« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
felves by way of excuse, doth render them inexcusable, so that they are condemn'd out of their own mouths.
Our Monsieur says, that no Client would dare to speak at this rate to his Patron. But what have we to do here with Patron and Client? Patron and Clients are not mention'd in the Parable, Master and Servants are; and we know that Servants will reply very faucily to their Lords or Mafters, and we may wonder the less at it, when our Monsieur dares speak of our dear Lord and Master at such a strange rate as he doth.
2. Reflections upon the Apostles,
P. 12. in S. Matth. 2. 15. You will no where find it said, that the Prophecies ought to or so to be interpreted, because the Apostles, who were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and whose doctrine God confirm'd by Miracles, did in that manner interpret them ; but they take every-where for granted that they should be so explain'd, as they explaind them from the received Opinion amongst the Jews. Thus Monsieur Le Clerc.
Animadv. I would know what our Monsieur's meaning is, when he tells us, that we shall nowhere find it faid, that Prophecies ought fo or fo ta be interpreted, because the Apafiles, who were divinely infpired, and had their doctrine confirm'd by Miracles, did interpret them fo. If it be, that we shall no where find it said in the Scripture, I anfwer, that likewise it is no where faid in Scripture, that they should be explain'd fo as the Apostles explain them from the receiv'd Opinion among the Jews. If our Monsieur reply that it is not indeed faid, but it is every-where taken for granted, I ask, By whom? He fays, This they take every-where for granted But what is the Antecedent to this, They here? for I have fought for an Antecedent but in vain. Perhaps our Monsieur's meaning is, not that we shall no where find it said in Scripture, but that it is no where faid in any other Writings, that Prophecies ought to be so interpreted, as the Apostles, who were diviņely inspir'd, have interpreted them. If this be his meaning, I must tell him, that he has not read all
other Writings so carefully and attentively, as to be able to pro. nounce that this or that is no where said
in them. I must tell him also, that he is much mistaken, for I believe there are few that have had occasion to write of this Subject, viz. the interpretation of the Prophecies of the Old Testament, who have not said it
. I shall only alledge Lud. Crocius, tho' if there was necesity, I could produce many more. In his Syntagma, l. I. 6.7. where he treats of the Interpretation of Scripture, having divided it into Ordinary and Extraordinary, and faid of the latter, that it is altogether infallible, he gives. Examples of it in the words immediately following: Sic cum Deus ipfe pofterioribus verbis
docet quid prioribus senserit, cumque Apoftoli extraordinaria do prophetica certitudine explicant quis fit fenfus veterum Prophetarum ; So Crocius. So that, according to him, the Infallibility of the Apostles interpretation of the Prophecies was owing (not to their explaining them from the receiv'd Opinion among the Jews, but ) to their being extraordinarily and prophetically inspired.
But further, if this, that Prophecies are to be so explain’d as the Apostles explain'd them from the receiv’d Opinion amongst the Jews, be fo to be understood, as that, if the Apostles explain’d them, but not from the receiv'd Opinion among the Jews, thett Explication was not to be receiv'd or
follow'd, the Authority of the Apostles fignifies nothing; it is the receiv'd Opinion among the Jews which is the Rule, by which we must judge of their Interpretations, and if we know not what the receiv'd Opinion among the Jews was, we cannot know whether the Apostles explain the Prophecies rightly or not. And if this be not to reflect upon the Apostles, and detract from their Authority, I would know what is. And accordingly our Monsieur: tells us in the sentence immediately preccding, that the Authority of the Apostles ought not here to be objected, as that which added strength to their Reasonings; for they themselves did not rely upon their own Authority, but upon the force of their Arguments. But, 1. Ought not our Monsieur to have proved that the Apostles rely'd upon the force of their Arguments, and not upon their Authority? 2. I conceive that it is safest to say, that they rely'd upon that which was the foundation of their Authority, and to which the strength and force of their Arguments was owing, viz. the especial assistance of the blessed Spirit of God. That S. Paul rely'd upon this, his own words do fully assure me, i Cor. 7:40. And I think that I have the Spirit of God. Because of this especial assistance of the Holy Spirit of God lo great deference
is paid, and so great Authority ascrib'd to the Apostles, by all good Christians, who do believe that Prophecies are to be so interpreted as they interpreted them, whether they explain'd them from the receiv'd Opinion among the Jews or not.
P. 398. in Gal. 2,6. It is very true what our Author here fars about S. Paul's Solecisms, which others, using a softer term, call seeming Solæcisms. Thus Monsieur Le Clerc
Animadv. Why might not our Monsieur have follow'd the Example of those who use the softer term ? especially when he faw Origen so cautious as to use it in Pbilocalia, cap. 8. S. Hierome Comment. in Eph.3. expresses the like Caution, when he says, Solecismos aut tale quid ; he thought it would found harshly if he said Solæcisms, without adding any thing to mollify it, and therefore he says Solæcisms, or fomething like them. But this is not our Monfieur's way, he is for the harsher term, S. Paul's Solæcisms, without the addition of any thing to foften it. There is then no remedy, S. Paul must be guilty of So