The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old Part 3

The Rabbi answered, that he ?thought the best way of succeeding in such an undertaking would be to peruse a great part of the Talmud, and the allegorical and literal commentators; to observe their several ways of quoting and interpreting scripture, and to collect as many materials of that kind, as would be sufficient for that purpose.?

Surenhusius took the hint immediately: he read such books as were recommended, observed every thing that might be subservient to his design, and made a book upon the subject. And in the third part of that book he gives us the rules so long sought after, viz., the ten ways# used, he says, by the Jewish doctors in citing scripture. And here they are:--

1. The first rule is--?reading the words of the Hebrew bible, not according to the points placed under them, but according to other points subst.i.tuted in their stead,? as is done by Peter, Acts iii. 3; by Stephen, Acts vii. 43, and by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 54; 2 Cor. viii. 16, and Heb. iii. 10; ix. 21; xii. 6.

2. The second rule is--?changing the letters, whether those letters be of the same organ (as the Hebrew grammarians speak,) or not,?

as is done by Paul, Rom. ix. 33; 1 Cor. xi. 9; Heb. viii. 9, and x. 6; and by Stephen, Acts vii. 43.

3. The third is--?changing both letters and points,? as is done by Paul, Acts xiii. 41, and 2 Cor. viii. 15.

4. The fourth is--?adding some letters, and taking away others.?

5. The fifth is--?transposing words and letters.?

6. The sixth is--?dividing one word into two.?

7. The seventh is--?adding other words to those in the text, in order to make the sense more clear, and to accommodate it to the subject they we upon.?

8. The eighth is--?changing the order of words.?

9. The ninth is--?changing the order of words, and adding other words.?

10. The tenth is--?changing the order of words, adding words, and retrenching words,? which, (says he) is a method often used by Paul. Of the application of all these rules, he gives examples taken from the New Testament.

It is not necessary to make many observations upon these rules, they speak for themselves most significantly; for what is there that cannot be proved from the Old Testament, or any other book, yea, from Euclid?s Elements! or even an old almanac! by the help of ?altering words and sentences; adding; retrenching; and transposing, and cutting words in two,? as is stated above by a learned and good man, and sincere Christian who found out, and brought forward, these rules, as the best means of getting the authors of the New Testament out of a difficulty, which had long shocked and grieved their best friends.

CHAPTER VI.

EXAMINATION OF THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE ?THIS WAS DONE THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED.?

It may be objected from divers learned authors, who have been very sensible of the difficulties stated in the preceding chapters, and have, sensible of the difficulties stated in the preceding chapters, therefore, taken other ground than their predecessors, in order to defend themselves the better; I say, it may be objected to what I have advanced, that Christianity is not in fact grounded on the prophetical, or other, quotations made from the Old, in the New, Testament; but that those quotations being allegorically applied by the authors of the New Testament, are merely arguments ad hominem, to convince the Jews of the truth of Christianity, who allowed such a method of arguing to be valid, and are not arguments to the rest of mankind.

To which I answer--That this distinction is the pure invention of those who make the objection, and not only has no foundation in the New Testament, but is utterly subverted by its express declarations; for the authors of the books of the New Testament always argue absolutely from the quotations they cite as prophecies out of the books of the Old Testament. Moses and the prophets are every where represented to be a just foundation for Christianity; and the author of the Epistle to the Romans expressly says, ch. xvi. 26, 26, ?The gospel, which was kept secret since the world began, was now made manifest by the scriptures of the prophets (wherein that gospel was secretly contained) to all nations,? by the means of the preachers of the gospel who gave the secret or spiritual sense of those scriptures; for to the ancient Jews, according to them, the gospel was preached by the types of their law, and, therefore, must have been considered as truly contained in it.

Besides, the authors of the books of the New Testament were convinced long before the publication of them, that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, to both of whom, therefore, they reasoned allegorically in their books, as Peter and others did in their sermons, though with greater success on Gentiles than on Jews; and as Paul did before Felix, when he said he took his heresy, or Christianity, from the law, and the prophets. Acts xxiv., as also he did before Agrippa. It would, therefore, seem strange, that books written to all the world by men equally concerned to convert Gentiles as well as Jews, and that discourses made expressly to Gentiles as well as to Jews, should be designed to be pertinent only to Jews, much less to a very few Jews! Indeed, I am ashamed at being thus long engaged in showing what must be self evident; and did I not fear being further tedious to my readers, I would undertake to bring together pa.s.sages from the New Testament, where the meaning and intention of the writers is obvious, in such abundance, as would immediately and entirely put the hypothesis of our opponents out of countenance.

