Nec Religionis est cogere Religionem, quæ sponte suscipi debeat, non Vi.Tertull.
Printed for theAuthor, and Sold by him next Door to theStar, inAldermanbury, and by the Booksellers ofLondonandWestminster.
[Price One Shilling.]
Chapter Bar.
My Lord,
Capital T.
hat I am no Flatterer ofPatrons, appears by my otherDedications: If therefore I should tell yourLordship, what I can in Sincerity, that I think you as wise and good a Magistrate, as any of yourPredecessorsin thatHigh CourtofJustice, you may be assured, I don't dissemble.
Tho' I was so unfortunate,My Lord, as to receive a Sentence in your Court, which I wish'd to avoid; yet I have no worse Opinion of your Wisdom and Justice. Your Conduct towards me, from first to last, has rather heighten'd than lessen'd my Esteem and Veneration for you. I observ'd in you such a Tenderness for our religious Liberties; such an Aversion to Persecution; and such Moderation towards my self, that if I had been absolutely acquitted, it would have been but with somewhat more Satisfaction.
And if I now write to clear my self of all Suspicions of Infidelity, for which I was sentenced; yourLordship, I humbly presume, will not think the worse of me. It is not expected that the Innocent shouldconfess Guilt, in a Compliment to any Court of Justice: Nor does the Condemnation of the Guiltless, at any time almost, so much affect the Justice of the Magistrate, as the Honesty of the Evidence: So I,My Lord, know how to lay the Blame entirely on my Ecclesiastical Accusers, and believe yourLordshipwill be rather pleas'd than offended at any good Defence I can make for my self.
From the Beginning of the Prosecution against me,my Lord, I hardly believed, that any Sentence would be pass'd on me, till the Day I received it: And the Reason was, not only because the good Tendency of myDiscourseswas so visible, that I thought it could not be overlook'd by the Wise and Learned; but because I imagin'd ourBishopswould have better consulted their Reputation,than to let Matters come to this Issue.
That it is a Transgression of the Law of the Land to write against Christianity, establish'd in it, I'll not question, since I have yourLordship's Word for it: But for all that, I could wish, for the Sake of Christianity, that such a Liberty was indulg'd toInfidels. Whatever our zealousClergymay think, one Persecution of anInfideldoes more Harm to Religion, than the Publication of the worstBookagainst it.
Liberty is so essential,My Lord, to the Enquiry after Truth, that where It is wanted, Truth will want that Splendor, which it receives from Disputation: And Christianity would be the more tryumphant over its Enemies, for that unboundedLiberty, they may enjoy to contest it from thePress. I say this, not for the Security of my self; against future Prosecutions but, from a Heart, full of Zeal for the Religion of the HolyJesus.
Ever since theReformation, which was founded on our Natural and Christian Rights to Liberty of Conscience, has this great Blessing of Liberty, at Times, been interrupted by Persecutions: But whether any of them hitherto have done any Service toChurchorState, yourLordshipis a good Judge.
However, tho' the Prosecution of my self, which was founded on a grand Mistake, is attended with no ill Consequence; yet I hope ourEcclesiastickswill grow cautious by it, and no more sollicit the most indulgent Civil Magistracy of thisKingdom to the Persecution of any other, much less of,
London May25. 1730.
My Lord,Your Lordship'sMost Obedient andHumble Servant,Tho. Woolston.
Chapter Bar.
Capital I.
t's Time now to publish anotherPartof myDefence, which, in my former, I gave myReaderssome Reason to expect from me. If I should keep Silence much longer, myAdversarieswill be ready to charge me with Cowardice, or Insufficiency; and say, that I'm either absolutely confuted by theWritersagainst me, or so terrified by the Civil Magistrate's Authority, that I either can't, or dare not, engage afresh in the same Cause. And I must confess, thatif I was not convinced of the Goodness of my Cause, which is no other than God's, and of my Ability to defend it, I should chuse to hold my Peace, and be glad that it has fared no worse with me.
One Reason indeed why I have been so long ere I publish'dthis, is pure Respect to the Civil Powers, whom I am oblig'd, as a Christian, to honour and reverence, so far as may be, without Disobedience to God. Had I hastily, and as soon almost asSentencewas pass'd on me, publish'dthis, some might have interpreted it, as an Act of Defiance and Contempt of the Civil Authority, (for there are not wanting those who will put the worst Construction they can on my Conduct;) therefore I forbore for a while: And now that I appear again from thePress, it is not without professing a profound Veneration for our Civil Magistracy, who, I am sure, will never think the worse of a Man for vindicating his own Innocency, or for writing in a Cause that, in his Conscience, he is persuaded is most just and good.
Another Reason why I committed this no sooner to the Press, was to wait the Publication of theBishopofSt. David's hisSecond Volume, which he promised us last Winter. I was almost of Opinion,that, in my formerDefence, I gave theBishopsuch Intimations of my sincere Belief of Christianity, notwithstanding myDiscoursesonMiracles, and of the Falseness of his repeated Charge against me for Infidelity, that I question'd whether he would write again in the same Strain. If theBishopis convinced of this his grand Mistake about me, then the very Foundation of his past and future Work is shaken, and I shall hear no more of him. But whether he is certainly convinc'd of his Mistake or not, I am concern'd to go on with theseDefencesof my self, and to vindicate the Goodness and Usefulness of the Design of myDiscoursesonMiracles, against what theBishopsofLondonandSt. David's, and otherAdversarieshave written to the contrary.
But, before I enter upon such aDefenceof my self and myDiscourses, I must make, what is proper here, a short Preface. It is well known, that I am for Liberty of Debate, and against all Persecution or Force, or Impositions on the Consciences of Mankind. But for all that, there are someRulesin Controversy that we polemicalWritersshould observe, and be oblig'd to; or, instead of discovering and illustrating the Truth we pretend tosearch for, we shall but the more darken, obstruct and perplex it. As,
First, We should endeavour to write as plainly and intelligibly as we can, and never amuse ourReaderswith Expressions void of Sense, or with false Reasoning against ourAdversaries, where we want what's good and solid. ThisRulenone can except against: Whether I am an Observer of thisRule, my Readers are to be Judges. As I am to answer it to God and a good Conscience, I endeavour to observe it; but much question, whether some of myAdversariescan say so too, or they would never vent such dark, impertinent and unintelligible Stuff, if it was not, because they are at a Loss for what's clear and shining. There's no End of giving Instances out of their Writings to this Purpose. I shall only mention one, that's repeated amongst them, and that is, of their pretended Distinction between PopishPersecutionand ProtestantProsecutionfor Opinions, wherewith they have amused weak and injudicious Heads. The Wife, I am sure, can discern no more Difference here, than between aRopeand aHalterto hang an innocent Man, in which Case too there is anominalDistinction without arealDifference.
Secondly, We should be open and sincere in our Opinions, and not profess with our Mouths to believe, what we disown in our Hearts; nor, likeWatermen, that look one way and row another, should we pretend to have one Design in View, when we are pursuing the quite contrary. This is a reasonableRule, and ought to be observ'd, or we shall confound the Understandings of ourReaders, who will soon lose Sight of our Arguments, if they apprehend not their Aim and Drift. ThisRule, my Adversaries will say, is levell'd at my self, than whom no body has more dissembled and prevaricated in his Opinions. Have not you, will they say to me, frequently declared, that your Design in yourDiscoursesis to make way for the Proof of the Truth of Christianity, and of the Messiahship of the HolyJesus, when you mean and intend the Subversion of both? And is not here grand Hypocrisy, and a Transgression of this Rule? Yes, if I intend the Subversion of Christ's Religion and Messiahship, here is grand Hypocrisy, and a Transgression of thisRule; and I can't think of such a Piece of Prevarication without Horror. The Bishop ofSt. David's[357]and Mr.Stackhouse,[358]in particular, have animadverted upon me for such Hypocrisy; and if I was guilty of it, in much gentler Terms than I deserv'd. This Hypocrisy, which they falsely charge me with, is as heinous a Sin as I can think of; it is as bad as wilfulPerjury, as bad as aClergyman's taking the Abjuration Oath, with his Heart full of Zeal and Affection for the Pretender, and worse than his giving his solemn Assent and Consent to Articles of Religion he believes little or nothing of. I should hardly have mention'd thisRuleto be observ'd in Controversy, if I had been guilty of the Breach of it. It is somewhat excusable inInfidelsa little to disguise their real Sentiments, for fear of the Danger they may incur by an open Profession of them: But such a gross and foul Mask of Hypocrisy, as some think I have here put on, is intolerable, and must be hateful toInfidelsas well asChristians, being obstructive to Truth, which, in all Inquirers after her, loves Sincerity and Simplicity. No doubt, but myAdversaries, some of them, will still think me a Transgressor of thisRule; but my present and followingDefenceswill absolutely clear me. And if none of myAdversariesare more guiltyof the Transgression of it than my self, we are all entirely innocent.
