« ForrigeFortsæt »
all the Prophesies cited by him ) alledging, that it is a poetick Description or Lamentation fulfilld or verified. which is, at the Bottom, actually running into the allegorical or typical Hypothesis, that he pretends to avoid and to dread. For what is a poetick Description fulfilld, but a typical Prophesy fulfill'd? And why does he call the Quotation in Question a poetick Description ; but because it is a most manifest Description of another Fact, and not of that Fact, for which it was cited; wherein consists the very Nature of an allegorical Quotation ? The Quotations made from the Old Testament and said to be fulfill'd in the New, had some of them, perhaps, no Meaning in the Minds of the Prophets, who sometimes (f) understood not what they meant themselves; and all the Quotations, as far as we can understand them, seem to have as remote a Sense given them from the Prophets Words; as the Quotation in Question ; which Sense would have no Foundation, had not the inspired Apostles put that Sense upon them; nay, many of those Quotations would seem not to be prophefies, did not the Apostles fay they were fulfill d or Prophefes fulfilld. This being the Case of the Quotations made by the Apostles, they are faid by the Learned to be typically or allegorically apply'd by them. Now
This is also the Case of the Quotation, which
() Ib. p. 78.
for which they are cited, and are there apply'd to another Matter, and would not be deem'd to signify That, for which they are cited, nor even deem'd a Prophesy, did not the Apostle say they were fulfilld. Mr.W. therefore plainly' has Recourse to the allegorical Hypothefis in this one Case. And since he admits it in one Cafe, he may as well admit it in all Cases. For if it be a weak and enthupastick Hypothesis, as he affirms, it is an equal Imputation on the Apostles to make them once argue weakly and enthuhastically, as to make them always argue so. And if it be a good Method of arguing, as he must allow it to be in this Instance, it is a good one in all Cases.
He is reduced to the (g) Shift of denying a Quotation made by our Saviour himself to be taken from a Place, whence it is manifestly taken. To which he is merely driven, by the said Quotation's manifestly belonging to another Matter in its literal Sense, in the Place where it stands in the Old Testament, than That, for which it is cited. Our Saviour's Quotation (b) in these Words (I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen ; but that the Scripture may be fulfilld, “ He that eateth “ Bread with me hath lift up his Heel against “ me”) is plainly taken from Psalm 41. 9. where the Words are, (i) The Man of my Peace, which eateth my Bread, hath lift up his Heel
(8) Matt. 11. 13:
Whilton's Lect. p. 57, 58.
against against me. But Mr. W. sensible that that Pfalm does not in its literal Sense belong to the MESSIAs, does, to fave his Hypothesis, and for Fear of having Recourse to the allegorical Hypothesis for a Solution of our Saviour's Application of the Paffage cited by him, believe it taken from another Place ; which Place no one ever found out before him, and plainly cannot be intended by Jesus, and only ferves to furnish Matter for wrangling.
But Mr. W. himself feems to me directly to set up the allegorical Hypothesis, and to make it used universally by the Apostles. He contends (k) the prophefies of Scripture, which relate to Christianity, are cover'd, mystical, and enigmatical. Thus in the Prophesy of Hosen (1) refer'd to and cited by MATTHEW, “When “ Ifrael was a Child, I loved him, and callid “ my Son out of Egypt,” he understands, without any Grounds from Language, IsraEL to be a prophetick Name of CHRIST ( tho* that Language is with him to incertain, that he has since changed his mind, and by (m) IF frael in this Place does not now understand CHRIST, but the Ifraelites ), and literally ( That is, as he owns himself, covertly, mystically, and enigmatically ) to signify him. What then is the Difference between him, and his weak and enthusiastical Adversaries ? They say, that ISRAEL signifies, first, literally in HoSE A
(k) Whiston's Lect. p. 7. 9. 11, 12.
the Children of Israel, and then typically signifies Christ, grounding this last on MatThew, who puts that typical, mystical, or secondary Meaning upon it. And Mr. W. fays, the Prophet meant by ISRAEL, Christ only; which is exactly equal mysticism with, and just as remote from the real literal Sense of Hose A as the Mystiscism of the Allegorists, and is altogether as obscure to the Understanding. And I do not see, why Mr. W. may not as well suppose two Meanings, the one literal and the other allegorical or mystical; as to lay aside the true literal Meaning, and yet contend for the fame ( mystical) Meaning with his Adversaries, under the Notion of that mystical Meaning being the literal Meaning. Certainly he would be less absurd, if he contended at the fame Time for the true literal Meaning together with his mystical-literal Meaning.
Thus again Mr. W. understands the famous Paffage (n) in Genesis, (The Lord God said unto the Serpent, because thou hast done This thou art curfed above all Cattle, and above every Beast of the Field; upon thy Belly halt thou go, and Dust Malt thou eat all the Days of thy Life ; and I will put Enmity between the Seed and her Seed; he mall bruise thy Head and thou malt bruise bis Heel) to be all (o) prophetick Dialect, and that the Serpent in that Diale&t signifies the Devil, and the Seed of
(n) Gen. 3. 14, 15.
Oj Whifton's Leet. p. 35. 82–93. See Grotius & Clericus in Locum. Blackmore's Redemption. p. 62. Spencer De leg. Heb. p. 181,
Woman, CHRIST ; tho' no Words can more plainly express, nor any Context mcre evidently prove, that Serpent signifies a real Serpent, a Beast of the Field, and that the Seed of the Woman signifies the Descendants of Eve; and and some Theologues (P) themselves confess, they would not chuse this Prophesy to convert an Infidel.
So that it is plain Mr. W. is as great a Typist, Mystist, or Allegorist, as his Adversaries; and he must make the Apostles such as himself.
(q) And I add, that if the Allegorists Scheme be weak and enthuhastical, his Scheme is yet more so, by receiving the weak and enthufiaftical Part of their Scheme and rejecting the rational Part.
The Allegorists do, in the first Place, en- . deavour to find out the true literal Sense of the Prophets, in the fame Manner that good Criticks do with respect to all other Authors; which certainly is a Method highly rational in itself. When they have done This, if they find Quotations of the Prophets apply'd by the Apostles in another Senfe, or not according to the literal Sense, which they bear in the Prophets themselves, they put that Sense also upon them, in which the Apostles apply'd them. Thus they act the Part of good Interpreters with respect to the old Prophets themselves, and with respect to the Apostles, and to the Holy Ghost, whose Sense of the Prophets the
(0) Nichols's Conf. with a Theist. Vol. 3. p. 34. Ü) A Digrellion against Mr. W's Literal Scheme.