Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

ftem of JESSE, and a branch (Netfer) shall grow out of his roots. Where the argument

lies in the word Netfer; which is by the bebrew doctors call'd, An argument drawn from the fimilitude of words, without regard bad to the fenfe of the place; the term Netfer, approaching to, and therefore enigmatically fignifying Nazarene. So that Jesus's dwelling at Nazareth, which intituled him to the name Nazarene, fulfill'd the prophefy, He Shall be called a Nazarene, or Netfer.

[3.] Thirdly, he cites another (1) text, wherein the MESSIAS is called Tfemab, that is to fay, a branch. Now the word TSEMAH having the fame fignification with Netfer; Netfer may be put in the room of Themah, whereby the prophet may be said to call the MESSIAS Netfer, which is to call him Naza

rene.

These texts of the Old Testament are fome of thofe, which my author, after the jewish do&tors, fuppofes referv'd for explanation till the times of the MESSIAS; when the enigmas contain'd in them were to be unridled, or the prophefies contain'd in them were to be shown to be fulfill'd.

IV. The next prophefy cited by me as not fulfill'd literally, but myftically and allegorically, is contain'd in our Saviour's (m) making JOHN the Baptift to be the ELIAS prophefy'd

(1) Zach. 6. 12.

(m) Matt. 11. 14.

phefy'd of as to come before the MESSIAS. My author (n) fays, there was a tradition among the Jews, that ELIAS was to come before the MESSIAS; and because he was not come, they could not believe the MESSIAS was come. JEsus knowing this, told them that JOHN the Baptift was the ELIAS; who was very juftly to be deem'd ELIAS, as having the (0) virtues of ELIAS. And to confirm this interpretation, my author refers to (p) one of his Thefes,where he fhows, that, by proper names, the Jews did not always mean those very perfons who are fo nam'd, but those who resemble them in their lives and actions.

V. As to the prophefy of ISAIAH cited by Jesus (q) as fulfill'd in the Jews of his times, By hearing ye shall bear, and shall not underStand; that, according to my (r) author, is fulfill'd as typifying, like all the jewish hiftory, fomething to happen in the times of the MESSIAS. For the ignorance and obftinacy of the Jews being the fame, in our Saviour's time as in the time of the prophet ISAIAH, was the anti-type to the type, or the completion of ISAIAH'S prophefy.

Thus I hope, I have given such a state of the cafe from (s) SURENHUSIUS, as may qualify

(n) Surenkufius, p. 329-331.

(o) See Luke 1. 17.

(q) Matt.

(p) 15 Thef. de modis interpretandi.

13. 34, 35. (r) Surenbufius, P, 241, 242.

(s) See Ockley's Letter at the end of Wotton's Prefact

to Mifcellaneous Difcourfes, &c.

lify the readers to judge of that fcheme and its rules, which the apoftles follow'd in arguing from the Old Teftament, and to understand the force of the apostles arguments, which were grounded thereon. But if not; I refer them to the Treatise itself of SuRENHUSIUS; wherein the most ingenious and learned author has fet in the jufteft light the rules of reafoning used by the Jews, and follow'd by the apostles, and shown the pertinency of all the quotations made by the apostles from the Old Testament, according to thofe rules ; and confequently has truly defended christianity, by fhowing how the apoftles grounded it on the Old Testament, beyond what any author ever did before him. It is indeed poffible, that in the application of the jewish rules of interpretation and reafoning, to the paffages cited and urg'd by the apoftles out of the Old Teftament, he may not always have hit upon those peculiar rules, which the apostle had, in every citation, more particularly in view: for many of thofe rules will equally ferve the fame purpofe; and therefore thofe, which he does not on fome occafions make use of, may have been the rules, which the apostles had in view, as alfo thofe, which he does make ufe of, may not sometimes be the rules, which the apostles had immediately in view. But yet nothing can be plainer, from the reasonings of the apostles, and from the common way of reafoning ufed among the Jews, known

both

both by their practice and rules, as they are both explain'd with the greatest clearness by SURENHUSIUS; than that, the apostles, who manifeftly argu'd, not by fcholaftick rules, and interpreted not the paffages they cited out of the Old Teftament according to the obvious and literal fenfe they bore therein, did proceed by fuch (t) rules as are fet forth by him.

The learned Mr. Ockley in a letter written to and publifh'd by Dr. Wotton, (tt) fays, If he had an opportunity, he would certain ly have gone thro' the books of the New Teftament under a few. Whatfoever some of our gentlemen may think, this he is well affured of that they understand it better then we do. They are throughly acquainted with all the forms of Speech, and all the allufions, which (because they occur but rarely) are obfcure to us, tho in common and very familiar ufe among them; as has been admirably demonftrated by the learned SUREN HUSTUS, in his Reconciliator.

XI.

(t) Le Clerc. Bibl. Choif. tom. 25. P. 413. (tt) Wotton's Mifcell. Difcourfes of the Scribes and Phas rifees, &c. at the end of the preface.

XI.

An answer to an objection, that the allegorical reafonings of the apoftles were not defign'd for abfolute proofs of chriftianity, but for proofs ad hominem, to the Jews, who were accustomed to that way of reaSoning.

IT

T may be objected, from divers learned authors, to what I have advanc'd, "that christianity is not grounded on the pro"phetical or other quotations made from "the Old in the New Testament; but that "thofe quotations being allegorically ap+

ply'd by the authors of the New Testament, "are only arguments ad hominem, to con"vince the Jews of the truth of christianity, "who allowed such a method of arguing to "be valid; and are not arguments to the reft "of mankind.

To which I anfwer

1. First, that this distinction is the pure invention of those who make the objection, and has not only no foundation in the New Teftament, from whence only it fhould be taken; but is utterly fubverted by it. For the authors of the books of the New Testament always argue abfolutely from the quotations they make out of the books of the Old Testament. MOSES and the prophets

arc

« ForrigeFortsæt »