Thirdly, In Controversy we should avoid all wilful Misrepresentation of the Sense of ourAdversaries, and of theAuthorswe pretend to cite. Mistakes and Misapprehensions of one another will sometimes unavoidably happen, and are then as innocent things as involuntary Errors. But wilful Perversion and Falsification of another Author's Words, to the Service of our selves, or to the Prejudice of ourAdversaries, is most blameable, and of that ill Consequence to the Search after Truth, that it will keep us always at a Distance from her. This then is another goodRuleto be observed in Controversy, which some may wonder I have mention'd, because of that Misrepresentation and Falsification of Authorities I am charg'd with. And I must confess, myAdversarieshave here made an hideous Outcry against me; which if I can't acquit my self of, I am the foulest Controvertist that ever appear'd in Print. The Bishop ofSt. David's[359]calls myFalsificationof Authorities, anImmorality, and speculativeForgery; but if I was so guilty as he would have me thought, he speaks too favourably of it.He should have deem'd it as great a Crime as practicalForgeryby the Law; and all Philosophers and Lovers of Truth should wish it might be likewise punish'd.
But, good Christian Reader, don't too hastily pass thy Judgment on me. Suspend awhile; it may be, that I may unexpectedly vindicate my self. The Matter as yet is under Debate, whether myAdversariesor I are the grand Misrepresenters and Falsifiers of Authorities. One would think, that my Adversaries, who were bent on the Accusation of me for the foresaid Crime, should have kept themselves clear of it: But theBishopofSt. David's[360]is such a resoluteMisrepresenter, that he could not find in his Heart faithfully to transcribe theThree Headsof myDiscourses; but by a Suppression of some Words, and the Change of others, has given them an odious and invidious Turn to my Disadvantage: And he has studied so hard to pervert the Sense of the Fathers against me, and so tortured his Brain to make me a Misrepresenter of them, that I should not wonder, if he had labour'd under a Pain in his Head ever since, and is unable to write more. Tho' my Word should not be taken for all this at present; yetin the Sequel of theseDefences, it will be made manifest.
It is a great Temptation to ourBishopsfalsely to accuse and misrepresent their Adversaries; because they know their Writings don't equally spread and go together among all their Readers. ABishop's Writing going more by itself amongst theClergy, and other Friends to his Side of the Question, he is tempted to misrepresent his Adversaries, knowing his prejudiced Readers will take his Report of them, and credit it. For this Reason, and no other, did theBishopofLitchfield[361]falsely charge theAuthorof theGroundswith odious Assertions, to which there is nothing akin in the Places seemingly referr'd to, nor in all that Author's Work.
However, theRulein Controversy before laid down is a good, useful and necessary one. I pray God we may all be religious and conscientious Observers of it, or we shall retard the Discovery of Truth, and render our Attainment of it difficult, if not impossible.
Fourthly, We should think our selves oblig'd to set our Names to our Writings in Controversy, especially where it is such awarmone as is ours at present. TheObservation of thisRulewould not only prevent much of the Violation of thetwoformer; but would hinder abundance of the Dirt of Scandal, Lies and Defamations, that we too often throw at each other. For what Reason some of theWriters[362]against me have industriously conceal'd their Names, I know full well. They perhaps would have it thought Modesty, and that they are not ambitious of the publick Praises they may deserve for their learned and elaborate Performances. And possibly it may be Modesty in some Theological Authors to conceal themselves: But where Men have the Impudence to defame, it's in vain to pretend to the Cloak of Modesty to cover themselves under. Wherefore then do they sometimes who write on the establish'd Side of the Question, on which Honour and Preferment goes, thus conceal themselves? Why, that they might belie and slander their Adversaries the more securely, without being expostulated with for their Impudence. It's to no Purpose, they know, to upbraid an anonymous Author with his Scandal, because he can't be put to the Blush for it.And a wise Man will not lose his Labour to expose and confute a libellous Writing, unless he knew whom to charge with the Guilt of it. It is my Resolution to take no Notice of any nameless Authors against me, because I, being as it were blindfolded, engage them at a Disadvantage, whilst they have a full View of me. For this Reason theTryal of the Witnesseswas pass'd by, or I should have been tempted to have made some Remarks on it. Let suchAuthorscome forth into the Light, and it may be, they'll meet with the same Favour I have done theBishopofSt. David's. In the mean time, I declare my Abhorrence of Authors their Concealment of their Names, and I hope all ingenuousWritersin Controversy will do so too; tho' for no other Reason, than to prevent Misrepresentations, Defamations, and personal Reflections, which nameless Authors are too often guilty of.
Fifthly, andlastly, Others make it a commonRuleto be observ'd in Controversy, that theDisputantsshould consider each other's Arguments impartially, without the Byass of Prejudice and Interest. And a very goodRulethis is, if Men would but put it into Practice. But I shall long despair of such Impartiality in Controversy. Such is the Power ofPrejudice and Interest, that they will influence Men to believe against the most apparent Reason and Truth. Even Prejudice will much darken the Eyes of Mens Understandings, but Interest will put them quite out. O what a horrible Obstacle to the free Enquiry after Truth, is Interest! Against Demonstration itself will Men contend for Interest. Interest, upon Occasion, will induce them to desert the best Opinions, and keep them tight to the worst. This Experience proves true, and the various Faces of the Church, and Changes of theClergy(all for Interest) is a Witness of it. God forbid that I should judge uncharitably of the Corruption of human Nature under the Power of Interest; but I believe, that was ourLegislatureto do, what they never will, that is, set up the Figure of aCalfin our Churches, there would be no want of Priests to worship him, if they were well paid for it; nor of AcademicalStudentsto prove his divine Power and Godship, if the Road to Preferment lay that Way. For this Reason, among many others, I am for the Abolition of an hired and establish'd Priesthood, that this grand Bar of Interest may be removed out of our Way to Truth. And theBishopofLondon, that excellent Prelate, asBishop Smalbrokecalls him (forso do we, like other Creatures, knab one another where it itches) should by rights be of my Mind, saying,[363]"Where there is an Unwillingness to part with worldly Interests, there must of Course be aDesirethat the Christian Religion should not be true; and aWillingnessto favour and embrace any Argument that is brought against it, and to cherish any Doubts and Scruples that shall be rais'd concerning it." So feelingly does thisBishopspeak of the Power of Interest, by which, as I would conceive, he honestly hints to the Inhabitants ofLondonandWestminster, that theBishopof their Diocese, and theParsonof their Parish, are most unfit Guides in Religion, because of the worldly Interests they may have to deceive them, and keep them in Ignorance and Error.
Thus by way of Preface having spoken to the foregoingRulesto be observed in this Controversy, I come to a close.Defenceof myself against the Charge of Infidelity, and to vindicate the Usefulness of myDiscourses on Miraclesfor the Proof of the Truth of Christianity, and of the Messiahship of the HolyJesus, against all my Adversaries. And the Method Ishall take to this Purpose, is this following.
