And I add, that almost all modern Religionists, whether Chriftians, Pagans, or Mahometans, are as fond of allegories, as the antients were. Which feems to make allegorizing the moft fuitable method of applying to the understanding of men. And therefore the allegorical arguments of the apostles were proper for all forts of religious men, as well as Jews, and at prefent are more proper for others than Jews, (among whom there has been for a long time a direct anti-allegorical fect call'd Caraites) who, as they knew nothing of the allegorical method till long after the captivity, and when they became (g) Hellenis'd, fo they rejected that method, as to all prophefies and other quotations taken from the Old Teftament by the apoftles, foon after the rife of christianity, and now contend for one fingle fense against any allegorical meaning of them, and argue against allegorical interpretations as abfurd in themselves, no lefs than atheists and deifts, and faddu cees (who, as is before obferv'd, never receiv'd (b) the allegorical interpretations of their Brethren-Jews) or fuch (rational) Chriftians as Mr. WHISTON: tho' herein the Jews feem to act a most inconfiftent part; for ...(g) Clerici Hift. Ecclef. p. 24. (b) Simon Bib. Crit. Vol. 4. p. 508. for unless they ufe the allegorical method, (i) they will not be able to establish their own belief of a MESSIAS to come, which yet is one of the fundamental articles of their religion. That article, in the judgment of the famous Rabbi (k) ALBO, has no other foundation than the autority of tradition. For, fays he, there is not any prophefy, either in the law, or the prophets, that foretels his coming by any neceffary expofition of it, with respect to him, or which may not from the circumftances of the text be well explain'd otherwise. In a word, a learned (1) author maintains, "that the books of the Old Teftament are of little ufe for "the converfion of the Jews. For almost all which is faid to be fpoken in the Old Teftament of the MESSIAS must be inter"preted myftically, before it can appear to "be fpoken of him, and by confequence very remotely from what the words do na→ turally fignify". 3. Thirdly, in anfwer to the objection I obferve, that chriftianity is wholly (m) reveal'd in the Old Teftament, and has its divine autority from thence; that it is not literally, (i) Simon Hift. Crit. du Nov. Teft. p. 246, 247. (k) Albo Oratio 1. c. 1. apud Allix's Judgment of the Jewish Church against the Unitarians, p. 411. (1) Smalcius apud lb. p. 414. (m) Dodwell's Letters of Advice, &c. p. 169, literally, but myftically or allegorically reveal'd therein; and that therefore chriftianity is the allegorical fense of the Old Teftament, and is not improperly call'd (n) mystical judaifm. If therefore christianity is grounded on allegory, converted gentiles must be convinc'd by allegory, and become allegorifts or_myftical Fews, no lefs than converted Jews. For the religion itself, to which they were to be converted, was allegory, or christianity as taught allegorically in the Old Te ftament. The apostle PAUL in his first epistle to the Corinthians, 1ft and 2d chapters (0) (wherein it is to be obferv'd, that he argues against the greeks, and the philofophers, as well as the jews) feem's to disclaim all other methods of arguing befides the allegorical, when he fays, that (p) the wisdom he fpoke was wisdom among them that were perfect; that is, among them, who undertood the fecret, myftical, and fpiritual fenfe of things; that his wifdom was the wisdom of God, bidden from the world, which God bad ordain'd before the world; that is, that it was the fecret, divine, and spiri tual (n) lb. One Altar and one Priesthood, p. 236. (0) See Whitby on both Chapters. £ (p) I Cor. c. 1 2. lb. c. 2. v.6, 7, 8. & 10. 14, , 20, 21. tual fenfe of judaifm which the world that interpreted judaifm literally knew nothing of; that this wisdom and method of difcourfe or reafoning was reveal'd to him and the other apostles by God, who alone knew his own spiritual meaning; and that the natural man receives not the fpiritual fenfe of things, for they are foolishness unto him, and cannot be known by him, becaufe they are not to be difcern'd by the common rules of wisdom or philofophy, or difputing, but are to be difcern'd only by a man, who has the fecret, fpiritual, or myftical meaning of things, or the rules by which to find it out, imparted (q) to him by God. In fine, is there the least ground from the literal fenfe in Genefis, to suppose (r) ABRAHAM's two fons, ISAAC and ISHMAEL, fignify'd the two covenants? Does not St. PAUL himself call fuch interpretation allegorical? And can fuch a fecret, fpiritual, meaning of fo plain a piece of history, have any other foundation than divine difcernment? And what foundation is there for St. PAUL's arguing from the Old Testament, that Jesus fhould (s) rife the third day, but by an allegory-of JONAS's being three days (q) Acts 26. 22. days and three nights in the whale's belly? Which former argument could be no argument ad hominem to the Jews, because, as Dr. WHITBY () obferves, they maintain'd their law to be eternal, and had not the leaft imagination of two covenants. So that I look upon all other methods of reasoning ufed by philofophers, except that manner of reafoning used by the apoftles, and particularly by St. PAUL, to be wholly difcarded, and the allegorical reafoning to be fet up by them, as the true and only reafoning proper to bring all men to the faith of CHRIST and the gentiles were to be wholly beat out of the literal way of arguing, and to argue as became Jews. And the event of preaching the gofpel has been fuited to matters confider'd in this view and light. For we know, that (i) the wife did not receive the gospel at firft, and that they were the lateft converts; which plainly arofe from their ufing maxims of reafoning and difputing wholly oppofite to those of christians : out of all which maxims they were indeed at length beaten by the fpiritual reafoners, who have now brought the wife into the gofpel. 2 : (t) Whitby in Gal. 4. v. 21. (u) I Cor. 1. 26. 4. But, |