ut to undermine the structure, the very "grounds and
reasons" with which orthodoxy supported the mysteries of its faith. To do
so, he spun a gigantic web of irony controlled by a persona whose complex
purpose was concealed by a mien of hyper-righteousness. Here then was one
motivated by a fair-mindedness which allowed him to defend his opponent's
right of scriptural exegesis even while disagreeing with its approach and
its conclusions. Here too was a conservative Christian different from
Whiston "and many other great divines; who seem to pay little deference to
the books of the New Testament, the text whereof they are perpetually
mending in their sermons, commentaries, and writings, to serve purposes;
who pretend _we should have more of the true text by being less tenacious
of the printed one_, and in consequence thereof, presume to correct by
critical _emendations_, serve _capital places_ in the _sacred writers_;
and who ... do virtually set aside the authority of the scripture, and
place those compositions in its stead." Finally, here was one who,
obedient to the spirit of God's revealed word, rejected the fallacy that
messianic prophecy had been fulfilled in Christ in any "literal, obvious
and primary sense."[21]

But though the persona could not accept Whiston's program, he was not a
mere negativist. With growing excitement he argued for allegorical
interpretation. At this point the reader discerns that he has been duped,
that nowhere has there been a denial of Whiston's charge that the reading
of messianic prophecy in a typical or allegorical or secondary sense is
"weak and enthusiastical." On the contrary, the reader finds only the
damning innuendo that the two methods--the allegorical and the
literal--differ from one another not in kind but in degree of absurdity.
After being protected for a long time by all the twists and turns of his
creator's irony, the persona finally reveals himself for what he is, a man
totally insolent and totally without remorse. Never for one moment did he
wish to defend the scheme of allegorical prophecy but to attack it. His
argument, stripped of its convolutions and pseudo-piety, moves inexorably
to a single, negative conclusion. "Christianity pretends to derive itself
from Judaism. JESUS appeals to the religious books of the Jews as
prophesying of his Mission. None of these Prophecies can be understood of
him but in a _typical allegoric_ sense. Now that sense is absurd, and
contrary t