I. To show the Weakness, Childishness, and Insufficiency of the Arguments of myAdversaries, for theLetterof the Stories ofJesus's Miracles; and further to prove bothludicrouslyandseriouslythe Absurdities, Incredibilities, and Improbabilities, that their literal Stories labour under.
II. To prove, that whether there be any Sense, Truth and Fact, or not, in the Letter ofJesus's Miracles; yet they are Typical Things, and ought to be allegorically interpreted, and will receive a mysterious and more wonderful Accomplishment, after the manner, and to the same Purpose, that the Fathers and I do apply them, being no other (whether actually wrought or not) than Figures, Signs and Emblems of his future and mysterious Operations.
III. To show that the mysterious and future Accomplishment of these supposed Works and Miracles ofJesusalone can and will be the Proof of his Messiahship.
If I perform well upon these Heads, which are deserving of myReader's Review, because of their Pertinency to the Cause in Hand, I shall not only vindicatemyself from the Charge of Infidelity, but justify the Goodness and Usefulness of myDiscourses, in order to the Demonstration ofJesus's Messiahship. And in the midst of my handling of them, without going out of my Way, I shall, as Occasion offers itself, take Notice of particular Misrepresentations of the Fathers, and false Citations out of them, that my Adversaries charge me with: And BishopSmalbrokeand others had best to look to it, or their Accusations against me will recoil and return home to them. Then
I. I should show the Weakness, Childishness and Insufficiency of the Arguments of myAdversariesfor theLetterofJesus's Miracles; and further argue bothludicrouslyandseriouslythe Absurdities, Incredibilities and Improbabilities, that their literal Stories labour under.
I should, I say, first treat on this Head, which naturally precedes the two following; but in as much as to handle it to Perfection, I should write as I did before, and shall run in Danger of Prosecution for Blasphemy and Infidelity; I must of Necessity wave and postpone it, unless I could more than dispatch it in the Compass of thisPartof myDefence.
I have heretofore made solemn Professions of my Belief of Christianity, and most seriously declared in the plainest Terms, that my Design was not to do Service to Infidelity, but to make way for the Proof of Christ's Religion and Messiahship; but my Word was not taken, being look'd upon as a Dissembler, an Hypocrite, and Prevaricator, for all that. And should I now ever so gravely repeat the like Asseverations of the Integrity and Sincerity of my Heart, that my Objections against the Letter ofJesus's Miracles are none against his Religion, but only intended to turn Mens Heads to the mystical Interpretations of them; I question much whether I should be believed, and whetherBishop Smalbroke[364]would not say again,that this is too thin a Disguise of what seems to be my great and worse Design. What then in Prudence must I do in this Case? Why, I must letThis Head, which reasonably should precede, rest for a while; and by treating on theSecond, tho' out of Place, I must first effectually convince my Adversaries, that I am noInfidelof wicked Designs to subvert Christianity, but only theMinistry of the Letter; and then, I conceive, I may safely resume the Considerationof thisFirst Head, and without the Imputations of Infidelity and Blasphemy, write asmerrilyorgravelyas I please against the Letter.
Should any say, that this pretended Reason for waving thisFirst Headfor the present, is nothing but Cowardice and Inability to write more on it, I can't help it.Ictus Piscator sapit; I have already suffer'd much for the ludicrous Treatment of theLetter, and it is Wisdom to keep, if I can, out of the like Danger; neither will I do any thing, that in Conscience I can forbear, to incur the Displeasure of the Civil Magistrate. But however, if theBishopofLondonwould ensure me against, what theBishopofSt. David's calls, the[365]NominalPersecutions ofProtestants, which I am more afraid of, than of therealPersecutions ofPapists, I will soon enter upon this Head; otherwise for Self-Preservation against thenominalSufferings of Fines and Imprisonment,&c.I will forbear, promising my Readers, that in due Time, and on a more proper Occasion, I will resume themerry Subjectof theLetter, and handle it to their entire Satisfaction.
And when I resumethis Head, I will begin where I before left off in myDiscoursesonMiracles; that is, with the Resurrection ofJesus, which tho' I believe to have been a miraculous Fact, that happen'd, yet it was by no means timed and circumstanced, so as easily and readily to conciliate the Belief of Posterity. God has given to Man Reason to judge of the Credibility of Events, and the Certainty of Miracles: And if the Reason of every Man does not disapprove of the Management of that Event, (supposing it has no figurative Meaning in it) I am much mistaken, when we come to state a Case, how such a Miracle ought to be wrought and conducted, to get and preserve the Credit of it.
Thus having told my Readers, why I postpone myFirst Head, I now enter upon theSecond, which is
II. To shew, that whether there be any Sense, Truth and Fact, or not, in the literal Stories ofJesus's Miracles, yet they are all certainly typical Facts, and ought to be allegorically interpreted, and will receive a mysterious and more wonderful Accomplishment after the Manner, and to the same Purpose, that the Fathers and I do apply them, being no other (whether actually wrought or not) than Figures, Signs and Emblems of his future and mysterious Operations.
If the Authority of the Fathers would be admitted of, as decisive onthis Head, there would soon be an End of all Controversy upon it. Give me Leave to recite some of their Testimonies to this Purpose, which I have heretofore urg'd in myDiscourses.Origensays[366]ThatJesus's Works wereSymbolsof other Things to be done by his Power. St.Hilary[367]says, ThatJesus's Actions bore a Resemblance of what he would do hereafter. St.Augustin[368]says, That the Facts ofJesusare Signs of somewhat else to be done by him. AndEusebius Gallicanus[369]says, That our Saviour manifestly shews, that his Miracles are of a spiritual Signification, or in the Work of them he would not have done somewhat or other, that seems to want Sense and Reason. These few, out of a Multitude of Citations from the Fathers that might be produced, are sufficient to the Proof of the present Proposition, if their Authority might determineour Dispute. And most pertinent Citations they are too, tho'Bishop Smalbroke[370]says,that even the Passages cited by me from the Fathers, that are not falsified, are impertinent; which is such an extravagant Stretch against the most glaring Truth, that (to use the Bishop's[371]own Words against himself)it betrays a Mind lost to all Sense of Modesty and Religion, or he could not have utter'd it.
And not only the Miracles ofJesuswere Signs and Figures of future Events; but, according toOrigen,[372]every thing else that he did: From whence we may gather what wasOrigen's Meaning, when he said[373]Christ's firstAdvent in the Flesh is all Type and Shadow of hissecond, spiritual, and glorious Coming; which being anOpinionthat ourClergyare Strangers to, I desire them to consider of it, and whether there is any Possibility of Truth in it, because it is contrary to modern Conceptions aboutChrist's secondAdvent.
Nay further, according to the Fathers,[374]the very Life and Ministry ofJohntheBaptist, so far as it is recorded by theEvangelists, is Type and Figure of another's Ministry before Christ's spiritual Advent; and I am almost, if not altogether of the same Mind with them. It is beside my present Business, to insert here many of their Testimonies to this Purpose: But if theBishopofSt. David's would spare a little Time, which can't be better employ'd, and make a Collection of the Opinions of the Fathers about theBaptist's Ministry, and print it, I dare say he'll thereupon present the learned World with the most surprizing Curiosity they ever were entertain'd with. Tho' it is improper for me to do such a Work; yet I will here tell myReaderswhat will be the true Meaning ofJohn's Preaching Repentance, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand, when his Ministry revives,viz."It will be an Exhortation to Ministers of the Letter, μετανοειν, to reconsider the Matter and Error of their literal Expositions, and to betake themselves to spiritual and allegorical Interpretations of the Scriptures, in which allegorical and spiritual Senses of them consists theKingdom of Heaven." This I assert upon the Authority ofOrigen,[375]and if theClergyplease to consult St.Austinand others, they'll find them of the same Mind. But, this by the by, having no more to say to the Typicalness ofJohn's Ministry, than whenever his foresaid mystical Preaching of Repentance shall revive, it can hardly be to a more viperous Generation of EcclesiasticalScribesandPharisees, than are theMinistersof theLetterat this present.
