Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour Part 29

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 Protestant _Writers_ (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 in _this_ before us? Nor this neither. He allows their Authority,[376] as they were good Persons and credible Witnesses, "In Testimony of _Facts_; "And about the Observation of the Lord's Day; "And concerning the three Orders of the _Clergy_; "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 of _little_, and (elsewhere) of _no_ Authority. Who can forbear smiling, unless the _Bishop_ had better _evinced_ the 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 my _Readers_, whether it ben't their Opinion, that the _Bishop_ had 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 in _such_ and _such_ Cases 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 the _New 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 of the 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 the _Bishop_, 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 the _Bishop_, 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 had _some_ Advantage 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 of _Christ_ and his Apostles, whose Mind and Will consequently they must needs know better, than we at this Distance: And because (what the _Bishop_ elsewhere grants) those primitive Ages, as well as the Apostolical one, were in some measure inspired, upon the credible Testimonies of _Origen_, _Irenaeus_, and _Eusebius_, 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 is _pro 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' the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s above speaks favourably of _Expositions 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, "On _Jesus_'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 the _Clergy_, as _Ministers_ of the _Letter_, are touch'd to the quick by them. So true is that Saying of the _Bishop_ of _London_, which deserves to be repeated, That "where there is an Unwillingness to part with Prejudices and worldly Interests, there must of Course be a _Desire_ that the Christian Religion (_which consists in the Ministry of the Spirit_) should not be true; and a _Willingness_ to 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 a _Pike-Staff_, that the Miracles of _Jesus_ will 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 impartial _Readers_ will be open'd to behold what a Heap of Impertinence the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s and others, have hitherto urg'd against me.

Now to demonstrate absolutely, that the Stories of _Jesus_'s Miracles will receive such a mysterious Accomplishment, as I, by the Help of the Fathers, have understood them in, I must do these _two_ things.

_First_, show, that the Old Testament is to be allegorically interpreted, and is already in Part, and will be entirely fulfilled by _Jesus_, the true _Messiah_, 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.

The _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s allows, that there is better Authority, tho' not sufficient, for the Interpretation of the _Old Testament_ allegorically; but supposing it was better than it is, yet there is no Consequence that the _New_ should 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 the _Old_ Testament) will his mystical Expositions of any Pa.s.sages of the Old Testament support their Pretensions (meaning the Fathers and mine) to interpret the _New_ in a like mystical manner? No, it will not.----And therefore (_after a little more Reasoning against this Consequence, he concludes, that_) this Practice of _Origen_ and other Fathers, that were mystical Expositors of the _New Testament_, was very precarious, and without Authority." From which Words of the _Bishop_, it is plain, that his Opinion is, that whatever Authority there may be for the allegorical Interpretation of the _Old_ Testament, there is no Consequence to be thence drawn, that the _New_ is to be interpreted in a like mystical manner. But in Answer to the _Bishop_, and in Confutation of his wild and inconsiderate a.s.sertion, I chuse to treat on the two foregoing Particulars; and the

_First_ is to show, that the _Old_ Testament is to be allegorically interpreted, and is already in Part, and will be entirely fulfilled by _Jesus_ in an allegorical Sense.

That the _Old_ Testament 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 Pa.s.sages in the Epistles of St. _Paul_ and _Barnabas_ to this Purpose are numerous, and so well known, that I need not recite all, or any of them. And from the Pa.s.sages in St. _Paul_, that might be here produced, the Fathers a.s.serted and concluded from his Authority, that the whole _Old_ Testament was to be allegorized. This I believe the _Bishop_ will grant, and spare me the Pains of Citations out of them.

