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

be this Messiah, unless they had at least some proof to offer to their conviction, let us next consider, a

e the Old and New Testament in our hands; the first containing what are offered as proofs of Christianity, and the latter the

and, therefore, not proofs according to the rules of interpretation established by reason, and acted upon in interpreting every other ancient book- almost all Christian commentators on the Bible, and advocates for the religion of the New Test

spoken by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel. But the words as they stand in Isaiah ch.

ung woman (for the Hebrew word means both as was truly and justly asserted by the Jews in the primitive ages against the Christians, and is now acknowledged, and established beyond dispute by the best Hebrew scholars of this age,) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shall know to re

ess words, as well as by his whole narration; for he says, Behold I, and the children whom the Lord hath given m

ious of interpreters, the great Grotius. Indeed, to understand the prophet as having the conception of Mary, and the birth of her son Jesus from a vi

and bearing a son seven hundred years afterwards, be a sign to Ahaz, that the prophet came to him, with the said message from God? And how useless was it to Ahaz, as well as absurd in itself for the prophet,

ertainty, be foretold, except by a person inspired, but considered as soon coming to pass, it, consequently, evidences itself to be a divine sign, and answer

old by the prophet, was again fulfilled by the birth of Jesus, as being an event of the same kind, and intended to be secretly and mystically signified either by the prophet or by God, who directed the prophets speech. If the reader desires further satisfaction that the literal and obvious sense of this prophecy relates to a son to be born in Isaiah's time, and

h. xi. 1) and no where else to be found in the Old Testament, are supposed to be taken from thence; where according to their obvious sense they are no prophecy at all! but relate and refer to a past action, viz., to the calling of the children of Israel out of Egypt, which will, I think, be denied by few. This passage, therefor

spoken by the prophet, saying, he shall be called a Nazarene; but as this passage does not occur in the

of the Lord, which, according to their literal, and obvious sense, are a prophecy, that Elijah or Elias was to come in person (which we know from the New Testament, as well as elsewhere, was the constant expectation of the Jews.) Besides, this

lfilled in his time in those to whom he spake in parables, (which, by the way, he did, it is said, in order to fulfil a passage of the Psalms) though it

are adduced to prove, that it is allowed by the most learned defenders of Christianity, that to pretend that they prove in a literal sense what they are adduced to prove, is to give up with both hands the cau

should expect, it behoves us to enquire what could induce Jes

ed. But it has been answered by some learned Christians, that Jesus and the apostles did not quote in the manner they did through capr

he illustrious school of Amsterdam. He made an ample discovery to the world of the rules by which the apostles cited the Old Testament, and argued from thence, wherein the w

Testament quoted in the New, He was filled with grief, not knowing where to set his foot; and was much concerned,

w to apply a remedy to this evil. But the matter being of great importance, he discoursed with several learned men about it, and read the books of others, being persuaded that the authors of the books of the New Testament had written nothing but what was suited to the time wherein they lived, and that Christ and his apostles had constantly followed the method of their ancestors. After he had long revolved this hypothesis in his mind, at last he met with a Rabbi well skilled in the Talmud, the Cabbala, and the allegorical books o

ius asked him what would be the best method to write a treatise in order to vindicate the passages of the Old Testament quoted in the New? The Rabbi answered, that he thought the best way of succeeding in such an undertaking would be to

servient to his design, and made a book upon the subject. And in the third part of that book he gives us the rules so

them, but according to other points substituted in their stead, as is done by Peter, Acts iii. 3; by

same organ (as the Hebrew grammarians speak,) or not, as is done by Paul, Ro

rs and points, as is done by Paul,

ing some letters, an

-transposing wo

s-dividing one

the text, in order to make the sense more clear,

s-changing the

ng the order of words,

ing words, which, (says he) is a method often used by Paul. Of the appli

Euclids 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