« ForrigeFortsæt »
not thought of, but excluded, according to the literal sense of the prophets, by the prophets themselves; which is enthusiastical and absurd to the highest degree, and criticising and mending authors by rules the most im probable, and inconsistent with all true rules of criticism, which should lead a man frequently to lessen, but never to multiply, miracles. Mr. W. (9) is himself of opinion, that the miracles themselves reported by St. Athanasius in the Life of St. ANTHONy do both denote their own fallhood, and create a fufpicion of the integrity of St. ATHANASIUS ; tho' he relates them partly from St. Anthony himself, partly from the attestation of witnesses, and partly from his own knowledge.
So that I will venture to say, that a bible restorid, according to Mr. W's Theory, will be a mere WHISTONIAN Bible; a Bible confounding, and not containing the true text of the Old Testament.
In fine, Mr. W. (z) tells us himself, that he finds plain indications of the frequent accommodation of the readings in the New Testament to those of the Scptuagint. Which, if true, seems to render an Ésay towards restoring the true text of the Old Testament,
() Whifton's Hift. Pref. p. 120, 121. Te Whifton's Elay, p. 298, 299.
in order to vindicate the apostolick citations, a most unaccountable work. For by this account, the true or original apostolick citations are not themselves all known; and if all - the present citations are plac'd according to Mr. W's mind in the Old Testament, we shall not have a true text reftor’d, but ä text frequently accommodated to the corrupted text of the Septuagint, introduc'd into the Old Testai mens. And the work of restoring a true or genuine text of the Old Testament with respect to the apoftolick citations from thence, seems a most impracticable work, when all the copies of the Old Testament are corrupted with exprefs design to make those citations seem impertinent, and when the citations themselves, as standing in the New Testament, have receiv'd changes and alterations
:: mesmo. X. Typical
Typical or. Allegorical reasoning defended
against Mr. W HISTON; wherein is a digresion that compares together the allegoričal fcheme, ară Mr. Whiston's literal scheme, and that proves his literal scheme
false and absurd. M R . WHIston (a) condemns so highly
the typical or allegorical interpretations of the prophesies cited from the Old in the New Testament, which yet the present state of the Old Testament makes necessary s that rather than come into that weak and enthusiastical method, as he calls it, he runs to the supposition of a loft text, of the Old Testament.
1. But yet he (b) justifies typical arguing from the ritual laws of Moses, and from passages of History in the Old Testament, by the example of St. Paul; who (being bred up (c) at the feet of GAMALIEL, the great
:faj Whifton's Efay, p. 92.
(c) Jenkin's Reasonab. of Christ. Relig. Vol. i, P. 327, Cuneus Rep. des Hebr. Vol. t. 1. 3. c. 8. P 343-
Simon Hit: Crit, du V. Teft. P: 960.
Rabbi, by whom he was instructed in hebrew literature, and by consequence in all the mysteries of the Jewish Cabala) appears by his writings to be a great proficient in types and allegories, and is esteem'd by some Jews themselves as a great Mekubal, and profoundly skill'd in the sublime sense of the bible. Indeed, he pretends, (d) this last to be quite another thing from the odd (typical) application of prophesies. For, says he, the ancient ceremonial institutions werc, as to their principal branches at least, in their own nature (e) Types and Shadows of future good things under the christian dispensation. And feveral remarkable events and histories of old time, seem to have been particularly recorded for the sake of some future truths and discoveries, which were to be drawn from them. But the case of the ancient prophesies, to be alledg'd from the old scriptures for the conFIRMATION of christianity, is quite of another nature, and of a more nice and exact consideration.
But how are these things different ? For are not the ritual laws of Moses, by being in their own nature types and shadows of future good things, prophesies? And are not
(d) Whifton, 1b. p.27.
the events and histories of old time, by being recorded for the sake of some future truths and discoveries, which were to be drawn from them, (f) prophesies also ? And does not our Saviour himself say so, when he affirms, that the (8) Law prophesies, and that he came to fulfil the Law, as well as the Prophets? And do not Mr.W's prophetical types confirm christianity? And may not typical prophesies confirm it in the same manner ? ' · Mr. W. therefore ought to own, either that our Saviour and St. Paul talk'd weakly and enthusiastically, when they interpreted the ritual laws of Moses, and the passages of history contain'd in the Old Testament (which they look'd on as prophesies) typi. cally; or else to allow the typical and allegorical method of interpreting the passages cited in the New Testament from the prophets, which he now calls weak and enthufiaftical, to be excellent and divine. Besides, as to strength of argument ; what is the difference between an allegorical interpretation of a prophesy, and an allegorical interpretation of a law or passage of his ftory? Is not there as much force in the allegorical interpretation of any prophesy,
(f) See Juftini Martyris Opera, p. 261, (8) Mat. II. 13: