« ForrigeFortsæt »
their Approbation to be of no Weight, to say nothing worse of this Matter. : He argues, (*) from the Silence of Authors before the second Century, and especially of the Enemies of the Gospel, as to any Differences between the Hebrew and Septuagint; as also (y from the Converhons wrought by the Apostles, in Vertue of Citations or Proofs brought from the Septuagint, among the Jews; who, in Consequence of their Converlions, must, according to him, have own'd those Citations for genuine and agreeable to the then known Bible among them; it being (2) impossible, as he says, for them to have been converted, if the Citations had been as different from what they found in their Bibles, as the like Citations frequently are now from what we find in ours.
But both these Considerations will seem of little weight, if it be consider'd;
That we have no Jewish Authors of that Time extant, who treat of these Matters;
That perhaps no Jewish Authors did at that Time treat of these Matters;
That the Jews did, in general, approve of the allegorical Way of Reasoning used by the Apostles, tho' they might dislike the Application of it to Jesus Christ;
: That PHILO the Jew, who wrote in the apostolical Age voluminous Works, wherein there is not the least Notice taken of Chri
ftianity, (which seems surprizing) cites, and Reasons from, the Old Testament in the same allegorical Manner with the Apostles; wherein it may be fupposed that he follow'd the Method of his Nation, and especially of the prevailing Sect of Pharisees, who first introduced it;
That Men might be satisfy'd then, as Divines and others are now, notwithstanding the Citations, made by the Apostles out of the Old Testament, are so different from what we now find therein; ? That it appears from almoft every part of the New Testament, that the Jews and the Apostles were perpetually disputing about the mystical Sense of the Old Testament; which, as it was the fole Foundation of Christianity, so it was the sole Subject of Dispute; tho we know not how the Jews, who were not converted, answer'd the Apostles;
That St. Paul argues against some Jews, as much concern'd for the Letter of their Law, in Opposition to the Spirit of the Law, which he contended for; and that his Enemies and Accusers (a) among the Jews were the Sadducees, who contended for the literal Interpretation of the Old Testament, the Pharisees, who contended for allegorical Interprétations of the Old Testament, finding no Evil in him ; · That the first Converts among the Jews to Christianity were Pharisees, it not appearing that any (b) one Sadducee was ever.
(a) Acts 23. 8.
(b) Wotton's Misc. Discourse. Vol. 1. p. 95. L 3
converted to the Faith in the whole New Testament ;
That the Body of the Jews did reject Jesus, whom they knew not to be the CHRISŤ, and whom they rejected as pretending to be the CHRI$T, in Vertue of their Interpretations (whether literal or allegorical) of the Old Testament, which they took to be perverted and misapply'd in Behalf of him ;
That it would have been no Wonder, if the Jews had not at first made Objections to the Apostles for their not citing, and reasoning from, the Letter of the Old Testament, when they had for a considerable Time, before the Days of Jesus and the Apostles, (c) neglected the literal Sense of, and used to allegorize, the Bible;
That when the Jews did attack Christianity by Writings and Books, they did censure the Apostles and Christians (d) for citing falsely, and for arguing falsely, because not literally from the Old Testament; and to expose them more effectually they caused other and more literal and faithful Translations to be made, than the Septuagint, which was much used by the Christians, and greatly receded from the Hebrew Text by its Additions, Omissions, and false Translations.
That (e) Festus, the Heathen, who was expert in all Customs and Questions among the
(c) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Teft. p. 97.
(d) See Justin Martyr, Origen, and Jerom, as cited in PEZRON Defense de l'Antiquité des tems. p. 136, 137, 174, 337, 398, 400. (0) Acts 26. 3, 6, 7, 22, 23, 24. Le Clerc sur cet Endroit.
Fews, did, upon hearing St. Paul declare his Manner of arguing from the Old Testament and proving from thence that Chrift phould suffer and rise from the Dead, tell Paul, that he was beside himself, and that much ( Jewish) Learning had made him mad; wherein Festus has the same Thoughts of the Manner of arguing of Paul, which Mr. WHISTON has of the present, apparent, Reasoning of the Apostles from the Old Testament; (f) and that AGRIPPA, who believed in the Prophets, was almost persuaded to be a Christian, by that very Way of Reasoning, whereby Festus concluded St. PAUL mad; ; : That CELSUS, who seems the oldest Heathen Author, that has attack'd Christianity, whereof we have any Remains, did not only attack (8) Christians for their allegorical Interpretations of the Old Testament, who, he laid, by a most astonishing Folly, and a Stupidity without Example, endeavour'd to find out Relations between Things, for which there was not the least Foundation; but for their Application of the Prophesies in the Old Testament to Jesus, which, he (b) faid, agreed to a thousand other Persons with equal or more Probability than to him, and were apply'd by forced Interpretations; several of which Próphesies ORIGEN (i) yields to Celsus to be enigmatical and allegorical, and to be so
(f) Acts 26. 27, 28. (8) Origen contra Cell. p. 187. 196 - 198. (b) Ib. p. 39, 44, 78. (i) Ib. p. 39.
apply'd apply'd by the Christians; and that Celsus, speaking of some of the Prophesies cited by the Apostles, says, (k) most fatyrically, that they are unintelligible, enthuħastical, and perfe&tly obscure Sayings, which no wilé Man can understand a Tittle of, but only occahon Fools and jugglers to apply to their Purpolės; . That PORPHYRY, a most acute Pagan Philosopher, wrote a voluminous Work (now loft) against Christianity, to which EUSEBIUS of Cesarea wrote an Answer (now loft); wherein the said PORPHYRY thus charged the Christians in general and ORIGEN in particular (1) with allegorizing the Old Testament. Some being resolved, says he, to find out Solutions for the Difficulties, which occur in the Writings of the Yews, rather than reject them, have Recourse to inconsistent Interpretations, nothing relating to what is written, and which are not so much in Defence of those strange Doctrines, as in Confirmation and Praise of their own. For vaunting in great Words, that what Moses spoke with all imaginable plainness are dark Riddles, they enthufiastically give them out as so many divine Ora"cles, pregnant with bidden Misteries; and after confounding the Judgment with this fublime Language, they deliver their own Explications. For an Example of this Folly, let us take ORIGEN, a Person, with whom I had some