But against all these, and Ten Thousand more Testimonies of the Fathers for the allegorical Interpretation of the Writings of theEvangelists, and ofJesus's Miracles in particular, theBishopofSt. David's says, the Fathers are not of good Authority in this Case, but, for all them, who were Men of whimsical and volatile Fancies, we ought to adhere to theLetterof the Story ofChrist's Life and Miracles. This theBishopasserts roundly and frequently in express or implicit Terms, as his Readers may observe; and I dare say, theBishophimself will not here charge me with a Misrepresentation of his Opinion,tho', to spare Time and Paper, I quote not his own Words and large Passages.
What Reason does theBishopgive, why the Authority of the Fathers for the allegorical Interpretation of the Evangelical Writings, and ofJesus's Miracles, in particular, is not to be allow'd of? None at all. Does he quote so much as a Canon of the Church, or a Vote in Convocation, or an Act of Parliament, or the consentient Opinion of all ProtestantWriters(which are the extrascriptural Standards of modern Orthodoxy) for his Opinion? No. Does he then reject the Authority of the Fathers in all other Cases, as well as inthisbefore us? Nor this neither. He allows their Authority,[376]as they were good Persons and credible Witnesses, "In Testimony ofFacts; "And about the Observation of the Lord's Day; "And concerning the three Orders of theClergy; "And about the Government of the Church by Bishops; "And about the Books received into the Canon of the Scripture;" But as for allegorical Interpretations of the Scriptures, they are oflittle, and (elsewhere) ofnoAuthority. Who can forbear smiling, unless theBishophad betterevincedthe Reason of this Difference in their Authority?If he had rejected their Authority in all Cases, he would have judged more equally and impartially of it.
In my Opinion, and I appeal to myReaders, whether it ben't their Opinion, that theBishophad been an ingenuous and plain Dealer, if he had express'd himself about the Authority of the Fathers in this following Manner, saying, "That the Authority of the Fathers is good insuchandsuchCases as aforesaid; because their Authority is agreeable enough to the present Doctrine, Practice and Discipline of the Church: But the Authority of the Fathers is not good for the allegorical Interpretation of theNew Testament, because it is disagreeable to our Prejudices, and because their allegorical Expositions of some Miracles, if they should receive such a Sense, will bring Shame and Reproach to our Ministry. Neither is the Authority of the Fathers for Toleration, and against Persecution, good; because it is destructive of Ecclesiastical Power. Nor is the copious Authority of the Fathers against Preaching for Hire, good; because it is averse to our Interests. Where the Authority of the Fathers is agreeable to our Interests, Power, and Prejudices, there will we be for the Authority ofthe Fathers: But where the Fathers are against us, there will we be against them; and why should we not?" This is the true Sense of theBishop, tho' he is so unhappy as to want the Talent clearly and plainly to express his Mind.
But, like many others, who can't write Coherence, nor consistently with themselves; so theBishop, for all his saying that the allegorical Interpretations of Scripture by the Fathers are of little or no Authority, yet almost, if not altogether, contradicts himself, and grants as much as I desire, saying[377]thus, "With relation to any Expositions of Scripture made by the Fathers in early Times, they must be allow'd to have hadsomeAdvantage in being near to the Fountain itself." I ask for nothing more from the Bishop. Why do I contend for the Authority of the Fathers as Interpreters and Expositors? Only because they lived nearer to the Days ofChristand his Apostles, whose Mind and Will consequently they must needs know better, than we at this Distance: And because (what theBishopelsewhere grants) those primitive Ages, as well as the Apostolical one, were in some measure inspired, upon the credibleTestimonies ofOrigen,Irenæus, andEusebius, whose Words I shall not stay here to produce.
Hence then, in the Authority of the Fathers, I should think, there is Foundation enough to build allegorical Interpretations on, and particularly to prove the literal Stories of Christ's Miracles to be Emblems of future and mysterious Operations; but all this will not do to pacify and stop the Mouths of my Gainsayers. This Controversy ispro Aris & Focis, for the ALL of the Clergy that is dear to them; and therefore they will shuffle and trifle for and against any Argument, rather than yield. Tho' theBishopofSt. David's above speaks favourably ofExpositions made by the Fathers in early Times, and may grant that the Church, in her first Ages was inspired, yet he will still wrangle against allegorical Interpretations, especially such as I have made on some Miracles; as for Instance, "OnJesus's driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple; "On his precipitating the Swine with the Devils into the Sea; "On his healing the Woman of an Issue of Blood; and the Woman of a Spirit of Infirmity,&c.because the Interests and Reputations of theClergy, asMinistersof theLetter, are touch'd to the quick by them. So trueis that Saying of theBishopofLondon, which deserves to be repeated, That "where there is an Unwillingness to part with Prejudices and worldly Interests, there must of Course be aDesirethat the Christian Religion (which consists in the Ministry of the Spirit) should not be true; and aWillingnessto favour and embrace any Argument that is brought against it, and to cherish any Doubts and Scruples that shall be rais'd concerning it.
What must I do here then, since no Authority, no, not the most primitive, will suffice in this Case? Why, I have nothing left to do, but absolutely to demonstrate, and make the Matter as plain as aPike-Staff, that the Miracles ofJesuswill certainly receive such a mysterious Accomplishment, as the Fathers and I have before-hand interpreted them in. Upon such a Demonstration, if the Mouths of my Adversaries are not stopt, yet the Eyes of all impartialReaderswill be open'd to behold what a Heap of Impertinence theBishopofSt. David's and others, have hitherto urg'd against me.
Now to demonstrate absolutely, that the Stories ofJesus's Miracles will receive such a mysterious Accomplishment, as I, by the Help of the Fathers, have understood them in, I must do thesetwothings.
First, show, that the Old Testament is to be allegorically interpreted, and is already in Part, and will be entirely fulfilled byJesus, the trueMessiah, in an allegorical Sense. And thence
Secondly, Infer by a natural, obvious, and necessary Consequence, that, what we vulgarly call the New Testament is to be allegorically interpreted also, even in the Manner as I have understood some Parts of it.
TheBishopofSt. David's allows, that there is better Authority, tho' not sufficient, for the Interpretation of theOld Testamentallegorically; but supposing it was better than it is, yet there is no Consequence that theNewshould be also allegorically interpreted. Behold his Words, for fear of a Charge of Misrepresentation[378]. "But besides this ill-founded Imitation of St.Paul(in allegorical Interpretations of theOldTestament) will his mystical Expositions of any Passages of the Old Testament support their Pretensions (meaning the Fathers and mine) to interpret theNewin a like mystical manner? No, it will not.——And therefore (after a little more Reasoning against this Consequence, he concludes,that) this Practice ofOrigenand other Fathers, that were mystical Expositors of theNew Testament, was very precarious, and without Authority." From which Words of theBishop, it is plain, that his Opinion is, that whatever Authority there may be for the allegorical Interpretation of theOldTestament, there is no Consequence to be thence drawn, that theNewis to be interpreted in a like mystical manner. But in Answer to theBishop, and in Confutation of his wild and inconsiderate Assertion, I chuse to treat on the two foregoing Particulars; and the
Firstis to show, that theOldTestament is to be allegorically interpreted, and is already in Part, and will be entirely fulfilled byJesusin an allegorical Sense.
