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.