{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_41203/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_41203","id":"gutenberg_41203","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41203","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Gibson, Edmund, 1669-1748","Jesus Christ -- Miracles -- Early works to 1800","Smalbroke, Richard, 1672-1749"],"text":"Thomas Woolston\n\n\n                             SIX DISCOURSES\n                            ON THE MIRACLES\n                             OF OUR SAVIOUR\n\n                                 _and_\n\n                                DEFENCES\n                           OF HIS DISCOURSES\n                               1727-1730\n\n\n              Garland Publishing, Inc., New York & London\n\n                             [Illustration]\n\n                                  1979\n\n\n\n\n                                   A\n                               DISCOURSE\n                                 ON THE\n                                MIRACLES\n                                 OF OUR\n                               _SAVIOUR_,\n\n                    In VIEW of the Present\n                       Controversy between INFIDELS\n                       and APOSTATES.\n\n                --_Nostrum est tantus componere Lites._\n\n                           The Fifth Edition.\n\n               By THO. WOOLSTON, B. D. sometime\n                 Fellow of _Sidney-College_ in _Cambridge_.\n\n                               _LONDON_:\n\n                Printed for the Author, and Sold by him\n                  next door to the _Star_, in _Aldermanbury_,\n                  and by the Booksellers of _London_, and\n                  _Westminster_, 1728.\n\n                         [Price One Shilling.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                 TO THE\n\n                      Right Reverend Father in God\n\n                              ~_EDMUND_~,\n\n                        Lord BISHOP of _London_.\n\n\nMY LORD,\n\nUpon no other View do I make a Dedication of this Discourse to your\n_Lordship_, then to submit it to your acute Judgment, expecting soon\nto hear of your Approbation or Dislike of it. If it so happen, that\nyou highly approve of it, I beg of you to be sparing of your\nCommendations, least I should be puff'd up with them.\n\nIn my _Moderator_, some Expressions dropt from my Pen about the\nMiracles of our Saviour, which, for want of Illustration then, gave\nyour _Lordship_ some Offence, and brought upon me more Trouble: But,\nhaving now fully and clearly explain'd my self out of the Fathers, I\nhope you'll be reconciled to me; and as you are a Lover of Truth,\nwill, against Interest and Prejudice, yield to the Force of it.\n\nWhether your Prosecution of me, for the _Moderator_, was just and\nreasonable, I'll not dispute here, having already expostulated that\nMatter with you in several Letters, to which you would not condescend\nto give me any Answer. For what Reason you was silent, is best known\nto your self. But, in my own Vindication, I hope, I may publish\nwithout Offence, that your taking me for an _Infidel_, was such a\nMistake as I thought no _Scholar_ could have made; and the Injury\ndone to my Reputation and low Fortunes, by the Prosecution, so\nconsiderable, that the least I expected from your _Lordship_, was a\ncourteous Excuse, if not an ample Compensation, for it.\n\nAs to the Expediency of prosecuting _Infidels_ for their Writings (in\nwhose Cause I am the farthest of any Man from being engaged) I will here\nsay nothing. The Argument, _pro_ and _con_, has already, by one or\nother, been copiously handled. And I don't know but I might be, with\nyour _Lordship_, on the persecuting side of the Question; but that it\nlooks as if a Man was distrustful of the Truth of Christianity, and\nconscious of his own Inability to defend it; or he would leave that\n_good Cause_ to God himself and the Sword of the Spirit, without\ncalling upon the _Civil Magistrate_ for his Aid and Assistance.\n\nThat scurvy _Writer_ of the _Scheme of literal Prophecy_, &c. which\nyour _Lordship_ must have heard of, would insinuate, that they are\nonly atheistical Priests, who, for fear of their Interests in the\nChurch, set Persecutions on foot: But after your _Lordship_ has\npublish'd a strenuous Defence of Christianity to the Purpose of our\npresent Controversy, I'll have no such Suspicions of you.\n\nYour _Lordship_'s persecuting (or, if you will, prosecuting) Humour,\nis reputedly all pure Zeal for God's Glory; and, with all my Heart,\nlet it be so accounted, whether it be according to Knowledge or not.\nAgainst Popery and Infidelity you are all Ardency! Who does not\ncommend you? Who can question the Sincerity of the Zeal of a\nProtestant _Bishop_, and of a Protestant _Clergy_, when they persecute\nthe Enemies of their Church, that considers their own Steadiness to\nPrinciples against Interest, under all Changes, since the Reformation;\nand their Abhorrence of Extortion upon the People, for the Duties of\ntheir Function, in and about this City. Such Honesty and Constancy in\ntheir Profession, is a Proof of the Integrity of their Hearts, or I\nknow not where to find one.\n\nBut that your _Lordship_'s Zeal for Religion is very remarkable and\nsuccessful, I could prove by many Instances; one is, _that_ of your\nrouting a turbulent Sect of _Peripateticks_ out of St. _Paul_'s\nCathedral; and if you could as effectually clear _Christ_'s Church of\n_Infidels_, what a glorious Bishop would you be!\n\nAnd what Pity is it, that _Infidels_ likewise are not to be quell'd\nwith your Threats and Terrors! which (without the Weapons of sharp\nReasonings, and thumping Arguments, that others are for the Use of)\nwould transmit your Fame to Posterity, for a notable Champion for\nChristianity, as certainly as, that your judicious Prosecution of the\n_Moderator_ for Infidelity is here remember'd by,\n\n[Sidenote: London, _April_ 17, 1727.]\n\n  _My_ ~LORD~,\n    _The Admirer of\n        Your Zeal\n          Wisdom and\n            Conduct,\n  Thomas Woolston_.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                   A\n                               DISCOURSE\n                                 ON THE\n                                MIRACLES\n                                 OF OUR\n                             _SAVIOUR_, &c.\n\n\nIf ever there was an useful Controversy started, or revived in this\nAge of the Church, it is _this_ about the _Messiahship_ of the holy\nJesus, which the _Discourse of the Grounds_, &c. has of late rais'd. I\nbelieve this Controversy will end in the absolute Demonstration of\nJesus's _Messiahship_ from Prophecy, which is the only way to prove\nhim to be the _Messiah_, that great Prophet expected by the _Jews_,\nand promised under the Old Testament. And tho' this way of Proof from\nProphecy seems to labour under many Difficulties at present; and tho'\nsome _Writers_ against the _Grounds_, being distressed with those\nDifficulties, are for seeking Refuge in the Miracles of our Saviour;\nyet we must persist in it, till what I have no doubt of, his\n_Messiahship_ shall be clearly made out by it.\n\nAnd the way in Prophesy that I would take for the Proof of _Jesus_'s\n_Messiahship_, should be by an allegorical Interpretation, and\nApplication of the Law and the Prophets to him; the very same way,\nthat all the Fathers of the Church have gone in; and the very same\nway, in which all the ancient _Jews_ say their _Messiah_ was to fulfil\nthe Law and the Prophets: But this way does not please our\necclesiastical _Writers_ in this Controversy, neither will they at\npresent give any Ear to it.\n\nThe Way in Prophecy that they are for taking, is by a literal\nInterpretation and Application of some Prophecies of the Old Testament\nto our _Jesus_, but they are hitherto unsuccessful in this Way. The\nAuthors of the _Grounds_ and of the _Scheme_, grievously perplex them\nwith their Objections against this way of Proof, so far as, being\nsensible, I say, of almost insuperable Difficulties in it, they are\nflying apace to the Miracles of our Saviour, as to their sole and\ngrand Refuge.\n\nBut to show that there's no Sanctuary for them in the Miracles of our\nSaviour, I write this Discourse: And this I do, not for the Service of\nInfidelity, which has no Place in my Heart, but for the Honour of the\nHoly _Jesus_, and to reduce the _Clergy_ to the good old way of\ninterpreting Prophecies, which the Church has unhappily apostatis'd\nfrom, and which, upon the Testimony of the Fathers, will, one Day, be\nthe Conversion of _Jews_ and _Gentiles_.\n\nFor this Opinion, that there is no Sanctuary in the Miracles of our\nSaviour, I chanc'd to say in the _Moderator_,[1] _That Jesus's\nMiracles, as they are now-a-days understood, make nothing for his\nAuthority and Messiahship_. And again,[2] _That I believe, upon good\nAuthority, some of the Miracles of Jesus, as recorded by the\nEvangelists, were never wrought, but are only related as prophetical\nand parabolical Narratives of what will be mysteriously and more\nwonderfully done by him_: Which Expressions gave Offence to some of\nour _Clergy_, and brought upon me their Indignation and Displeasure.\nI see no Reason to depart from the said Expressions, or so much as to\npalliate and soften them, much less to retract them; but in\nMaintenance of my Opinion, to the Honour of our _Messiah_, and the\nDefence of Christianity, I write this Treatise on Jesus's Miracles,\nand take this Method following.\n\nI. I will show, that the Miracles of healing all manner of bodily\nDiseases, which _Jesus_ was justly famed for, are none of the proper\nMiracles of the _Messiah_, neither are they so much as a good Proof of\nhis Divine Authority to found a Religion.\n\nII. That the literal History of many of the Miracles of Jesus, as\nrecorded by the Evangelists, does imply Absurdities, Improbabilities,\nand Incredibilities, consequently they, either in whole or in part,\nwere never wrought, as they are commonly believed now-a-days, but are\nonly related as prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what would\nbe mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.\n\nIII. I shall consider what Jesus means, when he appeals to his\nMiracles as to a Testimony and Witness of his Divine Authority, and\nshow, that he could not properly and ultimately refer to those he\nthen wrought in the _Flesh_, but to those mystical ones, which he\nwould do in the _Spirit_; of which those wrought in the Flesh are but\nmere Types and Shadows.\n\nIn treating on these Heads, I shall not confine my self only to\nReason, but also to the express Authority of the Fathers, those holy,\nvenerable, and learned Preachers of the Gospel in the first Ages of\nthe Church, who took our Religion from the Hands of the Apostles, and\nof apostolical Men, who dy'd, some of them, and suffer'd for the\nDoctrine they taught; who professedly and confessedly were endu'd with\ndivine and extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit; who consequently can't\nbe supposed to be Corrupters of Christianity, or Teachers of false\nNotions about the Miracles of our Saviour, or so much as mistaken\nabout the apostolical and evangelical Sense and Nature of them. I know\nnot how it comes to pass, but I am a profound Admirer, and an almost\nimplicit Believer of the Authority of the Fathers, whom I look upon as\nvast Philosophers, very great Scholars, and most orthodox Divines.\nWhatever they concurrently assert, I firmly believe. And tho' they\nare, for the most part, mysterious Writers out of the Reach of the\nCapacities of many, who slight them; yet I, who have had the Honour\nand Happiness of much of their Acquaintance, fancy my self well\napprised of their Meanings. If at any time I read a Passage in them\nwhich I don't presently apprehend, I salute it with Veneration for all\nthat, till my Understanding is opened to receive the Sense of it. If I\nmeet with but a single Opinion in any one of them, I pay my Respects\nto it; but where there is an Harmony and Agreement of Opinion amongst\nthem, it is with me, and ought to be with all Christians, of such\nWeight, as to bear down all Prejudice, Opposition, and Contradiction\nbefore it; or the Authority of no Man, whether ancient or modern, is\nto have any Regard paid to it; and of what ill Consequence to Religion\nsuch an utter Rejection of Authority will be, I need not say.\n\nThis I thought fit to premise, concerning the Authority of the\nFathers, to abate of the Prejudice beforehand, which some may conceive\nagainst the following Discourse about the Miracles of _Jesus_. I don't\nquestion, but some may be startled at the foregoing Heads, as if, what\nis the farthest of any thing from my Heart, the Service of Infidelity\nwas in View; but craving the Temper and Patience of such Readers for\na while, and they shall find, that its no other than just Reasoning,\nclear Truth, and primitive Doctrine about _Jesus_'s Miracles, that I\nadvance: Or if it should so happen, that none besides my self should\ndiscern the Reasoning and Truth of the Argument; yet I hope it will\nnot be thought a Crime to revive primitive Doctrine, which none will\nbe able to deny it to be, whether they like it or not. If I err, I err\nupon Choice with the Fathers, of whose Faith I am. And if any are\noffended at what follows about the Miracles of _Christ_, let them turn\ntheir Displeasure and Indignation against the Fathers, for whose\nexpress or implicit Opinions I can be deserving of no Blame.\n\nI am sorry for the Occasion of such a Preface against Offence, which\nthe Apostacy of the Age, and its Unacquaintedness with the Fathers,\nhas made necessary. So I enter upon the particular handling of the\nHeads foregoing. And,\n\nI. I will show that the Miracles of healing all manner of bodily\nDiseases, which _Jesus_ was justly famed for, are none of the proper\nMiracles of the Messiah, nor are they so much as a good Proof of\n_Jesus_'s divine Authority to found and introduce a Religion into the\nWorld.\n\nAnd to do this, let us consider, first, in general, what was the Opinion\nof the Fathers about the Writings of the _Evangelists_ in which the Life\nof _Christ_ is recorded. _Eucherius_ says,[3] _That the Scriptures of\nthe New as well as Old Testament, are to be interpreted in an\nallegorical Sense_. And this his Opinion, is no other than the common\none of the first Ages of the Church, as might be proved by many the like\nExpressions of other Fathers. As in such Expressions, they do not except\nthe Writings of the _Evangelists_; so they must include the History of\n_Christ_'s Miracles, which as well as other Parts of the History of his\nLife, is to be allegoriz'd for the sake of its true Meaning;\nconsequently the literal Story of Christ's Miracles proves nothing.\n\nBut let's hear particularly their Opinion of the Actions and Miracles\nof our Saviour. _Origen_ says, that[4] _Whatsoever Jesus did in the\nFlesh, was but typical and symbolical of what he would do in the\nSpirit_; and to our Purpose,[5] that _the several bodily Diseases\nwhich he healed, were no other than Figures of the spiritual\nInfirmities of the Soul, that are to be cured by him_. St. _Hilary_ is\nof the same Mind with _Origen_, as any one may see by the[6]\nExpressions referr'd to, and his Commentary on St. _Matthew_. St.\n_Augustin_,[7] and St. _John_[8] of _Jerusalem_, both say, that the\nWorks of _Jesus_ import farther Mysteries; and with them, the rest of\nthe Fathers agree, making the Miracles that _Jesus_ did then, no more\nthan the Shadow of some more powerful and mystical Operations to be\ndone by him, as I could show by more Citations out of them, if it was\nneedful. But from the foregoing Citations out of the Fathers it is\nplain, in their Opinion, that our modern _Divines_ are in the wrong of\nit, to lay much Stress on any of the Operations of _Jesus_, which he\ndid in the Flesh, for the Proof of his divine Authority and\n_Messiahship_, which is only to be proved by his more mysterious\nWorks, of which those done in the Flesh are but Type and Figure.\n\nBut to come closer to the Purpose, let's see how indifferently, I had\nalmost said contemptibly, the Fathers speak of the Miracles of\n_Jesus_, and particularly of his Power of healing all bodily Diseases,\nwhich by modern _Writers_ is so much magnified and extoll'd. St.\n_Iren\u00e6us_ says,[9] that if _we consider only the then temporal Use of\nJesus's Power of Healing, he did nothing grand and wonderful_;\nconsequently _Iren\u00e6us_ could not hold, that _Jesus_'s Miracles then\nwrought, were a sufficient Proof of his divine Authority, much less of\nhis _Messiahship_. _Origen_ says[10] that _tho' many were brought to\nbelieve in Jesus upon the Fame of the Miracles which he did once among\nthe_ Jews, _yet_ (what implies the Insufficiency of them for the\nConversion of Men) _he intimates that his greater and mystical Works\ndo prove his Authority_. St. _John_ of _Jerusalem_ says[11] that\n_Jesus's Cures performed upon the Blind_, &c. _were indeed\nconsiderable and great, but unless he do daily as mighty Works in his\nChurch, we ought to forbear our Admiration of him._ St. _Augustin_ not\nonly says[12] that _if we examine into Jesus's Miracles by human\nReason, we shall find he did nothing great, considering his Almighty\nPower, and considering his Goodness, what he did was but little_; but\nhe tells us also, that[13] _such Works as Jesus did, might be imputed\nto, and effected by Magic Art_. And accordingly _Moses_ and our\nSaviour himself confess, that false Prophets, and false Christ's, will\ndo Miracles; and _Anti-Christ_ himself, according to St. _Paul_, will\ndo them to the Deception of Mankind. Nay, the Fathers[14] say, what I\nbelieve, that _Anti-Christ_ will imitate and equal _Jesus_ in all his\nMiracles which he wrought of old. How then can we distinguish the true\nProphet from the false; the true _Christ_ from the _Anti-Christ_ by\nMiracles? our _Divines_ will find it hard to do it, if what the\nFathers say of _Anti-christ_ be found true. Moreover History affords\nus Instances of Men, such as of _Apollonius Tyan\u00e6us_, _Vespasian_, and\nof the _Irish Stroaker_, _Greatrex_, who have miraculously cured\nDiseases to the Admiration of Mankind, as well as our _Jesus_: But if\nany of them, or any other greater Worker of Miracles than they were,\nshould withall assume to himself the Title of a Prophet, and Author of\na new Religion, I humbly conceive, we ought not to give heed to him.\n\nNeither is there the least Reason that we should; for the Power of\ndoing Miracles is no certain, nor rational Seal of the Commission and\nAuthority of a divine Lawgiver. St. _Paul_ says[15] there is a\n_Diversity of the Gifts of the Spirit, for to one is given by the\nSpirit, the Word of Wisdom; to another the Word of Knowledge; to\nanother the Gift of Healing; to another the working of Miracles; to\nanother Prophecy; to another discerning of Spirits; to another divers\nKinds of Tongues; to another the Interpretation of Tongues._ These\nGifts may be given apart and separately. One of them may be conferr'd\non this Man, and another of them on his Neighbour. There is no\nNecessity that any two or more of these Gifts should meet in one Man.\nTo argue then, that a Man, who has one of these Gifts, must have the\nother; that is, that he must needs have the Gift of Wisdom, or of\nProphecy, or of discerning of Spirits, or of divers Kinds of Tongues,\nbecause he has the Gift of Healing and of working Miracles, is very\ninconclusive, and false Reasoning: And yet this is the Reasoning of\nour modern Writers who would prove _Jesus_'s Authority, to found a\nReligion, from his Miracles. I don't question but _Jesus_ had all the\nforesaid Gifts and Powers of the Spirit in a most superlative Degree;\nbut then it is unreasonably inferr'd, for all that, that a Man,\nbecause he of Certainty has some of them, must of consequence have the\nother. St. _Augustin_[16] cautions us against being deceived into a\ngood Opinion of a Man's Wisdom, because of his Power to do Miracles.\nAnd I think accordingly, that we may as well say, that the strongest\nMan is the wisest; or that a good Physician must needs be a good\nCasuist; or that the best Mathematician is the ablest Statesman, as\nthat _Jesus_, because he was a Worker of Miracles, such as his are,\nand a Healer of all manner of Diseases, ought to be received as the\nGuide of our Consciencies, the Director of our Understandings, the\nRuler of our Hearts, and the Author of a Religion.\n\nWhat then will the Writers against the _Grounds_ do to prove _Jesus_'s\nAuthority and _Messiahship_ from his Miracles? Or how by his Miracles\nwill they be able to distinguish him from an Impostor, a false\nProphet, and the _Anti-christ_? Why, they will say perhaps,\n\n1. That besides Greatness of Power, there was nothing but Goodness,\nKindness, and Love to Mankind shewn in _Jesus_'s Miracles. As to the\nMiracles of false Prophets and Impostors, if they be, many of them, of\na kind and benevolent Aspect, yet the _Devil_'s Foot, if we look well\nto it, will discover it self in some ludicrous and mischievous Pranks:\nBut _Jesus_'s Miracles were all of a beneficent Nature; He went about\ndoing good, healing all manner of Diseases among the People, and did\nno Wrong to any one; which is a good Argument, they say, of his divine\nAuthority, or God would not have suffer'd, nor the _Devil_ have work'd\nsuch a Testimony in behalf of it. On this Head our _Divines_ are\ncopious and rhetorical, and many notable and florid Harangues have\nthey made on it. But\n\nIn answer to them, they don't seem to have their Memories at Hand, when\nthey declaim at this rate. The Fathers, upon whose Authority I write,\nwill tell such Orators, that _Jesus_, if his Miracles are to be\nunderstood in the literal Sense, did not only as foolish Things as any\nImpostor could do, but very injurious ones to Mankind. I shall not here\ninstance in the seemingly foolish and injurious Things which _Jesus_ did\nfor Miracles, intending under the next Head to speak to some of them:\nBut they are such, if literally true, as our _Divines_ do believe, as\nare enough to turn our Stomachs against such a Prophet; and enough to\nmake us take him for a _Conjuror_, a _Sorcerer_, and a _Wizard_, rather\nthan the _Messiah_ and Prophet of the most High God. But\n\n2. To prove the _Messiahship_ of the Holy _Jesus_ from his Miracles,\nour _Divines_ urge the Prophecies of the Old Testament, such as that\nof _Isaiah_, _C._ xxxv. _V._ 5, 6. _Then the Eyes of the Blind shall\nbe opened, and the Ears of the Deaf shall be unstopp'd; then shall the\nlame Man leap as the Hart, and the Tongue of the Dumb sing_; and say\nthat these Prophecies were accurately fulfill'd by our _Jesus_ in the\nseveral specifical Cures of Blindness, Deafness, Lameness, and\nDumbness, which he often perform'd upon one or other; and, inasmuch as\nour Saviour seems to appeal to such Prophecies, do conclude this his\nAccomplishment of them, to be no less than a Demonstration, that he\nwas the true _Messiah_, that great Prophet, who was to come into the\nWorld. To which I answer,\n\n_First_, That the Accomplishment of Prophecies that can neither be\ngiven forth by human Foresight, nor fulfill'd in a Counterfeit, are\ngood Proofs of _Jesus_'s _Messiahship_: But then, what shall we say if\nothers besides _Jesus_ should do the like Cures and Miracles? It is\nsaid of _Anti-christ_, and I believe it, that he will not only do all\nthe Miracles that _Jesus_ did, but will appeal to the like Prophecies\ntoo. How then we are to distinguish the _true_ Christ from the _false_\nChrist by Miracles and Prophecies in this Case, is the Question, which\nI leave with our _Divines_ to consider of an Answer to, against the\nTime that it is proved that _Anti-christ_ does all those Miracles,\nwhich _Jesus_ in the Flesh wrought. But\n\n_Secondly_, The foresaid Prophecies and others mentioned in _Isaiah_,\nneither were, nor could be Prophecies of the miraculous Cures of\nbodily Diseases which _Jesus then_ did. And this may be made appear,\nnot only from the Context of those Prophecies which received then no\nAccomplishment from _Jesus_, who ought to have fulfill'd one Part of\nthe Prophecy as well as the other, or is not to be taken for the\nFulfiller of either; but from the Opinion of both _Jews_ and\n_Fathers_, who adjourn the Accomplishment of those Prophecies to\nChrist's spiritual Advent. But\n\n_Thirdly_, The Prophet _Isaiah_, in the Place above cited, speaks not\nof bodily Blindness, _&c._ which the _Messiah_ is to heal, but of the\nspiritual Distempers of the Soul, metaphorically so called; as may be\neasily proved, not only from the Prophecies themselves, but from the\nold _Jews_, who were allegorical Interpreters of those Distempers, and\nfrom the antient Fathers,[17] who so understood them. Consequently our\n_Jesus_'s healing of those bodily Diseases, was no proper\nAccomplishment of those Prophecies. It is true our Saviour, _Matt._\nxi. 4, 5. seems to appeal to those Prophecies, and to make his Cure\nof corporal Distempers an Accomplishment of them: But he means not in\nthe literal Sense, that our _Divines_ take him in, as I shall show\nhereafter, when I come to consider what _Jesus_ means, by appealing to\nhis Works and Miracles, as bearing Witness of him.\n\nOur _Divines_ then may admire and adore _Jesus_ as much as they please\nfor his Miracles of healing bodily Distempers; but I am for the\nspiritual _Messiah_ that cures those Distempers of the Soul, that\nmetaphorically pass under the Names of Blindness, Lameness, Deafness,\n_&c._ And the Cure of these spiritual Diseases, is the proper and\nmiraculous Work of the true _Messiah_; for the sake of which, says[18]\nSt. _Augustin_, _Jesus_ condescended to do those _little_ Miracles of\nhealing bodily Distempers, which were but the Type and Shadow of his\nmore stupendous Miracles of curing spiritual Diseases. The Cure of\nspiritual Infirmities is a God-like[19] Work, above the Imitation of\nMan or of _Anti-christ_, infinitely more miraculous than the healing\nany bodily Distempers can be.\n\nWhether our _Jesus_ be at this Day such a spiritual _Messiah_, I leave\nto our _Divines_ to consider, with those spiritual Distempers of the\nChurch, that seem to want his miraculous Hand and Touch. The Fathers\nof the Church said, that _Jesus_ was _in part_ such a spiritual\n_Messiah_ in their time, and argued[20] his _Messiahship_, not from\nbodily Cures, but from his most miraculous Cures of the Diseases of\nthe Soul: But there was another and future Time, in which he would be\nsuch a spiritual and glorious _Messiah_ to the greatest Perfection. In\nthe mean while, no healing of corporal Distempers can prove _Jesus_ to\nbe the _Messiah_, nor any other of his miraculous Works recorded in\nthe _Evangelists_: So far from it, that\n\nII. I shall prove that the literal Story of many of _Jesus_'s Miracles,\nas they are recorded in the _Evangelists_, and commonly believed by\nChristians, does imply Improbabilities and Incredibilities, and the\ngrossest Absurdities, very dishonourable to the Name of Christ;\nconsequently, they, in whole, or in part, were never wrought, but are\nonly related as prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what would be\nmysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.\n\nThe reading of this Head will, I doubt not, strike with Horror some of\nour squeamish _Divines_, who, notwithstanding they will sacrifice almost\nany Principles to their Interest, will not bear that our literal\nevangelical History of such renown'd Miracles should be thus called in\nQuestion, and contemptuously spoken of. What does this _Author_ mean,\nwill some say, thus to do Service to Atheism and Infidelity? Away with\nhim! Our Indignation is moved against him! No Censure and Punishment can\nbe too severe for such Impiety, Profaneness, and Blasphemy, as is aim'd\nat, and imply'd in this Proposition.\n\nTo calm therefore the Spirits, and abate the Prejudices of such\nAccusers, I must proceed with the greater Caution and with Reason and\nAuthority well fortify myself before and behind, or I shall feel the\nWeight of the Displeasure of our _Divines_, who are prepossess'd of\nthe Belief of the literal Story of all _Jesus_'s Miracles.\n\nBefore then I enter upon the particular Examination of any of his\nMiracles, I will premise two or three general Assertions of the\nFathers about them. And first _Origen_[21] says, that in the\nhistorical Part of the Scriptures, _There are some Things inserted as\nHistory, which were never transacted, and which it was impossible\nshould be transacted; and other Things, again, that might possibly be\ndone, but were not_. This he asserts of the Writings of the\n_Evangelists_, as well as of the Old Testament, and gives many\nInstances to this Purpose. St. _Hilary_[22] says, _There are many\nhistorical Passages of the New Testament, that if they are taken\nliterally, are contrary to Sense and Reason, and therefore there is a\nNecessity of a mystical Interpretation_. And St. _Augustin_[23] says,\nthat _there are hidden Mysteries in the Works and Miracles of our\nSaviour, which if we incautiously and literally interpret, we shall\nrun into Errors, and make grievous Blunders._ Of the same Mind are the\nrest of the Fathers, as might be proved by express or implicit\nCitations; but, studying Brevity, I think the three Testimonies above,\nenough to cool the Rage, and assuage the Prejudices of my Adversaries\nagainst the Proposition before us, which I now come to a particular\nConsideration of; that is, to shew that the Story of many of _Jesus_'s\nMiracles is literally absurd, improbable, and incredible. And\n\n1. To speak to that Miracle of _Jesus_'s _driving the Buyers and Sellers\nout of the Temple_, which all the[24] four Evangelists make mention of.\n\nI have read in some modern Author whose Name does not occur to my\nMemory, that this was, in his Opinion, the most stupendous Miracle that\n_Jesus_ wrought. And, in truth, it was a most astonishing one, if\nliterally true, and _Jesus_ must appear more than a Man, he must put on\nan awful and most majestick Countenance to effect it. It is hard to\nconceive, how any one in the Form of a Man, and of a despised one too,\n(and we don't read that _Jesus_ chang'd his human Shape) with a Whip in\nhis Hand, could execute such a Work upon a great Multitude of People,\nwho were none of his Disciples, nor had any regard for him. Supposing he\ncould, by his divine Power, infuse a _panick_ Fear into the People; yet\nwhat was the Reason that he was so _eaten up_ with Zeal against the\nProfanation of that House, which he himself came to destroy, and which\nhe permitted, I may say commanded, to be filthily polluted not long\nafter. But not to form by my self an Invective against the Letter of\nthis Story, let's hear what the Fathers say to it,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Origen_ makes the whole but a[25] Parable. His allegorical Expositions\nof it, are frequent, and one time or other he gives us the mystical\nMeaning of every Part of it. By the _Temple_, he understands the Church:\nBy the _Sellers_ in the Temple, he means such _Preachers_ who make\nMerchandize of the Gospel, whom the Spirit of Christ, some time or\nother, would rid his Church of. He is so far from believing any thing of\nthe Letter of this Story, that he has form'd a[26] large Argument\nagainst it: The Substance of which is, that if _Jesus_ had attempted any\nsuch thing, the People would have resisted, and executed their Revenge\non him; if he had effected it, the Merchants of the Temple might have\nreproach'd him with Damage done to their Wares; and would have justly\naccused him of a Riot against Law and Authority. Whether there is not\nReason in this Argument of _Origen_, let any one judge.\n\nSt. _Hilary_ is of the same Mind with _Origen_. He says that this\nStory is only a[27] Pr\u00e6figuration of what will be done in Christ's\nChurch upon another Occasion. And he admonishes[28] us to search into\nthe profound and mystical Import of every Part of it; particularly he\nhints that[29] by _the Seats of those who sell Doves_, may be\nunderstood the Pulpits of Preachers who make Sale of the Gifts of the\nSpirit, which is represented by a Dove. As to the Letter of the Story,\nhe is plain enough, that there was no such[30] Market kept in the\nTemple of _Jerusalem_: And if any Historians besides the _Evangelists_\nhad asserted it, I know of none, who would have been so foolish as to\nbelieve that Oxen and Sheep and Goats were there sold.\n\nSt. _Ambrose_ too is for the Mystery, and against the Letter of this\nStory, saying[31] what should be the Reason that _Jesus_ should\noverturn the Seats of those that sold Doves? This must be, says he, a\nfigurative Story, and signifies nothing less than the future Ejection\nof Priests out of his Church, who shall make Gain and Merchandize of\nthe Gospel.\n\nSt. _Jerome_, as his manner is in other Cases, gives us a literal\nExposition of this Miracle, as far as it will bear it: But then corrects\nhimself again, saying, there are[32]Absurdities in the Letter; but,\naccording to its mystical Meaning, _Jesus_ will enter his Temple of the\nChurch, and cast out of it Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, who make a\nTrade of Preaching. And in another Place he tells us of the mystical[33]\nWhip, that _Jesus_ will make use of to this Purpose.\n\nSt. _Augustin_ also is against the Letter of the Story of this\nMiracle, saying,[34] Where could be the great Sin of selling and\nbuying Things in the Temple, that were for the Use of it, and offer'd\nas Sacrifice in it? We must therefore, says he, look for the Mystery\nin this[35] figurative Story, and enquire what is meant by the Oxen,\nand Sheep, and Doves, and who are the Sellers of them in Christ's\nChurch; and he is very positive that Ecclesiasticks, who are selfish,\nand make worldly Gain of the Gospel, are here meant. And as to the\nExpression of _turning the Temple into a Den of Thieves_, he says it\nhas Respect to the[36]_Clergy_ in Time to come, who would make such a\nDen of Christ's Church.\n\nLastly, with the foregoing Fathers agrees St. _Theophylact_, who is an\nAllegorist too upon this Miracle, saying, that those[37] who sell\nDoves, are the Priests who sell spiritual Gifts; and that Christ\nsometime or other would overturn their Seats, and clear his Church of\nthem. In another Place he intimates what are meant by Oxen and Sheep,\n_viz._ the literal Sense of the Scriptures. And if the literal Sense\nbe irrational and nonsensical, the Metaphor we must allow to be\nproper, inasmuch as now-a-days, dull and foolish and absurd stuff we\ncall Bulls, Fatlings, and Blunders.\n\nBehold a wonderful Harmony among the Fathers in their Rejection of the\nliteral, and Espousal of the mystical Sense of this Miracle. It is\nsaid of the Church in her first Ages, that she was inspired; and so\nshe was, or before an Hire for the Priesthood was established, and\npleaded for, she could never have written in this Fashion. If the\nFathers had lived now, and written thus, we should have thought the\nSpirit of _Quakerism_ was gotten amongst them, or they would never\nhave given such an Exposition of this Story to favour an Enmity to an\n_Hireling Priesthood_.\n\nHow and when Christ's Power, according to the Figure and Parable\nbefore us, will enter his Church, and drive out of her these\necclesiastical Merchants, is not the Question. But when ever it does\nso effectually, it will be a stupendous Miracle, much greater than the\ntypical one is supposed to be; and not only a Proof of Christ's divine\nPower and Presence in his Church, but an absolute Demonstration of\nhis _Messiahship_ from his Accomplishment both of the foresaid\nProphecies of the Fathers, and of other remarkable ones of the _Old\nTestament_, which will be then clearly understood, and which it is not\nmy Business here to apply or mention.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAgainst the aforesaid Exposition of this Miracle, perhaps it may be\nobjected, that (excepting a little Reasoning against the Letter of it)\nthis is only the chimerical and whimsical Dream of the Fathers, whose\nNotions are obsolete, and who[38] _have adulterated Christianity with\ntheir Cant and Jargon_; and that none of our _Protestant_ and Orthodox\n_Divines_ have ever given into their Opinion.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI confess, that none of our Protestant _Divines_, whom I know do\nembrace the foresaid Exposition of the Fathers, but it may be nothing\nthe worse for all that: And tho' their Exposition may be very\ndisagreeable to the Priesthood of this Age, yet I can tell them of the\ngreatest Man of these last Ages, and that was _Erasmus_, who,\ncautiously expressing himself for fear of giving Offence to the\n_Clergy_, is of the same Mind with the Fathers; or he would not say\nthat[39] _that Work of_ Jesus _did prefigure somewhat else: For_ Jesus\n_could not be zealous against the Prophanation of that Temple of the_\nJews, _which was soon to be destroy'd, but meant to shew his Dislike\nand Hatred of ecclesiastical Covetousness, which, after the Way of the\nType, he would take his Opportunity to rid the Church of._\n\nBefore I dismiss this Miracle, I must observe, that if the Fathers are\nright above, then our _Latin_ and _English_ Translations of the Place\nin St. _Matthew_ err in a main Point. Instead of reading, _and Jesus\ncast out them that sold and bought_, it should be, _those who sold and\npreach'd_; that is sold what they preach'd: For the Word [Greek:\nagorazein], does more properly signify to _preach_ than to _buy_; and\nin this Sense here, according to the Fathers, it should be construed.\n\nAgain, I must observe, that our Commentators are a little perplex'd to\nknow who, and what those [Greek: kollybist\u00f4n], _Money-Changers_,\nwere. The Greek[40] Word does import those who have a Knack to barter\naway little base and Brass Money, with the Effigies of an Ox or Bull\non it, in exchange for good Coin. How applicable the Word was to any\nMerchants of the old Temple at _Jerusalem_, is hard to conceive. But\nit is very agreeable to our ecclesiastical _Collybists_, who, as I may\nappeal to Freethinkers, vend their brasen-faced Bulls and Blunders at\nan extravagant and great Price. And if [Greek: trapezas], which is\ntranslated _Tables_, does properly signify[41] _Pulpits_, who can help\nit?\n\nSo much then on the Miracle of _Jesus_'s driving the _Sellers_ and\n_Buyers_ out of the Temple. And how I appeal to our _Divines_, whether\nit be not an absurd, improbable, and incredible Story according to the\nLetter, and whether it be any other than, as the Fathers said of it, a\nprophetical and parabolical Narrative of what would be mysteriously\nand more wonderfully done by _Jesus_. And so I come to speak to a\n\n2. Second Miracle of Jesus, and that is, that of his[42] _casting the\nDevils out of the Madman or Madmen, and permitting them to enter into\nthe Herd of Swine, which thereupon ran down a Precipice, and were all\nchoaked in the Sea_.\n\nTo exorcise, or cast Devils out of the Possess'd, without considering\nthe Nature of such a Possession, or the Nature and Power of the Devil,\nwe'll allow to be not only a kind and beneficent Act, but a great\nMiracle. But then, be the Miracle as great as can be imagined, it is no\nmore than what false Teachers,[43]_Workers of Iniquity_, and even some\nArtists amongst the _Jews_, have done before; consequently, such a work\nof _Exorcism_ in our Saviour, could be no Proof of his divine Authority.\nAnd if there was no more to be said against this Miracle, this is enough\nto set it aside, and to spoil the Argument of _Jesus_'s divine Power\nfrom it. But there are many Circumstances in the Story literally\nconsider'd, that would induce us to call the Truth of the whole into\nquestion. How came those Madmen to have their Dwelling amongst the Tombs\nof a Burying-Ground? Where was the Humanity of the People, that did not\ntake Care of them, in Pity to them, as well as for the Safety of\nothers? Or if no Chains, as the Text says, which is hardly credible,\ncould hold them, it was possible surely, as well as lawful, to dispatch\nthem, rather than their Neighbours and Passengers should be in Danger\nfrom them. Believe then this Part of the Story who can? But what's\nworse, its not credible there was any Herd of _Swine_ in that Country.\nIf any Historians but the _Evangelists_ had said so, none would have\nbelieved it. The _Jews_ are forbidden to eat Swine's Flesh; what then\nshould they do with Swine (which are good for nothing till they are\ndead) who eat neither _Pig_, _Pork_, nor _Bacon_? Some may say that they\nwere kept there for the Use of Strangers: but this could not be; because\nthat after the Time of _Antiochus_, who polluted the Temple with the\nSacrifice of an Hog, the _Jews_[44] forbad, under the Pain of an\n_Anathema_, the keeping of any _Swine_ in their Country. Perhaps it may\nbe said, that the _Gadarens_, so call'd from the Place of their Abode,\nwere not _Jews_, but neighbouring _Gentiles_, with whom it was lawful to\neat, and keep _Swine_. We will suppose so, tho' it is improbable; but\nthen its unlikely (without better Reason than at present we are\napprised of) that our Saviour would permit the Devils to enter into a\nHerd of them to their Destruction. Where was the Goodness and Justice of\nhis so doing? Let our _Divines_ account for it if they can. It is\ncommonly said of our Saviour, and I believe it, that his Life was\nentirely innocent, that his Miracles were all useful and beneficial to\nMankind, and that he did no Wrong to any one. But how can this be\nrightly said of him, if this Story be literally true? The Proprietors of\nthe Swine were great Losers and Sufferers; and we don't read that\n_Jesus_ made them amends, or that they deserv'd such Usage from him. The\nProprietors of the Swine, it seems upon this Damage done them by\n_Jesus_, desire him to depart out of their Coasts, to prevent farther\nMischief; which was gentler Resentment, then we can imagine any others\nwould have made of the like Injury. I know not what our _Divines_ think\nof this Part of the Story, nor wherefore _Jesus_ escaped so well; but if\nany _Exorcist_ in this our Age and Nation, had pretended to expel the\nDevil out of one possess'd, and permitted him to enter into a Flock of\nSheep, the People would have said that he had bewitch'd both; and our\nLaws and Judges too of the last Age, would have made him to swing for\nit.\n\nWithout Offence, I hope, I have argued against the Letter of this\nstrange Story of the holy _Jesus_; I should not have dared to have said\nso much against it, but upon the Encouragement of _Origen_ and other\nFathers, who say, we ought to expose the Absurdities of the Letter, as\nmuch as may be, to turn Men's Heads to the mystical and true Meaning.\n\nLet's hear then what the Fathers say to this Miracle. _Origen_'s\nCommentaries on this Part of St. _Matthew_, and St. _Luke_'s Gospel,\nare lost; otherwise unquestionably he would not only have told us,\nthat he believed no more of the Letter of this Story, than he did of\nthe Devil's[45]taking our Saviour to the Top of a Mountain, and\nshewing him all the Kingdoms of the World; but, as he is an admirable\n_Mystist_, would have given us curious Light into the Allegory and\nMystery of it. But without _Origen_, we have enough in the other\nFathers against the Letter of this Story.\n\nSt. _Hilary_ reckoning up all the Parts of this Miracle together, says\nof it, that it is[46] typical and parabolical, and written for our\nMeditation of what would be done hereafter by the holy _Jesus_.\nAccording to him, and other Fathers, the _Madman_ is Mankind; or if\nthey were two, they were _Jew_ and _Gentile_ at Christ's coming, who\nmay be said to[47] be _possess'd with Devils_, in as much as they were\nunder the Rule of diabolical Sins, and subject to the Worship of\n[Greek: Daimoni\u00f4n], false Deities, which we translate _Devils_. They\nwere _so fierce_[48] _as no Chains could hold them_, because of their\nmost furious Rage and Enmity to the Church, whom no Bonds of Reason\ncould restrain from doing Violence to the Christians. They are said\n_to be_[49] _naked_, because they were destitute of the Clothing of\nthe Spirit, and of Grace. And may be said to be _among the_[50]\n_Tombs_; because they were dead in Traspasses and Sins. After that\n_Jesus_ had exorcis'd these diabolical Spirits out of the _Gentiles_,\nand brought them to their right Senses, which was upon their\nConversion to the Faith; then a _good Way off_, some Ages after, did\nthe like _Devils_, by divine Permission, enter into a[51] _Herd of\nSwine_, i. e. into _Hereticks_ of impure Lives and furious Natures.\nWhat sort of _Hereticks_ are meant, or whether they are not to be\nunderstood of Christians In general, let our _Divines_ consider. But\none would be apt to think that _Ministers of the Letter_ are included,\nbecause the _Letter_ of the Scripture is mystically call'd[52]\n_Swines_ Food. I am not obliged to pursue the mystical Interpretation\nof this Parable (for so I will call it) thro' all its Parts, nor to\nsay what is meant by the Sea, that the _Swine_ are to be absorp't in;\nbut leave our _Divines_ to chew upon this mystical Construction given\nthem in part, and to consider, whether there's not a Necessity for\nsuch an Interpretation to make the Story credible.\n\nAnd thus have I given you the Opinion and Exposition of the Fathers\nupon this Miracle, which they turn all into Mystery. If our _Divines_\nare still far adhering to the Letter of this Story, let them account\nfor the Difficulties it is involv'd with. To cure Men violently\ndistracted, and possess'd with _Devils_, is, whether it be miraculous\nor not, a good and great Work; but to send the _Devils_, who without\n_Jesus_'s Permission could not go into the _Herd of Swine_, was an\nInjury done to the Proprietors, and unbecoming of the Goodness of the\nholy _Jesus_. Neither is there any other Way to solve the Difficulty,\nthan by looking upon the whole, with the Fathers, as Type and Figure.\n\nIf this miraculous Story had been recorded of _Mahomet_, and not of\n_Jesus_, our _Divines_, I dare say, would have work'd it up to a\nConfutation of _Mahometanism_. _Mahomet_ should have been, with them,\nnothing less than a _Wizard_, an _Enchanter_, a _Dealer_ with familiar\nSpirits, a sworn _Slave_ to the Devil; and his _Mussulmen_ would have\nbeen hard put to it to write a good Defence of him.\n\nWhen our Saviour was brought before _Pilate_ to be arraign'd, try'd,\nand condemned, _Pilate_ put this Question to the _Jews_, saying, _What\nEvil hath Jesus done?_ If both, or either of the Stories above, had\nbeen literally true of _Jesus_, there had been no need of false\nWitnesses against him. The Merchants of the Temple were at hand, who\ncould have sworn \"that he was the Author of an Uproar and Riot, the\nlike was never seen on their Market-Day; that they were great\nSufferers, and Losers in their Trades; and, whether he or his Party\nhad stolen any of their Goods or not, yet some were embezzled, and\nothers damaged; and all thro' the outragious Violence of this unruly\nFellow, against Law and Authority.\" If such Evidence as this was not\nenough to convict him of a capital Crime, then the _Swine-Herds_ of\nthe _Gadarenes_ might have deposed, \"how they believed him to be a\n_Wizard_, and had lost two thousand Swine through his Fascinations:\nThat he bid the Devils to go into our Cattle, is not to be deny'd. And\nif he cured one or two of our Countrymen of a violent Possession, yet\nin as much as he did us this Injury in our Swine, we justly suspect\nhim of diabolical Practices upon both.\"\n\nUpon such Evidence as this, _Pilate_ asks the Opinion of the _Jews_,\nsaying, _What think you?_ If they all had condemn'd him to be guilty\nof Death, it is no wonder, since there is not a _Jury_ in _England_\nwould have acquitted any one arraign'd and accused in the like Case.\n\nIt is well for our literal _Doctors_, that such Accusations were not\nbrought against _Jesus_; or their Heads would have been sadly puzzled\nto vindicate his Innocence, and to prove the Injustice and\nUndeservedness of his Death and Sufferings. But for this Reason, if no\nother, that no such Crimes were laid to his Charge, I believe little\nor nothing of either of the seemingly miraculous Stories before us,\nbut look upon them both as prophetical and parabolical Narratives of\nwhat would mysteriously and more wonderfully, and consistently with\nthe Wisdom and Goodness of _Jesus_, be done by him. And so I pass to a\n\n3. Third Miracle of _Jesus_, and that is _his Transfiguration_[53] _on\nthe Mount_. And this is the darkest and blindest Story of the whole\nGospel, which a Man can make neither Head nor Foot of; and I question\nwhether the Conceptions of any two thinking _Doctors_ do agree about\nit. To say there is nothing in the Letter of this Story, we Believers\nmust not, because St. _Peter_[54] says he was an Eye-witness of\n_Jesus_'s Majesty, saw his Glory on the Mount, and heard the Voice out\nof the Cloud. But as Infidels will be prying into the Conduct of\n_Jesus_'s Life, and forming their Exceptions to the Credibility or\nProbability of this or that part of it, so we Christians should be\nready at an Answer, that might reasonably satisfy them; and not\nforcibly bear down their Opposition, which will make no sincere\nConverts of them. And I believe they would easily distress us with\nDifficulties and Objections to the Letter of this Story.\n\nSt. _Augustin_ himself[55] owns, that the whole of it might be\nperform'd by Magic Art; and we know, in these our Days, that some\nJugglers are strange Artists at the Imitation of a Voice, and to make\nit as if it came from a far off, when it is uttered close by us, and\ncan cast themselves too into different Forms and Shapes, without a\nMiracle, to the Surprise and Admiration of Spectators.\n\nBut what, I trow, do our _Divines_ mean by _Jesus_'s\n_Transfiguration_. We read that his Countenance did shine like the\nSun, and his Raiment was made as white as Snow, and that's all. And is\nthis enough can we think, to demonstrate that Transaction, a\nmiraculous _Transfiguration_? Philosophers will tell us, that the\nReflections of the Light of the Sun will change the Appearance of\nColours, and to none more than Whiteness; and _Sceptics_ will say,\nthat its no Wonder if the Countenance of _Jesus_ look'd _Rubicund_,\nwhen the Sun might shine on it.\n\nThe Word in the Original for _transfigured_, is [Greek: metamorph\u00f4th\u00ea],\nthat is, he was metamorphosed, transform'd, or, if you will,\ntransfigured. And what is to be understood by a _Metamorphosis_, we are\nto learn not only from the natural Import of the Word, but from the\nancient Use of it. Accordingly, it signifies nothing less than the\nChange or Transformation of a Person into the Forms, Shapes, and\nEssences of Creatures and Things of a quite different Species, Size, and\nFigure: But _Jesus_, it is conceived, was not so _transfigured_. Our\n_Divines_, I suppose, would not have him thought such a _Posture-Master_\nfor the whole World. If I, or anyone else, should assert, that _Jesus_\nupon the Mount transform'd himself into a Calf, a Lyon, a Bear, a Ram, a\nGoat, an Hydra, a Stone, a Tree, and into many other Things of the\nanimate and inanimate World, I dare say there would, among our orthodox\n_Divines_, be such Exclamations against me for Blasphemy, as the like\nwere never heard of. They, to be sure, will not hear of such a\nTransfiguration; nor, like good plain believers, will bear any thing\nmore than that _Jesus_'s _Countenance did shine_ like the Sun, and the\nColour of his Vestments was changed; which whether it comes up to the\nImport of a _Metamorphosis_ or not, they don't care.\n\nBut to close with our _Divines_, and acknowledge that the glorious\nChange of _Jesus_'s Countenance, and of the Colour of his Vestments,\nwas a true and proper Transfiguration, and that it was as real and\nwonderful a Miracle as could be wrought: But then we may, I hope, ask\nthem, what was the particular Reason and Use of this Miracle? Was it a\nMiracle only for the sake of a Miracle? That's an Absurdity in the\nOpinion of[56] St. _Augustin_, who says, what is reasonable to think,\nthat all and every one of _Jesus_'s Miracles had its particular End\nand Use; or he who is the Wisdom as well as Power of God, had never\nwrought them. And what, I pray, was the life of this Miracle? Of that\nthe evangelical History is silent, and our _Divines_, with all their\nreasoning Faculties, can say nothing to it.\n\nAnd what did _Moses_ and _Elias_ on the Mount with _Jesus_? Was it in\ntheir own proper Persons that they appear'd? or were they only some\nSpectres and Apparitions in resemblance of them? It is said, that they\nwere talking with _Jesus_; what then did they talk about? The three\ngreatest Prophets and Philosophers of the Universe could not possibly\nmeet and confer together, but on the most sublime, useful, and\nedifying Subject. Its strange that the Apostles, who over-heard their\nConfabulation, did not make a Report of it, and transmit it to\nPosterity for our Edification and Instruction. St. _Luke_, as our\n_English_ Translation has it, seems to say that they talk'd together\nof _Jesus_'s _Decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem_; but\nthis can't be the Meaning of St. _Luke_'s[57] Words, which so\ninterpreted, are no less than a _Barbarism_, and, I appeal to our\nGreek _Criticks_, an Improper Expression of such Signification. We\nmust then look for a more proper Construction of the Phrase in St.\n_Luke_, or we must remain in the Dark, as to the Subject, that _Moses_\nand _Elias_ talked with _Jesus_ about.\n\nBut further, Why could not this Miracle have been wrought in the\nValley as well as upon a Mountain, whither _Jesus_ and his three\nApostles ascended for the Work of it? Naughty _Infidels_ will say, it\nwas for the Advantage of a Cloud, which often moves and rests on the\nTops of Mountains, to display his Pranks in. And why was it not done\nin the Presence of the Multitude, as well as of his three Apostles?\nThe more Witnesses of a Miracle, the better it is attested, and the\nmore reasonably credited; and there could not surely be too many\nWitnesses of this, any more than of others of _Jesus_'s Miracles, if\nreal ones. Ought not the unbelieving Multitude, for many Unbelievers\nunquestionably were amongst them, to have had a Sight and Hearing of\nthis Miracle, as well as the Apostles? Who should rather see the\nMiracle, than those who wanted Conviction? Were they to take the\nReport of the Miracle upon the Word of the Apostles, who were Parties\nin the Cause? Our _Divines_ may possibly say they ought: But\n_Infidels_ and _Free-Thinkers_ would cry out against them, for\njuggling Tricks, and pious Impostures.\n\nThese are all Difficulties and hard Questions about the Miracle of\nChrist's Transfiguration, which our _Clergy_, who are Admirers of the\nLetter of that Story, are obliged to account for; and I believe it\nwill be long enough before they give a proper and satisfactory Answer\nto many of them.\n\nLet's hear then what the Fathers say to this miraculous Story of\n_Jesus_'s Transfiguration. And it is agreed amongst them, that the\nwhole is but a Type,[58] Prefiguration, and[59] \u00e6nigmatical\nResemblance of a future and more glorious and real Transfiguration.\nAnd whenever they speak of any Part of the Story, they never explain\nto us how the Matter went upon Mount _Tabor_, but tell us of what\n_this_ or _that_ Part of it is figurative and emblematical; and how it\nis to be understood, and will be fulfill'd in future Time. As thus, by\n_the_[60] _six Days_, they understood six Ages of the World, after\nwhich a real and mysterious Transfiguration will be exhibited to our\nintellectual Views. By _Moses_ and _Elias_[61] talking with _Jesus_,\nthey mean the Law and the Prophets, upon an allegorical\nInterpretation, bearing Testimony unto Christ as the Fulfiller of\nthem. By the[62] _Mountain_ on which this future Transfiguration will\nbe exhibited, they understand the sublime and anagogical Sense of the\nLaw and the Prophets. By his _Transfiguration_ it self, they mean his\ntaking upon him, and passing through the Forms of all the Types of him\nunder the Law, as of a Lamb, a Lion, a Serpent, a Calf, a Rock, a\nStone, and of many others, which he is to fulfil, and which will then\nbe clearly discern'd by us. By the black Cloud[63] that at present\nobstructs this Vision, they understand the Letter of the Old\nTestament. By the white[64] Vestments of _Jesus_, they mean the Words\nof the Scriptures, which will then shine clear and bright. By the\nVoice out of the Cloud, they mean, with St. _Peter_, the Word of\nProphecy, that will sound in the Ears of our Apprehensions. And\nlastly, they tell us, that the Way to attain to the Sight of this\nglorious Vision, is by ascending (not by local Motion, but by Reason)\nto the Tops of the Mountain of the mysterious and sublime Sense of the\nLaw and the Prophets. If we continue in the Plains and Vallies[65] of\nthe Letter, like the Multitude under the Mountain, we shall never see\n_Jesus_ in his shining Vestments, nor how he was transform'd into the\nTypes of the Law; nor _Moses_ and _Elias_ talking with him; nor the\nLaw and the Prophets agreeing harmoniously in a Testimony to him.\n\nAfter this fashion do the Fathers, one or other of them, copiously\ntreat on every Part of this Transfiguration of _Jesus_. I could\ncollect an almost infinite Number of Passages out of their Writings to\nthis Purpose: But from these few it is plain, they look'd on the\nStory of Christ's Transfiguration, but as a Figure and Parable; and\nthey were certainly in the right on't, in as much as this their Sense\nof the Matter, and no other, will solve the Difficulties before\nstarted against the Letter, as any one may discern, if he attentively\nreview and compare one with the other: As, for instance, this their\nSense and Interpretation lets us into the Reason of _Moses_ and\n_Elias_'s appearing on the Mount with _Jesus_; and gives us to\nunderstand what they talk'd about, and that was, not on _Jesus_'s\n_Decease which he would accomplish at_ Jerusalem, as our Translation\nhas it, but on the Prophecy of the Old Testament; particularly, as St.\n_Luke_ says, on _Moses_'s Book of _Exodus, and how he would fulfill\nit_ at the New Jerusalem.\n\nWhether any, besides my self, does really apprehend, and is willing to\nunderstand this Story of Christ's Transfiguration, as I do, I neither\nknow nor care. I am not bound to find others Ears, Eyes, and\nCapacities. What I have said is enough to shew the Sense of the\nFathers about this Matter. If any dislike their concurrent Opinion of\n_Jesus_'s Transfiguration's being an Emblem, an Enigma, and figurative\nRepresentation of a future and most glorious Transfiguration, such a\none as they speak of; let him account for the Difficulties and\nObjections which I have before raised against the Letter of this\nStory. In the mean time I shall think it, literally, an absurd,\nimprobable, and incredible one, and no other than a prophetical and\nparabolical Narrative of what will be mysteriously and more\nwonderfully done by _Jesus_.\n\nAnd thus I have considered _three_ of the Miracles of our Saviour, and\nshewn how they are Absurdities, according to the Letter, consequently\ndo make nothing for his Authority and _Messiahship_. I can and will do\nas much by his other Miracles; for I would not have any one think I am\ngotten to the End of my Tedder, but for some Reasons best known to my\nself, I publish these Remarks on these three first. After the _Clergy_\nhave chew'd upon these a while, I will take into Examination some\nothers of _Jesus_'s Miracles, which for their literal Story are\nadmired by them. As for Instance,\n\nI will take to task his Miracle[66] _of changing Water into Wine at a\nMarriage in Cana of Galilee_; which was the beginning of _Jesus_'s\nMiracles, and should by right have been first spoken to; but I am\nalmost too grave to handle the Letter of this Story as I ought; and if I\nhad treated it as ludicrously as it deserves, I don't know but at\nsetting out, I should have put the _Clergy_ quite out of all Temper. I\nwould not now for the World be so impious and profane, as to believe,\nwith our _Divines_, what is contain'd and imply'd in the Letter of this\nStory. If _Apollonius Tyan\u00e6us_, and not _Jesus_, had been the Author of\nthis Miracle, we should often have reproached his Memory with it. It is\nsaid of _Apollonius Tyan\u00e6us_, that a Table was all on a sudden, at his\nCommand, miraculously spread with Variety of nice Dishes for the\nEntertainment of himself and his Guests; which Miracle, our _Divines_\ncan tell him, makes not at all to his Credit, in as much as it was done\nfor the Service and Pleasure of luxurious Appetites. But if _Apollonius_\nhad done, as our _Jesus_ did at this Wedding, they would have said much\nworse of him; and that, modestly speaking, he delighted to make his\nFriends thoroughly merry, or he would not be at the Pains of a Miracle\nto turn so much Water into Wine, after they had before _well drank_. If\nthe Fathers then don't help us out at the mystical and true Meaning of\nthis Miracle, such farther Objections may be form'd against the Letter,\nas may make our _Divines_ asham'd of it.