Chapter XIV: Part II (1)

_Nec Religionis est cogere Religionem, quæ sponte
suscipi debeat, non Vi._ Tertull.

_LONDON_:

Printed for the AUTHOR, and Sold by him
next Door to the _Star_, in _Aldermanbury_, and
by the Booksellers of _London_ and _Westminster_.

MDCCXXX.

[_Price One Shilling._]

TO THE

RIGHT HONOURABLE

Sir _Robert Raymond_, Kt.

Lord Chief Justice of the Court of
_King's Bench_.

MY LORD,

That I am no Flatterer of _Patrons_, appears by my other _Dedications_: If therefore I should tell your _Lordship_, what I can in Sincerity, that I think you as wise and good a Magistrate, as any of your _Predecessors_ in that _High Court_ of _Justice_, 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; your _Lordship_, I humbly presume, will not think the worse of me. It is not expected that the Innocent should confess 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 your _Lordship_ will 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 my _Discourses_ was so visible, that I thought it could not be overlook'd by the Wise and Learned; but because I imagin'd our _Bishops_ would 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 your _Lordship_'s Word for it: But for all that, I could wish, for the Sake of Christianity, that such a Liberty was indulg'd to _Infidels_. Whatever our zealous _Clergy_ may think, one Persecution of an _Infidel_ does more Harm to Religion, than the Publication of the worst _Book_ against 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 unbounded Liberty, they may enjoy to contest it from the _Press_. 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 Holy _Jesus_.

Ever since the _Reformation_, 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 to _Church_ or _State_, your _Lordship_ is 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 our _Ecclesiasticks_ will grow cautious by it, and no more sollicit the most indulgent Civil Magistracy of this Kingdom to the Persecution of any other, much less of,

[Sidenote: London May 25. 1730.]

_My Lord_,
_Your Lordship's_
_Most Obedient and_
_Humble Servant_,
Tho. Woolston.

A

SECOND PART

OF THE

DEFENCE, _&c._

It's Time now to publish another _Part_ of my _Defence_, which, in my former, I gave my _Readers_ some Reason to expect from me. If I should keep Silence much longer, my _Adversaries_ will be ready to charge me with Cowardice, or Insufficiency; and say, that I'm either absolutely confuted by the _Writers_ against 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, that if 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'd _this_, 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 as _Sentence_ was pass'd on me, publish'd _this_, 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 the _Press_, 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 the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s his _Second Volume_, which he promised us last Winter. I was almost of Opinion, that, in my former _Defence_, I gave the _Bishop_ such Intimations of my sincere Belief of Christianity, notwithstanding my _Discourses_ on _Miracles_, 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 the _Bishop_ is 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 these _Defences_ of my self, and to vindicate the Goodness and Usefulness of the Design of my _Discourses_ on _Miracles_, against what the _Bishops_ of _London_ and _St. David_'s, and other _Adversaries_ have written to the contrary.

But, before I enter upon such a _Defence_ of my self and my _Discourses_, 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 some _Rules_ in Controversy that we polemical _Writers_ should observe, and be oblig'd to; or, instead of discovering and illustrating the Truth we pretend to search 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 our _Readers_ with Expressions void of Sense, or with false Reasoning against our _Adversaries_, where we want what's good and solid. This _Rule_ none can except against: Whether I am an Observer of this _Rule_, 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 my _Adversaries_ can 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 Popish _Persecution_ and Protestant _Prosecution_ for Opinions, wherewith they have amused weak and injudicious Heads. The Wife, I am sure, can discern no more Difference here, than between a _Rope_ and a _Halter_ to hang an innocent Man, in which Case too there is a _nominal_ Distinction without a _real_ Difference.

