« ForrigeFortsæt »
itnfidtable places, and introduced upon remote occasions (that is, that by their context they seem'd not to bear the sense put upon them by the apostles) and thereby gave a handle for the allegorical scheme: what is so natural, as to suppose, from the said present and original, state, the allegorical scheme to be the scheme by which the apostles made application of the prophesies they cited from the Old Testament?
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 just foundation for us to suppose, that the apostles proceeded on the allegorical scheme.
He fays (x) Scarce any of the quotations in the evangelists are taken out if those prophesies, which by evident circumstances belong to any other person, but the Mesjias. Whereby he owns, or, at least distrusts, that some of the quotations in the Evangelists are taken out of prophesies, which by evident circumstances belong to some other persons, than the Messias. And consequently, he must suppose those quotations out of the prophesies to be typically apply'd; the very nature of typical application lying, in applying passages, which in their literal
and obvious fense, belong to one person, to another.
Again he says, (y) Much the greatest fart of those prophesies, which are alledgd by the evangelists, are plainly and certainly meant of the Messias. Which implies, that some of the quotations alledgd by the evangelists are not plainly and certainly meant of the Messias J and, by consequence, that they are, or may be, typically apply'd by the evangelists.
He fays, that several (z) of the quotations taken out of the Old Testament by the evangelists,, do better and more literally agree to the Messias than to those of whom they are ordinarily expounded, and have Commonly some one or more characters, which will agree to no others but him. Which is a confession against himself, and in . favour of the allegorical scheme. For if the prophesies cited agree to others, tho' not ib well nor so literally, as to the Messias, and have not Always some character, which will agree to none but him S then those prophesies do agree to others, and can, with certainty, be only urg'd typically.
He fays, there are (a) quotations which do seem by the coherence of their places in
the Old Testament to belong to others than the Messias nay, are contrary to the coherence, wherein they appear there. Which should make those quotations seem allegorically apply'd, as being apply'd in a fense not only seemingly different from, but contrary to that sense they bear in the Old Testament. 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 fense contrary to their literal meaning, that is, could not mistake their literal meaning in the application of them, so, by not applying them in their true literal sense, but in a sense contrary to that, they must, by consequence, intend to apply them in an allegorical sense.
He seems to allow St. Paul argu'd typically from the scripture-prophesies in these words; (V) I do not, lays he, undertake to account for all the quotations of St. Paul, oat of the Old Testament in his epistles, (that is, he does not undertake to show that they are literally apply'd; j not only because his style is peculiar, and he together with his fellow-worker St. Barnabas did, more than all the rest of the apostles, make use of allegorical notions and interpretations, then ownd among the Jews j
but also because Few or none of his quota* tions of this nature are taken from the1 scripture-prophesies, but Generally eft her from the histories or ceremonies containV in the Old Testament. For if some Few of hj# 'quotations are taken from scripture-prophe* sies, and if his quotations are, but generally^ or for the most part, taken from the histories and ceremonies recorded in the Old Testa* ment, the point is yielded with respect to St. Paul. ,
Mr. W. is reduc'd 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 Je-* Remy (je) in relation to the (laughter of the children in Bethlehem, by his scheme j he denies that quotation to be a prophesy (tho* St. Matthew cites the words of Jeremy as fulfils J; which is the very term he use? in relation to all the prophesies cited by him) alledging, that it is a poetick . description or lamentation fulfilsd or Verify d. Which -is, at the bottom actuary running imp the 'allegorical .or typical hypothesis, thtft he pretends to avoid and to dread. iFo? ^hat -is a poetick description fulfils'd, but & ty
pical prophesy fulfill'd? And why does he call the quotation in question a poetick dtscription; but because it is a most manifest description of another fact, and not of that fact, for which it was cited; wherein confists the very nature of an allegorical quotation-.? The quotations made from the Old Testament,: and said to be fulfilld in the New, had some of them, perhaps, no meaning in the minds of the prophets, who sometimes (J) 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 had no foundation, had not the infpir d apostles put that fense upon them; nay, many of those quotations would seem not to be prophesies; did not the apostles lay, they were fulfillV, or •prophesies fulfils d. This being the Cafe of the quotations made by the apostles, they are said by the learned to be typically or ailegorically apply'd by them: Now this fe also the case of the quotation, which Mr. W. calls a poetick description fulfilsd. it ^consists of words, which as they stand in <t&r«my-5 bear a .different literal fense from . ?u :>. that