These quotations from the. Old Testament are certainly urged, and spoken of as direct proofs, as absolute proofs in themselves, and not as mere proofs ad hominem to the Jews; for if these prophecies are only urged by the apostles as proofs to the Jews, and intended only as proofs founded on the mistaken meanings of the Old Testament of some Jews of their time, what sense is there in appealing upon all occasions to the prophets, and recommending the reading and search of the Old Testament for the trial and proof of what was preached? for that was to proceed on weakness itself, knowing it to be so. Certainly nothing, but a real persuasion, that the prophecies of the Old Testament were really fulfilled in Jesus, could make them every where inculcate and appeal to the fulfilling of prophecy. In order to support their hypothesis, Christians have been forced to seek evidence to prove, that the phrase--?this was done that it might be fulfilled,? so frequent in the New Testament, meant no such thing, but was only a habit the Jews had got of introducing by such phrases a handsome quotation, or allusion, from the Old Testament. But this evasion must be given up, upon two accounts. 1. Because most of the European biblical critics of the present day (the learned annotator on Michaelis? Introduction to the New Testament, Dr. Marsh, among others) frankly acknowledge it not to be tenable; and 2. Because it can be proved not to be so from the New Testament itself. For example, when John represents (Jo. xix. 28,) Jesus upon the cross saying, ??I thirst? that the scripture might be fulfilled,? doth he not plainly represent Jesus as fulfilling a prophecy which foretold that the Messiah should thirst, or say, ?I thirst,? upon the cross? Nay, does he not suppose him to say so, in order to fulfil, or that he might fulfil, a prophecy? Is it not also suitable to the character of Jesus, who founded his Messiahship on the prophecies in the Old Testament, and could not but have the accomplishment of those prophecies constantly in view to fulfil, and to intend to fulfil them?

And is it not unsuitable in John, in describing his master dying upon the cross, to represent him as saying things, whereby he only gave occasion to observe, that he fulfilled, i. e., accommodated a phrase! not a prophecy!!

Besides, they who set up this accommodating principle of accommodation, do, in some cases, take the term fulfilled in its proper sense, and do allow it, (when convenient) to relate to a prophecy really fulfilled. But I would ask them, what rule they have to know when the apostles mean a prophecy fulfilled, and when a phrase accommodated, since they are acknowledged to use the strong expression of fulfilling in the latter case no less than in the former?

In a word, unless it be granted, that the citations were intended by the authors of the New Testament, to be adduced, and applied, as prophecies fulfilled; if you do suppose them not intended to be adduced, and applied, as prophecies; then, the whole affair of Jesus being foretold as the Messiah, is reduced to an accommodation of phrases! and it will, a.s.suredly, follow, that the citations of Jesus and his apostles out of the Old Testament, are like and no better than the work of, the Empress Eudoxia, who wrote the History of Jesus in verses put together, and borrowed out of--HOMER! or that of Proba Palconia, who did the same, in verses, and words taken out of--Virgil!

In fine, one of two things must be allowed, either (which is most probable) the authors of the New Testament conceived their citations to be indeed prophecies concerning Jesus, and then they were ignorant and blundered, and, therefore; were not inspired; or, they knowingly used them as means to deceive the simple and credulous into a belief of their being testimonies sufficient to prove what they themselves knew they had no relation to;--and then they were deceivers: there is no other alternative, and each horn of the dilemma, must prove as fatal as the other.

Perhaps it may be said, ?It is to no purpose for you to object to the quotations or the arguments of Jesus and his apostles, for G.o.d was with them confirming their doctrine by signs following, they had from G.o.d the power of working miracles, and, consequently, their interpretations of Scripture, however strange they may appear to your minds, must be infallible, they being men inspired.?

To this argument it can be justly answered, first, that the question whether Jesus be the Messiah, entirely depends, as proved before, upon his answering the characteristics given of that personage by the Jewish prophets; and all the miracles in the world could never, from the nature of the case, prove him to be so, unless his character does entirely agree with the archetype laid down by them, as had been already abundantly proved.

Secondly,--That whether these miracles were really performed, or not, depends entirely upon the credibility of the authors themselves who have thus quoted! which, as shall be shown hereafter, may be disputed; and, thirdly, it could be retorted upon Protestants, that this same argument is the same in principle with the often refuted popish argumentation. The Papists pretend to derive all their new invented and absurd doctrines and practices from the scriptures by their interpretations of them; but yet, when their interpretations are attacked from scripture, they immediately fly from thence to the miracles wrought in their church, and to the visions of their holy men and saints, for the establishment of their interpretations, by which they support those very doctrines and practices. And particularly they endeavour to prove thus the doctrine of transubstantiation, from the numerous miracles affirmed to have been wrought in its behalf, which reasoning Protestant Christians a.s.sert to be an argument absurd and inconclusive, therefore, they should not use it themselves.

