Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

Words of MALACHI, (p) "Behold,. I will "fend you ELIJAH the Prophet before the "Coming of the great and terrible Day of "the Lord," which, according to their literal Senfe, are a Prophecy, that ELIJAH or ELIAS was to come in Perfon, and therefore were not literally but myftically fulfill'd in JoHN the Baptift

5. Again JESUS (9) cites this Prophecy of ISAIAH, (r)" By hearing, ye hall hear "and fhall not underftand," and he affures us, that it was fulfill'd in his Time in those, to whom he fpoke in Parables; tho' it is manifeft, that, according to the literal Senfe, it relates to the obftinate Jews, who lived in the Time of ISAIAH.

In fine, the Prophefies, cited from the Old Teftament by the Authors of the New, do fo plainly relate, in their obvious and primary Senfe, to other Matters than thofe, which they are produced to prove; that to pretend they prove, in that Senfe, what they are produced to prove, is, (s) to give up the Cause of Christianity to Jews and other Enemies thereof; who can fo eafily fhew, in fo many un doubted Inftances, the Old and New Teftament to have no Manner of Connection in that Refpect, but to be in an (t) irreconcilable State.

(p) Mal. 4. 5. (9) Matt. 13 34, 35: (r) Ifa. 6.9. Cuneus Rep. des Hebr. 1. 3. c. 8. Vol. 1. p. 372. &c. Simon Bibl. Crit. Vol. 4. p. 513. Ib. Hift. Crit. du Nov. Test. (t) Whifton's Eay, &c. p. 282.

C. 21 & 22,

Nay,

!

Nay, this Inconfiftency is fhown to their Hands by the most learned Men of the Chriftian Church; who, according to Mr. WHISTON, (u) have taken no small Pains to fhew, that the Apostles Arguments from the Old Teftament are not grounded on the literal Senfe thereof. Grotius (w) fhows This of moft, if not all, of the Prophefies and Citations quoted from the Old in the New Testament. DOD WEL, (x) in a pofthumous Work, does (with the learned (y) Sir JOHN MARSHAM) refer even the famous Prophecy in DANIEL about the Weeks to the Times of ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES; wherein he fhows, that the Expreffions taken from thence by (z) CHRIST, and urged by him as foretelling the Deftruction of Jerufalem by the Romans, have only in a fecondary fecondary Senfe a Refpect to that Deftruction. And that famous Paffage in the Pentateuch, (a) a Prophet will the Lord God raise up unto thee, like unto me; to him fhall ye hearken; (which fome interpret literally to mean JESUS CHRIST, and which (b) LUKE in two Places refers to as fpoken of JESUS CHRIST) is generally (c)

(2) Whifton's Efay, &c. p. 92. Ib. Lectures. p. 13, 19, 20, 38, 47, 48. (w) Grotius, in Novum Teftamentum. (x) Apud Brookesby's Dodwel's Life. p. 508. (y) Marham Canon Chronicus, &c. p. 568-576. (z) Matt. 24.

(b) Acts 3. 22. 7.37.

(a) Deut. 18. 15, 18.

(c) Vandale Diff. de Origine Idololat. &c. p. 187. Simon Hift. Crit. du N. Teft. p. 227. Id. Apologie contre le Vafsor. p. 127. Grotius in locum. Stilling fleet's Orig. Sacræ. 1. 2. c. 4. n. 1. p. 100. Dodwel's Letters of Advice, &c. p. 214.

underflood,

understood, and particularly by GROTIUS and STILLINGFLEET, to fignify in its immediate Senfe a Promife of a Succeffion of Prophets; to the judicious Reafonings of which laft Author, on this Occafion, I refer the Reader. Which Conduct of these eminent Divines and Advocates for Christianity can only be owing to the Plainnefs of the Cafe itfelf; which (d) Mr. WHISTON himself acknowledges is fuch in divers Inftances, that, taking the prefent Old Teftament for genuine, it is impoffible to account for thofe Citations on any other Foundation than on the allegorical Scheme.

IX.

The Nature of Typical or Allegorical Proofs and Reafoning.

INF

IN Order therefore to understand the full Force of the Proofs for Chriftianity, it is neceffary to understand the Nature and Rules of typical, myftical, and allegorical Reasoning. Which is what I fhall now endeavour to ex-" plain to the Reader.

To fuppofe, that an Author has but one Meaning at a Time to a Propofition, (which is to be found out by a critical Examination of his Words,) and to cite that Propofition from him, and argue from it in that one

(d) Whifton's Lectures. p. 226, 227. Ib. 256. Ib. Efay &c. p. 92.

Meaning,

Meaning, is to proceed by the common Rules of Grammar and Logick; which, being human Rules, are not very difficult to be fet forth and explain'd. But to fuppofe Paffages cited, explain'd, and argued from in any other Method, feems very extraordinary and difficult to understand, and to reduce to Rules. Accordingly, notwithstanding it is fuppofed by the learned Interpreters of the New Testament and the feveral Chriftian Apologifts, that the Apoftles apply'd the Paffages they cite out of the Old Teftament to their Purposes after a typical, or myftical, or allegorical Manner; and notwithstanding both Ancients and Moderns do almost univerfally make Application of Paffages of the Old Teftament (to say nothing of their Manner of interpreting the New Teftament, and the Revelation of St. JOHN in particular) in fome fuch Manner, not only as to Matters, that relate to the Gospel of JESUS, but to the Matters and Events of all Times; yet the Rules of thus applying Paffages of Scripture feem not understood by many of those Perfons, who contend, that the Apostles used that Method, or who use it themselves. For I find it lamented by a Boylean Lecturer, that (f) the Jewish Traditions or RULES for interpreting Scripture, which had been received among the ancient Jewish Rabbins, and were follow'd by the Apostles in their Interpretations of the Old Testament, were loft. And fo lately as 1708, I find in the

(f) Stanhope's Boyl. Le&. Serm. 8. 1701. p. 23.

Reverend

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Reverend Dr. JENKIN the following Paffage. He, on Occafion of St. STEPHEN's giving an hiftorical Account of feveral Matters contrary to what we read in the Old Teftament, and arguing before the Sanedrin from thence, fays, that (g) St. STEPHEN would never have produced any Thing out of the Old Teftament before the Sanedrin, nor would St. LUKE have recorded it foon after, if it had been capable of any Difproof or Confutation, whatever Difficulties at this Diftance of Time there may appear to us to be in it. And fo in all other Cafes we may depend upon it, that the Apoftles and other Difciples, who had fuch demonftrative Evidence for the Conviction of Unbelievers, by a conftant Power of Miracles, would never make Ufe of any Arguments to the Jews from the Old Testament, but fuch as they well knew their Adverfaries could never be able to disprove or deny. For there were then certain Methods of Interpretation, as we may learn from JOSEPHUS (h), which are now loft; and Men difputed from acknowledged Maxims and Rules. The only Difference and Matter of Difpute was in the Application of them to the particular Cafe; however our Ignorance of Things, then generally known, may now make it difficult to reconcile fome Texts of the New Teftament with thofe of the Old, from whence they are cited.

(g) Jenkin's Reasonab of the Chrift. Relig. Vol. 2. p. 320. (b) Jofeph, De Bello Jud. 1. 7. c. 14.

But

« ForrigeFortsæt »