« ForrigeFortsæt »
that 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 fulfill d. Mr. W. therefore plainly has recourse to the allegorical bypothesis in this one case ; and since he admits it in one case, he may as well admit it in all cases. For if it be a weak and enthusiastick hypothesis, as he affirms, it is an equal imputation on the apostles to make them once argue weakly and enthufiaftically, as to make them always argue fo. 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 reduc'd 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 fulfillid, “ He " that eateth bread with me hath lift up
(8) Ib. p. 56.
« his heel against me") is plainly taken from Pfalm. 41. 9. where the words are, The man of my peace, which eateth my bread, bath lift up his heel against me. (i) But Mr. W. sensible that that psalm does not in its literal sense belong to the Messias, does, to fave his hypothesis, and for fear of having recourse to the allegorical bypothesis for a folution of our Saviour's application of the pasTage 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 serves to furnish matter for wrangling.
But Mr. W. himself seems to me directly to set up the allegorical bypothesis, and to make it used universally by the apostles. He contends (k) the prophesies of scripture, which relate to christianity, are cover'd, mystical and enigmatical. Thus in the prophesy of Hoseah (s) referr'd to and cited by MATTHEW, “ When Israel was a child, «' I loved him, and called 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 so uncertain, that he has
(i) Whifton's Left. p. 57, 58.
since chang’d his mind, and by (m) Israel in this place does not now understand CHRIST, but the Israelites) and literally (that is, as he owns himself, covertly, mystically, and enige matically) to signify him. What then is the difference between him, and his weak and enthusiastical adverfaries? They fay, that IsRAEL signifies, first, literally in HOSEAH the children of Israel, and then typically signifies CHRIST, grounding this last on MATTHEW, who puts that typical, mystical, or fecondary 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 Hoseah as the mysticism of the allegorists, and is altogether as obscure to the understanding. And I do not fee, why Mr. W. may not as well fuppofe 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 adverfaries, under the notion of that mystical meaning being the literal meaning. Certainly he would be less abfurd, if he contended at the fame time for the true literal meaning together with his mystical-literal meaning.
(m) Whiston's Essay, &c. p. 88, Sc.
Thus again Mr. W. understands the famous passage (12) in Genesis, (The Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and duft halt thou eat all the days of thy life : and I will put enmity betwécit thy seed and her feed; be hall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel) to be all (o) prophetick dialect, and that the ferpent in that dialc&t signifies the Devil, and the feed of the woman, Christ; tho' no words can more plainly express, nor any context more 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 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 adverfaries; and he must make the apostles such as himself.
(n) Gen. 3. 14, 15.
(g) 'And I add, that if the allegorifts scheme be weak and enthusiastical, his scheme is yet more fo, by receiving the weak and enthusiastical part of their scheme, and rejecting the rational part. :
The allegorists do in the first place, endeavour to find out the true literal sense of the prophets, in the same manner that good critick's do with respect to all other authors; which certainly is a method highly rational in it felf. When they have done this, if they find quotations of the prophets apply'd by the apostles in another sense, 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 apo. ftles declar'd. This is the method of the great GROTIUS ; whose commentaries on the bible will ever be esteem'd by all those who desire truly to understand it; notwithstanding the imputation of some upon him, that he could neither find thc Messias in the Old Testament, nor the pope in the New. But the antiallegorists rejecting the method of Grotius ;
(9) A Digreffion against Mr. W's Literal Scheme.