_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, like _Watermen_, 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 reasonable _Rule_, and ought to be observ'd, or we shall confound the Understandings of our _Readers_, who will soon lose Sight of our Arguments, if they apprehend not their Aim and Drift. This _Rule_, 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 your _Discourses_ is to make way for the Proof of the Truth of Christianity, and of the Messiahship of the Holy _Jesus_, 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 this _Rule_; and I can't think of such a Piece of Prevarication without Horror. The Bishop of _St. 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 wilful _Perjury_, as bad as a _Clergyman_'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 this _Rule_ to be observ'd in Controversy, if I had been guilty of the Breach of it. It is somewhat excusable in _Infidels_ a 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 to _Infidels_ as well as _Christians_, being obstructive to Truth, which, in all Inquirers after her, loves Sincerity and Simplicity. No doubt, but my _Adversaries_, some of them, will still think me a Transgressor of this _Rule_; but my present and following _Defences_ will absolutely clear me. And if none of my _Adversaries_ are more guilty of 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 our _Adversaries_, and of the _Authors_ we 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 our _Adversaries_, 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 good _Rule_ to 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, my _Adversaries_ have 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 of _St. David_'s[359] calls my _Falsification_ of Authorities, an _Immorality_, and speculative _Forgery_; 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 practical _Forgery_ by 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 my _Adversaries_ or 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 the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s[360] is such a resolute _Misrepresenter_, that he could not find in his Heart faithfully to transcribe the _Three Heads_ of my _Discourses_; 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; yet in the Sequel of these _Defences_, it will be made manifest.

It is a great Temptation to our _Bishops_ falsely to accuse and misrepresent their Adversaries; because they know their Writings don't equally spread and go together among all their Readers. A _Bishop_'s Writing going more by itself amongst the _Clergy_, 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 the _Bishop_ of _Litchfield_[361] falsely charge the _Author_ of the _Grounds_ with odious Assertions, to which there is nothing akin in the Places seemingly referr'd to, nor in all that Author's Work.

However, the _Rule_ in 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 a _warm_ one as is ours at present. The Observation of this _Rule_ would not only prevent much of the Violation of the _two_ former; 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 the _Writers_[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 the _Tryal of the Witnesses_ was pass'd by, or I should have been tempted to have made some Remarks on it. Let such _Authors_ come forth into the Light, and it may be, they'll meet with the same Favour I have done the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s. In the mean time, I declare my Abhorrence of Authors their Concealment of their Names, and I hope all ingenuous _Writers_ in 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_, and _lastly_, Others make it a common _Rule_ to be observ'd in Controversy, that the _Disputants_ should consider each other's Arguments impartially, without the Byass of Prejudice and Interest. And a very good _Rule_ this is, if Men would but put it into Practice. But I shall long despair of such Impartiality in Controversy. Such is the Power of Prejudice 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 the _Clergy_ (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 our _Legislature_ to do, what they never will, that is, set up the Figure of a _Calf_ in our Churches, there would be no want of Priests to worship him, if they were well paid for it; nor of Academical _Students_ to 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 the _Bishop_ of _London_, that excellent Prelate, as _Bishop Smalbroke_ calls him (for so 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 a _Desire_ that the Christian Religion 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." So feelingly does this _Bishop_ speak of the Power of Interest, by which, as I would conceive, he honestly hints to the Inhabitants of _London_ and _Westminster_, that the _Bishop_ of their Diocese, and the _Parson_ of 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 foregoing _Rules_ to be observed in this Controversy, I come to a close. _Defence_ of myself against the Charge of Infidelity, and to vindicate the Usefulness of my _Discourses on Miracles_ for the Proof of the Truth of Christianity, and of the Messiahship of the Holy _Jesus_, against all my Adversaries. And the Method I shall take to this Purpose, is this following.

I. To show the Weakness, Childishness, and Insufficiency of the Arguments of my _Adversaries_, for the _Letter_ of the Stories of _Jesus_'s Miracles; and further to prove both _ludicrously_ and _seriously_ the 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 of _Jesus_'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 of _Jesus_ alone can and will be the Proof of his Messiahship.

If I perform well upon these Heads, which are deserving of my _Reader_'s Review, because of their Pertinency to the Cause in Hand, I shall not only vindicate myself from the Charge of Infidelity, but justify the Goodness and Usefulness of my _Discourses_, in order to the Demonstration of _Jesus_'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 Bishop _Smalbroke_ and 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 my _Adversaries_ for the _Letter_ of _Jesus_'s Miracles; and further argue both _ludicrously_ and _seriously_ the 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 this _Part_ of my _Defence_.