And if the _Bishop_, and my other _Adversaries_, were of the same Mind with the Fathers, on St. _Paul_'s Expressions in relation to allegorical Interpretations of the _Old_ Testament, my present Dispute with them would be half over. And what is the Reason that the _Bishop_ and others will not give into the Opinion of the Fathers on the Apostolical Pa.s.sages to this Purpose? Because of their Prejudices to the _Letter_ of the _Old Testament_, otherwise they would urge St. _Paul_'s Authority for the _Spirit_ of it, as much as the Fathers or I can do. But being, I say, prepossess'd of _literal_ Interpretations, and not discerning any Force and Truth in _spiritual_ ones, they will not allow the mystical Expositions of Scripture by _Origen_ and 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 the _Old_ Testament would avail any thing, there is ancienter, and I had like to have said _better_, Authority for them, than _that_ of the Fathers and Apostles, _viz._ the Authority of the more ancient _Jews_. The Bishop of _St. David_'s[379] says, "The Christian Fathers (and why did he not say the _Apostles_ too?) derived this allegorical Practice from the Jewish Interpreters." He owns[380] "that _Philo Judaeus_ was 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 than _Philo_ himself, even amongst the _Essens_ and _Therapeuts_, whom _Philo_ writes of, and who had amongst them several ancient Books of their Predecessors or Founders, full of allegorical Interpretations." Thus far the _Bishop_ says 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 the _Old Testament_ much higher? Yes, he might, and have told us what I do him now, that the LXX Interpreters were _Allegorists_, 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 from _Moses_ himself, who received it from G.o.d; and instructed the _Seventy Elders_ in it, from whom it continued thro' all Ages of the Jewish and Christian Churches, without Interruption, excepting that Opposition which the later _Caraites_ of the Jews, and _Ministers_ of the _Letter_ among 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 of _Mosaic_ and _divine_ Extraction, or the Apostles _Paul_ and _Barnabas_, and the Fathers afterwards, had never been permitted of G.o.d to countenance a Practice, in Imitation of the _Jews_, if it was of a base, or of any other than _divine_ Original. The Consequence is, that we at this Day ought to be allegorical Interpreters of the _Old Testament_, or we set ourselves against all Antiquity, and oppose a Tradition that's like a Command, derived from _Moses_ and G.o.d himself.

And what can the _Bishop_ of St. _David_'s say to this Consequence?

Why, he'll tell us, tho' the allegorical Method of Interpretation be as ancient as the _Therapeuts_ and some of their Predecessors, yet, whatever the _Jews_ and Fathers may say of its Antiquity, it came not from G.o.d and _Moses_, or he would subscribe to it; but took its Rise, some Ages after the Giving of the Law of _Moses_, tho' he knows not how nor when. And I am willing the _Bishop_ should 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 the _Bishop_ out of _Porphyry_ gives, by saying the Fathers learned it of the gentile Philosophers, it is the most senseless and _unscholarlike_ Opinion that a Christian can hold, and I was surprised to see it come from him. It is true that St. _Clement_ of _Alexandria_, _Origen_, and others, were very conversant in the Writings of the _Greek_ Philosophers: 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 the _Gentiles_ out of their own Books. For it was a.s.serted by the Fathers, and confess'd by the _Gentile_ Philosophers, that the Mythology of the _Greeks_, the hieroglyphical Learning of the _Egyptians_ and the Oneirocritism of the _Chaldaeans_, was all borrowed from the _Hebrews_, and had their Rise from the mystical and allegorical Interpretation of the Scriptures, as shall be made manifest, if the _Bishop_ and I go on in this Controversy: And _therefore_ the Fathers studied the Writings of the _Greeks_, and made the foresaid Use of them in the Conversion of the _Gentiles_; which the _Bishop_ can't but know, if he remembers at all, what he has read in St. _Clement_ of _Alexandria_, and other Fathers. But this, by the by, with a Hint to the _Bishop_ to consider, whether he, who holds here with _Porphyry_, or I who hold with the Fathers, writes the most like an _Infidel_. So much then to the Accounts, which the _Bishop_ of St.

_David_'s has given, of the Origine of the mystical Interpretation of Scripture.

