66

་་་

fary's. Pray tell us," (fays the learned Doctor, with that vivacity which he never restrained, when he had his Adversary at advantage), What is it we Christians "are obliged to believe of it? [the story "of the Fall.] Muft we believe it to be "all an Allegory? No. It is the allego"rical interpretation that has drawn all "this clamour from me, of weakening the "authority of Mofes and favouring infide

66

lity. Muft we believe it to be all literal? No. We are not allowed to do that, fince there is certainly much myf tery in it. What then are we to do? "Why we are to confider it as neither fact "nor fable; neither literal nor allegorical; "to interpret one fentence literally, the "next allegorically; the third again literally;

and fo on to the end of the chapter; which, like the very Serpent it treats "of, is all over fpotted and speckled; here with letter, there with mystery; and fometimes, with a dash of both *."

See the Doctor's Defence of his Letter to Waterjand,

This, on a fuppofition (the truth of which, both the Deift and the Believer took for granted), that the Mofaic account of the FALL was an ALLEGORY, hath its weight. But none at all, on the fuppofi tion, whofe truth I have endeavoured to evince, that the Mofaic account is a HISTORY OF FACT, and not, as the learned Doctor pretends, A MERE ALLEGORY; interlarded, indeed, as the ancient Hiftories of greatest weight have always been, with ftrong figurative expreffions, as well allegorical as metaphorical. In fuch a kind of compofition, the beft rules of interpretation not only juftify the rational Critic in understanding some expreflions literally and others allegorically, but neceffarily require his obfervance of this rule. To do what the learned Doctor requires of him—To ftick throughout, either to the letter or the figure, would betray much ignorance of the genius of ancient literature. When Adam is faid to have eaten of forbidden fruit, and Ifrael to have committed whoredom, Do these phrafes (ufed by the fame Historian in his History of the Fall, and afterwards

in the History of the Jewish Defection) make one more an ALLEGORY than the other? Are not both narratives of facts figuratively adorned? the firft, to denote Adam's tranfgreffion of a pofitive Command; and the other, to fignify the defection of the Ifraelites into Idolatry.

The cold raillery, therefore, of our learned Doctor, while he confiders the Mofaic Account of the FALL, as neither fact nor fable, neither literal nor allegorical, but to be fometimes interpreted one way, fometimes another might, for his credit, have been fpared; as informing us of nothing but his inattention to, or ignorance of, literary compofition, as it was in its primeval state; early formed, and ftill continuing to exist, amongst People undisciplined by arts and polished manners.

The truth is, our Critic in his cenfure, and thofe learned Divines in their defence, have equally confounded two diftinct Speçies of Writing with one another; that is to fay, an ALLEGORY with a real HISTORY ornamented with metaphorical and allegoric colouring. The Divines, to ferve their

occa

occafions, did it, either wittingly or inadvertently; and the learned Doctor, to ferve his, either followed their example, or imitated their practice. Thefe Divines had obferved, that preceding Commentators on the Bible had, occafionally, in the narrative parts, jumped from the literal to the allegoric fenfe, and so backward and forward to the end of the Chapter, because they found, that where the language was full of figurative terms, it was reasonable and neceffary so to do. Their error was, in fuppofing they might do the fame, in what they believed to be an ALLEGORY. On the other hand, our Doctor faw the abfurdity of this practice in an Allegory; but his error was, in fuppofing it to be equally abfurd to do the fame in a figurative narration of fact,

And what occafioned the common miftake of both parties was, their having (as we fay) confounded these two species of Composition with one another; which they would never have done, had they but confidered, that the end of an ALLEGORY is to hide, and the purpofe of allegorical,

that

that is figurative expreffions, only to orna

ment.

But, as the Hiftory of the Fall is, in Dr. Middleton's fenfe, a MERE ALLEGORY, and as his MORAL of the Fable tends to reduce the whole Doctrine of the Gospel to MERE DEISM; I fhall now endeavour to fhew, from the very genius of Antiquity, that his Moral is not of the nature of thofe which the most early times loved to disguise under that cover.

It is, in the learned Doctor's opinion, A MERE ALLEGORY, in the manner of the eaftern Fables, fignifying, that Man was formed to a state of happiness and perfection; which he enjoyed as long as he continued innocent, but loft and forfeited it by following bis lufts and paffions, and fo became miserable.

The truth of his idea, of its being a MERE ALLEGORY, hath been examined already. But this is not the whole of his idea: It is, if you will believe him, in the MANNER OF THE EASTERN FABLES.

An obfervation that betrays his ignorance both of Eaftern Fables and Eaftern Truths.

I