« ForrigeFortsæt »
Words of. MALACUI, (P) “ Behold, I will « send you ELIJAų the Prophet before the « Coming of the great and terrible Day of " the Lord;” which, according to their literal Sense, are a Prophecy, that ELIJAH or ELIAS was to come in Perfon, and therefore were not literally but mystically fulfill'd in Joun the Baptift.
5. Again Jesus (9) cites this Prophecy of ISAIAH, (r) " By hearing, ye Mall hear « and shall not understand," and he assures us, that it was fulfilld in his Time in those, to whom he spoke in Parables; tho it is manifest, that, according to the literal Sense, it relates to the obstinate Jews, who lived in the Time of ISAIAH. :
In fine, the Prophelies, cited from the old Testament by the Authors of the New, do so plainly relate, in their obvious and primary Sense, to other Matters than those, 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 so easily shew, in so many un doubted Instances, the Old and New Testament to have no Manner of Connection in that Respect, but to be in an (t) irreconcilable State.
(D) Mal. 4. 5. (9) Matt. 13, 34, 35. (r) Ifa. 6.9.
is ) Cunæus Rep. des Hebr. l. 3. c. 8. Vol. 1. p. 372. &c. Simon Bibl. Crit. Vol. 4. p. 513. Ib. Hist. Crit. du Nov. Test, . 21 270,
(7) Whiston's Elay, &c. p. 282. :
Nay, this Inconsistency is shown to their Hands by the most learned Men of the Christian Church; who, according to Mr. WHISTON, (u) have taken no small Pains to Thew, that the Apostles Arguments from the Old Testament are not grounded on the literal Sense thereof. Grotius (70) shows This of most, if not all, of the Prophesies and Citations quoted from the Old in the New Testament.* DOD WEL, (x) in a posthumous Work, does (with the learned (y) Sir JOHN MARSHAM) refer even the famous Prophecy in DANIEL about the Weeks to the Times of ANTIOCHUS EPIPHAN ES; wherein he Thows, that the Expresons taken from thence by (z) CHRIST, and urged by him as foretelling the Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, have only in a fecordary Sense a Respect to that Destruction. And that famous Paffage in the Pentateuch, (a) a Prophet will the Lord God raise up unto thee, like unto me; to him fall ye hearken; (which fome interpret literally to mean JESUS CHRIST, and which (6) LUKE in two Places refers to as (poken of Jesus Christ) is generally (c)
in) Whiftons by the label's Life. Pp568-576.15, 18. 38, 47, 4 boud Brookesby's Chronicus,
- (el) Whiston's Elsy, &c. p. 92. Ib. Leatures. p. 13, 19, 20,
(w) Grotius, in Novum Testamentum. (*) Apud Brookesby's Dodwel's Life. p. 508. (9) Markam Canon Chronicus, &c. p.568-576. (2) Matt. 24. (b) Acts 3. 22. 7. 37.
(c) Vandale Diff. de Origine Idololat. &c. p. 187. Simon Hift. Crit. du N. Telt. p. 227. Id. Apologie contre le' Vasor. p. 127. Grotius in locum. Stilling fleet's Orig. Sacræ. l. 2. C. 4. n. 1. p.100. Dodwel's Letters of Advice, &c. p. 214.
understood, understood, and particularly by Grotius and STILLINGFLEET, to signify in its immediate Sense a Promise of a Succession of Prophets; to the judicious Reasonings of which last Author, on this Occasion, I refer the Reader. Which Conduct of these eminent Divines and Advo-' cates for Christianity can only be owing to the Plainness of the Case itself; which (d) Mr. Whiston himself acknowledges is such in divers Instances, that, taking the present Old Testament for genuine, it is impossible to account for those Citations on any other Foundation than on the allegorical Scheme.. .
IX. The Nature of Typical or Allegorical Proofs
TN Order therefore to understand the full
I Force of the Proofs for Christianity, it is necessary to understand the Nature and Rules of typical, mystical, and allegorical Reasoning. Which is what I shall now endeavour to explain to the Reader.
To suppose, that an Author has but one Meaning at a Time to a Proposition, (which is to be found out by a critical Examination of his Words,) and to cite that Proposition from him, and argue from it in that one
(d) Whiston's Lectures. p. 226, 227. Ib. 256. Ib. El ay &c. p. 92.
Meaning, is to proceed by the common Rules of Grammar and Logick; which, being húsari Rules, are not very difficult to be set forth and explain'd. But to suppofe Passages cited, explain'd, and argued from in any other Method, seems very extraordinary and difficult to understand, and to reduce to Rúles. Accordingly, notwithstanding it is supposed by the learned Interpreters of the New Testament and the several Christian Apologists, that the Apostles apply'd the Passages they cite out of the Old Testament to their Purposes after a typical, or mystical, or allegorical Manner; and notwithstanding both Ancients and Moderns do almost univerfally make Application of Passages of the Old Testament (to say nothing of their Manner of interpreting the New Testament, and the Revelation of St. John in particular) in some such Manner, noť 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 Parsages of Scripture seem not understood by many of those Persons, 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 Jewiss Traditions or Rules for interpreting Scripture, which had been received among the ancient Yewijs Rabbins, and were follow'd by the Apostles in their Interpretations of the Old Testament, were lojt. And so lately as 1708, I find in the
(f) Stanhope's Boyl. Le&t. Scrm. 8. 1701. p. 23.'.
Reverend Dr. JENKIN the following Paffage. He, on Occasion of St. STEPHÉ N's giving an hiftorical Account of several Matters contrary to what we read in the Old Testament, and arguing before the Sanedrin from thence, fays, that (8) St. STEPHEN would never have produced any Thing out of the Old Testament before the Sanedrin, nor would St. Lukehave recorded it foon after, if it had been capable of any.Difproof or Confutation, whatever Diffieulties at this Distance of Time there may appear to- us to be in it. And fo in all other Cafes we may depend upon it, that the
Apostles and other Disciples, who had such demonstrative Evidence for the Conviction of Unbelievers, by a constant Power of Miracles, would never make Use of any Arguments to the Fews from the Old Testament, but such as they well knew their Adversaries could never be able to disprove or deny. For there were then certain Methods of Interpretation, as we may learn from JOSEPHUS (b), which are now loft ;. and Men disputed from acknowledged Maxims and Rules. The only Difference and Matter of Dispute was in the Application - of them to the particilar Case; 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.
1) Jenkin's Reasonab. of the Christ. Relig. Vol. 2. p: 320: : (6) Joseph, De Bello Jud. 1.7. C. 14....