..

Sign to the Jews, who lived in the Time of

"AHAZ.

And he answers by faying, that the Sign is not the Conception of the Virgin, but the Destruction of the Design of the two Kings, which was to be a Sign of the Virgin's Conception seven hundred Years after. Wherein he exprefly affirms the contrary to what is exprefly faid by ISAIAH; who, pursuant to the Defign of his Commiffion, which was to affure AнAZ by a Sign that his Enemies fhould not fucceed against him, makes the Virgin's Conception to be the Sign of his Succefs against the two Kings; and wherein he advances à Scheme wholly remote from the fubject Matter. For what can be more remote than This; the Prophet fays to AHAZ, You, AHAZ, are afraid of your Enemies, but they fhall not fucceed; and " I will prove it to you by a Sign." And upon АHAZ's refusing a Sign, the Prophet fays, you fhall have a Sign; behold a Virgin fhall conceive, &c." meaning, according to Mr. GREEN, by thofe Words behold a Virgin fball conceive, &c. no Sign at all, but making that Conception, which is a Matter wholly foreign to the Affair of Success against the two Kings, to be the Thing fignify'd, and the Succefs against the two Kings, which was vifibly the Thing to be fignify'd, the Sign of an Event (not at all pertinent to the Matter) to happen feven hundred Years after?

This is manifeftly to make the Prophet not talk ad idem, and to be guilty of the greatest Incoherence and Rhapfody imaginable, and

That

That in Oppofition to the plainest, most natural and moft coherent, and moft reasonable Senfe imaginable.

And as this Interpretation of Mr. GREEN is to the last Degree inconfiftent with the Text, and perfectly wild and enthufiaftick; fo the Steps, by which he would introduce it, are false in themselves, and entirely without Foundation.

1. First, there is no Colour to make SHEARJASHUB the Child in Queftion, but the contrary, as has been shewn already.

2. Secondly, it is an exprefs Contradiction to the Text, to fay the Virgin's Conception and bearing a Son is not the Sign given by the Prophet, as I have before fhewn. It is alfo, as I conceive, a Contradiction to all other Interpreters, who tho' they interpret the Virgin to mean the Virgin MARY, yet ftill, in Conformity with the exprefs Words of Isaiah, continue to make the Virgin the Sign of an intended Event.

3. Thirdly, to talk of the Jews fiaggering thro' Unbelief at the Promife, that the Meffiah Should be born of the House of David in the prefent Circumstances, and to build on that Notion, and to comment on the Text as fuppofing it, when there is fo far from being a Word about fuch Staggering in the Matter of the Meffiah, that there is not a Word, that implys the leaft Notion of a Meffiah known to the Jews or to ISAIAH himself, is in Reality to fay any Thing, and invent any Thing to ferve a Purpose, and implies a Liberty to conftrue

Y 4

ftrue a Book to any Purpose whatsoever, in Oppofition to the plaineft and most obvious Senfe.

So that his very Foundation, viz. that Success against the two Kings was a Sign of the Meffiah, has nothing to fupport it, but his mere Imagination; and it is no less abfurd to introduce fuch a Scheme, as the Event of a Meffiah, than to pervert ISAIAH, by making his Sign to be the Thing fignify'd, and the Thing propofed by him to be fignify'd to be the Sign. And I conceive, it is not poffible to confider any Perfon making a more wild Interpretation of a Place, and under greater Distress to account for a Text before him, than Mr. Green; who cannot be allow'd to make fufficient Amends for his Conduct, by a Sort of Ingenuity at the Close, when he fuppofes, that (k) you, or others, may raife Objections to his Interpretation, which he may not be able to answer; which Ingenuity he, at the fame Time, most inconfiftently gives up, by his daring to say, that his Senfe feems to him the most natural Senfe of the Place; I fay, daring to fay; for can any Thing be lefs modeft, than to affirm That to be the most natural Senfe of a Place, which is fo manifeftly repugnant to the Text, and which he himself gives us as wholly new, and which he fays may have Objections to it, which he may not be able to answer.

You have in your Book cited many great Authorities for your Senfe of the Place. To

thefe I could add many more; but I will content myself with the great Archbishop TILLOTSON; obferving, firft, how proper it is to cite Authorities in the Cafe to one, who uses an affuming and invidious Way of Controversy, in pretending to vindicate St. MATTHEW, and to throw him at you, when the Question is, what St. MATTHEW means, and when the greatest Divines understand St. M A TTHEW as you do. (1) It was foretold, fays TILLOTSON, that the Meffiah fhould be born of a Virgin, Isa. vii. 14 which you fee accordingly fulfilled, Matt. i. That This is not the primary, but the mystical Senfe of that Place in ISAIAH, I think may, without Prejudice, be granted to the Jews, who, in innumerable Places of the Old Testament, do, befides the firft and literal Senfe, allow of a mystical one.

To conclude this Article; can any one more expofe St. MATTHEW and Chriftianity to Contempt than Mr. Green has done; by fuppofing the Explication of a Prophefy of ISAIAH, that is neceffary to defend St. MATTHEW'S Application, not hit on before That given by him; and by introducing a new Expofition of his own thereof, and That an Expofition of fuch a Nature as, if allow'd, will fubject the Bible to any Meaning whatever, that the Weak or Crafty think fit to put upon it; and by fuppofing another Expofition may be found out, in Cafe his will not ferve the Turn? St. MATTHEW has hereby a Defence made for him,

(1) Sermons, Vol. 13. p. 34.

ແ

which may be very remote and perhaps never come, or rather no Defence at all, and is left exposed to an infuperable Objection, or Objection that cannot be anfwer'd, in order to avoid your mystical Hypothefis, if That may be called yours, which you maintain in common with fo many learned Divines.

IV.

Mr. Green in his fifth Letter proposes to confider the (m) four other Prophefies, cited in the New Testament, which you inftanced in, as not literally, but typically and myftically apply'd in the New Testament, and upon them to say as little as may be.

That little I fhall answer in lefs Compass.

I observe on the first of these Prophefies, out of Egypt have I call'd my Son; that he denies, both in Oppofition to moft Interpreters and particularly to the learned Mr. JAMES PEIRCE, who on this Occafion most judicioufly fays, that (n)" when a Text is cited "in the Manner This is, and it is faid fuch a "Thing was done, that it might be fulfill'd, "which was spoken, he always esteems the

Paffage cited to be a direct Prophesy of that particular Event, and that it belongs to that "Event") and to St. MATTHEW himself, that (0) this Paffage is not quoted as a Prediction of any future Event, I fay, in Op

99.

(m) Letters, p. 86.

(9) Letters, p.

(n) Paraphrafe on the Philippians, p.

91.

pofition