The _Bishop_ of _Litchfield_, who is to be looked on as a Writer in this Controversy, has a large _Chapter_ against 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 by_ Philo, _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 by_ Moses, _are commonly interpreted to natural, moral, theological and even anagogick Senses, which no one supposed to have been ever in_ Moses_'s Thoughts, or to be other than the Exercise of a subtle Wit, for the Instruction and Entertainment of the Hearers_. Whether this _Bishop_ had his Wits about him, when he said, _No one supposed the anagogick Senses of the Law to have been ever in_ Moses_'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 the _Jews_ from _Moses_'s Time; and he might have known what St. _Hilary_, whom I cited before, says, that _Moses_ taught the Children of _Israel_ the anagogical and allegorical Way; and whatever he may think, _Origen_ says,[389] that _Moses_ by the Acuteness of his Understanding, penetrated into the mystical and anagogical Meaning of his own Law. And tho' this _Bishop_ says 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 good _Defence of Christianity_, 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 of _Jesus_'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, of _Litchfield_ and 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 the _Jewish 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 the _Jesus_ of our _Ministers_ of the _Letter_; 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 the _Jesus_ of us _Ministers_ of the _Spirit_; and if I can but prevail upon the two forenamed _Bishops_, to give me their a.s.sistance in answering the said Objection, by humouring my Rabbi in it; we shall go a better Step, than has been hitherto taken, for the Conversion of the _Jews_: 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 against _Jesus_'s Miracle of _turning Water into Wine_, which, in my Opinion, you should not have been so heavily charg'd with, because it was purely _Cabalistical_, and contains in it nothing better or worse than the Conceptions that we _Jews_ entertain of _Jesus_ and 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 as _Moses_, agreeably to the Opinion, that we cabalistical _Jews_[390] at this Day entertain of it. If it was of later Date and original, your Adversaries are oblig'd to a.s.sign the Time _when_, and the Occasion _how_, such a surprising and extraordinary Method of Interpretation was introduced into the Jewish Nation. If our Ancestors in the Days of G.o.d's inspired Prophet, _Moses_, heard of none but literal Senses of the Law, and if neither he nor G.o.d himself ever intended they should run into the allegorical Strain, I ask when and what was _that Incident_ which turn'd the Heads of our ancient Nation so religiously and devoutly to it? I can easily conceive how it came to pa.s.s, that the Sect of the _Caraites_ amongst us _Jews_, who now adhere to the Letter, deserted mystical Interpretations; and why your _Ministers_ of the _Letter_ have forsaken them; and that was because they don't relish nor apprehend those divine Mysteries, which _your_ and _our_ ancient Allegorists so much talk'd of, as veil'd and latent under the Law of _Moses_. 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 G.o.d and _Moses_ upon the Inst.i.tution of the Law, at the same Time imparted the allegorical Method; or it could never afterwards, _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 G.o.d by _Moses_ communicated to the _Israelites_, 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 the _Messiah_, 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 through _a Gla.s.s darkly_, attain to some glimmering Foresight of the Kingdom of the _Messiah_: For you must know, that our old Cabalists[391]

held (what your _Jesus_ undertook to fulfil) that all Things that were written in the Law and the Prophets, were, _to a t.i.ttle_, Type and Prophecy of the _Messiah_, who would be so far the clear Fulfiller and Ill.u.s.trater of them, as that Men would then see G.o.d _Face to Face_: And, to be particular, they expected, in the first Place, that the _Messiah_ would work the Redemption of his Church after the same manner, and by the like Signs and Wonders that _Moses_ wrought the Deliverance of the _Israelites_ out of _Egypt_.

Agreeable to these our old Opinions of the Scripture, and to our Expectations of a _Messiah_, did the Fathers of your Church endeavour to prove _Jesus_'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 old _Jews_; and in as much as your Priesthood have altogether given over this Way of Proof; we persist in our Disbelief of _Jesus_'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 of _your_ Fathers and _our_ Ancestors, against the Messiahship of _Jesus_, 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 of _Deuteronomy_, 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 our Ancestors[392] look'd upon _Moses_ as a Type of the Messiah, _in all Things_, and expected that the _Messiah_ at his coming would by way of Ant.i.type, imitate and resemble _Moses_ in all the History of his Life, just as Face answereth to Face in a Gla.s.s, or as a Substance agrees to its Shadow. And I am well a.s.sured that the Fathers of your Church accordingly held and believed, what they endeavoured to prove, that there was an exact Similitude between _Jesus_ in the Christian Church, and _Moses_ in 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 between _Jesus_ and _Moses_ in all and every Particular; I will be content therefore, if they can shew me a Similitude between them in a small Part of _Moses_'s Life; as for Instance, in the History of _Moses_'s delivering the _Israelites_ out of _Egypt_. It was most expressly the Opinion of our Ancestors, that the Messiah would deliver his People from Bondage, and, if I forget not, from _Roman_ Bondage, after the Manner, and by the like Wonders, that _Moses_ delivered his People from _Egyptian_.

