Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

who does an ill Thing, fhould endeavour to recover his Reputation by doing another? Men fay and do many foolish or ill Things, which they fometimes think to receive Applaufe for from the World; but finding themselves difcover'd, or themselves deceived in their Expectations, they run to Excuses and pretended Intentions, to throw off Guilt; which all Men are backward to own of themfelves. And it seems more natural for Men, who have faid an ill Thing, to pretend they meant otherwise than their Words import (thereby covering themfelves with what cannot be demonftratively difproved) than by acknowledging Guilt; which they think will difcover too plainly what Sort of Men they are.

3. Mr. GREEN's Words having the Conftruction, he mentions, put upon them (I prefume by his Friends; and I add by every Body, I have met with, who prefently cbferved the Impertinence and Malice thereof) as the natural Conftruction, or probable Conftruction, ought juftly to have that Conftruction put upon them; for Calumny is what Men generally endeavour to disguise a little, at the fame Time that they defign it to be understood. And he is exceedingly unfortunate, when he intended to be civil, and was abfolutely innocent of all Crime, that he should write fo, that all Men (his Friends not excepted) fhould think his Words would bear a Confiruction, that implied the utmost Rudeness and Calumny, whereof they did not think him incapable!

[blocks in formation]

4. As to his Profeffion, viz. that taking Notice of the Difcourfe of the Grounds proceeded not from any Difrefpect to the Author, but Regard to Truth, and owning, upon his baving been told, that he infinuated the Author of the Difcourfe to be an Enemy to natural Religion, that had he been fenfible his Words would have borne fuch a Conftruction, he would have expressed himself in a different Manner; I muft obferye, that I have been told (fince having been told is, it feems, a fufficient Foundation for introducing perfonal Matters into a theological Controverfy) that Mr. GREEN'S Letters were originally fraught with perfonal Abufes, many of which, upon the Advice of Friends, he ftruck out, nay, took a Journey to London on Purpose to reform his Work in that Refpect, after his Papers had been fent to the Prefs; and that his Book being all writ in that Spirit, for the Honour of 7. C. it feems natural to fuppofe, either that he fhould not easily be able to mark or blot out all his Strokes of that Kind (for many fuch are still left) or elfe, that he should defignedly leave in fome few Strokes, for the Reafon aforefaid.

II. As to his Reflection or two upon fome Paffages in the Difcourfe of the Grounds, in the Book before us, I obferve, that his firft Reflection is, "that (c) there is no "Reafon to fpeak (with a late .(d) Author) "of Jonas's lying three Days and three whole

(c) p. 30. (d) Difc. of the Grounds, p. 10, 11. 83, 84.

"Nights

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Nights in the Whale's Belly, and then coming out of it, as an Allegory of "CHRIST'S Refurrection; or to reprefent JESUS or his Apoftles arguing from it. He then proceeds to fhew, that JESUS did not make fuch Use of it, but argued after another Manner from it.

[ocr errors]

In Answer to which I fay,

[1] First, That the Difcourfe of the Grounds does not reprefent JESUS, as arguing allegorically from the Cafe of JONAS, and proving his Refurrection from thence, nor takes any Manner of Notice of the Ufe JESUS makes of the Hiftory of JONAS, but takes Notice only of St. PAUL's arguing allegorically from thence. Mr. GREEN's Reflection or Argument therefore, if deem'd pertinent to the Difcourfe, muft ftand thus, That JESUS'S ufing the Hiftory of JONAS to one Purpose, proves St. Paul could not "ufe it to another Purpofe, no ways in"confiftent with the Purpofe of JESUS!"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

[2.] As to there being no Realon to reprefent the Apoftle's (That is, St. PAUL) arguing allegorically from the Hiftory of JONAS, in Behalf of CHRIST'S RESURRECTION, which the Difcourfe reprefents St. PAUL to do, and is the fole Matter in Queftion; Mr. GREEN fays not one Word in particular to that Point, and confequently has given no Occafion for any Reply. However, I will obferve in Behalf of the Difcourfe, that when the Dif courfe fpeaks of St. Paul's arguing allegorically from the Hiftory of JONAS, it fpeaks

$ 4

according

[ocr errors]

according to the common Interpretation of the (e) Words of St. PAUL, faying exprefly, that (f) PAUL is fuppofed (That is, by fome of his Interpreters) to ground his Affertion, &c. on the Hiftory of JONAS, as well as from the (g) Neceffity of fo understanding St. PAUL. And therefore, it would have been as proper for Mr. GREEN to have given us his bare Affirmation against the chriftian Interpreters, and to have faid they had no Reason, as to fay, that the Author of the Difcourfe had no Reafon; and withal, if fuch an Affertion in the Difcourfe any way impeach'd the Doctrine of CHRIST'S Refurrection, to direct to the true and original Quiver, from whence that Arrow proceeded, and not to the Dif courfe, which follows thofe chriftian Interpreters.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

III. His next Reflection is, " (b) That "CHRIST'S Refurrection was the Accomplishment of his own Predictions; and that Prophefy is reprefented by the Author of "the Difcourfe of the Grounds, as the best Foundation, whereon to build any Religion, who, exprefly tells us, that Prophefies in an infpired Book, are, when fulfill'd, fuch <c as may be justly deem'd fure and demonAtrative Proofs. And fince the Prophefies being deliver'd by an infpired Perfon, viva voce, makes not the leaft Alteration in the Argument, the Refurrection of CHRIST,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

(c) 1 Cor. XV, 4. ) Difc. p. 10. (2) Ivid. p. 84. (b) p. 34.

being

[ocr errors]

being a Fulfilling of his Prophefies, is juftly "to be deem'd a fure and demonftrative Proof "of the Truth of Christianity."

This Reflection is fo far from having any Oppofition to the Difcourfe, that it is giving it a Sort of divine Authority, and proving from thence, to his (i) common People, the certain Foundation of Christianity. But if he intends it for a Part of his Demonftration of Christianity to the Deifts, I conceive it defective, without proving the Infpiration of the Perfon speaking, (which, one would think, he fhould know ought not to be taken for granted,) and without proving, that the Prophefies attributed to him, which were not publish'd till long after the (fupposed) Accomplishment, were deliver'd viva voce, before the faid Accomplishment; which will require a Proof of the Authority of the Books of the New Teftament. Till he has done That, the Prophefies spoken of will not be deem'd fure and demonftrative Proofs; nor will a produced Prophefy and a produced Accomplishment have any Effect on a Deift; who, at first View, will fuppofe the Prophefy invented for the Sake of the Event, or both Prophefy and Event invented. The Force of Prophefy in the Queftion of the Meffias, as urged in the Difcourfe, both to prove the Old Teftament an inspired Book, and to prove JESUS the Meffias, lies in This, that he accomplishes Prophefics in the Old

(i) Pref.

[ocr errors]

Teftament

« ForrigeFortsæt »