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.
"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 Antitype, imitate and resemble _Moses_ in all the History of
his Life, just as Face answereth to Face in a Glass, or as a
Substance agrees to its Shadow. And I am well assured that the
Fathers of your Church accordingly held and believed, what they
endeavoured to prove, that there was an exact Similitude 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 asserted, 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 assert it, saying, _Brethren, I would not,
that ye should be ignorant, how that all our Fathers were under the
Cloud, and all passed through the Sea, and were all baptized unto
Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. Now these things were our
Examples or Types._ In 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 Circumstance. 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 asserted, 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 God'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 God, who is to decide the Controversy, like an unjust
and partial Judge, that will hear only the Pleadings and Evidence
on one Side of the Question.
But 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 principally
concern'd, will, without more Importunity, favour me with his Opinion
on the foregoing _Jewish_ Objection, which may be done in a small
Compass 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 tittle_, 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
Tittle_.
If the _Bishop_ and I should be so fortunate, and I trust in God 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.