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

by George Bethune English

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 passages 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, assuredly, 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 God was with them confirming their doctrine by signs following, they had from God 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 assert 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 circumstance 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 mecum pugnas, ego autem a te roitones requiro.