_Jerom_,[393] a Father of your Church has recorded _this_ as 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 a.s.serted, that _Christ_ was such a _Messiah_, and did deliver his Church from _Roman_ Servitude, after the same Manner (in a Figure) that _Moses_ delivered his _Israelites_ out of _Egypt_. Nay, your Apostle _Paul_[394] seems to a.s.sert it, saying, _Brethren, I would not, that ye should be ignorant, how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud, and all pa.s.sed 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 which Words _Paul_ apparently alludes to, and confirms the Opinion of our Ancestors, which he had imbibed before his Conversion; and intimates that _Jesus_, whom he took for the _Messiah_, was working a Redemption of his Church after the Manner of the Deliverance of the _Israelites_ out of _Egypt_. And so did your Fathers understand these Words of _Paul_, and accordingly many of them labour'd to shew the Similitude between the _Israelitish_ and _Christian_ Redemption, in order to the Conversion of the _Jews_. But they, it seems, labour'd in vain, shewing no tolerable nor visible Likeness of this sort between _Jesus_ and _Moses_; and therefore our Nation to this Day continues in Disbelief of _Jesus_'s Messiahship. However, we have not so pertinaciously rejected _Jesus_'s Messiahship, as not to give you Leave to resume the old Argument of it, from his Likeness to _Moses_ in all things. If your _Priests_ can now show a Likeness between them; if they can at this Day prove that _Jesus_ wrought the like Miracles and Wonders (tho' in a figurative and allegorical Sense) for the Redemption of his Church from _Roman_ Servitude, as _Moses_ did for the Deliverance of _Israelites_ out of _Egypt_, we will grant him to be the _Messiah_, and will believe in him. But as we despair of such a Proof, so we reasonably persist in our Disbelief of his Messiahship. Your _Divines_ indeed, because of the foresaid Prophecy in _Deuteronomy_, do talk of a Likeness between _Moses_ and _Jesus_; but it is not at all agreeable to the Sentiments of _your_ Fathers, or the Expectations of _our_ Ancestors concerning the _Messiah_'s Similitude to _Moses_. They tell us, that _Jesus_ and _Moses_ were alike, because both wrought Miracles; but this will not do, till they prove a Likeness between their Miracles, as to Number, Nature, Use and Circ.u.mstance. The Miracles that the _Messiah_ is to work, and which are to prove his Messiahship, must be of a similar Nature, and to the like Purpose that _Moses_'s were in _Egypt_, as _our_ Ancestors a.s.serted, and _your_ Fathers granted: But since no such Similitude is shown to be between them, we disown _Jesus_'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 your _Clergy_, have I form'd an Objection against _Jesus_'s Messiahship, an Objection that is founded on the concurrent Opinions of _our_ Ancestors and of _your_ Fathers: 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 destroys _Jesus_'s Pretences to the Messiahship, unless his _Priests_, by way of Answer to it, can prove the foresaid Similitude between him and _Moses_; between the Miracles of the One and the Miracles of the Other; between the Deliverance of the _Jewish_ and the Redemption of the _Christian_ Church, out of an _Egypt_.

