, by confequence, that they are, or may be, typically apply'd by the Evangelifts.

He fays, that several (z) of the Quotations, taken out of the Old Teftament by the E

(x) Ib. p. 45. (z) Ib. p. 49.

(y) Ib. p. 48.

vangelifts,

vangelifts, do better and more literally agree to the MESSIAS than to those, of whom they are ordinarily expounded, and have COMMONLY fome one or more Characters, which will agree to no others but him. Which is a Confeffion against himself, and in Favour of the allegorical Scheme. For if the Prophefies cited agree to others, tho' not fo well nor fo literally, as to the MESSIAS, and have not ALWAYS fome Character, which will agree to none but him; then those Prophefies do agree to others, and can, with certainty, be only urged typically.

He fays, there are (a) Quotations, which do feem, by the Coherence of their Places in the Old Teftament, to belong to others than the MESSIAS; nay, are contrary to the Coherence, wherein they appear there. Which should make thofe Quotations feem allegorically apply'd, as being apply'd in a Senfe not only feemingly different from, but contrary to, that Senfe they bear in the Old Teftament. For, as the Apostles could be guilty of no Mistakes, and could not intend to apply those Quotations literally, and yet apply them in a Senfe contrary to their literal Meaning, That is, could not mistake their literal Meaning in the Application of them, fo, by not applying them in their true literal Senfe, but in a Senfe contrary to That, they muft, by confequence, intend to apply them in an allegorical Sense.

(a) Ib. p. 51-54

He

He seems to allow St. PAUL argued typically from the Scripture-Prophefies in these Words. (b) I do not, fays he, undertake to account for all the Quotations of St. PAUL out of the Old Teftament in his Epiftles (That is, he does not undertake to fhow, that they are literally apply'd); not only because his Style is peculiar, and he together with his FellowWorker St. BARNABAS did, more than all the Reft of the Apoftles, make Ufe of allegorical Notions and Interpretations, then own'd among the Jews; but also becaufe FEW or none of his Quotations of this Nature are taken from the Scripture-Prophefies, but GENERALLY either from the Hiftories or Ceremonies contain'd in the Old Teftament. For if fome FEW of his Quotations are taken from Scripture-Prophefies, and if his Quotations are, but generally, or for the most Part, taken from the Hiftories and Ceremonies recorded in the Old Teftament, the Point is yielded with Refpect to St. PAUL.

Mr. W. is reduced to great (c) Shifts by his literal or rational Scheme. Not being able to reconcile the (d) Application, made by St, MATTHEW, of a Quotation out of JEREMY (e) in Relation to the Slaughter of the Children in Bethlehem, by his Scheme; he denies that Quotation to be a Prophefy (tho' St. MATTHEW cites the Words of JEREMY as fulfill'd; which is the very Term he ufes in Relation to

43.

(2) Piatt? 2. 17, 18.

(c) Ib. p. 55, 56.
(e) Jer. 31. 15. V

all