\n\nI will also take into Examination _Jesus_'s Miracle[67] of _feeding\nmany Thousands in the Wilderness with a few Loaves and Fishes_; which,\naccording to the Letter, are most romantick Tales. I don't in the\nleast question _Jesus_'s Power to magnify or multiply the Loaves, and,\nif he pleass'd, to meliorate the Bread: But that many Thousands of\nMen, Women, and Children, should follow him into the Wilderness, and\nstay with him three Days and Nights too, without eating, is a little\nagainst Sense and Reason. Whether the Wilderness was near to, or far\nfrom the People's Habitations, the Difficulties attending the Story\nare equally great. I wonder how _Jesus_ amused them all the while,\nthat they had the Patience to stay with him without Food; but I much\nmore wonder, that no Victuallers besides the _Lad_ with his Loaves and\nFishes, of whom, and his Occupation, whether it was that of a _Baker_\nor _Fishmonger_; and of his Neglect of his Master's Business here; and\nof the Reason that he met with no hungry Chapmen for his Bread before,\nwe shall make some Enquiry; but particularly why he alone, I say, and\nno other Victuallers, no other Retalers of Cakes and Gingerbread\nfollowed the Camp. In short, for all the imaginary Greatness of the\nMiracle (which there is a way to reduce and lessen) of _Jesus_'s\nfeeding his Thousands with a few Loaves, there must be some\nFascination or Enchantment (condemn'd by the Laws of the _Jews_ as\nwell as of other Nations) in the Matter; or the People if they had\nstay'd one Day, would not two, much less three _to faint_, but would,\nespecially the Women and Children, have been for returning the first\nNight home. We must then seek to the Fathers (who say the five Books\nof _Moses_ are the _five Barley Loaves_, &c. and the septiform'd\nSpirit, the _seven Loaves_, &c.) for a good Notion of this Miracle,\nand if they don't make it a Parable; do what our _Divines_ can, it\nwill turn to the Dishonour of the holy Jesus.\n\nI will also consider the Miracle of _Jesus_'s[68] _curing the Man sick\nof the Palsy, for whom the Roof of the House was broken up, to let him\ndown into the Room where_ Jesus _was, because his Bearers could not\nenter in at the Door for the Press of the People_. This literally is\nsuch a _Rodomontado_, that were Men to stretch for a Wager, against\nReason and Truth, none could out-do it. Where was the Humanity of the\nPeople, and wherefore did they so tumultuate against the Door of the\nHouse? Its _strange_ they had not so much Compassion on the\n_Paralytick_, as to give way to him: Its _more strange_ that his Bearers\ncould get to the Top of the House with him and his Bed too, when they\ncould not get to the Door, nor the Sides of it: Its _yet stranger_, that\nthe good Man of the House would suffer his House to be broken up, when\nit could not be long ere the Tumult of the People would be appeas'd: But\nmost _strange_, that _Jesus_, who could drive his thousands out at the\nTemple before him, and draw as many after him into the Wilderness, did\nnot, by Force or Persuasion, make the People to retreat, but that such\nneedless Trouble and Pains must be taken for the miraculous Cure of this\npoor Man. Let's think of these Things against the Time, that out of the\nFathers I prove this Story to be a Parable.\n\nI will also take into Consideration the Miracle of _Jesus_'s curing\n_the_[69] _blind Man, for whom Eye-Salve was made of Clay and\nSpittle_; which Eye-Salve, whether it was balsamick or not, does\nequally affect the Credit of the Miracle. If it was naturally\nmedicinal, there's an End of the Miracle; and if it was not at all\nmedicinal, it was foolishly and impertinently apply'd, and can be no\notherwise accounted for, than by considering it, with the Fathers, as\na figurative Act in _Jesus_.\n\nI will also take into Consideration the several Stories of _Jesus_'s\nraising of the Dead; and, without questioning his actual bringing of\nthe Dead to Life again, will prove from the Circumstances of those\nStories, that they are parabolical, and are not literally to be\napply'd to the Proof of _Jesus_'s divine Authority and Messiahship;\nor, for Instance, _Jesus_, when he raised _Jairus_'s[70] Daughter from\nthe Dead, would never have turned the People out of the House, who\nshould have been his best and properest Witnesses.\n\nI will also consider the Miracle of _Jesus_'s[71] _cursing the\nFig-Tree_, for its not bearing Fruit out of Season; which, upon the\nbare mention of it, appears to be a foolish, absurd, and ridiculous\nAct, if not figurative.\n\nI will also consider the[72] Journey of the Wisemen out of the East,\nwith their (literally) senseless and ridiculous Presents of\n_Frankincense_ and _Myrrhe_, to a new-born Babe. If with their _Gold_,\nwhich could be but little, they had brought their _Dozens_ of Sugar,\nSoap, and Candles, which would have been of Use to the Child and his\npoor Mother in the Straw, they had acted like wise as well as good\nMen. But what, I pray, was the Meaning and Reason of a Star, like a\n_Will-a-Whisp_, for their Guide to the Place, where the holy Infant\nlay. Could not God, by divine Impulse, in a Vision or in a Dream, as\nhe ordered their Return home, have sent them on this important Errand;\nbut that a Star must be taken or made out of Course to this Purpose? I\nwonder what Communication passed between these Wisemen and the Star,\nor how they came to know one anothers Use and Intention. But the\nFathers shall speak hereafter farther to the Senselessness of this\nStory literally, and make out the Mystery and true Meaning of it.\n\nI will also, by the Leave of our _Divines_, take again into\nConsideration the miraculous Conception of the Virgin _Mary_, and the\nResurrection of _Jesus_ from the Dead. I do believe, if it may so\nplease our _Divines_, that _Jesus_ was born of a pure Virgin, and that\nhe arose from the Dead: But speaking too briefly, in the _Moderator_,\nto these two Miracles, they took Offence. I will therefore give them a\nReview, and speak home to them; particularly to Christ's Resurrection,\nthe evangelical Story of which literally, is such a Complication of\nAbsurdities, Incoherences, and Contradictions, that unless the Fathers\ncan help us to a better Understanding of the _Evangelists_ than we\nhave at present, we must of Necessity give up the Belief of it.\n\nThese and many[73] other of the historical and miraculous Parts of\n_Jesus_'s Life, will I take into Examination, and shew, that none of\nthem literally do prove his divine Authority: so far from it, that they\nare full of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities; but that\nhis whole Life in the Flesh, is but[74] Type, Figure, and Parable of his\nmysterious and spiritual Life and Operations in Mankind.\n\nIn the End of this Head, it will be a curious and diverting Subject to\nexamine the Miracles of _Jesus_ as they are literally understood, by the\nNotions which our _Divines_ have advanced about Miracles; and to shew,\nthat even their Notions compared with Christ's Miracles, are destructive\nof his Authority, and subversive of Christianity. This, I say, would be\na most diverting Undertaking, and it will be strange, if some\n_Free-Thinker_, that loves Pleasure of this kind, does not take the\nHint, and snatch the Work out of my Hands. If I do it my self, I shall\nhave especial Regard to the Writers against the _Grounds_, without\npassing by Mr. _Chandler_'s _Essay on Miracles_; on which the more\nRemarks will be made, if it be but to pay my Respects to the\n_Archbishop_'s Judgment, and to shew my Admiration at those extravagant\nPraises, which his _Grace_ at _Lambeth_ has bestowed on that Author.\nAmong other his notable Notions of a Miracle (and the _Archbishop_ says\nhe has[75] _set the Notion of a Miracle upon a clear and sure\nFoundation_) one is,[76] _That Miracles should be Things probable as\nwell as possible, that they do not carry along with them the Appearance\nof Romance and Fable, which would unavoidably prejudice Men against\nbelieving them_. This is certainly a good and right Notion of a divine\nMiracle; and I don't doubt, but according to it, Mr. _Chandler_ and the\n_Archbishop_ think, they can justify the literal Story of our Saviour's\nMiracles, against the Charge of _Fable_ and _Romance_: But whether they\nare able to do it or not, I shall go on, in some Discourses hereafter to\nbe publish'd, to prove that our _Divines_, by espousing the Letter of\nChrist's Miracles, have deceived themselves into the Belief of the most\narrant _Quixotism_ that can be devis'd and palm'd upon the\nUnderstandings of Mankind. I say, they have deceived themselves; for\nneither the Fathers, nor the Apostles, nor even _Jesus_ himself, means\nthat his Miracles, as recorded in the _Evangelists_, should be taken in\na literal Sense, but in[77] a mystical, figurative, and parabolical one.\nAnd this should bring me to the\n\nIII. Head of my Discourse; that is, to consider what _Jesus_ means, when\nhe appeals to his Works and Miracles, as to a Witness and Testimony of\nhis divine Authority; and to shew, that he could not properly and truly\nrefer to those supposed to be wrought by him in the _Flesh_, but to\nthose mystical ones he would do in the _Spirit_, of which those\nseemingly wrought by him in the Flesh, are but Types and Shadows.\n\nBut this Head can't be rightly spoken to, till I have more amply\ndiscuss'd the former, which, by God's Leave, I promise to do: And if\nmy _courteous Readers_ will be so kind as to trust me till that Time,\nI assure them to prove, that no Ignorance and Stupidity can be\ngreater, than the Imagination that _Jesus_ really appeal'd to his\nMiracles, supposed to have been wrought by him in the Flesh, as to a\nWitness and Testimony of his divine Authority, and _Messiahship_.\n\nIn the mean Time our _Divines_ may go on in their own Way, if they\nthink fit, and admire _Jesus_ of old, and celebrate his Power and\nPraises for healing of bodily Diseases, and doing other notable Feats\naccording to the Letter of the evangelical Story; but I am for the\nspiritual _Jesus_ and _Messiah_, who cures the worse[78] Distempers of\nthe Soul, and does other mysterious and most miraculous Works, of\nwhich those recorded in the Evangelists, are but Figure and Parable.\nThis is the primitive and concurrent Opinion about the true _Messiah_,\nwhich the Fathers universally adher'd to. Whether our _Jesus_, at this\nDay, be such a spiritual _Messiah_ to his Church, or whether she does\nnot stand in need of such a one, is the Question that our _Divines_\nare to see to. But I will add here, what I believe, and than have\nanother Opportunity to prove, that God on purpose suffer'd or\nempower'd _false_ as well as _true_ Prophets, _bad_ as well as _good_\nMen, such as _Apollonius_, _Vespasian_, and many others to cure\nDiseases, and to do other mighty Works, equal to what are literally\nreported of _Jesus_, not only to defeat us of all distinction between\ntrue and false Miracles, which are the Object of our bodily Senses,\nbut to raise and keep up our Thoughts to the constant Contemplation of\n_Jesus_'s spiritual, mysterious, and most miraculous Works, which are\nthe Object of our Understandings, and loudly bespeak the Power,\nWisdom, and Goodness of God; and which are to be the absolute\nDemonstration of _Jesus_'s divine Authority and _Messiahship_ to the\nConversion of _Jews_ and _Infidels_.\n\nI have no more to do at present, but, like a _Moderator_, to conclude\nwith a short Address and Exhortation to _Infidels_ and _Apostates_,\nthe two contending Parties in the present Controversy. And\n\n_First_, To _Apostates_, I mean the Writers against the _Grounds_ and\n_Scheme_. Whether you, _grave Sirs_, who account your selves orthodox\n_Divines_, tho' there is little but Contradiction and Inconsistency\namongst you, do like the Name of _Apostates_ which is given you, I\nmuch question: But it is the properest, I could think of, for your\nDesertion of primitive Doctrine about Prophecy and Miracles. I could,\nnot improperly have given you a worse _Title_, but I was willing to\ncompliment you, rather than reproach you with this.\n\nBut setting aside the Title of _Apostates_, whether it be, in your\nOpinion, opprobrious or not; you may plainly perceive, that I am,\n_Sirs_, on your Side, as to the Truth of Christianity; and if you'll\naccept of my Assistance for the Proof of _Jesus_'s Messiahship from\nProphecy, upon the Terms of the allegorical Scheme proposed in my\n_Moderator_, you shall find me your hearty Abettor. Upon the\nallegorical Scheme, I don't doubt but we shall soundly drub and mawl\n_Infidels_, and beat them out of the Field of Battle. If you, being\nwedded to the literal Scheme, will not accept of my Assistance, you\nmay go on in your own Way, and see the Event of the Controversy,\nwhich in the End will turn to your Dishonour.\n\nYou, _Sirs_, can't but be sensible, how those two great Generals, Mr.\n_Grounds_, and Mr. _Scheme_, with their potent Armies of Reasons and\nAuthorities against your literal Prophecies, have grievously\ndistress'd and gall'd you; and if you don't make an honourable Retreat\nin Time, and seek to _Allegorists_ for Help, will gain a compleat\nVictory and Triumph over you.\n\nInstead of the Help of _Allegorists_, you, I find, under the\nDisappointment of your literal Scheme, chuse rather to have Recourse to\n_Jesus_'s Miracles: But what little Dependence there is upon his\nMiracles, in your Sense, I have in _part_ proved in this Discourse; and\nthis I have done (give me leave repeatedly to declare it) not for the\nService of your unbelieving Adversaries, but to reduce you to the good\nold Way of interpreting Oracles, which, upon the Testimony of the\nFathers, will, one Day, be the Conversion of the _Jews_ and _Gentiles_.\n\nWhether you, _Sirs_, will be pleas'd with this short Discourse on\nChrist's Miracles, I much question. But before you put your selves\ninto a Rage against it, I beg of you to read St. _Theophilus_ of\n_Antioch_, _Origen_, St. _Hilary_, St. _Augustin_, St. _Ambrose_, St.\n_Jerome_, St. _Chrysostom_, St. _John_ of _Jerusalem_, St.\n_Theophylact_, and other occasional ancient Pieces on one part or\nother of the _Evangelists_; and you'll find how they countenance such\na Discourse as this on Miracles, and will abundantly assist me in the\nProsecution of it.\n\nI expect, _Sirs_, that some of you will be ready to rave against me\nfor this Discourse; but this is my Comfort, that if your Passion\nshould arise to another Prosecution of me, you can't possibly separate\nany of mine from the Opinions of the Fathers to ground a Prosecution\non: And what Dishonour in the End will redown to Protestant and\npretendedly learned _Divines_ of the Church of _England_, to persecute\nagain the Fathers for primitive Doctrine, I desire you to think on.\n\nBut, as I suppose, you'll have more Wit, _Sirs_, than to prosecute me\nagain for this Discourse; so I hope you'll have more Ingenuity, than\nodiously (after your wonted manner) to represent me to the Populace,\nfor Profaneness, Blasphemy, and Infidelity. If you dislike the whole,\nor any part of this Discourse, appear like Men and Scholars, from the\n_Press_ against it. Use me as roughly in Print as you think fit, I'll\nnot take it ill.\n\n  _Veniam petimus, dabimusq; vicissim._\n\nI desire nothing more than to be furiously attack'd from the _Press_,\nwhich, if I am not much mistaken, would give me a long'd for\nOpportunity to expose your Ignorance to more Advantage.\n\nBe not longer mistaken, _good Sirs_. The History of _Jesus_'s Life, as\nrecorded in the _Evangelists_, is an emblematical Representation of\nhis spiritual Life in the Soul of Man; and his Miracles are Figures of\nhis mysterious Operations. The four Gospels are in no Part a literal\nStory, but a System of mystical Philosophy or Theology.\n\nIf you are resolved not to come into this Opinion, I beg of you again,\nbefore you break forth into a Passion, to try to vindicate the literal\nStory of the three Miracles spoken to in this Discourse, _viz._ those\nof Jesus'_s driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple; of his\nexorcising the Devil out of the Madman; and of his Transfiguration on\nthe Mount;_ which if you are able to defend against the Fathers, and\nmy Objections, I'll give up the Cause to you, and own my self (what I\nam far enough from being) an impious Infidel and Blasphemer, and\ndeserving of the worst Punishment. In the mean time, I make bold again\nto assert, that the literal Story of Christ's Life and Miracles, is\nan absurd and incredible Romance, full of Contradictions and\nInconsistencies; and that modern Paraphrases are not only a\nconsequential Reflection on the Intellects of the _Evangelists_, and\ntheir divine Gifts of the Spirit, as if they could not write an\nintelligible and coherent Piece of Biography without your Help at this\nDistance of Time; but have even darken'd and obscured the seemingly\nnative Simplicity of the Story of the Life of _Jesus_. So leaving you\nto chew upon this, I turn\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMy Address to _Infidels_, particularly to the two most renown'd Writers\nof the Party, Mr. _Grounds_, and Mr. _Scheme_. I should, _Gentlemen_, by\nright, salute you with the Title of _Free-Thinkers_, a proper Name for\nyour philosophical Sect, who are for the free Exercise of your Reason\nabout divine and speculative Points in Theology. And I had distinguish'd\nyou by this Title from your apostatical Adversaries, but that I had a\nmind to oblige my old Friends the _Clergy_, in giving you a no more\nhonourable Title than I do them. And I trust you will not be offended at\nthe Title of _Infidels_, since not only your Writings seem to have a\nTendency to Infidelity; but, if there be any Fault in your Principles,\nyou know how to charge it on your Adversaries, the pretended Advocates\nfor Christianity, whose Absurdities, false Reasonings, Inconsistencies,\nand foolish Glosses on the Scriptures, have occasioned your Departure\nfrom the Faith in Christ.\n\nI thank Mr. _Scheme_ for the noble Present of his Book, which I\nreceived and read with Pleasure. But instead of one, he should have\nsent me a _Dozen_ for the Use of Friends and Borrowers, who are very\ncurious and importunate for the Perusal of it. For what Reason he\nenvies the _Booksellers_ the publick Sale of his Work, chusing rather\nto give it away _gratis_, than that they should reap any Profit by it,\nI know not. Surely it is not to bring an _Odium_ on the _Clergy_ for\nPersecutors, as if such an useful and philosophical Piece might not\nappear publickly without Danger from them: If so, I hope the _Clergy_\nwill resent the Indignity, and invite him to a Publication of his\nBook, with a Promise of Impunity, which would wipe off the Reproach,\nwhich this clandestine Method of disposing of it has cast on them.\n\nI once almost despair'd, _Sirs_, of seeing such another Piece from\nyour Quarter. I was afraid the Prosecution of the _Moderator_, would\nhave deterr'd you from the Press, whereby our excellent Controversy on\nFoot must have been dropt: But the sudden and unexpected Appearance of\nMr. _Scheme_, has revived me, and rejoiced the Cockles of my Heart.\nGo on then, _great Sirs_, in this Controversy, which Mr. _Grounds_\nhappily commenc'd; and if you are deny'd the Liberty of the Press, and\npublick Sale of your Books, I hope you'll, for all that, as occasion\noffers it self, oblige the Learned and Curious with some more of your\nbright Lucubrations, tho' you print them, and dispose of them in this\nclancular and subtil Method.\n\nIt is not that I wish well to your Cause of Infidelity, that I thus\nencourage you. You have more Sense and Reason than to suspect me tainted\nwith unbelieving Principles. Christianity will stand its Ground against\nyour battering Armour; and the Church of Christ will be the more firmly\nestablish'd on a Rock of Wisdom, for that Opposition you make to it.\nTho' you will entirely vanquish the literal _Schemists_, and ride in\nTriumph over them, yet other Defenders of the Faith, call'd\n_Allegorists_, will arise to your Confutation and final Overthrow.\n\nIf I am not mistaken, _Sirs_, your Adversaries, the literal\n_Schemists_, whom I call _Apostates_, are about making a Retreat, and\nyielding the Field of Battle to you. The _Bishop_ of _Litchfield_, the\ngreatest General on their Side, will not only find it hard to levy\nany more Forces in Defence of his _twelve_ literal Prophecies; but he\nknows that, if he draws his Sword any more against you, he must attack\ntoo the Authority of the Fathers for the allegorical Interpretation of\nsome of those Prophecies, already urg'd in my _Supplements_ to the\n_Moderator_; or, if the Fathers are neglected by him; they and I,\nkeeping out of the Reach of his _Bug-Bear_, will treat him with such\nfamiliar Language, as never was given to one of his Order.\n\nMr. _Scheme_ seems to promise us a Discourse on the Miracles in the\nScriptures; I hope he'll be as good as his Word, and ere long publish\nit. This Discourse of mine can't possibly supersede his. As I question\nnot but his Thoughts and Remarks on Miracles will be very considerable;\nso I shall be a little impatient till I see them. But be his Discourse\non Miracles of what Kind soever, I believe it will hardly be an\nObstruction to my Undertaking in Hand, which I intend, by God's Leave,\nto go on with, to the Honour of the holy _Jesus_, our spiritual\n_Messiah_, to whom be Glory and Praise for ever and ever. _Amen._\n\n\n                               ~_FINIS._~\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Page 44.\n\n[2] Page 53.\n\n[3] Universam porro Sacram Scripturam tam Novi quam Veteris Testamenti\nad allegoricum sensum esse sumendam, admonet nos vel illud, Aperiam os\nmeum in Parabolis. _In Prasat. ad Form. Spirit. Intell._\n\n[4] Si quidem Symbola qu\u00e6dam erant qu\u00e6 tunc gerebantur eorum, qu\u00e6 Jesu\nvirtute semper perficiuntur. _In Mat._ C. xv.\n\n[5] Omnis languor & omnis Infirmitas quam sanavit salvator tunc in\nPopulo referuntur ad Infirmitates spirituales Animarum, _&c._ _In_\nMat. _C._ xvii.\n\n[6] Christi Gesta aliud portendunt. _In_ Mat. _C._ xii. Evangelicis\ngestis est interior Sensus, _C._ xiv. H\u00e6c licet in pr\u00e6sens gesta sunt,\nquid tamen in futurum significent contuendum est, _C._ x. Peragunt\nformam futuri gesta pr\u00e6sentia, _C._ xxi.\n\n[7] Qu\u00e6 a Jesu facta sunt, alicujus significantia erant. _Serm._ 77.\n\n[8] Omne quod fecit Jesus, Sacramenta sunt. _Homil._ 31. _in_ Marc. 9.\n\n[9] Si enim temporalis erat ab eo Utilitas, nihil grande pr\u00e6stitit\niis, qui ab eo curati sunt, _L. V._ C. 12. _S._ 6.\n\n[10] Contra Celsum, _L._ 11.\n\n[11] Coecum curavit, magnum quidem est, quod fecit, sed nisi quotidie\nfiat, quod olim factum, nobis quidem magnum esse cessavit. _Homil._\n30. _in_ Marc. 9.\n\n[12] Si humano captu & ingenio consideremus Jesum facientem, & quod ad\npotestatem non magnum aliquid fecit, & quod ad benignitatem, parvum\nfecit. _In_ Johan. _Cap._ v. _Tract._ 17.\n\n[13] Etsi attestabantur Miracula, non defuissent (sicut & nunc\nmussitant) qui magic\u00e6 potenti\u00e6 cuncta illa tribuerent. _Cont. Faust._\n_L._ XII. _C._ 45.\n\n[14] _Vid._ Sanctum _Augustinum_ de _Anti-christo_.\n\n[15] 1 _Cor._ C. xii.\n\n[16] Atque illud ad Rem maxime partineat, ne decipiamur tendentes ad\nContemplationem Veritatis----Arbitrantes ibi esse invisibilem\nsapientiam, ubi Miraculum visibile viderimus. _In Serm. Dom. in\nmonte_, _Lib._ 2. _Sect._ 84.\n\n[17] Interim completur & Isai\u00e6 Prophetia non tantum in corporalibus,\nverum etiam in spiritualibus, _Origen_. _In Matt. Cap._ xv. Aperientur\nigitur Oculi c\u00e6corum, aures surdorum audient, nam qui quondam divinis\nsermonibus rejectis mysticam Sanctorum Institutionem recipere non\nstuduerunt, libenter eam admittent. St. _Cyril in_ Loc. Is. _Vide &\nSanctum Hieronymum in_ Loc. Isai.\n\n[18] Et nunc majores sanitates operatur, propter quas non est\ndedignatus tunc exhibere illas minores. _In Serm._ 88.\n\n[19] In quibus Spiritualibus maxime Christi Persona eminet. _August.\nQuest. 2. in Lucan._\n\n[20] Modo Caro c\u00e6ca non aperit oculos miraculo Domini, sed cor c\u00e6cum\naperit oculos Sermoni Domini. Modo non resurgit mortale cadaver, sed\nresurgit anima qu\u00e6 mortua jucebat in vivo Cadavere, _&c. August.\nSerm._ 88. _S._ 3.\n\n[21] Historia Scriptur\u00e6 interdum interferit qu\u00e6dam vel minus gesta,\nvel qu\u00e6 omnino geri non possunt, interdum qu\u00e6 possunt geri, nec tamen\ngesta sunt. _De Principiis_, Lib. 4.\n\n[22] Multa sunt, qu\u00e6 non sinunt nos simplici sensu dicta evangelica\nsuscipere. Interpositis enim non nullis Rebus qu\u00e6 ex Natura humani\nsensus sibi contraria sunt; Rationem qu\u00e6rere c\u00e6lestis Intelligenti\u00e6\nadmonemur. _In Matt. L._ xx. _S._ 2.\n\n[23] Evangelica Sacramenta in Christi factis signata omnibus non\npatent, & ea nonnulli minus diligenter interpretando asserunt\nplerumque pro salute Perniciem, & pro Cognitione Veritatis Errorem,\n_&c._ _De Qu\u00e6st. Divers. Quest._ 84.\n\n[24] _Matt._ xxi. _Mark_ xi. _Luke_ xix. _John_ ii.\n\n[25] In Comment. in _Matth._ xxi.\n\n[26] Porro cui cur\u00e6 est accuratior Inquisitio considerabit, an juxta\ndignitatem pr\u00e6sentis Vit\u00e6 erat, ut Jesus rem talem auderet facere,\nextrudere videlicet Mercatorum Multitudinem, qui ad Diem festum\nascenderant, distributuri boves ditioribus, & tanto populo oves\nmactandas per domos familiarium, qu\u00e6 multorum millium complerent\nnumerum; atque eos qui in rebus talibus gloriantes producturi erant in\nmedio Columbas, quas multi emptori erant, ceu in Conventu celeberrimo\nconvivaturi. Considerabit hic etiam, an Nummulariorum erat non\naccusare Jesum contumeliose propter suas ipsorum effusas pecunias &\nmensas subversas. Quis autem flagello e funiculis verberatus &\nexpulsus ab eo qui penes eos habebatur vilis, hunc adortus non\ninclamasset totis viribus sese ulciscens? Cum pr\u00e6sertim haberet tantam\nmultitudinem eorum, qui sibi \u00e6que contumeliam fieri credebant,\nfaventem sibi adversum Jesum? Insuper consideremus, Dei filium\nfuniculos sumentem; sibique flagellum tenentem ad extrudendum e\ntemplo, annon repr\u00e6sentet Pr\u00e6ter audaciam & temeritatem, inordinatum\netiam quiddam? In _Johan._ Tom. XI.\n\n[27] Pr\u00e6figuratio futurorum dictis pr\u00e6sentibus continetur. _In Matt._\nxxi.\n\n[28] Admomemur altius Verborum Virtutes in istius modi\nsignificationibus contuendas, _ibid._\n\n[29] In Cathedra est sacerdotii sedes; & eorum qui Spiritus sancti\nDonum venale habent, Cathedras evertet, _ibid._\n\n[30] Non habebant Jud\u00e6i quod venire possent, neque erat quod emere\nquis posset, _ibid._\n\n[31] Cathedra autem Vendentium Columbas cur everterit? Secundum\nLitteram non intelligo. Admonet Typo ejectorum de Templo hujusmodi\nMercatorum, in Ecclesia Dei Consortium eos habere non posse, qui\nsancti Spiritus Gratiam nundinentur. _In Loc. Luc._\n\n[32] Juxta simplicem Intelligentiam--quod ponitus absurdum--c\u00e6terum\nsecundum Mysticos In tellectus Jesus ingreditur Templum Patris &\nejicit omnes Episcopos, Presbyteros, & Diaconos, _&c. In Loc. Mat._\n\n[33] Faciet Dominus Flagellum de Scripturarum Textuum Testimoniis. _In\nZechar._ C. xiv.\n\n[34] Non magnum Peccatum, si hoc vendebant in Templo, quod emebatur,\nut offerretur in Templo. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[35] Qui sunt tamen qui boves vendunt? ut in figura qu\u00e6ramus Mysterium\nfacti, qui sunt qui Oves vendunt Columbas? ipsi sunt qui sua qu\u00e6runt\nin Ecclesia, non qu\u00e6 Jesu Christi. _Ibid._\n\n[36] Vos enim fecistis Domum meum, Domum Negotiationis & speluncam\nLatronum, significant futuros in Ecclesia. _L._ II. _Evang. Qu\u00e6st.\nQuast._ 48.\n\n[37] [Greek: Didaskalos \u00f4n, ou katangellei logon, ei m\u00ea kerdos echei,\nkai toutou t\u00ean trapezan anatrepei o Kyeios]. _In Johan._ C. ii.\n\n[38] _Chandler's_ Vindication, _&c._ p. 145.\n\n[39] Hoc facto longe aliud significabat Jesus, nec enim illum\ntantopere commovebat Templum illud mercimoniis Boum, Ovium, Hircorum &\nColumbarum profanatum; sed ostendere voluit Avaritiam & Qu\u00e6stum sore\ncapitalem Pestem Ecclesi\u00e6, quam Templum, cujus Religio mox erat\nabolenda, figurabat--In nullum Hominum Genus acrius s\u00e6viit Jesus, sed\nhos ipse sibi servavit ejiciendos, cum videbitur. _In Loc. Matt._ xxi.\n\n[40] _Vid._ Suicerum in [Greek: Kollubust\u00eas].\n\n[41] [Greek: Trapeza], apud Aristophanem est Pulpitum. _Vid._ Scapulam.\n\n[42] _Matt._ viii. _Mark_ v. _Luke_ viii.\n\n[43] _Luke_ xiii. v. 27.\n\n[44] _Spencer_ de Legibus Hebr\u00e6, _p._ 117.\n\n[45] _Lib._ IV. De Principiis.\n\n[46] Hanc habeant Causam, ut esset in rebus gerendis futuri plena\nmeditatio. _In Loc. Matt._ In hoc Typica ratio servata est. _Ibid._\n\n[47] Significat\u00e6 sunt gentes qu\u00e6 multis d\u00e6monibus serviebant.\n_Augustin in Luc. Quest._ 13.\n\n[48] Humanum genus ad Adventum Domini vexabatur furore dementi,\nrumpens vincula rationis. St. _Amb. in Loc. Luc._\n\n[49] Nudus quicunque tegumentum Natur\u00e6 su\u00e6 & Virtutis amisit. _Amb.\nIbid._\n\n[50] In tumulis Sepulchrorum; quid enim aliud sunt Corpora perfidorum,\nnisi qu\u00e6dam defunctorum Sepulchra in quibus Dei verbum non habitat.\n_Ibid._\n\n[51] Videntes D\u00e6mones non sibi jam locum in gentibus derelinqui, ut\npatiatur habitare se in H\u00e6reticis deprecantur. _Hilar. in Loc. Matt._\n\n[52] Litera est Palea, & frequenter evenit, ut homines hujus soeculi\nmystica nescientes, simplici Scripturarum Lectione pascuntur. _Hieron.\nin_ Isa. xi.\n\n[53] _Matt._ xvii. _Mark_ ix. _Luke_ ix.\n\n[54] 2 _Pet._ i. 16, 17, 18.\n\n[55] Possunt infideles istam Vocem delatam de C\u00e6lo, per conjecturas\nhumanas & illicitas Curiositates ad magicas Artes reserte. _In Serm._\nxliii. _Sect._ 5.\n\n[56] Neque enim Miracula propter Miracula faciebat, sed ut illa qu\u00e6\nfaciebat, mira essent videntibus, vera essent intelligentibus. _In\nSerm._ xcviii. _Sect._ 3.\n\n[57] [Greek: Helegon t\u00ean exodon autou \u00ean emelle pl\u00earoun], C. ix. V. 31.\n\n[58] Regni coelestis Honor prefiguratur. St. _Hilar. in Loc. Matt._ In\nTransfiguratione futura Regni Pr\u00e6meditatio & Gloria demonstrata est.\nSt. _Hierom. in Loc. Matt._\n\n[59] [Greek: Ainigmat\u00f4d\u00eas parodeixis t\u00eas Basileias], Anast. in Transfig.\nDom. [Greek: Ypodeigma t\u00eas dox\u00eas ekein\u00eas.] St. _Chrysost. in Loc. Matt._\n\n[60] Sex millium scilicet Annorum Temporibus evolutis. St. _Hilar. in\nLoc. Matt._ Sic post Sex \u00e6tates Dominus a perfectis Famulis\nconspicietur. _Dionys. Alex. apud Damascen. in Orat. de Transfig._\n\n[61] Et Moses & Elias apparuerunt in Gloria, cum Jesu colloquentes, in\nquo ostenditur Legem & Prophetas, cum Evangeliis consonare & in eadem\nGloria spiritualis intelligenti\u00e6 refulgere. _Origen. in Epist. ad\nRom._ c. 1.\n\n[62] Montem ascendit ut te doceat, ne qu\u00e6ras eum nisi in Legis &\nProphetarum montibus. _Origen in Cantic. Cantic. Hom._ 3.\n\n[63] Per nubem tetram intellige opacitatem Legis. _Damascen. in Orat.\nde Transfigur._\n\n[64] Vestimenta candida Jesu sunt Sermones & Scripta Evangeliorum.\n_Origen in Loc. Matt._\n\n[65] Si quis Litteram sequitur, & deorsum est totus, hic non potest\nvidere Jesum in veste candida; qui autem sequitur Sermonem Dei & ad\nmontana, id est, excelsa Legis conscendit, isti Jesus commutatur----\nQuamdiu Litteram sequimur occidentem, Moses & Elias cum Jesu non\nloquuntur; sin spiritualiter intelligimus, statim Moses & Elias\nveniunt, id est Lex & Prophet\u00e6 & colloquuatur cum Evangelio. _Johan.\nHieros. Hom._ 32.\n\n[66] _John_ ii.\n\n[67] _Matt._ C. xiv. and xv. _&c._\n\n[68] _Mark_ ii. _Luke_ v.\n\n[69] _John_ ix.\n\n[70] _Mark_ v.\n\n[71] _Matt._ xxi. _Mark_ xi.\n\n[72] _Matt._ ii.\n\n[73] Alia quam plurima his similia in Evangeliis inveniet, quicunque\nattentius legerit. _Origen. de Principiis_, lib. iv.\n\n[74] Qu\u00e6 Enarratio erit Evangelii sensibilis, nisi accommodetur ad\nintelligible & spirituale? Nulla sane, _Origen. is Pr\u00e6fat. ad Johan.\nEvang._\n\n[75] _See Archbishop_ Wake's _Manuscript Letter to Mr._ Chandler,\n_which is handed about Town and Country_.\n\n[76] Chandler's _Vindication_, &c. p. 81.\n\n[77] Dominus noster ea qu\u00e6 faciebat corporaliter, etiam spiritualiter\nvolebat intelligi, _&c. August. Serm._ xcviii. _Sect._ 3.\n\n[78] Quos in corporibus morbos sanavit Christus, hi in animabus\nexistunt, & supernam ejus opem requirunt. _Johan. Nepos. Hieros._ Hom.\nLXI.\n\n\n\n\n                                A SECOND\n                               DISCOURSE\n                                 ON THE\n                                MIRACLES\n                                 OF OUR\n                               _SAVIOUR_,\n\n                   In VIEW of the present Controversy\n                     between INFIDELS and\n                     APOSTATES.\n\n              _Audendum est, ut illustrata Veritas pateat,\n                multique ab Errore liberentur._ Lactant.\n\n                      By THOMAS WOOLSTON, sometime\n               Fellow of _Sidney-College_ in _Cambridge_.\n\n                               _LONDON_:\n\n          Printed for the Author, Sold by him in _Bell-Alley_,\n            _Coleman-Street_, and by the Booksellers of\n            _London_ and _Westminster_. 1727.\n\n                         [Price One Shilling.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                 TO THE\n                      Right Reverend Father in God\n                               _EDWARD_,\n                      Lord BISHOP of _Lichfield_.\n\n\nMY LORD,\n\nYour Fame for that celebrated Book, call'd the _Defence of\nChristianity_, is the Occasion of this Dedication. I need not tell you,\nwhat vast Reputation you have acquired by it: You have been not only\noften applauded from the Press, but have met with large Compliments and\nThanks from your Clergy for it. And tho' Mr. _Scheme_ has very\nuntowardly written against you, yet this is _still_ your Honour, that\nyou are an _Author_, not unworthy of his Regard and Notice.\n\nI am, in Opinion with the Fathers, against an establish'd Hire for\nthe Priesthood, thinking it of disservice to true Religion: But when\nI consider'd the Usefulness of your Lordship's Episcopal Riches and\nHonours to this Controversy, I almost chang'd my Mind. Your exalted\nStation in the Church, has given Credit and Authority to your Work,\nwhich, if it had came from the Hands of a poor Priest, had never been\nso much admir'd; neither would Mr. _Scheme_, I believe, nor my self,\nhave paid so many Respects to it.\n\nFor this Reason, I wish some more of your _Order_ would appear in this\nControversy, that the World might see what famous Men are our\n_Bishops_, and of what Use their _Hundreds_ and _Thousands_ a Year are\nto the Defence of Christianity; which, if such able Hands were not\namply hired to its Support, might be in Danger, as certainly as, that\nMen of low Fortunes must needs be Men of poor Parts, little Learning,\nand slender Capacities to write in Vindication of it.\n\nSome have conceiv'd Hopes that the great _Bishop_ of _London_, from\nhis last Charge to his _Clergy_, will second you in this Controversy;\nif so, there's no doubt on't, but his Performance will be commensurate\nto his State and Revenues. Of his Zeal in the Controversy, he has\nalready given a notable Instance, when he prosecuted the _Moderator_;\nand I dare say, he'll vouchsafe us a more remarkable Specimen of his\nKnowledge in it, as soon as he can spare Time for't; and then (Oh my\nFears!) he'll pay me off for my Objection against Christ's\nResurrection, which he would have persuaded the Civil Magistrate to\nhave done for him.\n\nBut whether the _Bishop_ of _London_ seconds you or not, it's Time,\n_my Lord_, to expect another Volume from you, in Answer to Mr.\n_Scheme_, which, for all the Reports that are spread of your intended\nSilence, I hope soon to see publish'd. What will the People say, if\nthat _Philisthin_ goes off, giving you the last Blow in the\nControversy? Nothing less than that he has gotten the better of the\nLearned _Bishop_ of _Lichfield_, and has refuted Christianity to the\nConviction of the Bishop himself, who would renounce it too, but for\nthe temporal Advantages he enjoys by it.\n\nThink, _my Lord_, on the Dishonour of such Reflections, and resume\nCourage against the Adversary. I look upon you as a more sturdy\nGladiator than for one Cut on the Pate, to quit the Stage of Battle.\nTho' Mr. _Scheme_ has unluckily hit you on a soft Place, and weaken'd\nyour Intellectuals for a while; yet he is a generous Combatant, and\ngives you Time to recover your wonted Strength of Reason. At him again\nthen, _my Lord_, and fear not, in your Turn, to give him such a\nHome-Thrust, as will pierce his unbelieving Heart.\n\nAnd when your _Lordship_ engages him again from the _Press_, I hope\nyou'll be more explicite for Liberty of Debate. Through godly Zeal for\n_Church_, you unhappily made a Slip, in your _Dedication_ to the _King_,\non the persecuting Side of the Question, which had lik'd to have sully'd\nthe Glory of your whole Work. Such a grand Philosopher, as you are,\nshould trust alone to the Goodness of your Cause, and the Strength of\nyour Reasonings, in Defence of it: Such a potent Champion for\nChristianity, as you are, should disdain the Assistance of any, but of\nGod, to fight for you. The Use of the Civil Sword on your Side, is not\nonly a Disparagement to your Parts, but a Disgrace to our Religion.\n\nI know not what your _Lordship_ may think on't, but the Prosecution of\nthe _Moderator_ was, in the Judgment of others, more than of my self,\nsome Reproach to you: Because of a few slender Animadversions, I made\non your renown'd Book, some think I suffer'd a Prosecution, which you,\nin Honour, should have discourag'd. I am willing to acquit you as much\nas may be; and would, if I could, impute it to your Forgetfulness,\nrather than your Malice, that you step'd not between me and Danger.\n\nWhether this Discourse will be acceptable to your Lordship, is\nsomewhat uncertain; I am afraid it will be a little disgustful to\nyour nice and delicate Taste in Theology, which relishes nothing\nbetter than the plain and ordinary Food of the Letter of _Christ_'s\nMiracles: But however, you will readily interpret this _Dedication_ to\nyour Honour, and if you should make me a large present of Gold for it,\nI sincerely assure your _Lordship_, it will be more than I aim'd at;\nneither do I desire any other Return for it, than to be endulg'd the\nLiberty and Pleasure to pay my customary Respects to your Writings;\nand upon proper Occasions to testify to the World, how much I am,\n\n[Sidenote: London, _October_ 13^{th} 1727.]\n\n  MY LORD,\n       The Admirer of\n        Your Wit, Learning\n          and Orthodoxy,\n  _Thomas Woolston_.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                A SECOND\n                               DISCOURSE\n                                 ON THE\n                                MIRACLES\n                                 OF OUR\n                             _SAVIOUR_, &c.\n\n\nI here publish another _Discourse_ on our Saviour's Miracles, which I\nam not only oblig'd to, by the Promise I made in my former; but am\nencouraged to it by the Reception which _that_ met with. If any of our\n_Clergy_ were, and besides them, few or none could be offended at my\nformer _Discourse_, they should have printed their Exceptions to it,\nand, if possible, their Confutation of it, which might perhaps have\nprevented me the giving them any more Trouble of this Kind.\n\nIn my former _Discourse_ I fairly declar'd, that if the _Clergy_ could\ndisprove my Arguments against the _Letter_, and for the _Spirit_ of\nthe Miracles I there took to task, I would not only desist from the\nProsecution of my Design, but own my self an impious _Infidel_ and\n_Blasphemer_, and deserving of the worst Punishment: But since they\nare all mute and silent, even in this Cause, which in Honour and\nInterest they should have spoken out to, they ought not to be angry,\nif I proceed in it. I have given them time enough to make a Reply, if\nthey had been of Ability to do it: What must I think then upon their\nSilence? Nothing less than that my Cause is impregnable, and my\nArguments and Authorities in Defence of it irrefragable; and though\nthey don't professedly yield to the Force of them; yet they have\nnothing to say in Abatement of their Strength, or it had certainly\nseen the Light before now.\n\nI go on then in my undertaking to write against the literal Story of\nour Saviour's Miracles, and against the Use that is commonly made of\nthem to prove his divine Authority and Messiahship: And this I do, I\nsolemnly again declare it, not for the Service of Infidelity, but for\nthe Honour of the Holy Jesus, and to reduce the _Clergy_ to the good\n_old Way_, and the _only Way_ of proving his Messiahship, and that is,\nby the allegorical Interpretation of the Law and the Prophets.\nTherefore, without any more Preamble, I resume again the Consideration\nof the three Heads of Discourse, before proposed to be treated on to\nthis Purpose. And they are,\n\nI. To shew, That the Miracles of healing all manner of Bodily\nDiseases, which _Jesus_ was justly fam'd for, are none of the proper\nMiracles of the _Messiah_, neither are they so much as a good Proof of\nhis divine Authority to found a Religion.\n\nII. That the literal History of many of the Miracles of _Jesus_, as\nrecorded by the _Evangelists_, does imply Absurdities, Improbabilities,\nand Incredibilities; consequently they, either in whole or in part, were\nnever wrought, as they are commonly believed now-a-days, but are only\nrelated as prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what would be\nmysteriously, and more wonderfully done by him.\n\nIII. To consider, what _Jesus_ means, when he appeals to his Miracles,\nas to a Testimony and Witness of his divine Authority; and to shew\nthat he could not properly and ultimately refer to those, he then\nwrought in the _Flesh_, but to those mystical ones, which he would do\nin the _Spirit_, of which those wrought in the Flesh are but mere\nTypes and Shadows.\n\nI have already spoken, what I then thought sufficient to the first of\nthese Heads; and though I could now much enlarge my Reasons, and\nmultiply Authorities upon it to the same Purpose; yet I shall not do\nit; but only, by Way of Introduction to my following _Discourse_, say,\nthat if it had been intended by our Saviour, that any rational\nArgument for his divine Authority and _Messiahship_ should be urged\nfrom his miraculous healing Power; the Diseases which he cured, would\nhave been accurately described, and his Manner of Operation so\ncautiously express'd, as that we might have been sure the Work was\nsupernatural, and out of the Power of Art and Nature to perform: But\nthe _Evangelists_ have taken no such Care in their Narrations of\nChrist's Miracles. As for Instance, _Jesus_ is supposed often\nmiraculously to cure _Lameness_; but there is no Account of the nature\nand degree of Lameness he cured; nor are we certain, whether the Skill\nof a _Surgeon_, or Nature it self, could not have done the Work\nwithout his Help. If the _Evangelists_ had told us of Men, that wanted\none or both their Legs, (and such miserable Objects of Christ's Power\nand Compassion, were undoubtedly in those Days as well as in ours) and\nhow _Jesus_ commanded Nature to extend itself to the entire Reparation\nof such Defects; here would have been stupendous Miracles indeed,\nwhich no Scepticism, nor Infidelity itself could have cavill'd at; nor\ncould I, nor the Fathers themselves have told how to allegorize, and\nmake Parables of them. But there is no _such_ Miracle recorded of\nChrist, nor any thing equal to it; so far from it, that the best and\ngreatest Miracles of _Jesus_, which must confessedly be those related\nat large, (for no Body can suppose he did greater than those more\nparticularly specify'd) are liable to exception, being so blindly, and\nlamely, and imperfectly reported, as that, by Reasonings upon the\nLetter of the Stories of them, they may be dwindled away, and reduced\nto no Wonders, which brings me to treat again on the\n\nII. Second Head of my Discourse, and that is, to shew, that the\nliteral History of the Miracles of _Jesus_, as recorded in the\n_Evangelists_, does imply Absurdities, Improbabilities and\nIncredibilities; consequently they, in whole or in part, were never\nwrought, but are only related as parabolical Narratives of what would\nbe mysteriously, and more wonderfully done by him.\n\nTo this Purpose I, in my former Discourse, took into Examination\n_three_ of the Miracles of Jesus, _viz._ those, of _his driving the\nBuyers and Sellers out of the Temple_; Of _his exorcising the Devils\nout of the Madmen, and sending them into the Herd of Swine;_ and _Of\nhis Transfiguration on the Mount_. How well I perform'd on these\nMiracles which have been admired for their literal Story, let others\njudge and say.\n\nI now will take into Consideration three others of _Jesus_'s Miracles,\n_viz._ those, Of _his healing a Woman that was afflicted with an Issue\nof Blood, twelve Years_; Of _his curing the Woman that labour'd under\na Spirit of Infirmity, eighteen Years_; and Of _his telling the_\nSamaritan _Woman her Fortune of having had five husbands, and living\nthen in Adultery with another Man_: Which are, all three, reputedly\nmost miraculous and admired Stories. The two former, they say, are\nArguments of _Jesus_'s mighty Power; and the latter, of his immense\nKnowledge: But how little of certain Power and Knowledge there is in\nany of them, according to the Letter, will be seen in the sequel of\nthis Discourse. Infidels, I dare say, if they had not wanted Liberty,\nwould e'er now have facetiously exposed those Stories. If I snatch\nthat Work out of their Hands, our _Clergy_ ought to be glad, because\nwhat I do in it, is to the Honour of the Holy _Jesus_, and to turn\nthose pretendedly miraculous Stories into divine Mysteries.\n\nIn my former Discourse I gave my _Readers_ some Reason to expect, that\nin _this_ I would treat on some of _Jesus_'s Miracles, which I there\nmentioned, _viz._ _On his turning Water into Wine at a Marriage in_\nCana _of_ Galilee; and _On his feeding of Thousands with a few Loaves\nand Fishes in the Wilderness_; and _On his Cure of the Paralytick, for\nwhom the Roof of the House was broken up to let him down into the Room\nwhere_ Jesus _was_, &c. And I then really did design to speak to these\nMiracles, but upon Consideration, finding them most ludicrous Subjects\naccording to the Letter, I forbear it at present, having no\nInclination to put the _Clergy_ quite out of all Temper. If any should\nsay, this is Fear and Cowardice in me, I can't help it: But, for all\nthat, now I have the _Clergy_ in a tolerable good Humour for Liberty,\nI'll endeavour to keep them in it, and not disturb them by an hasty\nand unnecessary Provocation of them. Who knows not, that the _Clergy_,\nlike an untamed _Colt_, that I have a mind to ride, may be apt to\nwinch and kick, and may give me a Fall before I come at the end of my\nJourney, to the Disappointment of my Readers? They shall therefore be\ngently handled and stroak'd, till they are a little more inur'd to the\nBit and Saddle: And for their Sakes will I postpone such Miracles as\nare most obnoxious to Ridicule, and at present chuse the aforesaid\n_three_, that of almost any in the Gospel may be most inoffensively\ntreated on. I begin then,\n\n1. To speak to that Miracle of _Jesus_'s[79] healing a _Woman diseased\nwith an Issue of Blood, twelve Years_. To please our _Divines_, I will\nallow as much of the Truth of the Letter of this Story, as they can\ndesire. The Fathers themselves, who are for turning the whole History\nof _Jesus_'s Life into Allegory and Mystery, don't deny that a Woman\nwas cured of an _H\u00e6morrhage_, after the Manner that is here described\nby the Evangelists. St. _Augustin_ says[80] of this Miracle, _that it\nwas done, as it is related_; and I have a greater Veneration for his\nAuthority, than to gainsay it. But for all that, _Infidels_ may and\nwill take into Examination the nature of this Miracle, and if possible\nmake little or nothing of it. And if I do this for them, it is not to\ndo Service to Infidelity, but to turn Mens Heads to the mystical Use\nof it, for which it is recorded.\n\nAs there is a particular Narration of this Miracle, among the few\nothers, that are specified; so Reason should tell us, that if the\nLetter of the Story of _Christ_'s Miracles, as our _Divines_ hold, is\nonly to be regarded, this is one of the greatest that Jesus wrought,\nor it would not be related by itself, but thrown into the Lump of all\nmanner of Diseases, which He heal'd. And how then shall we come to the\nKnowledge of the greatness of this Miracle? Why, there are but two\nWays to it, and they are,\n\n_First_, By considering the nature of the Disease, or the lamentable\nCondition of the Patient before Cure. And\n\n_Secondly_, By considering the Manner or Means by which the Cure was\nperformed.\n\nIf one or both of these Considerations don't manifest the Certainty of\na Miracle, _Infidels_ may conclude there was none in it.\n\n_First_, As to the nature of the Disease of this Woman, we are much in\nthe Dark about it, and very uncertain of what Kind and Degree it was.\nSt. _Matthew_ writing of it, says the Woman was [Greek: aimorroousa],\nthat is, _obnoxious to bleeding_; St. _Mark_ and St. _Luke_ say of her,\nthat [Greek: ousa en reumate aimatos], she was in an efflux or running\nof Blood. But neither one nor the other of the _Evangelists_ signify of\nwhat Degree her _H\u00e6morrhage_ was, nor from what part of her Body it\nproceeded, nor how often or seldom she was addicted to it. It might be,\nfor ought we know, only a little bleeding at the Nose, that now and then\nshe was subject to: Or it might be an obnoxiousness to an Evacuation of\nBlood by Siege or Urine: Or it was, not improbably, of the menstruous\nKind. Any of these might be the Case of this Woman for what's written;\nand I don't find that any of our _Divines_ have determined of what sort\nit was. But a great Miracle is wrought, they think, in her Cure, without\nknowing the Disease; which _Infidels_ will say is asserted at Random and\nwithout Reason, in as much as it is necessary to know the nature of the\nDistemper, or none truly and properly can say, there was a great, much\nless a miraculous Cure wrought.\n\nBut supposing this _H\u00e6morrhage_ proceeded from what Part of the Body\nour _Divines_ think fit; How will they make a grievous Distemper of it\nin order to a Miracle? The Woman subsisted too long under her Issue of\nBlood, and bore it too well, for any to make her Case very grievous.\n_Beza_[81] will have it, that is was a constant and incessant Effusion\nof Blood that the Woman labour'd with. But this could not be, nor was\nit possible, as I suppose _Physicians_ will agree, for Nature to\nendure it so long, or the Woman to live twelve Days, much less twelve\nYears under it.\n\nNo more then, than some slight Indisposition can reasonably and\nnaturally be made of this Woman's Distemper. And it would be well, if\nInfidels would rest here with their Objections against it. But what if\nthey should say, that this _H\u00e6morrhage_ was rather of Advantage to the\nHealth of the Patient, than of Danger to her, and that the Woman was\nmore _nice_ than _wise_, or she would never have sought so much for\nHelp and Cure of it? Some _H\u00e6morrhages_ are better kept open than\nstop'd and dry'd up; and if _Infidels_ should say, that _this_ was a\nPreservative of the Life of the Woman, like an _Issue_, at which\nNature discharges itself of bad Humours, Who can contradict them? Nay,\nif they should say that _Jesus_'s Cure of this Woman's _H\u00e6morrhage_\nwas a Precipitation of her Death, for she died some time after it,\nrather than a Prolongation of her Life, for she lived twelve Years\nunder it, and was of good Strength, when she applied to our Saviour\nfor Cure, or she could never have born the press of the People to come\nat him; Who can gainsay them? It is true she was very sollicitous for\na Cure, and uneasy under her Distemper, or she would never have spent\nall she had on _Physicians_; which is a Sign, some may say, that her\nDisease was grievous, irksome, and dangerous, as well as incurable by\nArt. But _Infidels_ will say, not so; for there are some slight\ncutaneous Distempers, sometimes issuing with a little purulent and\nbloody Matter, that nice Women will be at a great Expence for Relief,\nand are always tampering, and often advising about them, though to no\nPurpose: And if they should say that this was the worth of the Case of\nthis Woman, Who can disprove it?\n\nIn short then here is an uncertain Distemper both in Nature and\nDegree; how then can there be any Certainty of a Miracle in the Cure\nof it? Mr. _Moore_, the _Apothecary_, accurately describes the\nDiseases he pretends to have cured; and he is in the right on't so to\ndo, or he could not recommend his Art, and aggrandize his own Fame. So\nthe Bodily Disease of this Woman should have been clearly and fully\nrepresented to our Understanding, or we can form no Conception of\nChrist's Power in the Cure of it. And I can't but think that the\n_Evangelists_, especially St. _Luke_ the _Physician_, had made a\nbetter Story of this Woman's Case, if Christ's Authority and Power had\nbeen to be urg'd from the Letter of it. It's enough to make us think,\nChrist cured no extraordinary and grievous Maladies, or the\n_Evangelists_ would never have instanced in this, that so much\nException is to be made to. As then, reasonably speaking, there was no\nextraordinary Disease in this Woman cured, and consequently no great\nMiracle wrought; so let us now,\n\n_Secondly_, Consider the Manner of the Cure, and whether any Miracle\nis to be thence proved. _The Woman said within her self,[82] that if\nshe could but touch the Hem of Jesus's Garment, she should be made\nwhole._ And I can't but commend her, at this distance of Time, for the\nPower of her Faith, Persuasion, or Imagination in the Case, which was\na good Preparative for Relief, and without which, it's certain, she\nhad continued under her Disease. The Power of Imagination, it's well\nknown, will work Wonders, see Visions, produce Monsters, and heal\nDiseases, as Experience and History doth testify. There being many\nInstances to be given of Cures performed by frivolous Applications,\nCharms, and Spells, which are unaccountable any other Way, than by the\nImagination of the Patient. Against the Reason and Judgment of a\n_Physician_, sometimes the diseased will take his own Medicines and\nBenefit. And I don't doubt, but Stories may be told of Cures wrought,\nthe Imagination of the Patient helping, by as mean a Trifle, as the\nTouch of Christ's Garments, and no Miracle talk'd on for it. Even in\nthe ordinary, natural, and rational Use of Physick, it is requisite,\nthat the Patient have a good Opinion of his _Physician_ and of his\nMedicines. A good Heart in the Sick, tends not only to his Support,\nbut helps the Operation of Prescriptions. As despair and dejection of\nMind sometimes kills, where otherwise reasonably speaking, proper\nMedicines would cure; so a good Conceit in the Patient at other times,\nwhether the Medicines be pertinent or not, is almost all in all. And\nif Infidels should say that this was the Case of this Woman in the\nGospel; if they should say as St. _John of Jerusalem_[83] did, _that\nher own Imagination cured herself_; and should urge the Probability of\nit, because _Jesus_ could do no Cures and[84] Miracles against\nUnbelief, Who can help it? In this Case our _Divines_ must prove, that\nthis Woman's _H\u00e6morrhage_ was of that kind, that no Faith nor Fancy\nin herself could help her without the Divine Power; but this is\nimpossible for them to do, unless there had been a more certain\nDescription of her Disease, than the _Evangelists_ have given of it.\n\nOur _Divines_ will indeed tell us, what I believe, that it was the\nDivine Power co-operating with the Faith and Imagination of the Woman\nthat cured her; because Jesus says _that Virtue had gone out of him_\nto the healing of her: And I wish _Infidels_ would acquiesce here, and\nnot say, that _Jesus_'s Virtue hung very loose on him, or the Woman's\nFaith, like a Fascination, could never have extracted it against his\nWill and Knowledge: But what if they should say, that _Jesus_, being\nsecretly appriz'd of the Woman's Faith, and Touch of him, took the\nHint; and to comfort and confirm her in her Conceit, and to help the\nCure forward, said, _Virtue was gone out of him?_ This would be an\nuntoward Suggestion, which if Infidels should make, our Divines must\nlook for a Reply to it.\n\nIt is said of the _Pope_, when he was last at _Benevento_, that he\nwrought three Miracles, which our Protestant _Clergy_, I dare say,\nbelieve nothing at all of. But, for all that, it is not improbable, but\nthat some diseased People, considering their superstitious Veneration\nfor the _Pope_, and their Opinion of the Sanctity of the _Present_,\nmight be persuaded of his Gift of Miracles, and desirous of his Exercise\nof it; and if they fancyfully or actually received Benefit by his Touch,\nI don't wonder, without a Miracle. And what if we had been told of the\n_Popes_ curing an _H\u00e6morrhage_ like this before us? What would\n_Protestants_ have said to it? Why, \"that a foolish, credulous, and\nsuperstitious Woman had fancy'd herself cured of some slight\nIndisposition; and the crafty _Pope_ and his Adherents, aspiring after\npopular Applause, magnified the presumed Cure into a Miracle. If they\nwould have us _Protestants_ to believe the Miracle, they should have\ngiven us an exacter Description of her Disease, and then we could better\nhave judg'd of it\". The Application of such a supposed Story of a\nMiracle wrought by the _Pope_, is easy; and if _Infidels_, _Jews_, and\n_Mahometans_ who have no better Opinion of _Jesus_, than we have of the\n_Pope_, should make it, there's no Help for it.\n\nAnd thus have I made my Descants on this supposed Miracle before us\nand argued, as much as I could, against the Miraculousness of it, both\nfrom the _Nature_ of the Disease, and the _Manner_ of the Cure of it.\nWhether any one shall think I have said any thing to the Purpose or\nnot, is all one to me. My Design in what I have done, is not to do\nService to Infidelity, but, upon the Command and Encouragement of the\nFathers, to turn Mens Thoughts to the mystical Meaning of the said\nMiracle, which I come now to give an Account of.\n\nNone of the Fathers (excepting St. _Chrysostom_[85], who writes here\nmore like an _Orator_ than a _Physician_) ever trouble themselves, when\nthey speak of this Miracle, about the Nature of the Disease, literally,\nin this Woman, or the greatness of the Cure of it; but alone bend their\nStudies to the mystical Interpretation, for the sake of which, this\nEvangelical Story was written, and originally transacted.\n\nAccordingly, they tell us that this Woman is a Type[86] of the Church of\nthe _Gentiles_ in after Times. And as to her _H\u00e6morrhage_ or _Issue of\nBlood_, they understand it of the[87] Impurity and Corruption of the\nChurch by ill Principles and bad Morals, that the would _flow with_.\nSome of the Fathers, as[88] _Gregory Nazianzen_, and[89] _Eusebius\nGallicanus_, will have the _Issue of Blood_ to be a Type of the scarlet\nSin of Blood-guiltiness in the Church: If so, we must understand it of\nthe Effusion of Christian Blood by War and Persecution.\n\nThe _twelve Years_ of the Woman's Affliction with her _H\u00e6morrhage_ is\na typical Number of the Church's impure State for above _twelve\nHundred Years_. And whether some of the primitive Church did not, by\nthe said _twelve Years_ of the Woman, understand _twelve Ages_, I\nappeal to[90] _Iren\u00e6us_, to whom I refer my Readers, Accordingly this\ntypify'd Woman of the Church, should be the same with the Woman[91] in\nthe Wilderness, that, as St. _John_ says, was twelve Hundred and sixty\nDays or Years there sustained; and by whom many Protestants, as well\nas the Fathers, understand the Church universal. When the said twelve\nHundred and sixty Days or Years of the Church's being in the\nWilderness, did commence or will end, is none of my Business to\nenquire or ascertain. But as this Woman in the Gospel is said after\n_twelve Years_ Affliction, to be cured of her Disease by _Jesus_; so\nit is the Opinion of the Fathers, that the Church universal, after\n_twelve Hundred Years_ of her Wilderness State, will be purified and\nsanctified by the Gifts of the Spirit of Christ, and enter upon a more\nholy, peaceable, and happy Condition, absolutely freed from her _Issue\nof Blood_, which, through Persecution and War, she has for many Ages\nlabour'd under. It is not my Concern to collect all the Authorities of\nthe Fathers to this Purpose; but only say, that if at the End of\ntwelve Hundred and sixty Days or Years, the Church, like the Woman, be\nnot cur'd of her _H\u00e6morrhage_ and mystical _Wounds_ and _Sores_; if\nher present impure and unsound State be not chang'd into an holy,\nhealthy, and peaceable one; many good _Protestants_, as well as the\nFathers, are mistaken, and abundance of Prophecies of the Old and New\nTestament, that have been hereunto urged, will lose their Credit.