That theOldTestament is to be allegorically interpreted, I have Authority, even ancient Authority enough, if that would be allow'd to be sufficient to prove my Point. We have Apostolical Authority and Example for it. The Passages in the Epistles of St.PaulandBarnabasto this Purpose are numerous, and so well known, that I need not recite all, or any of them. And from the Passages in St.Paul, that might be here produced, the Fathers asserted and concluded fromhis Authority, that the wholeOldTestament was to be allegorized. This I believe theBishopwill grant, and spare me the Pains of Citations out of them. And if theBishop, and my otherAdversaries, were of the same Mind with the Fathers, on St.Paul's Expressions in relation to allegorical Interpretations of theOldTestament, my present Dispute with them would be half over. And what is the Reason that theBishopand others will not give into the Opinion of the Fathers on the Apostolical Passages to this Purpose? Because of their Prejudices to theLetterof theOld Testament, otherwise they would urge St.Paul's Authority for theSpiritof it, as much as the Fathers or I can do. But being, I say, prepossess'd ofliteralInterpretations, and not discerning any Force and Truth inspiritualones, they will not allow the mystical Expositions of Scripture byOrigenand other Fathers, tho' made in Imitation of St.Paul, to be of good Authority. And therefore I must demonstrate to Sense and Reason, or Primitive and Apostolical Authority will stand me in no stead.
Again, If Authority for allegorical Interpretations of theOldTestament would avail any thing, there is ancienter, and I had like to have saidbetter, Authority forthem, thanthatof the Fathers and Apostles,viz.the Authority of the more ancientJews. The Bishop ofSt. David's[379]says, "The Christian Fathers (and why did he not say theApostlestoo?) derived this allegorical Practice from the Jewish Interpreters." He owns[380]"thatPhilo Judæuswas a great mystical Writer as his Works which are extant testify"; and[381]confesses that "there is Reason to believe, that this mystical Way of expounding Scripture was of greater Antiquity thanPhilohimself, even amongst theEssensandTherapeuts, whomPhilowrites of, and who had amongst them several ancient Books of their Predecessors or Founders, full of allegorical Interpretations." Thus far theBishopsays well and truly. And what Observation should he, as a Lover of Antiquity, have made hereupon? Should he not have said,Id verius, quod prius; the older any Doctrine was, the more likely to be true, in as much as Truth precedes Error?
But could not the Bishop have carry'd his Story of the allegorical Interpretation of theOld Testamentmuch higher? Yes,he might, and have told us what I do him now, that the LXX Interpreters wereAllegorists, as appears from the Translation itself, and from the Opinion of the ancient Jews and Fathers of the Church concerning them. And what's more still, he might, as a Christian, upon the Authority of St.Hilary[382]have derived the allegorical Art of Interpretation fromMoseshimself, who received it from God; and instructed theSeventy Eldersin it, from whom it continued thro' all Ages of the Jewish and Christian Churches, without Interruption, excepting that Opposition which the laterCaraitesof the Jews, andMinistersof theLetteramong Christians, have made to it. If this be true, as I firmly believe it, then the allegorical Method of Interpretation is of original and divine Right. And it is reasonable to think accordingly, that it is ofMosaicanddivineExtraction, or the ApostlesPaulandBarnabas, and the Fathers afterwards, had never been permitted of God to countenance a Practice, in Imitation of theJews, if it was of a base, or of any other thandivineOriginal. The Consequence is, thatwe at this Day ought to be allegorical Interpreters of theOld Testament, or we set ourselves against all Antiquity, and oppose a Tradition that's like a Command, derived fromMosesand God himself.
And what can theBishopof St.David's say to this Consequence? Why, he'll tell us, tho' the allegorical Method of Interpretation be as ancient as theTherapeutsand some of their Predecessors, yet, whatever theJewsand Fathers may say of its Antiquity, it came not from God andMoses, or he would subscribe to it; but took its Rise, some Ages after the Giving of the Law ofMoses, tho' he knows not how nor when. And I am willing theBishopshould please himself with such an Answer and Opinion, till I have absolutely demonstrated the Certainty of the allegorical Method, and thence made it manifest, that it is of Mosaick and divine Original.
As to that other Account[383]of the Original of mystical Interpretation of Scripture, or at least of the greater Progress and Improvement of it, which theBishopout ofPorphyrygives, by saying the Fathers learned it of the gentile Philosophers, itis the most senseless andunscholarlikeOpinion that a Christian can hold, and I was surprised to see it come from him. It is true that St.ClementofAlexandria,Origen, and others, were very conversant in the Writings of theGreekPhilosophers: And wherefore were they so? Was it to learn mystical Theology of them? No, but, as St.Jerom[384]says, to confirm the Doctrines of our Religion, and to confute theGentilesout of their own Books. For it was asserted by the Fathers, and confess'd by theGentilePhilosophers, that the Mythology of theGreeks, the hieroglyphical Learning of theEgyptiansand the Oneirocritism of theChaldæans, was all borrowed from theHebrews, and had their Rise from the mystical and allegorical Interpretation of the Scriptures, as shall be made manifest, if theBishopand I go on in this Controversy: Andthereforethe Fathers studied the Writings of theGreeks, and made the foresaid Use of them in the Conversion of theGentiles; which theBishopcan't but know, if he remembers at all, what he has read in St.ClementofAlexandria, and other Fathers. But this, by the by,with a Hint to theBishopto consider, whether he, who holds here withPorphyry, or I who hold with the Fathers, writes the most like anInfidel. So much then to the Accounts, which theBishopof St.David's has given, of the Origine of the mystical Interpretation of Scripture.
TheBishopofLitchfield, who is to be looked on as a Writer in this Controversy, has a largeChapteragainst the allegorical Way of Interpretation. I shall comprise his Opinion in a few Words out of him. He says,[385]he is not concerned to vindicate the Antiquity, ascribed byPhilo,to the allegoric Way of writing, much less the Abuse it was carry'd to in After-Ages; no, nor to defend, at all, this Manner of writing. And as to St.Paul's allegorizing the Scriptures, he says,[386]It seems to be in compliance with the Demand of the Jewish Christians, who were affected with allegoric Interpretations, that St.Paul (who appears to have been no Fool)above all the other Apostles used that Way, which he was brought into against his own good liking. And in another Place he says,[387]The Laws and Facts recorded byMoses,are commonly interpreted to natural, moral, theologicaland even anagogick Senses, which no one supposed to have been ever inMoses's Thoughts, or to be other than the Exercise of a subtle Wit, for the Instruction and Entertainment of the Hearers. Whether thisBishophad his Wits about him, when he said,No one supposed the anagogick Senses of the Law to have been ever inMoses's Thoughts, I can't tell; but if he had rubb'd up his Memory a little, he might have consider'd, what he says in another Place,[388]that the Anagogical was the accustomed Way of the whole Nation of theJewsfromMoses's Time; and he might have known what St.Hilary, whom I cited before, says, thatMosestaught the Children ofIsrælthe anagogical and allegorical Way; and whatever he may think,Origensays,[389]thatMosesby the Acuteness of his Understanding, penetrated into the mystical and anagogical Meaning of his own Law. And tho' thisBishopsays above, that he is not concern'd to vindicate the Antiquity of the allegorick Way of writing; yet I am oblig'd to vindicate its Antiquity and Truth, or I can't write a goodDefence ofChristianity, which should now bring me (to what I have undertaken) to make an absolute Demonstration of the Certainty of the allegorical Method of Interpretation, and ofJesus's Messiahship upon it.
But before I enter upon a close Proof of this grand Undertaking, I must beg leave to tell my Readers a Story, which tho' it will for while defer my undertaken Demonstration, yet it is properly introductory to it. I had not long drawn up my foregoing Thoughts, (against the two Bishops, ofLitchfieldand St.David's) of the Jewish and Christian Antiquity of the allegorical Method of Interpretation of Scripture, before I imparted them to my old Friend theJewish Rabbi, who is a Cabalist and Allegorist, and desired his Sentiments upon them. Whereupon he was so kind as to send me the following Letter, with a pertinent Objection in it, against the Messiahship of theJesusof ourMinistersof theLetter; with a pertinent, I say, and lucky Objection, which paves the Way for my Demonstration of the Certainty of the allegorical Way of Interpretation, and of the Messiahship of theJesusof usMinistersof theSpirit; and if I can but prevail upon the two forenamedBishops, to give me their Assistance in answering the said Objection, by humouringmy Rabbi in it; we shall go a better Step, than has been hitherto taken, for the Conversion of theJews: And this is Encouragement enough to such hearty Friends to Christianity as we are, to set about so great and glorious a Work. The Letter is as follows.
