Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

fpoken of JESUS CHRIST) is generally (c) understood, and particularly by GROTIUS and STILLINGFLEET, to fignify in its immediate fenfe a promife of a fucceffion of prophets; to the judicious reafonings of which last author, on this occafion, I refer the reader. Which conduct of thefe eminent divines and advocates for christianity can on→ ly be owing to the plainnefs of the cafe itfelf; which (d) Mr. WHISTON himfelf acknowledges is fuch in divers inftances, that, taking the prefent Old Teftament for genuine, it is impoffible to account for thofe citations on any other foundation than on the allegorical scheme.

IX.

The nature of typical or allegorical proofs and reafoning.

IN order therefore to understand the full force of the proofs for chriftianity, it is neceffary to understand the nature and

rules

(c) Vandale Diff. de Origine Idololat. &c. p. 187. Simon Hift. Crit. du N. Teft. p. 227. Id. Apologie contre le Vaffor, p. 127. Grotius in locum. Stilling fleet's Orig. Sacræ, 1. 2. c. 4. n. 1. p. 100. Dodwel's Letters of Advice, &c. p. 214.

(d) Whitton's Lectures, p. 226, 227. Ib. 256. Ib. Effay, &c. p. 92.

rules of typical, myftical, and allegorical reafoning. Which is what I fhall now endeavour to explain to the reader.

To fuppofe that an author has but one meaning at a time to a propofition (which is to be found out by a critical examination of his words) and to cite that propofition from him, and argue from it in that one meaning, is to proceed by the common rules of grammar and logick; which, being human rules, are not very difficult to be fet forth and explain'd. But to fuppofe paffages cited, explain'd, and argu'd from in any other method, feems very extraordinary and difficult to understand, and to reduce to rules. Accordingly, notwithstanding it is fuppos'd by the learned interpreters of the New Teftament and the feveral chriftian apologists, that the apostles apply'd the paffages they cite out of the Old Teftament to their purpofes after a typical, or myftical, or allegorical manner; and notwithstanding, both an cients and moderns do almost universally make application of paffages of the Old Testament (to fay nothing of their manner of interpreting the New Teftament, and the revelation of St. JOHN in particular) in fome fuch manner, not only as to matters, that relate to the gofpel of Jesus, but to the matters and events of all times: yet the rules of thus applying paffages of fcripture seem not understood by many of thofe perfons, who contend, that the

E 2

the apoftles us'd that method, or who use it themselves. For I find it lamented by a Boylean Lecturer, that (f) the Jewish Traditions or RULES for interpreting Scripture, which had been received among the ancient Jewish Rabbins, and were followed by the apoftles in their interpretations of the Old Teftament, were loft. And fo lately as 1708, I find in the reverend Dr. JENKIN the following paffage: He, on occafion of St. STEPHEN'S giving an historical account of feveral matters contrary to what we read in the Old Teftament, and arguing before the Sanedrin from thence, fays, that (g) St. STEPHEN would never have produced any thing out of the Old Teftament before the Sanedrin, nor would St. LuкE have recorded it foon after, if it had been capable of any difproof or confutation, whatever difficulties at this diftance of time there may appear to us to be in it. And fo in all other cafes we may depend upon it, that the apofles, and other difciples, who had fuch demonftrative evidence for the conviction of unbelievers, by a conftant power of miracles, would never make use of any arguments to the Jews from the Old Teftament, but fuch as they well knew, their adverfa

ries

(f) Stanhope's Boyle's Left. Serm. 8. 1701. p. 23. (g) Jenkin's Reafonab. of the Chrift. Relig. Vol. z. P. 320.

ries could never be able to difprove or deny For there were then certain methods of interpretation, as we may learn from JOSEPHUS, (b) which are now loft; and they difputed from acknowledg'd maxims and rules: the only difference and matter of difpute, was in the application of them to the particular cafe; however our ignorance of things, then generally known, may now make it difficult to reconcile fome texts of the New Teftament with thofe of the Old from whence they are cited.

But fince that time, the learned SURENHusius, profeffor of the Hebrew tongue in the illuftrious fchool of Amfterdam, has made an ample difcovery to the world of the rules by which the apostles cited the Old Teftament, and argued from thence, in a (i) treatise; wherein the whole mystery of the apoftles applying fcripture in a fecondary or typical, or myftical, or allegorical fense seems unfolded. I fhall therefore state this matter from SURENHUSIus; who himself gives the fubftance, as well as the occafion of his work, in his preface.

E 3

(b) Jofeph. De Bello, Jud. 1. 3. c. 14.

He

(i) Tractatus in qno fecundum Veterum Theologorum Hebræorum formulas allegandi, & modos interpretandi, conciliantur loca ex V. in Nov. Teft.allegata. Amftel. 1713. P. 712.

He fays, (k)" That when he considered the various opinions of the learned about "the paffages of the Old Testament quoted

in the New, he was filled with grief, not "knowing where to fet his foot, and being "much concerned, that what had been done "with good fuccefs upon profane authors, " could not be fo happily perform'd upon the facred.

He tells us, "That having had frequent " occafions to converfe with the Jews, (on account of his application to Hebrew li"terature from his youth) who infolently re"flected on the New Teftament, affirming "it to be plainly corrupted, because it fel"dom or never agreed with the Old Tefta"ment, fome of whom were fo confident in "this opinion, as to fay, they would profefs "the christian religion, if any one could "reconcile the New Teftament with the Old; " he was the more griev'd, because he "knew not how to apply a remedy to this "evil. But the matter being of great im"portance, he difcours'd with feveral learn❝ed men about it, and read the books of others, being perfwaded, that the authors ❝ of

(k) For this Extract out of SUR ENHUSIUS, I am for the most part obliged to the learned and ingenious Monf. De la Roche; from whofe Memoirs of Literature I have in great measure taken it.

« ForrigeFortsæt »