render Matthew's application of it, just; and they say all other methods of some learned men to solve the difficulty arising from Matthew's citation of this passage, have proved unsuccessful.
Again, Matthew says, (ch. ii.) "Jesus came, and dwelt at Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet, saying, 'he shall be called a Nazarene;'" but as this passage does not occur in the Old Testament at all, we are precluded from ascertaining whether it be literal, mystical, or allegorical.
Jesus says of John the Baptist, (Mat. xi. 14) "This is Elias that was for to come," wherein he is supposed to refer to these words of Malachi, (ch. iv. 4) "Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and terrible day 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 Elijah was to come "before the great and terrible day of the Lord," which has not yet arrived; and, therefore, this prophecy of Malachi, referred to by the evangelist, was certainly not literally, but only mystically, fulfilled in John the Baptist.
Again, Jesus (Mat. xiii.) cites the prophecy of Isaiah (Is. vi. 9,) "By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand;" and he assures us, that it was fulfilled 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 is manifest that the prophecy of Isaiah quoted, according to its literal sense, undoubtedly relates to the obstinate Jews who lived in the time of Isaiah.
In fine, these, and the many other passages cited as prophecies from the Old Testament by the authors of the New, do so plainly relate, in their obvious and primary sense to other matters than those which they 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 cause of Christianity to the enemies thereof, who can so easily show in so many undoubted instances, the Old and New Testament to have no manner of connection in that respect, but to be in an irreconcilable state.
These proofs from the prophets being so different from what we should expect, it behoves us to enquire what could induce Jesus and his apostles to quote the Old Testament in such a manner?
The Jews shortly answer this question, by saying, that they did so, because they did not understand the meaning of the books they quoted. But it has been answered by some learned Christians, that Jesus and the apostles did not quote in the manner they did through caprice or ignorance bat according to certain methods of interpretation, which were in their times of established authority among the Jews.
The rules of interpretation, which were supposed to be irrecoverably lost afterwards recovered to the world by the learned Surenhusius, professor of the Hebrew language in the 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 whole mystery of the apostles applying scripture in a secondary, or typical, or allegorical sense, seems to be unfolded. I shall, therefore, state this matter from Surenhusius.
He (Surenhusius) says, "that when he considered the various opinions Of the learned about the passages of the Old Testament quoted in the New, He was filled with grief, not knowing where to set his foot; and was much concerned, that what had been done with good success upon profane authors, could not be so happily performed upon the sacred."