Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

not thought of, but excluded, according to the literal sense of the prophets, by the prophets themselves; which is enthusiastical and abfurd to the highest degree, and criticising and mending authors by rules the most improbable, and inconfiftent with all true rules of criticifm, which should lead a man frequently to leffen, but never to multiply, miracles. Mr. W. (y) is himself of opinion, that the miracles themselves reported by St. ATHANASIUS in the Life of St. ANTHO NY do both denote their own falfhood, and create a fufpicion of the integrity of St. ATHANASIUS; tho' he relates them partly from St. ANTHONY himfelf, partly from the attestation of witneffes, and partly from his own knowledge.

So that I will venture to fay, that a bible reftor'd, according to Mr. W's Theory, will be a mere WHISTONIAN BIBLE; a BIBLE confounding, and not containing the true text of the Old Teftament.

In fine, Mr. W. (z) tells us himself, that he finds plain indications of the frequent accommodation of the readings in the New Teftament to thofe of the Septuagint. Which, if true, feems to render an Effay towards reftoring the true text of the Old Testament, Q

(y) Whifton's Hift. Pref. p. 120, 121. (2) Whifton's Ejay, p. 298, 299.

[ocr errors]

in

in order to vindicate the apoftolick citations, à most unaccountable work. For by this account, the true or original apoftolick citations are not themselves all known; and if all the prefent citations are plac'd according to Mr. W's mind in the Old Teftament, we shall not have a true text reftor'd, but a text frequently accommodated to the corrupted text of the Septuagint, introduc'd into the Old Testa ment. And the work of restoring a true or genuine text of the Old Teftament with refpect to the apoftolick citations from thence, feems a moft impracticable work; when all the copies of the Old Testament are corrupted with exprefs defign to make thofe citations feem impertinent; and when the citations themselves, as standing in the New Testament, have receiv'd changes and alterations there.

نا

2

... X. Typical

X.

Typical or Allegorical reafoning defended against Mr. WHISTON; wherein is a digreffion that compares together the allegorical fcheme, and Mr. WHISTON's literal fcheme, and that proves his literal Scheme falfe and abfurd.

MR

R. WHISTON (a) condemns fo highly the typical or allegorical interpretations of the prophefies cited from the Old in the New Teftament, which yet the present ftate of the Old Testament makes neceffary; that rather than come into that weak and enthufiaftical method, as he calls it, he runs to the fuppofition of a loft text, of the Old Teftament.

1. But yet he (b) juftifies typical arguing from the ritual laws of Moses, and from paffages of Hiftory in the Old Teftament, by the example of St. PAUL; who (being bred up (c) at the feet of GAMALIEL, the great Q 2 Rabbi,

(a) Whifton's Effay, P. 92.

(b) Whifton's Boyl. Lect. p. 27, 43.

(c) Jenkin's Reasonab. of Chrift. Relig. Vol. 1. p.321,

322.

CUNEUS Rep. des Hebr. Vol. 1. 1. 3. c. 8. p 373

376.

Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Teft. p. 90

96.

P

Rabbi, by whom he was inftructed in hebrew literature, and by confequence in all the mysteries of the Jewish Cabala) appears by his writings to be a great proficient in types and allegories, and is efteem'd by fome Jews themfelves as a great Mekubal, and profoundly skill'd in the fublime fenfe of the bible. Indeed, he pretends, (d) this last to be quite another thing from the odd (typical) application of prophefies. For, fays he, the ancient ceremonial inftitutions were, as to their principal branches at least, in their own nature (e) Types and Shadows of future good things under the chriftian difpenfation. And feveral remarkable events and hiftories of old time, feem to have been particularly recorded for the fake of fome future truths and difcoveries, which were to be drawn from them. But the cafe of the ancient prophefies, to be alledg'd from the old fcriptures for the CONFIRMATION of chriftianity, is quite of another nature, and of a more nice and exact confideration.

But how are these things different? For are not the ritual laws of MOSES, by being in their own nature types and fhadows of future good things, prophefies? And are not

the

(d) Whifton, Ib. p. 27.
(e) Heb. 16. 1.

the events and biftories of old time, by being recorded for the fake of fome future truths and difcoveries, which were to be drawn from them, (f) prophefies alfo? And does not our Saviour himself fay fo, when he affirms, that the (g) Law prophefies, 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 prophefies confirm it in the fame manner?

Mr. W. therefore ought to own, either that our Saviour and St. PAUL talk'd weakly and enthufiaftically, when they interpreted the ritual laws of MOSES, and the paffages of history contain'd in the Old Testament (which they look'd on as prophefies) typi cally; or else to allow the typical and allegorical method of interpreting the paffages cited in the New Teftament from the pro* phets, which he now calls weak and enthufiaftical, to be excellent and divine. Befides, as to ftrength of argument; what is the difference between an allegorical interpretation of a prophefy, and an allegorical interpretation of a law or paffage of biStory? Is not there as much force in the allegorical interpretation of any prophefy, Q3

(f) See Juftini Martyris Opera, p. 261.
(g) Mat. 11. 13.

as

« ForrigeFortsæt »