\n\nBut who are meant by the _Physicians_ of the Woman, that have had the\nmystical _H\u00e6morrhage_ and Diseases of the Church Under Cure all this\nwhile? Who should, but pretended Ministers, of the Gospel? Ministers\nof the Gospel are not only by the Fathers call'd metaphorically[92]\nspiritual _Physicians_; but our _Divines_ and Preachers of all\nDenominations like the Metaphor, and think themselves able\n_Physicians_ at the Diseases of the Church, which they are forward to\nprescribe and apply Medicines to, whenever, in their Opinion, she\nstands in need of them. Whether our _Divines_ like to be accounted the\n_Physicians_ of the Text before us, I much question; but it is certain\nthat[93] _Eusebius Gallicanus_ expressly says, that our _Divines_ and\npretended Philosophers are meant by them; and venerable _Bede_[94]\nupon the Place is of the same Mind too.\n\nThe Woman of the Gospel is said[95] to _suffer many Things of many\nPhysicians, and was nothing better'd, but rather grew worse_; that is,\nshe grew worse not in time only, but through the Use of her\n_Physicians_, who were her[96] Tormentors. So the Diseases of the\nChurch in time have increased, for all the Use she has made of her\nspiritual Physicians, _the Clergy_. In every Age has the Church been\ndegenerating in Morals and Principles, as any one knows, that is able\nto make an Estimate of Religion in times past; and all along have her\necclesiastical _Quack Doctors_ contributed to her ill State of Health.\nAs many Physicians with their different Applications tormented the\npoor Woman; so our many _Empericks_ in Theology with their different\n_Schemes_ of Church Government and various _Systems_ of Divinity,\nlike so many Prescriptions for Cure, have increased the Divisions,\nwiden'd the Wounds, and inflamed the Sores of the Church. And if the\nWoman's _Issue of Blood_ be, according to the Fathers, a particular\nType of the Blood of the Church, that is shed in Persecution and War;\nour Theological Pretenders to Physick, have been so far from providing\nand prescribing a good _Stiptic_ in this Case that they have been the\nOccasion of the Effusion of much Christian Blood; there having been\nmany a War and Persecution, that these _Incision_ Doctors, who should\nbe all _Balsam_, have been the Cause of.\n\nThe Woman _spent all her Living_, all her yearly Income, upon her\nPhysicians, and as it seems to a bad Purpose; so very great and large\nRevenues of the Church, are expended on her ecclesiastical Doctors in\nspiritual Physick: And to what End and Purpose? Why, to open and widen\nthe bleeding Wounds of the Church, which they should heal and salve\nup. It is now about _twelve Hundred Years_, like the _twelve Years_ of\nthe Woman, that the _Clergy_, our Practitioners in Theological\nPhysick, have received of the Church vast Fees, Stipends and\nGratuities (for before that time her _Doctors_ prescrib'd freely) to\ntake care of her Health and Welfare; but unless God provide in due\ntime a Medicine of his own, she is likely to continue in a diseased\nand sorrowful Condition for all them.\n\nOne would think that the Woman of the Gospel might have had more Wit\nthan to lay out all she was worth upon _Physicians_ to no good\nPurpose; one would think that after some Experience of their\nInsufficiency to cure her, she might have forborn seeing them, and\nreserved the Remains of her Estate for better Uses: So the Fees and\nRevenues of the Church, after due Experience of the Inability of her\nspiritual Doctors to heal her Sores, might have been in my Opinion\nbetter employ'd, and the Church of Christ more out of Danger of Wounds\nand Sickness, by Sin and Error. Certain it is, that many an _Issue of\nBlood_, through Persecution and War, had been prevented; if such\nbarbarous and blood thirsty Doctors of Ecclesiastical Physick, had\nnever been so fee'd and hired to take care of the Welfare of the\nChurch, which, for all their Spiritual Medicines, will continue in a\nlanguishing Condition, till heal'd by the Virtue and Graces of the\nSpirit of Christ in his foresaid appointed Time.\n\nSo much then to the mystical Interpretation of the Story of the Cure\nof the _Issue of Blood_ in this Woman. Every minute Circumstance of\nit is thus to be allegorized, if need was. Whether the _Clergy_ will\nlike this parabolical Explication of it, I neither know nor care. They\nhave their Liberty with _Atheists_ and _Infidels_ to believe as little\nof it as they think fit; and I hope they'll give me leave with the\nFathers of the Church to believe as much of it as I please. But\nwhether they approve of this allegorical Interpretation of this\nsupposed Miracle or not; they must own, that if the Church, after the\nforesaid _twelve Ages_, should be purified and sanctified; if her\nErrors and Corruptions, of which the Woman's _Uncleanness_ is a Type,\nshould be heal'd; if War and Persecution, typified by her _Issue of\nBlood_, should then entirely cease; if all Christians should then be\nunited in Principle, Heart and Affection, and made to walk in a\npeaceable and quiet State, as the Woman was[97] _bid to go in Peace_;\nif the Church should then _come behind_ Jesus (which[98] is a Figure\nof future Time) and rightly touch by Faith, and apprehend his[99]\nGarments or Words of Prophecy, about which Christians have hitherto\nbeen _pressing_ and urgent; and if the Gifts of the Spirit, like\n_Virtue on the Woman_, should then be poured forth upon the Church to\nthe absolute Cure of her present Diseases, we must, I say, allow the\nStory of this Woman to be an admirable Emblem and typical\nRepresentation; and the Accomplishment of it most miraculous and\nstupendous; and not only an indisputable Proof of the Power and\nPresence of Christ with his Church, but a Demonstration of his\n_Messiahship_, in as much as an almost infinite Number of Prophecies\nof the Old Testament, will thereupon receive that Accomplishment,\nwhich hitherto, by no shadow of Reason, can be pretended to.\n\nAfter such a mystical Healing of the _H\u00e6morrhage_ of the Church, there's\nno doubt on't, but the Story of this Woman in the Gospel will be allow'd\nto be typical and emblematical. In the mean time, without making a\nParable of the Story of her, I assert, there is little or nothing of a\nMiracle to be made of her Cure, unless we were at a greater Certainty\nabout the Nature of her Disease, and the Manner, rationally speaking,\nof _Jesus_'s healing of it. And so I pass to the Consideration of\n\n2. Another Story of a miraculous Cure perform'd by _Jesus_ on another\nWoman, and that is on her, who[100] _had a Spirit of Infirmity, eighteen\nYears, and was bow'd together, and could in no wise lift up\nherself----being bound of Satan_, &c. This too, as I suppose, is with\nour _Divines_ a great Miracle, and one of the greatest that _Jesus_\nwrought, or it had not been specify'd, but cast indiscriminately into\nthe Number of all manner of Diseases, which he heal'd. And for the sake\nof the Letter, and to please our _Divines_, whom I would not offend\nwilfully, I will allow, that _Jesus_ might lay his Hands on, and speak\ncomfortably to such a drooping, stooping, and vaporous Woman, full of\nFancies of the _Devil_'s Temptation and Power over her; and she might\nthereupon recover, and be afterwards of a more cheerful Heart, and erect\nCountenance, freed from the whimsical Imagination of being\n_Satan-ridden_: And what of all that? Where's the Miracle? If the Story\nof such a Miracle had been related of any _Impostor_ in Religion, of an\n_Arch-Heretick_, or _Popish Exorcist_, our _Divines_ would have flouted\nat it; they would have told us, there was nothing supernatural and\nuncommon in the Event, nor any thing at all to be wonder'd at in it.\nTaking the _Devil_ out of this Story, and there's no more in it, than\nwhat's common for a simple, melancholy, and drooping Woman, to be\nchear'd and elated upon the comfortable Advice and Admonition of a\nreputedly wise and good Man. And the putting the _Devil_ into the Story,\nin another Case, our _Divines_ would have said was only the Fancy of the\nWoman, or the Device of the _Miracle-Monger_, to magnify his own Art and\nPower. And if _Infidels_, _Jews_, and _Mahometans_, should say so of\nthis Story of _Jesus_, they would be no more unreasonable in their\nConjectures and Solutions of this Miracle, than we should have been in\nanother and parallel Case.\n\nThe _Pope_, when last at _Benevento_, is said to have exorciz'd a\n_D\u00e6mon_ out of a young Maid, which our _Divines_ no more believe than\n_Infidels_ do. But it is not at all impossible or improbable, that a\nyoung Woman might be troubled with Vapours, and go droopingly upon it,\nwhom the holy Father, of whose Prayers and Sanctity she had a good\nOpinion, might relieve with his Talk, and give another Turn to her\nThoughts and Temper: And if she fancy'd herself before possess'd with a\n_D\u00e6mon_, or rather, if the _Pope_'s Partizans persuaded her so, it's not\nunlikely to make a Miracle on't. Just so may _Infidels_, with their\nDescants on this Miracle before us, reduce and lessen it: And what must\nwe Believers do then? Why, we must find out a Way to ascertain the Truth\nand Greatness of the Miracle, or give it up. We must determine certainly\nwhat was the Woman's Distemper, and how the Cure of it by ordinary Means\nwas impossible, or make no more Words about it.\n\nAnd how can we come at the Knowledge of this Woman's Disease, but by the\noriginal Words of the _Evangelist_. St. _Luke_ says, she was one [Greek:\npneuma echousa astheneias], _that had a Spirit of Weakness_, that is,\nwas poor-Spirited and pusilanimous; and if she was [Greek: synkyptousa],\n_bow'd down_ upon't, its no more than might be expected of a\ndisconsolate, melancholy and dejected Person. Here then is the Disease\nof the Woman: If it had been worse, St. _Luke_, the Physician, if he was\nof Sufficiency in his Art, should better have express'd himself; so as\nto give us another Conception of it. And if _Satan_ had not been\nbrought into the Tale, whom it is easy, by reasoning as above, to\nexorcise out of it, here is a no more grievous Distemper, than what upon\nthe comfortable Exhortations of a wise Man may be cured. And do what our\nDivines can, they can make literally no more of this Story.\n\nIt is said, that for _eighteen Years_ the Woman labour'd under this\nDisease. And she might be _hippish_ and _drooping_ for a longer time,\nand be no less easily at last cured. It's pity the _Evangelist_ had\nnot told us how old this Woman was, when the Distemper first seiz'd\nher; then we could have made better Conjectures about the Nature and\nCure of it. If there was any room to suppose, either from the Words of\nScripture or extra-scriptural History, that she was about _fifty_ or\n_sixty_, when she first began to droop and the _Devil_ got upon her\nBack; here had been Scope for a most stupendous Miracle; and our\n_Divines_ might have asserted, what no Body could have contradicted,\nthat _Jesus_ had made an old Woman, who was _bow'd down_, not only\nunder the Weight of _Satan_, but under the Burthen of seventy or\neighty Years, young again; and had restored her to the Health, Vigor,\nand Beauty of one of fifteen. Here would have been a mighty Miracle\nindeed. And I don't doubt, but our _Divines_ would willingly get into\nsuch a Notion of this Miracle, and would heartily espouse it, but for\nthe Offence they must needs give to decrepid old Women, who may be out\nof Conceit with themselves upon it, as if they carried the _Devil_ on\ntheir Shoulders, as the Cause of their Decripedness and Incurvity. And\nsuch an Offence would be of ill Consequence.\n\nReasonably then speaking, there was not much in the Disease and Cure\nof this Woman. Excepting that Part, which _Satan_ bears, in the Story,\nthere is nothing wonderful in it. And supposing _Jesus_ might exorcise\nthe _Devil_ out of this Woman, or dismount him from off her Shoulders;\nyet even this makes nothing for his Divine Power and Authority, in as\nmuch as many _Exorcists_ among the _Jews_ and even among _Papists_, if\nProtestants had not more Wit than to believe it, could do as much. And\nafter all, I don't believe the _Evangelist_ intended, that our Saviour\nshould be had in Admiration for the Letter of this Miracle, or St.\n_Luke_ would accurately have described the Disease, so as to put it\nout of the Power of Nature and Art to heal it, and of the Wit of\n_Infidels_ to cavil at the miraculous Cure of it. Neither do I find\nthat the Fathers of the Church ever trouble themselves about the\nLetter of this Story, which is some Argument, that no great Heed is to\nbe given to it; but are only curious about the Mystery, for which this\nMiracle was related, and which I come now to give an Account of.\n\nAs the Fathers said of the Woman with her _Issue of Blood_, that she\nwas a Type of the Church; so they say of this Woman with her _Spirit\nof Infirmity_, that she is a[101] Figure of the Church too.\n\nAs the Woman was _bow'd together_; so the Church, as the Fathers do\ninterpret, may be said to be[102] _bow'd down_ to the Earth, when she\nis _prone_ and _bent_ to, and _intent on_ the literal or earthly\nInterpretations of the Scriptures; and _can in no wise lift up her\nself_, like the Woman, _that is_, can't raise her Thoughts to the\nContemplation of the c\u00e6lestial, spiritual, and sublime Sense of them.\nHence we see the Propriety of the Name of the Woman's Disease, call'd\n[Greek: pneuma astheneias], a _Spirit of Weakness_, which is not\nproperly significative of any bodily Distemper, but succinctly is very\nexpressive of the Church's _Weakness_ at the _Spirit_ of Prophecy,\nwhich at this Day she labours under.\n\nAs it was _eighteen Years_ that the Woman was griev'd with her _Spirit\nof Infirmity_, for so long had her Distemper been growing on her; so it\nis almost eighteen (hundred) Years, or the eighteenth Century of Years,\nthat this _Infirmity_ of the Church at the _Spirit_ of Prophecy has been\ncoming on her: And she is now so _bent_ to the Earth of the Letter, that\nnothing less than the Hand and Power of Jesus, that erected the Woman,\ncan raise her to mystical, divine, and sublime Contemplations on the Law\nand Prophets. St. _Augustin_[103] will have these _eighteen Years_ of\nthe Woman's _Infirmity_, as she is a Type of the Church, to be\nsynchronical with the[104] _three Years_ of the Fig-Tree's\nUnfruitfulness. I don't rightly apprehend his mystical Arithmetic. But\nthis is certain, upon the Authority of the Fathers, that those two\nNumbers, with the _twelve Years_ of the Woman's _Issue of Blood_, are\nall conterminous and will end together: Consequently at the same time,\nthat the Woman of the Church will be cured of her _Issue of Blood_, she\nwill be heal'd of her _Infirmity_ at the _Spirit_ of Prophecy; _that\nis_, at the Conclusion of certain grand Periods of Time she will enter\nupon a blessed State of _Peace_ and _Vision_; which is the concurrent\nDoctrine of the Fathers, as any one may discern, that has dip'd into\nthem, and is a good Confirmation of our present Exposition, and mystical\nApplication of the miraculous Story before us.\n\nSt. _Luke_ says, that the Woman could not lift up herself [Greek: eis\nto panteles], _v._ 11. which, without animadverting on our _English_\nTranslation, should be rendered, _until all was perfected_, or until\nthe _Perfection of Time_, which, the Apostle[105] and the Fathers\nagree, is the Time for the Church to be cured of her _Weakness_, and\nto be endu'd with _Power_ at the Spirit of Prophecy.\n\nAs the Woman was heal'd by _Jesus_ on the Sabbath-Day; so the Church,\nupon the ample Authorities of the Fathers, which Men of Reading will\nexcuse me the Production of, is certainly to be heal'd of her _spiritual\nInfirmity_, at the Understanding of Prophecy against the mystical\nand[106] grand Sabbath, which, according to the Fathers, commences at\nthe Expiration of her eighteen (hundred) Years _Weakness_.\n\nBut the _Ruler of the Synagogue is said to be moved with Indignation,\nv._ 14. at this charitable Work of _Jesus_, in healing of the Woman,\nbecause it was done on the Sabbath-Day; which in my Opinion can't be\nliterally true: Though I am willing enough, to please our _Divines_,\nto allow as much as may be of the Letter of this Story, yet I except\nagainst this Part of it. _Origen_ says, there are some things of the\nGospel related as Facts, which were not done; and I believe this of\nthe Ruler of the Synagogue to be one of them. Human Nature, I think,\nis not capable of such base and unnatural Resentment. Works of\nNecessity, and requisite Offices of Kindness and Charity to Man and\nBeast, were allow'd by the Law, and practised by the _Jews_ on the\nSabbath: And the Cure of this Woman, though on the Sabbath-Day, was\nsuch an Act of Beneficence and Compassion in the Holy _Jesus_, that I\ncan't but think _bad_, as well as _good_ Men, would rather glorify\nGod, that had given such Power unto Man, than find fault with it. But\nin the Mystery of this Part of the Story, there is clear Sense and\nTruth. Who then is this _Archisynagogus_, or Ruler of the Synagogue,\nthat will be full of Indignation at the healing of the Church of her\nforesaid _Infirmity_ at the _Spirit_ of Prophecy? _Origen_ says that\nthe[107] right Interpretation of the Names of Persons and Places in\nScripture is of good Use to the mystical Application. Accordingly\n_Archisynagogus_ does signify the _Chiefs of our Congregations_: And\nwho should they be then but the Clergy? And if this ben't enough to\nfix this Name and Character upon them, then let _Theophanes Cerameus_\nspeak here, who says, that the _Archisynagogus_, is a[108] _Type of\nall Priests_, who will be against the foresaid miraculous healing of\nthe Church. And why will the _Clergy_ be mov'd 'with Indignation at\nthe curing the Church of her _Infirm_, and restoring her to a _sound_\nSpirit of Prophecy? Because as St. _Augustin_ says,[109] they are not\nonly _bow'd down_ to the Letter themselves; but because this\n_Infirmity_ of the Church will be a Reproach to them, in as much as it\nis a Proof of their Apostacy and Insufficiency at Prophecy; and the\nCure of it will be attended with such Consequences, as affect their\nReputation and Interests. Who can question but the _Clergy_, who are\nthe _Archisynagogus_ of the Text, and who are for the Church's\n_bending_ and _stooping_ to the low Sense of the Letter of the\nScripture, will be averse to her being rais'd, _lifted up_, and\nerected to the Contemplation of the sublime, anagogical, and heavenly\nSense of it? Such an Healing and Erection of the Church will vex them\nat the Heart, as it will bring _Shame_ and loss of Interest along with\nit; and they will undoubtedly be _Adversaries_ to this good Work of\n_Christ_, which, upon the Testimony of all Antiquity, is to be done on\nor against the Evangelical and great Sabbath.\n\nOur Saviour is supposed to reprove the _Ruler_ of the _Synagogue_, for\nhis _Indignation_ at the Cure of the Woman on the Sabbath-Day, saying,\n_v._ 15. _Thou Hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath\nloose his Ox or his Ass from the Stall, and lead him away to Watering?\nAnd ought not this Woman to be loos'd from this Bond on the\nSabbath-Day?_ There is Force in this Argument according to the Letter:\nAnd the _Ruler_ of the _Synagogue_, and other _Jesus_'s Adversaries\nhereupon, might well be _asham'd_ for finding Fault with such a\nmerciful and beneficent Work done on the _Sabbath_; when they\nthemselves did Works on the _Sabbath_ of much less Consequence. But\nto[110] the Mystery. What may be said to our Ministers of the Letter,\nof whom the _Archisynagogus_ is a Type, for their Averseness to the\nhealing of the Church in like manner? Why, that they are _Hypocrites_,\nthat is, superficial Criticks on the Scriptures, and don't consider\nthat _the Law is spiritual_, and how against the Evangelical Sabbath\nevery Man is to be released from his Bondage and Servility to\nirrational Principles (for which he has been like an _Ox_ and an\n_Ass_) and to be conducted to drink of the Waters of Divine Wisdom:\nFor this grand Sabbath will be a Day of absolute Liberty, perfect\n_Rest_, immense Knowledge, real Vision and Contemplation on God and\nhis Providence, as the antient _Jews_ and Fathers so copiously\ndeclare, that they who are ignorant herein, may be _ashamed_;\nconsequently they might know, that the Church is to be cured of her\n_Spirit of Weakness_ at Prophecy on that Day.\n\nBut _Satan_ is said to have _v._ 16. _bound_, and, as is supposed,\n_bow'd down_ this Woman; the literal Truth of which I much question:\nBut how then has _Satan bound and bow'd down_ the Church? This,\nseemingly, is the great Difficulty in the mystical Application of this\nStory, and must be the great Curiosity of my Readers to know how I\nwill account for it. If the Fathers don't help me out at this dead\nLift, and that clearly and intelligibly too, I shall abate of my\nVeneration for them. If they don't tell me, and make me to apprehend,\nwhat this _Satan_ is, that for many Ages has _bound_ and oppress'd the\nChurch after the supposed Manner of the typical Woman, I had better\nhave held my Peace, and said nothing to this parabolical Miracle.\n\nThe Writings of the _Evangelists_ so abound with Stories of _Satan_,\n_Belzebub_, the _Devil_, and of greater and less Number of _Devils_,\nand of _D\u00e6mons_ and of _unclean Spirits_, more than any Histories\nbefore, as one would think, if these Stories were literally to be\nunderstood, that was the Age in which Christ came, that _Hell_ first\nbroke loose, and then primarily infested Mankind; and that upon the\nDestruction of _Jud\u00e6a_ and Propagation of the Gospel, the _Devils_\naccompanied the _Jews_ in their Dispersion, or the _Apostles_ in their\nTravels, and have been the Tempters, Seducers, and Tormentors of\nother Nations ever since.\n\n_Arnobius_[111] says, _That before Christ, Devils were things unknown\nto the World_; by which _Arnobius_ must mean, either that they were\nhardly talk'd of before, or that their Nature was not understood, till\nChrist inform'd us of it. In both these Senses, I believe, _Arnobius_\nmay be taken, _viz._ that there was not only little Talk of _Satan_\nand the _Devil_, but less of his Nature apprehended, before _Christ_\nby his Parables and parabolical Miracles, rightly interpreted,\ninstructed us in it. And if after Ages have departed from the true and\noriginal Doctrine of _Devils_, making a literal Story of that, which\nis only mystical and cabalistical; and have formed to themselves\n_Ideas_ of hideous and horrible Fiends, _Mormos_ and _Hobgoblins_, it\nshall not disturb me.\n\nAs to the Place and State of _Hell_, many are the Notions of _Divines_\nof several Ages past, as well as of the present. I shall not recount\nthem all here, much less refute any of them. But there is an antient,\nrational, and cabalistical Notion of Hell, which I have learned of the\nFathers, who signify, that the babylonish and bewilder'd State of\nChrist's Church may be call'd _Hell_, because, as the Word [Greek:\nad\u00eas] does import, it is a State _without Vision_. Hence _Origen_\nsays,[112] that whoever can form to himself an _Idea_ of the Church in\ntime to come, when she will be dignified with the Title of the _New\nJerusalem_, for her Peace and Vision may understand what is meant by\n_Hell_, and all that is written of it.\n\nAs then the Fathers had a cabalistical Notion of _Hell_, which modern\n_Divines_ are Strangers to; so they had of _Satan_, and the _Devil_\nand his Angels. I own myself at a Loss for an express Testimony out of\nthe Fathers about _Satan_ in the Text before us; but according to\ntheir Explications of _Satan_ in other Places, nothing more is meant\nby him here than, \"That furious Principle and Temper in Man that is\nnot only averse to Liberty in Religion, but for binding, restraining,\nand tying down the Church and Christian People to certain Opinions and\nWays of Worship.\" In such a State of Bondage has the Woman of the\nChurch been kept, by such a _Satan_, in one Order of Men or other,\nfor all Ages past. And that this is a right and primitive Notion of\n_Satan_, I could prove by Authorities enough. _Origen_ tells us[113]\nof the Names of Kings in prophetical Scripture, which would be Enemies\nto Christ's Church; but such Kings never did, nor would personally\nexist; their Names, according to Interpretation, standing only for so\nmany Sins and Vices, reigning in Mankind. To the same Purpose he\nsays[114] _human Vices are Devils_: And _Satan_ himself, (as the Word\nsignifies _Adversary_) is with him[115] and the antient _Jews_ too, no\nother than an _Aversness_ in Man to the Will of God. I could quote\nother Fathers to this Purpose; but being sparing of my Pains at\npresent, I refer my Readers to my former[116] _Discourse_, in which\nthey will see the Opinion of the Fathers about the _Devils_ in the\nMadman, and afterwards in the Herd of Swine; from which let them\njudge, whether the Fathers could have any other Notion of _Satan_\nhere, than what I have represented. It is certain, and may be easily\nprov'd, that by _Satan_, the _Dragon_ and the _Devil_, mentioned in\nthe _Revelations_, nothing more is to be understood, than a furious,\npersecuting, satanical, and diabolical Temper in Man; and if what St.\n_John_ writes of _Satan_ be cabalistical and allegorical; the other\nAssertions of the Evangelists and Apostles about _him_ will of Course\ncome under that Denomination; or the primitive Rule of Interpretation\nof Scripture according to the natural Signification of the Names of\nPersons and Places is not good.\n\nAs then the _Woman_ of the Gospel was, as is supposed, _v._ 16. _bound\nby Satan, loe, for eighteen Years_: So the foresaid furious Principle\nin Man, which is a mystical _Satan_, an _Adversary_ to Liberty, has\nbound the Church, _loe_, to the _eighteenth_ Century of Years: But she\nis to be entirely released from this spiritual Bondage, and set\nat[117] _perfect Liberty_ against the acceptable and Evangelical\nSabbath. And here it is to be noted out of St. _Augustin_, and most\nworthy of Observation it is, that at the[118] same time, in which the\nChurch will be loosed from her Bondage; _Satan_ himself will[119] be\n_bound_ and _chain'd_ for a[120] _thousand Years_, the time of the\nevangelical Sabbath, that is, says _Ephr\u00e6m Syrus_[121] for ever. And\nhow will our mystical _Satan_ or the _Dragon_ be bound and chain'd?\nNot with Chains or Links of Iron or other Metal; but _Vinculis\nRationis_, with the Chains of Reasons and Arguments for Christian\nLiberty, which will restrain the _Adversary_, _Satan_, from any more\nImpositions and Persecutions of the Church. And I can't here but\napplaud the great Mr. _Grounds_ and Mr. _Scheme_, for their Work and\nLabour of Love to Mankind, in making _Chains_ of Argumentations for\nLiberty, which I hope will prove of sufficient Strength to bind\n_Satan_ and restrain him (in Dr. _Rogers_, Bishop _G--bs--n_, and\nothers his Angels) from giving any more Molestation to Christian\nPhilosophers in their Enquiries after, and Lucubrations on Divine\nTruth. All the Honour that I aim at in that Work is, by the Help of\nthe Fathers, to point out that anti-Christian Principle or Temper in\nthe _Clergy_[122] which, for its _Averseness_ to Liberty, is called\n_Satan_; for its _Calumnies_, is called the _Devil_; for its\n_Furiousness_, is called the _Dragon_; and for its _Unreasonableness_,\nis called the _Beast_, to the intellectual Views of Mankind, and to\ndirect them how to apprehend and lay hold on it.\n\nOur Saviour, according to _Origen_, had never call'd _Peter_,[123]\n_Satan_, if _Satan_ had been any Thing else than _Man-averse_ to the\nWill of God.\n\nAnd thus have I spoken to the Miracle of _Jesus_'s healing the _Woman\nof her Spirit of Infirmity, whom Satan had bound and bow'd down_,\nwhich, according to the Letter, is no Miracle at all; and some Parts\nof the Story are improbable and incredible; but the mystical\nCompletion of it will be most prodigious, and a Demonstration not only\nof Christ's Power and Presence in his Church, but of his\n_Messiahship_, in as much as a vast Number of Prophecies of the _Old\nTestament_, more than can soon be collated to this Purpose, will\nthereupon receive their Accomplishment. And so I come to a\n\n3. _Third_ miraculous Story of _Jesus_'s, that is of his telling\n(_John_ iv.) the Woman of _Samaria_ her Fortune, _of having had five\nHusbands, and being then an Adulteress_, &c. in which there is a\nnotable Miracle display'd, in the Opinion of our _Divines_, that\nproves _Jesus_'s Omniscience, or he could not so have search'd into\nthe Heart of this Woman, and told her such Occurrences, that concern'd\nher Life past. I thought once of transcribing here entirely this\nStory; and so I would, but that it is a long one, and might have set\nsome Readers, who are by this time awaken'd to pry into the\nAbsurdities of the Letter, a laughing, before I had time my self\nregularly to animadvert on it.\n\nWhether there was any Truth at all in the Letter of this Story, I\nshould much have questioned, but that some Fathers write of it, as if\nthey believed it literally, tho' they make a mystical and allegorical\nExplication of the whole and every part of it. And I, having a sincere\nVeneration for the Fathers, will not contradict them, (and I hope this\nConcession will please the _Clergy_) but, for all that, can't like any\npart of this Story literally, but could almost wish, that the Fathers,\nfor the Honour of _Jesus_, had made the whole no other than a Parable.\n\nIt's strange that no _Jews_ or _Infidels_ have as yet ludicrously\ntreated this Story to the, almost, Confutation of our Religion. If\ntheir Tongues had not been ty'd by the aforesaid _Satan_ or\n_Adversary_ to Liberty, I can't think but they must have made some\npleasant Animadversions upon it before now. If such a broken,\nelliptical, and absurd Tale had been told of any other Impostor in\nReligion; the Wits of our _Clergy_ had been at Work to expose it\nplentifully; and indeed there's no need of much Wit to make this Tale\nnauseous and ridiculous to vulgar Understandings.\n\nI shall not myself here make all the Remarks I can to the Disadvantage\nof this Story: I am not as yet so disposed to make Scoffers and\n_Infidels_ laugh at the _Clergy_ for their Adherence to the Letter of\nit. All I shall do now, is to make my Observations on the two Uses,\nthat the Clergy very seriously put this Story to, and they are,\n\n_First_, to prove the Expectation that there was amongst the\n_Samaritans_, of a _Messiah_ to come; And\n\n_Secondly_, to prove _Jesus_'s Omniscience, or he could not have entered\ninto the Heart of the Woman, and told her, that she had had five\nHusbands, and was then an Adulteress. To these two Purposes, I find this\nStory urged by our _Divines_, and I must needs say, as to the\n\n_First_ of them; it is rightly from hence asserted by the[124]\n_Bishop_ of _Lichfield_ and others, that the _Samaritans_ had an\nExpectation of a _Messiah_: But why then did not the _Bishop_ and\nothers, who are now in Quest after Arguments of _Jesus_'s Messiahship,\nprove him hence to be the _Messiah_, because he told the _Samaritan_\nwoman her Fortune? If this was a real and substantial Argument to her\nof _Jesus_'s _Messiahship_, it ought to be urg'd by the Clergy at this\nDay. The Controversy about _Jesus_'s Messiahship is now on foot; Why\ndo the Advocates for it overlook this Proof of it? Why, because, as I\nsuppose, they are aware, that _Infidels_ would make sport with it. But\nif _Jesus_'s telling the Woman her Fortune was no real and conclusive\nArgument of his being the _Messiah_; St. _John_ has told us an\nimpertinent Tale of a simple Woman, upon whose Credulity and false\nNotions _Jesus_ palm'd himself as the true _Messiah_; and whether he\ndid not ill thus to banter and deceive the Woman, let any one judge.\n\nBut let us here behold the Difference amongst the _Jews_ and\n_Samaritans_, as to the Expectation of a _Messiah_. Some of the old\n_Jews_, like the Apostles, expected the _Messiah_ would be a temporal\nPrince, a great Warriour and Conqueror of the World. Others[125] of\nthem, like the Fathers, expected he would be a Prophet like _Moses_ in\nall Things, and deliver his People out of another _Egypt_: But here the\n_Samaritans_ expected he would be a _Conjurer_ and _Fortune-Teller_; or\nthere is no Sense in what the Woman said to the Men of the City, _v._\n29. _Come and see a Man that has told me all that I have done_,\nparticularly my Fortune of having had five Husbands, and being now an\nAdulteress, _Is not this the Christ?_ What could she mean, but that the\n_Messiah_ would be a strolling _Fortune-Teller_, to inform People of the\nEvents of their Lives past and to come? And _Jesus_ to humour the Woman\nin her Conception of himself and of the _Messiah_, says to her, _v._ 26.\n_I that speak unto thee, am He._ Whether our _Divines_ like _Jesus_ the\nbetter for this Story of him literally, I can't tell; but I am sure they\ndislike the Fortune-telling Trade at this Day in others, and believe it\nto be all Fraud, and are for punishing strolling _Gypsys_ for Cheats,\nwho practice it; and in the last Age were intent on the[126] Prosecution\nof judicial Astrologers, who pretended to it: And if antient History had\nfurnish'd us with an Instance of the Punishment of a pretended\n_Fortune-Teller_ in the Reign of _Tiberius_, they could not have found\nFault with it. Whether any Accusations were laid against _Jesus_ for\nsuch his Delusions of the People, we know not. Evangelical History is\nsilent, or the _Evangelists_ have prudently suppressed it. But I much\nwonder, that our _Gypsys_, from this Story, don't account themselves the\ngenuine Disciples of _Jesus_, being endu'd with the like Gifts and\nexercising no worse Arts, than he himself practised.\n\nIf the _Samaritans_ did not expect the _Messiah_ would be a\n_Fortune-Teller_; how came the Thought into the Woman's Head, that\n_Jesus_ was the _Messiah_, because he had told her, her Fortune? What\ncan our _Divines_ say to it? Why, they must either say, that his\ntelling the Woman her Fortune was a real Proof of his _Messiahship_;\nor that the Woman was foolish and credulous, and drew a false\nConclusion; and if she had not been an impudent and graceless Whore,\nwould have gone away blushing, and never have divulg'd, as the Text\nsupposes she did, her Shame to the Men of _Sychar_, who too had but\nlittle Wit, or they had never stir'd from their Homes, to see such a\nFortune-Teller upon the Report of a poor Whore.\n\nBut the Men of the City had their Fortunes too told them by _Jesus_,\nand they concluded him to be the _Messiah_ upon it; or there is no\nSense in what they _v._ 42. _said to the Woman, Now we believe not\nbecause of thy Saying, for we have heard him ourselves, and know that\nthis is indeed the Christ_: What could they hear, but their Fortunes,\nas the Woman had before? And if _Jesus_, whose Ability at all fair\nQuestions in the magic Art I don't question, did tell them their\nFortunes; I hope he had more Prudence than to talk to them in common\nof their Fornications and Adulteries, which might occasion domestick\nJarrs, and the Breach of good Neighbourhood amongst them; but if he\ndirected any of them to find their lost Cattle, and help'd them again\nto their stolen Goods, he did well, and they alone did amiss, to\nconclude thereupon, _that he was indeed the Christ_. Let our _Divines_\nnow judge whether I have not made a natural and excellent Comment on\nthis part of the Story, which relates to the Expectation and Opinion,\nwhich the _Samaritans_ had of a _Messiah_ to come. But,\n\n_Secondly_, From this Story literally our _Divines_ prove _Jesus_'s[127]\nOmniscience; and _Cardiognostick_ Power to tell what was in the Hearts\nand Thoughts of Man. But how so? Is it because he told a Woman, that she\nwas an Adulteress, and had had five Husbands? Where's the Consequence?\n_Duncan Campbel_, and other _Moorfields_-judicial-Astrologers have done\ngreater Feats at Conjuration than _this_, and never were thought to be\nOmniscient. And for any Thing appears in this Story of our Saviour, it\nmight be all Cheat and Fraud in him. If _Infidels_ should assert it, our\n_Divines_ could not disprove it. If they should say, it was possible for\n_Jesus_ to get Intimations of these and other Circumstances of the\nWoman's Life, before he attempted to tell her, her Fortune; we can't\nsay, that this is an impious and unreasonable Suggestion, since it is\nthe common Subtilty of delusive Fortune-Tellers, to get what\nIntelligence they can by Insinuations and Informations, before they\nutter their Oracles, and ambiguous Responses to simple poor Folks. And\nthere is one Circumstance in this Story, that looks very ill upon\n_Jesus_, and is enough to make him suspected for a Cheat in his\npretended Art, and that is, he seems to draw the Woman in by a[128]\n_Wile_ to hear her Fortune, saying to her, _v._ 16. _Woman go, call thy\nHusband_; upon whose denying she had any Husband, Jesus was forward,\nvery forward to surprize her with his Knowledge of her having had five\nHusbands, and living then in Adultery; which raising the silly Woman's\nAdmiration of his prophetick and soothsaying Talent, he closes with her\nConceptions, and what upon other Occasions, before wiser People, he\nwas[129] backward to own, says to her, _that he was the Messiah_; and so\nhe pass'd for the _Messiah_ with her and the Men of _Sychar_, who had no\nmore Wit than to receive him for such, upon such Proof, and gave him\nEntertainment for no less than _v._ 40. _two Days_. I am glad we hear of\nno Money, he squeez'd out of them for the exercise of his prophetick\nArt, which our _Divines_ would have made an Argument of their Divine\nRight to Tythes, Fees, and Stipends for their Divinations.\n\nBut no more of this silly Story according to the Letter. To point at\nit is enough to expose it to the considerate and unprejudiced. I could\nnot help saying so much as I have; because it is necessary to form\nsome Invective against the Letter, to make way for the Reception of\nthe mystical and allegorical Interpretation of it, which I am now to\nspeak to.\n\nTho' the Fathers, against whose Authority I dare not write, or I should\nbe tempted to it in this Case, acknowledge the Letter of this Story,\nsuspecting only some[130] particular Passages of it; yet they look upon\nthe whole, for all that, as a[131] typical Narration, and endeavour at\nthe mystical Construction of all and every part of it. St. _Augustin_,\nas if he was afraid some Christians of after Times should espouse, as\nour Divines do, only the Letter, prefaces his Exposition of this Story\nwith these Words, saying,[132] _There are mysteries in all the Sayings\nand Actions of our Saviour, particularly in the Story of the Woman of_\nSamaria, _and whoever carelesly and imprudently_ (meaning literally)\n_interprets it, will advance erroneous and pernicious Doctrine_; which,\nif modern Commentators had any Regard for the Authority of St.\n_Augustin_, is enough to deter them from their literal Expositions. The\nmost literal Interpreter among the Fathers, whom I know of, is St.\n_Cyril_, and he says[133] there is a Type and Parable in this Story. But\nto descend to Particulars.\n\nBy the _Woman of Samaria_ is to be understood an[134] Heretical and\nAdulterous Church, which Jesus, _being wearied_ with her[135] corrupt\nState, will meet with in _the sixth Hour_, that is in[136] the _sixth\ngrand Age_ of the World. So, by the By, according to the Fathers,\n_Jesus_ will come to, and meet with the _Samaritan_ Church to her\nEdification, at the same time, that he cures the Church of her _Issue\nof Blood_ and _Spirit of Infirmity_.\n\nAnd where did _Jesus_ meet with the Woman of _Samaria_? At _Jacob_'s\n_Well_, where she was for Water to quench Thirst: So at the[137]\n_Well_ of the Holy Scriptures, whose Sense lies deep as in a Well, and\nflows with Knowledge as with Water, will Christ then find his Church,\ndrawing and drinking of the[138] Waters of the Letter, which could not\nquench the Thirst of the Soul hitherto: But in the Perfection of Time,\nsignified by the _sixth Hour_, will Christ, according to the Fathers,\nenable her to draw out of this _Well_ of the Profundity of the\nScriptures, spiritual Waters of Divine Knowledge, which will daily\nmore and more, like the Fountains of the Waters of Life, arise and\nflow in upon the Soul, and constantly recreate and refresh her with\nWisdom, to her Delight and Satisfaction; so as she may be said never\nto thirst more, after the Manner she does now.\n\nAnd Jesus _then_ told the Woman of _Samaria_, _all that she had done_:\nSo will Christ in the _sixth Hour_, that is, towards the latter End of\nthe _sixth Age_ of the World, give the Woman of the Church to\nunderstand _all that she has done_, according to the Writings of\n_Moses_ and the Prophets, who, upon the Testimony of the Fathers, have\nwritten a prophetical History of her, in Types, Symbols and Parables;\nwhich Understanding of the Things that have been prophecy'd of her,\nwill enable her, of Consequence, to prove and declare to the World,\nwith Joy and Pleasure, that _Jesus_ is the true Messiah, the Christ,\nand Fulfiller of the Law and the Prophets.\n\nBut particularly, as _Jesus_ then told the Woman that _she had had\nfive Husbands, and was then an Adulteress_ with one who was not her\ntrue Husband: So the Church will be made to apprehend, according\nto[139] _Origen_ and[140] St. _Augustin_, and others, how she has had\nfive Husbands of the five bodily Senses, that is, metaphorically\nspeaking, has been _wedded_ not only to sensual Pleasures, but to the\nsensible Things of the Letter of the five Books of _Moses_; and that\nat present, consequently, she lives in Adultery[141] with Anti-Christ,\nwhom the Fathers call the Devil, instead of the Spirit of Christ, the\nSpirit of the Law, who should be her true Spouse, whom she should\n_call_ for, and believe in.\n\nAnd not only the Woman of _Samaria_, but the Men of the City,\n_Sychar_, believ'd _Jesus_ to be the Messiah, _v._ 42, upon what he\nsaid to themselves as well as to her: So the Ministers of the Letter,\nwho are _Sycharites_, according to _Origen_ and _Theophanes Cerameus_,\nwill be clearly convinced, and be able to convince others, that _Jesus\nis the Christ or Messiah_, when they shall hear, learn and apprehend\nfrom the Spirit of the Law and the Prophets, that the Church and all\nshe has been doing, was foretold and prophecy'd of.\n\nLastly, _Jesus_'s Disciples, _v._ 27. are said _to Marvel that he\ntalk'd with the Woman_. What in the Name of Wonder, literally, could\nbe the Meaning of this? Did they _Marvel_ at _Jesus_'s Condescention\nto speak to a Woman, as if the Sex was beneath his Care? Or did they\n_Marvel_ that he who was very bashful, had Courage to speak to one? Or\ndid they _Marvel_ at his Conversation with a Whore, for fear of his\nbeing tempted by her? Some one or other of these must be the _Marvel_\nof the Disciples; but how absurd and ridiculous they all are,\naccording to the Letter, let a reasonable Man judge. But mystically,\nthe true Disciples of our Lord, who understand the Mysteries of the\nKingdom of Heaven, will, when they are apprized of _Jesus_'s spiritual\nConversation with his Church, and of all the Things that she has done\naccording to Prophecy, _Marvel_ with rapturous Astonishment at the\nWisdom and Power of God in the Accomplishment of the Scriptures.\n\nAfter such a Mystical and Allegorical Manner, is every minute\nCircumstance of this Story of the _Samaritan_ Woman to be apply'd.\nSt. _Augustin_[142] says there are so many great Mysteries contain'd\nin it, that they require much Time to go through them all. I find it\nso, and that no less than a Volume might be written of them, out of\nthe Fathers. But what I have briefly here touch'd on, is enough to\nconvince any one of the Absurdities of the Letter of this Miracle,\nwhich consisted in the telling a Woman her Fortune, and such a\nFortune, as _Jesus_ by Craft might come to the Knowledge of.\nTherefore, for the Honour of _Jesus_, let us look upon the whole Story\nas a typical and parabolical Representation of what would be\nmysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.\n\nAnd thus I have spoken to the three Miracles, proposed to be treated\non in this Discourse. Before I enter upon my third general Head, which\nis, _to consider what Jesus means when he appeals to his Miracles as\nto a Witness of his Divine Authority_; I must take to Task some more\nof his pretended Miracles even till I have not left him a good,\ncredible and substantial Miracle, according to the Letter, to appeal\nto. The Consequence of which will be, that his mysterious Operations\nare to prove his Authority and Messiahship, or we must give up him and\nhis Religion for a Piece of Fraud and Imposture.\n\nWhat Miracles will be the Subject of my next Discourse, I can't\ncertainly foretell, but there are many Historical as well as\nmiraculous Parts of _Jesus_'s Life, that according to the Letter, are\nto be call'd into Question; such as\n\nThe History of his riding on an Ass to _Jerusalem_. I have given some\nOffence on this Point already in my _Moderator_, and ought to excuse\nor justify my self, by calling the Fathers to Account for laughing at\nthe Letter of that Story. It was an untoward saying of St. _Jerome_,\nthat I there cited, and suffered a Prosecution for: But it is a worse\nIntimation of St. _John_ of _Jerusalem_, who, if there was any literal\nTruth in the Peoples pulling off their Garments, and Branches of\nTrees, and strewing them in the Way of _Jesus_, will needs have it not\nrespectfully but mischievously done, to make the Colt stumble, and so\ndismount his Rider. And according to him it may be questioned, whether\nthe _Hosannahs_ of the People were of any more Respect to _Jesus_,\nthan the _Huzzahs_ of a _Mob_ would be to the Bishop of _L----n_, if\nto shew his Meekness and Lowlyness, he should ride upon an Ass, in his\n_Pontificalibus_ through this City. But I have here a momentous\nControversy to decide about the Beast _Jesus_ rode on. St. _Matthew_\nseems to say, he rode upon both _Ass_ and _Colt_ together. St. _Mark_\nand St. _Luke_ say, he rode upon the _Colt, on which Man never before\nsat_. The Bishop of _Lichfield_ says, he rode upon the _Ass_ (on which\nMan had before sat) and the _Colt_ ambled after. St. _Cyril_ and St.\n_Chrysostom_ say, he rode upon the _Colt_, and the _She-Ass_ trotted\nafter. St. _John_ the _Evangelist_ says he rode upon a _Mule_, or an\n[Greek: onarion] Ass-like Creature of the neuter Gender. The _Jewish\nCabalists_ say, their _Messiah_ was to ride on a great huge _Ass_, big\nenough to carry him and all true Israelites, and that the Ministers of\n_Antichrist_ would then hang an _A-ss_. So do the great Doctors of the\nWorld differ! To whom I shall decree the Prize of Orthodoxy, I shan't\nforetell; but am inclined to favour the Opinion of the _Cabalists_.\nHowever, I shall be very grave as well as learned on this Head: And if\nI can, I will, to oblige Dr. _Sherlock_, hook in a Digression about\n_Shilo_'s _binding his Fole to the Vine, and his Asses Colt to the\nchoice Vine_: The Accomplishment of which _literal_ Prophecy seems to\nhave been drop'd in the Providence of God, or the _Dean_ of\n_Chichester_[143] had never stopt at it. I will endeavour to look it\nup, in some Corner of History, if it be but to merit the Praises of\nthe _Master_ of the _Temple_.\n\nI must also sometime take into Consideration the Story of _Jesus_'s\nAbode in the Wilderness, forty Days, in Company of the _Devil_, who\ntempted him. This literally, as our _Divines_ understand it, is a\nScandalous Story. The _Jews_, in our Saviour's Time, said, that\nthrough _Belzebub_, he cast out _Devils_; and their Posterity have\nasserted, that he learn'd the Magick Art of a _D\u00e6mon_. This Story\ngives too much Grounds for such a Suspicion. Our _Divines_, who should\nknow best, talk of abundance of Mischief, the _Devil_ has been\npermitted to do in the World ever since; I hope it was not by Compact\nand Agreement between them; but it would have been of some\nSatisfaction to the Contrary, if the _Evangelist_ had told us expresly\nupon what Terms they mett and parted. As Fables go, it is said to the\nHonour of St. _Dunstan_, that he took the _Devil_ by the Nose, when he\ntempted him; and if _Jesus_ had taken him by the _Collar_, and thrust\nhim into his _Dungeon_, and there chain'd him, and shut _Hell-Gates_\nupon him; I appeal to honest plain Christians, whether such an\n_Herculean_ Labour would not have pleased them well. Ever since I read\nof _Martin Luther_'s Conversation with the _Devil_, I have had but\nindifferent Thoughts of his _Protestantism_; and unless the Fathers\nturn this Story before us into Mystery, Allegory and Cabalism, I shall\nthink ill of Christianity.\n\nI should also take into Examination the Story of an Angel's appearing\nto the Shepherds, and saying to them; _Behold I bring you Tidings of\ngreat Joy_, &c. If there was any Truth literally in _this_ Story, and\nin _that_ of a Star's appearing to the wise Men, there must be a great\nMistake in the Report of both of them. St. _Matthew_ and St. _Luke_\nhave both blunder'd. It was the Star that appear'd to the Shepherds by\nNight; and the Angel (I speak upon Reason and Authority) that was sent\nto the wise Men. What then to do with these two Stories, and to salve\nthe Credit of the _Evangelists_, I knew not, till the Fathers directed\nme to the Use of a mythological _Metamorphosis_: And then I presently\nlearn'd the Trick on't, to transform Stars into Angels, and Shepherds\ntoo, or Pastors of Christ's Flock (which was the Difficulty) into\nwise Men; and so I made one Moral or Mistery of the two Fables.\n\nI must also some Time take to task the Story of the _many dead Bodies of\nthe Saints, that upon Christs Resurrection, came out of their Graves,\nand appear'd unto many_; which is too imperfectly related to merit\nCredit. The _Evangelist_, if he would have a reasonable Man believe his\nStory, should have told us, who those Saints were, and what Numbers of\nthem; and whether they appear'd to the converted or unconverted _Jews_;\nwhether they were some of the Patriarchs and Prophets of old, or some\nlately departed Disciples, who, for all _Jesus_'s healing Power, died in\nthe Time of his Ministry; and whether there were any Women among those\nSaints; and whether they appear'd naked (as _Jesus_ modestly did to\n_Mary Magdalen_, unless he flip'd himself by _Stealth_ into the Cloths\nof the Gardener, which might be the Reason of her Mistake, for she\nsuppos'd she saw the Gardener) and whether they return'd again to\nCorruption, or ascended into Heaven. For want of these specifical\nCircumstances, the _Evangelist_ has told us a Tale, that has neither\nHead nor Foot to it: and unless the Fathers mystically answer, to\nSatisfaction, every one of the aforesaid _Queries_, I'll reject this\nStory for mere Romance and Imposture.\n\nThese and many other historical and seemingly miraculous Stories of\nthe Gospel, are some time to be taken into Consideration; for I will\nnot give this Work over, till I have demonstrated beyond all\nContradiction, that the evangelical Writings are but the Shadow of\nDivine Mysteries; and that literal Interpreters, whom[144] _Origen_\ncalls _vulgar Capacities_, are under a Mistake, if they think, they\nunderstand any Thing, as they ought, of the four Gospels.\n\nI should conclude now, as it becomes a _Moderator_, with an Address to\n_Infidels_ and _Apostates_, the great Combatants in this Controversy.\nBut I have not Room to be as large, as I would, in my Exhortations to\nthem distinctly, so I can only desire them to continue the Controversy\nwith Zeal and Vigour, not doubting but it will end to the Honour of\nJesus, the Good of his Church, and the Happiness of Mankind. The blessed\nFruits of this Controversy are already seen and felt in the almost Cure\nof a most malignant Distemper, call'd _Bigottry_, which has been the\nBane of human Society, and in Times past more destructive of the World\nthan either War or Pestilence. Go on then, _Great_ and _Good Sirs_, till\nthe Cure is perfected. And as you merit Praises and Rewards for your\nseveral Labours; So I hope you'll meet with them. The _Nobility_ and\n_Gentry_, of the Kingdom, as I learn, are sensibly touch'd with the\nUsefulness of this Controversy; whereupon it is to be hoped the\n_Legislative Authority_ will soon give Thanks to the great Mr. _Grounds_\nand Mr. _Scheme_ for their Pains in it; and not forget to do Justice to\nthe _Bishops_ and _Clergy_ according to their Merits. But I can't stay\nhere to talk more on this Head, being obliged to make an Epistolary\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_P. S._ To Mr. _T. Ray_, the Author of a _Discourse_, call'd _Our\nSaviour's Miracles vindicated_, &c. As I, _Sir_, enter'd the _Press_,\nyou came forth, or I might possibly have paid more of my Respects to\nyou another Way. But upon mature Consideration, I found a properer\nReply could not be made to you, than is the foregoing Discourse;\nwhich, if you are not sick of your former Performance, will find you\nsome more Work. And that you may write more pertinently against this\nDiscourse, than you did against my other, I'll give you some\nInstructions, _viz._ if you think of writing to the Purpose, you must\nprove these two Things; _First_, that the Fathers did not hold the\nStories of _Jesus_'s Miracles to be typical and figurative; and\n_Secondly_, that _Jesus_'s Miracles neither will nor can receive a\nmysterious and more wonderful Accomplishment. But you have not said\none Syllable to either of these Points; consequently have written\nnothing to the Purpose against me. As for Instance; In the Miracle of\n_Jesus_'s _driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple_: You\nshould prove, _First_ that the Fathers don't hold that Miracle to be\ntypical of the future Ejection of _Bishops_, _Priests_, and _Deacons_\nout of the Church, that make Merchandize of the Gospel: And\n_Secondly_, that it was impossible that the Miracle should receive\nsuch an Accomplishment. But you have done nothing of this. So, if you\nshould attempt again to write against this Discourse, as for Instance,\nagainst my Explication of the Miracle of _Jesus_'s healing the Woman,\nthat _had an Issue of Blood_; you must prove that _that_ Story neither\nwas in the Opinion of the Fathers Typical, nor could receive a\nmystical Accomplishment; or you may as well hold your Peace. And\nafter all, whether your Reasonings for the Letter of Christ's\nMiracles, are equal to mine against it, let our Readers judge, who\nwill easily discern, that you jump over my choicest Invectives against\nthe Letter, as if you was afraid of being touch'd by them.\n\nAs to your charging me falsly in one or two Places, with\nMisrepresentations of the Fathers, I'll expostulate that Matter with\nyou, when I hear that the _Bishop_ of _London_ gives your Performance,\nthe Reputation of a solid, and substantial one, by a Change of your\n_Cloak_ into a _Gown_, which you seem to aim at; or you had never so\nbesmear'd the _Bishop_ with your Compliments, nor had been so\nmealy-mouth'd as to the Point of Liberty.\n\nBut what need you, _Sir_, have told the World, that you take me for an\n_Unbeliever of the Scriptures_. If the _Bishop_'s wise Prosecution of\nme for an _Infidel_ had not given you the Hint, you could never of\nyour self have made that Discovery. And why did you not join the\nFathers with me in Unbelief? I thought I had been of the same Faith\nwith them. A Man of your Penetration into another's Principles, will,\nI suppose, from this present going Discourse, conclude me to be a\ndownright _Atheist_. And what must I do then to clear my self!\n\nIf you write any more, _Sir_, I desire you, without making more Haste\nthan good Speed, to be as expeditious as you can; or you will not\nprevent my Publication of another Discourse, like these two, to the\nHonour of _Jesus_, to whom be Glory for ever and ever. _Amen._\n\n                               ~_FINIS._~\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[79] _Matt. Ch._ ix. _Luke Ch._ viii. _Mark Ch._ v.\n\n[80] Factum quidum est, &, ita ut narratur, impletum. _In Serm._\nlxxvii. _Sect._ 7.\n\n[81] _On Mat. Chap._ ix.\n\n[82] _Matt. Ch._ ix. _v._ 21.\n\n[83] Non autem Fimbria Jesu, sed ejus Cogitatio eam salvam fecit. _In\nLoc. Marci._\n\n[84] _Matt. Ch._ xiii. _v._ 58.\n\n[85] In Locum _Matt._\n\n[86] Illa vero Mulier qu\u00e6 Fluxum Sanguinis patiebatur, Ecclesiam\nfigurabat ex Gentibus. St. _August. in Serm._ lxxvii. _Sect._ 8.\nPr\u00e6paratur igitur Mulier, in cujus Typo universalis Ecclesia sub\nspecie designetur. _Paschas. Ratbert. in Loc. Matt._\n\n[87] H\u00e6c Mulier, i. e. Sancta Ecclesia de Gentibus congregata qu\u00e6\nlapsu Criminum deperibat Sancti _Ambrosii in Loc. Luc._ Ut Mulier, qu\u00e6\nfluxum sanguinis patiebatur, &c. ita omnis Anima percussa incurabili\nVulnere Peccati, habens fontem pravarum Cogitationum, &c. _Macarii\n\u00c6gypt. in Hom._ xx.\n\n[88] [Greek: Epigazes gar t\u00ean phoinik\u00ean amartian]. _In Orat._ XL.\n\n[89] Qu\u00e6 est enim h\u00e6c Mulier nisi Ecclesia Gentium--Fluxum Sanguinis\npatiebatur, quia in suorum Peccatorum Sanguine versabatur; quia\nSanguinum Rapina & Occisione nutriebatur. _In Dominic._ xxiv.\n\n[90] Adversus H\u00e6reses. _Lib._ I. _Cap._ iii.\n\n[91] _Revel. Chap._ xii. _v._ 6.\n\n[92] Excellentes Verbi Pr\u00e6dicatores tanquam magni Medici.--_Sancti\nAugust. in Psal._ LXXXVII. _Sect._ 10.\n\n[93] Per hos enim Medicos, Ariolos & Philosophos intelligere possumus,\nquorum persuasionibus c\u00e6teri credentes a fidei Veritate aberrantes ad\nAnim\u00e6 Sanitatem attingere non valebant. _In Dominic._ xxiv.\n\n[94] Per Medicos intellige falsos Theologos. _In Loc. Marci._\n\n[95] _Mark Ch._ v. _v._ 26.\n\n[96] Medici Molestiam potius quam Sanitatem \u00e6grotanti pr\u00e6bentes.\n_Ephr\u00e6m. Syri._ p. 63.\n\n[97] _Mark Ch._ v. _v._ 34.\n\n[98] Dei Posteriora sunt novissima tempora. _Origen in Psal._ xxxvi.\n\n[99] Vestimenta Jesu sunt Sermones & Scripta Evangeliorum. _Origen in\nMatt. Ch._ xvii.\n\n[100] _Luke Ch._ xiii.\n\n[101] In Muliere infirma est Figura Ecclesi\u00e6. _Theoph. Antioch. in\nLoc. Luc\u00e6._ Unde intelligitur illa Mulier in Typo Ecclesi\u00e6 a Domino\nsanata & erecta, quam curvaverat Infirmitas, alligante Satana, _Sancti\nAugust. de Trinit. Lib._ iv. _Sect._ 7. In Typo Ecclesi\u00e6 f\u00e6minam\nsalvat. _Sancti Ambros. in Loc. Luc\u00e6._\n\n[102] Totum Genus humanum tanquam ista Mulier curvatum est ad\nterram,--Diabolus & Angeli ejus Animas hominum curvaverunt ad terras,\nid est, ut pron\u00e6 in ea qu\u00e6 terrena, superna non qu\u00e6rerent. _Sancti.\nAugust. in Serm._ cccxcii. Qui occidentem sequuntur Literam terrena\nsapiunt. _Sancti Hieron. in Lib. Amos, Ch._ i.\n\n[103] Quid illa Mulier octo decem Annos habens in Infirmitate. Sex\nDiebus Deus perfecit opera sua. Ter seni decem & octo faciunt. Quod\nergo significavit triennium in Arbore, hoc octo decem Anni in illa\nMuliere. _In. Serm._ cx.\n\n[104] _Luke Ch._ xiii. 7.\n\n[105] 1 _Cor. Ch._ xiii. 9, 10.\n\n[106] Ut Deus sex Dies in tantis Rebus fabricandis laboravit; ita &\nReligio ejus & Veritas in his sex millibus Annorum laboret, necesse est,\nmalitia dominante & prevalente. Et rursus, quoniam perfectis operibus\nrequievit Die septimo, eumque benedixit; necesse est, ut in sine sexti\nmillessimi Anni Malitia omnis aboleatur e terra & regnet per Annos mille\njustitia; sitq; tranquilltas & requies a Laboribus, quos Mundus jamdiu\nperpessus est. _In Lanctant. Instit. Lib._ VII. _Ch._ xiv. Dies septimus\netiam nos ipsi erimus quando (Christi) Benedictione & sanctificatione\nfuerimus pleni & refecti; ibi vacantes videbimus, quoniam ipse est Deus.\n_Sancti August. de Civit. Dei. Lib._ XXII. _Ch._ xxx.\n\n[107] Contemnenda non est accurata circa Nomina Diligentia ei qui\nvolucrit prole intelligere sacras Literas. _In Johan. Evang. Tom._ 8.\n\n[108] Jam Archi-Synagogus adumbrat omnes Sacerdotes, &c. _In. Hom._ xii.\n\n[109] Caluminabantur autem erigenti, qui, nisi curvi? _In Serm._\ncccxcii.\n\n[110] Sed nesciebat Archi-Synagogus vel hoc vel illud multo\nexcellentius sacramentum, quod Sabbato curando Dominus intimabat, quia\nscilicet post sex hujus seculi \u00c6tates perpetu\u00e6 Vit\u00e6 immortalis erat\ngaudia daturus. _Venerab. Bed. in Loc._\n\n[111] Ante Christum in cogniti & a solo sciente detecti. _In Lib._ II.\n_adv. Gentes_.\n\n[112] Consequens autem est ei, qui cognoscit qu\u00e6 sit Hierusalem in\ndivisione ver\u00e6 H\u00e6reditatis filiorum Isr\u00e6l, ut intelligat Sermonem de\nGehenna. _In Matt. Ch._ xxiii.\n\n[113] Ego puto quod nomina h\u00e6c Scriptura divina non pro Historia\nnarraverit sed pro Causis & Rebus,--non enim tam Regum quam Vitiorum\nNomina, qu\u00e6 regnant in hominibus referuntur. _In Numer. Ch._ xxxi.\n\n[114] Quid ergo mirum videtur, si per singula genera Peccatorum\nsinguli D\u00e6mones ascribuntur. _In Lib. Josu. Ch._ xi.