SIR,After condoling with you for the extraordinary Penalty that was laid on you for my Invective againstJesus's Miracle ofturning Water into Wine, which, in my Opinion, you should not have been so heavily charg'd with, because it was purelyCabalistical, and contains in it nothing better or worse than the Conceptions that weJewsentertain ofJesusand his Miracles; I here send you my Thoughts on the short Account you have given of the Antiquity of the allegorical Method of the Interpretation of Scripture.You and the Fathers of your Church are certainly in the right on't, to make it as old asMoses, agreeably to the Opinion, that we cabalisticalJews[390]at this Day entertain of it. If it was oflater Date and original, your Adversaries are oblig'd to assign the Timewhen, and the Occasionhow, such a surprising and extraordinary Method of Interpretation was introduced into the Jewish Nation. If our Ancestors in the Days of God's inspired Prophet,Moses, heard of none but literal Senses of the Law, and if neither he nor God himself ever intended they should run into the allegorical Strain, I ask when and what wasthat Incidentwhich turn'd the Heads of our ancient Nation so religiously and devoutly to it? I can easily conceive how it came to pass, that the Sect of theCaraitesamongst usJews, who now adhere to the Letter, deserted mystical Interpretations; and why yourMinistersof theLetterhave forsaken them; and that was because they don't relish nor apprehend those divine Mysteries, whichyourandourancient Allegorists so much talk'd of, as veil'd and latent under the Law ofMoses. But if this be a good Reason, why they have forsaken the allegorical Method, it is a much better Reason, why our Ancestors, of themselves should never have taken it up. And therefore it is plain to me, that God andMosesupon the Institution of the Law, at the same Time imparted the allegorical Method; or it could neverafterwards,by chance, have enter'd into the Heads of Men, who have hitherto discern'd so little Use and Fruits of it.The Reason why God byMosescommunicated to theIsraelites, and by his Providence since has kept up the allegorical Way of Interpretation of the Scriptures, was to prepare the World for the Reception of theMessiah, who was to be the Accomplisher of them in an allegorical Sense; and our Ancestors accordingly so much excercised their Thoughts in divine and mystical Contemplations on the Law; because, they fancied, they could thereby, as througha Glass darkly, attain to some glimmering Foresight of the Kingdom of theMessiah: For you must know, that our old Cabalists[391]held (what yourJesusundertook to fulfil) that all Things that were written in the Law and the Prophets, were,to a Tittle, Type and Prophecy of theMessiah, who would be so far the clear Fulfiller and Illustrater of them, as that Men would then see GodFace to Face: And, to be particular, they expected, in the first Place, that theMessiahwould work the Redemption of his Church after the same manner, and by the like Signs and Wonders thatMoseswrought the Deliverance of theIsraelitesout ofEgypt.Agreeable to these our old Opinions of the Scripture, and to our Expectations of aMessiah, did the Fathers of your Church endeavour to proveJesus's Messiahship, by an allegorical Explication and Application of the Law and the Prophets to him: But in as much as they labour'd in vain, proving little or nothing, this Way, to the Satisfaction of our oldJews; and in as much as your Priesthood have altogether given over this Way of Proof; we persist in our Disbelief ofJesus's Messiahship, and expect another for the foresaid grand Purposes. Give me Leave here to make an Objection, founded on the concurrent and consentient Opinions ofyourFathers andourAncestors, against the Messiahship ofJesus, which if your Priests can answer, agreeably to their united Opinions, they will not only make a Convert of me, but open a Door for the Conversion of our whole Nation."It is agreed between us Jews, and you Christians (excepting two or three modern Commentators) that the Words ofDeuteronomy, xviii. 18.I will raise them up a Prophet from among their Brethren like unto thee, are a Prophecy of the Messiah. From which Prophecy ourAncestors[392]look'd uponMosesas a Type of the Messiah,in all Things, and expected that theMessiahat his coming would by way of Antitype, imitate and resembleMosesin all the History of his Life, just as Face answereth to Face in a Glass, or as a Substance agrees to its Shadow. And I am well assured that the Fathers of your Church accordingly held and believed, what they endeavoured to prove, that there was an exact Similitude betweenJesusin the Christian Church, andMosesin the Jewish. Now if your Priesthood can perfect that Proof, and show me, either in a literal or allegorical Sense, an exact Resemblance, Correspondence, and Likeness between them, I must of Necessity turn Christian. It may be perhaps a Work of too large an Extent for them to shew this Agreement betweenJesusandMosesin all and every Particular; I will be content therefore, if they can shew me a Similitude between them in a small Part ofMoses's Life; as for Instance, in the History ofMoses's delivering theIsraelitesout ofEgypt. Itwas most expressly the Opinion of our Ancestors, that the Messiah would deliver his People from Bondage, and, if I forget not, fromRomanBondage, after the Manner, and by the like Wonders, thatMosesdelivered his People fromEgyptian.Jerom,[393]a Father of your Church has recordedthisas the universal Opinion of our Ancestors, and therefore you have the less Reason to question it. And agreeably to this Opinion of our Ancestors, the Fathers of your Church asserted, thatChristwas such aMessiah, and did deliver his Church fromRomanServitude, after the same Manner (in a Figure) thatMosesdelivered hisIsraelitesout ofEgypt. Nay, your ApostlePaul[394]seems to assert it, saying,Brethren, I would not, that ye should be ignorant, how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud, and all passed through the Sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. Now these things were our Examples or Types.In whichWordsPaulapparently alludes to, and confirms the Opinion of our Ancestors, which he had imbibed before his Conversion; and intimates thatJesus, whom he took for theMessiah, was working a Redemption of his Church after the Manner of the Deliverance of theIsraelitesout ofEgypt. And so did your Fathers understand these Words ofPaul, and accordingly many of them labour'd to shew the Similitude between theIsraelitishandChristianRedemption, in order to the Conversion of theJews. But they, it seems, labour'd in vain, shewing no tolerable nor visible Likeness of this sort betweenJesusandMoses; and therefore our Nation to this Day continues in Disbelief ofJesus's Messiahship. However, we have not so pertinaciously rejectedJesus's Messiahship, as not to give you Leave to resume the old Argument of it, from his Likeness toMosesin all things. If yourPriestscan now show a Likeness between them; if they can at this Day prove thatJesuswrought the like Miracles and Wonders (tho' in a figurative and allegorical Sense) for the Redemption of his Church fromRomanServitude, asMosesdid for the Deliverance ofIsraelitesout ofEgypt, wewill grant him to be theMessiah, and will believe in him. But as we despair of such a Proof, so we reasonably persist in our Disbelief of his Messiahship. YourDivinesindeed, because of the foresaid Prophecy inDeuteronomy, do talk of a Likeness betweenMosesandJesus; but it is not at all agreeable to the Sentiments ofyourFathers, or the Expectations ofourAncestors concerning theMessiah's Similitude toMoses. They tell us, thatJesusandMoseswere alike, because both wrought Miracles; but this will not do, till they prove a Likeness between their Miracles, as to Number, Nature, Use and Circumstance. The Miracles that theMessiahis to work, and which are to prove his Messiahship, must be of a similar Nature, and to the like Purpose thatMoses's were inEgypt, asourAncestors asserted, andyourFathers granted: But since no such Similitude is shown to be between them, we disownJesus's Messiahship, and appeal to the Reason and Understanding of all indifferent Judges in the Controversy, whether we are not in the right on't for so doing."Thus, Sir, for the Use of yourClergy, have I form'd an Objection againstJesus's Messiahship, an Objection that is foundedon the concurrent