An interpretation is called private either as to the subject person, or as to the interpreter.

You take the text to speak of the latter, when the context plainly sheweth you that it speaks of the former.

The Apostle directing them to understand the prophecies of the Old Testament, gives them this caution;--that none of these Scriptures that are spoken of Christ the public person must be interpreted as spoken of David or other private person only, of whom they were mentioned but as types of Christ, &c.
It is strange that this sound and irrefragable argument has not been enforced by the Church divines in their controversies with the modern Unitarians, as Capp, Belsham and others, who refer all the prophetic texts of the Old Testament to historical personages of their time, exclusively of all double sense.
Ib.p.

226.
As to what you say of Apostles still placed in the Church:--when any shew us an immediate mission by their communion, and by miracles, 'tongues', and a spirit of revelation and infallibility prove themselves Apostles, we shall believe them.
This is another of those two-edged arguments which Baxter and Jeremy Taylor imported from Grotius, and which have since become the universal fashion among Protestants.

I fear, however, that it will do us more hurt by exposing a weak part to the learned Infidels than service in our combat with the Romanists.