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.