Opinions ofourAncestors and ofyourFathers: And I shall with some Longings and Impatience wait till I hear what they have to say to it. The Objection, in my Opinion, absolutely destroysJesus's Pretences to the Messiahship, unless hisPriests, by way of Answer to it, can prove the foresaid Similitude between him andMoses; between the Miracles of the One and the Miracles of the Other; between the Deliverance of theJewishand the Redemption of theChristianChurch, out of anEgypt.I am thinking what yourClergycan say to the Objection. Will they deny, that it was the Opinion of bothyourFathers and ofourAncestors, that there ought to be such a Similitude between theMessiahandMoses, as is before describ'd? That they can't do, because of the innumerable Testimonies to be produced out of them to confirm it. Will they then say, that it was a false and erroneous Opinion, which both ancient Jews and Fathers entertain'd concerning theMessiah? This surely they will not do; because of the Consequence, which charges the ApostlePaulhimself (in the above-cited Place) and the primitive Christians, with the grossest Error and Mistake concerningJesusand his Messiahship; and yet I can't think they will ever give into the joint Opinion aforesaid of bothJewsand Fathers; because of the Impossibility of provingJesusto be likeMoses in all Things, according to the literal Sense of the Law, which they adhere to; and because of the Improbability of doing it, in an allegorical Sense, after the Way of their Fathers, or, in all this Time surely, the Matter must have been made out, to the Satisfaction and Conversion of our Nation.I long, I tell you, to hear what your ChristianPriesthoodwill say to the Objection, which surely they will not let slip, without their Remarks and Observations upon it, any more than my Objections against the literal Story of some ofJesus's Miracles. And this is your and my Comfort, that if you publish this present Objection againstJesus's Messiahship, theClergycan't account it a ludicrous, profane, and blasphemous one (as they did my others) and so bring you again under Prosecution for it: No, it is a plain, serious, and reasonable Objection, founded on ancient Jewish and Ecclesiastical Authority; and a pertinent, solid, and rational Answer is expected to it.Now the Controversy aboutJesus's Messiahship is thus far revived and commenced,let us, in God's Name, go on with it, till we come to a final Determination, either in the Demonstration, or Confutation of it. YourClergy, can't, I think, for Shame, any more interrupt the free Course of the Controversy, which will make us Jews secretly insult and triumph over them; and not only confirm us in our Unbelief ofJesus's Messiahship, but will occasion others to desert their Faith in him.It's a strange thing to consider how your Priesthood have, in these latter Ages, managed the Controversy between Jews and Christians, all by themselves, furiously disputing against Adversaries, whom they will not allow with Impunity to speak in their own Cause: So do they make God, who is to decide the Controversy, like an unjust and partial Judge, that will hear only the Pleadings and Evidence on one Side of the Question.But yourClergywill say, that in their Writings against the Jews, they make Objections for us as well as Answers for themselves, and that's sufficient. Not so, say I, unless their Objections were as good and strong as we can make for our selves. But however, if yourDivinesso please, I will thus agree the Matter with them,viz.That they alone shall makeObjections for us, if they'll let us alone to make Answers for them, which is most just and equal; and then the World shall behold the most pleasant and comicalFarceof a Controversy, they ever were entertain'd with.I remember, that in my Letter, you published, againstJesus's Resurrection, I promised the Controversy between theJewsandChristians, by my Consent, should turn on that Miracle. YourClergy, one or other of them, have answer'd thatLetter; and so might expect to hear of my Conversion, if I had nothing to reply to them. My Reply you durst not publish, for fear of worldly Tribulation, and so I am free from that Promise. But now that you have fortunately given me an Occasion to make the more proper and substantial Objection againstJesus's Messiahship, herein contain'd, I hope it will be freely and fully debated and consider'd to the Determination of the Controversy between us. So wishing you Health and Happiness, I amYours,N. N.
SIR,
After condoling with you for the extraordinary Penalty that was laid on you for my Invective againstJesus's Miracle ofturning Water into Wine, which, in my Opinion, you should not have been so heavily charg'd with, because it was purelyCabalistical, and contains in it nothing better or worse than the Conceptions that weJewsentertain ofJesusand his Miracles; I here send you my Thoughts on the short Account you have given of the Antiquity of the allegorical Method of the Interpretation of Scripture.
You and the Fathers of your Church are certainly in the right on't, to make it as old asMoses, agreeably to the Opinion, that we cabalisticalJews[390]at this Day entertain of it. If it was oflater Date and original, your Adversaries are oblig'd to assign the Timewhen, and the Occasionhow, such a surprising and extraordinary Method of Interpretation was introduced into the Jewish Nation. If our Ancestors in the Days of God's inspired Prophet,Moses, heard of none but literal Senses of the Law, and if neither he nor God himself ever intended they should run into the allegorical Strain, I ask when and what wasthat Incidentwhich turn'd the Heads of our ancient Nation so religiously and devoutly to it? I can easily conceive how it came to pass, that the Sect of theCaraitesamongst usJews, who now adhere to the Letter, deserted mystical Interpretations; and why yourMinistersof theLetterhave forsaken them; and that was because they don't relish nor apprehend those divine Mysteries, whichyourandourancient Allegorists so much talk'd of, as veil'd and latent under the Law ofMoses. But if this be a good Reason, why they have forsaken the allegorical Method, it is a much better Reason, why our Ancestors, of themselves should never have taken it up. And therefore it is plain to me, that God andMosesupon the Institution of the Law, at the same Time imparted the allegorical Method; or it could neverafterwards,by chance, have enter'd into the Heads of Men, who have hitherto discern'd so little Use and Fruits of it.
The Reason why God byMosescommunicated to theIsraelites, and by his Providence since has kept up the allegorical Way of Interpretation of the Scriptures, was to prepare the World for the Reception of theMessiah, who was to be the Accomplisher of them in an allegorical Sense; and our Ancestors accordingly so much excercised their Thoughts in divine and mystical Contemplations on the Law; because, they fancied, they could thereby, as througha Glass darkly, attain to some glimmering Foresight of the Kingdom of theMessiah: For you must know, that our old Cabalists[391]held (what yourJesusundertook to fulfil) that all Things that were written in the Law and the Prophets, were,to a Tittle, Type and Prophecy of theMessiah, who would be so far the clear Fulfiller and Illustrater of them, as that Men would then see GodFace to Face: And, to be particular, they expected, in the first Place, that theMessiahwould work the Redemption of his Church after the same manner, and by the like Signs and Wonders thatMoseswrought the Deliverance of theIsraelitesout ofEgypt.
Agreeable to these our old Opinions of the Scripture, and to our Expectations of aMessiah, did the Fathers of your Church endeavour to proveJesus's Messiahship, by an allegorical Explication and Application of the Law and the Prophets to him: But in as much as they labour'd in vain, proving little or nothing, this Way, to the Satisfaction of our oldJews; and in as much as your Priesthood have altogether given over this Way of Proof; we persist in our Disbelief ofJesus's Messiahship, and expect another for the foresaid grand Purposes. Give me Leave here to make an Objection, founded on the concurrent and consentient Opinions ofyourFathers andourAncestors, against the Messiahship ofJesus, which if your Priests can answer, agreeably to their united Opinions, they will not only make a Convert of me, but open a Door for the Conversion of our whole Nation.