\n\n[115] Sed in alio quodam Libello, qui apellatur Testamentum duodecem\nPatriarcharum, talem quendam sensum invenimus, quod per singulos\npeccantes, singuli Satan\u00e6 intelligi debeant. Evidentius autem & ipsa\nNominis ejus interpretatio hoc idem significare videtur; _Satanas_\nnamq; Adversarius dicitur. Omnes ergo qui adversantur dei voluntati,\nSatan\u00e6 possunt dici. _Ibid._\n\n[116] On Miracles, _p._ 36.\n\n[117] Quamdiu vera Pax veniat, & Sabbatismus, & Septem decadarum\nNumerus.--Ecclesia non plenam recipiat Libertatem. _Sancti. Hieron. in\nZechar. Ch._ i.\n\n[118] Illa Mulier curvata intelligitur figurare Ecclesiam, quam _in\nSexta Mundi \u00c6tate_ a Captivitate Diaboli Jesus liberabit. _In Qu\u00e6st._\n25. _Dialog._ LXV _Qu\u00e6st._\n\n[119] Vidi Angelum habentem Clarem & Catenam ad ligandum\ndraconem.--_In Sexto Annorum Millenario_ h\u00e6c Res agitur. _De Civit.\nDei. L._ XX. _Ch._ vii.\n\n[120] _Revel. Ch._ xx. _v._ 2.\n\n[121] Propter Infinitatem Annorum Mille Annos dixit. _In Serm. de\nP\u00e6nitentia._\n\n[122] Diaboli Forman assumimus--Leonis Personam induimus &\nDraconis,--quando crudeles & callidi sumus. _Origen. in Luc. Hom._ viii.\n\n[123] _Mark Ch._ viii. _v._ 33.\n\n[124] Defence of Christianity, _p._ 8.\n\n[125] Doctioribus inter Jud\u00e6os notissimum est,--quod Moses qui primus\nfuit Salvator Isr\u00e6lis etiam in omni Vita & Operibus suis fuerit Typus\n& Figura ultimi Redemptoris. _Christian. Meyer de Gen. Christi_, p.\n145. Jud\u00e6i Veteres expectabant similem \u00c6gyptiac\u00e6 Liberationem, ut\nscilicet Pharaoh & omnis ejus Exercitus qui per 430 Annos Populum Dei\nCaptivum tenuit, in Mari Rubro submersus est; sic etiam Romani qui\neodem Annorum Numero Jud\u00e6os possessuri, Ultione Domini deleantur.\n_Sancti Hieron. in Joel. Ch._ v.\n\n[126] See the Life of _William Lilly_.\n\n[127] See Dr. _Hammond_ on the Place.\n\n[128] Percontando de Viro, Occasionem cepit occulta revelandi. _Sancti\nCyril. Alex. in Loc._\n\n[129] _John Ch._ x. _v._ 24.\n\n[130] Fortasse verum non erat, _Jud\u00e6os cum Samaritanis Commmercium non\nhabere_,--ac ne illud quidem verum, _neque Haustorium habes, & Puteus\naltus est_,--fortasse etiam neque illud, _quod Jacob ex Puteo biberit,\n& filii ejus, & Pecora_ ejus. _Origen. in Loc._\n\n[131] Plena Mysteriis & gravida Sacramentis. _Sancti August. in Johan.\nCh._ iv.\n\n[132] Evangelica Sacramenta in Domini nostri Jesu Christi dictis\nfactisque signata non omnibus patent, & ea nonnulli minus diligenter,\nminusque sobrie interpretando, afferunt plerumque pro salute\nPerniciem, & pro Cognitione Veritatis Errorem, inter qu\u00e6 illud est\nSacramentum quod Scriptum est de hac Samaritana, _&c._ _In Qu\u00e6st._ 63,\n_de_ Lxxxiii. _Quest._\n\n[133] [Greek: \u00d4s en typ\u00f4 palin \u00eamin kai di ainigmatos ypodeikneus.]\n_In Loc. Johan._\n\n[134] Illa Mulier Typum gerebat Ecclesi\u00e6, qu\u00e6 ventura erat ex\nGentibus--Ecclesi\u00e6 non justificat\u00e6, sed justificand\u00e6. _Sancti. August.\nin Loc. Johan._\n\n[135] Tunc fatigatur Christus, quando nullam Virtutem in Populo suo\nrecognoscit. _Sancti August. in Serm._ xciii. _Appen._\n\n[136] Hora sexta id est, sexta \u00c6tate Generis Humani. _Sancti August.\nin Qu\u00e6st._ 64. lxxxiii. _Qu\u00e6st._\n\n[137] Puteus est Divina Scriptura, scientia scatens, ut aqua, Cujus\nputei Profunditas sunt plena Mysteriis Symbola. _In Theoph. Ceram\nHomil._ xxxviii. _de Samaritana_.\n\n[138] Lex secundum Literam est aqua amara. _Hieronym. in Ezekiel. Ch._\nxlvii. Qui bibit ex hac aqua sitiet rursus, id est, qui participat\nprofunditatem human\u00e6 sapienti\u00e6, prudentesque Rationes, receptis\nIntelligentiis judicio suo inventis, tamen rursus secundo cogitans,\ndenuo dubitabit de his in quibus requieverat. _Origen. in Loc. Johan._\n\n[139] _In Locum Johan. Evang._\n\n[140] Quinque enim Viros habuisti, & nunc quem habes _non est Vir\ntuus_. Sed non sunt h\u00e6c carnabiter accipienda, ne huic ipsi Mulieri\nSamaritan\u00e6 similes videamur,--Per quinque Viros, quinque Libros Mosis\nNonnulli accipiunt--sed quinque Viri intelliguntur quinque Corporis\nsensus. Et quia naturales sunt ipsi Sensus, qui \u00e6tatem primam regunt,\nrecte dicuntur Mariti. _In Qu\u00e6st._ 64. _de_ lxxxiii. _Qu\u00e6st._\n\n[141] _Et nunc quem habes non est Vir tuus_; Quia non est in te\n(Ecclesia) Spiritus qui intelligat Deum, cum quo legitimum potes\nhabere conjugium; sed Error Diaboli potius dominatur, qui te\nadulterina Contaminatione corrumpit. _Venerab. Bed\u00e6 in Locum._\n\n[142] Magna quidem acta sunt Sacramenta, sed augustum Tempus est, ut\nomnia pertractentur. _In Serm._ xci. _Sect._ 2.\n\n[143] _In his Dissertation on the Blessing of_ Judah.\n\n[144] Ut Lex Umbram continet futurorum bonorum, qu\u00e6 declarantur ab ea\nLege; sic etiam Evangelium, quod vel a quibusque vulgaribus intelligi\nexistimatur, Umbram docet Mysteriorum Christi. _In Pr\u00e6fat. ad Johan.\nEvang._\n\n\n\n\n                                A THIRD\n                               DISCOURSE\n                                 ON THE\n                                MIRACLES\n                                 OF OUR\n                               _SAVIOUR_,\n\n                         In VIEW of the Present\n                           Controversy between INFIDELS\n                           and APOSTATES.\n\n           _Litteratos gravissimo Somno stertere convincam_,\n                                                HIERON.\n\n                           The Third Edition.\n\n                    By THO. WOOLSTON, B.D. sometime\n               Fellow of _Sidney-College_ in _Cambridge_.\n\n                               _LONDON_:\n\n                Printed for the Author, and Sold by him\n                  next door to the _Star_, in _Aldermanbury_,\n                  and by the Booksellers of _London_, and\n                  _Westminster_. 1728.\n\n                         [Price One Shilling.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                 TO THE\n\n                      Right Reverend Father in GOD\n\n                               _RICHARD_,\n\n                      Lord Bishop of St. DAVID'S.\n\n\nMY LORD,\n\n_In your_ Sermon _before the_ Societies _for Reformation of Manners,\nyou are pleased to give a Character of my former_ Discourses on\nChrist's Miracles; _which, tho' I don't at all like, yet I thank you\nfor the Favour of taking Notice of them; a_ Favour _that I have long'd\nfor from a considerable_ Clergyman; _but could not flatter myself\nwith the Hopes of receiving it from so great a_ Prelate.\n\n_Some of the inferior_ Clergy, _whom I despise for their Ignorance and\nMalice, have before in their Conversation represented me as an_\nimpious _and_ blasphemous Infidel; _and I have met with Affronts for\nit: But I never imagin'd that any, much less your_ Lordship, _would\nhave ventur'd such a Character of me from the_ Press, _for fear of a\nResentment, which would not be agreeable. Surely your_ Lordship _has\nnot read my_ Discourses, _but has taken a Report of them upon Trust,\nfrom some Ecclesiastical_ Noodle; _or you could never have been so\nmuch mistaken about my Design in them_.\n\n_I took myself to be a_ Christian _of the same Faith with the Fathers\nof the Church; and, without Vanity, think, I have publish'd some\nTracts, in Defence of Christianity, equal, if not superior to any\nThing this Age has produced. I repeatedly also in my_ Discourses on\nMiracles, _to obviate the Prejudices of an ignorant_ Clergy, _made\nsolemn Protestations of the Sincerity of my Design, not to do Service\nto Infidelity, but to make Way for the Demonstration of_ Jesus_'s\nMessiahship from Prophecy: But all these Asseverations of the\nIntegrity of my Heart, it seems, stand for nothing (and I don't wonder\nat it) with the_ Clergy, _who in their Principles, their Oaths, and\nSubscriptions are so accustom'd to prevaricate with God and Man. I\nshall make no more serious Protestations of my Faith, but expect your_\nLordship _should soon publish a Defence of your foul_ Charge _against\nme, that I may see what Skill you have in the impious and blasphemous\nWritings of an_ Infidel.\n\n_And if your railing_ Accusation _be not soon followed with a\nDissertation of more Reason, I shall insist on a publick Reparation of\nthe Injury done to my Reputation by your_ vile _and_ slanderous _Sermon;\nand appeal to the worshipful_ Societies _for Reformation of Manners,\nwhether it be not just and reasonable, you should do one or the other_.\n\n_Now I have laid hold on your_ Lordship, _than whom I could not have\nwish'd for an_ Adversary, _that will do me more Honour to overcome, I\nwill hold you fast; and you must expect to be teaz'd and insulted from\nthe_ Press, _if you enter not the Lists against me_.\n\n_A clear Stage_, my Lord, _and no Favour. If you have the Sword of the\nSpirit in your Hand, cut as sharply as you can with it. I had\nconceiv'd a great Opinion of your Learning, and should have been a\nlittle apprehensive of the Power of it; if you had not in your_ Sermon\n_betray'd as great Weakness and Ignorance, as could be in a poor_\nCurat; _or you had never asserted that the_ Greek _Commentators\nadher'd more strictly, to the litteral Sense of the Holy Scriptures;\nas if you knew not, that St_. Theophilus _of_ Antioch, _and even_\nOrigen _himself and others, the greatest_ Allegorists, _if a\nComparison may be made, were_ Commentators _of the_ Greek _Church_.\n\n_The sooner your_ Lordship _appears from the_ Press, _the better, in as\nmuch as you may possibly prevent my Publication of more_ Discourses _of\nthis Kind. And that it may not be long first, I will accept of a\nDissertation from you, on any two or three of the Miracles, I have\nhandled, as sufficient for all. Take your Choice of them: but don't I\nbeseech you, touch the Miracle of_ Jesus_'s driving the_ Buyers _and_\nSellers _out of the Temple, because it is a_ hot _one, and may possibly\nburn your Fingers. The Miracles, that I have most ludicrously and, of\nconsequence, most offensively handled, are the_ two _of this present\nDiscourse. If you please_, my Lord, _let them be the easy and short Task\nimposed on you. If you can defend the Letter of the Stories of these_\ntwo _Miracles, I'll quietly give up the Rest to you._\n\n_So heartily thanking your_ Lordship _for the Favour done me, in\ntaking Notice of my_ Discourses on Miracles, _which shall be turn'd to\ngood Use and Advantage, I subscribe myself_,\n\n[Sidenote: _Feb. 26. 1728_]\n\n  _My LORD_,\n    _Your most obliged_\n      _Humble Servant_,\n  Tho. Woolston.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                A THIRD\n                               DISCOURSE\n                                 ON THE\n                                MIRACLES\n                                 OF OUR\n                             _SAVIOUR_, &c.\n\n\nMy two former Discourses having met with a favourable Reception, I am\nencourag'd to go on and publish another; which, without any more\nPreface, I enter upon, by a Repetition of three general Heads, at\nfirst proposed to be spoken to, and they were,\n\nI. To show that the Miracles of healing all Manner of bodily Diseases,\nwhich _Jesus_ was justly famed for, are none of the proper Miracles of\nthe _Messiah_, neither are they so much as a good Proof of his divine\nAuthority, to found a Religion.\n\nII. To prove, that the literal History of many of the Miracles of\n_Jesus_, as recorded by the _Evangelists_, does imply Absurdities,\nImprobabilities, and Incredibilities; consequently they, either in\nwhole or in part, were never wrought, as they are commonly believed\nnow-a-days, but are only related as prophetical and Parabolical\nNarratives of what would be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by\nhim.\n\nIII. To consider, what _Jesus_ means, when he appeals to his Miracles,\nas to a Testimony and a Witness of his divine Authority; and to show\nthat he could not properly and ultimately refer to those he then\nwrought in the _Flesh_, but to those Mystical ones, that he would do\nin the _Spirit_, of which those wrought in the Flesh are but mere\nTypes and Shadows.\n\nTho' I have already, spoken what may be thought sufficient, to the\nfirst of these Heads; yet I have several Things still, both from\nReason and Authority, to add to it; but having not here a convenient\nPlace for that purpose, I defer it to a better Opportunity; and so\npass immediately to the Resumption of my\n\nII. Second general Head, and that is, to prove, that the literal\nHistory of many of the Miracles of _Jesus_, as recorded by the\n_Evangelists_, does imply Absurdities, Improbabilities and\nIncredibilities; consequently they, either in whole or in part were\nnever wrought, as it is commonly believed now-a-days, but are only\nrelated, as Prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what would be\nmysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.\n\nTo this Purpose I have taken into Examination six of the Miracles of\n_Jesus_, _viz._ those.\n\n1. Of his driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple.\n\n2. Of his exorcising the _Devils_ out of the Mad-men, and sending them\ninto the Herd of Swine.\n\n3. Of his Transfiguration on the Mount.\n\n4. Of his healing a Woman, that had an Issue of Blood, twelve Years.\n\n5. Of his curing a Woman that had a Spirit of Infirmity, eighteen\nYears, and\n\n6. Of his telling the _Samaritan_ Woman her Fortune of having had five\nHusbands, and being then an Adulteress with another Man.\n\nWhether I have not prov'd the Storys of these Miracles, either in\nwhole or in part, to consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and\nincredibilities, according to the Proposition before us, I leave my\n_Readers_ to judge; and now will take in Hand\n\n7. A Seventh Miracle of _Jesus_; _viz._ that[145] _of his cursing the\nFigtree, for not bearing Fruit out of Season_; which Miracle, upon the\nbare mention of it, appears to be such an absurd, foolish, and\nridiculous, if not malicious and ill-natured Act in _Jesus_, that I\nquestion, whether, for Folly and Absurdity, it can be equalled in any\nInstance of the Life of a reputed wise Man. The Fathers, such as\n_Origen_, St. _Augustin_, St. _John of Jerusalem_, and others, have\nall said as smart Things, as the wittiest Infidels can, against the\nLetter of this Story. St. _Augustin_[146] very plainly says, that\n_this Fact in Jesus_, upon Supposition that it was done, was _a\nfoolish one_. If therefore I treat this Story a little more\nludicrously than ordinary, and expose the Folly of the Fact as well as\nof the modern Belief of it, I hope their Authority and Example will\nplead my Excuse for it.\n\n_Jesus_ was hungry, it seems, and being disappointed of Figs, to the\nSatisfaction of his Appetite, cursed the Figtree. Why so peevish and\nimpatient? Our _Divines_, when they please, make _Jesus_ the most\npatient, resign'd and easy under Sufferings, Troubles and\nDisappointments, of any Man. If he really was so, he could hardly have\nbeen so much out of Humour, for want of a few Figs, to the Allay of\nhis Hunger. But to curse the Figtree upon it, was as foolishly and\npassionately done, as for another Man to throw the Chairs and Stools\nabout the House; because his Dinner is not ready at a critical Time,\nor before it could be got ready for him.\n\nBut _Jesus_ was hungry, some will say, and the Disappointment provoked\nhim. What if he was hungry? He should, as he knew the Return of his\nAppetite, have made a better and more certain Provision for it. Where\nwas _Judas_ his Steward and Caterer with his Bag of Victuals as well\nas Money? Poor Forecast, and Management amongst them, or _Jesus_ had\nnever trusted to the uncertain Fruits of a Figtree, which he espy'd at\na Distance, for his Breakfast.\n\nAnd if _Jesus_ was frustrated of a long'd-for Meal of Figs, what need he\nhave so reveng'd the Disappointment on the[147] senseless and faultless\nTree? Was it, because he was forc'd to fast longer than usual and\nexpedient? not so, I hope neither: Could not Angels, if he was in a\ndesert Place, have administered unto him? Or could not he miraculously\nhave created Bread for himself and his Company, as he multiplied or\nincreased the Loaves for his Thousands in the Wilderness? What Occasion\nthen for his being out of Humour for want of Food? If he was of Power to\nprovide Bread for others on a sudden, he might sure have supply'd his\nown Necessities, and so have kept his Temper, without breaking into a\nviolent Fit of Passion, upon present Want and Disappointment.\n\nBut what is yet worse, _the Time of Figs was not yet_, when Jesus\nlook'd and long'd for them. Did ever any one hear or read of any\nthing more[148] unreasonable than for a Man to expect Fruit out of\nSeason? _Jesus_ could not but know this before he came to the Tree,\nand if he had had any Consideration, he would not have expected Figs\non it, much less, if he had regarded his own Reputation, as a wise\nMan, would he have so resented the Want of them. What, if a _Yeoman_\nof _Kent_ should go to look for _Pipins_ in his Orchard at _Easter_,\n(the supposed Time[149] that _Jesus_ sought for these Figs) and,\nbecause of a Disappointment, cut down all his Trees; What then would\nhis Neighbours make of him; Nothing less, than a _Laughing-stock_; and\nif the Story got into our publick News, he would be the Jest and\nRidicule of Mankind. How _Jesus_ salv'd his Credit upon this his wild\nPrank; and prevented the Laughter of the _Scribes_ and _Pharisees_\nupon it, I know not; but I cannot think of this Part of the Letter of\nthis Story, without smiling at it at this Day; and wonder our\n_Divines_ are not laugh'd out of Countenance for reading it gravely,\nand having _Jesus_ in Admiration for it.\n\nAgain, I would gladly know, whose Figtree this was, and whether\n_Jesus_ had any legal Right to the Fruit, if haply he had found any on\nit, or any Leave or Authority to smite it with a Curse for its\nUnfruitfulness? As to the Tree's being _Jesus_'s Property, that could\nnot be. For he was so far from being either Landlord or Tenant, that\nit's said he had not where to lay his Head. During the Time of his\nMinistry, he was but a Wanderer, like a Mendicant Fryar, or an\nitinerant Preacher, and before that Time was no better than a\nJourneyman Carpenter (of whose Workmanship, I wonder, the Church of\n_Rome_ has no holy Relicks, not so much as a Three-footed-stool, or a\nPair of Nutcrackers;) consequently he had no House nor Land of his own\nby Law, much less any Figtree, and least of all _this_ which he espy'd\nat a distance in his Travels. How then had he any Right to the Figs,\nif he had met with any? I hope he ask'd Leave beforehand of the\nProprietor, or _Infidels_ will say of him, that if he had had an\nOpportunity he would have been a _Rob-Orchard_. And it he had no Right\nto the Fruit, much less to smite the Tree with a Curse; where was his\nHonour,[150] _his Justice_, his Goodness, and his Honesty in this Act?\nThe _Evangelists_, if they would have us to think, _Jesus_ did no\nwrong to any Man, should have left us somewhat upon Record, to\nSatisfaction, in this Case; or _Infidels_, who have here Scope for it,\nwill think worse of _Jesus_, than possibly he may deserve. Whether\n_Jesus_, modestly speaking, met with any Blame or Reprimand from the\nProprietor, for his Act of Execration, none can affirm or deny. But if\nany one so spitefully and maliciously should destroy almost any other\nTree, whether fruitful or not, of another Man's, in this Country, he\nwould have good Luck, if he escaped the House of Correction for it.\n\nAnd what now have our _Divines_ to say, to all this Reasoning against\nthe Letter of this Story? Nothing more than \"That the Act of cursing the\nFigtree, whether it be at this Distance of Time reconcilable to Reason,\nJustice and Prudence or not, was a supernatural Work, above the Power of\nNature or Art to imitate; consequently it was a Miracle, and they will\nadmire and adore _Jesus_ for it.\" And to agree with them at present,\nthat it was a real Miracle, and a supernatural Event, yet I hope,\nthey'll acknowledge, that if _Jesus_, as St. _Augustin_[151] says, had,\ninstead of cursing the Figtree, made a dry, dead and withered one,\nimmediately to bud, flourish and revive, and in an Instant to bring\nforth ripe Fruits, out of Season, it would have pleased them much\nbetter. Such an Instance of his Power had been an indisputable Miracle:\nSuch an Instance of his divine Power had carry'd Goodness along with it,\nand none of the foresaid Exceptions could have been made to it: Such an\nInstance of his Almighty Power, had been a Demonstration of his being\nLord of the Creation, and Author of the Fruits of the Earth for the Use\nof Man, in their Season, or he could not have produced them out of\nSeason: In such an Instance of Power, his Divine Care and Providence\nagainst Hunger and Want would have been visible; and it would have been\nan Admonition to us, to depend daily upon him for the Comforts and\nNecessaries of Life: Such an Instance of his Power would have been, as\nSt. _Augustin_ says above, like his Miracles of healing Diseases, of\nmaking the Languid, _Sound_; and the Feeble, _Strong_; and we might more\ncertainly have inferr'd from one with the other, that both were the\nOperations of a good God. But this Instance of his cursing the Figtree\nin this Fashion spoils the Credit, and sullies the Glory of his other\nMiracles. It is in its own Nature of such a malevolent Aspect, that its\nenough to make us suspect the Beneficence of _Christ_ in his other\nWorks, and to question whether there might not be some latent Poyson and\ndiabolical Design under the Colour of his fairer Pretences to Almighty\nPower. It is so like the malignant Practices of _Witches_, who, as\nStories go, upon Envy, Grudge, or Distaste, smite their Neighbours\nCattle with languishing Distempers, till they die, that it's hard, if\nnot impossible, to distinguish one from the other, in Spite and Malice.\nIf _Mahomet_, and not _Jesus_, had been the Author of this Miracle, our\n_Divines_ would presently have discover'd the _Devil_'s Foot in it, and\nhave said that _Satan_ drew him into a Scrape, in the Execution of this\nmad and foolish Frolick, on purpose to expose _him_ for a _Wizard_ and\n_his_ Musselmen of all Ages since for _Fools_ in believing on him. The\nSpirit of _Christ_, who is all Love and Mercy, should, one would think,\nbreath forth nothing but Goodness and Kindness to Mankind; but that such\na pestilential Blast, like a mortiferous North-East Wind in some\nSeasons, should proceed from his Mouth, to the Destruction of another\nMan's harmless and inoffensive Tree, is what none upon Earth can account\nfor.\n\nOur _Divines_, one or other of them, have publish'd several notable\nNotions about Miracles, and have laid down good Rules to distinguish\n_true_ from _false_ ones; but none of them, as far as I perceive, have\ntaken any Pains to shew the Consistence of _Jesus_'s Miracles to their\nown Rules and Notions. Mr. _Chandler_, (who as the _Archbishop_[152]\nsays, has rightly slated the Notion of a Miracle) among his Rules of\njudging by whom Miracles are perform'd, says,[153] _That the Things\npretended to be done, are to be such, as that it is consistent with\nthe Perfections of God to interest himself in_; and again, _they must\nbe such as answer to the Character of God as a good and gracious\nBeing_; and again, _It seems reasonable to believe, that whenever the\nfirst and best of Beings is pleased to send an extraordinary Messenger\nwith a Revelation of his Will, he will furnish him with such Proofs of\nhis Mission, as may argue, not only the Power of him in whose Name be\ncomes, but his Love to Mankind, and his Inclination to do them good_.\nI have no Dislike to these Notions of Mr. _Chandler_; but as it is not\nto be questioned, that he (and the _Archbishop_ too) had this Miracle\nof _Jesus_'s cursing the Figtree, and some others, as of his\n_boisterous driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple_; of _his\nsending the Devils into the Herd of Swine_; of _his turning Water into\nWine for the Use of Men, who had before well drank_, &c. in his View,\nwhen he gave forth the foresaid Rules; (for acute and learned Writers\nin Theology are supposed to have their Wits about them;) so it is to\nbe hop'd that he or the _Archbishop_ will soon publish somewhat to\nreconcile these Miracles of _Jesus_ to their own Notions; tho' I don't\nexpect it before _latter Lammas_.\n\nBut after all, it may be questioned, if Infidels should go about it,\nwhether this Work of _Jesus_ was miraculous; and whether there was not\nmore of the Craft of Man, than of the Power of God in it; or to use\nMr. _Chandler_'s[154] Words, whether it don't _look like the little\nTricks and cunning Deceits of Impostors_. St. _Matthew_ says,\n_presently the Figtree withered away_; but this _presently_ is an\nindeterminate Time, and may be understood of a Day, or a Week or two,\nas well as of the Moment in which the Words were spoken, _Let no Fruit\ngrow on thee henceforward for ever_. St. _Mark_ says, _that in the\nMorning as the Disciples passed by; they saw the Figtree dry'd up from\nthe Roots_, which was at least the Day[155] after the Curse was\nutter'd, so that there was certainly four and twenty Hours for its\nwithering; and if it is said that the _Tree dry'd up from the Roots_,\nit does not imply that the Trunk of it perish'd, or was reduc'd to\nnothing; but only that the green Leaves of the Whole, and of every\nPart of it, were in a withering Condition: And might not all this be\ndone without a Miracle? What if _Jews_ and _Infidels_ should say, that\n_Jesus_, being minded to impose on his Disciples and Followers, took a\nsecret Opportunity beforehand to lay his Carpenter's Ax to the Root of\nthis Tree, and so imperceptibly circumcised it, as that the Leaves\ndid, what they will do, wither in a Night and a Day's Time. God\nforbid, that I should think, _Jesus_ did so; but as to the Possibility\nof such a Fraud in an Impostor, none can doubt of it.\n\nI am so far from thinking there was any such Fraud in this supposed\nMiracle of _Jesus_, that I don't believe it was at all done by him\naccording to the Letter: And for this I have not only a clear and\nintrinsick Proof from the Story itself; but the Authority of the\nFathers. St. _Ambrose_, treating on the Parable of the Figtree in[156]\nSt. _Luke_, intimates, that what St. _Matthew_ and St. _Mark_ write of\n_Jesus_'s cursing the Figtree, is but[157] Part of the same Parable.\nAnd St. _John_ of _Jerusalem_[158] says expressly enough, that the three\n_Evangelists_ write of one and the same Figtree, consequently\nparabolically, and that, what St. _Matthew_ and St. _Mark_ write of it,\nwas no more a literal Transaction, than the Parable in St. _Luke_.\nThanks to these holy Fathers for their ridding us of the Belief of the\nLetter of this Story, which otherwise might have perplex'd us with its\nAbsurdities before urg'd. And to their Opinion I desire it may be added\nand considered, whether it be not as reasonable in itself to take what\nthe three _Evangelists_ write of this Figtree as Part of one Story, as\nwell as, what they write of the _Woman with her Issue of Blood_, and of\n_Jesus's calling the Devils out of the Madmen_, and of other Miracles\nwhich are but several Relations of the same Story, Parable or Miracle,\nNeither is it any Argument for a literal Transaction of this Miracle,\nthat the _Evangelists_ speak of it, as a Thing done: For, as _Origen_\nsays, there are some Things spoken of in the _Evangelists_, as Facts,\nwhich were never transacted; so it is of the Nature of Prophecy (and\nour Saviour in his whole Life prophesied) to speak of Things to come,\nas if they were already past; because such Prophecies are not to be\nunderstood till after their Accomplishment, and then the Reason of the\nUse of the _pr\u00e6ter_, instead of the _future_ Tense, in Prophecy, will be\nvisible. But what, in my Opinion, is an absolute Demonstration, that\nthere's no Truth in the Letter of this Story, is, what our Saviour adds,\nupon the Disciples wondering at the sudden withering of the Figtree,\nsaying,[159] _that if they had Faith they should not only do what was\ndone to the Figtree; but should say to this Mountain_, (that was near\nhim, I suppose) _be thou removed and cast into the Sea, and it shall be\ndone_. But these Things were never litterally done by them, consequently\n_Jesus_ himself did not litterally curse the Figtree; or the Disciples\nwanted Faith for the doing the said Miracles, which is an Absurdity to\nsuppose; or _Jesus_ talked idly of a Promise to invest them with a\nPower, they were never to be possess'd of. But of what ill Consequence\nto Religion, either of these Suppositions is, let the old Objection in\n_Paschasius Rathertus_[160] speak; which I shall not stay here to urge\nand revive; but only say at present, that if _Jesus_ actually cursed a\nFigtree, his Disciples ought to have done so too, and to remove\nMountains. If we adhere to the Letter in one Case, we must in the other\nalso; but we are only to look to the Mystery in both, or St.\n_Augustin_[161] will tell us, that _Jesus_ utter'd vain, empty and\ninsignificant Words and Promises.\n\nSt. _Augustin_, who believes no more of the Letter of this Story, than\nI do, says, that the Works of _Jesus_ are all figurative and of a\nspiritual Signification, which is so manifest from his Act of cursing\nthe Figtree, as Men must,[162] _whether they will or not_ acknowledge\nit. But he is mistaken: Tho' there might be none in his Time who\nwould question, that this supposed Fact of _Jesus_ had a mystical\nSignification; yet if he had liv'd in our Days, he would have met with\n_Divines_, who, for all the foresaid Absurdities and their Cogency to\ndrive us to Allegory, do adhere to the Letter only, whether the Truth,\nCredibility and Reasonableness of it be defensible or not. But then to\ndo Justice to St. _Augustin_'s Assertion, he would have met with\nothers, who _against their Wills_, interpret this Miracle\nfiguratively, such as Dr. _Hammond_ and Dr. _Whitby_, who say, _Jesus_\ncursed the Figtree by way of Type of the Destruction of the _Jewish_\nState, which declined and wasted away after the Similitude of this\nwithering Tree. But why then don't these _Commentators_ allegorically\ninterpret and apply other Miracles of our Saviour? Because they think\nthe Letter will stand good and abide the Test without an Allegory. And\nwhy do they allegorise this Miracle only? Because of the Difficulties\nand Absurdities of the Letter, which they can't account for. And are\nthese Reasons good? No, certainly: The _Evangelists_ should have made\nthe Distinction for them. They should have told us, which Miracles are\nto be allegoris'd and mystically applied, and which are not; or we\nare to allegorise all or none at all. And how came these modern\nAllegorists of this Miracle to apply it as they do, and to make it a\nmystical Representation of the Ruin of the _Jewish_ State? Did they\ntake up this Notion of their own Heads, or did they borrow it of the\nFathers? Why in all Probability they took the Hint from the Fathers;\nwherefore then don't they, what none of them do, cite and acknowledge\ntheir Authors for it? Because, like Men of Subtilty, they would be\nthought to devise it of themselves; for if they had quoted the Fathers\nfor it, the Fathers would have oblig'd them, upon their Authority, to\nallegorise the rest of _Jesus_'s Miracles, in the way that I have\ninterpreted some of them; but this would not have agreed with their\nStomachs for many Reasons. No Thanks then to the aforesaid\n_Commentators_ for their allegorical Application of this Miracle,\nwhich they are again to desert, or abide the Consequence of\nallegorising others also, which for their Interests and Reputations\nthey will not do. Therefore let them return again to the Letter of\nthis Miracle, and say for it, what is all that is to be said for it,\nwith _Victor Antiochenus_, an Apostatical Writer of the fifth\nCentury,[163] _that when we read this Passage of Scripture concerning\nthe Figtree_, Jesus _cursed, we ought not curiously to enquire whether\nit was wisely or justly done of_ Jesus, _or not; but we ought to\ncontemplate and admire this Miracle, as well as that of_ Jesus'_s\ndrowning the Swine, notwithstanding some think it void of the Face of\nJustice_. Ay, ay, our _Divines_ must allegorise all _Jesus_'s\nMiracles, or betake themselves to this Opinion of _Victor_; which this\n_Free-thinking_ Age will hardly let them quietly rest in. So,\nsupposing our _Divines_ to be, what they generally are, still\nMinisters of the Absurdity of the Letter, I pass to the Consideration\nof the Authority of the Fathers, and to see, whether we can't learn of\nthem this Parable of the Figtree.\n\nWho or what is meant by the Figtree seems not to be agreed among the\nFathers; or, more properly speaking, they are not agreed, all of them\nto apply it always to one and the same Thing. Some, as[164] _Gregory_\nthe _Great_, say Human Nature or Mankind is typified by the Figtree.\nOthers, as[165] St. _Hilary_, say the _Jewish_ Church or State is\nmeant by it. Others, as[166] _Origen_ say, it is a Type of the Church\nof Christ. So do the Fathers seem to be divided in their Opinions; but\nit is without any Difference or Inconsistency with each other. For as\nthere is, according to the Fathers, Mystery upon Mystery in all the\nActions of _Jesus_; so I believe the Figtree here, as a Type, may be\nproperly enough apply'd to the foresaid three Purposes. And if the\nFathers had been ask'd their Opinion in this Case, I dare say, they\nwould have said so too. This is certain that _Origen_[167] understands\nit as applicable to the _Jewish_ as well as the _Christian_ Church.\nAnd St. _Augustin_, as Occasion offers itself, takes it in the\nforesaid three Senses. When they understand it as a Type of all\nMankind, they say that the _three Years_ of its Unfruitfulness are to\nbe interpreted of the[168] _three grand Periods_ of the World; the\n_one_ before the Law of _Moses_; _another_ under the Law; and the\n_third_ under the Gospel; at the Conclusion of which _third_ Period,\nas it was an ancient and common Opinion, _Jesus_ in Spirit would come\nto his Figtree of Mankind, and animadvert on them for their\nUnfruitfulness, not by any Destruction of human Nature, but by a\nCessation of its Unfruitful State, which then will wither away, and be\nturn'd into a fruitful one against the grand Sabbath, or acceptable\nYear, which is the Year signified in the Parable, _that it is to be\nlet alone to bring forth Fruit in_. They that understand the Figtree\nas a Type of the _Jewish_ State, mean by the _three Years Jesus_ came\nto it, the _three Years_ of his preaching among the _Jews_; at the End\nof which, after _Christ_'s Passion and Resurrection, the _Jewish_\nState, like the Figtree, withered away, and, for its Unfruitfulness,\nwas rooted up. They, that understand the Figtree as a Figure of the\nChurch of _Christ_, by the _three Years_, mean the apocalyptical\n_twelve hundred and sixty Days_ (that is, three Years and a half) of\nthe Church's barren and unfruitful State in the Wilderness, at the\nConclusion of which, the Fathers say, _Jesus_ will come again to his\nChurch or Figtree, seeking Fruit on it.\n\nSome perhaps may be ready here to interpose with a Question, and say,\nhow will _Jesus_ then come to his Church? I have carefully perused the\nFathers upon this Question, and can't find that they mean any more by\n_Christ_'s second or spiritual Advent, than that clear _Truth_, right\n_Reason_ and divine _Wisdom_ (which are the mystical Names of _Jesus_)\nwill descend upon the Church, on the Clouds of the Law and the\nProphets, to the Removal of her unfruitful and unprofitable Errors,\nand to enable her to bring forth the Fruits of the Spirit, against the\ngrand Sabbath. Neither can any reasonable Man conceive how\notherwise[169] _the Lord should come_, (not _with ten thousand of his\nSaints_, as our Translation has it, but) [Greek: en myriasin agiais\nautou], that is, as _Origen_ interprets, _in his holy thousands_ of\nAllegorists [Greek: poi\u00easai krisen], _to criticise upon all_ the\nScripture, and to convince _Ministers of the Letter_ of their\nabominable Errors, and of their horrid Blasphemies spoken, preach'd\nand printed against the Holy, (Ghost or) Spirit of the Law and\nProphets. As to that literal and common Pulpit-Story (with all its\nAppendages) of _Jesus_'s second Coming on \u00e6therial Clouds, as on a\nWool-sack, in his human, tho' glorious and majestick Appearance, for\nthe Resurrection of Mens Bodies, by the Sound of a Trumpet, in the\nAudience of the Dead, _&c._ it is the most absurd, nonsensical and\nunphilosophical, (such groundless and worthless Stuff have the\n_Clergy_ sold and preach'd to God's People!) that ever was told\nagainst Reason, against prophetick and evangelical Scripture, and\nagainst other antient and good Authority. It is no Place here to\nmultiply Testimonies and Arguments to either of these Purposes which\nmy Readers, if they do but attend, will see no Occasion for. But if\nour _Divines_ should think I have put a false Gloss on the Text of St.\n_Jude_ above, I have a Bundle of Arguments and Testimonies to produce\nin Defence of it, at their Service.\n\nIn the Parable of St. _Luke_, it is said, _Lo, these three Years come\nI seeking Fruit on this Figtree_; as if _Jesus_ came annually and\nsuccessively for _three Years_ together: but according to the\nOriginal, it ought to be read, _Lo, it is three Years and I now\ncome_, or, _Lo, the three Years are now past, and I come_. And here it\nis to be noted, that whether we understand the Figtree, as a Figure of\nthe Church in particular, or of Mankind in general; the mystical\nNumber of _three Years_ will terminate about the same Time, against\nthe Evangelical Sabbath, on which the Unfruitfulness of the Church, or\nof Mankind, according to the Fathers, is to have an End put to it.\n\nAnd _Jesus_, when he came to the Figtree, _found nothing thereon but\nLeaves only_: So _Jesus_, when he comes to his Church, will find\nnothing in her but Leaves only. And what is here meant by Leaves? Let\nthe Fathers, such as[170] St. _Hilary_, St. _John_[171] _of\nJerusalem_, and[172] St. _Theophylact_ tell us, who by Leaves\nunderstand a vain and empty Appearance of Wisdom and good Works, or\nthe Words and Letter of the Scriptures, which are the Leaves of the\nOracle, without any Figs of spiritual Interpretations of them. And\nwhether this ben't the Case of the Church at present, our _Divines_\nare to consider. The Figs that _Jesus_ may be supposed to look for at\nhis Coming, are not only the Fruits of the Spirit mention'd by St.\n_Paul_, but[173] _spiritual Interpretations_ of the Scriptures, which\nSt. _Jerome_[174] says are _mystical Figs_; because, as ripe Figs are\nsweet to the Palate of our Mouths, so are they no less delicious to\nthe Soul of Man.\n\nBut _Jesus_ is said to be _hungry_ after Figs: so will _Jesus_ in\nSpirit _hunger_ for the mystical Figs of his Church, that is, as\n_Origen_[175] rightly interprets, he will earnestly desire, like a Man\nthat is hungry, the Fruits of the Spirit in his Church, which will be\nas grateful to him as Figs can be to a Man naturally. To understand\nthis Expression of _Jesus_'s _Hunger_ literally, is such a mean\nCircumstance of Life, that unless it be, what's next to impossible,\nnecessarily introductory to some noble Transaction, its unfit to be\nremember'd of a _Saint_ in History. _Diogenes Laertius_ would have\ndisdain'd to mention such a frivolous Circumstance in the Life of a\nPhilosopher as _this_ of _Jesus_. But if we understand this _Hunger_\nin _Jesus_ mystically, and figuratively of his Desires of the Fruits\nof the Spirit in his Church, it is sublime and noble; and the Emblem\nconfessedly proper and instructive.\n\nBut _Jesus_ is said to come to the Figtree at an unseasonable Time;\n_For the Time of Figs was not yet_; which Expression has been the\nPerplexity of _Commentators_, who with all their Wit and Sagacity\ncan't get well over it. I shall not mention here all or any of their\npretended Solutions of this Difficulty; but let us see whether we\ncan't easily and at once unlose it. St. _Mark_'s Words are [Greek: ou\ngar \u00ean kairos syk\u00f4n], which are and have been commonly translated,\n_for the Time of Figs is not yet_. But if we change the _Point_ into\nan _Interrogation_, and read thus, _for was it not the Time of Figs?_\nthe Difficulty vanishes as certainly, as that it is absurd to suppose\n_Christ_ should come to his Figtree and look for Fruit, when he could\nnot reasonably expect any. This my Solution of this Difficulty\ncertainly serves the Purpose of the mystical Interpretation; and if\nit does not the litteral, I answer, we are not to heed the Letter,\nwhich seldom or never has any Sense or Truth in it. But, by the by, it\ndoes the litteral too, since there are no Grounds from the Text to\nthink, what has been the common Opinion, that it was about the\n_Jewish_ Passover that _Jesus_ came to the Figtree. If this my\nSolution of the Difficulty don't please, I must say with[176]\n_Heinsius_, that it must be left as a Knot for _Elias_ to untie, who,\naccording to the[177] ancient _Jews_, is first to gather Fruits off\nthis mystical Figtree, and present them to the intellectual Taste of\nMankind. But, that my Solution is good, will appear by what follows.\n\nAnd _Jesus_ finding Leaves only says, in St. _Matthew_, to the\nFigtree, _Let no Fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever_; which\n(with its parallel Place in St. _Mark_) is in my Opinion a false\nTranslation: The Original is, [Greek: M\u00eaketi ek sou karpos gen\u00eatai eis\nton ai\u00f4na], and ought to be englished, _not as yet_, or _not until\nnow_, (that I come) _against the_ (grand) _Age_ (of the Sabbath) has\nFruit grown on thee. So that the Miracle of _Jesus_ was to make the\nFigtree of the Church fruitful; and if her preceding unfruitful State,\nwhich (in St. _Mark_) _Jesus_ is said to curse, or rather to devote to\nRuin, wasted away, it was by Consequence.\n\nBut what Time of Day was it that _Jesus_ came to the Figtree? It was in\nthe _Morning_. And of what Day? That is uncertain as to the Letter, but\naccording to the mystical Extent of the _Three Years_, whether we\nunderstand the Figtree as a Type of the Church, or of all Mankind of all\nAges, it will be on the _Morning_ of the great Sabbath, when, upon the\nAppearance of the Light of Christ, like the Rising of the Sun, an\nunfruitful and erroneous Church must needs wither away. And the\nDisciples on the said _Morning_ will, as _Origen_[178] says, with their\nintellectual Eyes behold her waste with Admiration. And then too, they\nunder Christ _will do what is done to the Figtree_, of the Church, and\n_remove Mountains_ of Antichristian Power, that exalt themselves\nagainst him; as the Fathers interpret, and I need not explain.\n\nAnd what is meant by the Means, which St. _Luke_ speaks of, to make\nthe Figtree of the Church fruitful on the Sabbatical Year; _the Year\nit is to be let alone to bear Fruit in_? There must be _digging about\nit_, that is[179] into the Earth of the Letter of the Scriptures, and\n_dunging_ of it, that is calling[180] to Remembrance her Sins and\nErrors of the Time past, which rationally speaking will make the\nChurch to bring forth good Fruit.\n\nAfter this Fashion is the rest of the Parable of the Figtree to be\nallegorized out of the Fathers. St. _Gregory_[181] the _Great_ and St.\n_Augustin_, make these two Stories or Parables, _viz._ of the Figtree,\nand of the Woman with her _Spirit of Infirmity_, as they are blended\ntogether in St. _Luke_, to be Figures of the same Mystery. The\n_eighteen Years_ of the Woman's Infirmity and the _three Years_ of the\nFigtree's Unfruitfulness, they will have to be mystically\nsynchronical. And the Woman's _Incurvity_ to the Earth is, they say,\nsignificative of the same Thing with the _Unfruitfulness_ of the\nFigtree. And the _Erection_ of the Woman on the Sabbath is of the same\nImport with the _Reservation_ of the Tree for Fruitfulness on that\nDay. And let any one see, if they don't admirally agree, as I have\ninterpreted these two Parables.\n\nBefore I dismiss this Story of the Figtree, I can't but adore the\nProvidence of God, that the Miracle has been hitherto placed in the\nwithering away of the Tree. If the Miracle had been a plain Story of a\ndead and wither'd Tree's being made to bring forth Leaves and Fruit on\na sudden; this would have been such a manifestly supernatural Work,\nand so agreeable to modern Notionists about Miracles, that Mens\nThoughts would have been so absorpt in the Consideration of the\nLetter, as they would never have extended them to the Contemplation of\nthe Mystery. And our Divines would have made such a Noise, in our Ears\nof the Excellency and Marvellousness of such a Miracle, as that there\nwould be no bearing of it. But But as the _Evangelists_ have in a\ngood Measure suppress'd all mention of the after Fruitfulness of the\nTree; and the Story, by Misconstruction, is clog'd with the foresaid\nDifficulties and Absurdities, we are of Necessity driven to the search\nafter Mystery for good Sense and Truth in it.\n\nAnd thus have I spoken enough to the Miracle of _Jesus_'s cursing the\nFigtree, which according to the Letter is a foolish and absurd Story:\nBut the mystical Operation, of which the Letter is a Shadow, will be\nravishing, marvellous and stupendous; and not only a Proof of\n_Christ_'s Power, and Presence in his Church, but a Demonstration of\nhis _Messiahship_, in as much as an infinite Number of Prophecys upon\nProphecys, will thereupon be discern'd to be accomplish'd, or the\nChurch can't bring forth the Fruits of the Spirit, that is Spiritual\nInterpretations of the Scriptures, like ripe Figs. And so I pass to an\n\n8. _Eighth_ Miracle of _Jesus_, and that is,[182] \"of his healing a\nMan of an Infirmity, of thirty eight Years Duration, at the Pool of\n_Bethesda_, that had five Porches, in which lay a great Multitude of\nimpotent Folk, blind, halt, withered, waiting the troubling of the\nWaters, upon the Descent of an Angel, who gave a Sanative Virtue to\nthem, to the curing of any one, be his Distemper of what kind soever,\nwho first stept down into them.\"\n\nThis whole Story is what our Saviour calls a _Camel_ of a monstrous\nSize for Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities, which our\n_Divines_, and their implicit Followers of these last Ages, have\nswallowed without chewing; whilst they have been straining at _Knats_\nin Theology, and hesitating at frivolous and indifferent Things of the\nChurch, of no Consequence.\n\nAs to _Jesus_'s Miracle in this Story, which consisted in his healing\na Man, of no body knows what _Infirmity_, there neither is nor can be\nproved any Thing supernatural in it, or there had been an express\nDescription of the Disease, without which it is impossible to say,\nthere was a miraculous Cure wrought. As far as one may reasonably\nguess, this Man's _Infirmity_ was more _Lazyness_ than _Lameness_, and\n_Jesus_ only shamed him out of his pretended Illness, by bidden him to\ntake up his Stool and walk off, and not lie any longer, like a lazy\nLubbard and Dissembler, among the Diseased, who were real Objects of\nPity and Compassion: Or, if he was no Dissembler, he was only\nfancyfully sick, and _Jesus_ by some proper and seasonable Talk\ntouch'd his Heart, to his Relief; and so, by the Help of his own\nImagination, he was cured, and went his Way. This is the _worst_ that\ncan be made of this _infirm_ Man's Case; and the _best_ that can be\nsaid of _Jesus_'s Power in the Cure of him, as will appear, by and by,\nupon Examination into it. But the other Parts of the Story of the\nhealing Virtue of the Waters, upon the Descent of an Angel into them,\nis not only void of all good Foundation in History, but is a\nContradiction to common Sense and Reason, as will be manifest after an\nInquiry into the Particulars of it.\n\nSt. _John_ was the beloved Disciple of our Lord, and I hope he lov'd\nhis Master: or he was worse than an Heathen, who loves those who love\nhim: But this Story, and some others, that are peculiar to his Gospel,\nsuch as, of _Jesus's telling the Samaritan Woman her Fortune_; _of his\nhealing the blind Man with Eye-Salve made of Clay and Spittle_; _Of\nhis turning Water into Wine for the Use of Men, who had before well\ndrank_; and of _his raising Lazarus from the Dead_, are enough to\ntempt us to think, that he wilfully design'd, either to blast the\nReputation of his Master, or to try how far the Credulity of Men who\nthrough blind Love were running apace into Christianity, might be\nimposed on; or he had never related such idle Tales, which, if the\n_Priesthood_, who should be the philosophical Part of Mankind, had not\nbeen amply hired into the Belief of them, would certainly have been\nrejected with Indignation and Scorn before now.\n\nSt. _John_ wrote his Gospel many Years after the other _Evangelists_:\nWhat then should have been his peculiar Business? Certainly nothing\nmore, than to add some remarkable Passages of Life, to _Jesus_'s\nHonour, which they had omitted; and to confirm the Truths which they\nhad before reported of him. But St. _John_ is so far from doing this,\nthat the Stories, he has particularly added, are not only derogatory\nto the Honour of _Jesus_, but spoil his Fame for a Worker of Miracles,\nwhich the other _Evangelists_ would raise him to. By reading the other\n_Evangelists_, one would think, that _Jesus_ was a Healer of all\nmanner of Diseases, however incurable by Art and Nature, and that\nwhere-ever he came, all the sick and the maim'd (excepting a few\nInfidels) were perfectly cured by him. But this Story before us will\nbe like a Demonstration, that _Jesus_ was no such Worker of Miracles\nand Healer of Diseases, as he is commonly believed to have been; and\nthat he wrought not near the Number of Cures, he is supposed to have\ndone, much less any great ones. The best Conception that an impartial\nReader of the Gospel can form of _Jesus_, is, that he was a tolerable\ngood natural _Orator_, and could handsomely harangue the People off\nhand, and was according to the Philosophy of the Times, a good\n_Cabalist_; and his Admirers finding him endewed with the Gift of\nUtterance, which was thought by them more than human, they fancy'd he\nmust have the Gift of healing too, and would have him to exercise it;\nwhich he did with Success, upon the Fancies and Imaginations of many,\nwho magnified his divine Power for it. And the Apostles afterwards, to\nhelp forward the Credulity and Delusion of the People, amplified his\nFame with extravagant Assertions and strange Stories of Miracles,\npassing the Belief of considerate and wise Men. Whether this\nRepresentation of the Case, according to the _Letter_ of the Gospels,\nbe false and improbable, let my _Readers_ judge by the Story before\nus, which I come now to dissect, and make a particular Examination\ninto the several Parts of it. Accordingly it is to be observ'd\n\n_First_, that this Story of the _Pool_ of _Bethesda_, abstractedly\nconsidered from _Jesus_'s Cure of an infirm Man at it, has no good\nFoundation in History: It merits no man's Credit, nor will any\nreasonable Person give any heed to it. St. _John_ is the only Author\nthat has made any mention of this Story; and tho' his Authority may be\ngood, and better than another Man's in Relation to the Words and Actions\nof _Jesus_, in as much as he was most familiar and conversant with him;\nyet, for foreign Matters, that have no immediate Respect to _Jesus_'s\nLife, he's no more to be regarded than another _Historian_, who, if he\npalm upon his _Readers_ an improbable Tale of senseless and absurd\nCircumstances, will have his Authority questioned, and his Story pry'd\ninto by the Rules of _Criticism_, and rejected or received as it is\nfound worthy of Belief and Credit. If there had been any Truth in this\nStory before us, I cannot think but _Josephus_ or some other _Jewish_\nWriters, it is so remarkable, peculiar and astonishing an Instance of\nthe Angelical Care and Love to the distressed of _Jerusalem_, would have\nspoken of it: But I don't find they have; or our modern _Commentators_\nwould have refer'd to them, as to Testimony of the Credibility of the\nGospel-History. _Josephus_ has professedly written the History of the\n_Jewish_ Nation, in which he seems to omit nothing that makes for the\nHonour of his Country, or for the Manifestation of the Providence of God\nover it. He tells us of the Conversation of Angels with the Patriarchs\nand Prophets, and intermixes Extra-Scriptural Traditions, as he thought\nthem fit to be transmitted to Posterity. How came he then and all other\n_Jewish_ Writers to forget this Story of the Pool of _Bethesda_? I\nthink, we may as well suppose that a Writer of the natural History of\n_Somersetshire_ would neglect to speak of the medicinal Waters of\n_Bath_, as _Josephus_ should omit that Story, which, if true, was a\nsingular Proof of God's distinguishing Care of his peculiar People, or\nan Angel had never been frequently, as we suppose, sent to this Relief\nof the Diseased amongst them. Is then St. _John_'s single Authority\nenough to convey this Story down to us? Some may say, that there are\nseveral Prodigies, as well as political Events of antient Times, that,\ntho' they are reported but by one Historian, meet with Credit; and why\nmay not St. _John_'s Testimony be equal to another Writer's? I grant it;\nand tho' it is hardly probable but that this Story, if true, before us,\nmust have had the Fortune to be told by others; yet St. _John_'s single\nAuthority shall pass sooner than another Man's, if the Matter be in\nitself credible and well circumstanc'd. But where it is blindly\nimperfectly and with monstrously incredible Circumstances related, like\nthis before us, it ought to be rejected. Which brings me,\n\n_Secondly_, To ask, what was the true Occasion of the Angel's Descent\ninto this Pool? Was it to wash and bath himself? Or, was it to impart\nan healing Quality to the Waters for some one diseased Person? The\nReason, that I ask the first of these two Questions, is, because some\nantient Readings of v. 4. say[183] the Angel [Greek: eloueto] _was\nwashed_, which supposes some bodily Defilement or Heat contracted in\nthe C\u00e6lestial Regions, that wanted Refrigeration or Purgaton in these\nWaters: But how absurd such a Thought is, needs no Proof. To impart\nthen compassionately an healing Power to the Waters for the Benefit of\nthe Diseased was the sole Design of the Angel's Descent into them. And\nGod forbid, that any should philosophically debate the Matter, and\nenquire how naturally the Waters deriv'd that Virtue from the Angel's\ncorporal Presence. The Thing was providential and miraculous, our\n_Divines_ will say, and so let it pass. But I may fairly ask, why one\ndiseased Person only at a Time reap'd the Benefit? Or why the whole\nNumber of impotent Folks were not at once healed? I have a notable\nAnswer presently to be given to these Questions; but I am afraid\nbeforehand, our _Divines_ will not approve of it: Therefore they are\nto give one of their own, and make the Matter consistent with the\nGoodness and Wisdom of God; or the said Questions spoil the Credit of\nthe Story, and make an idle and ridiculous Romance of it. And when\ntheir Hands are in, to make, what it impossible, a satisfactory Answer\nto the said Questions; I wish, that, for the sake of _Orthodoxy_, they\nwould determine, whether the Angel descended with his Head or his\nHeels foremost, or whether he might not come, swauping upon his Breast\ninto the Waters, like a Goose into a Horse-pond. But,\n\n_Thirdly_, How often in the Week, the Month or the Year did the Angel\nvouchsafe his Descent into the Pool? And for how many Ages before\n_Christ_'s Advent, and why not since and even[184] _now_, was this\nGracious and Angelical Favour granted? St. _John_ should have been\nParticular as to these Points, which he could not but know\nPhilosophers would be curious to enquire about. If it was but once in\nthe Year, as St. _Chrysostom_[185] hints, little Thanks are due to him\nfor his Courtesy. One would think sometimes, that his Descent was\nfrequent; or such a Multitude of impotent Folk, variously disorder'd\nhad never attended on it. And again at other Times, one would think\nthat his Descent was seldom, or the Diseased as fast as they came,\nwhich could not be faster than the Angel could dabble himself in the\nWaters, had been charitably dismissed with restor'd Health. Here then\nis a Defect in St. _John_'s Story, and a _Block_, at which wise and\nconsiderate Freethinkers will stumble. But,\n\n_Fourthly_, How came it to pass, that there was not better Care taken,\neither by the Providence of God, or of the Civil Magistrates of\n_Jerusalem_ about the Disposal of the Angelical Favour to this or that\npoor Man, according to his Necessities or Deserts: But that he, who\ncould fortunately catch the Favour, was to have it. Just as he who\nruns fastest obtains the Prize: So here the Diseased, who was most\nnimble and watchful of the Angel's Descent, and could first plunge\nhimself into the Pool, carried off the Gift of Sanation. An odd and a\nmerry Way of conferring a divine Mercy. And one would think that the\nAngels of God did this for their own Diversion, more than to do good\nto Mankind. Just as some throw a Bone among a Kennel of Hounds, for\nthe Pleasure of seeing them quarrel for it; or as others cast a Piece\nof Money among a Company of Boys for the Sport of seeing them scramble\nfor it: So was the Pastime of the Angels here. It was the Opinion of\nsome Heathens, that _Homines sunt Lusus Deorum_, the Gods sport\nthemselves with the Miseries of Mankind; but I never thought, before I\nconsidered this Story, that the Angels of the God of the _Jews_ did so\ntoo. But if they delighted in it, rare sport it was to them, as could\nbe to a _Town-Mobb_. For as the poor and distressed Wretches were not\nto be supposed to be of such a polite Conversation, as in Complaisance\nto give place to their betters, or in Compassion to make way for the\nmost miserable; but upon the Sight or Sound of the Angel's Fall into\nthe Pool, would without Respect of Persons strive who should be first:\nSo those who were behind and unlikely to be cured, would like an\nunciviliz'd _Rabble_, push and press all before them into it. What a\nNumber then, of some hundreds perhaps, of poor Creatures were at once\ntumbled into the Waters to the Diversion of the City Mob, as well as\nof God's Angels? And if one arose out of it, with the Cure of his\nDisease, the rest came forth like drown'd _Rats_, to the Laughter of\nthe foresaid Spectators; and it was well if there was not sometimes\nmore Mischief done, than the healing of _one_ could be of Advantage,\nto those People. Believe then this Part of the Story, let him that\ncan. If any Angel was concern'd in this Work, it was an Angel of\n_Satan_ who delights in Mischief; and if he healed _one_ upon such an\nOccasion, he did it by way of Bait, to draw others into Danger of Life\nand Limb. But as our _Divines_ will not, I suppose, bear the Thoughts\nof its being a bad Angel; so I leave them to consider upon our\nReasonings, whether it was credible that either a good or a bad Angel\nwas concerned, and desire them to remember to give me a better Reason,\nwhy but _one_ at a Time was healed.\n\nIf any Pool or Cistern of Water about this City of _London_ was so\nblessed with the Descent of an Angel to such an End, the Magistrates,\nsuch is their Wisdom, would, if God did not direct, take care of the\nprudent Disposal of the Mercy to the best Advantage of the Diseased.\nAnd if they sold it to an infirm _Lord_ or _Merchant_, who could give\nfor it most Money, to be distributed among other Poor and distressed\nPeople, would it not be wisely done of them? To suppose they would\nleave the Angelick Favour to the Struggle of a Multitude, is absurd\nand incredible. And why then should we think otherwise of the\nMagistrates of _Jerusalem_? Away then with the Letter of this Story!\nAnd if this be not enough to confute it. Then,\n\n_Fifthly_, Let us consider, to its farther Confutation, who and what\nwere the impotent Folk, that lay in the Porches of _Bethesda_, waiting\nthe Troubling of the Waters. St. _John_ says they were _Blind_,\n_Halt_, _Withered_, and as some Manuscripts[186] have it,\n_Paraliticks_. And what did any of these there? How could any of them\nbe supposed to be nimble enough of Foot to step down first into the\nWaters, and carry off the Prize of Sanation, before many others of\nvarious Distempers? Tho' the troubled Waters might be of such\nmedicinal Force as to heal a Man of whatsoever Disease he had; yet\nnone of the foresaid Persons for want of good Feet and Eyes could\nexpect the Benefit of it. Tho' the Ears of the Blind might serve him\nto hear, when the Angel plump't like a Stone into the Waters, yet\nthrough want of Sight for the guidance of his Steps, he would by\nothers be jostled out of the right Way down into them. And if the Lame\nhad good Eyes to discern the Descent of the Angel, yet Feet were all\nin all to this Purpose: Consequently these impotent Folk, specified by\nSt. _John_, might as well have stay'd at Home, as resorted to\n_Bethesda_ for Cure. I know not what Fools the Diseased of _Jerusalem_\nof old might be, but if there was such a Prize of Health to be strove\nfor, by the Distempered of this City, I appeal to all Men of common\nSense, whether the _Blind_, the _Lame_, the _withered_ and\n_Paralyticks_ would offer to put in for it. St. _John_ then forgot\nhimself, or else blundered egregiously, or put the Banter upon us, to\ntry how far an absurd Tale would pass upon the World with Credit.