unfuitable places, and introduc'd upon remote occafions (that is, that by their context they feem'd not to bear the fenfe 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 present and original ftate, the allegorical scheme to be the fcheme by which the apoftles made application of the prophefies they cited from the Old Testament? But Mr. W. himself feems to me by many particulars, which he advances, to give up his own literal or rational fcheme, and to lay a` just foundation for us to fuppofe, that the apo ftles proceeded on the allegorical scheme. He fays (x) SCARCE any of the quotations in the evangelifts are taken out of_those prophefies, which by evident circumstances 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 circumstances belong to fome other perfons, than the MESSIAS. And confequently, he muft fuppofe thofe 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 (x) Ib. p. 45. and obvious fenfe, belong to one person, to another. Again he fays, (y) Mucн the greatest part of thofe propbefies, which are alledg'd by the evangelifts, are plainly and certainly meant of the MESSIAS. Which implies, that Some of the quotations alledg'd 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 evangelists. He says, that several (z) of the quotations taken out of the Old Teftament by the evangelifts, do better and more literally agree to the MESSIAS than to thofe 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 fcheme. 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 thofe prophefies do agree to others, and can, with certainty, be only urg'd typically. He fays, there are (a) quotations which do feem by the coherence of their places in the (y) Ib. p. 48. (z) lb. p. 49. the Old Teftament to belong to others than the MESSIAS; nay, are contrary to the coberence, wherein they appear there. Which fhould make those quotations feem allegorically apply'd, as being apply'd in a sense not only feemingly different from, but contrary to that fenfe they bear in the Old Testament. For, as the apoftles could be guilty of no mistakes, and could not intend to apply thofe quotations literally, and yet apply them in a fense 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 fenfe, but in a fenfe contrary to that, they muft, by confequence, intend to apply them in an allegorical fense. He seems to allow St. PAUL argu'd typically from the fcripture-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 ftyle is peculiar, and be together with his fellow-worker St. BARNABAS did, more than all the rest of the apostles, make use of allegorical notions and interpretations, then own'd among the Jews; but (b) p. 43. but also becaufe FEW or none of his quotations of this nature are taken from the fcripture-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 fcripture-prophefies, and if his quotations are, but generally, or for the most part, taken from the hiftories and ceremonies recorded in the Old Testament, the point is yielded with respect to St. PAUL. Mr. W. is reduc'd to great (c) fhifts by his literal or rational fcheme. Not being able to reconcile the (d) application made by St. MATTHEW, of a quotation out of JEREMY (e) in relation to the flaughter of the children in Bethlehem, by his scheme; he denies that quotation to be a prophesy (tho' St. MATTHEW cites the words of JEREMY as fulfill'd; which is the very term he ufes in relation to all the prophefies cited by him) alledging, that it is a poetick defcription or lamentation fulfill'd or verify'd. Which is, at the bottom actually running into the allegorical or typical hypothefis, that he pretends to avoid and to dread. For what is a poetick description fulfill'd, but a ty pical (c) Ib. p. 55, 56. pical prophefy fulfill'd? And why does he call the quotation in question a poetick defcription; but because it is a moft manifeft defcription of another fact, and not of that fact, for which it was cited; wherein confifts the very nature of an allegorical quotation? The quotations made from the Old Teftament, and faid to be fulfill'd in the New, had fome of them, perhaps, no meaning in the minds of the prophets, who fometimes (f) understood not what they meant themfelves and all the quotations, as far as we can understand them, feem to have as remote a fenfe given them from the prophets words, as the quotation in question; which fenfe would have had no foundation, had not the infpir'd apoftles put that fenfe upon them; nay, many of thofe quo tations would feem not to be prophefies, did not the apoftles fay, they were fulfill'd, or propbefies fulfill'd. This being the Cafe of the quotations made by the apoftles, they are faid by the learned to be typically or allegorically apply'd by them: Now this is alfo the cafe of the quotation, which Mr. W. calls a poetick defcription fulfill'd. It confifts of words, which as they ftand in JEREMY, bear a different literal fenfe from 21.. 1 that (f) Ib. p. 78. Nichols's Conf. with a Theift, Vol. 3. P. 69. |