I am thinking what your _Clergy_ can say to the Objection. Will they deny, that it was the Opinion of both _your_ Fathers and of _our_ Ancestors, that there ought to be such a Similitude between the _Messiah_ and _Moses_, 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 the _Messiah_? This surely they will not do; because of the Consequence, which charges the Apostle _Paul_ himself (in the above-cited Place) and the primitive Christians, with the grossest Error and Mistake concerning _Jesus_ and his Messiahship; and yet I can't think they will ever give into the joint Opinion aforesaid of both _Jews_ and Fathers; because of the Impossibility of proving _Jesus_ to be like _Moses 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 Christian _Priesthood_ will 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 of _Jesus_'s Miracles. And this is your and my Comfort, that if you publish this present Objection against _Jesus_'s Messiahship, the _Clergy_ can'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 about _Jesus_'s Messiahship is thus far revived and commenced, let us, in G.o.d's Name, go on with it, till we come to a final Determination, either in the Demonstration, or Confutation of it. Your _Clergy_, 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 of _Jesus_'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 G.o.d, 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 your _Clergy_ will 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 your _Divines_ so please, I will thus agree the Matter with them, _viz._ That they alone shall make Objections 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 comical _Farce_ of a Controversy, they ever were entertain'd with.

I remember, that in my Letter, you published, against _Jesus_'s Resurrection, I promised the Controversy between the _Jews_ and _Christians_, by my Consent, should turn on that Miracle. Your _Clergy_, one or other of them, have answer'd that _Letter_; 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 against _Jesus_'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 am _Yours_,

_N. N._

So ends the Letter of my good old Friend, the Jewish _Rabbi_, which was a most seasonable and acceptable Present, in as much as the Objection, contain'd in it, will open a fair Way for me to prove, that the Stories of _Jesus_'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. The _Bishop_ of _St. 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 against _Jesus_'s Messiahship, they shall soon discern this Use and Consequence of it, that _Jesus_'s Miracles are not _literally_ but _allegorically_ to be understood, and will accordingly receive an Accomplishment.

I trust then, that the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s, who is princ.i.p.ally concern'd, will, without more Importunity, favour me with his Opinion on the foregoing _Jewish_ Objection, which may be done in a small Compa.s.s of Paper, either in _Print_, or in an _Epistle_.

I expect he should tell me plainly and expressly, whether it was really the joint Opinion of the ancient _Jews_ and Fathers of the Church, as is affected in the Objection, that the _Messiah_ was to be a Prophet like _Moses_ in all things, in the whole History of his Life, and particularly with regard to the miraculous Deliverance of the _Israelites_ out of _Egypt_. If the _Bishop_ should, what I humbly conceive he will not, deny that it was the joint Opinion of both _Jews_ and Fathers, as is before represented in the Objection, and should pretend to urge Reasons and Authorities, which he will hardly find, why such a Likeness and Agreement between the _Messiah_ and _Moses_ ought not to be look'd for; then my _Rabbi_ and I will confirm the joint Opinion aforesaid, with Citations, almost innumerable out of the _Jews_ and Fathers, till the _Bishop_ shall yield to the Number and Clearness of them.

If the _Bishop_ should own, what I am almost persuaded he will, that it was the joint Opinion of Fathers and _Jews_, that there ought to be such a Similitude and Harmony between the _Messiah_ and _Moses_, as is represented above; but should say, that it was an erroneous and false Opinion, which the old Cabalistical _Jews_, by chance, and unfortunately took up; and which the Fathers, even the Apostle himself, unwarily and unhappily run into, complying with an Opinion of the _Jews_ about the _Messiah_, without Consideration of the Weakness of it; then I, with a little of my _Rabbi_'s Help, will further prove the Truth and Certainty of the said Opinion, and demonstrate, that He can be no true Messiah, who in the History of himself and of his Church does not exactly, _to a t.i.ttle_, correspond to the History of _Moses_ and of his People.

But if the _Bishop_ should, what I am willing to hope he will, ingenuously confess, there ought to be such an Agreement and Likeness between _Moses_ and the _Messiah_ as is signified in the Objection, then he and I will go heartily to Work, and for the Honour of _Jesus_, whom we believe to be the _Messiah_, will absolutely demonstrate the Similitude, there is between him and _Moses in all Things_. And this, by the by, in the Opinion of our Fathers, is the _ONLY_ Way to prove _Jesus_'s Messiahship, _viz._ by his Resemblance to _Moses_, and by his Accomplishment of the Mosaick Types and Prophecy concerning him, who, upon his own Word, came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets _to a t.i.ttle_.