\nThere might be, if there was any litteral Sense in the Story, many of\nother Distempers, but there could be neither _blind_, _halt_ nor\n_withered_, without _such an Absurdity_, as absolutely disparages the\nStory, blasts the Credit of the _Relator_, or rather brings to mind\nthe Assertion of St. _Ambrose_, that the Letter of the _New_ as well\nas of the _Old Testament_ lies abominably. If what I have here said\ndoes not overthrow the Letter of this Story; Then what I have,\n\n_Sixthly_, To add, will do it more effectually, and that is, of the\n_certain Man, that had an Infirmity thirty and eight Years_, and lay\nat this Pool for an Opportunity to be cured of it. Tho' these _thirty_\nand _eight_ Years are, in our _English_ Translation pr\u00e6dicated of this\nMan's Infirmity, yet more truly, according to the Original, are they\nspoken of the Time he lay there? and the Fathers so understood St.\n_John_'s Words. What this Man's Infirmity was, we are uncertain: For\n[Greek: astheneia] _Weakness_ or _Infirmity_ is a general Name of all\nDistempers, and may be equally apply'd to one as well as to another:\nWhereupon, tho' we can't certainly say from this Man's Infirmity, that\nhe was a Fool to lay there so long, expecting that Cure, which it was\nimpossible for him to obtain; yet what he says to our Saviour, _I have\nno Man, when the Waters are troubled to put me into the Pool, but\nwhile I am coming another steppeth down before me_, does imply his\nFolly sufficiently, or rather the Incredibility of the whole Story.\nWhat then did this _infirm_ Man at this Pool, if he had neither Legs\nof his own good enough, nor a Friend to assist him, in the Attainment\nof Sanation? Was he not a Fool, if it was possible for any to be so\ngreat a one, for his Patience? Would it not have been as wisely done\nof him to wait, in the Fields so long, the Falling of the Sky, that he\nmight catch Larks? The Fathers say, this Man's _Infirmity_ was the\n_Palsy_; but whether they said so for the Sake of the Mystery, or to\nexpose the Letter, I know not. But that Distemper, after _thirty_ and\n_eight_ Years Duration, and Increase; if it was more curable than\nanother at first, had in that time undoubtedly so weakened and\nrender'd him uncapable to struggle with others for this Relief, that\nit is without Sense and Reason to think he should wait so long for it.\nOur _Divines_, if they so please, may commend this Man for his\nPatience, but after a few Years, or rather a few Days Experience,\nanother Man would have been convinc'd of the Folly and Vanity of his\nHopes, and returned Home. If he could not put in for this Benefit,\nwith Prospect of Success in his more youthful Days, when the Distemper\nwas young too, much less Reason had he to hope for it in his old Age,\nafter _thirty_ and _eight Years_ Affliction, unless he dream'd of,\nwhat was not to be imagin'd, an Opportunity, without Molestation and\nCompetition, to go off with it. Whatever then our _Divines_ may think\nof this Man and his Patience, I will not believe there ever was such a\nFool; and for this Reason will not suppose St. _John_ could literally\nso romance, unless he meant to bambouzle Mankind into the Belief of\nthe greatest Absurdity. A Man that Lies with a Grace to deceive\nothers, makes his Story so hang together, as to carry the Face and\nAppearance of Truth along with it; which this of St. _John_, that for\nmany Ages has been swallowed, for the Reason before us, has not. But\nwhat is the worst of all against this Story is,\n\n_Seventhly_, That which follows, and absolutely destroys the Fame and\nCredit of _Jesus_ for a Worker of Miracles. _And_ V. 1, 2, 3. _Jesus\nwent up to Jerusalem, where there was by the Sheep-Market, a Pool,\ncalled Bethesda, having five Porches, in which lay a great Multitude\nof impotent Folk, blind, halt, withered._ Why then did not _Jesus_\nheal them? Here was a rare Opportunity for the Display of his Healing\nand Almighty Power; and why did he not exercise it, to the Relief of\nthat Multitude of impotent Folk? If he could not cure them, there's an\nEnd of his Power of Miracles? and if he would not, it was want of\nMercy and Compassion in him. Which way soever we take this Case, it\nturns to the Dishonour of the Holy _Jesus_. What then was the Reason,\nthat of so great a Multitude of diseased People, _Jesus_ exerted his\nPower, and extended his Mercy, on only _one_ poor Paralytick? St.\n_Augustin_[187] puts this Question and Objection into my Mouth; and\ntho' neither He nor I start it for the Service of Infidelity, but to\nmake Way for the Mystery, yet I know not why _Infidels_ may not make\nUse of it, till Ministers of the Letter can give a satisfactory Answer\nand Solution to it.\n\nThe Evangelists, _Matthew_, _Mark_, and _Luke_, tell such Stories of\n_Jesus_'s healing Power, as would incline us to think he cured all\nwhere-ever he came. He _heal'd_, they say, _all Manner_ of Diseases\namong the People, and they make mention of particular Times and\nPlaces, where all the Diseased were healed by him, which Assertions\nimply, that _Jesus_'s healing Power was most extensive and (excepting\nto an hard-hearted and unbelieving _Pharisee_ now and then) universal;\nso far that it might be question'd, whether any died, during the Time\nof his Ministry, the Places where he came: And our _Divines_ have so\nharangued on _Jesus_'s Miracles, as would confirm us in such an\nOpinion: But this Story in St. _John_ confutes and confounds all. St.\n_John_ in no Place of his Gospel talks of _Jesus_'s healing of many,\nnor of all manner of Diseases, much less of all that were Diseased;\nwhich, if it be not like a Contradiction to the other _Evangelists_,\nis some Diminution of their Authority, and enough to make us suspect,\nthat they stretch'd much in praise of their Master, and said more to\nhis Honour than was strictly true. But this Place before us is a flat\nContradiction to them, and _Jesus_ is not to be supposed to heal many\nin any Place, much less all manner of Diseases, or he had never let\nsuch a Multitude of poor Wretches pass without the Exercise of his\nPower and Pity on them. Some good Reason then must be given for\n_Jesus_'s Conduct here, and such a one as will adjust it to the\nReports of the other Evangelists; or _Infidels_ will think, that\neither they romanc'd for the Honour of their Master, or that St.\n_John_ in Spite told this Story to the Degradation of him. I can\nconceive no better of this Matter according to the Letter.\n\nThe _Bishop_ of _Litchfield_ very remarkably says,[188] _that Jesus\nwhere-ever he went, healed all that came to him without Distinction,\nthe impotent, halt, withered_. He certainly had this Text of St.\n_John_ in his Eye, when he said so, because _Impotent_, _Halt_,\n_Withered_, are only mention'd here, where _Jesus_ cured _none_ of\nthem: Whereupon if his _Lordship_ had made but a marginal Reference to\nthis Text, it would have been the best Jest and Banter, with a Sneer,\nthat ever was put upon _Jesus_ and his Power of Miracles: As it is,\nit's a very good one, and I desire my Readers to take Notice of it,\nthat his Lordship may not lose the Credit and Praise of it. It's for\nsuch Circumspection of Thought, Exactness of Expression, and Acuteness\nof Wit, that I admire that _Prelate_, and must needs say of him,\nwhether he ever be translated to _Canterbury_ or _York_, or not, that\nhe's an _arch_ Bishop.\n\nBut to return and go on. The Conduct of _Jesus_, to all Appearance, is\nnot only blameable, his Power of healing disputable, and his Mercy\nindefensible, for that he cured but _one_ infirm Man out of a\nMultitude, at _Bethesda_, but,\n\n_Eightly_, and lastly, it may reasonably be questioned, whether he\nwrought any Miracle in the healing of this _one_ Man. Miracles (to say\nnothing of the ridiculous Distinction between divine and diabolical\nones) are Works done out of the Course of Nature, and beyond the\nImitation of human Art or Power. Now whether the Cure of this infirm\nMan can be brought under this Definition of a Miracle, may be doubted.\nWhat this Man's _Infirmity_, which is a general Name for all\nDistempers, was, we know not. How then can we say he was miraculously\ncured, unless we knew his Disease to be incurable by Art, which none\ncan affirm? The worst that we know of this Man's Case, is, that it was\nof a long Continuance, no less than of _eight_ and _thirty_ Years: And\nthe _Bishop_ of _Litchfield_ and others in their florid Harangues of\n_Jesus_'s Works, make the Cure of such Chronical Diseases to be\nmiraculous: But why so? Many Instances may be given of Infirmities of\nhuman Nature, of a long Duration, which in Time, and especially in\nold Age, wear off. If such Infirmities don't occur to the Memory of\nour _Divines_, I could put them in Mind of them. And who knows but\nthis was the Case of this impotent Man, whose Infirmity _Jesus_\nobserving to be wearing off, bid him to be gone, and take up his\nCouch, for he would soon be made whole.\n\nThe Fathers indeed call this Man's Infirmity the _Palsy_, which in\ntruth is generally worse than better by Time, and after _thirty_ and\n_eight_ Years, must needs be very deplorable, and incurable without a\nMiracle. But why do they call it the Palsy? They have no Authority for\nit from the Text, without which, as our litteral _Doctors_ will not\nsubscribe to their Opinions in other Cases; so why should I here? In\nshort, the Fathers had never call'd it the _Palsy_, but for the sake\nof the Mystery; and I am not bound to own _that_ to have been the\nDistemper, any more than it was want of Legs; for that would be making\nof Miracles for _Jesus_, without Reason and Authority.\n\nIf _Jesus_ here had healed the whole _Multitude of impotent Folk_;\nwithout Enquiry what Numbers there might be of them, I should have\nbelieved that he wrought there many great Miracles, in as much as in\nsuch a great Multitude, there must needs, in all Probability, be some\nincurable by Art or Nature: But since he cured only this _one_ Man, it\naffords Matter of Speculation, whether he was the _most_ or the\n_least_ diseased amongst them. Our _Divines_, for the sake of the\nMiracle, may possibly suppose him to be the most grievously afflicted\nof any; but _Infidels_, on the other hand, will say, not so: but with\ntheir Cavils will urge that this infirm Man was either a Dissembler,\nwhom _Jesus_ shamed out of his pretended Disease, or that he was only\nhippish, and fancyfully more than really distemper'd of a long Time,\nwhom _Jesus_ by suitable Exhortations and Admonitions, working upon\nhis Imagination, persuaded into a Belief of his Cure, and bid him to\nwalk off. Certain it is, that _Infidels_ will say, it was not a Power\nof Miracles in _Jesus_ which heal'd him, or he had used it then and\nthere for the Sanation of others also.\n\nAnd thus have I finish'd my Invective against the Letter of this Story;\nwhich, if any are offended at, they enjoy, what is the most reasonable\nThing in the World, the same Liberty to write for the Letter, which I\nhave used against it: And so I pass to the Consideration of the\nOpinions and Expositions of the Fathers on this strange Story.\n\nThe Fathers, upon whose Authority I form'd my preceding Invective\nagainst the Letter, so universally betake themselves to the mystical\nInterpretation of this Story, that it may be question'd, whether any\nof them, more than myself, believ'd any Thing at all of the Letter of\nit. St. _Chrysostom_, who is as much a litteral Interpreter of the\nScriptures as any of them, here intirely discards the Letter, saying\nadmirably thus,[189] _what a strange Way and Story of healing the\nDiseased is here? but what is the Mystery of it? that we are to look\nto. The Matter could not be so simply and unadvisedly transacted\nlitterally, as it is related. There must be somewhat future here, as\nby a Type and Figure, signify'd; or the Story, it is so incredible in\nitself, will give Offence to many._ St. _Chrysostom_ was certainly in\nthe right on't; and I wonder, for which no Reason but want of Liberty\ncan be given, that _Infidels_ have not before now, with their Jests\nand Cavils, ridiculed this Story. St. _Augustin_, to the same Purpose,\nsays,[190] _Can any one believe, that these Waters of Bethesda were\nwont to be troubled in this Fashion, and that there was not Mystery,\nand a spiritual Signification in it?_ Yes, I could tell St.\n_Augustin_, that our modern _Divines_ seem to believe it, tho' he, if\nhe was now alive, would laugh at them for it. But to come to the\nprofound Mystery signified by this Story, which to use the Words\nof[191] St. _Augustin_, as God shall enable me, I will now speak to.\n\nOur _English_ Version says, _There is at Jerusalem by the\nSheep-Market, a Pool_. How our _Translators_ came by the Notion of a\n_Market_ here, I can't imagine, since there is nothing to favour it in\nthe Original, which stands thus, [Greek: epi t\u00ea probatik\u00ea\nkolymb\u00eathra]: By [Greek: kolymb\u00eathra], the Fathers understand[192]\nBaptism, or the spiritual _Laver_ of Regeneration; and who is that\nfor, but the Flock of Christ, signified by [Greek: probatik\u00ea]? So we\nhave another and clearer Interpretation of these two Words. And as to\n_Bethesda_, that is a mystical Name of the Church, which according to\nthe Signification of _Bethesda_, is the House of Grace. And if it is\nsaid to be at _Jerusalem_, it is not to be understood of the Old\n_Jerusalem_, but of the _New_ and Apocalyptical _Jerusalem_, at the\nEntrance into which the Flock of Christ will be baptiz'd by the Waters\nof the Spirit, as in a mystical Laver.\n\n_Bethesda_ is said to have five _Porches_, that is, as the Fathers[193]\nagree, the five Books of _Moses_, which are as so many Doors of Entrance\ninto the House of Wisdom, or of the Grace of _Christ_.\n\nAt these _five Porches_ of the five Books of Moses lay _a great\nMultitude of impotent Folk, blind, halt, withered_. And who are these\nmystically? The ignorant, erroneous, and unstable in Faith and\nPrinciple, as the Fathers often understand them spiritually. And what\nis the Reason of these their mystical Diseases? Because, as St.\n_Augustin_[194] and other Fathers say, they rest on the Letter of the\nLaw, which throws them into various Errors, like Diseases, of\ndifferent Kinds, of which they can't be cured without the Descent of\nthe Spirit, like an Angel, to instruct them mystically to interpret.\n\nWith these impotent Folk lay _a certain Man who had an Infirmity_. And\nwho is this infirm Man? Mankind in general, say St. _Cyril_[195]\nand[196] St. _Augustin_, And what is his Infirmity? The Fathers call it\nthe[197] _Palsy_, because of his Instability, and Unsteadiness in Faith\nand Principles, which is now the Case of Mankind. St. _John_ calls it\n[Greek: astheneian] _a Weakness_, which being a general Name of all\nDistempers, we can't guess what might be here the specifical one. But\nreasonably speaking, according to the Rule of Interpretation, this Man's\n_Infirmity_ is the same with the Woman's _Spirit of Infirmity_, and that\nis a Weakness at the Spirit of Prophecy, which Mankind, as well as the\nWoman of the Church, is to be cured of in the Perfection of Time.\n\nAnd how long did this Man with his Infirmity lay in these Porches of\n_Bethesda_? _Thirty eight Years_: So has Mankind with his Weakness at\nthe Spirit of Prophecy lay eight and thirty (hundred)[198] Years,\nreckoning two thousand under the Law, and eighteen hundred since under\nthe Gospel. St. _Augustin_[199] has an ingenious and more mystical way\nof Computation of these _thirty and eight Years_, which pleases me\ntoo, but possibly some Readers may not so easily apprehend it, unless\nthey are well acquainted with the Mystery of Prophetical Numbers.\n\nAnd how is Mankind to be cured of his Infirmity at the Spirit of\nProphecy? By being instructed, by the Spirit of Truth, who is to come\nat the Conclusion of the said thirty and eight mystical Years, _to\narise and take up his bed and walk_, that is, to raise his Thoughts to\nthe Contemplation of the divine Mysteries of the Law, and to lift up\nhis Bed of the Letter, on which he has hitherto _rested_, into a\nsublime Sense, and then he will walk uprightly and steadily in the\nFaith, without wavering like a Paralytick.\n\nAnd at what Season did _Jesus_ come to this infirm Man? It was at a\nFeast of the _Jews_. _Iren\u00e6us_, _Chrysostom_, _Theophylact_, and\n_Cyril_ call it the Feast of Penticost. And the grand Feast of\nPenticost is, as St. _Cyril_[200] says upon the Place at the\nPerfection of Time, the Time of the Evangelical Sabbath, and of\n_Jesus_'s spiritual Advent, which will be a Time of feasting on\nintellectual and divine Mysteries, of seeing Visions and of dreaming\nDreams; consequently at that Time, as the ancient _Jews_ and Fathers\nassert, Mankind will be cured of this Infirmity at the Spirit of\nProphecy. And this too is the _certain Season, that the Angel will\ndescend and trouble the Waters_. By Angel is here meant[201] the\nSpirit of Christ. And by Waters the Fathers understand,[202] the\nPeople of all Nations. But how will the Descent of the Spirit of\nTruth, like an Angel, trouble these Waters, that is, give any\nMolestations and Disturbance to the People? Is there not a Mistake in\nthe Oracle? If the _Clergy_ will be but greater Lovers of Truth than\nof their Interests; if they, who should be Teachers of Forbearance of\none another in Love, will but keep their Temper, there would be found\na mistake in it. But alas!\n\n_Lastly_, The _Jews_, as is intimated, seem to have been mov'd with\nIndignation at the Cure of the infirm Man, saying to him, ver. 10. _it\nis the Sabbath, it is not lawful for thee to carry thy Bed_; which\nlitterally could not be true. The _Jews_ were not such precise\nObservers of the Sabbath; nor _so stupid and foolish_, as St.\n_Cyril_,[203] says, as to think the taking up and carrying a Stool to\nbe a Breach of it. But mystically, it is to be fear'd, this will be\nmost true, and that the _Clergy_, who would be _Jews_ inwardly, and\nthe Circumcision in Spirit, will be bitter Enemies to Man's Exaltation\nof his Couch of the Letter of the Scriptures on or against the\nEvangelical Sabbath, and will make it, if possible, an _unlawful_\nWork; because it will bring to them Shame, Dishonour and Loss of\nInterests along with it.\n\nAfter this Manner is every other Circumstance of this Story to be\nallegorically apply'd out of the Fathers. The Moral or Mystery of the\nwhole, in short, is this, that at the Perfection of Time, signified by\nthe _Sabbath_, the _Pentecost_, the End of _thirty eight Years_, the\nSpirit of Truth will descend on Mankind, to their Illumination in\nProphecy, and to the healing of their _Errors_, call'd _Diseases_;\nwhich is admirably represented by the Parable before us, that\naccording to the Letter, has neither Reason nor common Sense in it.\n\nAnd thus have I spoken to _eight_ of the Miracles of _Jesus_; and\nwhether I have not shew'd them, in whole or Part, according to the\nProposition before us, to consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities,\nand Incredibilities; and whether they are not prophetical and\nparabolical Narratives of what will be mysteriously, and more\nwonderfully done by _Jesus_, I appeal to my _Readers_.\n\nAfter another Discourse of some other Miracles, I intend to take into\nExamination the several Stories of _Jesus_'s raising of the Dead as of\n_Lazarus_, _Jairus_'s Daughter, and the Widow's Son of _Naim_; which\nreputedly are _Jesus_'s grand Miracles; but, for all the seeming\nGreatness and Excellency of them, I don't doubt but to give the Letter\nof these Stories a Toss out of the Creed of a considerate and wise\nMan; at least show their Insufficiency for the Purpose for which they\nhave been hitherto apply'd. And if I should afterwards, by the Leave\nand Patience of the _Bishop_ of _London_, give my Objection against\n_Christ_'s Resurrection a Review, and some more Force, then what will\nbecome of the Argument of _Christ_'s Power, Authority, and\n_Messiahship_ from his Miracles?\n\nBut, besides _Jesus_'s Miracles, I am, as Opportunity serves, to take\ninto Consideration some of the Historical Parts of his Life; and shew\nthem to be no less sensless, absurd and ridiculous than his Miracles.\n\nAnd why may I not sometimes treat on the Parables of _Jesus_, and show\nwhat nonsensical and absurd Things they are, according to the\nExpositions of our most famous Commentators of these last Ages. _Jesus_\nwas certainly the absolute, and most consummate Perfection of a\n_Cabalist_, _Mystist_, _Parabolist_ and _Enigmatist_; but according to\nmodern Commentaries and Paraphrases, he was the merest Ideot and\nBlockhead that ever open'd his Mouth, in that sort of Learning, to the\nInstruction of Mankind. And I am oblig'd a little to speak to the\nAbsurdities of _Christ_'s Doctrine and Parables, because one Article of\nthe Prosecution against me was for saying, _that any of the Philosophers\nof the Gentiles_, or _any rational Man_ (meaning according to modern\nExpositions) _would make a better Teacher, than Jesus was_.\n\nWhat a great deal of Work have I upon my Hands, which, if God spare my\nLife and Health, I intend to go on with: If what I have already done\nin it be not acceptable to the _Clergy_, their Way to prevent the\nProsecution of this great Undertaking, is to battle me upon what's\npast. Who knows but they may write, if they would try their Strength,\nso acutely in Defence of the Letter of _Jesus_'s Miracles already\ndiscuss'd, as may effectually stop my Mouth, and prevent my giving\nthem any more Trouble of this Kind? And I suppose I have now gotten an\nAdversary in the _Bishop_ of St. _David_'s, who has already discharg'd\none Fool's Bolt at me.\n\nThere has nothing been a more common Subject of Declamation among the\n_Clergy_ than the _Reasonableness_ of Christianity, which must be\nunderstood of the History of _Christ_'s Life and Doctrine, or the\nApplication of the Word _Reasonableness_ to the Christian Religion is\nimpertinent. But if I proceed, as I have begun in this Work, I shall\nshew Christianity, as it is understood, to be the most unreasonable\nand absurd Story, that ever was told; and our modern Systems of\nTheology groundless and sensless in almost every Part of them.\n_Mahometanism_, without Offence be it spoken, is a more _reasonable_\nReligion than the Christian, upon modern _Schemes_ and _Systems_.\n\nIf what I here say is offensive to our _Divines_, the _Press_ is open\nfor them as well as for myself, and they may, if they can, shew their\nResentment of it. Thanks unto God and our most excellent Civil\nGovernment for such a Liberty of the _Press_: A Liberty that will lead\nand conduct us to the Fountain of Wisdom and Philosophy, which\nRestraint is a down-right Enemy to. And that this Blessing of Liberty\nmay be continued, for all _Bishop Smallbrook_ and Dr. _Roger_'s\n_Hobbism_, is, I dare say, the Desire of the curious, inquisitive, and\nphilosophical Part of Mankind. If this Liberty should be taken away,\nwhat a notable Figure will our _Divines_ make from the _Press_ and\n_Pulpit_, declaiming on the Reasonableness, Excellency and Perfection\nof the Christian Religion, without an Adversary; and telling their\nCongregations, that all, their bitterest and acutest Enemies can\nobject, is clearly answered!\n\nThe _Press_, of late Years, has been productive of so many cogent and\npersuasive Arguments for Liberty of debate, and the Advocates for this\nLiberty, in the Judgment of the impartial and considerate, have so far\ngotten the better of their Adversaries, that I wonder any one can\nappear in behalf of Persecution. If I was a _Bishop_ or _Doctor_ in\n_Divinity_, I shou'd think it a Disgrace to my Station and Education\nto ask the Assistance of the Civil Authority to protect my Religion: I\nshould judge my self unworthy of the Wages and Emoluments I enjoy'd,\nfor the Preaching and Propagation of the Gospel, if I was unable to\ngive an Answer to any one, that ask'd a Reason of my Faith; Or if I\nwas so Shallow-pated, as to think Heresy and Infidelity punishable by\nthe Civil Magistrate, I should think myself as much oblig'd to confute\nby _Reason_, as he is to punish by the _Sword_. If the _Bishop_ of\n_London_ had taken this Course with me; if he had publish'd a\nRefutation of my supposed Errors, as well as endeavour'd at a\nProsecution of me for them, I had forgiven him the Wrongs and Injuries\ndone me, and made no repeated Demands of Satisfaction for them.\n\nChristianity is, as I believe, founded on a Rock of Wisdom; and what's\nmore, has an omnipotent and omniscient God on its Side, who can incline\nthe Hearts of Men to believe, and open the Eyes of their Understanding\nto discern the Truth of it; consequently there can be no Danger in the\nAttempts of our Adversaries, whether, _Jews_, _Turks_ or Domestick\n_Infidels_, against it. But Persecution implys Weakness and Impotency in\nGod to defend his own Cause; or his Priests would not move for the Help\nof the Arm of Flesh in Vindication of it. And if, at this Time of Day,\nafter so many Treatises of _Infidels_, and some of them as yet\nunanswered, against our Religion, this good Cause should be taken out of\nthe Hands of God, and committed to the Care of the Civil Magistrate; if\ninstead of Reason the Clergy should have Recourse to Force, what will\nBy-standers, and even Well-wishers to Christianity say? Nothing less\nthan that _Infidels_ had gotten the better of _Christ_'s Ministers, and\nbeaten them at their own Weapons of Reason and Argument.\n\nThe two great Pleaders for Persecution, to the Disgrace of themselves\nand Dishonour of our Religion, that have lately arose are Dr. _Rogers_\nand the _Bishop_ of St. _David_'s. Dr. _Rogers_'s chief Reason against\nLiberty of Debate, is because, as he says it is pernicious to the\nPeace and Welfare of the Community, by unsettling the Minds of the\nPeople about the Religion established: But here's no consequence,\nunless it could be proved, that such as the great Mr. _Grounds_ and\nMr. _Scheme_, have it in their Hearts to raise Mobbs upon the\nGovernment, and to beat out the Brains of the _Clergy_. All the Harm,\nor rather Good, they aim at, is to exercise the Wits of the _Clergy_\nwith their Doubts and Objections; and if the Passions of our\n_Ecclesiasticks_ are not raised upon it, to the doing of Violence to\nthese _Gentlemen_, the Peace of the Publick will never be disturb'd.\nAs to myself, tho' I have a vast and numerous Party on my Side, no\nless than all the Fathers and primitive Christians for some Ages; yet\nas we were peaceable and quiet Subjects of old and passively obedient\nto the _Emperors_ of _Rome_; so we will continue to the Civil\nAuthority of this Nation. We only take the Liberty to awaken the\nClergy out of a Lethargy of Dulness and Ignorance; and hope the Civil\nMagistrate will consider the Goodness and Charity of our Intentions,\nand guard us against their Insults for it.\n\nThe _Bishop_ of St. _David_'s[204] says, \"It is absurd to assert, that\nthe Liberties of any Nation will allow, with Impunity, a Set of\ndistinguish'd Infidels to insult and treat with the greatest Contempt\nand Scorn the most sacred and important Truths, that are openly\nprofessed, by the whole Body of the People, of whatever Denomination.\"\nBy a Set of Infidels, I suppose, he means me and the Fathers: And by\n_treating with Contempt and Scorn the most sacred and important\nTruths_, he means, our burlesquing, bantering and ridiculing the\n_Clergy_ for their Ministry of the Letter: And for _this_ he would, I\nconceive, have incensed the _Societies_ for Reformation of Manners to\na Prosecution of me. And if they had not been wiser, and more\nmerciful than their Preacher, I must have gone to Pot. But why should\nthe _Bishop_ dislike this way of Writing? Don't he know, that the\nFathers of the Church used to jest and scoff at the _Gentiles_ and\ntheir Priests for their foolish Superititions? Don't he know, that our\n_Reformers_ banter'd and ridicul'd Popery out of Doors, and almost\nwithin the Memory of Man, it was reckon'd but a dull Sermon, that was\nnot well humm'd for its Puns and Jest on the Papists? why then should\nthe _Bishop_ be against that way of writing, which was of good Use to\nthe _Reformers_, and first _Christians_? The grand Subject for\n_Burlesque_ and _Banter_, in my Opinion, is _Infidelity_; and that\n_Bishop_, who can't break two Jests upon _Infidels_ for their one upon\nChristianity, has but a small Share of Wit. The Christian Religion\naccording to the _Bishop_, will abide the Test of calm and sedate\nReasoning against it, but can't bear a Jest; O strange!\n\nBut to leave these two Contenders for Persecution to the Chastisement of\nacuter Pens. What I have here pleaded for Liberty is not thro' any Fears\nof Danger to myself, but for the Love of Truth and Advancement of\nChristianity, which, without it, can't be defended, propagated and\nsincerely embraced. And therefore hope, that the Controversy before us,\nbetween _Infidels_ and _Apostates_ will be continued by the Indulgence\nof the Government, till Truth arises and shines bright to the\nDissipation of the Mists of Error and Ignorance; like the Light of the\nSun to the Dispersion of the Darkness of the Night. I will by God's\nLeave, go on to bear my part in the Controversy; And, if it was not more\nagainst the Interests than Reason of the _Clergy_ to believe me, would\nagain solemnly declare that what I do in it is with a View to the Honour\nof _Jesus_, our spiritual _Messiah_, to whom be Glory for ever. _Amen._\n\n                               ~_FINIS._~\n\n[Illustration]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[145] _Matt._ Chap. xxi. _Mark_, Chap. xi.\n\n[146] Hoc factum, nisi figuratum, stultum invenitur. _In Serm._ lxxvii.\n\n[147] Nulla esset Ligni Culpa, quia Lignum sine sensu non habebat\nCulpam. Augustin _in Serm._ lxxxix.\n\n[148] Qu\u00e6rit poma; necesciebat tempus nondum esse? quod Cultor Arboris\nsciebat, Creator Arboris nesciebat? _Augustini in Serm._ lxxxix.\n\n[149] Hoc ideo probamus, quia Passionis Domini Dies propinquabat, et\nscimus quo tempore passus sit. _Ibid._\n\n[150] Arbor non est just\u00e9 siccato. _Johan. Hierosol in Loc. Marci._\n\n[151] Si miraculum fuerat tantummodo commendandum, et non alquid\nprophetice figurandum, multo clementi\u00f9s dominus et sua misericordia\ndigni\u00f9s fecerat, Si quam aridam invenerat, viridem redderet, sicut\nlanguentes sanavit. Tunc vero e contrario, quasi adversus Regulam\nClementi\u00e6 su\u00e6 invenit Arborem virentem, pr\u00e6ter tempus fructus nondum\nhabentem, non tamen fructum agricol\u00e6 negantem, et aridam fecit. _In\nSerm._ lxxxix. _Sect._ 3.\n\n[152] See Arch-Bishop _Wake_'s Letter to Mr. _Chandler_, which is\nhanded about Town and Country.\n\n[153] _Vindication of the Christian Religion_, p. 82.\n\n[154] _Ibid._\n\n[155] Quod sequenti die viderint exaruisse fieum. _Theophylact. in\nLocum Marci._\n\n[156] Chap. xiii.\n\n[157] Quid sibi vult, quod in Evangelio suo Dominus Fici Parabolam\n_frequenter_ inducit: Habes enim alibi, quod jussu Domini Viriditas\nomnis hujus Ligni frondentis aruerit. _In Loc. Luc\u00e6._\n\n[158] Videamus, ubi alibi scriptum de ista ficu; in Evangelio secundum\nLucam legimus, &c. _In Loc. Marci. Hom._ xii.\n\n[159] _Matth._ Chap. xxi. 21.\n\n[160] Quanquam igitur juxta Literam H\u00e6c facta non legantur ab Apostolis,\nsicut quidam Paganorum calumniati sunt, et garriunt contra nos, etiam in\nsuis scriptis asserentes Apostolos non habuisse fidem, quia monues non\ntranstulerunt neque Ficulneas verbo exsiccarunt. _In Loc. Matth._\n\n[161] Legimus Apostolorum miracula, nusquam autem legimus arborem ab his\narefactam, aut montem in mare translatum; qu\u00e6ramus ergo in mysterio ubi\nfactum sit, non enim Verba Domini vacare potuerant. _In Serm._ lxxxix.\n\n[162] Sed futurum aliquid Miraculo commendasse, multa sunt qu\u00e6 nos\nadmoneant, nobisq; persuadeant imo ab _invitis_ extorqueant. _Ibid._\n\n[163] Porro quando in hunc locum incidimus, nemo curiose inquirat, aut\nanxie disputet, justene an secus factum sit; sed Miraculum editum\ncontempletur et admiretur. Nam de submersis Porcis quoq; nonnulli hanc\nqu\u00e6stionem moverant, factumq; justiti\u00e6 color\u00e6 destitutum pr\u00e6dicare\nveriti non sunt. _In Loc. Merci._\n\n[164] Quid Arbor fici, nisi humanam naturam designet? _In Homil._ xxxi.\n\n[165] In Ficu, Synogog\u00e6 positum Exemplum est. _In Loc. Matt._\n\n[166] Absit a nobis, ut, Jesu veniente ad nos et volente manducare de\nficu (_Ecclesi\u00e6_) non inveniatur Fructus in ea. _In Matth. Tract._ xxx.\n\n[167] Potest autem ficus illa intelligi populus Circumcisionis. _Ibid._\n\n[168] Arbor ficulnea Genus humanum est----Triennium autem tria sunt\nTempora, unum ante Legem, alterum sub Lege, tertium sub gratia. St.\n_Augustin in Serm._ cx.\n\n[169] _Jude_, ver. 14.\n\n[170] Inveniet inf\u00e6cundam, foliis tantummodo vestitam, id est Verbis\ninanibus gloriantem, sed fructibus vacuam, Operibus quippe bonis\nsterilem. _In Loc. Matt._\n\n[171] Habentem folia et non fructus; Verba, non Sensus; Scripturas,\nnon intelligentiam Scripturarum. _In Loc. Marci._\n\n[172] Folia sola habentem, hoc est, apparentem Litteram, non Fructus\nSpiritus. _In Loc. Matt._\n\n[173] Q\u00e6rens non Sensiles Fructus sed intellectilem ex Lege et\nProphetis dulcemq, F\u00e6cunditatem. _C\u00e6sarii in Dialog._ 40.\n\n[174] Ficus sunt dona dulcissima Spiritus Sancti, Spiritualia dogmata\net Scientia Scripturarum. _In Agg\u00e6_; _Cap._ ii.\n\n[175] Esuriit autem Jesus semper in justis, volens manducare Fructum\nSpiritus Sancti i neis. _In Matt. Tract._ xxx.\n\n[176] Ad quem (Locum) intelligendum, ut oportet, expectandum esse\nEli\u00e6, ut nonnunquam loquuntur Veteres de Locis obscurissimis Adventum.\n_In Excercitat. Sac. Lib._ ii. _cap._ 6.\n\n[177] Fructus dulces omne genus de arbore Vit\u00e6 comedendum pr\u00e6bebit\nElias. _Apud Buxtorf. Synag. p._ 738.\n\n[178] Oculis Spiritalibus viderunt Mysterium fici siccat\u00e6. _Matt.\nTract._ xvi.\n\n[179] Effodientes Literam Legis. _Cyril. Glaphyr._ L. 1. P. 1.\n\n[180] Mittitur ergo Cophinus Stercoris ad Radicem Arboris, quando\npravitatis su\u00e6 Conscientia tangitur memoria Cogitationis. _Gregor. M.\nin Hom._ xxxi.\n\n[181] Sed hoc significat Ficulnea infructuosa, quod Mulier inclinata;\net hoc Ficulnea reservata, quod Mulier erecta. Hoc autem & octodecem\nAnnorum Numero signatur, quod tertio die Dominus Vine\u00e6 Ficulneam\nvenisse perhibetur. _In Homil._ xxxi.\n\n[182] _John_, Chap. v.\n\n[183] Vid. Milli. Nov. Test. _In Loc._\n\n[184] Quare modo non movetur Aqua? _St. Ambros de Sacrament._ _Lib.\nC._ 2.\n\n[185] [Greek: Eis monos tou eniautou etherapeueto.] _In Serm. contra\nEberietatem._\n\n[186] Vid. Milli. Nov. Test. _In Loc._\n\n[187] Tot jacebant & unus curatus, cum posset uno Verbo omnes erigere.\nQuid ergo intelligendum est, nisi quia Potestas & Bonitas illa magis\nagebat, _&c._ _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[188] Defence of Christianity, P. 415.\n\n[189] Quis hic Curationis modus? quid hoc nobis mysterium\nsignificatur? non [Greek: apl\u00f4s] nec [Greek: eik\u00ea] h\u00e6c, sed futura\nnobis, tanquam imagine et figura quadam describuntur, ne res nimium\nincredibilis et inexpectata, accedente fidei Virtute, Multitudinis\nAnimas offenderet. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[190] Aqua turbata----credas hoc Angelica Virtute fieri solere, non\ntamen sine significante aliquo Sacramento? _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[191] Cujus Rei & cujus signi profundum mysterium, quantum Dominus\ndonare dignatur, loquar ut potero. _Ibid._\n\n[192] Piscina illa Baptismum designat. _Theophyl. In Loc._ Qu\u00e6nam\nigitur h\u00e6c descriptio? Futurum erat Baptisma plenum maxim\u00e6 Potestatis\n& Grati\u00e6 purgaturum peccata. _Chrysost. In Loc._\n\n[193] Per quinque Porticus, quinque Libras Mosis intelligo, St.\n_Theophil. Antioch. in Loc._ Quinque Porticus sunt quinque Libri\nMosis. St. _August. in Loc._\n\n[194] Mosis quinque Libros scripsit, sed in quinque Porticibus\nPiscinam cingentibus languidi jacebant, et curari non poterant. Vide\nquomodo manet littera, convincens eum non salvans iniquum. Illis enim\nquinque Porticibus, in figura quinque Librorum prodebantur potius quam\nsanabantur \u00e6groti. Ergo quicunque amatis litteram fine gratia, in\nPorticibus remanebitis, \u00e6gri eritis, jacentes non convalescentes, de\nlittera enim pr\u00e6sumitis. _In Psal._ lxx.\n\n[195] Est Figura Populi in ultimis temporibus sanandi. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[196] Languidus ille, de quo in Evangelio legimus, quia jacebat, Typum\nGeneris humani habere videbatur. _In Serm._ cclxxiv. _Append._\n\n[197] Paralyticum qui juxta Natatoriam jacebat. _Iren\u00e6i. Lib._ ii.\nChap. 22.\n\n[198] Tempus et Annus sunt centum Anni, _Tichonii in Reg._ 5^a\n\n[199] Quod autem triginta et octo Annos in Languoribus positut erat,\ndo illo Quadraginta numero, quem supra diximus duo minus habens; et\nqu\u00e6 sunt ista duo, nisi duo pr\u00e6cepta, dilectio Dei et Proximi. Ista\nduo, in quibus tota Lex pendet et Prophet\u00e6, si non habuerit, languidus\net Paralyticus jacet. _In Ps._ lxxxiii.\n\n[200] Quod autem sub finem Hebdomadum Sanct\u00e6 Pentecostes ipse\nrevertitur Hierosolymam, figurat\u00e9 et \u00e6nigmatice significat futurum\nnostri Salvatoris Reversionem ultimis pr\u00e6sentis \u00e6vi temporibus. _In\nLoc. Johan._\n\n[201] Turbabat Angelus,----dictus est Dominus magni consilii Angelus.\n_Augustin in Serm._ cxxv. _Sect._ 3.\n\n[202] Turbavit Aquam, id est, turbavit Populum. _Ejusdem in Ps._ cii.\n\n[203] Sabbatum est et Grabatum non licet tollere. Quid stupidius aut\ninertius esse potest? _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[204] Sermon before the Society for Reformation, _&c._ p. 12.\n\n\n\n\n                                A FOURTH\n                               DISCOURSE\n                                 ON THE\n                                MIRACLES\n                                 OF OUR\n                               _SAVIOUR_,\n\n                         In VIEW of the Present\n                           Controversy between INFIDELS\n                           and APOSTATES.\n\n               _Canes qui oblatrant contra Inquisitionem\n                     Veritatis._       Clem. Alex.\n\n                           The Third Edition.\n\n                    By THO. WOOLSTON, B.D. sometime\n               Fellow of _Sidney-College_ in _Cambridge_.\n\n                               _LONDON_:\n\n                Printed for the Author, and Sold by him\n                  next door to the _Star_, in _Aldermanbury_,\n                  and by the Booksellers of _London_, and\n                  _Westminster_, 1728.\n\n                         [Price One Shilling.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                 TO THE\n                      Right Reverend Father in GOD\n                               _FRANCIS_,\n                       Lord Bishop of St. ASAPH.\n\n\nMY LORD,\n\n_If the_ Convocation _had been sitting, I would have made this\nDedication to them, and humbly implored of them, what, for their Love to\nthe Fathers, they would readily have granted, a Recommendation of these\nmy_ Discourses _on_ Miracles _to the_ Clergy: _But being unhappily\ndisappointed of a Session of that_ Reverend _and_ Learned _Body, for\nwhose wise Debates and orthodox Votes I have such a Veneration, as is\nnot to be express'd in a few Words, I presently turn'd my Thoughts on\nyour_ Lordship, _to whom a_ Dedication _is due, because of your Respect,\noften declared, for the Authority of the Fathers, which induces me to\nthink, you now approve of the Use I have made of them_.\n\n_But what I am here to applaud your_ Lordship _for, is, your_\nDiscourse _call'd_ Difficulties and Discouragements, _&c. That\nadmirable Satire against modern Orthodoxy and Persecution! How was I\ntickled in the Perusal of it! It is plainly the Sense of your Soul, or\nyou had set your Name to it: And if the Temptation of Praise for it,\nhad not been too great to be resisted, I could have wish'd you had\nalways conceal'd your self; and then you had not written against the\nGrain, an aukward Piece on_ Church Power, _like a Retraction, to\nreingratiate your self with some Ecclesiastical_ Noodles, _whom you no\nmore, than, I need to care for_.\n\n_I have sometimes wondered_, My Lord, _where and when the Great Mr._\nGrounds _imbibed his notable Notions about Religion and Liberty; for\nhe suck'd them not in with his Mothers Milk, who, I suppose, train'd\nhim up in the Belief of Christianity: But when I consider'd, that he\nwas once the_ Pupil _of Mr._ Hare _at_ Cambridge, _my wonder ceas'd.\nUnder your_ Lordship_'s Tuition, it seems he laid the Foundation of\nhis distinguish'd Learning and Opinions! His Pupillage will be your\nimmortal Honour! I wonder, none of the Writers against him have as yet\ncelebrated your Praise for it! How does he imitate and resemble his_\nTutor _in Principles! I can't say, he surpasses you, since there is\nsuch a Freedom of Thought and Expression in your_ Difficulties, _&c.\nso strongly savouring of Infid--ty, that he has not as yet equall'd_.\n\n_Upon your_ Lordship'_s Advancement to a Bishoprick_, Difficultys and\nDiscouragements _not withstanding, I wish'd, without prescribing to\nthe Wisdom of the Government in the choice of a learned Prelate, that\nthe great Mr._ Grounds, _for the good of the Church too, might be soon\nconsecrated: And I should not have despair'd of it, but that he is a_\nGentleman _of real Probity and Conscience, and might possibly boggle\nat Subscriptions, unless you and Bishop_ Hoadly _could help him to\nsome of your_ Reserves _and_ Distinctions, _wherewith you must be both\nwell Stock'd, to overcome that_ Difficulty. _And why should not_ Dean\nSwift _for his Writings, as well as some others, be made a Bishop? I\nshould like to see him one; if the_ then _Right Reverend Bishop_\nGrounds _would not think him, for his_ Tale of a Tub, _too loose in\nthe Faith, for his Company_.\n\n_Don't, imagine,_ My Lord, _that I am forming of Schemes for my self to\nbe a Bishop. Tho' these my_ Discourses _on_ Miracles _are of very great\nMerit, as well as your Lordship's_ Difficulties, _&c. yet you may be\nassured, I have no such View, when I tell you, that the Honour, the\nFathers have exalted me to, of a_ Moderator _in this Controversy, sets\nme above all Ecclesiastical Preferment, excepting the_ Arch-Bishoprick\n_of_ Canterbury, _which I'm afraid will be void, before the King is\napprised of my singular Worth and Qualifications for it_.\n\n_But however, if such excellent_ Prelates, _as_ Grounds, Hoadly, Swift,\nHare _and_ my self _were at the Head of Ecclesiastical Affairs, what\nwould we do? What should we not do? What would not this free-thinking\nAge expect from us? Nothing less, than that, according to our\nPrinciples, we should endeavour to set Mankind at perfect Liberty, and\nto lay open the dirty Fences of the Church, call'd Subscriptions, which\nare not only the Stain of a good Conscience, but the_ Discouragements,\n_your_ Lordship _hints at, in the Study of the Scriptures: And if we\nmade a Push for an Act of P----t to turn the_ Clergy _to Grass, after\nKing_ Henry VIIIth's _Monks and Fryars; where would be the Harm of it?\nNay, the Advantage to the Publick, as well as to Religion, would be\ngreat, if their Revenues were apply'd to the Payment of National Debts;\nwith a Reserve to our selves_ (_remember_, My Lord) _of large Emoluments\nout of them, according to our great Merits; otherwise worldly-wise Men\nwill repute us impolitick Fools, which you and Bishop_ Hoadly, _I humbly\npresume, will never endure the Reproach of_.\n\n_So, hoping your Lordship will accept of this Dedication to your\nPraise, in as much Sincerity as it is written, I subscribe myself_,\n\n[Sidenote: London, _May_ 14. 1728.]\n\n      My LORD,\n        The Admirer of your\n          Difficultys and\n            Discouragements,\n  _Thomas Woolston._\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                A FOURTH\n                               DISCOURSE\n                                 ON THE\n                                MIRACLES\n                                 OF OUR\n                             _SAVIOUR_, &c.\n\n\nNow for a _fourth_ Discourse on _Jesus_'s Miracles, which, as before,\nI begin with a Repetition of the three general Heads, at first\nproposed to be treated on; and they are,\n\nI. To show, that the Miracles of healing all manner of bodily\nDiseases, which _Jesus_ was famed for, are none of the proper\nMiracles of the _Messiah_; neither are they so much as a good Proof of\nhis divine Authority to found a Religion.\n\nII. To prove that the literal History of many of the Miracles of\n_Jesus_, as recorded by the _Evangelists_, does imply Absurdities,\nImprobabilities and Incredibilities; consequently they, either in the\nwhole or in part, were never wrought, as it is commonly believed\nnow-a-days, but are only related as prophetical and parabolical\nNarratives, of what would be mysteriously, and more wonderfully done\nby him.\n\nIII. To consider what _Jesus_ means, when he appeals to his Miracles,\nas to a Testimony and Witness of his divine Power; and to show that he\ncould not properly and ultimately refer to those he then wrought in\nthe _Flesh_, but to the mystical ones, he would do in the Spirit; of\nwhich those wrought in the Flesh are but mere Types and Shadows.\n\nI am upon the second of these Heads, and according to it, have, in my\n_former Discourses_, taken into examination _eight_ of the Miracles of\n_Jesus_, _viz._ those:\n\n1. Of his driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple.\n\n2. Of his exorcising the _Devils_ out of the Mad-men, and sending them\ninto the Herd of Swine.\n\n3. Of his Transfiguration on the Mount.\n\n4. Of his Healing a Woman, that had an Issue of Blood, twelve Years.\n\n5. Of his curing a Woman, that had a Spirit of Infirmity, eighteen\nYears.\n\n6. Of his telling the _Samaritan_ Woman, her fortune of having had\nfive Husbands, and being than an Adulteress with another Man.\n\n7. Of his cursing the Fig-tree for not bearing Fruit out of season. And,\n\n8. Of his healing a Man of an Infirmity at the Pool of _Bethesda_.\n\nWhether it be not manifest, that the Literal and Evangelical Story of\nthese Miracles, from what I have argu'd and reason'd upon them, does\nnot consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities,\naccording to the Proposition before us, let my Readers judge; and so I\ncome to the Consideration of\n\n9. A ninth Miracle of _Jesus_, _viz._ that[205] of his giving sight to\na Man who was born blind, by the means of Eve-salve, made of Dirt and\nSpittle.\n\nBlindness, as far as one may guess by the Evangelical History, was the\nDistemper that _Jesus_ frequently exercis'd his Power on: And there is\nno doubt to be made, but he heal'd many of one Weakness, Defect and\nImperfection, or other in their Eyes, but whether he wrought any\nMiracle upon any he is supposed to have cured, is uncertain. There\nare, as it's notorious, many kinds of Blindness, that are incurable by\nArt or Nature: and there are other kinds of it, that Nature and Art\nwill relieve a Man in. But whether _Jesus_ used his healing Power\nagainst the former, as well as the latter sort of Blindness, is more\nthan can be affirm'd, or at least proved by our _Divines_. And unless\nwe knew of a certainty, that the sore or blind Eyes, _Jesus_ cured,\nwere absolutely out of the reach of Art and Nature; _Infidels_ will\nimagine, and suggest, that he was only Master of a good Ointment for\nsore Eyes, and being successful in the use of it, ignorant People\nwould needs think, he wrought Miracles.\n\nThe World is often bless'd with excellent _Oculists_, who thro' Study\nand Practice have attain'd to wonderful Skill in Eye-Maladies, which,\ntho' they are of various sorts, yet, by Custom of Speech all pass\nunder the general Name of _Blindness_. And sometimes we hear of famous\n_Chance-Doctors_, like _Jesus_, who by a Gift of God, Nature, or\nFortune, without any Skill in the Structure of the Eyes, have been\nvery successful in the Cure of one Distemper or other incident to\nthem: Such was Sir _William Read_, who, tho' no Scholar, nor of\nacquir'd Abilities in _Physick_ and _Surgery_, yet cured his Thousands\nof sore or blind Eyes; and many of them too to the surprise and\nastonishment of profess'd _Surgeons_ and _Physicians_. Whether He, or\n_Jesus_, cured the greater number of Blindness may be question'd. To\nplease our _Divines_, it shall be granted that _Jesus_ cured the\ngreater Numbers; but that he cured worse or more difficult Distempers\nin the Eyes, can't be proved. Sir _William_ indeed met with many Cases\nof blind and sore Eyes, that were out of the reach of his Power; and\nso did _Jesus_ too, or he had never let great Multitudes of the blind,\nand otherwise distemper'd People, go unheal'd by him. Our _Divines_\nwill here say, that it was never want of Power in _Jesus_, but want of\nFaith in the diseased, if he did not heal them; but in other\n_Surgeons_ and _Physicians_, it is confessedly their own\nInsufficiency: To which I have only this Answer, that our\n_Physicians_ and _Surgeons_ are to be commended for their Ingenuity,\nto impute it to their own Defect of Power, and not to lay the Blame\nupon their Patients, when they can't cure them: And it is luckly for\nus Christians, that we have _this Salvo_ for the Credit of _Jesus_'s\nmiraculously healing Power, that it was not fit, he should exert it\nagainst Unbelief; otherwise reasonably speaking, He with Sir _William\nRead_, _Greatrex_, _Vespasian_, our former _Kings_ of _England_, and\n_Seventh-Sons_, must have pass'd but for a _Chance-Doctor_.\n\nBut to come to the particular Consideration of the Miracle before us.\n_Jesus_ restored, it seems, a blind Man to his Eye-sight, by the use\nof a peculiar Ointment, and washing of his Eyes, as directed, in the\nPool of _Siloam_. Where lies the Miracle? I can't see it; but hope our\n_Divines_ will take their opportunity to point it out to me. Our\n_Surgeons_, with their Ointments and Washings can cure sore and blind\nEyes of one sort or other; and _Jesus_ did no more here; and yet he\nmust be reckon'd a Worker of Miracles; and they but artificial\nOperators: where's the Sense and Reason of this difference between\nthem? If Mr. _Moor_, the _Apothecary_, for the notable Cures he\nperforms, by the means of his Medicines, should write himself, and be\naccounted by his Admirers, a _Miracle-worker_; he and they would be\nbut laugh'd at for it: And yet _Jesus_ for his curing the sore Eyes of\na poor Man with an Ointment, must be had in veneration for a divine\nand miraculous Operator, as much as if by the breath of his Mouth he\nhad removed an huge Mountain!\n\nA Miracle, if I mistake not the Notion of our _Divines_ about it, is a\nsupernatural Event, or a Work out of the Power of Nature or Art to\neffect. And when it is spoken of the Cure of a Disease, as of\nBlindness or Lameness, it ought to be so represented, as that skilful\nand experienced _Surgeons_ and _Physicians_, who can do strange and\nsurprizing Cures by Art, may give it upon their judgment, that no\nSkill of Man could reach that Operation; but that it ought to pass for\nthe Work of a divine and almighty Hand and Power. But there is no such\ncare taken in the Description of any of the Diseases, which _Jesus_\ncured; much less of this before us; against the miraculousness of\nwhich, consequently, there are these two Exceptions to be made:\n\n_First_, that we know nothing of the Nature of this poor Man's\nBlindness; nor what was the defect of his Eyes; nor whether it was\ncurable by Art or not: Without which Knowledge, it is impossible and\nunreasonable to assert, that there was a Miracle wrought in the Cure\nof him. If his blindness or weakness of Eye-sight was curable by human\nmeans, and Jesus did use those means, there's an end of the Miracle.\nIf the _Evangelist_ had given us an accurate Description of the\nCondition of this Man's Eyes before Cure, we could have judg'd better:\nBut this is their constant neglect in all the Distempers _Jesus_\nheal'd, and is enough to induce us to doubt of his miraculous Power.\nThere are, as I have said, some sorts of sore or blind Eyes curable by\nArt, as Experience does testify; and there are others incurable, as\n_Physicians_ and _Patients_ do lament. Of which sort this Man's was,\nwe know not. The worst that we know of his Case, is, that he was blind\nfrom his Birth, or Infancy, which might be: and yet Time, Nature and\nArt, may give relief to him. As a Man advances in Years, the diseases\nof Childhood and Youth wear off. What we call the _King's-Evil_, or an\nInflammation in the Eyes, in time will abate of its Malignity. Nature\nwill not only by degrees work the Cure it-self, but the seasonable\nhelp of a good _Oculist_ will soon expedite it, tho' in time of\nInfancy he could be of no use. And who knows but this might be the\nCase of this blind Man, whose Cure _Jesus_ by his Art did only hasten\nand help forward. However, there are Grounds enough to suspect, that\nit was not divine Power which heal'd this Man, or _Jesus_ had never\nprepared and order'd an _Ointment_ and _Wash_ for him.\n\nShould our _Divines_ suppose or describe, for the _Evangelist_, a\nstate of Blindness in this Man, incurable by Art; that would be\nbegging the Question, which no Unbeliever will grant. But to please\nthem, I will yield, without Enquiry into the Nature of this Man's\nBlindness, that, if _Jesus_ had used no Medicines; if with only a word\nof his Mouth he had cured the Man, and he had instantaneously\nrecover'd, as the Word was spoken; here would have been a real and\ngreat Miracle, let the Blindness or Imperfection of the Man's Sight\nbefore, be of what kind or degree soever. But _Jesus_'s use of\nWashings and Ointments absolutely spoils and destroys the Credit of\nthe Miracle, and we ought by no means to ascribe _that_ to the\nimmediate Hand and Power of God, which _Medicines_ and _Balsams_ are\napply'd to the Effect of. And this brings me to the\n\n_Second_ Exception against the miraculousness of the Cure of this\nblind Man, which is, that _Jesus_ used human means for the Cure of\nhim; which means, whether they were at all proper and effectual in\nthemselves, do affect the Credit of the Miracle, and give occasion of\nsuspicion, that it was Art and not divine Power that heal'd him, or\n_Jesus_, for his Honour, had never had recourse to the use of them.\nAnd what were those Means, or that Medicine, which _Jesus_ made use\nof? Why, \"He spit upon the Ground, and made a Balsam of Dirt and\nSpittle, and anointed the poor Man's Eyes with it, and he recover'd.\"\nA strange and odd sort of an Ointment, that I believe was never used\nbefore, nor since, for sore and blind Eyes! I am not Student enough in\n_Physick_ and _Surgery_ to account for the natural and rational use of\nthis Balsam; but wish that skilful Professors of those Sciences would\nhelp me out at this difficulty. If they could rationally account for\nthe use of this Eye-salve, tho' it was by supposing, that Jesus\nimperceptibly had in his Mouth a proper unctuous and balsamick\nSubstance, which he dissolv'd into Spittle, they would do great\nservice to a certain Cause; and I wonder none of them, whether well\nor ill affected to Religion, have as yet bent their Thoughts to it.\n\nIn the Practice of _Physick_ and _Surgery_, there are sometimes very\nodd and unaccountable Medicaments made use of; and now-and-then very\nwhimsical and seemingly ridiculous ones, by old Women, to good\nPurpose: But none of them are to be compared to _Jesus_'s Balsam for\nsore Eyes. I have heard of a merry _Mountebank_ of Distinction, whose\ncatholick Medicine was _Hasty-Pudding_, which indeed is a notable\nRemedy against the _Esuriency_ of the Stomach, that the Poor often\nlabour under. But _Jesus_'s Eye-Salve, for absurdity, whim, and\nincongruity, was never equall'd, either in jest or in earnest, by any\n_Quack-Doctor_. Whether _Infidels_ think of this Ointment of the Holy\n_Jesus_ with a smile; or reflect on it with disdain, I can't guess. As\nto myself, I should think with St. _Chrysostom_[206], that this\nEye-Salve of _Jesus_ would sooner put a Man's Eyes out, than restore a\nblind one to his Sight. And I believe that our _Divines_, for the\nCredit of the Miracle, and our _Surgeons_, for the Honour of their\nScience, will agree, that it could not be naturally operative and\neffective of the Cure of the blind Man.\n\nWhat then was the Reason of _Jesus_'s using this strange Eye-Salve;\nwhen, for the sake of the Miracle, and for the honour of his own Power,\nhe should have cured the Man with a word speaking? This is a Question\nand Objection in St. _Cyril_[207] against Ministers of the Letter, who\nare obliged to give an Answer to it, that will consist with the Wisdom\nand Power of _Jesus_, otherwise they must give up the Miracle or make\nhim a vain, insignificant and trifling Agent. St. _Cyril_, of whose mind\nI am, says[208] that the Reason of the use of this Balsam made of Dirt\nand Spittle is to be fetch'd from the Mystery. But, in as much as our\n_Divines_ will never agree to that, which would be of ill Consequence to\ntheir Ministry, they must give a good Reason of their own, which I\ndespair of seeing, that will comport with the Letter.\n\nSt. _Iren\u00e6us_ too, says[209], that the _Clay and Spittle_ was of no\nservice to the Cure of the blind Man; and yet _Jesus_ did not use it\n_in vain_. Is not this an Inconsistency? How will our _Divines_ adjust\nit? With _Iren\u00e6us_, I am sure they'll not mystically solve the\nDifficulty; therefore if they don't provide another Solution of it to\nsatisfaction; either their Ministry of the Letter, or the Reputation\nof _Jesus_, and this Miracle must suffer for it.\n\nI am puzzled to think, how our _Divines_ will extricate themselves out\nof this Strait, and account for the use of this Eye-Salve, without any\nDiminution of the Miracle. Surely, they will not say that _Jesus_ used\nthis sensless and insignificant Ointment to put a _Slur_ upon the\nPractice of _Physick_ and _Surgery_, as if other Medicines were of no\nmore avail than his _Dirt_ and _Spittle_. They have more wit than to say\nso; least it incense a noble and most useful Profession, not so much\nagainst themselves, as against _Jesus_, and provoke them to a nicer and\nstricter Enquiry, than I can make into his Miracles, the Diseases he\ncured, and his manner of Operation; and to infer from thence, that he\ncould be no miraculous Healer of Diseases who used Medicines; nor his\n_Evangelists_ orthodox at Theology, who were so inexpert at Anatomy and\nthe Description of bodily Distempers. This might be of bad Consequence\nto Religion: And yet I wonder that none of them, who may be supposed a\nlittle disaffected to Christianity, have taken the Hint from this\npretended Miracle before us, and some others, to endeavour at a Proof of\n_Jesus_'s being little better than a _Quack-Doctor_.\n\nIf I was, what I am not, an _Infidel_, I should think, from the Letter\nof this Story, that _Jesus_ was a _juggling Impostor_, who would pass\nfor a miraculous Healer of Diseases, tho' he used underhand, proper\nMedicines. The _Clay and the Spittle_ he made an open shew of, as\nwhat, to Admiration, he would cure the blind Man with; but in reserve\nhe had a more sanative Balsam, that he subtilly slip't in the room of\nthe Clay, and repeatedly to good purpose anointed the Man's Eyes with\nit. But as the Authority of the Fathers, and their mystical\nInterpretation of this Story is alone my safe-guard against such an\nill opinion of _Jesus_; so I would now gladly know upon what Bottom\nthe Faith of our _Divines_ can stand, as to this Miracle, and\n_Jesus_'s divine Power in it.\n\nI have perused some of our _Commentators_ on the Place, and don't\nperceive that they hesitate at this strange Eye-Salve; nor make any\nQuestions about the pertinent or impertinent Use of it. Whether it is,\nthat they sleep over the Story, or are aware of greater Difficultys in\nit, than can be easily surmounted, and therefore dare not touch on't,\nI know not. But now that we enjoy Liberty of debate, which will make\nus Philosophers, and I have taken the Freedom to make a stricter\nScrutiny than ordinary into _Jesus_'s Miracles, and to consider what\nAbsurditys, their Stories, and _this_ in particular, are clog'd with;\nit is incumbent on our _Divines_ to answer solidly these Questions,\n_viz._ What was the Reason of _Jesus_'s Use of this Eye-Salve made of\nClay and Spittle? Whether, if it was of service to the Cure of the\nblind Man, it does not destroy the Miracle? And if it had no effect in\nthe Cure of him, whether _Jesus_ was not a _vain_ and _trifling_\nOperator, making use of insignificant and impertinent Medicines to the\nDiminution of his divine Power? There Questions are not ludicrous,\nbut _calm and sedate Reasoning_, which _Bishop Smalbroke_[210] does\nnot disapprove of. Therefore a grave, rational, and substantial Answer\nis expected to them, such as will be a Vindication of the Wisdom and\nPower of _Jesus_, without any Diminution of the Miracle.