they deliver; and particularly, that they do by their Miracles prove that they must interpret the Old Teftament according to its literal Senfe. Now the Objection, which is fuppofed to be unanswerable, is, that the Words of the Old Teftament, cited in the New, have visibly not that Meaning, (literally) which the Apostles afcribe to them. Now, in this Cafe, the Objection destroys the full Proof. For the full Proof, first, wholly depends on a Matter that is but merely probable, which is, that the Apostles intended to apply the Paffages they cite out of the Old Teftament in their literal Senfe; for it is affirm'd by all Divines, that the Apostles do not always intend to apply all the Paffages they cite in their literal Senfe; and by most Divines, that the Prophesy of the Virgin, which is the particular Prophesy in Question, was not intended to be literally applied by St. MATTHEW; and, fecondly, the full Proof itself confifts only of probable Mediums, fuch as the Proof of extraordinary Facts done, and that thofe extraordinary Facts done are Proofs of the Truth of a Doctrine, and particularly Proofs, that the Doers of them must interpret the Old Teftament according to its literal Senfe, when they cite and argue from

it.

But the Objection, which confifts in setting forth the literal Senfe of the Old Teftament in fuch Manner as is allow'd to be unanfwerable, is a Demonftration, and ought to carry it against the feveral precarious and probable

Matters,

Matters, which are implied in, and make up the full Proof; and confequently, the fuppofed full Proof is no Proof at all.

However, after this Preliminary, which Mr. GREEN thinks fufficient of itself to confute you, and to prove the true literal Sense of the Prophefies, cited out of the Old in the New Teftament, he proceeds to the Confideration of thofe five produced by you; and begins with the famous one of ISAIAH, of the Virgin's conceiving, cited in the first Chapter of St. MATTHEW, which he endeavours to fhew does not concern a Virgin or young Woman in the Time of AH AZ, but concerns the Virgin MARY'S Conception of JESUS CHRIST, and is so apply'd by St. MATTHEW. This Prophefy I shall therefore here confider, by making certain Obfervations on what he fays, which will confirm the Interpretation given by you of that Prophefy, which is the moft common Interpretation, and particularly the Interpretation of the great GROTIUS, and deftroy That given by Mr. GREEN. I will only obferve, that Mr. GREEN. pretends, in his Expofition of the faid Prophefy, to (n) walk in an unbeaten Path, which is, I think, a Conceffion to the Force of your Objection; fhews the Streights, to which he must think the Caufe reduces him; and fhews his Expofition cannot be juft; which, if it had been a probable or poffible one, could not have efcaped the Interpreters for fo many Centuries,

who, it is known, have on this, as well as on all other Occafions, ufed all the Shifts, which Wit, Learning, and Penetration could furnish them with, or that Zeal and Ignorance could tempt them to use. He adds, that if his Senfe of the Place should have fuch Objections raifed against it, as he may not be able to anfwer, fome other Senfe may be found out to justify St. Matthew's Application of this Prophefy. This implies a Diftruft, at least, of his own Explication, if it does not imply Guilt in propofing it. It alfo implies him to be a mere Advocate, and to make Ufe of any Shifts, without Regard to the Evidence of Things for 1700 Years paft, to fuppofe a Senfe may yet be found out to ferve his Purpose; and it makes his Adverfaries in Poffeffion of feeming Truth, as Things have always ftood, and ftand at present.

I. He begins with urging the (0) Authority of St. MATTHEW, whofe Interpretation, he fays, is contrary to yours.

1. But, firft, he ought to know; that GROTIUS, HAMMOND, and the Generality of Interpreters understand, as you do, St. MATTHEW to apply this Prophefy typically; that other learned Men of late fuppose, that St. MATTHEW only accommodates the Words of ISAIAH to his Purpose; and that he himfelf confounds all Manner of Certainty in Refpect to St. MATTHEW's Intention of a literal Interpretation of ISAIAH, as prophefying of

the Birth of the Messiah, by an Obfervation he makes elsewhere, when he fays, (p) the Question is, what is meant by being fulfill'd? We talk, its true, of fulfilling Prophefies; but may not other Things, other Words, other Paf fages of the Old Teftament be faid to be fulfill'd, befides the Prophefies or Predictions of future Events? For by thus fuppofing the Words, that it might be fulfill'd, (used in St. MATTHEW on the citing of ISAIAH) have no Relation to a Prophefy, he fubverts the common Sense of a Phrase, which alone or chiefly determines St. MATTHEW to intend the Accomplishment of a Prophefy. He therefore begs the Question, in fuppofing the Authority of St. MATTHEW against you, and might as well urge his Authority against those Divines, who interpret St. MATTHEW differently from him, as you do; and he seems to begin, after this Manner, merely to throw St. MATTHEW at you; who may juft in the fame Manner be thrown at him. For I might urge the Authority of St. MATTHEW'S Application of the faid Paffage of ISAIAH (either in the Way of Type or Accommodation) as of Weight against his Expofition, or his Walk in an unbeaten Path.

2. But, fecondly, what is St. MATTHEW'S Authority to the Point in Difpute, according to his Way of arguing with you? He fuppofes your Design was to fhew, that the Apostles Application of the Prophefies of the

Old Teftament was not just and pertinent, and that That is your Meaning, when you affert their Applications of Prophefies not to be according to the literal Sense they bear in their Places in the Old Teftament. To what Purpofe then is it to quote St. MATTHEW'S Authority against you, when according to you, as he thinks fit to understand you, your Objection or Notion fuppofes St. MATTHEW to be against you? Wherein lies the Force of an Authority of one against you, when your Defign is to attack or confute the Perfon, whofe Authority he cites?

II. He fays, that King AHAZ (q) refusing the gracious Offer of a Sign from ISAIAH, (to convince him that he, the faid ISAIAH, came with a Meffage from the Lord to affure him, that the Kings of Syria and Ifrael, who had invaded Judea, and ftruck ÄнAZ and his People with the utmoft Confternation, fhould not fucceed in their Defign,) he fees no Reafon to think that any Sign was intended to be given to АHAZ.

But methinks the exprefs Affurance in the Text that ISAIAH did give AнAZ a Sign, fhould be a fufficient Proof that he did fo, tho' Mr. GREEN can fee no Reafon for it. For the Text exprefly fays, upon АHAZ's refufing a Sign, the Lord fhall give you a Sign, behold a Virgin fhall conceive, &c.

But he endeavours at a Reafon, to fhew that no Sign was given АHAZ. This Reafon

(9) Letters, p. 62.

had