If the _Bishop_ and I should be so fortunate, and I trust in G.o.d we shall, as to prove a most apparent and manifest Likeness between _Jesus_ and _Moses_, even such a Likeness as my _Rabbi_ above demands, then shall we stop his Mouth, and soon pave a certain Way (which will be vast Honour to the _Bishop_) for the Conversion of the _Jews_.

I don't despair of the _Bishop_'s joint Labours and Endeavours with mine to so great and good a Work (for I can't think in my Heart, that he'll otherwise wrangle about the Objection above) so (if the _Bishop_ pleases) we'll begin this Work with a Demonstration of the Likeness there is between the Redemption of the _Christian_ Church, and the Deliverance of the _Israelitish_ out of _Egypt_. Not only St.

_Augustin_[395] hints that they who would show a Likeness between _Jesus_ and _Moses_ ought to begin here; but thereby we shall humour my _Rabbi_ in his Objection, who calls for (upon the concurrent Testimonies of _Jews_ and Fathers) a Proof of such a Likeness between the Redemptions of the two Churches, or he shall think it reasonable still to persist in his Disbelief of _Jesus_'s Messiahship.

And if the _Bishop_ and I should be so happy as to shew in an apparent Manner, this Similitude between the Redemption of the Jewish and Christian Church out of _Egypt_, then meeting with Success in our Studies, will we proceed further, and ill.u.s.trate other Prophecies of succeeding Times of the Church; for I will not part with the _Bishop_, till he is able to travel by himself, in his Contemplations on the Law and the Prophets, and to behold, what with an ordinary _Telescope_ at the Eyes of his Understanding he may discern, and show to his Episcopal Brethren, _Christ_ spiritually sitting and coming on the Clouds of the _Letter_ to the same Purposes that the old Jews, Fathers and Apostles say he is to come, _viz._ To open and ill.u.s.trate the Parables and aenigma's of the Scriptures, to restore Prophecy, to shew us G.o.d Face to Face; and to raise All from a spiritual Death to Life again. And blessed are all those, who love and desire such his Appearance.

In my _Third Discourse_ on _Miracles_, I happen'd to speak of _Christ_'s second and spiritual Advent on the Clouds of the Law and Prophets; and to say "that the common Notion of his Coming on aerial Clouds for the Resurrection of dead Bodies, _&c._ is the most senseless and unphilosophical, that ever was taught to Mankind;" which gave Offence to my _Bishop_, who animadverted upon me for it; but if he ever get Sight, which I don't question, of _Christ_'s Coming on the metaphorical Clouds of Prophecy, he'll not only be of my Mind here, but will be sensible with me, that all or most of our systematical Divinity, that is built on the _Letter_ of the Scriptures, is false and groundless; and of that ill Tendency to the Corruption of Mens Morals, that it is not so much a Wonder, that wise, good, and thinking _Gentlemen_ are betaking themselves to Natural Religion, as it is, that there are any Believers of Christianity, upon the _Literal Scheme_, left among us. If it had not been _Force_, more than _Reason_, that has. .h.i.therto kept Mankind in their Christian Faith; or if Liberty had been indulg'd them to consider the Absurdities of the _Letter_ of the Scriptures, they would have run ere now, by Shoals, into Infidelity: But the allegorical Interpretation (which the Cabalistical _Jews_[396] say, will convert _Atheists_) will reduce Mankind to the Belief of the inspired Authority of the Scriptures, by shewing them the perfect _Reason_, the divine _Wisdom_, and resplendent _Truth_ of them; otherwise call'd the Messiah, the ???sa, the Spirit, or the _Christ_ of them, than _whom_, or than _which_ nothing can be more desired by Philosophers, to come for the spiritual Renovation, Restoration, Resurrection and Illumination of Man; _consequently_ and implicitly for the Work of those mystical Miracles, of which those wrought by _Christ_ in the Flesh are but Types and Figures. Whether the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s be already apprised of this Consequence, I can't tell; but if he rub his Intellects but a little, he must needs apprehend the Consequence of the foresaid spiritual Advent of _Christ thus_ far "That Ministers of the Letter then are certainly to be turn'd out of the Church: "That the Woman of the Church then will be cured of her Infirmity at the Spirit of Prophesy: "That the Eyes of Mankind, like the blind Man's, will be then open'd to see, what he has. .h.i.therto been dark about, the Mystery of the Providence of G.o.d in all Ages. And so of the mystical Accomplishment of the other Miracles, with a little Application of Thought, may he discern the Consequence. And when he does so, then he will see too, what sort of a Christian I am, whom our _Ecclesiasticks_ have falsely accused, and unjustly persecuted for Impiety, Profaneness, Blasphemy and Infidelity, only because I have written against the _Letter_ of _Jesus_'s Miracles, in order to turn Mens Heads to the Consideration of their mystical Accomplishment at _Christ_'s second spiritual and glorious Advent on the Clouds of the Law and the Prophets.

