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.