\n\nShould our _Divines_ say, that this Matter was an Act of unsearchable\nWisdom and must be left to the Will of our Saviour, and not curiously\npry'd into, any more than some other Dispensations of Providence, that\nare past finding out: This Answer, which I believe to be the best,\nthat can be given, will not do here. The Miracles of _Jesus_ are, as\nour _Divines_ own, Appeals to our Reason and Senses for his Authority;\nand by our Reason and Senses they are to be try'd, condemn'd or\napproved of. If they will not abide the test of Reason and Sense, they\nare to be rejected, and _Jesus_'s Authority along with them. Therefore\na more close, pertinent and serious Answer is to be given to the said\nQuestions; which as I believe to be impossible, consistently with the\nLetter; so our _Divines_ must of necessity go along with me to the\nFathers for a mystical and allegorical Interpretation of the Story of\nthis Eye-Salve; or the Miracle will fall to the Ground, and _Jesus_'s\ndivine Power be in great danger with it.\n\nSt. _Cyril_, (who is one of _Bishop Smalbroke_'s Greek Commentators,\nthat should strictly adhere to the Letter) signifies, as I before\nobserv'd, that _Jesus_'s Use of this Clay and Spittle would be an\nAbsurdity, if it was not to be accounted for, from the Mystery.\n\n_Eusebius Gallicanus_, treating on this Miracle, says[211]; \"that our\nSaviour apparently manifests that his Miracles are of a spiritual and\nmystical Signification, because in the Work of them, he does somewhat\nor other, that literally has no Sense nor Reason in it. As for\nInstance, in the Cure of this blind Man, what occasion was there for\n_Clay and Spittle_ to anoint his Eyes, if it was not of a mystical\nmeaning, when with a Word of his Mouth, _Jesus_ could have cured him?\nLet us then set aside the Letter of the Story, and Search for the\nMystery, and consider who is meant by this Blind Man, _&c._\"\n\n_Origen_ too, upon occasion of this Miracle, and its Absurdity\naccording to the Letter, says[212]; \"that whatever _Jesus_ did in the\nFlesh was but a Type and Figure of what he would do in Spirit, as is\napparent from the Miracle of his curing a blind Man, which nobody\nknows why it was so done, if it be not to be understood of a mystical\nOintment to open the Eyes of the blind in Understanding.\"\n\nAnd who then is this blind Man mystically? St. _Augustin_[213], St.\n_Jerome_[214], _Eusebius Gallicanus_[215], St. _Theophilus_ of\n_Antioch_[216], _Origen_[217], St. _Cyril_ of _Alexandria_[218], and St.\n_Theophylact_[219], (Four of them, _Bishop Smalbroke_'s Greek and\nliteral Commentators!) say, this _blind Man_ is a Type of Mankind of all\nNations, who in the Perfection of Time signified by the Sabbath[220] in\nthe Story, is to be cured of this Blindness in Understanding.\n\nAnd what is Mankind's Blindness here signified? St. _Augustin_[221],\nSt. _Cyril_[222] and St. _Theophylact_[223], say, it is Ignorance,\nError and Infidelity, or the want of the intellectual Sight and\nKnowledge of God and his Providence. _Origen_[224], St. _John_ of\n_Jerusalem_[225], and St. _Theophylact_[226], (Still _Bishop\nSmalbroke_'s literal and Greek Commentators!) tell us the Reason of\nthis spiritual Blindness of Mankind, that is, because they adhere to\nthe Letter of the Scriptures.\n\nAnd how will _Jesus_, or right _Reason_ and _Truth_, which are his\nmystical Names, cure Mankind of this his spiritual Blindness? By his\nmystical _Spittle_ temper'd with mystical _Dirt_. And how shall we do to\nunderstand this mystical Ointment, so as to make it a proper Medicine\nfor Mankind's spiritual Blindness? St. _Theophilus_ of _Antioch_[227],\nhas an allegorical Interpretation of this _Clay_ and _Spittle_ of our\nLord; but as it is hard to apprehend his meaning, I shall not here\ninsist on it. _Origen_ says[228], that the anointing of the blind Man's\nEyes with _Spittle_, is to be understood of the Unction of the _Spirit_\nof Christ. But this does not give us rightly to understand the Metaphor\nand Figure. St. _John_ of _Jerusalem_ says, that by the _Clay_ and\n_Spittle_ is meant[229] _perfect Doctrine_, which in Truth may open the\nEyes of Mens Understanding: But what is _perfect Doctrine_? Why, to help\nthe Fathers out here, without departing from their Opinions, by the\n_Spittle_ of Jesus must be understood the _Water_ of the Spirit\ninstill'd into the _Earth_ of the Letter of the Scriptures, which\ntemper'd together, does, in the Judgment of them all, make _perfect\nDoctrine_ to the opening of the Eyes of our Understanding in the\nKnowledge of the Providence of God of all Ages; which Knowledge, Light,\nSight, or Illumination, Mankind has hitherto wanted.\n\nSt. _Iren\u00e6us_[230], gives an excellent and mystical Reason, by\nhimself, for the use of this Ointment of _Clay_ and _Spittle_, to the\nCure of this blind Man, which I shall not stay to illustrate, but only\nhave cited it for the Meditation of the Learned and Curious.\n\nThe Story of the blind Man, as St. _John_ has related it, is long, and\nwould take up more time, than I have to spare at present, to go thro'\nall the Parts of it. What I have done at present is enough to awaken\nothers to the Consideration, not only of the Absurdities of the\nLetter, but of the mystical Interpretation of the rest.\n\nThe Miracle, which consisted literally in the Cure of a blind Man by\nthe use of an Ointment made of _Dirt_ and _Spittle_, is absurd,\nsensless and unaccountable; but in the Mystery, there is Wisdom and\nReason. And the Cure of Mankind of the Blindness of his Understanding,\nby the _Spirit_'s being temper'd with the _Letter_ of the Scriptures,\nwhich is the mystical _Eye-Salve_, will not only be a most stupendous\nMiracle, but a Proof of _Jesus_'s _Messiahship_ beyond all\ncontradiction, in as much as by such an opening of the Eyes of our\nUnderstandings, which have been hitherto dark, we shall see, how he is\nthe Accomplishment of the Law and the Prophets. And so I pass to a\n\n10. Tenth Miracle of Jesus, _viz._[231] _That of his turning Water\ninto Wine, at a Marriage in_ Cana _of_ Galilee. This is call'd the\nbeginning of _Jesus_'s Miracles; but whether it is to be understood of\nthe _First_ of his whole Life, or of the _First_ that he wrought in\n_Cana_ of _Galilee_, is not agreed amongst _Divines_. I shall not\nenter into the Dispute, which as it is of no Consequence to my Cause\nin hand; so I shall pass it by, and not urge any Arguments for or\nagainst either side of it.\n\nTho' I would not for the World be so impious and profane as to\nbelieve, what is contain'd and imply'd in the Letter of this Story;\nyet I am still too grave to handle it as ludicrously as I ought; and\nit is now against the grain, that I write so freely, as I shall\nagainst it, being unwilling, not only to put the _Clergy_ out of all\nTemper, but, to give _Scoffers_ and _Infidels_ so great an Advantage\nagainst their Ministry of the Letter. Some may wonder that I, who have\ngone so far in the ludicrous display of the gross Absurdities of some\nother Miracles, should boggle at this. But to be ingenuous, and speak\nthe Truth sincerely, I am still a Christian (for all what the\n_Bishop_ of St. _David_'s,[232] _Archdeacon Stubbs_, and others would\nmake of me) upon the Principles of the Fathers, and have a greater\nVeneration for the Person of the Holy _Jesus_, than to be forward to\nmake such sport with him, his Mother, and his Disciples, as this Story\naffords Scope for. And if it was not for the necessity of turning the\n_Clergy_'s Heads to the Consideration of Mysteries; this Miracle\nshould have been pass'd by in silence.\n\nThere were some antiently, whom St. _Chrysostom_[233] writes of,\nwhether _Jews_, _Gentiles_, or _Hereticks_, I know not, who took great\noffence at the Story of this Wedding, accounting it, from what is\nrelated in St. _John_, as a riotous Feast, and that _Jesus_ and his\nMother, and his Disciples, not only bore a part in the Revellings, but\nwere most to blame for them, or he should not have countenanced them\nwith his Presence, much less promoted them, by the Change of a large\nquantity of Water into Wine for the use of a Company, who were already\n_drunk_ with it. But I, with St. _Chrysostom_, am inclined to\nbelieve, that, if _Jesus_ did grace this Wedding with his Presence,\nthere was no Excess encouraged, or so much as suffer'd at it. If he\ndid accept of the Invitation of the Bridegroom, it was for an\nOpportunity, not so much to turn _Water_ into _Wine_, as to make a\nproper Discourse to the People of conjugal Duties; and, as he was a\nSearcher of the Hearts, secretly to admonish the Married of the Sin\nand Mischief of Adultery; tho' we read not of a seasonable and good\nWord spoken at it.\n\nAnd the Empress _Eudocia_, a nursing Mother of the Church, has given\nus a Poetical, and I hope a fictitious Description of this Wedding.\nShe makes a sumptuous and voluptuous Feast of it; and writes[234] of\n_Musick_ and _Dancing_ in abundance, enough to make us think of such\nMirth and Pastime here, as was unbecoming of a Company of Saints to be\npresent at. Whether it was, that this _Empress_, being only\naccustom'd to the Excesses of a Court, could form no meaner\nConceptions of a Country Wedding; or whether she had any\nextra-scriptural Authority for what she writ, I know not: But I\nbelieve, that, if _Jesus_ was at all at a Marriage-Feast, the whole\nwas conducted with Decency, Order, and Sobriety; and if he there\nwrought any Miracle, it was to manifest his Glory, to the Conversion\nof some, and Confirmation of the Faith of others.\n\nAnd our _Translators_ of the _Bible_ too have given occasion to\nsuspect somewhat of Excess at this Wedding; or they need not have made\nthe Waterpots to hold two or three Firkins apiece. If I had been the\nTranslator, they should not have held above two or three _Pints_\napiece, which Measure is as agreeable to the Original as _Firkin_;\nneither can I imagine, that _Jesus_, if he did convert Water into\nWine, would do it in so large a Measure, for fear of an intemperate\nabuse of it, but only gave the Company a cast of his miraculous Power,\nand a little Taste of his Love and Good-will to them.\n\nSuch are the Conceptions, that, to the Honour of _Jesus_, I am willing\nto form of this _Wedding_; and wish that the Letter of the Story did\nsuggest no worse Thoughts of it to us. I should be pleas'd, if no\n_Infidel_ really could, what I, but for the sake of the Mystery most\nunwillingly should, write any ludicrous Descants on it. But if this\nStory had been related of _Apollonius Tyran\u00e6us_, as it is of our\n_Jesus_, I would have ridicul'd and satiriz'd it to the utmost of my\nPower, and have render'd him and his Disciples of all Nations, as\ncontemptible as I could, for the Belief of it; and I don't doubt, but\nour Christian _Priests_ would have given me ample Praises and\nCommendations for so doing. It is said of _Apollonius_, that for the\nEntertainment of his Friends, he commanded variety of nice Dishes of\nMeat, together with Bowls of choicest Wines, all on a sudden to descend\nupon his Table and range themselves in good Order. Whether there was any\nTruth in this Miracle of _Apollonius_, is not the Question; but Mr.\n_Chandler_[235] could see a Fault in it, (tho' none in _Jesus_'s Wine at\nthis Wedding) as if it was done for the Pleasure of luxurious Appetites,\ntho' we read of no Intemperance at it, which can't be said of the\n_Wedding-Feast_ before us. Our _Divines_ I suppose, no more than\nmyself, believe any thing of the said Miracle in _Apollonius_; but, if\nit was really wrought, I fancy, I could have lampoon'd him for it, and\nwould have made it a diabolical Work, like that, as Fables go, of the\nFeastings of _Wizards_ and _Witches_; and our _Divines_ (passing by\n_Jesus_'s _Wine_ here) would readily, as they are Believers of the\nStorys of Witchcraft, have struck in with me.\n\nBut setting aside that miraculous Story of _Apollonius_, which has but\n_one_ Voucher; the Case before us is _Jesus_'s _turning Water into\nWine_ for the use of Men, who had before _well drank_. How shall I\nforce Nature and Faith to ridicule this Story? How shall I lay aside\nthat profound Veneration for the Holy _Jesus_, which Conversation with\nthe Fathers, more than the Prejudice of Education has begotten in me,\nand ludicrously here treat him and his Miracle too, as is incumbent\nupon me, to make way for the Mystery? In short, I can't do it, in my\nown Name; but having met with a satirical Invective of a supposed\nJewish _Rabbi_ to this purpose, I here publish it, that our _Clergy_,\nas well as myself, may think of an Answer to it, and so prevent that\nMischief it may do by being handed about among _Jews_ and _Infidels_,\nin Manuscript. It is as follows;\n\n    \"You Christians pay Adoration to _Jesus_, whom you believe to be a\n    divine Author of Religion, sent of God for the Instruction,\n    Reformation and Salvation of Mankind, and what induces you to this\n    Belief of him, is, (besides some obscure Prophecies, which you can't\n    agree upon, and which neither your selves, nor any body else\n    understands the Application of) the History of his Miracles: But I\n    wonder, you should have a good opinion of him for his Miracles,\n    which, if he wrought no better than what are recorded of him, by\n    your _Evangelists_, are, if duly consider'd, enough to alienate your\n    Hearts from him. I can't spare time now to examine into all of them,\n    but according to the cursory Observation I have made on them, there\n    is not one so well circumstanced, as to merit a considerate Man's\n    belief, that it was the Work of an omnipotent, all-wise, just and\n    good Agent. Some of them are absurd Tales, others foolish Facts,\n    others unjust Actions, others ludicrous Pranks, others jugling\n    Tricks, others magical Enchantments; and if many of them had been\n    better and greater Operations than they are, and of a more useful\n    and stupendous Nature than they seem to be; yet the first Miracle\n    that he wrought, _viz._ that of his _turning Water into Wine_ at an\n    extravagant and voluptuous Wedding at _Cana_ of _Galilee_, is enough\n    to turn our Stomachs against all the rest. It is in itself enough to\n    beget in us an ill opinion of _Jesus_, and to prepossess us with an\n    aversion to his Religion, without farther Examination into it. It is\n    enough to make us suspect his other Miracles, of what Name soever,\n    to be of a base, magical, and diabolical Extraction; or he had never\n    set up for a divine worker of Miracles with so ill a grace. Would\n    any sober, grave, serious and divine Person, as you Christians\n    suppose _Jesus_ to have been, have vouchsafed his Presence at a\n    Wedding; where such Levities, Diversions and Excesses (in our Nation\n    of the _Jews_, as well as in all others) were indulg'd on such\n    Occasions, as were not fit to be seen, much less countenanc'd by the\n    _Saint_, you would make of him. If your _Jesus_, his Mother, and his\n    Disciples had not been merry Folks in themselves, they would have\n    declined the Invitation of the _Bridegroom_; nay, it they had been\n    at all graver and more serious People than ordinary, no Invitation\n    had been given to such _Spoil-Sports_: But boon Companions they\n    were, and of comical Conversation, or there had been at a Wedding no\n    Room for them. You Christians may fancy, what you please, of _Jesus_\n    and his Mother's Saintship; but the very Text of the Story implies,\n    they were Lovers of good Fellowship and Excess too, upon occasion;\n    or he had never, upon her Intimation, turn'd so large a quantity of\n    Water into Wine, after all or most of the Company were far gone with\n    it. You may suppose, if you please, that all were sober, and none\n    intoxicated, and that the Want of Wine proceeded from the abundance\n    of Company, rather than excess in drinking; but why then did _John_\n    the _Evangelist_ use the word [Greek: methysthasi], which implies,\n    they were more than half Seas over? And if _Jesus_ and his Mother\n    had not both a mind to _top_ them up; the one would not have\n    requested, nor the other have granted a Miracle to that purpose.\n    Whether _Jesus_ and his Mother themselves were at all _cut_, as\n    were others of the Company, is not so certain. She might be an\n    abstemious Dame for ought we know; tho' if old Stories are true of\n    her familiarity with a _Soldier_, of whom came her _chara De\u00fbm\n    Soboles_, in all probability she would take a _Dram_ and a _Bottle_\n    too. But it looks as if _Jesus_ himself was a little _in_ for't, or\n    he had never spoke so waspishly and snappishly to his Mother,\n    saying, _Woman, what have I to do with thee_? _mine Hour is not yet\n    come_: which was very unbecoming of a dutiful Son, who, excepting\n    when he ran away from his Parents, and put them to[236] _Sorrow_ and\n    _Trouble_ to look him up, was, and is still in Heaven, say the\n    _Roman Catholicks_ a most obedient Child. You modern Christians may\n    put what Construction you can upon the words above of _Jesus_ to his\n    Mother, to salve his Credit; but the Fathers of your Church[237]\n    confess them to be a sharp and surly Reply to her, which, if it did\n    not proceed from the natural badness of his Temper, derived, _ex\n    traduce_, from his supposed Father yet, was certainly the effect of\n    Drinking, and that's the more likely, because it is a _broken_ and\n    _witless_ Sentence, such as _Fuddlecaps_ utter by halves, when the\n    _Wine's in_, and the _Wit's out_. Your modern _Commentators_ are\n    sadly puzzled to make good Sense of this broken and abrupt Sentence\n    of _Jesus_, and a pertinent Reply of it, to what his Mother said to\n    him, _they have no Wine_: If you will bear with me, I'll help you\n    out at this dead lift, and give you the true meaning of it _thus_.\n    _Jesus_'s Mother being apprised of a deficiency of Wine, and\n    willing, as well as the _Bridegroom_, that the Company should be\n    thorowly merry before they parted, intimates to her Son, (whom she\n    knew to be initiated in the Mysterys of _Bacchus_) _that they had no\n    Wine_: But before she could finish her Request to him, He, mistaking\n    her meaning, imagines, she was cautioning against drinking more\n    Wine, and exhorting him to go home; whereupon he takes her up short\n    and quick, saying, _Woman, what have you to do with me?_ (for that\n    too is the _English_ of the _Greek_) I'll not be interrupted in my\n    Cups, nor break Company; _for mine Hour is not yet come_ to depart:\n    But after he rightly apprehended her, he goes to work, and rather\n    than the Company should want their fill, by trick of Art, like a\n    _Punch-maker_, meliorates Water into what they call'd Wine. That\n    this is the obvious Interpretation, and natural Paraphrase of the\n    Words before us, shall be try'd by the Absurd Comments now-a-days\n    put upon them, that are enough to make a considerate Man laugh, if\n    not hiss at them.\n\n     \"Some antient Hereticks[238], very gravely inferr'd from this\n     Expression, _Woman, what have I to do with thee_, that _Mary_ was\n     neither a Virgin, nor _Jesus_ her Son; or he had never accosted her\n     with such blunt Language, that implys, they could not be so akin to\n     each other. This was a perplexity to St. _Augustin_, and gave him\n     some trouble to explain the Expression, consistently with her\n     Virginity (for all she cohabited with the old Carpenter) and his\n     Filiation. But this being a quibble, that has been long since\n     dropt, I shall not revive, nor insist on it. But that the\n     Expression above do's suppose a little Inebriation, in _Jesus_, I\n     may avert, neither is there a better Solution to be made of it.\n\n     \"The Fathers of your Church, being sensible of the absurdity,\n     abruptness, impertinence, pertness, and senslesness of the Passage\n     before us according to the Letter, had recourse to a mystical and\n     allegorical Interpretation, as the only way to make it consistent\n     with the Wisdom, Sobriety and Duty of the Holy _Jesus_. But you\n     _Moderns_, abandoning Allegories and Mysteries on Miracles, have\n     endeavour'd, I say, to put other Constructions upon it, as may\n     comport with the Letter and Credit of Jesus: But how insipid and\n     sensless they are, I appeal to a reasonable Man, who will give\n     himself the trouble to consult them, upon the Place, and save me\n     the Pains of a tedious and nauseous Work to recount them for him.\n\n     \"But to Humour the Christian Priesthood at this Day, I will suppose\n     that _Jesus_, and his Mother, and Disciples, tho' Fishermen, to\n     have been all sober, grave and serious at this Wedding, suitably to\n     the Opinion that their Followers now would have us to entertain of\n     them. But then it is hard to conceive them, less than Spectators\n     and even Encouragers of Excess and Intemperance in others; or\n     _Jesus_, after their more than sufficient drinking for the\n     satisfaction of Nature, had never turn'd Water into Wine, nor would\n     his Mother have requested him to do it, if, I say, they had not a\n     mind, and took Pleasure in it too, to see the Company quite\n     _stitch'd up_.\n\n     \"A sober, prudent and wise Philosopher or _Magician_, in the place\n     of _Jesus_, if he had an Art or Power to turn Water into Wine,\n     would never have exercised it upon such an occasion; no, not to\n     please his best Friends, nor in obedience to the most indulgent\n     Parent. What would he have said in such a Case? That the Company\n     had drank sufficiently already, and there was no need of more Wine:\n     The Bridegroom had kindly and plentifully entertain'd his Guests,\n     and he would not for the Honour of God, who had endow'd him with a\n     divine Power, be at the Expence of a Miracle to promote the least\n     Intemperance. Whether such a Speech and Resolution in _Jesus_, upon\n     this occasion, would not have been more commendable, than what he\n     did, let any one judge.\n\n     \"If I was a Christian, I would, for the Honour of _Jesus_, renounce\n     this Miracle, and not magnify and extol it as a divine and good\n     Act, as many now-a-days do. I would give into, and contend for the\n     Truth of _that Gloss_, which the _Gentiles_ of old[239] by way of\n     Objection put upon it, _viz. That the Company having exhausted the\n     Bridegroom's Stock of Wine, and being in Expectation of more_;\n     Jesus, _rather than the Bridegroom should be put to the Blush for\n     deficiency, palm'd a false Miracle, by the help of the Governour of\n     the Feast, upon a drunken Crew; that is, having some spirituous\n     Liquors at hand, mingled them with a quantity of Water, which the\n     Governour of the Feast vouch'd to be incomparable good Wine,\n     miraculously made by_ Jesus: _and the Company being, thro' a\n     vitiated Palate, uncapable of distinguishing better from worse, and\n     of discovering the Fraud, admired the Wine and the Miracle; and\n     applauded_ Jesus _for it, and perhaps became his Disciples upon\n     it_. If I, I say, was a Disciple of _Jesus_, I would give this\n     Story such an old turn for his Credit. And I appeal to indifferent\n     Judges, whether such a daubing of the Miracle, to remove the\n     Offence of _Infidels_ at this Day, would not be politically and\n     wisely done of me. Whether modern Christians may be brought into\n     such a Notion of this supposed Miracle, I know not; but really\n     there is room enough to suspect such a Fraud in it.\n\n     \"But supposing _Jesus_'s Change of Water into Wine to have been a\n     real Miracle; none commission'd of God for the Reformation and\n     Instruction of Mankind would ever have done it here. Miracles (as\n     Mr. _Chandler_[240] says excellently well) _must be such things, as\n     that it is consistent with the Perfections of God, to interest\n     himself in_; and again, _they must argue not only the Power of God,\n     but his Love to Mankind, and his Inclination to do them good_;\n     which this of _Jesus_ is so far from, that it has an evil Aspect\n     and Tendency, as is above represented; consequently it is to be\n     rejected, and no longer esteem'd a divine Miracle; neither is\n     _Jesus_ to be received as a Revealer of God's Will for it, as Mr.\n     _Chandler_ will bear me witness.\n\n     \"No doubt on't, but you Christian Priests would have us _Jews_ and\n     _Infidels_, to believe the whole Company at this Wedding, for all\n     what is intimated by St. _John_ to the contrary, to consist of\n     sober and demure Saints. I will suppose so; but then, what occasion\n     had they at all for Wine? What reason could there be for God's\n     Power to interpose and make it, especially in so large a quantity,\n     for them? I can conceive none. If any of the Company had been taken\n     with fainting Fits; and _Jesus_ for want of a Cordial Bottle, had\n     created a chearing Drain or two, I could not have found fault with\n     it; tho' even here, if he had restored the _Patient_ with a word of\n     his Mouth, it had been a better Miracle, than making of Wine for\n     him: But that he should make for a Company of Sots, a large\n     quantity of Wine, of no less than twelve or eighteen Firkins of\n     _English_ Measure, enough to intoxicate the whole Town of _Cana_ of\n     _Galilee_, is what can never be accounted for by a Christian, who\n     should, one would think, wish this Story, for the Reputation of\n     _Jesus_ expunged out of the New Testament.\n\n     \"Besides, if _Jesus_ had really and miraculously made Wine, which\n     no Power or Art of Man could do, he should, to prevent all\n     suspicion of deceit in the Miracle, have done it without the use of\n     Water. You Christians say, he is the original Cause of all Things\n     out of nothing; why then did he not[241] create this Wine out of\n     nothing? why did he not order the Pots to be emptied of their\n     Water, if there was any in them, and then with a word of his Mouth\n     command the filling them with Wine instead of it? Here had been an\n     unexceptionable Miracle, which no _Infidels_ could have cavil'd at,\n     for any thing, but the _needlessness_ of it. But this subject\n     Matter of Water spoils the Credit of the Miracle. The Water-Pots,\n     it seems, are to be fill'd, before _Jesus_ could do the notable\n     Feat; is not this enough to make us think, that Jesus was but an\n     artificial _Punch-maker_? Could not he create Wine without Water\n     for a Transmutation? Yes, you'll say he could: what was the Reason\n     then, that he did not? This is a reasonable Question to a learned\n     Priesthood: and a rational Answer should be given to it. And a\n     Question too it is that heretofore has been under debate. Some said\n     that the Water might be used to abate of the[242] immensity of the\n     Miracle, which otherwise for its greatness might have surpass'd all\n     Belief. But this Reason will not do. A Miracle can't be too great\n     in itself, if well attested, to transcend Credit: but it may easily\n     be too little to conciliate the Faith of a Free-Thinker. The\n     Fathers of your Church fetch'd a Reason, for the use of Water here,\n     from the Mystery; but since Mysterys on Miracles are set aside by\n     the Priesthood of this Age, they are to assign another and good\n     Reason of their own; or this Miracle is to be rejected, as a Piece\n     of Art and Craft in the Operator, if for no other Reason than\n     this, that _Jesus_ used Water to make Wine.\n\n     \"All that I have to say more to this Miracle, is, that it is to be\n     wish'd, if Jesus could turn Water into Wine, that he had imparted\n     the Secret and Power to his Disciples of the _Priesthood_ of all\n     Ages since, which would have been of greatest Advantage to them in\n     this World. He has empower'd them, they say, to remit Sins, which\n     few old Sinners think themselves the less in danger for: And he has\n     enabled them, some say, to transubstantiate Bread into Flesh, and\n     Wine into Blood, which none but foolish and superstitious Folks\n     believe they ever did: And he promised to invest them with a Power\n     to do greater Miracles than himself, even to remove Mountains, and\n     to curse Trees; but I thank God, they never were of so strong a\n     Faith, as to put it in Practice, or we might have heard of the\n     _natural_ state, as well as we do now of the _civil_ state of some\n     Countrys, ruin'd and overturn'd by them. But this Power to\n     transmute _Water into Wine_, without Labour and Expence, would have\n     been of better worth to them, than all their other Priestly\n     Offices. Not, that our Conduits would thereupon run with Wine,\n     instead of Water; or that Wine would be cheaper and more plentiful\n     than it is now, excepting among themselves, if they could withal\n     curse Vineyards. They would make the best Penny they a could of\n     their divine Power. And as surely as they can now fell the\n     Waterdrops of their Fingers at a Christening, at a good Rate, they\n     would set a better Price on their miraculously made Wine, and give\n     a notable Reason for its dearness, _viz._ that Miracles should not\n     be _cheap_, which would bring them into Contempt, and lessen the\n     Wonder and Admiration of them.\"\n\nSo ends the Invective of a suppos'd Jewish _Rabbi_ against this\nMiracle; which our _Divines_, as well as myself, are to consider of an\nAnswer to. Whether they shall think themselves able to answer the\nrational Parts of it, consistently with the Letter, I know not; but I\nown myself unable, and believe it impossible for them, to do it: And\ntherefore they must of necessity go along with me to the mystical\nInterpretation of the Fathers; or this Miracle will turn to the\ndishonour of _Jesus_, and disadvantage of his Religion.\n\n_Justin Martyr_[243] says, it is absurd to take the Stories of the\nMarriages and Concubinages of the _Patriarchs_ of the Old Testament in\na literal Sense. And indeed, literally consider'd, they are some of\nthem too luscious Tales to be related by divine and inspired Penmen:\nwhereupon he, as well as St. _Paul_ and _Philo-Jud\u00e6us_[244], turn\nthese Stories for the Honour of God and Edification of his Church,\ninto an Allegory. Consequently, if _Justin_ had had an occasion to\nspeak of this Marriage before us, there's no doubt on't, but he would\nhave made Mystery of all and every Part of it.\n\nTo the same purpose _Origen_[245] says, \"That since the Law is a shadow\nof good Things to come, and writes sometimes of Marriages and of\nHusbands and Wives; we are not to understand it of Marriages according\nto the Flesh, but of the spiritual Marriage between Christ and his\nChurch. As for Instance, _Abraham_ had two Sons, _&c._ here we ought not\nto confine our Thoughts to carnal Marriages, and their Offsprings; but\nto extend them to the Mysteries here signified. And there are almost a\nthousand other places in Scripture about Marriages; but in every place\n(_unusquisque Locus castum & divinum de Nuptiis continet Intellectum\nsecundum Expositionem moralem_) is to have a divine, moral, and mystical\nConstruction put on't. Whoever therefore reads the Scriptures about\nMarriages, and understands no more by them, than carnal Marriages; he\nerrs, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God.\" From hence may\nbe easily concluded, what was _Origen_'s opinion about this Marriage in\n_Cana_ of _Galilee_, if there were no other Passages in him for a\nConfirmation of it. But to come closer to the Purpose.\n\nSt. _Augustin_[246] says, there is Mystery signified in the Story of\nthis Marriage, as in all _Jesus_'s Miracles, which it becomes us to\nopen and search for; till, if possible, we are _inebriated_ with the\nspiritual and invisible Wine, that _Jesus_ made at this Feast. And\nagain[247] says, Let us then consider the several Particulars of the\nStory, and what is meant by the six Waterpots; and the Water that is\nturn'd into Wine; and the Governor of the Feast; and who are the\nBridegroom and the Bride; and who is the Mother of _Jesus_ in a\nMystery; and what is to be understood by the Marriage.\n\nAnd again, says St. _Augustin_[248], there is Mystery in this Marriage,\nor _Jesus_ upon no invitation had gone to it. The Bridegroom is our Lord\nhimself, to whom it is said thou hast reserv'd the good Wine of the\nGospel _until now_, that is, until the typified Time of the Celebration\nof this mystical Marriage, which according to St. _Augustin_[249] is to\nbe on the sixth Age of the World, signified by the six Water-Pots,\nholding two or three Firkins apiece, that is, all Mankind, as they are\ndivided into the _two_ sorts of _Jews_ and _Gentiles_, or into _three_,\nas they are descended of the _three_ Sons of _Noah_.\n\nAnd in another Place, the same St. _Augustin_ interpreting this Story,\nsays[250] thus; \"Our Saviour is invited to a Marriage; what can that\nmean but that the Holy Spirit is courted and invocated by the Church,\nwishing to be espoused to him? _Jesus_ comes with his Disciples, that\nis, into a holy Place of a Company of Saints. _Mary_ the Mother of our\nLord signifies to him, _that they have no Wine_; so the Church makes\nknown to him, the Deficiency of the Spirit, which she waits for the\nPower of. And if _Jesus_ calls _Mary_, a Woman; he means the Church,\nwho by Transfiguration may be a Virgin, the Mother, the Spouse of\nChrist, and a Whore too.\"\n\nAnd again St. _Augustin_ explaining[251] what is meant by the Water,\nand the Wine that it wou'd be turn'd into, at the Time of the\nspiritual Celebration of this Marriage of Christ with his Spouse of\nthe Church, says plainly enough, that by _Water_ is meant the Letter\nof the Scriptures; and by the best _Wine_ is to be understood\nspiritual Interpretations, which would transport the understandings of\nMen with divine knowledge; and warm their Hearts and Affections into a\nspiritual _Inebriation_; after the similitude of Wine natural.\n\nSt. _Theophilus_ of _Antioch_, a most antient Greek Commentator (who\naccording to _Bishop Smalbroke_ should strictly adhere to the Letter)\nsays[252], that by this Marriage is meant the Conjunction of Christ\nand his Church, as it is the Tradition of the Old and New Testament.\nAnd that _Jesus_ himself is the Bridegroom; and _Moses_ the Governor\nof the Feast.\n\nOther Fathers, such as St. _Cyril_, St. _Theophylact_ and St. _Jerome_\nare of the same mind about the mystical Interpretation of this\nMarriage, as might be prov'd by Passages out of them, if I had room\nhere to cite them. But I must observe here, that according to the\nFathers, the Story of this Marriage is but another Emblem of the\nMarriage of the Lamb with the Bride of the _New Jerusalem_, spoken of\nin the _Revelations_, to which all the Fowls of the Air will be\ninvited, that is, spiritual and heavenly minded Christians, who[253]\nsoar and fly aloft in their divine and sublime Contemplations on the\nanagogical Sense of the Scriptures, which will exhibit those\nintellectual Dainties, they are there to be entertain'd with.\n\nWhat I have here said out of the Fathers to the Story of this\nMarriage, is enough to quicken our _Divines_ to search for the like\nmystical Interpretation of the whole. The Part of it that's most\ndifficult to be spiritually expounded, is that saying of _Jesus_ to\nhis Mother, _Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine Hour is not yet\ncome._ For the clear interpretation of which, I own, I meet with\nlittle in the Fathers. But St. _Augustin_[254] assures us, there's\nlatent Mystery in the words. How then shall we come at it? Why, if we\ncast away the _Interrogation_, and look upon the Sentence, as\nellyptical, like an infinite number of prophetical ones, the Sense\nparaphrastically, and agreeably to the rest of the Mystery, arises\nthus: In answer to the Woman of the Church's Expectation of the Wine\nof the Spirit; _Jesus_ will tell her or make her to understand of what\nimportance it is to her (and himself) to be supply'd with that\nmystical Wine to her Edification, which it was not his time to pour\nforth upon the Church, till the Celebration of his Nuptials with her.\n\nAnd thus have I done with the Miracle of _Jesus_'s turning Water into\nWine at a Marriage of _Cana_ of _Galilee_. Whether it be not an absurd\nand offensive Story according to the Letter, let any one judge. If\nthe supposed Jewish _Rabbi_ has forced a worse Sense upon it, than it\nwill naturally bear, our _Clergy_ may expostulate with him for it,\nwhich they hardly will any otherwise than by Exclamations against him,\nwithout Reason and Authority. But in the mystical Operation of this\nMiracle at the Marriage of Christ with his Church, there will be the\nWisdom and Power and Goodness of God visible. And it will be a\ndemonstration of _Jesus_'s _Messiahship_, in as much as the Water of\nthe Letter of the Law and the Prophets can't be turn'd into the Wine\nof spiritual Interpretations, but we must discern how he is the\nAccomplisher and Fulfiller of them. And so I pass to an\n\n11. _Eleventh_ Miracle of Jesus, _viz._[255] That of his healing a\nParalytick, for whom the Roof of the House was broken up to let him\ndown into the Room where _Jesus_ was.\n\nAnd this Story (without excepting that of the Pool of _Bethesda_) is\nthe most monstrously absurd, improbable and incredible of any\naccording to the Letter. There is not one Miracle of _Jesus_\nspecifically related, that does not labour under more or less\nAbsurdities, either in Substance or Circumstance: But this, for number\nand greatness of Absurdities, I think surpasses them all: And the\nAbsurdities of it too are so obvious and stare a Man in the Face, that\nI wonder they are hitherto overlook'd; and that considerate and\nintelligent Persons have not before now hesitated and boggled at them.\nIf Interest had not blinded the Eyes of our learned _Clergy_, they\nwould easily have descry'd the Incredibilities and Absurdities of this\nStory; and in another _Impostor_'s Case presently have pointed them\nout to the ridicule of his Admirers and Adorers.\n\nIf a Man was to torture his Brains for the Invention of a romantick\nTale of improbable and surprizing Circumstances, that he might,\nwithal, hope to palm for a Truth, if it was but for a Week or a Day,\nupon the Faith and Understanding of the Credulous; he could never have\npresumed, I think, so far upon the weakness of their Intellects, as to\nimagine any thing so grossly and notoriously contradictory to Sense\nand Reason, would have gone down with them, as is _this_ before us,\nwhich has pass'd currently thro' many Ages of the Church, has been\nread with attention by the Learned, and revered by the rest of\nChristians, without any exception, hesitation, or doubt of the Truth\nof it. In short, so palpable is the falsity of the Story of this\nMiracle, that it requires no Sagacity to detect it; and was it not for\nthe sake of the Mystery more than to expose the Folly of the _Clergy_\nin believing of it, I had never bestow'd the following Pains on it.\n\nThe People, it seems, so press'd and throng'd about the Door of the\nHouse, where _Jesus_ was, that the Paralytick and his Bearers could\nnot get near it. What did they so throng and press for? Was it to see\n_Jesus_, who was _without Form and Comeliness_, according to the\nProphet _Isaiah_; or, who was one of the most graceful of the Sons of\nMen, as _Painters_ and _Publius Lentulus_ do describe him? This could\nnot be the Reason of the Croud. Tho' a Person extraordinary, either\nfor Beauty or Deformity may attract the Eyes of the People, and\noccasion too a Throng about him; yet this could be no Reason for a\n_Press_ about _Jesus_, at _Capernaum_, where he dwelt, and was\ncommonly seen and well known.\n\nWas it then to hear him preach? Nor this neither. Tho' an excellent\nPreacher does sometimes, and a very indifferent one does oftener draw\nmultitudes after him; yet _Jesus_, as a Prophet, was without Honour\nat _Capernaum_, his own Country; consequently, it is not to be\nsupposed that, for his Doctrine, he was so much follow'd here, tho' we\nread, that he _preach'd the Word unto them_.\n\nWas it then to behold him working of Miracles and curing of the\ndiseased? This is the likeliest Reason of the Crouds and Throng about\nhim. And perhaps it was a Day appointed beforehand for his healing of\nthe diseased, which might occasion a more than ordinary Concourse of the\nPeople. But then this Reason would have induced the People to make way\nfor the _Lame_, _Blind_, and _Paralyticks_ to come to _Jesus_; for they\nfrustrated their own Hopes and Expectations of seeing Miracles wrought;\nand acted more unreasonably than ever Mob did, or can be supposed to do.\n\nBut whatever was the Reason of this tumultuous Crouding, which is hard\nto be accounted for; it's said, the poor _Paralytick_ with his Bearers\ncould not get to the Door of the House for the _Press_, and therefore\nin all haste is he haul'd to the Top of the House, and let down, thro'\na breach of the Roof, into the Room where _Jesus_ was. What need was\nthere of such Haste and Pains to get to _Jesus_ for a Cure? It was but\nwaiting a while, not many Hours, and in all probability the Tumult\nwould be appeas'd, and access easily had to him. But that the Bearers\nof the poor Man should enterprise a trouble and difficulty, that could\nnot require less Time, than the Tumult could be supposed to last, is a\nlittle strange and somewhat incredible.\n\nSt. _Chrysostom_ says[256], that the _Paralytick_ saw that the\nMarket-place or Street was throng'd with People, who had obstructed\nall Passage to the House, where _Jesus_ was; and yet he did not so\nmuch as say to his Friends and Bearers, \"What's the Reason of this\nTumult? Let's stay till it is appeas'd, and the House clear'd of the\nPeople, who ere long will depart; and then we shall privately and\nquietly get admittance to Jesus,\" But why did he not say so? Any one\nbeside himself and his Bearers, if they had any Reason and Senses\nabout them, would have so argued. St. _Chrysostom_ says, it was their\n_Faith_ that made them in such haste to get to _Jesus_: But I should\nhave thought their _Faith_ might have work'd _Patience_, and disposed\nthem to stay till Jesus could come out to them, or they get in to him:\nAnd it is an Addition to the strangeness and incredibility of this\nStory, that it did not.\n\nBut supposing this _Paralytick_ in such haste and danger of Life, that\nhe could not wait the dispersion of the Tumult, but, for want of a free\nentrance at the Door, is, cost what it will, to be rais'd to the top of\nthe House, and a breach must be there made for him. The Question is,\nwhether such an Enterprize was or could be feisable and practicable? I\nhave no Conception of the possibility of it. If they could not get to\nthe Door of the House for the Press; of consequence they could not come\nat the Sides of it. How should they? over the Heads of the People?\nThat's not to be imagined; consequently here's another difficulty in the\nStory, that renders it yet more strange and incredible.\n\nBut, without questioning the possibility and easiness of getting the\n_Paralytick_ and his Couch over the Heads of the Mob, to the sides of\nthe House; thither he is brought, where we now behold him and his\nBearers with their Pullies, Ropes, and Ladders (that were not at hand,\nnor could suddenly be procured) hauling and heaving him to the top of\nthe House. Of what height the House was, is not of much Consequence.\nSome for the Credit of the Story may say[257], it was a _very low\none_; tho' antient and modern _Commentators_ are pretty well agreed,\nthat it was an _upper-Room_, where _Jesus_ was; consequently the House\nwas at least two Stories high: But if it was much higher, I'll allow\nthat Art and Pullies (which they wanted for the present) would raise\nthe Man and his Bed to the top of it: So we will not dispute nor\ndiffer upon that matter. On the top of the House then, we are now to\nbehold the _Paralytick_ and his Bearers with their Hatchets and\nHammers, _&c._ (which they forgot to bring with them, for they could\nnot think of any use they should have of them) uncovering the Roof of\nthe House; breaking up _Tiles_, _Spars_, and _Rafters_, and making a\nHole, capacious enough for the Man and his Bed to be let thro'. An\nodd, strange, and unaccountable Work _this_, which, if they had not\nbeen cunning Fellows, would hardly have enter'd into their Heads to\nproject. But at work they are, when it was well, if Jesus and his\nDisciples escaped with only a broken Pate, by the falling of Tiles,\n_&c._, and if the rest were not almost smother'd with the Dust; for it\nwas over their Heads that the breach was made. Where was the good Man\nof the House all this while? Would he suffer his House to be thus\nbroken up, and not command them to desist from their foolish and\nneedless Attempt, till the Mob was quell'd, and there was a free\nentrance at the Door of his House, which could not be long first? Is\nthere nothing in all this, of difficulty and obstruction in the way of\nthe belief of this Story?\n\nSome modern _Commentators_, being aware of these difficulties in this\nStory, and willing to reconcile Men to the earlier belief of it, say,\nas _Drusius_[258] did, that the Houses of _Jud\u00e6a_ were _flat-roof'd,\nand not ridg'd_: And Doctors, _Lightfoot_ and _Whitby_[259] say, there\nwas a Door on their flat Roofs, by which the _Jews_ used to ascend to\nthe top of their Houses, where they discours'd on the Law and\nreligious Matters; and that it was thro' such a Door, by a little\nwidening of the sides of it, that the _Paralytick_ was let down in the\npresence of _Jesus_. To which Opinion I would yield, if it was not\nliable to these Objections, _viz._ that it is not reconcilable to what\nSt. _Luke_ says, of _their letting the Paralytick down thro' the\nTiling with his Couch, in the midst, where Jesus was_; nor hardly\nconsistent with what St. _Mark_ says of their _uncovering_ and\n_breaking up the Roof of the House_: which Expressions the\n_Evangelists_ had never used, if there had been a Door for him to\ndescend by. But to indulge _Lightfoot_ and _Whitby_ in their Notion; I\nmay ask them, what occasion was there then of widening the doorway,\nand breaking down the sides of it? They'll say, because the Passage\notherwise was too narrow, for the Man's Couch to get thro'. Why then\ndid not they take him out of his Couch, and let him down in a Blanket,\na Chair, or a Basket? Or rather, why did not _Jesus_, to prevent this\nTrouble and Damage to the House, ascend thro' this Door, to the Top of\nit, and their speak the healing Word to this poor Man? To say, that\n_Jesus_ could not or would not go up to the Paralytick, I would not,\nfor Fear of an Imputation of Blasphemy against me. Our _Divines_\ntherefore are to look for, what they'll hardly find, an Answer to the\nsaid Question, which will consist with the Wisdom, the Goodness and\nHonour of _Jesus_; or here will be another and insuperable Bar to the\nCredibility of this Story.\n\nIn short, there are more and greater Difficultys affecting the Credit\nof this Miracle, on the side of _Jesus_, than any before urg'd. Could\nnot he, as it was antiently[260] objected, have made the Access to\nhimself more easy? Could not he, to prevent all this Trouble and Pains\nof getting to the Top of the House, and of breaking up the Roof of it,\nhave desired or even forc'd the People to make way for this poor Man\nand his Bearers? This was not impossible for him to do. If it was hard\nfor another; it was not for him, who was omnipotent. He that could\ndrive his Thousands before him out of the Temple; and draw as many\nafter him into the wilderness, might surely, by Force or Persuasion\nhave made the People, how unreasonably mobbish soever, to retreat. And\nwhy did he not? Without a good and satisfactory Answer, which I can't\nconceive, to this Question, here is the most unaccountable and\nincredible part of the whole Story, that reflects on the Wisdom, the\nPower and Goodness of _Jesus_. If there had been no other absurd\nCircumstances of it, this is enough to spoil its Credit, so far as\nthat I believe it impossible for _Ministers_ of the _Letter_, with all\ntheir Wit, Penetration and Sagacity to get over it.\n\nBelieve then the Story of this Miracle, thus taken to Pieces, who can?\nIt is such an Accumulation of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and\nIncredibilities, that a Man of the most easy Faith, if he at all\nthink, can't digest. It's not credible, I said, to suppose, the People\nof _Capernaum_, where _Jesus_ dwelt, and was well known and little\nadmired, would at all _press_ to see or hear him: And if the occasion\nof their Concourse was to behold his Miracles; it is less-reasonable\nto think they would tumultuate to their own disappointment; but rather\nmake way for the diseased, for the satisfaction of their own\nCuriosity, to come to him: And if they did mob it to their own\ndisappointment, about the Door of the House; it was next to\nimpossible for the poor Man and his Couch to be heav'd over their\nHeads, and rais'd to the top of it: More unreasonable yet to think,\nthe master of the House would suffer the Roof of it to be so broken\nup: But most of all against Reason to suppose, _Jesus_ would not give\nforth the healing word, and prevent all this Labour, or by his divine\nPower disperse the People, that the _Paralytick_ might have present\nand easy access to him.\n\nWhether all this be not absolutely shocking of the Credit of this Story,\nlet my Readers judge. In my Opinion, no Tale more monstrously romantick\ncan be told. I don't here question _Jesus_'s Power to heal this\nParalytick, nor the miraculousness of the Cure of him: The trouble of\nthat Question is saved me, by the many other incredible Circumstances of\nthe Story, which are such a Contradiction to Sense and Reason, as is not\nto be equall'd, in any thing, that's commonly receiv'd and believ'd by\nMankind. _Cicero_ says, that there is nothing so absurd, which some of\nthe Philosophers have not held. And they might and did, some of them,\nhold gross Absurdities. But the Letter of the Story of this Miracle\nbefore us, which is the Object of the Faith of our learned Priesthood\nat this Day is a Match for the worst of them.\n\nBut as absurd, as this Story is, I expect that our _Clergy_ will be\ndisgusted at my ludicrous display of it; and that Arch Deacon _Stubbs_\nin particular will again be ready to exclaim against me, and say, that\nthis is turning a _miraculous Fact_ and a _divine Testimony_ of our\nReligion into Ridicule. Whereupon it is to be wish'd, _that\nArch-Deacon_ would write, what would be a Pleasure to see, a\nVindication of this Story. If he can account for the possibility and\ncredibility of the Letter of it, he shall have my leave to make\nanother dull Speech in _Convocation_ against me. And it is not\nunlikely, but he may say as much for it, as another Man: For as the\nStory is senseless, so it is the better suited to his Head and Brains.\nBut if he don't, I much question, whether any other Clergyman of more\nWit will, appear in Defence of it.\n\nSo absurd is the Letter of this Story, that for the Honour of _Jesus_,\nand Credibility of his Gospel, it is absolutely necessary to turn it\ninto Allegory. To the Fathers then, let us go for their help in this\nCase. If they did not read me a better Lecture upon this Miracle, than\ndo our modern _Commentators_, I should be almost tempted to renounce my\nReligion upon it: But as they have rationally and rightly instructed me\nin its true meaning, so I retain my Christian Faith, and admire the\nSublimity of the Mystery, which I am now to give an account of.\n\nBy this _Paralitick_, St. _Hilary_[261] says, is to be understood\n_Mankind_ of all Nations, which opinion too the Fathers held of the\n_Paralitick_, who was heal'd at the Pool of _Bethesda_. And by his\nPalsy is not meant any bodily Distemper, but the spiritual Palsy of\nthe Soul, that is, as St. _Augustin_[262] and St. _Jerome_[263]\ninterpret, a dissoluteness of Morals, and an unsteadiness of Faith and\nPrinciples, which is the Condition of Mankind at present, who want\n_Jesus_'s help for the Cure of it. _Eusebius Gallicanus_[264] says,\nour Saviour's words signify, that it is not a bodily but a spiritual\nDisease here meant; or he had never said to the Paralytick, _Son, thy\nSins are forgiven thee_, which words respect the inward Man, and\ndemonstrate the Palsy here to be a disease Of the Soul.\n\nThe Man sick of the Palsy had _four Bearers_. And who are they\nmystically in this Case? Why, the Fathers[265] understand by them the\n_four Evangelists_, on whose Faith and Doctrine Mankind is to be\ncarry'd unto Christ; for no Soul can be brought unto him, for the\nSanation of his Sins and Errors, but by these _four_.\n\nBut to the top of the House is Mankind, thus paralytically diseased,\nto be carry'd by the four Evangelists, his Bearers. And what then is\nthis House and its Top? The House of _Jesus_ is the intellectual\nEdifice of the World, otherwise call'd Wisdom's House; of the\nbeautiful Buildings of which the Scriptures prophetically treat:\ntherefore to the _sublime Sense_ of the Scriptures, call'd the\nTop[266] of the House, is Man to be taken: He is not to abide in the\n_low and literal Sense_[267] of them, where People _press_ and strive\nin vain to come to _Jesus_: But if he is taken to the Sublimity of the\nScriptures and there _open_[268] _the House_ of Wisdom, he will\npresently be admitted to the Presence and Knowledge of _Jesus_.\n\nVenerable _Bede_, who is altogether a Transcriber of the Fathers, for\nwhich Reason I cite him among the Fathers, says[269], that by the\n_Tiles_ of the House spoken of in St. _Luke_, is meant the _Letter_ of\nthe Scriptures, which is to be laid open for the manifestation of Christ\nand of divine Mysteries to the healing of Man's spiritual Palsy, the\nunsteadiness and dissoluteness of his Morals and Principles.\n\nSo much, in short, then to the mystical Interpretation of the Story of\nthis Miracle. The literal Sense of it is so encumber'd with romantick\nCircumstances, as are enough to turn a Man's Heart against\nChristianity it self: But in the Mystery there will be a most\nstupendous Miracle, which will be not only an Argument of _Jesus_'s\ndivine Power, but of his _Messiahship_, as certainly as his House of\nWisdom, of which the Scriptures write, is open'd to the Manifestation\nof his Presence, and to the Cure of Mankind of his paralytical\nDisease, call'd an instability of Faith and Principles.\n\nAnd thus have I, in this _Discourse_, taken into Examination three more\nof _Jesus_'s Miracles; which I submit to the Judgment of my Readers,\nwhether the literal Story of them does not consist of Absurdities,\nImprobabilities and Incredibilities according to the Proposition before\nus; and whether there is not a necessity, for the Honour of _Jesus_, to\nturn them into prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what will be\nmysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.\n\nMy next _Discourse_, if my mind hold, shall treat on the three Stories\nof _Jesus_'s raising of the dead, _viz._ of the Widow of _Naim_'s Son,\nof _Jairus_'s Daughter, and of _Lazarus_; after which I will give the\nliteral History of Christ's Resurrection, that sandy Foundation of the\nChurch, a Review; and so conclude my Discourses on the Miracles of our\nSaviour.\n\nTo run thro' all the Miracles of _Jesus_, and handle them in the manner\nI have done the foregoing, would be a long and tedious Work. But if our\n_Divines_ shall think, I have selected only those Miracles, which are\nobnoxious to Cavil and Ridicule; and have omitted others, that literally\nare a more unexceptionable Testimony of _Jesus_'s divine Power, and\nAuthority; I will, for their Satisfaction take more of them to Task, and\ngive the Letter of their Stories, the like ludicrous treatment. If I\nmistake not, the Miracles already spoken to, together with those of\n_Jesus_'s raising of the dead, and of his own Resurrection, are the most\nfamous and remarkable of any others: And according to the Observation I\nhave made on the rest, they are no less but rather more liable to\nRidicule and Exception. But if any are of a contrary Opinion, and will\nlet me know, which in their Judgment are more unexceptionable Miracles,\nI will vouchsafe them an Examination. I am sure there is not one\nMiracle, which the Fathers of the Church did not turn into Allegory; and\nif we don't at this Day make mystical Operations of them, they will none\nof them according to the Letter, stand their Ground, nor abide the Test\nof a critical Inquiry into them.\n\nI don't expect, that this _Discourse_ will be any more pleasing and\nacceptable to the _Clergy_, who are _Ministers_ of the _Letter_ of\n_Jesus_'s Miracles, as well as of the Prophecies of him, than any of my\nformer: But their Displeasure in the Case will give me no Disturbance,\nnor am I concern'd about any Resentment, they can make of it. If they\nare offended at these _Discourses_, they should as they came forth, have\nwritten solid Confutations of them, and so have prevented my Publication\nof any more of this kind: But instead of serious and potent Reasonings\nagainst me, I have met with little else but oral Railings, Exclamations,\nDefamations, and attempts for Prosecution; which have been so far from\nterrifying me, that they give me a secret Pleasure, and animate me to\nproceed in the Undertaking in hand.\n\nI did not much question but the _Bishop_ of St. _Davids_, whom I look'd\nupon as a Person of Ingenuity and Learning, would, before this Time,\nhave publish'd somewhat in Confutation of one or other of my former\n_Discourses_. Whether he was not obliged to it, or to make me some\npublick Reparation of the Injury done to my Reputation, by his\nslanderous Sermon, I appeal now to the worshipful _Societys_ for\nReformation of Manners; to whom, and to other Civil Magistrates, I hope\nhis Sermon, without Reason, will be a Caution, that no Pulpit-Invective\nmove them to prosecute or think the worse of any Author.\n\nLiberty of thinking, writing and judging for our selves in Religion is\na natural, a Christian, and a protestant _Right_: It is a _Right_ that\nthe Magistrates as well as the Subjects are interested in, and are to\nsee to the Conservation of, or their Understandings as well as their\nPurses will be ridden and oppress'd by an ignorant and tyrannical\nPriesthood. I urge not this for my own security against Prosecution\nfor Infidelity and Blasphemy, declaring that if the _Bishops_ of\n_London_, St. _Davids_, or _Arch-Deacon Stubbs_, who are zealous for\nPersecution, will but engage me on the Stage of Controversy, and make\ngood their Accusations against me, I will submit to the worst\nPunishment, that can be inflicted on the worst Offender.\n\nIn the mean time I will go on with my Undertaking, to the advancement\nof Truth, and demonstration of the _Messiahship_ of the Holy _Jesus_,\nto whom be Glory for ever, _Amen_.\n\n                               ~_FINIS._~\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[205] John. ix.\n\n[206] Quid Lutum i linere opporet? hoc potius e\u00e6cum reddere, quis\nunquam hoc pacto curatus est? _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[207] Quam ob causam dicet aliquis, cum omnia solo Verbo pr\u00e6stare\npossit, nulloque negotio, Lutum quidem sputo macerat? _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[208] Sed Rationem quandam mysticam habet Vis Rei istius de sputo.\n_Ibid._\n\n[209] Ei autem qui c\u00e6cus fuerat a Nativitate, jam non per sermonem sed\nper operationem pr\u00e6stitit visum; non vane, neque prout evenit, hoc\nfaciens, sed ut ostenderet manum Dei, eam qu\u00e6 ab initio plasmavit\nHominem, _&c._ Contra H\u00e6res. L. v. c. 15.\n\n[210] _See his Sermons before the Societys for Reformation._ p. 12.\n\n[211] Ipse Salvator noster apertissime ostendit, quod ejus Miracula\nAliquid significent, dum ea faciendo, aliquid agit, quod Ratione\ncarere videatur. Nisi enim aliquid significaret, quid necessarium\nfuit, in hujus c\u00e6ci Illuminatione, ut Lutum faceret, quo oculos ejus\nliniret, cui solum dicere sufficiens erat. Qu\u00e6ramus igitur\nsignificationem, & videamus quid c\u00e6cus iste significet. _In Homil.\nquarta post quartam Dominicam._\n\n[212] Similitudo erat & Typus futurorum unumquodque quod fiebat in\nCorpore. Veluti nescio quis \u00e0 Nativitate c\u00e6cus Visum recuperavit. Vere\nautem c\u00e6cus iste erat \u00e0 Nativitate Gentilium Populus, cui Salvator\nreddidit Visum, Saliva sua ungens oculos ejus & mittens ad _Siloam_,\nquod interpretatur missus, mittebat quippe illos quos spiritu unxit ad\nApostolos. _In Isai._ c. vi.