We allow, that if these interpretations of the sense of the Old Testament had been in existence before the Christian era, it might be something. But we beg leave to remind them, that it is certain, that these interpretations were not published till after the events to which they are referred took place, which is a circ.u.mstance of obvious significancy.

In fine, to this argument I would answer, as in Cicero (de Natura Deor. Ed. Dav. p. 209) Cotta did to Balbus--?rumoribus mec.u.m pugnas, ego autem a te roitones requiro.?

CHAPTER VII.

EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS ALLEGED FROM THE HEBREW PROPHETS, TO PBOVE THAT JESUS WAS THE MESSIAH.

But it may be asked, how it was possible, that wise and good men could have been led to embrace the religion of the New Testament, if there were not in the Old Testament some prophecies which might be conceived by them to supply, at least, plausible arguments to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah? Are there no other pa.s.sages in the prophets besides those quoted in the New Testament, and are there not a few pa.s.sages quoted in the New Testament, which appear more to the purpose than those we have been considering? To this I candidly answer that there are, and this chapter will be devoted to the consideration of them.

Two of these prophecies, one from Genesis, and the other from Daniel, are thought by the advocates of Christianity, (because they conceive them to point out and to limit the time of the coming of the Messiah,) to be stronger in their favour than any of those quoted in die New Testament. If so, it is a very singular circ.u.mstance, that the inspired authors of the New Testament did not make use of them, instead of others not so much to the purpose.

This circ.u.mstance of itself should teach us to examine the prophecies in question with caution, and also with candour, since many worthy and religious men have thought them sufficient to prove that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. These prophecies I shall reserve last for consideration, and shall now begin with the others usually adduced, taking them up pretty much in the order in which they stand in the Old Testament.

The first pa.s.sage is taken from Deut. xviii. 15, ?The Lord thy G.o.d will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken. According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy G.o.d in h.o.r.eb, in the day of the a.s.sembly, saying.

Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my G.o.d, neither let me see his great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto me, they have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words into his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I command him. And it shall come to pa.s.s, that whosoever will not hearken unto my, words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.?

This pa.s.sage is pertinaciously and solely applied to Jesus, by many Christian writers, because it is so applied by Peter in the 2 chap. of Acts, in his sermon to the Jews, just after he had received the full inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and of course must be considered as infallible. Nevertheless, these words of Moses are supposed by many learned men, both Jews and Christians, to be spoken of Joshua, whom Moses himself afterwards, at the command and appointment of G.o.d, declared to be his successor, and who was endowed with the spirit which was upon Moses, (see Deut. x.x.xi.

33, x.x.xiv. 17,) and to whom the Jews then promised to hearken, and pay obedience to, as they had done before to Moses. But others understand them to be a promise of a succession of prophets, to whom the Jews might upon all occasions have recourse; and one or the other of these seems to be the certain meaning of the place.

From this consideration, that from the context it appears Moses was giving the Jews directions of immediate use; and, therefore, in promising a prophet to them, to whom they should hearken, he seems to intend an immediate prophet who might be of use to the Jews, and answer their common exigencies, and not a prophet two thousand years to come.

But I take the words to promise a succession of prophets, and for that sense wherein Grotius and Le Clerc, and most of the Jews, take them. I shall give my reasons, for this, and show that they do not necessarily refer to Jesus Christ.

Moses, in the verses preceding this prophecy in the same chapter, (Deut. xviii. 9--14) tells the Israelites from G.o.d, that ?when they came into Canaan, they should not learn to do after, the abominations of the people thereof; and, particularly, that there should not be found among them any one that useth divination, or an observer of times, &c., or a consulter with familiar spirits, &c.

For all, says he, ?that do these things are an abomination to the Lord; and because of these abominations the Lord thy G.o.d doth drive these people out from before thee. For these nations which thou shalt possess hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners. But as for thee, the Lord thy G.o.d hath not suffered thee to do so.? Then follow the words about the prophet, ?The Lord thy G.o.d will raise unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee of thy brethren like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken.? All which is as much as to say, ?When you come into Canaan, do not hearten to a diviner, &c., as the Canaanites do, for the Lord will give you a prophet of your own brethren inspired like me, to guide any instruct you, to whom ye shall hearken.? Or rather, ?Do not hearken to diviners, &c., but to prophets, who shall be raised up among you.?