"It is agreed between us Jews, and you Christians (excepting two or three modern Commentators) that the Words ofDeuteronomy, xviii. 18.I will raise them up a Prophet from among their Brethren like unto thee, are a Prophecy of the Messiah. From which Prophecy ourAncestors[392]look'd uponMosesas a Type of the Messiah,in all Things, and expected that theMessiahat his coming would by way of Antitype, imitate and resembleMosesin all the History of his Life, just as Face answereth to Face in a Glass, or as a Substance agrees to its Shadow. And I am well assured that the Fathers of your Church accordingly held and believed, what they endeavoured to prove, that there was an exact Similitude betweenJesusin the Christian Church, andMosesin the Jewish. Now if your Priesthood can perfect that Proof, and show me, either in a literal or allegorical Sense, an exact Resemblance, Correspondence, and Likeness between them, I must of Necessity turn Christian. It may be perhaps a Work of too large an Extent for them to shew this Agreement betweenJesusandMosesin all and every Particular; I will be content therefore, if they can shew me a Similitude between them in a small Part ofMoses's Life; as for Instance, in the History ofMoses's delivering theIsraelitesout ofEgypt. Itwas most expressly the Opinion of our Ancestors, that the Messiah would deliver his People from Bondage, and, if I forget not, fromRomanBondage, after the Manner, and by the like Wonders, thatMosesdelivered his People fromEgyptian.Jerom,[393]a Father of your Church has recordedthisas the universal Opinion of our Ancestors, and therefore you have the less Reason to question it. And agreeably to this Opinion of our Ancestors, the Fathers of your Church asserted, thatChristwas such aMessiah, and did deliver his Church fromRomanServitude, after the same Manner (in a Figure) thatMosesdelivered hisIsraelitesout ofEgypt. Nay, your ApostlePaul[394]seems to assert it, saying,Brethren, I would not, that ye should be ignorant, how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud, and all passed through the Sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. Now these things were our Examples or Types.In whichWordsPaulapparently alludes to, and confirms the Opinion of our Ancestors, which he had imbibed before his Conversion; and intimates thatJesus, whom he took for theMessiah, was working a Redemption of his Church after the Manner of the Deliverance of theIsraelitesout ofEgypt. And so did your Fathers understand these Words ofPaul, and accordingly many of them labour'd to shew the Similitude between theIsraelitishandChristianRedemption, in order to the Conversion of theJews. But they, it seems, labour'd in vain, shewing no tolerable nor visible Likeness of this sort betweenJesusandMoses; and therefore our Nation to this Day continues in Disbelief ofJesus's Messiahship. However, we have not so pertinaciously rejectedJesus's Messiahship, as not to give you Leave to resume the old Argument of it, from his Likeness toMosesin all things. If yourPriestscan now show a Likeness between them; if they can at this Day prove thatJesuswrought the like Miracles and Wonders (tho' in a figurative and allegorical Sense) for the Redemption of his Church fromRomanServitude, asMosesdid for the Deliverance ofIsraelitesout ofEgypt, wewill grant him to be theMessiah, and will believe in him. But as we despair of such a Proof, so we reasonably persist in our Disbelief of his Messiahship. YourDivinesindeed, because of the foresaid Prophecy inDeuteronomy, do talk of a Likeness betweenMosesandJesus; but it is not at all agreeable to the Sentiments ofyourFathers, or the Expectations ofourAncestors concerning theMessiah's Similitude toMoses. They tell us, thatJesusandMoseswere alike, because both wrought Miracles; but this will not do, till they prove a Likeness between their Miracles, as to Number, Nature, Use and Circumstance. The Miracles that theMessiahis to work, and which are to prove his Messiahship, must be of a similar Nature, and to the like Purpose thatMoses's were inEgypt, asourAncestors asserted, andyourFathers granted: But since no such Similitude is shown to be between them, we disownJesus's Messiahship, and appeal to the Reason and Understanding of all indifferent Judges in the Controversy, whether we are not in the right on't for so doing."
Thus, Sir, for the Use of yourClergy, have I form'd an Objection againstJesus's Messiahship, an Objection that is foundedon the concurrent Opinions ofourAncestors and ofyourFathers: And I shall with some Longings and Impatience wait till I hear what they have to say to it. The Objection, in my Opinion, absolutely destroysJesus's Pretences to the Messiahship, unless hisPriests, by way of Answer to it, can prove the foresaid Similitude between him andMoses; between the Miracles of the One and the Miracles of the Other; between the Deliverance of theJewishand the Redemption of theChristianChurch, out of anEgypt.
I am thinking what yourClergycan say to the Objection. Will they deny, that it was the Opinion of bothyourFathers and ofourAncestors, that there ought to be such a Similitude between theMessiahandMoses, as is before describ'd? That they can't do, because of the innumerable Testimonies to be produced out of them to confirm it. Will they then say, that it was a false and erroneous Opinion, which both ancient Jews and Fathers entertain'd concerning theMessiah? This surely they will not do; because of the Consequence, which charges the ApostlePaulhimself (in the above-cited Place) and the primitive Christians, with the grossest Error and Mistake concerningJesusand his Messiahship; and yet I can't think they will ever give into the joint Opinion aforesaid of bothJewsand Fathers; because of the Impossibility of provingJesusto be likeMoses in all Things, according to the literal Sense of the Law, which they adhere to; and because of the Improbability of doing it, in an allegorical Sense, after the Way of their Fathers, or, in all this Time surely, the Matter must have been made out, to the Satisfaction and Conversion of our Nation.
I long, I tell you, to hear what your ChristianPriesthoodwill say to the Objection, which surely they will not let slip, without their Remarks and Observations upon it, any more than my Objections against the literal Story of some ofJesus's Miracles. And this is your and my Comfort, that if you publish this present Objection againstJesus's Messiahship, theClergycan't account it a ludicrous, profane, and blasphemous one (as they did my others) and so bring you again under Prosecution for it: No, it is a plain, serious, and reasonable Objection, founded on ancient Jewish and Ecclesiastical Authority; and a pertinent, solid, and rational Answer is expected to it.
Now the Controversy aboutJesus's Messiahship is thus far revived and commenced,let us, in God's Name, go on with it, till we come to a final Determination, either in the Demonstration, or Confutation of it. YourClergy, can't, I think, for Shame, any more interrupt the free Course of the Controversy, which will make us Jews secretly insult and triumph over them; and not only confirm us in our Unbelief ofJesus's Messiahship, but will occasion others to desert their Faith in him.
It's a strange thing to consider how your Priesthood have, in these latter Ages, managed the Controversy between Jews and Christians, all by themselves, furiously disputing against Adversaries, whom they will not allow with Impunity to speak in their own Cause: So do they make God, who is to decide the Controversy, like an unjust and partial Judge, that will hear only the Pleadings and Evidence on one Side of the Question.
But yourClergywill say, that in their Writings against the Jews, they make Objections for us as well as Answers for themselves, and that's sufficient. Not so, say I, unless their Objections were as good and strong as we can make for our selves. But however, if yourDivinesso please, I will thus agree the Matter with them,viz.That they alone shall makeObjections for us, if they'll let us alone to make Answers for them, which is most just and equal; and then the World shall behold the most pleasant and comicalFarceof a Controversy, they ever were entertain'd with.
I remember, that in my Letter, you published, againstJesus's Resurrection, I promised the Controversy between theJewsandChristians, by my Consent, should turn on that Miracle. YourClergy, one or other of them, have answer'd thatLetter; and so might expect to hear of my Conversion, if I had nothing to reply to them. My Reply you durst not publish, for fear of worldly Tribulation, and so I am free from that Promise. But now that you have fortunately given me an Occasion to make the more proper and substantial Objection againstJesus's Messiahship, herein contain'd, I hope it will be freely and fully debated and consider'd to the Determination of the Controversy between us. So wishing you Health and Happiness, I amYours,
N. N.
So ends the Letter of my good old Friend, the JewishRabbi, which was a most seasonable and acceptable Present, in as much as the Objection, contain'd init, will open a fair Way for me to prove, that the Stories ofJesus's Miracles, as recorded in the Evangelists, are and ought to be allegorically understood, and will certainly receive such a mystical Accomplishment, as I, by the Help of the Fathers, have conceived of them. TheBishopofSt. David's, and my other Adversaries, may not, in all Probability, be aware of this Use to be made of the foresaid Objection; and I don't expect that on a sudden they should; but if they'll favour me with, what otherwise I'll endeavour to force them to, their Opinion and Debates about the foresaid Objection againstJesus's Messiahship, they shall soon discern this Use and Consequence of it, thatJesus's Miracles are notliterallybutallegoricallyto be understood, and will accordingly receive an Accomplishment.