Luther, three hundred years earlier had said, “I am persuaded if the Jews heard our preaching, and how we handle the Old Testament, many of them might be won.”[144] Coleridge now says: “If Rhenferd’s Essays were translated--if the Jews were made acquainted with the real argument--I believe there would be a Christian synagogue in a year’s time.”[145] He is, however, somewhat in advance of Luther, inasmuch as he does not insist upon the Jews’ abandoning circumcision and “their distinctive customs and national type,” but advocates their admission into the Christian fold “as of the seed of Abraham.” He is also in advance of Luther in forgiving the Jews their claim to be considered a superior order; for he finds that this claim was also maintained by the earlier Christians of Jewish blood, as is attested both by St. Peter’s conduct and by St. Paul’s protests. He also refers to the practice of the Abyssinians--another people claiming descent from Abraham and preserving the Mosaic Law--and asks: “Why do we expect the Jews to abandon their national customs and distinctions?” Coleridge would be satisfied with their rejection of the covenant of works and with their acceptance of “the promised fulfilment in Christ.” But what really distinguishes Coleridge’s missionary zeal from that of the great Reformer is his demand that the Jews should be addressed “kindly.” It is hard to imagine Coleridge in his old age taking a Jew on to London Bridge, tying a stone round his neck and hurling him into the river.[146]