\n\n[213] Genus humanum est iste c\u00e6cus. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[214] C\u00e6cus humanum Genus significatur. _In Com. Johan._\n\n[215] C\u00e6cus iste a Nativitate, Genus humanum esse videtur \u00e0 primo\nhomine.----H\u00e6c enim c\u00e6citas non Corporis sed Anim\u00e6 est. _In Loc. supra\nlaudat._\n\n[216] Per c\u00e6cum naturaliter non videntem & illuminatum significat\nGenus humanum. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[217] Vere autem c\u00e6cus iste erat a Nativitate Gentilium Populus. _In\nIsai._ c. vi.\n\n[218] C\u00e6ci hujus Curationem in figuram & typus vocationis Gentium\naccepimus. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[219] Intellige hoc Miraculum spiritualiter. Nam c\u00e6cus quidem erat\nomnis homo \u00e0 Nativitate, id est, ab Initio Mundi. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[220] In Sabbato est figura ultimi Temporis. _St. Cyril in Loc. Johan._\n\n[221] C\u00e6citas est Infidelitas. _In Loc._\n\n[222] C\u00e6cus qui destituitur divino Lumine. _De Adorat._ p. 414.\n\n[223] C\u00e6cus qui sedet in tenebris omnis Ignoranti\u00e6, & non potuit\nvidere Conditorem Mundi. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[224] Literam Legis sequentes, in Errores, Superstitiones &\nInfidelitatem incurrunt. _In Matt. Tract._ xxvi.\n\n[225] C\u00e6cus iste est c\u00e6cus in Litera, & hoc statu Sanari non potest.\n_In Marc._ c. viii.\n\n[226] C\u00e6ci qui imperiti Scripturarum. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[227] Lutum vero factum de Saliva oris Domini, ac positum super oculos\nc\u00e6ci, significat hic, quod natur\u00e6 deerat, opere suo implere Figulum.\n_In Loc. Johan._\n\n[228] Saliva sua ungens Oculos c\u00e6ci & mittens ad _Siloam_ quod\ninterpretatur _Missus_, mittebat quippe illos, quos spiritu unxit. &c.\n_In Isa. c._ vi.\n\n[229] Saliva est perfecta Doctrina. _In Marc._ c. viii.\n\n[230] Ei autem qui c\u00e6cus fuerat \u00e0 Nativitate, jam non per sermonem sed\nper operationem pr\u00e6stitit Visum; non vane neque prout evenit hoc\nfaciens, sed ut ostenderet manum Dei, eam qu\u00e6 ab Initio plasmavit\nhominem. Quapropter expuit in Terram, & fecit Lutum, & superlinivit\nillud Oculis, ostendens antiquam Plasmationem, quemadmodum facta est,\n& manum Dei manifestans his qui intelligere possunt, per quam \u00e8 Limo\nplasmatus est homo. _Cont. H\u00e6reses. L._ v. _c._ 15.\n\n[231] John ii.\n\n[232] _See his Speech in Convocation, printed in the_ Post-Boy _of_\nMarch _the 30th_.\n\n[233] Rursus hoc in loco calumniantur nonnulli hunc ebriosorum fuisse\nConventum, _&c._ _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[234]\n\n      Pueri aut Saltatores volutabantur, in his autem\n      Tibi\u00e6, Lyr\u00e6que Vocem habebant. Mulieres autem\n      Cantum accipientes, volvebantur per medias\n      Qu\u00e6cunque optimatum erant uxores atque fili\u00e6.\n      Illi vero ad Saltationem & desiderabilem Cantum\n      Conversi delectabantur, &c.\n                                         In _Homero-Centon._\n\n\n[235] _Vindication of the Christian Religion._ p. 82.\n\n[236] Luke ii. 48.\n\n[237] Christus asperius respondit, quid tibi & mihi, Mulier? _St.\nChrysost. in Loc. Johan._ Vide & _Theopolact. in Loc._\n\n[238] Vide Sanctum Augustinum. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[239] Apud St. Chrysostomum _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[240] _Vindication of the Christian Religion_, p. 82.\n\n[241] Sed quanam gratia, antequam implerentur, non fecit Miraculum,\nquod longe fuisset admirabilius? Siquidem aliud est subject\u00e6 Materi\u00e6\nqualitatem mutare, aliud ipsam substantiam ex nihilo facere. _Chrysos.\nin Loc._\n\n[242] S\u00e6pe obest Magnitudo, ne Miracula creditu sint facilia.\n_Theophylact. in Loc._\n\n[243] In Dialog. cum Tryphone, _p._ 364.\n\n[244] In Lib. de Abrahamo.\n\n[245] _In Matt. Tract._ xxii.\n\n[246] Aliquid enim & in ipsis factis innuit nobis, puto, quia non sine\ncausa venit ad Nuptias. Excepto Miraculo, aliquid in ipso facto\nMysterii & Sacramenti latet. Pulsemus ut aperiet & de Vino invisibili\ninebriet nos. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[247] Nihil dicemus, quid sibi velint Hydri\u00e6, quid Aqua in Vinum\nconversa, quid Architriclinius, quid Sponsus, quid Mater Jesu in\nMysterio, quid ips\u00e6 Nupti\u00e6? _Ibid._\n\n[248] Per hoc invitatus Dominus venit ad Nuptias, ut ostenderetur\nSacramentam Nuptiarum,----Illarum Nuptiarum Sponsus Personam Domini\nfigurabat, cui dictum est, servasti bonum Vinum usque adhuc, Bonum\nVinum id est Evangelium servasti usque adhuc. _Ibid._\n\n[249] Sex Hydri\u00e6 sunt sex \u00c6tates Temporum capientes Prophetiam\npertinentem ad omnes gentes sive in duobus generibus hominum, id est,\nJud\u00e6is & Gr\u00e6cis, sive in tribus propter Noe tres Filios. _Ibid._\n\n[250] Vocatur Salvator ad Nuptias, hoc est, Ecclesi\u00e6 voto spiritus\nsanctus invocatur----Venit cum Discipulis suis, id est, in Loco sancto,\nTurba sanctorum. Mirabilia Dei Maria Mater expectat, hoc est, Virtutem\nChristi expectat Ecclesia.----Maria ait, ecce Vina deficiant, hoc est,\nVinum Spiritus Ecclesia optat excipere.----Numquid Mulierem dicit Jesu\nMariam, qu\u00e6 Virgo post Pactum inventa est? Sed Ecclesiam alloquitur, qu\u00e6\nnon solum Mulier, sed meretrix nuncupatur. _In Sermon_ xcii. _Append._\n\n[251] Vinum multis Locis accipimus Scripturas Sanctas meracissimum\nVigorem coelestis sapient\u00e6 continentes; quibus incalescant sensus &\ninebrientur Affectus. Operante Christo in Cana Galile\u00e6 Vinum defecit &\nVinum sit, id est, Umbra removetur & Veritas pr\u00e6sentatur. Recedit Lex,\nGratia succedit. Carnalia spiritualibus commutantur. Bonum quidem\nVinum est vetus Testamentum, sed sine spirituali Intellectu vanescit\nin Litera. _In Sermon_ xc. _Append._ Sed illud quod in Litera Legis\naquam sapiebat, dum spiritualiter intellgi fecit, aquam in Vinum\nconvertit. _In Sermon_ xci. _Append._\n\n[252] Per Nuptias, Conjunctionem Christi Ecclesi\u00e6, hoc est Veteris &\nNovi Testamenti Traditionem debemus accipere. Sponsus est Christus.\nArchitriclinius est Moses. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[253] Voluores Coeli sunt ver\u00e8 puri & ad c\u00e6lestis sapienti\u00e6\nCognitionem evolare parati. _Clem. Alex. Strom. L._ iv.\n\n[254] Quid mihi & tibi est, Mulier? Procul dubio, Fratres, latet ibi\naliquid Mysterii. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[255] Matt. ix. Mark ii. Luke v.\n\n[256] Paralyticus reppletum videret Theatrum, Aditus Interclusos,\nPortum obseptum,----Non tamen dixit Propinquis suis, quid hoc Rei est?\nExpectemus quousque Domus evacuetur, Theatrum dimittatur, recedent,\nqui congregati sunt, poterimus privatim ad ilium accedere. _In Homil.\nde hoc Paralyt._\n\n[257] Dicet aliquis valde dimissum fuisse Locum, \u00e0 quo per Tegulas\ndeposuerunt Paralytici Lectum. _Johan. Nepot. Hieros. in Loc. Luc._\n\n[258] Jud\u00e6orum Tecta plana erant, & non in Coniformam lastigiata. _In\nLoc. Luc._\n\n[259] _In Loc. Marci._\n\n[260] Numquid enim facilem illi potuit Accessum redere? _Apud\nChrysostom. de hoc Paralyt._\n\n[261] In Paralytico Gentium universitas offertur me denda. _In Loc.\nMatt._\n\n[262] Paralyticus potest intelligi Anima dissoluta Membris, id est,\nbonis operibus. _Inter. Qu\u00e6st. Evang._\n\n[263] Paralysis Typus est Torporis, quo piger jacet in Malitia Carnis,\nhabens desiderium Salutis, & Torporis Ignavia & duplis Cogitationibus,\nac si enervatus Membris ostendit. _In Loc. Marci._\n\n[264] In hoc enim quod ait, remittuntur tibi Peccata, interiorem\nhominem, id est, spiritum paryliticum esse demonstrat. Hoc enim non\ndixisset, si ad Corporis Infirmitatem respexisset. Non ideo Corpus\nsanatur, quia Anima a peccatis liberatur. _In Homil. in Dominic._ xix.\n_post Pentecost_.\n\n[265] Sed qui sunt isti quatuor, qui hunc Paralyticum portant & Domino\nofferunt. Per hos enim nescio, qui melius quam quatuor Evangelist\u00e6\nintelligi possunt. Nulla enim Anima nisi per istos Domino offertur,\nnulla Anima nisi per istorum fidem sanatur. _Euseb. Gallican. ibid._ Sum\nParaliticus, quia non operantur & immobiles sunt Vires Anim\u00e6 me\u00e6 ad\nbonum, sed si a quatuor Evangelistis gestatus & adductus fuero ad\nDominum, tunc audiam, remittuntur Peccata. _Theophylact. in Loc. Marci._\n\n[266] Tectum Domus qua Christus docet, ascendendum, id est, Sacr\u00e6\nScriptur\u00e6 Sublimitas est appetenda. _Bed\u00e6 in Loc. Luc\u00e6._\n\n[267] Non utique in Infirmis exterius, qua turb\u00e6 tumultuantur\nremanendum, sed Tectum Domus, &c. _Ibid._\n\n[268] Patefacto Tecto \u00e6gerad Jesum summittitur, quia reseratis\nScripturarum Mysteriis, ad Notitiam Christi pervenitur. _Bed\u00e6 in. Loc.\nMarci._ Est Paralysis interior, ut pervenias ad Christum (forte enim\nlatet Medicus & intus est, hoc est, iste verus Intellectus in\nScriptoris occultus est) exponendo quod occultum est aperi Tectum, &\ndepone Paraliticum. _Augustin. In Serm._ XLVI. _Sect._ 13. Impediri\nturbis nisi Tecta id est operta Scripturarum aperiat, ut per h\u00e6c ad\nNotitiam Christi perveniat. _Ejusdam in Qu\u00e6st. 4ta in Evangel. Luc\u00e6._\n\n[269] Et bene Domus Jesu juxta alterius Evangelist\u00e6 Narrationem tegulis\nesse contecta reperitur, quia sub contemptibili Literarum Velamine, si\nadsit, qui reseret, divina spiritualis Grati\u00e6 Virtus invenietur.\nDenudatio etenim Tegularum in Domo Jesu, Apertio est, in utilitate\nLiter\u00e6, sensus spiritualis ac arcanorum coelestium. _In Loc. Marci._\n\n\n\n\n                                A FIFTH\n                               DISCOURSE\n                                 ON THE\n                                MIRACLES\n                                 OF OUR\n                               _SAVIOUR_,\n\n                         In VIEW of the Present\n                           Controversy between INFIDELS\n                           and APOSTATES.\n\n                          ----_Ridiculum acri\n              Fortius & melius magnas plerumq; secat Res._\n\n                          The Second Edition.\n\n                    By THO. WOOLSTON, B.D. sometime\n               Fellow of _Sidney-College_ in _Cambridge_.\n\n                               _LONDON_:\n\n                Printed for the Author, and Sold by him\n                  next door to the _Star_, in _Aldermanbury_,\n                  and by the Booksellers of _London_, and\n                  _Westminster_, 1728.\n\n                         [Price One Shilling.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                 TO THE\n                      Right Reverend Father in God\n                               _THOMAS_,\n                        Lord BISHOP of _Bangor_.\n\n\nMY LORD,\n\nWhatever we poor _Authors_ may sometimes pretend to, by the Dedication\nof our Works to _Great_ Men; it's certain we aim at nothing less than\nRewards and Preferments, whether we deserve them or not: That this is\nmy Design in _Dedications_, is so apparent, that it's to no Purpose to\ndeny or dissemble it.\n\nWherefore else have I made Choice of some of our Learned and Wealthy\n_Bishops_ for the Patrons of these _Discourses_, which I foresaw\nwould be grateful to their nice and critical Palates? Wherefore else\nhave I been so profuse of such Compliments on their _Lordships_, as I\nwas sure, they would take great Pleasure in? Wherefore else, _My\nLord_, do I inscribe _this_ to your _Right Reverend_ Name, but that I\nexpect your Approbation of it, and hope for a Recompence, equal to the\nHonour, that is here done you.\n\nSome, who are envious, _My Lord_, of my good Fortune in _Episcopal_\nPatrons, will not believe that I have receiv'd so much as one _Purse_ of\n_Gold_ for any of my _Dedications_; but I would have such Malignants to\nknow, that the less I have receiv'd, the more there is behind: And I can\nmoreover assure them, that their _Lordships_ have it in their Heads and\ntheir Hearts too, highly to advance me in the World; and if their\nEndeavours for my Promotion fail not, I shall be a very _Great_ Man.\n\nSuch primitive Doctrine, _My Lord_, as I have reviv'd, must, in the\nJudgment of our _Bishops_, be deserving of their distinguish'd\nFavours: And if they should Design for me such a _mystical_ Crown of\nGlory, as the _Gentile Priests_ help'd some of the Fathers of the\nChurch to; I profess without Dissimulation, that, for all my Love to\n_Mysteries_, it will be more than I am ambitious of: But if the Honour\nis forc'd on me, it will be my Duty to their _Lordships_, to sound an\n_allegorical_ Trumpet of their Fame, that their Names, which, might\notherwise be soon forgotten, may be everlastingly remember'd for their\nLove and Good-will towards me.\n\nBut the chief Foundation, _My Lord_, of my Merits lies, they say, in my\nTreatment of the Miracles of our Saviour, after the Manner you handled a\nScripture-Prophecy, of a _Man's kicking a Serpent on the Pate, for\nbiting him by the Heels_: And if your _Lordship_ got a\n_Welsh-Bishoprick_ upon it, what may not I expect for my more\nmeritorious Works of the same kind? The Great _Mr. Scheme_ has\ncelebrated your Praise for that Effort of your Wit: And I must needs\nsay, to your _Lordship_'s Applause, that were not your Thoughts\nunhappily shackled with Interest and Subscriptions, (an Unhappiness you\nsadly lament!) you would endeavour to make as pleasant Work with the\n_Letter_ of the _Old_, as I can do with that of the _New_ Testament.\n\nI have not here Room, _My Lord_, for a sufficient and deserv'd\n_Encomium_ on your _Use and Intent of Prophecy_; therefore must be\ncontent to say of it, in short, that it is a most curious Piece of,\nwhat the Fathers call, _Engastromuthism_; or such a singular Specimen\nof a Webb, spun out of a Man's own Bowels, as one of fewer Brains in\nhis Head can hardly equal.\n\nIt was wisely done of your _Lordship_ to caution your Readers against\ntaking your _Book_ for an Answer to Mr. _Grounds_; otherwise it had not\nbeen impossible, but some others as well as the _Worshipful Benchers_ of\nthe _Temple_ might have mistaken the _Use_ and _Intent_ of it.\n\nAfter I had gone thro' your _beautifully-printed_ Work, I wish'd, _My\nLord_, for another _Decoration_ of it, that some Annotations out of\nthe Fathers had been subjoin'd to it. How would your Notions then and\nTheirs about Prophecy have stood as a _Foil_ to each other! How should\nI then have admired the Difference between a _Rich_ Bishop and a\n_Poor_ Father as to Wit and Sense! How should I then have contemplated\nthe Usefulness of Ecclesiastical Wealth in our _Clergy_ for the\nUnderstanding of the Inspirations of the poor old Prophets!\n\nWhen your _Lordship_ is call'd upon for another Edition of your _Book_,\nvouchsafe me the Favour of making some marginal Remarks on it, which\nshall not be without their good Use. As you know, savoury Sawce makes\nsome sort of Food go down the better; so a little more of that Salt,\nwhich Mr. _Scheme_ has too sparingly sprinkled on your _Work_, will give\nyour _Readers_, a right Relish of it: But whether I am indulg'd this\nFavour or not; I than take another opportunity, according to Promise\nelsewhere made, of testifying to the World, how much I am,\n\n[Sidenote: October 25. 1728.]\n\n   _My LORD,\n     The Admirer of\n       Your_ Use _and_\n     Intent _of Prophecy_,\n  _Thomas Woolston_.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                A FIFTH\n                               DISCOURSE\n                                 ON THE\n                                MIRACLES\n                                 OF OUR\n                             _SAVIOUR_, &c.\n\n\nAccording to Promise in my last _Discourse_, I am in _this_ to take\ninto Examination the three Miracles of _Jesus_'s raising the dead,\n_viz._ Of _Iairus_'s Daughter[270]; of the Widow of _Naim_'s Son[271];\nand of _Lazarus_[272]: The literal Stories of which I shall show to\nconsist of Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities, in Order\nto the mystical Interpretation of them: And because some of our\n_Bishops_ and _Clergy_ were a little disgusted at the ludicrous\nTreatment of the _Letter_ of some foregoing Miracles, I will handle\nthese with the more Caution; being as unwilling, as any Man of my\nprimitive Faith can be, to offend weak Brethren.\n\nWhether _Jesus_ rais'd any more from the dead, besides the foresaid\nthree Persons is uncertain from the Evangelical History. St.\n_Augustin_[273] thinks, he rais'd many others; and he founds his\nOpinion on the modest _Hyperbole_ of St. _John_, who supposes[274]\n_the World it self could not contain the Books that might be Written\nof Jesus_. And _Eusebius Gallicanus_, of whose Mind entirely I am,\nsays[275] the Reason lies in the Mystery, why these _three_, and no\nmore than these _three_ Miracles of this Kind are recorded by the\n_Evangelists_. But since our _Divines_ are averse to Mysteries on\nMiracles, I would gladly know their Opinion, whether _Jesus_ rais'd\nany others from the dead, or not: I have made some search into modern\nWriters for their Opinion in this Case, but can't find it: And unless\nI knew their Opinion, it would be lost Labour to argue against either\nSide of the Question, and much more against both Sides of it: But I\ncan assure our _Divines_, that, which Side of the Question soever they\nshould hold, the Consequence upon the Argument would be neither better\nnor worse, than that they must of necessity espouse the mystical and\nallegorical Interpretation of these Miracles, or grant that _Jesus_\nliterally rais'd none from the dead at all.\n\nBut waving that sort of Argument for the present against the _Letter_;\nthese three Miracles are reputed the greatest that _Jesus_ wrought:\nAnd I believe, it will be granted on all hands, that the restoring a\nPerson, indisputably dead, to Life again, is a stupendous Miracle; and\nthat two or three such Miracles well circumstanced, and credibly\nreported, are enough to conciliate the Belief of Mankind, that the\nAuthor of them was a divine Agent, and invested with the Power of God,\nor he could not do them. But God knows, (and for the sake of the\nMystery, I am not sorry to say it) this is far from being the Case of\nthese three Miracles before us, or of any one them.\n\nThat these three Miracles are not equally great, but differ in Degree,\nis visible enough to any one, that but cursorily reads, and compares\ntheirs Stories one with another. The Fathers of the Church[276] have\ntaken Notice of such a Difference amongst them. The greatest of the\nthree, and indeed, the[277] greatest Miracle, that _Jesus_ is suppos'd\nto have wrought, is that of _Lazarus_'s Resurrection; which, in Truth,\nwas a most prodigious Miracle, if his Corps was putrified and stank;\nor if there were no just Exceptions to be made to the Credibility of\nthe Story. Next to that, in magnitude, is _Jesus_'s raising of the\nWidow's Son, as they were carrying him to his Burial: And a great\nMiracle it was to bring him to Life again; if none before or since had\nbeen mistaken for dead, and carried to their Graves alive; or if no\nImpostor and his Confederates could frame such a seemingly miraculous\nScene, as is that whole Story, to his own Glory. The least of the\nthree is that of his raising _Jairus_'s Daughter, which in Appearance\nis so far from a Miracle, that according to the Story itself, she was\nbut asleep, or by the Shrieks of By-standers frighted out of her\nSenses for the present.\n\nBut however it really might be with these three supposed dead and\nrevived Persons; the Case of none of them was well enough\ncircumstanced to serve the Purpose of our _Divines_. I am apt to\nbelieve with the Fathers, that _Jesus_ actually did raise the dead;\nbut then, as these Miracles are only recorded for the sake of the\n_Mystery_, I affirm that none of them, as to the _Letter_, will abide\nthe Test of a critical Examination, nor stand its Ground against such\nExceptions as may be made to them. If _Jesus_ was to raise any dead\nBodies to Life, for a Testimony of his divine Power and Authority, he\nwould and should have made Choice of other dead Persons, under other\nCircumstances of Death; and the History of their Resurrection should\nhave been more credibly and carefully transmitted to Posterity, so as\nthere should have been no Room left to make a reasonable Doubt of the\nTruth of it. But this, I say, is not the Case in the Resuscitation of\nany of these Persons, as will appear from the following Remarks and\nObservations upon them. And\n\n1. Observe, that the unnatural and preposterous Order of Time, in\nwhich these Miracles are related, justly brings them all under\nsuspicion of Fable and Forgery. The greatest of the three is\nindisputably that of _Lazarus_'s Resurrection; but since this is only\nmention'd by St. _John_, who wrote his Gospel after the other\n_Evangelists_, and above sixty Years, according to the best\nComputation, after our Lord's Ascension; here is too much Room for\nCavil and Question, whether this Story be not entirely his Invention.\nWhat could be the Reason that _Matthew_, _Mark_, and _Luke_, who all\nwrote their Gospel's before _John_, and many Years nearer to the Death\nof our Saviour, should omit to record this remarkable and most\nillustrious Miracle of _Lazarus_? They could not forget it, nor be\nignorant of it, if the Story had been really true; and to assign any\nother Reason than Ignorance or Forgetfulness, is hard and impossible.\nTo aggrandize the Fame of their Master, for a Worker of Miracles, was\nthe Design of all the _Evangelists_, especially of the three first,\nwho may be presumed to make a Report of the greatest, if not of all,\nthat _Jesus_ wrought: But that there should come after them an\n_Evangelist_ with an huge and superlatively great Miracle, and meet\nwith Credit for it, is against all Sense and Reason; neither is there\nany Story, so disorderly told, in all History, that _Critics_ will\nadmit of the Belief of. The first Writer of the Life of an _Hero_, to\nbe sure makes mention of all the grand Occurrences of it, and leaves\nno Room for _Biographers_ afterwards, but to enlarge and paraphrase\nupon what he has written, with some other Circumstances and Additions\nof less Moment. If a third or a fourth _Biographer_ after him shall\npresume to add a more illustrious Transaction of the _Hero_'s Life, it\nwill be rejected as Fable and Romance, tho' for no other Reason than\nthis, that the first Writer must have been appris'd of it, and would\nhave inserted its Story, if there had been any Truth in it. And\nwhether St. _John_'s Story of _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, that Miracle\nof Miracles, ought not to be subjected to the like Criticism upon it,\n_Christians_ may consider, and _Infidels_ will judge.\n\nWhat then was the Reason, I ask again, that the three first\n_Evangelists_ neglected to record this renown'd Miracle of _Lazarus_?\nAnd why too (may I enquire here) did not _Matthew_ and _Mark_ mention\nthe Story of the Widow of _Naim_'s Son, as they could not but know of\nit, if true, more certainly than _Luke_, the Companion of _Paul_, who\nalone has made a Report of it? _Grotius_ says,[278] _it may seem\nstrange that this illustrious Miracle of the Widow's Son_ was omitted\nby _Matthew_ and _Mark_: And what is the Reason that _Grotius_ gives\nfor this strange Omission? Why, he tells us[279] _that these two\nEvangelists were content with one miraculous Instance of this Kind, by\nwhich Christians might judge of_ Jesus'_s Power in others also_. And\nis this Reason sufficient? True it is, they were content with one\nInstance; but if they had made a Report of two or three more of the\nsame sort, no body would have thought their History of _Christ_\novercharg'd with impertinent and tautological Repetitions. But one\nInstance of a Person rais'd from the dead, they were, says _Grotius_,\ncontent with: And I'll grant one to be sufficient: But which then\nshould they, as wise and considerate _Historians_ have made Choice of,\nthe greatest or the least Miracle? The greatest, to be sure, and that\nwas of _Lazarus_, or of the Widow's Son, if they knew of either. But\ninstead of either of these, they tell us the Story of _Jairus_'s\nDaughter, that is[280] an imperfect and disputable Miracle, in\nComparison of the other two, which consequently they knew nothing at\nall of, or they would have preferr'd the Report of them.\n\nIf _Matthew_, the first Writer, had recorded only the Story of\n_Lazarus_, whose Resurrection was the greatest Miracle; and if _Luke_\nhad added _that_ of the Widow of _Naim_'s Son; and _John_ lastly had\nremember'd us of _Jairus_'s Daughter, which the other _Evangelists_,\nnot through Ignorance or Forgetfulness, but studying Brevity, had\nomitted, then all had been well; and no Objection had hence lain\nagainst the Credit of any of these Miracles, or against the Authority\nof the _Evangelists:_ But this unnatural and preposterous Order of\nTime, in which these Miracles are recorded (the greatest being\npostponed to the least) administers just Occasion of suspicion of the\nTruth and Credibility of all their Stories. And it is lucky for\nChristianity, that _Jews_ and _Infidels_ have not hitherto hit upon\nthe _Absurdity_ of this preposterous Narration, or they might have\nform'd a cogent Objection against these Miracles thus, saying;\n\n    \"_Jesus_, it is manifest, rais'd not the dead at all. The only\n    Person, that Christians can reasonably pretend, he did raise, was\n    _Jairus_'s Daughter, whom _Matthew_ writes of; and she, according to\n    the Story was only in a Sleep, or an Extacy, when _Jesus_ revived\n    her. But the _Galileans_, who were after a Time call'd _Christians_,\n    finding their Account in a Resurrection-Miracle; _Luke_, for the\n    former Advantage of the Cause, devised another Story of better\n    Circumstances, in the Widow of _Naim_'s Son: But this not being so\n    great a Miracle, as the Church still wanted; _John_, when no body\n    was alive to contradict and expostulate with him for it, trumps up a\n    long Story of a thumping Miracle, in _Jesus_'s raising of _Lazarus_,\n    who had been not only dead, but buried so long that he stank again.\n    But to prove the Story of this Miracle to be false and fabulous, we\n    need say no more than that it was last recorded. If there had been\n    any Truth in it, the first _Evangelist_ would have remember'd us of\n    it.\n\n     \"We don't suppose, that you Christians, because of your Prejudices,\n     will subscribe to this Account, that we thus give of the Rise of\n     these Miracles: But this is certain, that if these three Miracles\n     had not been reported of _Jesus_, but of _Mahomet_, in the same\n     disorder of Time, by three different Historians, you would\n     presently have scented the Forgery and Imposture: You would justly\n     have affirm'd that the three Stories were apparently three Fables\n     and Falsehoods; and that the three Historians visibly strove to\n     outstretch each other: That the _first_ was sparing and modest in\n     his Romance; and the _second_, being sensible of the Insufficiency\n     of the former's Tale, devises a Miracle of a bigger Size; which\n     still not proving sufficient to the End proposed; the _third_\n     Writer, rather than his Prophet's Honour should sink for want of a\n     Resurrection-Miracle, forges a Story of a monstrously huge one;\n     against which it is, and always will be Objection enough, that it\n     was not related by the first Historian. So would you Christians\n     argue against these three Miracles in another Impostor's Case; and\n     there is not a judicious _Critic_ in the Universe, that would not\n     approve of the Argument, and applaud the Force of it, tho' you will\n     not endure the Thoughts of it in the Case of your _Jesus_.\n\n     \"But to come nearer home to you; supposing _John_ (who was then\n     above a Hundred, and in his Dotage) had not reported this Miracle\n     of _Lazarus_; but that _Clement_ (joining it with his[281]\n     incredible Story of the Resurrection of a _Phoenix_) or _Ignatius_,\n     or _Polycarp_, or the Author of the _Apostolical Constitutions_ had\n     related it; would not your Christian _Critics_ have been at work to\n     explode it? There is not an antient extra-evangelical Tradition of\n     any Note about _Jesus_, that some or other of your _Critics_ have\n     not boggled at; but such a Story as this of _Lazarus_ would have\n     been received by none. I question, whether Mr. _Whiston_ would not\n     have rejected the _Constitutions_ upon such a Story in them; or if\n     his Fancy for some other Things in them had overcome his Reason\n     against this; yet _Bishop Smallbroke_, who has written against the\n     Canonicalness of the _Constitutions_, with his judicious\n     Animadversions upon this Story, would absolutely have overthrown\n     their Authority. And what would he have said here? Not only that\n     the Miracle smells rankly of Forgery and Fraud, or the\n     _Evangelists_, especially _Matthew_, had never forgotten to record\n     it; but he would have reminded us of intrinsic Notes (_hereafter to\n     be mention'd_) of Absurdity, and Incredibility, that would for ever\n     have cashier'd the Belief of it. And whether we _Infidels_ ought\n     not to take the same Liberty to criticize on _John_'s Gospel, which\n     you do on your Apostolical Fathers, who wrote before him, let the\n     impartial and unprejudiced judge: If in justice we ought to take\n     it; we are sure we could give two or three notable Reasons (but\n     that We will not now put Christians out of Temper with them) why\n     _John_ may be suspected of a Mistake or Fraud in this Miracle,\n     rather than any other Christian Writer of the _first_ or _second_\n     Century.\"\n\nTo such an unhappy Objection, arising from the unnatural and\npreposterous Order of Time, in which they are recorded, are these\nthree Miracles before us obnoxious. And I am thinking how Ministers of\nthe Letter will be able to get over it. As for my self, who am for the\nmystical Interpretation of these Miracles, I have a solid and\nsubstantial Answer at hand to the foresaid Objection, an Answer that\ncuriously accounts for the Order of Time in which these Miracles are\nrelated; but my Answer will not please our _Divines_, nor stand them\nin any stead; therefore they must look up another good one of their\nown, that will comport with the _Letter_; or the said Objection,\nimproved with another presently against _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, will\nbe too hard, not for Christianity it self, but for their Ministry.\n\n_Grotius_, being aware of the foresaid Objection, has given us such\na[282] Solution of it as then occurr'd to his Thoughts. Dr. _Whitby_,\nnot being satisfied with _Grotius_'s Solution, has given us[283]\nanother: But how weak and insufficient both their Solutions are, I\nwill not spare Time to consider, till some _Writer_ shall appear in\nDefence of the Sufficiency and Strength of one or other of them. And\nso I pass to a\n\n2. Second Observation, by Way of Objection to the _Letter_ of these\nMiracles, and that is, by enquiring, what became of these three\nPersons after their Resurrection? How long did they live afterwards?\nAnd of what Use and Advantage were their restored Lives to the Church\nor to Mankind? The Evangelical and Ecclesiastical History is entirely\nsilent as to these Questions, which is enough to make us suspect their\nStories to be merely romantick or parabolical; and that there were no\nsuch Persons rais'd from the dead; or we must have heard somewhat of\ntheir Station and Conversation in the World afterwards. It's true,\nthat _Ephiphanius_[284] says, what he found among Traditions, that\n_Lazarus_ lived thirty Years after his Resurrection: But how did he\nspend his Time all that while? Was it to the Honour of _Jesus_, to the\nService of the Church, and Propagation of the Gospel? Of that we know\nnothing; tho' in Reason and Gratitude to _Jesus_, his Benefactor, it\nought to have been so spent; and if it had been so employ'd, History\nsurely would have inform'd us of it. According to the Opinion of\n_Grotius_, in a Citation above, _Lazarus_ for the rest of his restored\nLife absconded, and skull'd about the Country for Fear of the _Jews_,\nwho lay in Wait for him; which is a Suggestion, not only dishonourable\nto _Jesus_, as if the same Power, that rais'd him from the dead, could\nnot protect him against his Enemies; but reproachful to _Lazarus_\nhimself, who should have chosen to suffer Death again, rather than not\nbear an open Testimony to _Jesus_, the Author of his Resurrection.\nHowever it was, we hear no more of _Lazarus_, than that he lived\nthirty Years afterwards, which Tradition, without other Memorials of\nhis Life, brings the Miracle more under suspicion of Fable, than if he\nhad dy'd soon after it. And of _Jairus_'s Daughter, and of the Widow\nof _Naim_'s Son, which is astonishing, we read nothing at all. Does\nnot this Silence in History about them, make their Miracles\nquestionable, and but like _Gulliverian_ Tales of Persons and Things,\nthat out of the Romance, never had any Being.\n\n_Jesus_ did but[285] _call a little Child, and set him in the midst_\nof his Disciples; and that Act was remember'd in the Piety and\nZeal[286] of _Ignatius_, who made a renown'd Bishop. But the Favour\nand Blessing conferr'd on these three rais'd Persons was exceedingly\ngreater; and one might have expected, that _Lazarus_ and the Widow's\nSon would have been eminent Ministers of the Gospel. But instead of\nthat, their Lives afterwards were pass'd in Obscurity, or, what's as\nbad, Ecclesiastical History has neglected a Report of them. What can\nany one hereupon think less, than that the Favour of the Miracles was\nlost on undeserving Persons, which I abhor the Thoughts of; or that\ntheir Stories are but Parables, which I rather incline to.\n\nMinisters of the _Letter_ may here say, \"That the Ecclesiastical History\nof the Apostolical Age is very scanty; and that many Memorials of other\nPersons and Transactions are lost and buried in Oblivion: Which unhappy\nFate has attended the after-Lives and Actions of these rais'd Persons,\nor undoubtedly we should have had a famous Record of them.\" This is not\nimpossible; tho' in the Wisdom of Providence it is hardly probable, but\nthat some more Remembrance must have been left of one or other, if not\nof all the three Persons; in as much as such a Remembrance of them would\nnow-a-days have no less gain'd a Belief of the Miracles, than this\nHistorical Silence tends to the Discredit of them.\n\nIt's somewhat strange, that we hear no more of the after-Fame and Life\nof any of the diseased Persons, whom _Jesus_ miraculously cured;\nexcepting of the Woman, heal'd of an Issue of Blood; who, tho' she\n_spent_ ALL _she had, even_ ALL _her Living_ upon _Physicians_; yet\nout of the Remains of it erected, says[287] _Eusebius_, at _C\u00e6sarea\nPhilippi_, two most costly Statues of Brass, to the Memory of _Jesus_\nand of herself, and of the Miracle wrought by him; which Dr.\n_Whitby_[288] as if he was tainted with Infidelity, endeavours to make\nan idle Tale of. But excepting, I say this Story of this Woman, we\nhear nothing of any other heal'd Person; which is Matter of some\nSpeculation: But that the Persons rais'd from the dead should not at\nall be mention'd in History for their Labours and Lives afterwards to\nthe Honour of _Jesus_, is absolutely unaccountable. Whether such a\nprofound Silence in History about them be not shocking of the Credit\nof the Miracles, let our _Divines_ consider. I am of Opinion that if\n_Jesus_ really rais'd these Persons from the dead; this and no other\nReason, in the Providence of God, can be given for the Silence of\nEcclesiastical History about them afterwards, than to make\n_dead-letter'd_ Stories of their Miracles, in order to turn our Heads\nentirely to the Consideration of their mystical Signification, without\nwhich the _Letter_, for the Argument before us, is deserving of no\nRegard nor Credit. But\n\n3. By way of Objection to the _Letter_ of these three Miracles, let us\nconsider the Condition of the Persons rais'd from the dead; and\nwhether they were at all proper Persons for _Jesus_ to work such a\nMiracle upon, in Testimony of his divine Power. If they were improper\nPersons according to the _Letter_, it's not credible that He, who was\nthe Wisdom of God, would raise them; or if he did, it was because they\nwere the properest to make mystical Emblems of their Stories.\n\nThat _Jesus_ ought to have rais'd all that dy'd, where-ever he came,\nduring the Time of his Ministry, none, I presume, can hold. Two or three\nInstances of his almighty and miraculous Power of this Kind will be\nallow'd to be sufficient: But then they must be wisely and judiciously\nmade Choice of, out of a vast Number of Persons, that must needs die in\nthat Time. Where then was his Wisdom and Prudence to chuse these three\nPersons above others to that Honour? Why were all of them, or indeed any\none of them preferr'd to other Persons of a different Age and Condition\nin the World? Nay, if the _Letter_ of their Stories is only to be\nregarded, were not all these three Persons almost the improperest and\nmost unfit of any for _Jesus_ to exercise that Power on?\n\n_Jairus_'s Daughter was an insignificant _Girl_ of twelve Years old: And\nthere could be no Reason for raising her, but to wipe sorrow from the\nHearts, and Tears from the Eyes of her Parents, who ought to have been\nbetter Philosophers, than immoderately to grieve for her. And was here a\ngood Reason for _Jesus_ to interpose with his Almighty Power? No\ncertainly; a Lecture of Patience and Resignation this Case had been\nenough. And tho' _Jesus_ could raise her from the dead; yet for as much\nas that Favour was to be conferr'd but on a few; and his Miracles ought\nto be useful as well as conspicuous, she should have been pass'd by, as\nan improper Object of his Power, in Comparison of many others, presently\nto be named. If therefore a better Reason, than what's discernible in\nthe _Letter_, is not to be fetch'd from the Mystery; I can't suppose\nthat _Jesus_, the Wisdom of God would raise this _Girl_; but that the\nmodern Belief of her Resuscitation, exclusive of the mystical\nSignification, is, as shall be by and by argued, altogether groundless.\n\nThe Widow of _Naim_'s Son too was but a [Greek: neaniskos] _Youth_,\nand whether any thing older than the _Girl_ above is doubtful; but his\nLife certainly was of no more Importance to the World after, than\nbefore his Resurrection. And why was he then one of the _three_ to be\nrais'd from the dead? Why had he this Honour done him, before others\nof greater Age, Worth, and Use to Mankind? Some will say, for the\nComfort or his sorrowful Mother. And is this Reason sufficient? A\nDiscourse on the Pleasures of _Abraham_'s Bosom, where she would e'er\nlong meet her Son, had been enough to chear her Heart. If therefore\nthe Fathers don't help me to a solid mystical Reason, why the Son and\n_only Son_ of a Widow was to be rais'd by _Jesus_, as they were\ncarrying him to his Burial, I'll not believe, He would raise this dead\n_Boy_ rather than many others, for the Manifestation of his Power; but\nthat the Story of his Resurrection, as shall soon be reasonably\nproved, was all Sham and Cheat.\n\n_Lazarus_ indeed was _Jesus_'s Friend, whom he Loved; and as I will\nnot question but _Jesus_'s Affection was wisely and deservedly placed\non him; so here, to Appearance, was a better Reason for the raising of\nhim, than of either of the other Two. But even this Reason, supposing\n_Jesus_ was to raise but three Persons, is not sufficient against the\nCases of many others, that may be put for the Manifestation of his\nPower, for the Illustration of his Wisdom and Goodness, and for the\nConversion of Unbelievers: Consequently, if this Story of _Lazarus_ be\nnot parabolical, the litteral Fact is disputable, and obnoxious to\nsuch Exceptions presently to be observed against it, as will not be\neasily got over.\n\n_Jesus_ rais'd the dead, and wrought other Miracles, say our _Divines_\noften, not only to manifest his own Power and Glory, but his Love to\nMankind, and his Inclination to do them good: For which Reason his\nMiracles are useful and beneficial as well as stupendous and\nsupernatural Acts, on purpose to conciliate Men's Affections as well\nas their Faith to him. On this Topick our _Divines_ are copious and\nrhetorical, when they write on _Jesus_'s Miracles, as if no more\nuseful and wonderful Works could be done, than what he did. And I do\nagree with them, that (what Reason bespeaks) the Miracles of a\npretended Author of Religion ought to be both as useful and great as\nwell as could be. But such were not _Jesus_'s Miracles according to\n_Letter_, and least of all his Acts of raising the dead. For if we\nconsider the Persons rais'd by him, we shall find, he could hardly\nhave exerted his Power on any of less Importance to the World, both\nbefore and after their Resurrection. A young _Girl_ indeed is fitter\nto be raised than a decripid old Woman, who by the Course of Nature\nwas to return to Corruption again, as soon as restored to Life: And a\n_Boy_ rather than an infirm old Man for the same Reason: And _Lazarus_\nthe Friend of _Jesus_, perhaps, and but perhaps, rather than his\nprofess'd Enemy. But what are these three Persons in Comparison of\nmany others of other Circumstances? Instead of a _Boy_, and a _Girl_\nand even of _Lazarus_, who were all of no Consequence to the Publick,\neither before or since; I should think, _Jesus_ ought to have rais'd\nan useful Magistrate, whose Life had been a common Blessing; an\nindustrious Merchant, whose Death was a publick Loss; a Father of a\nnumerous Family, which for a comfortable Subsistance depended on him.\nSuch dead Objects of _Jesus_'s Power and Compassion could not but\noffer themselves, during the Time of his Ministry, and if he meant to\nbe as useful as he could, in his Miracles, he would have laid hold on\nthem. If a few Persons only were to be rais'd from the dead, the\nforesaid were the properest, whose Resurrection and Return to Life\nwould have begotten the Applause as well as the Wonder of the World;\nwould most extensively have spread _Jesus_'s Fame; and would have\ngain'd him the Love and Discipleship of all that heard of his being\nso great a Benefactor to Mankind. Such Instances of his Power would\nhave demonstrated him to be a most benign as well as a mighty Agent;\nand none in Interest or Prejudice could have open'd their Mouths\nagainst him, especially if the Persons rais'd from the dead were\nselected upon the Recommendation of the People of this or that City.\nBut that an insignificant _Boy_ and a _Girl_, (forsooth!) and the\nobscure _Lazarus_, are preferr'd by _Jesus_, to such publick and more\ndeserving Persons is unaccountable. Their Story therefore, upon this\nArgument, savours of Romance and Fraud; and unless the _Mystery_ help\nus to, what the _Letter_ can't, a good reason for _Jesus_'s Conduct\nhere, the Miracles may be hence justly question'd, and the Credibility\nof their Report disputed.\n\nBut now I am speaking of the Fitness and Unfitness of deceased Persons\nto have this grand Miracle wrought on them; it comes into my Head to\nask, why _Jesus_ rais'd not _John_ the Baptist to Life again? A Person\nof greater Merits, and more Worthy of the Favour of _Jesus_ and of\nthis Miracle, could not be. If _Jesus_ could raise any from the dead\nhe would surely have raised him; and why did he not? This is a\nreasonable Question and an Answer should be thought on for it. Was it\na Thing out of _Jesus_'s Power? Not so; He was Omnipotent, and could\nby Force or Persuasion have rescued _John_'s Head out of the Hands of\nhis Enemies; and the tacking it again to his Body, and the infusing\nnew Life into him was no more difficult to _Jesus_, than the\nResuscitation of a stinking Carcass. If _Jesus_ had here exerted his\nPower, and rais'd his dearest Friend and choicest Minister for the\nPreparation, if not Propagation of the Gospel, none could question his\nAbility to raise any others, tho' he had rais'd no more. But in as\nmuch as _John_ the _Baptist_, one of his singular Merits and Services\nto _Christ_, was overlook'd and neglected by him; and three useless\nand insignificant Persons had this Honour done them, the Facts may\nreasonably be called into question, and, if the Mysteries don't solve\nthe Difficulty, their litteral Stories may hence be accounted foolish,\nfictitious and fabulous; especially if we consider,\n\n4. That none of these three rais'd Persons had been long enough dead\nto amputate all Doubt of _Jesus_'s miraculous Power in their\nResurrection. As to _Jairus_'s Daughter, she was but newly expired, if\nat all dead, when _Jesus_ brought her to Life again. _Jesus_ himself\nsays, she was but asleep. And according to _Theophanes Cerameus_[289],\nand _Theophilact_[290] there is Room to suspect that this _Girl_ was\nonly [Greek: Katochos] _beside herself_. And it is not impossible, but\nthe passionate Skreams of the Feminine By-standers might fright her\ninto Fits, that bore the Appearance of Death; otherwise why did\n_Jesus_ turn there inordinate Weepers out of the House, before he\ncould bring her to her Senses again? And why did he tell her Parents,\nthat she was only in a sleep, but to Comfort them with the Possibility\nof his awakening her out of it? Is not this destructive of the\nMiracle, and making no more of it, than what another Man might do? And\nis there not some Probability, that here's all of this Story? But\nsupposing she was really dead, yet for the sake of an indisputable\nMiracle in her Resurrection, it must be granted, that she ought to\nhave been much longer, some Days if not Weeks, dead and buried.\n\nAs to the Widow of _Naim_'s Son, there was somewhat more of the\nAppearance of Death in him, than in _Jairus_'s Daughter. He was\ncarried forth to his Burial, and so may be presumed to be really a\ndead Corpse. But might not here be Fraud or Mistake in the Case?\nHistory and common Fame affords Instances of the mistaken Deaths of\nPersons, who sometimes have been unfortunately buried alive, and at\nother Times happily, by one Means or other, restored to Life: And who\nknows but _Jesus_, upon some Information or other, might suspect this\nYouth to be in a lethargick State, and had a Mind to try, if by\nchafeing, _&c._ he could not do, what successfully he did, bring him\nto his Senses again: Or might not a Piece of Fraud be here concerted\nbetween _Jesus_, a subtil Youth, and his Mother and others; and all\nthe Formalities of a Death and Burial contrived, that _Jesus_, whose\nFame for a Worker of Miracles was to be rais'd, might here have an\nOpportunity to make a shew of a grand one. The Mourning of the Widow,\nwho had her Tears at Command and _Jesus_'s casual meeting of the\nCorpse upon the Road, looks like Contrivance to put the better Face\nupon the Matter. God forbid, that I should suspect, there was any\nFraud of this Kind here; but of the Possibility of it, none can doubt.\nAnd where there is a Possibility of Fraud, it is Nonsense, and mere\nCredulity to talk of a real, certain and stupendous Miracle,\nespecially where the Juggler and pretended Worker of Miracles has\nbeen detected in some of his other Tricks. All that I have to say here\nto this Matter, is, that if _Jesus_ had a Mind to raise the Son of\nthis Widow, in Testimony of his divine Power, he should have suffer'd\nhim to have been buried two or three Weeks first; otherwise, if the\nMystery don't account for _Jesus_'s stopping the Bearers of the Corpse\nupon the Road, here is too much Room for suspicion of Cheat in the\nLetter of the Story.\n\n_Lazarus_'s Case seems to be the less exceptionable of the three. He\nhad been buried _four Days_, and supposed to be putrified in the\nOpinion of his Sister _Mary_, and of modern Christians: And if so, his\nResuscitation was a most grand and indisputable Miracle. And I could\nhave wish'd, if I had not loved the _Mystery_ rather than the\n_Letter_, that no Cavil and Exception could have been made to it.\nWhether _Lazarus_, who was _Jesus_'s Friend and beloved Disciple,\nwould not come into Measures with his Lord, for the Defence of his\nHonour, and Propagation of his Fame, _Infidels_, who take Christianity\nfor an Imposture, will not question: And whether he would not consent\nto be interr'd alive, in a hollow Cave, where there was only a Stone\nlaid at the Mouth of it, as long as a Man could fast, none of them\nwill doubt. Four Days was almost too long for a Man to fast without\ndanger of Health; but if those _four Days_ are number'd according to\nthe Arithmetick of Jesus's _three Days_ in his Grave, they are\nreducible to two Days and three Nights, which Time, if no Victuals\nwere secretly convey'd with him, a Man might fast in _Lazarus_'s Cave.\nAs to the _stinking_ of _Lazarus_'s Carcass: that, _Infidels_ will\nsay, was but the Assertion of his Sister beforehand, like a Prologue\nto a Farce. None of the Spectators at his Resurrection say one Word of\nhis stinking. And as to the Weepings and Lamentations of _Jesus_ and\nof _Lazarus_'s Sisters, they will say that was all Sham and\nCounterfeit, the better to carry on the Juggle of a feign'd\nResurrection. And what's worst of all, they will say, that tho'\n_Jesus_ did call _Lazarus_ forth with a _loud Voice_, as if he had\nbeen as deaf as a dead Man; yet his _Face was bound about with a\nNapkin_, so that the Spectators could not discern what was of the\nEssence of the Miracle, the Change of his Countenance from a dead to a\nlive one, which is a plain Sign, that it was all Fraud and Imposture.\n\nGod forbid, that I should have the same sense with _Infidels_, of this\nMatter; but to be just to their Suggestions and Imaginations here, I\nmust needs say, there are some other unhappy Circumstances, presently\nto be consider'd, in this Story, which, if they are not emblematical,\nmake it the most notorious Cheat and Imposture that ever was put upon\nMankind. In the mean Time, from what is here argued, it is plain, that\n_Lazarus_ was not so long dead and buried, as that there is no Room to\ndoubt of the Miracle of his Resurrection.\n\nNow whether these Arguments against these three Miracles, drawn from\nthe Shortness of the Time, in which these Persons lay for dead, have\nany Force in them, let our _Divines_ consider. If nothing of all this\nis in their Opinion affecting of the Credit of the Miracles; yet they\nmust allow, that _Jesus_, if he could raise the dead, might have made\nChoice of other Instances of Persons, more unquestionably dead, who\nhad lain longer in their Graves, and were in a visible State of\nPutrefaction. And if this grand Miracle of raising the dead was to be\nwrought by _Jesus_ for the Manifestation of his Glory, and in\nTestimony of his Authority; he should have exercised his Power on some\nsuch Persons, nominated by the Magistrates of this or that City, who\nwith the People should be present at the miraculous Operation,\nbeholding the putrified Bodies, (without a Napkin before their Faces)\nand how they were suddenly enliven'd and invigorated with new Flesh,\nafter the Similitude of their pristine Form, when in Health and full\nStrength. Because that _Jesus_ rais'd not some such Persons to Life, I\nmust take the Stories of the three Miracles before us to be but\ntypical of more mysterious Works; or believe them for the Arguments\nabove to be downright Cheats and Fables. And what is enough to induce\na modern _Divine_ to this Opinion. Is\n\n5. The Consideration, that none of these rais'd Persons did or could,\nafter the Return of their Souls to their Bodies, tell any Tales of\ntheir separate Existence otherwise the Evangelists had not been silent\nin this main Point, which is of the Essence of Christianity. Are not\nour _Divines_ here reduced to an unhappy _Dilemma_, either to deny the\nseparate Existence of the Soul, or the precedent Deaths of these\nrais'd Persons? As Christians, We profess to believe both, which\nseemingly are incompatiable; or the Evangelists had made such a\nRelation, as their return'd Souls had given of the other World. Was\nany Person, in this Age, to be rais'd to Life, that had been any time\ndead; the first Thing that his Friends and Acquaintance would enquire\nof him, would be to know, where his Soul had been; in what Company;\nand how it had fared with him; and Historians would certainly record\nhis Narrative. The same Curiosity could not but possess People of old,\nwhen these Miracles were wrought; and if the rais'd Persons had told\nany Stories of their separate Existance, the Evangelists no less\nunquestionally would have reported them, in as much as such a Report\nwould have been, not only a Confirmation of that Doctrine; which is of\nthe Essence of our Religion; but an absolute Confutation of the\n_Sadducees_ and _Sceptists_ of that Age, and of the _Materialists_ of\nthis. But this their Silence in this Case is of bad Consequence,\neither to the Doctrine of the Soul's Existence in Separation from the\nBody, or to these Miracles themselves, since we must hereupon almost\nnecessarily hold, that these rais'd Persons were not at all dead, or\nthat their Souls dy'd with them.\n\nThe Author of a Sermon, ascrib'd to St. _Augustin_ tells us[291] that\n_Lazarus_ after his Resurrection made a large Report of _Hell_, where\nhe had been: But as this is a mere Fiction of that Author, without the\nleast Authority from Scripture; so I presume it will be accounted a\n_Blunder_ in him, to suppose the Soul of _Lazarus_, the Friend and\nbeloved of _Jesus_, was in Hell. The Soul of _Jesus_ indeed, for\nReasons best known to himself, upon his Death, descended into Hell,\nwhen some think he should rather have gone, with the penitent Thief,\ninto Paradise. But the Thoughts, that any of _Jesus_'s Friends should\ngo to Hell, I suppose will not be born with; or what will become of\nthe Preachers of this Age, who would be accounted Men or that\nDenomination. And if _Lazarus_'s Soul had been in Paradise, it was\nhardly a good Work in _Jesus_ to recall it, for thirty Years\nafterwards, to the Miseries and Troubles of this wicked World. I wish\ntherefore our _Divines_ could determine, where _Lazarus_'s Soul was\nfor the four Days of his Burial; because I can't possibly conceive any\nthing else, than that he was not really dead, or that his Soul dy'd\nwith him, or went to a bad place, otherwise after his Resurrection he\nhad never absconded for fear of the _Jews_, as if he was unwilling to\ndie again, and return to the Place from whence he came.\n\nBut however it was with the Souls of these rais'd Persons before their\nRe-union to their Bodies, here is another Difficulty and Objection\nagainst these Miracles; and how will our _Divines_ get over it?\nPerhaps they may say, that tho' these rais'd Persons were before\nreally dead; yet their Souls were not as yet gone to their Places\nprepared of God for them, but continued hovering about their Bodies,\nlike the Flame about the Snuff of a Candle, with desires\n\n        ----_iterumq; reverti\n      Corpora_----\n\nto be again rejoin'd to them. And withall my Heart let this Answer pass,\nif our _Divines_ and _Infidels_ can so agree upon it. As for my own\nOpinion, it is this, that these Miracles of _Jesus_ are Parables, and\nthat it was beside the Purpose of the Parable, and of the _Evangelists_\nto say any thing of the Place and State of the Soul upon its Separation\nfrom the Body; otherwise the Letter of their Stories is manifestly\nobnoxious to the Objection above, or the Deaths of these pretended\nrais'd Persons, upon Christian Principles, are questionable. But\n\n6. And lastly, Let us consider the intrinsick Absurdities and\nIncredibilities of the several Stories of these three Miracles. And\nsuch Absurdities shall we find in them, that, if they had been\nintended as Testimonies of _Jesus_'s divine Power, had never been\ninserted in their Narratives.\n\nAs to _Jairus_'s Daughter, and her Resurrection from the dead, St.\n_Hilary_[292] hints, that there was no such Person as _Jairus_ whose\nName was fictitious, and coin'd with a spiritual Signification for the\nUse of the Parable; and he gives this Reason, and a good Reason it is,\nwhy he thought so, because it is elsewhere[293] intimated in the\nGospel, that none of the Rulers of the Synagogues confessedly believed\non _Jesus_. Is not here then a stumbling-Block at the Threshold of the\nLetter of this Story? But why did _Jesus_ say, this Girl was but in a\nSleep? If he was going to work a Miracle in her Resuscitation, he\nshould not have call'd Death, _Sleep_; but if others had been of a\ncontrary Opinion, he should first have convinced them of the Certainty\nof her Death, before he did the great Work on her. And why did he\ncharge the Parents of the Girl not to speak of the Miracle? If he\nmeant it as Testimony of his divine Power, he should rather have\nexhorted them, in justice to himself to publish it, and make it well\nknown. And why, as St. _Ambrose_[294] puts the Question, did he turn\nthe People out of the House, before he would raise her? The more\nWitnesses are present at a Miracle, the better it is attested, and the\nmore readily believed by others; and who should be present at the\nMiracle rather than those who were incredulous of _Jesus_'s divine\nPower? Are not all these Circumstances, so many _Absurdities_, which,\nif they are not to be accounted for in the _Mystery_, are so far\ndestructive of the _Letter_, as that it is Nonsense and Folly in our\n_Divines_ to talk of a Miracle here, against _Jesus_'s express Word\nand Prohibition to the contrary.\n\nAs to the Story of the Widow of _Naim_'s Son, excepting what is before\nobserved of the shortness of the Time, in which he lay dead, and of\nthe Unfitness of his Person to be rais'd before an Husband and Father\nof a Family, to the Comfort of his Wife and Children, (which are\nenough to overthrow the Credulity of the Miracle) I have here no more\nFault to find in the Letter of it.\n\nBut the long Story of _Lazarus_ is so brimful of Absurdities, that, if\nthe Letter alone is to be regarded; St. _John_, who was then above a\nhundred, when he wrote it, had lived beyond his Reason and Senses, or\nhe could not have committed them.\n\nI have not Room here to make Remarks on all these Absurdities, which\nwould be the Work of a Volume; but shall single out three or four of\nthem at present, reserving the rest for another Opportunity, when the\nwhole Story of this Miracle will appear to be such a Contexture of\nFolly and Fraud in its Contrivance, Execution, and Relation, as is not\nto be equall'd in all Romantick History; and our _Divines_ will find\nthemselves so distress'd upon the Dissection and Display of it, as\nthat they must of Necessity allow this Story to be but a Parable; or,\nwhat's most grievous to think on, give up their Religion upon it.\n\n_First_ then, observe that _Jesus_ is said to have _wept_ and\n_groan'd_ for the Death of _Lazarus_: But why so, says[295] St.\n_Basil_? Was not this an _Absurdity_ to weep at all for the Death of\nhim, whom he could, and was about to recover to Life again? Another\nMan may as reasonably grieve for the Absence of his Friend, whose\nCompany and Presence he can retrieve in an Instant, as that _Jesus_\nshould shed Tears for _Lazarus_ in this Case. If _Jesus_ could not or\nwould not raise him from the dead, he ought not, as a Philosopher, who\nknows Man is born to die, to betray so much Weakness as to weep for\nhim. Patience and Resignation unto God upon the Death of our dearest\nFriends and Relations is what all Philosophers have rightly taught;\nand _Jesus_, one would think, should have been the most Heroical\nExample of these Graces; and how came he to fail of it here? A Stoical\nApathy had better became him than such childish and effeminate Grief,\nwhich not only makes him a mean and poor-spirited Mortal; but is a\ngross _Absurdity_ and _Incredibility_ upon Consideration of his Will\nand Power to fetch _Lazarus_ to Life again. If there be not,\naccording to the Fathers, Mystery in these Tears of _Jesus_, they are\na foolish and unnatural Prelude to a Farce, he was acting in the\npretended Resuscitation of _Lazarus_.\n\nSome antient Catholicks, not being apprised of the Mystery, were so\noffended at these Words, _Jesus wept_, that, as _Epiphanius_[296]\nsays, they expung'd them out of their Bibles; and I wonder, they have\nnot, before now, disturb'd the Faith of Ministers of the Letter, to\nthe utter Rejection of the Miracle.\n\n_Secondly_, Observe that _John_ says, it was with _a loud Voice_, that\n_Jesus_ call'd _Lazarus_ forth out of his Cave. And why, I pray, a\nlouder Voice than ordinary? Was dead _Lazarus_ deafer than _Jairus_'s\nDaughter, or the Widow's Son? Or was his Soul at so great a Distance\nfrom his Body, as he could not hear a still and low Voice? Some such\nsilly Reason as _this_ must be given for this _loud Voice_ here; but\nhow absurd it is according to the Letter, Infidels will judge, till\nChristians can assign a better. The dead can hear the Whisper of the\nAlmighty, if Power go along with it, as soon as the Sound of a\nTrumpet. St. _John_ then should not have written of a _loud Voice_,\nunless he meant to adapt his Story to the Capacities and Conceptions\nof the Vulgar, who have no Apprehensions of God's Power, out of\nsensible and human Representations of it.