that for which they are cited, and are there apply'd to another matter, and would not be deem'd to fignify that for which they are cited, nor even deem'd a prophefy, did not the apostle say, they were fulfill'd. Mr. W. therefore plainly has recourse to the allegorical hypothefis in this one cafe; and fince he admits it in one cafe, he may as well admit it in all cafes. For if it be a weak and enthufiaftick hypothefis, 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 cafes. 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 manifeftly taken. To which he is merely driven, by the faid quotation's manifeftly belonging to another matter in its literal fenfe, in the place where it ftands in the Old Testament, than that for which it is cited. Our Saviour's quotation (b) in these words (Ifpeak not of you all; I know whom I have chofen: but that the fcripture may be fulfill'd, He "that eateth bread with me hath lift up "his (g) lb. 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. fenfible that that pfalm does not in its literal fenfe belong to the MESSIAS, does, to fave his hypothefis, and for fear of having recourfe to the allegorical hypothefis for a folution 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 seems to me directly to fet up the allegorical hypothefis, and to make it used univerfally by the apoftles. He contends (k) the prophefies of fcripture, which relate to chriftianity, are cover'd, myftical and enigmatical. Thus in the prophefy of HOSEAH (1) referr'd to and cited by MATTHEW, "When Ifrael 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 fo uncertain, that he has R fince (i) Whiston's Left. p. 57, 58. (k) lb. p. 7, 9, 11, 12. (1) Hofea 11. 1. fince chang'd his mind, and by (m) Ifrael in this place does not now understand CHRIST, but the Ifraelites) and literally (that is, as he owns himself, covertly, myftically, and enigmatically) to fignify him. What then is the difference between him, and his weak and enthufiaftical adverfaries? They fay, that IsRAEL fignifies, firft, literally in HOSEAH the children of Ifrael, and then typically signifies CHRIST, grounding this laft on MATTHEW, who puts that typical, myftical, or fecondary meaning upon it. And Mr. W. fays, the prophet meant by ISRAEL, CHRIST only: which is exactly equal myfticifm with, and just as remote from the real literal fenfe of HOSEAH as the mysticism of the allegorifts, and is altogether as obfcure 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 myftical; as to lay afide the true literal meaning, and yet contend for the fame (myftical) meaning with his adverfaries, under the notion of that myftical meaning being the literal meaning. Certainly he would be lefs abfurd, if he contended at the fame time for the true literal meaning together with his mystical-literal meaning. Thus (m) Whiston's Effay, &c. p. 88, &c. Thus again Mr. W. understands the famous paffage (n) in Genefis, (The Lord God faid unto the ferpent, because thou hast done this thou art curfed above all cattle, and above every beaft of the field; upon thy belly fhalt thou go, and duft halt thou eat all the days of thy life and I will put enmity between thy feed and her feed; he shall bruife thy head, and thou shalt bruife his heel) to be all (0) prophetick dialect, and that the ferpent in that dialect fignifies the Devil, and the feed of the woman, CHRIST; tho' no words can more plainly exprefs, nor any context more evidently prove, that ferpent, fignifies a real ferpent, a beaft of the field, and that the feed of the woman fignifies the descendants of EVE; and fome Theologues (p) themselves confefs, they would not chufe this prophesy to convert an Infidel. So that it is plain Mr. W. is as great a typift, mystift, or allegorift, as his adverfaries; and he must make the apostles fuch as himfelf. (n) Gen. 3. 14, 15. (0) Whifton's Left. p. 35, 82-93← See Grotius & Clericus in Locum. Blackmore's Redemption, p. 62. Spencer De leg. Heb. p. 181. (P) Nichols's Conference with a Theift, Vol. 3. p. 34. (9) And I add, that if the allegorifts Scheme be weak and enthufiaftical, his fcheme is yet more fo, by receiving the weak and enthufiaftical part of their scheme, and rejecting the rational part. The allegorifts do in the first place, endeavour to find out the true literal fenfe of the prophets, in the fame manner that good criticks do with refpect 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 fenfe, or not according to the literal fenfe which they bear in the prophets themselves, they put that fenfe alfo upon them, in which the apostles apply'd them. Thus they act the part of good interpreters with refpect to the Old prophets themselves, and with respect to the apoftles, and to the Holy Ghoft, whofe fenfe of the prophets the apo ftles declar'd. This is the method of the great GROTIUS; whofe commentaries on the bible will ever be esteem'd by all those who defire truly to understand it; notwithstanding the imputation of fome upon him, that he could neither find the MESSIAS in the Old Teftament, nor the pope in the New. But the antiallegorists rejecting the method of GROTIUS; of ·(q) A Digreffion against Mr. W's Literal Scheme. |