I have indeed written against the _literal_ Stories of _Jesus_'s Miracles, which I still nauseate and abominate the Confinement of Mens Thoughts to it; but if our _Clergy_ would but a little bear with me, they shall see, I _alone_ do Honour to their literal Stories, by making them beautiful Emblems of future and more wonderful Operations.

I have indeed call'd _Jesus_ an Impostor, Juggler, Fortune teller (and what not?) by way of Objection against the _Letter_ of his Miracles; but I _alone_ shall do him Honour, in those very Miracles, which he wrought in the Flesh, by proving him to be the Wisdom, as well as Power of G.o.d, and that _G.o.d was in him of a Truth_, and endued him with a divine Prescience of Futurities, or he could not then have wrought such curious and admirable Models and Prefigurations of his mysterious Works at his _second_ Advent.

Whether the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s, and others, can as yet certainly discern the foresaid Consequence of Christ's mystical Accomplishment of his Miracles upon his spiritual Advent, I can't guess; but if they'll favour me with their Opinion on my _Rabbi_'s Objection above, which will lead us to the allegorical Interpretation of the Law, they shall soon clearly see it.

And now I would have the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s to compare _this Part_ of my _Defence_ with the _Third Chapter_ of his _Vindication_, which treats _on the Practice of the Fathers in interpreting the Scriptures in a mystical and allegorical Method_, and consider whether He or I write the most like a Christian of an orthodox and primitive Faith and Practice. The _Bishop_ says[397] "That it is certain, that without such a.s.sistance (_of the Spirit_) as St. _Paul_ enjoy'd, the mystical Expositions of the Scripture by _Origen_ and other Fathers, tho' made in Imitation of St. _Paul_, have no such Authority as that of St. _Paul_ stampt on them." What, in the Name of Wonder, does the _Bishop_ here mean? Tho' St. _Paul_ has not allegoriz'd the whole Law, but only some few Parts; yet he expressly says, often enough, that the whole is a _Figure_ and _Shadow_ of Things to come under _Christ_; and our Saviour himself, as the Fathers understood him, intimates often, that all Things that were written in the Law and the Prophets, are Types and Prophecy of him, and that he came to fulfil them _to a t.i.ttle_. Is not here Authority enough for the Fathers to allegorize the whole Law and the Prophets, in order to shew the Agreement between the Type and Ant.i.type; between the Shadow and the Substance; between the Figure and the Thing figured; and between the Prophecy and its Accomplishment. And whether the Fathers, in their allegorical Expositions, rightly or not, hit off the Sense of the Prophecy; (for it must be confess'd they variously allegorized _this_ and _that_ Pa.s.sage of Scripture) yet it was _their_ and _our_ Duty and Office, from the Words of _Christ_, and the Practice of the Apostle, to keep on in the allegorical Method, till an Harmony between the Prophecy and its Accomplishment was made most clear.

The _Bishop_ says in this his _Third Chapter_ of his _Vindication_, "That the Fathers and I have abusively cited this Pa.s.sage of St.