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 of _Jesus_'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 whether _Bishop 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 let _This Head_, which reasonably should precede, rest for a while; and by treating on the _Second_, tho' out of Place, I must first effectually convince my Adversaries, that I am no _Infidel_ of wicked Designs to subvert Christianity, but only the _Ministry of the Letter_; and then, I conceive, I may safely resume the Consideration of this _First Head_, and without the Imputations of Infidelity and Blasphemy, write as _merrily_ or _gravely_ as I please against the Letter.

Should any say, that this pretended Reason for waving this _First Head_ for 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 the _Letter_, 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 the _Bishop_ of _London_ would ensure me against, what the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s calls, the[365] _Nominal_ Persecutions of _Protestants_, which I am more afraid of, than of the _real_ Persecutions of _Papists_, I will soon enter upon this Head; otherwise for Self-Preservation against the _nominal_ Sufferings of Fines and Imprisonment, _&c._ I will forbear, promising my Readers, that in due Time, and on a more proper Occasion, I will resume the _merry Subject_ of the _Letter_, and handle it to their entire Satisfaction.

And when I resume _this Head_, I will begin where I before left off in my _Discourses_ on _Miracles_; that is, with the Resurrection of _Jesus_, 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 my _First Head_, I now enter upon the _Second_, which is

II. To shew, that whether there be any Sense, Truth and Fact, or not, in the literal Stories of _Jesus_'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 on _this 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 my _Discourses_. _Origen_ says[366] That _Jesus_'s Works were _Symbols_ of other Things to be done by his Power. St. _Hilary_[367] says, That _Jesus_'s Actions bore a Resemblance of what he would do hereafter. St. _Augustin_[368] says, That the Facts of _Jesus_ are Signs of somewhat else to be done by him. And _Eusebius 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 determine our 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 of _Jesus_ were Signs and Figures of future Events; but, according to _Origen_,[372] _every thing else that he did_: From whence we may gather what was _Origen_'s Meaning, when he said[373] _Christ's first_ Advent in the Flesh is all Type and Shadow of his _second_, spiritual, and glorious Coming; which being an _Opinion_ that our _Clergy_ are 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 about _Christ's second_ Advent.

Nay further, according to the Fathers,[374] the very Life and Ministry of _John_ the _Baptist_, so far as it is recorded by the _Evangelists_, 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 the _Bishop_ of _St. 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 the _Baptist_'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 my _Readers_ what will be the true Meaning of _John'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, [Greek: metanoein], 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 the _Kingdom of Heaven_." This I assert upon the Authority of _Origen_,[375] and if the _Clergy_ please to consult St. _Austin_ and others, they'll find them of the same Mind. But, this by the by, having no more to say to the Typicalness of _John_'s Ministry, than whenever his foresaid mystical Preaching of Repentance shall revive, it can hardly be to a more viperous Generation of Ecclesiastical _Scribes_ and _Pharisees_, than are the _Ministers_ of the _Letter_ at this present.

But against all these, and Ten Thousand more Testimonies of the Fathers for the allegorical Interpretation of the Writings of the _Evangelists_, and of _Jesus_'s Miracles in particular, the _Bishop_ of _St. 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 the _Letter_ of the Story of _Christ_'s Life and Miracles. This the _Bishop_ asserts roundly and frequently in express or implicit Terms, as his Readers may observe; and I dare say, the _Bishop_ himself 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 the _Bishop_ give, why the Authority of the Fathers for the allegorical Interpretation of the Evangelical Writings, and of _Jesus_'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 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_, _Irenæus_, 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 Passages 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 Assertion, 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 Passages 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 Passages in St. _Paul_, that might be here produced, the Fathers asserted 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 Passages 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 Judæus_ 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 God; 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 God 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 God 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 God 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 asserted 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 _Chaldæans_, 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 _Isræl_ 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 Assistance 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 assign 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 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 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 pass, 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 God and _Moses_ upon the
Institution 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 God 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
Glass 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 Tittle_, Type
and Prophecy of the _Messiah_, who would be so far the clear
Fulfiller and Illustrater of them, as that Men would then see God
_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.