Now that the words cited must relate to a succession of prophets to begin upon the Israelites taking possession of the land of Canaan, is manifest; because, the raising up of a prophet, to whom they were to hearken, is the reason given why they should not hearken to a diviner, &c., when they came to that land; which reason could have no force unless they were to have, 1st,--an immediate prophet in Canaan; for what sense is there, or would there be, in saying, ?Don?t hearken to such diviners as are in Canaan, when you come there, for you shall have a prophet of your own, to whom ye shall hearken two thousand years after you come there!?

Secondly,--As the context shows that the prophet to be raised up, was an immediate prophet, so it also shows, that the singular number here stands for the plural, according to the frequent custom of the Hebrew language, as is shown by Le Clerc and Stillingfleet, in loco; for one single prophet to be raised up immediately, who might soon die, could not be a reason why Jews of succeeding generations should not harken to diviners in Canaan.

Finally,--The words of G.o.d by Moses, which follow the promise of a prophet, evidently show that by that promise prophets were intended, in laying-down a rule for the test or trial of the prophets before mentioned, in such a manner as implies, that that rule was to be applied to all prophets pretending to come from him. See the words in Deut. xviii., 19--22.

I shall conclude this explication, by adducing, in confirmation of it, the paraphrase of the words given in the Targum of Jonathan. ?The nations you are about to possess, (says the Jewish paraphrast) hearken to jugglers and diviners; but you shall not be like them; for your priests shall enquire by Urim and Thummim, and the Lord your G.o.d shall give you a true prophet.? And this explication is the one adopted by Origen,--[Contra Celsum, p. 28.]

As to the difficulty that is raised against this explication from the words at the end of Deuteronomy--?that there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face.

In all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do,? &c.-- it is nothing at all. For every one perceives, that the word ?like?

may be, and frequently is, used in scripture, and in common language, to signify, similarity in some, though not in every, particular; and every prophet, who speaks by G.o.d?s direction, is a prophet ?like unto Moses,? who did the same, though he be not like, or equal to, him ?in doing signs and wonders,? which is all that is affirmed in the last chapter of Deuteronomy.

And, finally, there is nothing to limit this prophecy to Jesus of Nazareth, if we allowed (what we reject) the Christian interpretation; since G.o.d might to-morrow, if such were his will, raise up a prophet like unto Moses in every respect, which Jesus certainly was not; therefore, it cannot be applied and restrained to the purpose for which it is quoted by Peter.

There is in the same sermon, in the 2 chap. of Acts, another pa.s.sage quoted by Peter from the Psalms, and applied by him to prove the resurrection of Jesus, and on which he lays very great stress, which after all seems to be nothing to the purpose. Peter says, ?Him (i. e., Jesus) G.o.d hath raised up, having loosed the pains [or bands] of death, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.? And why? ?For [because] David speaketh concerning him, ? I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, [the place of departed Spirits] nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption, thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.? Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that G.o.d had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne. He, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in Hades, neither did his flesh see corruption.?

How imposing is this argument! How plausible it appears! And yet it is irrelevant, as Dr. Priestly frankly confesses, who tries to save the credit of the apostle by the convenient principle of accommodation! The whole force of Peter?s reasoning depends upon the word ?corruption.? David did see corruption; therefore, he could not mean himself, but ?being a prophet,? &c., he meant Jesus Christ. Now, the whole of Peter?s argument is grounded upon two mistakes; for, 1st, the Hebrew word translated ?corruption,? here signifies ?destruction, perdition;? and in the next place, instead of being ?thy holy One,? in the singular, it is in the Hebrew ?thy saints,? in general. The pa.s.sage is quoted from the 16th Psalm; and I will give a literal translation of it from the original, which will make the propriety or impropriety of Peter?s quotation perfectly obvious. The contents and import of the Psalm, according to the English version, are as follow; ?David, in distrust of his merits, and hatred of idolatry, fleeth to G.o.d for preservation, He showeth the hope of his calling, of the resurrection, and of life everlasting.? And the pa.s.sage in question, according to the original, reads thus:--?I have set the Lord always before me: Because he is on my right hand, I shall not be moved: Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory [i. e., tongue] rejoiceth: My flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy saints to see destruction. Thou wilt show me the path of life: In thy presence is fullness of joy, and at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore.? That is--?Because I have ever trusted in thee, and experienced thy constant protection, therefore I will not fear death; because thou wilt not for over leave my soul in the place of departed spirits, nor suffer thy saints to perish from existence. Thou wilt raise me from the dead, and make me happy for ever in thy presence.?#

In the 4th chap. of the Acts, the apostles are represented as praying to G.o.d, and referring in their prayer to the 2d Psalm ?why did the heathen rage," &c., as being a prophecy of the opposition of the Jews to Jesus; with how much justice may be seen from these circ.u.mstances.