felves by way of excufe, doth render them inexcufable, fo that they are condemn'd out of their own mouths.

Our Monfieur fays, 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, Mafter and Servants are; and we know that Servants will reply very faucily to their Lords or Mafters, and we may wonder the lefs at it, when our Monfieur dares speak of our dear Lord and Master at fuch a strange rate as he doth.

2. Reflections upon the Apostles, P. 12. in S. Matth. 2. 15.

You will no where find it faid, that the Prophecies ought fo or so to be interpreted, because the Apostles, who were inspired by the Holy Ghoft, and whofe doctrine God confirm'd by Miracles, did in that manner interpret them but they take every-where for granted that they should be fo explain'd, as they explain'd them from the received Opinion amongst the Jews. Thus Monfieur Le Clerc.

1 2

Animadv

Animadv.

I would know what our Monfieur's meaning is, when he tells us, that we fhall no where find it faid, that Prophecies ought fo or fo to be interpreted, because the Apaftles, who were divinely infpired, and bad their doctrine confirm'd by Miracles, did interpret them so. If it be, that we shall no where find it faid in the Scripture, I anfwer, that likewife 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 Monfieur 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 Monfieur's meaning is, not that we fhall no where find it faid in Scripture, but that it is no where faid in any other Writings, that Prophecies ought to be fo interpreted, as the Apoftles, who were divinely 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 pronounce that this or that is no where faid

in them. I must tell him alfo, that he is much mistaken, for I believe there are few that have had occafion to write of this Subject, viz. the interpretation of the Prophecies of the Old Teftament, who have not faid it. I fhall only alledge Lud. Crocius, tho' if there was neceflity, I could produce many more. In his Syntagma, l. 1. c.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 fenferit, cumque Apoftoli extraordinaria & 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 infpired.

But further, if this, that Prophecies are to be fo 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, their Explication was not to be receiv'd or

fol

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 muft judge of their Interpretations; and if we know not what the receiv'd Opinion among the Jews was, we cannot know whether the Apoftles 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 Monfieur: tells us in the fentence immediately preceding, that the Authority of the Apofiles ought not here to be objected, as that which added ftrength 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 Monfieur 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 fafeft to fay, that they rely'd upon that which was the foundation of their Authority, and to which the ftrength and force of their Arguments was owing, viz. the efpecial affistance of the bleffed Spirit of God. That S. Paul rely'd upon this, his own words do fully affure me, I Cor. 7.40. And I think that I have the Spirit of God. Because of this especial affiftance of the Holy Spirit of God fo great deference

is paid, and fo great Authority afcrib'd to the Apostles, by all good Chriftians, 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.

It is very true what our Author here fays about S. Paul's Solacifms, which others, using a fofter term, call feeming Solæcifms. Thus Monfieur Le Clerc..

Animadv.

Why might not our Monfieur have follow'd the Example of those who use the fofter term? especially when he faw Origen fo cautious as to use it in Philocalia, cap. 8. S. Hierome Comment. in Eph.3. expreffes the like Caution, when he fays, Solacifmos aut tale quid; he thought it would found harshly if he faid Solacifms, without adding any thing to mollify it, and therefore he fays Solacifms, or fomething like them. But this is not our Monfieur's way, he is for the harfher term, S. Paul's Solacifms, without the addition of any thing to foften it. There is then no remedy, S. Paul must be guilty of So

læcifms;