« ForrigeFortsæt »
" of the books of the New Testament had « writ nothing, but what was suited to the « time, wherein they liv'd, and that Christ “ and his apostles had constantly follow'd “ the method of their ancestors.' After he “ had long revoly'd this hypothesis in his s mind, at last he met with a Rabbin well “ skill'd in the Talmud, the Cabala, and çc the allegorical books of the Jews. That « Rabbin had once embrac'd the christian « religion, but was again relaps'd to Juda“ ism, on account of the idolatry of the pa“ pists, yet not perfectly disbelieving the in
tegrity of the New Testament. Mr. Su« RENHusius ask'd him, what he thought « of the passages of the Old Testament, quoted " in the New, whether they were rightly « quoted or not? and whether the Jews had 6 any just reason to cavil at them? And at " the same time he propos'd to him two or “ three passages, which had very much ex
ercis'd the most learned christian commen« tators. The Rabbin having admirably ex“ plain'd those passages, to the great surprize “ of our author, and confirm'd his explica« tions by several places of the (1) Talmud, « and by the writings of the Jewish com“ mentators and allegorical writers ; Mr. « Sureshusius ask'd him, what would be “ the best method to write a treatise, in or
E 4: .
(1) See Scaligerana, p. 265.
ç der to vindicate the passages of the Old ç Testament which have been quoted in the « New? The Rabbin answer'd, that he ç thought the best way of succeeding in “ such an undertaking, would be to peruse ç a great part of the Talmud, and the alle“ gorical and literal commentaries of the
most ancient Jewish writers; to observe © their several ways of quoting and inter« preting scripture ; and to collect as many © materials of that kind, as would be suffi
cient for that purpose. Mr. S. took the « hint immediately : he read several parts ¢ of the Talmud'; he perus'd the jewilla cf books above-mention'd, and obsery'd eve© ry thing that might be subservient to his “ design. And having made a large col« lection of those materials, he put all his « Theses into order, and digested them into “ four books : The first whereof treats of " the forms of quoting, illustrating, and
reconciling the scriptures, in 59 Theo "ses: The second treats of the manner of
quoting, in 20 Theses: 'The third treats of o the manner of interpreting, in 25 Theses : "And the fourth treats of the manner of ex" pounding and reconciling the genealogies;
in 35 Theses.” Then he proceeds in a fifth book to explain and justify all the quotations made from the Old Testament in the New, by his foregoing Theses.
As to the forms of quoting, which is the subject of his first book, he says, that in so order to vindicate and reconcile any pasi ! sage of the Old Testament quoted in the ç New, one must in the first place observe, ♡ what form of quoting the apostles made “ use of ; because from thence one may im“ mediately know, why they alledge the “ following words in a certain manner, ra
ther than in another, and why they decc part more or less from the Hebrew text, “ Thus a different sense is imply'd in each
of the following forms of quoting used by the sacred writers of the New Testament":
it has been said: it is written : that it “ might be fulfilld which was spoken :
the scripture " says : see what is said the Scripture forefeeing : is it not writ
ten: wherefore he says: have you never Cread: what says the scripture; as he © Spoke, &c. Besides, he says, it ought to be « consider'd, why in those quotations God " is introduc'd under the name of Lord or
God; or Holy Gboft, and sometimes the “ writer himself, or the scripture, and like¢s wife, why the persons or things in que< ftion are introduc'd speaking. Lastly, ! it ought to be observ’d, when and why a os passage of the Old Testament is alledg’d
in the New without any previous form of quoting ; and why some traditions, and history almost forgotten, are sometimes
« occasionally brought in, as if they made ^ a part of fcripture? ” In the second book, which treats of the manner of quoting, he Shows, “ that the books of the Old Testa"ment have been dispos'd in a different or. “ der at different times, and have had diffe« rent names, which is the reason, why a
writer or a book, is sometimes confound"ed with another in the New Testament." Besides, he produces several reasons, « why " the facred writers of the New Testament
might, and even were oblig'd to alledge « the passages of the Old Testament other! wise than they are express'd in the original, 6 viz. because the ancient Hebrew doctors "affirm’d, that in the time of the MESSIA'S ! some obscure and difficult passages of “ fcripture should be clear'd, and the im
propriety of words mended, the intricacy
of the itile remov'd, words dispos'd in a "better order, and a mystical sense drawn ► out of the literal, that the vail being taken “ away, truth might plainly appear to every “ body. The author infers from thence, "that the Jews cannot reasonably find fault " with the apostles for putting a spiritual “ fenfe upon several passages of the Old Te"stament.” In the next place he shows, " that the jewish doctors take a prodigious “ liberty in quoting the scripture, and gives “us several instances of it." The last is very remarkable, and made Mr. SURENHU
SIMş very angry with the seeming absurdity of the Rabbins. But, says he,“ when “I saw St. Paul do so too, my anger was “ appeas’d.”
In the third book, which treats of the manner of interpreting the scriptures, he shows, “how the authors of the Gemara, " and the ancient allegorical writers, and “ others, interpreted the scripture in such a " manner, as to ch
re the mean literal « sense of the words into a noble and spiritual “ sense. To that end the jewish doctors “ used ten ways of citing and explaining “ the Old Testament;” which for their cu. riosity and importance, I shall here recite at large after my author.
1. The first is, 's reading the words, not “ according to the points plac'd under them, “ but according to other points substituted in “ their stead; as we see done by PETER, “ AEts 3. 3 ; by STEPHEN , AEts 7. 43; "and by Paul, I Cor. 15. 54; 2 Cor. 8. “ 15; and Heb. 3. 10; & 9. 21; & 12. 6." in
2. The second is, « changing the letters, “ whether those letters be of the fame organ “(as the jewish grammarians speak) or no;" as we fee done by PAUL, Rom. 9. 33 ; “ i Cor. 11.9; Heb. 8.9; and 10.5; and “ by STEPHEN, AEts 7.43."
3. The third is, « changing both letters “ and points; as we see done by Paul, Acts 13:41 ; and 2 Cor. 8. 15,"