\n\n_Thirdly_, Because that a Miracle should be well guarded against all\nSuspicion of Fraud, I was thinking to make it an _Absurdity_, that the\nNapkin, before _Jesus_ rais'd _Lazarus_, was not taken from his Face,\nthat the Spectators might behold his mortified Looks, and the miraculous\nChange of his Countenance from Death unto Life. What _Infidels_ think of\nthis Circumstance I know not: I hope it is not with them a Token of\nFraud and Imposture; tho' I must needs say, that if the Fathers did not\nlet me in to the Mystery of the Napkin about _Lazarus_'s Face when\n_Jesus_ call'd him forth, I should not my self like it.\n\n_Fourthly_, and lastly, Observe, St. _John_ says, v. 45. that _many of\nthe Jews, who had seen the Things that Jesus did_ here; _believed on\nhim_; and _some of them_, v. 46. who did not believe, _went their Ways\nto the Pharisees and told them what Things Jesus had done_ in this\npretended Miracle, and how the Business was transacted: Whereupon the\nChief Priests and Pharisees were so far incens'd as v. 53. _from that\nDay forth they took Council together to put him to Death_; and Ch.\nxii. 10. _consulted, that they might put_ Lazarus _also to Death_.\nJesus _therefore_ (and his Disciples and _Lazarus_ fled for it, for\nthey) v. 54. _walk'd no more openly among the Jews_, but _went thence\ninto a Country near to the Wilderness_ (a convenient hiding Place)\n_and there continued with his Disciples_; otherwise in all Probability\nthey had been all sacrificed.\n\nI dare not argue upon these Circumstances, neither would I, for the\nHonour of _Jesus_ have mention'd them; but that my old Friend, the\nJewish _Rabbi_, who help'd me to the Satirical Invective against\n_Jesus_'s Miracle of _turning Water into Wine_, has hence form'd an\nObjection against _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, and sent me a _Letter_\nupon it, desiring me to publish it, and exhort the _Clergy_ to answer\nit; otherwise he would clandestinely hand it about to the Prejudice of\nour Religion: Whereupon I, rather than Christianity should so suffer,\ndo here publish it, and it is as follows.\n\n    \"_Sr._ When we last discours'd on _Jesus_'s Miracles, I promised to\n    send you my Thoughts on _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, which I look upon\n    as a notorious Imposture, and for the Proof of it, need go no\n    farther, than to the Circumstances of its Story, which your\n    _Evangelist_ has related.\n\n     \"If there had been an indisputable Miracle wrought in _Lazarus_'s\n     Resurrection; why were the _Chief-Priests_ and _Pharisees_ so\n     incens'd upon it, as _to take Council to put both Jesus_ and\n     _Lazarus_ to _Death for it_? Where was the Provocation? I can\n     conceive none. Tho' the _Jews_ were ever so canker'd with Malice\n     and Hatred to _Jesus_ before; yet such a most stupendous Miracle\n     was enough to stop their Mouths, and turn their Hearts: Or if their\n     Prejudices against _Jesus_ were insuperable, and they hated him but\n     the more for the Number and Greatness of his Miracles; yet why is\n     poor _Lazarus_, inoffensive _Lazarus_, upon whom this good and\n     great Work was wrought, an Object of their Hatred too? Your\n     _Divines_ are to give a credible and probable Account of this\n     Matter, such a one as will comport with Reason and Sense; or we\n     shall conclude, that it was _Fraud_, detected in this pretended\n     Miracle, which justly provok'd the Indignation of our Ancestors.\n\n     \"To say, what is all you can say, that it was downright Inhumanity,\n     Barbarity and Brutality in the _Jews_ to hate _Lazarus_ as well as\n     _Jesus_, will not do here. Tho' this may pass with many Christians,\n     who are ready to swallow, without chewing, any evil Reports of our\n     Nation; yet it can't go down with reasonable and unprejudic'd Men,\n     who must have other Conceptions of human Nature in all Ages and\n     Nations, than to think it possible, that a Man, in _Lazarus_'s\n     Case, can be hated and persecuted for having had such a good and\n     wonderful Work done on him. And why then was he hated and\n     persecuted? I say, for this, and no other Reason, than because he\n     was a Confederate with _Jesus_ in the wicked Imposture, he was\n     putting upon Mankind.\n\n     \"But supposing, what is never to be granted, that the _Jews_ of old\n     were so inhuman, brutish, and barbarous as to hate and persecute\n     _Lazarus_ as well as _Jesus_ for this Miracle; yet why did _Jesus_\n     and his Disciples, with _Lazarus_, run away and abscond upon it?\n     for they v. 54. _walk'd no more openly among the_ Jews, _but went\n     thence into a Country near to the Wilderness, and there_ Jesus\n     _continued with his Disciples_. Is not here a plain Sign of Guilt\n     and of Fraud? Men, that have God's Cause, Truth and Power on their\n     Side, never want Courage and Resolution to stand to it. And\n     however your Christian _Priests_ may palliate the cowardly and\n     timerous Conduct of _Jesus_ and his Confederates in this Case; yet\n     with me, it's like Demonstration, that there was a discover'd Cheat\n     in the Miracle, or they would undauntedly have faced their Enemies,\n     without Fears And Apprehensions of Danger from them.\n\n     \"Our Ancestors then, who unquestionably detected the Fraud, were in\n     the right on't to prosecute with Severity, the whole Party\n     concern'd in it: And if they had aveng'd the Wickedness of it upon\n     _Lazarus_ as well as they did upon _Jesus_, I should have commended\n     them for it. Whether such a monstrous Imposture, as was this\n     pretended Miracle, happily discover'd does not call aloud for\n     Vengeance and most exemplary Punishment; and whether any Nation of\n     the World would suffer the like with Impunity, let any Man judge.\n\n     \"For all the Reports of your Gospels, it is unnatural to hate a\n     miraculous Healer of Diseases; and there must be somewhat supprest\n     about the Inveteracy of the _Jews_ to _Jesus_, or his healing\n     Power, if it was so great as is imagined, must have reconciled them\n     to him: But that they should hate not only _Jesus_ for raising the\n     dead, but the Person rais'd by him, is improbable, incredible, and\n     impossible.\n\n     \"If Historians can parallel this Story of the Malignity of the\n     _Jews_ towards _Jesus_ and _Lazarus_ upon such a real Miracle, with\n     any Thing equally barbarous and inhuman, in any other Sect or\n     Nation; we will acknowledge the Truth of it against our ancient\n     Nation: Or if such Inhumanity, abstractedly consider'd, be at all\n     agreeable to the Conceptions any one can form of Human Nature in\n     the most uncivilis'd and brutish People, we will allow our\n     Ancestors, in this Case, to have been that People.\n\n     \"Was such a real and indisputable Miracle, as this of _Lazarus_ is\n     supposed, to be wrought at this day in Confirmation of\n     Christianity, I dare say, it would bring all us _Jews_, to a Man,\n     into the Belief of it: And I don't think it possible, for any\n     People to be so begotten, byass'd, and prejudiced, as not to be\n     wrought on by it. Or if they would not part with their Interests\n     and Prejudices upon it, they would have more Wit and Temper, than\n     to break forth into a Rage against all or any of the Persons\n     concern'd in it. And, for my Life, I can entertain no worse\n     Thoughts of our old Nation.\n\n     \"Supposing God should send an Ambassador at this day, who, to\n     convince Christians of the Mischiefs and Inconvenience of an\n     _Hireling Priesthood_, should work such a Miracle as was this of\n     _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, in the Presence of a multitude of\n     Spectators; how would your _Bishops_ and _Clergy_ behave themselves\n     upon it? Why, they would be as mute as Fishes; or if they did fret\n     and grieve inwardly for the Loss of their Interests; yet they would\n     have more Prudence (ask them else,) than to show their Anger\n     openly, and persecute both _Agent_ and _Patient_ for it. Wherefore\n     then are they so censorious and uncharitable as to preach and\n     believe another Notion and Doctrine of our Ancestors?\n\n     \"But if a false Prophet, for the subversion of an _Hireling\n     Priesthood_, should, in spite to the _Clergy_, counterfeit such a\n     Miracle, and be detected in the Operation; how then would Priests\n     and People, Magistrates and Subjects behave upon it? Why, they\n     would be full of Indignation, and _from that day forth would take\n     Council to put_ the Impostor and his Confederate to Death, of which\n     they would be most deserving; and if they did not abscond and fly\n     for it, like _Jesu_ and his Disciples _to a Wilderness in the\n     Country_ to hide themselves, the Rage of the Populace would hardly\n     wait the Leisure of Justice to dispatch and make terrible Examples\n     of them. Was not this exactly the Case of _Jesus_'s Imposture in\n     the Resurrection of _Lazarus_; and of the Punishment he was\n     threaten'd with, and afterwards most justly underwent for it?\n\n     \"Mankind may be in some Cases very obdurate, and so hard of Belief,\n     as to stand it out against Sense, Reason and Demonstration: But I\n     will not think worse of our Ancestors than of the rest of Mankind;\n     or that they any more than others would have withstood a clear and\n     indisputable Miracle in _Lazarus_'s Resuscitation. Such a manifest\n     Miracle, let it be wrought for what End and Purpose, we can\n     possibly imagine, would strike Men with Awe and Reverence; and none\n     could hate and persecute the Author of the Miracle; least He who\n     could raise the dead, should exert his Power against themselves,\n     and either wound or smite them dead with it. For which Reason, the\n     Resurrection of _Lazarus_, on the certain Knowledge of our\n     Ancestors, was all Fraud, or they would have reverenc'd and adored\n     the Power of him, that did it.\n\n     \"It may be true, what _John_ says, that _many of the Jews, who had\n     seen the Things that Jesus did, believed on him_, that is, believed\n     that he had wrought here a great Miracle: But who were these? the\n     ignorant and credulous, whom a much less _juggler_ than Mr.\n     _Fawkes_ could easily impos'd on. But on the other hand, it is\n     certain, according to _Christian Commentators_, that _some of them_\n     did not believe the Miracle, but _went their ways to the Pharisees\n     and told them what Things Jesus had done_, that is, told them,\n     after what manner the Intrigue was managed; and complain'd of the\n     Fraud in it. How they came to suspect and discover the Fraud, was\n     not _John_'s Business to relate; and for want of other ancient\n     Memorials, we can only guess at it. Perhaps they discern'd some\n     motion in _Lazarus_'s Body, before the Word of Command, to _come\n     forth_, was given; perhaps they discover'd some Fragments of the\n     Food, that for _four days_ in the Cave, he had subsisted on. But\n     however this was, they could not but take Notice of the _Napkin\n     about his Face_ all the while; which _Jesus_, to prevent all\n     suspicion of Cheat, should have first order'd to be taken off, that\n     his mortify'd Countenance might be view'd, before the miraculous\n     Change of it to Life was wrought. This neglect in _Jesus_ (which I\n     wonder _John_ had no more Wit than to hint at) will be a lasting\n     Objection to the Miracle. _Jesus_ was wiser, than not to be aware\n     of the Objection, which he would have obviated, if he durst, by a\n     Removal of the Napkin, to the satisfaction of all Spectators there\n     present. Because this was not done, we _Jews_ now deny, there was\n     any Miracle wrought; and, whether our Unbelief upon this\n     Circumstance be not well grounded, we appeal to Christian Priests\n     themselves, who must own, that if there was a Miracle here, the\n     Matter was ill conducted by _Jesus_, or foolishly related by his\n     _Evangelist_.\"\n\n     \"It is a sad Misfortune, that attends our modern enquiry after\n     Truth, that there are no other Memorials extant of the Life and\n     Miracles of _Jesus_, than what are written by his own Disciples.\n     Not only old Time has devour'd, but Christians themselves, (which\n     in the Opinion of the impartial makes for us) when they got Power\n     into their Hands, wilfully destroy'd many Writings of our\n     Ancestors, as well as of _Celsus_ and _Porphiry_ and others, which\n     they could not answer; otherwise I doubt not but they would have\n     given us clear Light into a the Imposture of _Lazarus_'s\n     Resurrection: But if _Jesus_, according to his own _Evangelists_,\n     was arraign'd for a _Deceiver_ and _Blasphemer_, in pretending to\n     the Sonship and Power of God by his Miracles; in all Probability\n     this Piece of Fraud in _Lazarus_ was one Article of the Indictment\n     against him; and what makes it very likely, is that the _Chief\n     Priests_ and _Pharisees_, from the Date of this pretended Miracle,\n     _took Council together to put him to Death_, not clandestinely or\n     tumultuously to murder him, but judicially to punish him with\n     Death, which, if they proved their Indictment by credible and\n     sufficient Witnesses, he was most worthy of.\n\n     \"As it is plain from the Story in _John_, that there was a Dispute\n     among the By-standers at _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, whether it was a\n     real Miracle or not; so it is the Opinion of us _Jews_, which is of\n     the Nature of a Tradition, that the _Chief-Priests_ and civil\n     Magistrates of _Bethany_, for the better Determination of the\n     Dispute and quieting of the Minds of the People, requir'd that\n     _Jesus_ should re-act the Miracle upon another Person, there lately\n     dead and buried. But _Jesus_ declining this Test of his Power, the\n     whole Multitude of Believers as well as of Unbelievers before,\n     question'd the Resurrection of _Lazarus_; and were highly incens'd\n     against both him and _Jesus_ for the Deceit in it. And this was\n     _one_ Reason among others of that vehement and Universal Outcry and\n     Demand, at _Jesus_'s Tryal, for his Crucifixion. I'll not answer\n     for the Certainty of this Tradition or Opinion, but as the\n     Expedient was obvious, so it has the Face of Truth and Credibility;\n     and for the Proof of it, I need only appeal to Christian _Priests_\n     and _Magistrates_; whether, under a Dispute of a Miracle of that\n     Consequence, they would not require, for full Satisfaction, it\n     should be acted over again; and, if the _Juggler_ refused, whether\n     there would not be a general Clamour of People of all Ranks for his\n     _Execution_.\n\n     \"_Matthew_, _Mark_ and _Luke_, who knew as much of this\n     Sham-Miracle as _John_, had not the Confidence to report it;\n     because, when they wrote, many Eye-Witnesses of the Fraud were\n     alive to disprove and contradict them; therefore they confined\n     their Narratives to _Jesus_'s less juggling Tricks, that had pass'd\n     more current: But after the _Jewish_ State was dissolved, their\n     judicial Records were destroy'd, and every Body dead that could\n     confute him, _John_ ventures abroad the Story of this Miracle; and\n     if the good Providence of God had not infatuated him, in the\n     Insertion of the Circumstances here observed, it might have pass'd\n     through all Generations to come, as well as it has done for many\n     past, for a grand Miracle.\n\n     \"Thus, _Sir_, have you a few of my Thoughts on the pretended\n     Miracle of _Lazarus_'s Resurrection. I have more to bestow on it,\n     but that I would not be tedious. There's no need to argue against\n     the other two Resurrection-Stories. You know _omne majus includit\n     minus_, and if the greatest of the three Miracles be an Imposture,\n     the two less ones of Consequence are Artifice and Fraud. And rather\n     than the Miracle of _Lazarus_ shall stand its Ground, I'll have\n     t'other Bout at it from some other Circumstances; the Consideration\n     of which will make it as foolish and wicked an Imposture, as ever\n     was contrived and transacted in the World; such a _wicked\n     Imposture_ of most pernicious Consequence to the Welfare of the\n     Publick, that it is no Wonder, the People, by an unanimous Voice,\n     call'd for the Releasement of _Barabbas_, a Robber and Murderer,\n     before _Jesus_. I don't suppose these Arguments against this\n     Miracle will be convincing of your Christian _Clergy_, who are\n     hired to the Belief of it. But however, a _Bishop_ of many\n     _thousands_ a Year to believe, can't in Conscience deny, that the\n     Arguments above are a sufficient Justification of our _Jewish_\n     Disbelief of it.\n\n     \"If you, Sir, should write a Discourse gainst the Letter of the\n     Story of _Jesus_'s Resurrection, I beg of you to accept of a few of\n     my Conceptions on that Head, which, I promise you, shall be out of\n     the common Road of thinking. Your _Divines_ think they have\n     exhausted that Subject, and absolutely confuted all Objections that\n     can be made against it, but are much mistaken. Sometimes we _Jews_\n     dip into their Writings on this Head, and always smile with\n     Indignation at their foolish Invectives against the Blindness of\n     the Eyes, and Hardness of the Hearts of our Ancestors. If they\n     would but favour us with a Liberty to write for our selves, a\n     reasonable Liberty, which in this Philosophical Age we don't\n     despair of, especially under so wise just and good a Civil\n     Administration, as this Nation is happily bless'd with, we would\n     cut them out some more Work, which they are not aware of. In the\n     mean Time I am your assured Friend,\"\n\n                                                   _N.N._\n\nSo ends the Letter of my Friend, the _Jewish Rabbi_, which consists of\n_calm_ and _sedate_ Reasoning, or I would not have publish'd it; for I\nam resolv'd he shall no more impose upon me with his ludicrous and\nbantering Stuff, like his Satirical Invective against _Jesus_'s\nMiracle of _turning Water into Wine_, so offensive to our Godly\n_Bishops_. And because it consists of _calm_ and _sedate_ Reasoning,\nwhich _Bishop Smalbroke_ allows of, I hope his _Lordship_ will take it\ninto Consideration, and write an Answer to it, which I, without the\nHelp of the Mystery, can't do.\n\nIf the foresaid _Letter_ be offensive to our _Clergy_, who don't judge\nit meet that the _Jews_ should take this Liberty to write against the\nMiracles of our Saviour, and in Vindication of their own disbelief of\nChristianity, I beg of them, for the Love of _Jesus_, not to let their\nDispleasure be visibly seen; because the _Jews_ will then laugh in their\nSleeves, and perhaps openly insult and triumph upon it: But if they will\nprivately acquaint me with their Displeasure at it, I'll promise them\nto hold no more Correspondence with such _Jewish Rabbies_; neither will\nI ever hereafter publish any other Objections against _Christ_'s\nReligion and Miracles, than what come from the _Hotentots_ and\n_Pawawers_: and then it will be strange, if our dignified _Clergy_, of\nmost grave and demure Looks, can't solidly confute the worst, that such\nignorant and illiterate People can urge against them.\n\nAnd thus have I done with my Objections against the Letter of these\nthree Miracles. If our _Divines_ shall think there is little or\nnothing of Force in them; then an Answer, which I should be glad to\nsee, may the more easily be made to them. As for my part, without\nbeing conceited of the Acuteness and Strength of any of the\nObjections, I think it impossible satisfactorily to reply to them,\nwithout having Recourse to the Opinions of the Fathers, that these\nthree Miracles, whether they were ever litterally transacted or not,\nare now but emblematical Representations of mysterious and more\nwonderful Operations to be perform'd by _Jesus_.\n\nTo the Fathers then let us go for their mystical Interpretation of\nthese Miracles. St. _Augustin_, in his Introduction to a Sermon on the\nWidow of _Naim_'s Son, says[297] thus, \"There are some so silly as to\nstand amazed at the corporal Miracles of _Jesus_, and have no\nConsideration of his greater and spiritual Miracles, signified by\nthem: but others who are wiser can hear of the Things that _Jesus_ did\non Men's Bodys, without being astonish'd at them, chusing rather to\ncontemplate with Admiration his more wonderful Works on Men's Souls;\nafter the similitude of bodily Miracles. And these are the Christians\nthat conform their Studies to the Will of our Lord; who would have his\ncorporal Miracles, spiritually interpreted: For He wrought not\nMiracles in the Flesh, for the sake of such Miracles abstractedly\nconsider'd; but that, if they were surprising to some Mens Senses,\nthey should be more astonishing to the Understanding of others, who\napprehend the spiritual Meaning of them. And they who by Contemplation\ncan attain to the mystical Signification of _Jesus_'s Miracles, are\nthe best Scholars and most learn'd Disciples in his Church and School.\nAnd, (_speaking of the Absurdity of Jesus's cursing the Figtree\naccording to the Letter_) presently after says, that this he observ'd,\nthat he might persuade his Hearers to think, that our Lord _Jesus_\ntherefore wrought Miracles, that he might signify somewhat by them,\nwhich he would have his Disciples to learn and consider of. Come now,\n_says he_, and let us see what we are mistically and spiritually to\nunderstand by the Stories of the three Persons rais'd from the dead.\"\n\nThere are two Ways, that the Fathers took in the moral and mystical\nInterpretation of these Miracles: One was from the Number _three_, and\ntheir Difference in Magnitude. According to which they said with St.\n_Augustin_[298] that these three sorts of dead Persons, so rais'd to\nLife, are Figures of three sorts of Sinners, whom _Jesus_ raiseth from\nthe death of Sin to the Life of Righteousness. They who have conceiv'd\nSin in their Hearts, and have not brought it forth into Act; are\nfigured by _Jairus_'s Daughter, who lay dead in the House of her\nFather, and was not taken forth to her Burial. Others, who after\nCogitation and Consent, pass into actual Sin are figured by the Young\nMan, carried towards his Grave. But those Sinners, who are habituated\nand long accustom'd to Sin, are like _Lazarus_ bury'd, and in a\nstinking Condition under the Corruption of it; whom _Jesus_, for all\nthat, with the _loud Voice_ of the Pr\u00e6dication of his Gospel, will\ncall forth out of the Death and Grave of their Sins to a new Life. So\ndoes St. _Augustin_ make these three dead Persons and their\nResurrections, Emblems of the said three Sorts of Sinners, who are\ndead in Trespasses and Sins, and by the Power of _Jesus_ quicken'd to\na Life of Righteousness. And to this Opinion of St. _Augustin_, do St.\n_Ambrose_, _Eusebius Gallicanus_, and Venerable _Bede_ agree. And\naccording to this Notion of these Miracles they descend to a\nparticular Explication of the several Parts of their Stories. As to\ngive you two or three Instances.\n\nThe People who were turn'd out of the House, upon the raising of\n_Jairus_'s Daughter, which is an _Absurdity_ according to the _Letter_\nare, says[299] _Bede_, a Multitude of wordly and wicked Thoughts,\nwhich, except they are excluded from the Secrets of the Heart, are a\nHindrance of the Resurrection of a Sinner to a new Life.\n\nThe Bearers of the Young Man[300] to his Burial are Vices, evil\nSpirits, H\u00e6reticks, and Seducers; and the _Widow_, his Mother, to whom\nhe was restored, is the _Church_, who mourns for the Death of such\nSinners, as are typified by that Young Man.\n\n_Jesus_'s _weeping_ for dead _Lazarus_, which is an _Absurdity_\naccording to the _Letter_, is a Sign[301] of the deplorable State,\nthat habitual Sinners are in, enough to excite the Sorrows and\nMournings of good Christians, who have the Spirit of _Christ_, for\nthem. And the Stone that lay at the Grave of _Lazarus_, is[302] a\nfigure of the Hardness of the Heart of such a Sinner which must be\ntaken away before _Jesus_ will call him to a new Life. So do the\nFathers moralise and allegorise every Minute Circumstance of these\nthree Miracles, as any one, who will consult them, may find, and save\nme the Trouble of a tedious Recital of their Authorities.\n\nBut the other mystical Way of interpreting these three Miracles is by\nmaking them Types of three great Events at the Time of _Christ_'s\nspiritual Advent. Accordingly the raising of _Jairus_'s Daughter is a\nType of the Conversion of the _Jews_ at that Day, as _Eusebius\nGallicanus_[303] and venerable _Bede_[304] and others expound it. By\n_Jairus_, the Ruler of a _Synagogue_; is meant _Moses_[305]; and by\nhis Daughter is to be understood the _Jewish Church_, which, being at\npresent in a State of Spiritual Death, will be revived and converted\nin the Perfection of Time. And to the mystical Resurrection or\nRestitution of the _Jewish Synagogue_, call'd _Jairus_'s Daughter,\nwill _Jesus_ come[306] at the same Time he heals the Woman of the\nChurch of her Issue of Blood. And this is the Reason that the Stories\nof these two Miracles are blended together by the _Evangelists_, with\ntheir synchronical Numbers of the Age of the _Girl_ and of the Disease\nof the Woman; because they are Types of that blessed Scene of Affairs\nat the Conversion of the _Jews_, when the Fulness of the _Gentiles_ is\ncome in. Concerning which blessed state of the Church, _Origen_[307]\nsays, _Jesus_ wrought many Miracles, by Way of Type and Figure.\n\nAmong all the Miracles that _Jesus_ wrought, and are recorded by the\n_Evangelists_, I think, as far as I have had Occasion to observe, the\nFathers are most scanty in their Interpretations of that of the Widow\nof _Naim_'s Son: Excepting what is before noted of his being a figure of\na Sinner dead in actual, tho' not habitual Sin, I find very little. But\nif _Origen_'s Comments on this Miracle had been extant, I dare say he\nwould have given us this following Interpretation of it. This Widow, he\nwould have call'd the Church; and her _only Son_ or masculine Offspring,\nhe would have call'd the _Spiritual Sense_ of the Scriptures, which is\nnow dead, and that the _Ministers_ of the _Letter_, who are his Bearers,\nare for interring him within the _Earth_ of the _Letter_: But _Jesus_,\nupon his Spiritual Advent will put a stop to the Intention of such\nBearers, by reviving the _Spiritual Sense_ of the Scriptures; and by\nrestoring it, like a _quicken'd Son_, to the Comfort of his Mother, the\nChurch; who has been in a sorrowful and lamentable Condition upon the\nDeath and Want of it: This, I am sure, would be _Origen_'s\nInterpretation of this Miracle, which, if I had Room here, by a little\nCircumlocution, I could prove.\n\nAs to _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, it is in the Opinion of the Fathers[308]\na Type of the general and mystical Resurrection of Mankind in the\nPerfection of Time. But this is a most copious Subject; and unless I\ncould here throughly handle it, I had much better say nothing.\n\nAnd thus have I done with the three Resurrection Stories. If the\n_Convocation_, next Session, would determine by an Orthodox Vote,\nwhether _Jesus_ rais'd any more, than the said three Persons, from the\ndead or not; I would present them with a new and more entertaining Chain\nof Thoughts against these Miracles; such a Chain of Thoughts, as, upon\nthe Conclusion, let them hold which Side of the Question, they please,\nwill necessarily induce us to hold the mystical Meaning of these\nMiracles, or to grant that _Jesus_ rais'd none from the dead at all.\n\nMy next and last _Discourse_ on _Jesus_'s Miracles shall be against\nthe Letter of the Story of his own Resurrection, in which, if our\n_Bishops_ will keep their Temper and Patience, till I publish it, I'll\ncut out such a Piece of Work for our _Boylean Lectures_, as shall\nhold them tug, so long as the _Ministry_ of the _Letter_ and an\n_Hireling Priesthood_ shall last. If _Christ be not risen_, then,\naccording to the Inference of St. _Paul_, _is their Preaching vain_;\nand why should the People be any longer charg'd with the Maintenance\nof an ignorant and idle Order of Men, to no Use and Purpose?\n\nIf I had not had Experience of it, I could never have believed that, for\nall the ludicrous Nature of these _Discourses_, our _dignified Clergy_\ncould have been so foolish or malicious as to prosecute me for an\n_Infidel_ and _Blasphemer_ upon them. How a Man may be mistaken in\nhimself! I took my self for a real Advocate for the Truth of\nChristianity; and was so vain as to imagine these Discourses tended to a\nDemonstration of _Jesus_'s Messiahship: And tho' the _Bishop_ of\n_London_ may be of a contrary Opinion, yet I am still so conceited of my\nAbility to defend our Religion, that I'll stake my Life against his\n_Bishoprick_, which I'll not be troubled with, if I win it, that he\ncan't form an Objection against Christianity, which I can't solidly\nconfute, and make our Readers merry too, with his Weakness and\nImpertinence in it. But perhaps it may be unbecoming of his Lordship's\nCharacter, and against the Grain, to make an Objection to that\nReligion, which he finds much _temporal_, as well as some _spiritual_\nComfort in the Profession of; I will therefore descend to another\nProposal, _viz._ If he'll but publish an Answer to the _Jewish Rabbi_'s\nLetter in this Discourse, and vouchsafe me the pleasure of a Reply to\nhim; then (to save the Civil Magistrate's Trouble) I will suffer any\nPunishment that in his Clemency he shall think fit to inflict on me, for\nwhat's past. Oh, what a Hazard do I here run of Life or Liberty!\n\nSome Christians, in my Case, would think it a sad Misfortune to be\nodiously represented as an _Infidel_ and _Blasphemer_; but I, in\nTemper and Principle, despise such Obloquies, Slanders and\nDefamations; and would not give a Rush to remove them, so long as I\nhad the Answer of a good Conscience that I was undeserving of them:\nBut considering, that it is the Duty of a Christian to seek the Peace\nand Friendship of all about him, and especially of our good _Bishops_,\nwho, in Compassion to the Danger they think my Soul is in, have taken\nzealous and laudable Pains with the _Civil Magistrate_ for my\nConviction and Conversion; I do here, for the sake of a Reconciliation\nwith their _Lordships_ and other good People, make a formal and\nsolemn Confession of my Christian Faith, which tho' I don't express in\nthe Words of the _Apostical_, _Nicene_ or _Athanasian_ Creeds; yet\nwill do it in such Terms as will be a Demonstration that at the Bottom\nI am found as a _Roch_. Be it known then to all Christian People, that\n\n_Imprimis_, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the\nMinistry of the Letter of the _Old_ and _New_ Testament is downright\n_Antichristianism_.\n\n_Item_, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Miracles\nof _Jesus_, as they are recorded by the Evangelists, _litterally_\nunderstood, are the _lying Wonders_ of Antichrist.\n\n_Item_, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that all opposition\nand Contradiction to spiritual and allegorical Interpretations of the\nScripture, is the Sin of _Blasphemy_ against the Holy Ghost.\n\n_Item_, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the\n_Ministry_ of the _Spirits_ or allegorical Interpretations of the Law\nand the Prophets will be the Conversion of _Jews_ and _Gentiles_.\n\n_Item_, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the\n_Ministry_ of the _Letter_, and an Hireling-Priesthood have been the\nCause of the Infidelity and Apostacy of these latter Times.\n\n_Item_, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Spirit\nand Power of _Jesus_ will soon enter the Church and expel\nHireling-Priests, who make Merchandise of the Gospel, out of her,\nafter the manner he is suppos'd to have driven the _Buyers_ and\n_Sellers_ out of the Temple.\n\nThese are a few Articles of that Faith, once deliver'd to the _Saints_\nof the primitive Church, which I firmly believe, and will earnestly\ncontend for. Now I appeal to the Christian World, whether a Man of\nsuch a Faith, like Heart of Oak, can be an Infidel or Blasphemer. Upon\nthis ingenuous Confession of my Faith, which I make by way of\nAtonement for my past supposed Errors and Offences, I hope the\n_Bishops_ and all good Christian People will be reconciled to me.\n\nSt. _James_ says, that _Faith without Works is dead_, and how a Man\nought to show his Faith by his Works, without which Faith is an empty\nand airy Nothing. Accordingly I am making what haste I can to show the\nSincerity of my Faith by these my _Works_ and _Discourses_ of this\nKind. And by the Grace of God, I hope our Bishops will find me as\nunmoveable as a Rock in the said Faith.\n\nAccording to the foresaid Articles of this my Faith, I am so fully\nconvinced, not only of the Error of the _Ministry_ of the _Letter_,\nbut of the Mischiefs and Inconveniences of an _Hireling-Priesthood_,\nthat, having set my Shoulders to the Work, I am resolv'd, by the Help\nof God, to endeavour to give _both_ a Lift out of this World. This is\nfair and generous Warning to our _Clergy_ to sit fast, and look to\ntheir own Safety, or they may find me a stronger Man than they may be\naware of. And tho' I don't expect long to survive the Accomplishment\nof so great and glorious a Work; yet I am delightfully ravish'd and\ntransported with the Forethought and Contemplation of the Happiness of\nMankind, upon the Extinction of Ecclesiastical _Vermin_, out of God's\nHouse; when the World will return to its _Primogenial_ and\n_Paradisaical_ State of Nature, Religion and Liberty; in which we\nshall be _all taught of God_, and _have no need_ of a foolish and\ncontentious Priest, hired to harangue us with his Noise and Nonsense.\nWhich blessed State of the World God of his infinite Mercy hasten, for\nthe sake of our Spiritual Messiah, Mediator and Redeemer _Jesus\nChrist_. To whom be Glory for ever, _Amen_.\n\n\n                               ~_FINIS._~\n\n[Illustration]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[270] Mat. ix. Mark v. Luke viii.\n\n[271] Luke vii.\n\n[272] John xi.\n\n[273] Quot autem mortuos visibiliter suscitaverat quis novit? non enim\nomnia qu\u00e6 fecit scripta sunt. _Johannes_ hoc dicit, multa alia fecit\nJesus, qu\u00e6 si scripta essent, arbitror totum Mundum non posse Libros\ncapere. Multi ergo sunt alii sino dubio suscitati, sed non frustra\ntres commemorati. _In Serm._ xcviii.\n\n[274] John xxi. 25.\n\n[275] Non autem vacat a Mysterio, quod, cum plures Dominus\nsuscitaverat, tres tantum Evangelist\u00e6 eum suscitasse scripserunt. _In\nHomil. Feri\u00e6 quint\u00e6 post Dominis. 4tam._\n\n[276] Suscitaverat Dominus filiam Jairi Principis Synagog\u00e6, sed adhuc\nmediante morte, adhuc viante Spiritu, adhuc Anima Claustra Tartari\nnesciente. Suscitavit & unicum Matris filium, sed sic ut retineret\nPheretrum, ut anticiparet Sepulchrum, ut Corruptionem suspenderet, &\npr\u00e6veniret f\u00e6torem; ut ante mortuo Vitam redderet, quam tota mortuus\njura Mortis intraret. Circa Lazarum vero quod geritur totum singulare\nest, quem circa Vis tota Mortis impleta est. _In Pet. Chrysol. Serm._\nlxiii.\n\n[277] Inter omnia Miracula qu\u00e6 fecit Dominus noster Jesu Christus,\nLazari Resurrectio pr\u00e6cipue pr\u00e6dicatur. _St. August. in Loc. Johan._\n\n[278] Mirum videri potest Historiam hanc tam illustrem a Matth\u00e6o &\nMarco omissam. _In Loc. Luc._\n\n[279] Sed videtur mihi horum uterq; contentus fuisse uno Exemplo\nreddit\u00e6 Vit\u00e6 in Jairi filia ex quo similia alia possunt intelligi. _In\nLoc. Luc._\n\n[280] Nondum perfecta Mors est in Puella. _St. August._ in Serm. xcviii.\n\n[281] In Epist. prima ad Corinth. Cap. xxv.\n\n[282] Qu\u00e6ri solet, cur hanc tam nobilem Historiam priores Evangelii\nscriptores non attigerint. Mihi hoc succurrit, cum illi scriberent,\nvixisse resuscitatum Lazarum, & periculum ei fuisse a jud\u00e6is, si quod\nilli acciderat, palam vulgaretur. Nam etiam mox narratur C. xii. 10, ob\nhoc ipsum structas ei insidias. Quare visum illis hoc ad tempus\nsubticeri posse, cum alia Exempla resuscitatorum suppeterent. At mortuo\nLazaro, cum jam nemini Periculum ex rei Narratione fieri posset, additum\nhoc a Johanne in hac quasi pr\u00e6termissorum Collectione. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[283] The last of the three _Evangelists_ writing but fifteen Years\nafter our Lord's Ascension, might think it needless so mention a\nMiracle concerning a Person, living so near _Jerusalem_, where there\nwas so great a Fame thereof, and so many living Witnesses. St. _John_,\nwriting his Gospel, say the Ancients, above sixty Years after our\nLord's Ascension, when by the Deaths of the Person, and most of the\nWitnesses that were present at his Resurrection, the Memory and Fame\nof it might be much impair'd, had great Reason to perpetuate the\nMemory of it, by this large Rehearsal of it. _In Loc. Johan._\n\n[284] Quin & illud inter traditiones reperimus triginta tum Annos\nnatum fuisse Lazarum, cum a mortuis excitatus est; atq; idem ille\npostea triginta aliis annis vixit. _In H\u00e6res._ lxvi. _Sect._ 34.\n\n[285] Matt. xviii. 2.\n\n[286] In Nicephor. Callist. Eccl. Hist. L. ii. c. 35.\n\n[287] In Eccl. Hist. L. vii. c. 18.\n\n[288] In Loc. Matth\u00e6i.\n\n[289] Puellam ex illo Tumultu plangentium stupore correptam esse, non\nvero defunctam. _In Homil. de Juri filia._\n\n[290] In Loc. Matth\u00e6.\n\n[291] Atque ut miraculum divin\u00e6 Virtutis accresceret, dum Convivis\ninterrogantibus tristia Loca p\u00e6narum, sedesq; alta nocte semper\nobscuras, Lazarus indicat diligenti narratione per ordinem. Diu\nqu\u00e6siti longisq; temporibus ignorati invenerunt tandem Inferi\nProditotem. _In Serm._ cxvi. _Append. St. August._\n\n[292] Princeps hic, Lex esse intelligitur, qu\u00e6 Dominum orat pro Plebe,\nquam ipsa Christo pr\u00e6dicata ejus Adventos Expectatione nutriverat, ut\nVitam mortu\u00e6 reddat. Nam nullum Principem credidisse legimus, ex quo\nPersona hujus principis orantis merito in Typum aptabitur. _In Loc.\nMatt._\n\n[293] John vii. 48, and xii. 42.\n\n[294] Qu\u00e6 tamen tant\u00e6 diversitatis Causa? Supra publice Viduce filius\nsuscitatur, hic removentur plures arbitri. _In Loc. Luc._\n\n[295] Qua igitur Ratione, qui tanta h\u00e6c erat facturus, id quod evenit,\njudicasset merito Lacrymis esse prosequendum? _In Homil. de Gratiarum\nActione._\n\n[296] _Lacrymatus est Jesus_, quod aliquando erasum fuisse a\nCatholicis quibusdam scribit Epiphanius. Vid. _Drusium in Loc. Johan._\n\n[297] Quidam corporalia ejus Miracula stupentes, majora intueri non\nnorunt. Quidam vero ea, qu\u00e6 gesta audiunt in Corporibus nunc amplius\nin Animis admirantur.----Dominus enim noster Jesus Christus ea qu\u00e6\nfaciebat corporaliter, etiam spiritaliter volebat intelligi; neque\nenim Miracula propter Miracula faciebat, sed ut illa qu\u00e6 faciebat,\nmira essent Videntibus, vera essent Intelligentibus.----Alii & facta\nmirati & intellecta assecuti. Tales nos esse debemus in Schola\nChristi.----Hoc dixi (de ficu arefacta) ut persuaderem Dominum Jesum\nChristum ideo Miracula fecisse, ut aliquid illis Miraculis\nsignificaret; ut excepto eo, quod mira & magna & divina erant, aliquid\ninde etiam disceremus. Videamus ergo quid nos discere voluit in tribus\nmortuis, quos suscitavit. _In Serm._ xcviii.\n\n[298] Ista tria Genera Mortuorum, sunt tria Genera Peccatorum, quos\nhodie suscitat Christus.----Sunt ergo instar fili\u00e6 Synagog\u00e6 Principis,\nqui peccatum intus in Corde babent, in facto nondum habent. Condemnatur\nConsensus ad Iniquitatem; respiratur ad Salutem atq; Justitiam. Surgit\nmortuus in Domo, reviviscit Cor in Cogitationis Secreto. Facta est ista\nResurrectio Anim\u00e6 mortu\u00e6 intus intra Latebras Conscienti\u00e6, tanquam intra\nDomesticos Parietes.----Alii post Consensum eunt in factum, tanquam\nefferentes mortuum, ut quod latebat in Secreto, appareat in publico.\nNonne illi juveni dictam est, _Tibi dico, surge_ & redditus est Matri;\nsic qui jam fecerit, si forte admonitus & commotus Verbo Veritatis ad\nChristi Vocem resurgit, vivus redditur Ecclesi\u00e6.----Qui autem faciendo\nquod malum est, etiam mala Consuetudine se implicant, tales Consuetudine\nmaligna pressi, tanquam sepulti, ita sepulti ut de Lazaro dictum est,\njam _putet_. In Serm. xcviii.\n\n[299] _Cum ejecta esset Turba, intravit._ Moraliter non resurgit\nAnima, qu\u00e6 intrinsecus jacet mortua, nisi prius a secretioribus Cordis\nexcludatur inopportuna s\u00e6cularium Cogitationum Multitudo. _In Loc.\nMatt._\n\n[300] Mali isti Portitores, qui ad sepeliendum hominem ferunt, sunt\nVitia & maligni spiritas, H\u00e6retici & seductores. Hos enim nisi Dominus\nsisteret, quoscunq; semel acciperent, sepultur\u00e6 & \u00e6tern\u00e6 Damnationi\ntraderent. Suscitatus igitur Adolescens sedet, loquitur & Matri\nredditur, quia ad Penitentiam conversus in Ecclesi\u00e6 pace quiescit, Dei\nMagnalia loquitur, sua peccata confitetur; & Ecclesi\u00e6 reconciliatur.\n_Euseb. Gallic. in Homil. Feri\u00e6 quinta post Domin. 4tam._\n\n[301] _Et lacrymatus est Jesus._ Lacrymemur igitur & nos pro omnibus\nillis, quos in F\u00e6tore Vitiorum jacere sentimus. _Euseb. Gallic. in\nHomil. Feri\u00e6 5ta post Domin. 4tam._\n\n[302] Lapis autem revolutus a Monumento significat Infidelitatis\nDuritiam ab Hominum Corde submotam. _Theop. Antioch. in Loc. Johan._\n\n[303] Quod enim tunc temporis factum est in una Puella, hoc in sine\nTemporum futurum est, ut fiat in tota Sonagoga. _In Homil. Feri\u00e6 5ta\npost Domin. 4tam._\n\n[304] Synagoga circa finem s\u00e6culi erit restituta saluti. _In Loc. Matt._\n\n[305] Jairus illuminatus vel illuminans, Moses intelligitur. _Bed._ in\n_Loc. Mat._\n\n[306] Ad hanc ergo Principis filiam dum properat Dei Verbum, ut salvos\nfaceret filios Isr\u00e6l, sancta Ecclesia de Gentibus congregata, qu\u00e6\ninferiorum Lapsu Criminium deperibat, paratam aliis fide pr\u00e6ripuit\nSanitatem. _St. Ambros. in Loc. Luc._ Quod vero post restitutam\nimmund\u00e6 Mulieri Valetudinem, defuncta Puella a mortuis restituitur; ne\nhoc quidem ab exquisita Allegoria alienum. Nam Reliqui\u00e6 salv\u00e6 fiant,\njuxta Apostolum, cum ingressa fuerit Gentium Plenitudo. _Theop. Ceram.\nin Homil. de Jairi filia._\n\n[307] Quarum Rerum Causa multa fuere Jesu Miracula. _In Johan. Cap. XI._\n\n[308] Per Lazarum Genus humanum ostenditur. _Theop. Antioch. in Loc.\nJohan._ Nostra Resurrectio figuratur per Lazari\nResurrectionem.----Spelunca sive Sepulchrum Lazari Litteram Legis\numbratilem designat.----_Magna Voce clamavit Jesus_, id est, Pr\u00e6dicatio\nEvangelii per quam humana Natura Peccatorum Vinculis & in Sepulchro\nInfidelitatis jacens vocatur ad Vitam. _Theop Ceram. in Homil. de\nLazaro._\n\n\n\n\n    BOOKS _written by Mr._ WOOLSTON, _and Sold by him next Door below\n    the_, Star _in_ Aldermanbury, _and by the Booksellers of_ London\n    _and_ Westminster.\n\n\nI. The old Apology reviv'd, _&c._\n\nII. Dissertatio de Pontii Pilati Epistola ad Tiberium circa Res Jesu\nChristi gestas.\n\nIII. Origenis Adamantii Epistol\u00e6 du\u00e6 circa Fidem vere orthodoxam &\nscripturarum Interpretationem.\n\nIV. The exact Fitness of the Time of Christ's Advent. demonstrated by\nReason, against the Objections of the old Gentiles, and modern\nUnbelievers.\n\nV. Four Free-Gifts to the Clergy, or Challenges to a Disputation on\nthis Question, Whether the Hireling Priests of this Age, who are all\nMinisters of the Letter, be not Worshippers of the Apocalyptical Beast\nand Ministers of Anti-Christ.\n\nVI. An Answer to the said four Free-Gifts.\n\nVII. Two Letters to Dr. _Bennet_, on this question, Whether the People\ncall'd _Quakers_, do not the nearest of any other Sect in Religion,\nresemble the Primitive Christians in Principle and Practice.\n\nVIII. An Answer to the said two Letters.\n\nIX. The Moderator between an Infidel and an Apostate: or the\nControversy between the _Grounds_ and his ecclesiastical Opponents,\nset in a clear Light, _&c._\n\nX. Two Supplements to the Moderator, _&c._\n\nXI. A Defence of the Miracle of the _Thundering Legion_, against a\nDissertation of _Walter Moyle_ Esq.\n\nXII. Five Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour.\n\n\n\n\n                                A SIXTH\n                               DISCOURSE\n                                 ON THE\n                                MIRACLES\n                                 OF OUR\n                               _SAVIOUR_,\n\n               In View of the Present Controversy between\n                 INFIDELS and APOSTATES.\n\n                        _Jamque Opus exegi_,----\n\n                          The SECOND EDITION.\n\n                    By THO. WOOLSTON, B.D. sometime\n               Fellow of _Sidney-College_ in _Cambridge_.\n\n                               _LONDON_:\n                Printed for the AUTHOR, and Sold by him\n                  next Door to the _Star_, in _Aldermanbury_, and\n                  by the Booksellers of _London_ and _Westminster_.\n\n                               MDCCXXIX.\n\n                        [_Price One Shilling._]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                 TO THE\n                     Right Reverend Father in GOD,\n                                 JOHN,\n                        Lord Bishop of _Oxford_.\n\n\nMY LORD,\n\nWhen _the following_ Discourse _was finish'd and ready for the_ Press,\n_I consider'd to what_ Bishop _the_ Dedication _of it would be most\nacceptable_ (_for I am resolv'd that none but_ Bishops _as yet shall\nhave the Honour of my_ Dedications) _and I had not long ponder'd upon\nthe Matter, before I hit upon your_ Lordship, _who must needs be\npleas'd with this_ Discourse, _because of the Advantage, that you, as\nwell as my self, in the End, will reap by it_.\n\nBY _Virtue of your_ Professorship _at_ Oxford, _you_, my Lord, _are a_\nModerator _at theological Disputations, as I am here: And whether the\nExecution of your Office be as troublesome as mine is, I know not: But\nif the Design of this_ Discourse _takes Place, we shall find that\nmodern Controversies about Religion are all vain; and thereupon be_\nboth _of us soon eas'd of the Trouble of our_ Moderations _at them_.\n\nIT _may be_, my Lord, _you are not so weary of your_ Moderatorship,\n_as I am: Besides, that you are better paid for your Pains, your\nDisputants are more amicable, and, in the midst of their Disputes,\nmore tractable: Tho' they may warmly contend, at the present, for and\nagainst the Point in Debate; yet like_ Lawyers _who are no less\nzealous for their_ Clients _in the Day, they commonly agree to drink a\nBottle together at Night, and go to Bed, good Friends. And this is\nvery well done of them._\n\nBUT _my Disputants_, my Lord, _call'd_ Infidels _and_ Apostates, _at\nwhose Controversy I have the Trouble, by the Appointment of the\nFathers, to preside, are more stubborn, turbulent and refractory. What\nill Treatment they would give each other, if it was in their Power, I\nknow not: But my_ Apostates, _since they can't be aveng'd on their\nAdversaries, are full of Resentment against their_ Moderator, _because\nI am not altogether partial to their Side; and how I shall escape\ntheir Indignation, God alone knows_.\n\nWHATEVER _the_ Clergy, my Lord, _whom I dignify with the Title of_\nApostates, _may think, I look upon my self as a notable_ Moderator\n_of the Controversy; I have shewn them all the Favour I can in it, and\nwould have brought them off with Honour, but for a_ little Flaw, _here\ndiscover'd, in the Foundation of their Church, which, for the\nDetermination of our Disputes, must be confess'd and granted_.\n\nIF _your_ Lordship, _upon reading this_ Discourse, _should be of the\nsame Mind with me, I beg of you to stroak the_ Clergy _into Temper,\nPatience and Compliance: Tell them, they have been long orthodox and\nglorious Victors over_ Infidels, _and that it would be now an Act of\nGenerosity to yield to them in a_ small Point; _upon which such a\nPacification would ensue, as nothing hereafter would be able to\ndissolve_.\n\nBUT _I have another Favour_, my Lord, _here to crave of you_, viz.\n_that you would be pleas'd to persuade my old Friend, the_ Bishop _of_\nLondon, _to stay at Home this_ Lent, _and keep to his_ Prayers _and_\nFasting, _for the casting out a certain_ Kind _of ----, that by Fits\nhe's unhapily troubled with; or upon the Publication of this_\nDiscourse, _I shall be in Danger of being soon knapp'd for it_.\n\nIF _your_ Lordship _will do me that Favour, then I will do you as good\na Turn; and praise you for your Doctrine of_ Passive Obedience,\n_preach'd at the_ Coronation: _Tho' many may laugh at your Revival of\nthat Doctrine, saying the_ Clergy _upon an Occasion, which our most\nexcellent_ Sovereign _will never give them, would again have Recourse\nto their_ Reserves _and_ Distinctions; _yet I say it was well done of\nyour_ Lordship _to preach it, that the Tongues and the Hands (to say\nnothing of the Hearts) of the_ Clergy _might go together in\nSubscriptions to_ Articles _and_ Homilies; _and so avoid that\nPrevarication and Inconsistency, which some now have no more Wit than\nto charge them with_.\n\nSO _not questioning your_ Lordship's _Approbation of this_ Discourse\n_and the_ Dedication; _nor doubting but you'll make me as bountiful a\nRecompence for it, as any of my other Episcopal Patrons have done; I\nsubscribe my self_,\n\n[Sidenote: _Feb. 15th 1728-9_]\n\n  My Lord,\n    The Admirer of your\n      Passive Obedience Sermon,\n     _Thomas Woolston_.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                A SIXTH\n                               DISCOURSE\n                                 ON THE\n                                MIRACLES\n                                 OF OUR\n                             _SAVIOUR_, &c.\n\nHere goes my sixth and last _Discourse_ on _Jesus_'s _Miracles_; the\nSubject whereof is the literal Story of his own Resurrection; which,\naccording to the Proposition in Hand, I am to shew to consist of\nAbsurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities. And I hope our\n_Bishops_ will quietly permit the Publication of this _Discourse_,\nespecially if I assure them that I mean nothing worse by it, than to\nmake way for the understanding what the Fathers write of the mystical\nResurrection of _Jesus_ out of the Grave of the Letter of the Law and\nthe Prophets; of which mystical Resurrection of our _spiritual Jesus_,\nthe Evangelical Story of the Resurrection of a _carnal Christ_ is but\nmere Type and Shadow.\n\nI am so far from designing any Service to Infidelity by this\n_Discourse_, that I aim at the Accomplishment of some of St. _John_'s\nApocalyptical Visions. The Fathers say that a _Church_, built on the\nLetter of the Scriptures, particularly on the Letter of _Jesus_'s\nMiracles, is _Babylon_; and that antiliteral Arguments and mystical\nInterpretations will be the Downfal of her. Whether there is any Truth\nin this Opinion of the Fathers, I am minded to make the Experiment;\nand tho' I should bring the old House of the Church over my Head, and\nbe crush'd to Pieces in its Ruins, I can't forbear it: But however, I\nwould advise the _Clergy_ to make Haste and _come out of Babylon_, for\nFear of the worst; or they, who upon the Authority of the Fathers are\n_the Merchants of Babylon_, will _weep_[309] _and mourn_ upon her\nFall, because _none will buy their Merchandize_ of the Letter _any\nmore_. Dear _Jesu_, that such a _Student_ as I am in the _Revelations_\nof St. _John_, and an Interpreter of them too, upon the Authority of\nthe Fathers, should be charg'd with Blasphemy and Infidelity!\n\nSo to Work I went; and I had not been long musing by myself, how to\nsap this Foundation of the Church, before I was sensible of my own\nInsufficiency for it. Whereupon I sent to my old Friend, the _Jewish\nRabbi_, for his Thoughts on this grand Miracle of _Jesus_'s\nResurrection, which he gave me some Promise of. But I desired him to\nforbear all Ludicrousness, Satire and Banter, for fear of Offence: For\ntho' our _Clergy_ liked Volumes of Jests and Facetiousness, if they\nwere discharg'd against _Jews_, _Turks_, and _Infidels_; yet when they\nwere levell'd at _Ministers_ of the _Letter_, the _Case was alter'd_,\nas quoth _Plowden_, and they were not to be borne with. Therefore he\nwas to remember that Decency, Seriousness and Calmness of Argument,\nrequired by the _Bishop_ of _London_[310] or I durst not print it.\n\nIn Compliance with my Desires he sent me the following _Letter_,\nwhich, having purg'd it of a few _Puns_ and _Cunundrums_, because all\nAppearance of _Wit_, as of _Evil_, was to be abstain'd from, I here\npublish, and it runs thus.\n\n_SIR_,\n\nAccording to your Request, I here send you my Thoughts on _Jesus_'s\nResurrection, in which I shall be shorter than I would be, because of\nthe customary Bounds of your _Discourses_.\n\nThe Controversy between us _Jews_ and you _Christians_ about the\n_Messiah_ has hitherto been of a diffusive Nature: But as the Subject of\n_this_ is the Resurrection of your _Jesus_; so, by my Consent, we'll now\nreduce the Controversy to a narrow Compass, and let it turn intirely on\nthis grand Miracle and Article of your Faith. If your _Divines_ can\nprove _Jesus_'s Resurrection against the following Objections, then I\nwill acknowledge him to be the _Messiah_, and will turn Christian,\notherwise he must still pass with us for an Impostor and false Prophet.\n\nI have often lamented the Loss of such Writings, which our _Ancestors_\nunquestionably dispers'd against _Jesus_, because of the clear Sight\nthey would give us, into the Cheat and Imposture of his Religion. But\nI rejoice and thank God, there is little or no Want of them, to the\nPoint in Hand. For I had not long meditated on the Story of _Jesus_'s\nResurrection, as your _Evangelists_ have related it, but I plainly\ndiscern'd it to be the most notorious and monstrous Imposture, that\never was put upon Mankind. And if you please to attend to my following\nArguments, which require no Depth of Judgment and Capacity to\napprehend, I am persuaded that you and every one disinterested, will\nbe of the same Mind too.\n\nTo overthrow and confute the Story of this monstrous and incredible\nMiracle, I was thinking once to premise an Argument of the Justice of\nthe Sentence denounc'd against and executed upon _Jesus_, who was so\nfar from being the innocent Person, you Christians would make of him,\nthat, as may easily be proved, he was so grand a _Deceiver_,\n_Impostor_ and _Malefactor_, as no Punishment could be too great for\nhim. But this Argument (which I reserve against a Day of perfect\nLiberty, to publish by it self in Defence of the Honour and Justice of\nour _Ancestors_) would be too long for the Compass of this Letter; and\ntherefore I pass it by, tho' it would give Force to my following\nObjections; it being hard and even impossible to imagine, that God\nwould vouchsafe the Favour of a miraculous Resurrection to one, who\nfor his Crimes deservedly suffer'd and underwent Death.\n\nBut waving, I say, that Argument for the present, which of itself\nwould be enough to prejudice a reasonable Man against the Belief of\n_Jesus_'s Resurrection; I will allow _Jesus_ to have been a much\nbetter Man, than I believe him to have been; or as good a one in\nMorals as your _Divines_ do suppose him; and will only consider the\nCircumstances of the Evangelical Story of his Resurrection; from\nwhich, if I don't prove it to have been the most bare-fac'd Imposture\nthat ever was put upon the World, I deserve for the Vanity of this\nAttempt, a much worse Punishment, than he for his Frauds endured.\n\nI have sometimes wonder'd, considering the Nature and Heinousness of\n_Jesus_'s Faults, for which he dy'd, that our _Chief Priests_ and\n_Pharisees_ had any Regard to his Prediction (which was so like a\nBambouzlement of the Populace) that he was to rise again the _third Day_\nafter his Crucifixion. There's no other Nation in the World, which would\nnot have slighted such a vain Prognostication of a known Impostor. Let\nhim foretell with ever so much Confidence his speedy Return to Life, I\ndare say, any other Magistrates of ordinary Prudence would have despised\nhim for a presumptuous _Enthusiast_: But, when I reflected on the\nImposture of _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, and of what pernicious\nConsequence it had like to have proved to the Peace and Welfare of our\nNation, if it had not been happily discover'd, my Wonder here ceas'd;\nand I as much admire now the Wisdom, Caution and Circumspection of our\n_Chief Priests_ against all possible Fraud and Deceit in the foretold\nResurrection of _Jesus_. Tho' _Jesus_ himself, the Head of the\nConfederacy, and prime Projector of the design'd Cheat in the Case of\n_Lazarus_ was cut off, yet his Associates were still numerous; and it\nwas not impossible, but they might concert a Project of a counterfeited\nResurrection of him, in Accomplishment of his Prophecy, that might be of\nmore fatal Consequence, and tend to such Confusions and Distractions\namong the People, as would not be soon quell'd and quieted. Whereupon\nour _Chief Priests_ very prudently consider of Precautions against Cheat\nhere, and wisely make Application to _Pilate_ the _Governour_, that\nproper and effectual Measures may be taken against a false and feign'd\nResurrection, for Fear of the ill Effects of it. And one of them, as\nthe _Spokesman_ of their Company, seems, according to _Matthew_, Ch.\nxxviii. to have made the Speech following.\n\n    _SIR_, \"We remember that this Deceiver and Impostor _Jesus_, who was\n    yesterday crucified, and justly suffer'd Death for his Blasphemy and\n    many Delusions of the People (that were of bad Consequence, and\n    might have been of much worse, if he had not been timely brought to\n    condign Punishment) said repeatedly before, that notwithstanding the\n    Death he was to undergo he should rise again to Life the _third Day_\n    after. It is not that we are at all apprehensive of such a wonderful\n    and miraculous Event, which knowing him to have been a false Prophet\n    as well as a deceitful Juggler, we have no Fears nor Belief of. But\n    as it is not long since, that the Inhabitants in and about _Bethany_\n    had like to have been fatally deluded and imposed on by him, in the\n    pretended Resuscitation of _Lazarus_, one of his Disciples and\n    Confederates in Iniquity; so it is not altogether impossible nor\n    improbable but his Disciples and Accomplices, who are many, may\n    project a feign'd Resurrection of _Jesus_ (in Accomplishment of his\n    Prediction) by stealing his Body away, and pretending he is risen\n    from the dead. Should such a Sham-Miracle be contrived amongst them,\n    and cunningly executed, it would be [Greek: plan\u00ea] (_not an Error\n    but_) an Imposture of worse Consequence to our Nation and Religion,\n    than the former in _Lazarus_ could have been, if it had never been\n    detected: We crave therefore the Favour of your _Excellency_, to\n    give Command for the making his Sepulchre sure, till the _third_ Day\n    is past, that neither his _dead_ Body may be taken away, and a\n    Resurrection pretended; nor a _living_ one slipt into its Place, and\n    a Miracle counterfeited on that Day, when we will be present at the\n    opening of the Sepulchre, and give Satisfaction to the People of his\n    being a false Prophet.\"\n\nWhether _Pilate_ was at all intent on the Prevention of Fraud in this\nCase, or would not willingly have connived at it, to increase the\nDivisions and Distractions of our then unhappy Nation, may be\nquestion'd: But the Request of our _Chief Priests_ was so reasonable,\nand their Importunities so urgent, that he could not resist them; and\ntherefore order'd them a _Watch_ for the Sepulchre, which they might\nmake as sure, as they could, against Fraud and Imposture, till the\n_third Day_.\n\nWhereupon our _Chief Priests_ deliberate, what Measures were fittest\nto be taken to this Purpose. And as I can't, and don't believe any Man\nelse can, devise any better for the Security of the Sepulchre against\nFraud, than what they took; so I admire and applaud their Prudence,\nCircumspection, and Precaution in the Case. They _seal'd the Stone_ at\nthe Mouth of the Sepulchre, and placed a Guard of Soldiers about it;\nwhich were _Two_ such certain Means for the Prevention or Detection of\nCheat in a Resurrection, as are not to be equall'd by any other.\n\nThey _seal'd the Stone_ of the Sepulchre, which, tho' it was no Security\nat all against Violence, yet was an absolute one against Fraud. How the\n_Stone_ which fitted the Mouth of the Sepulchre, as a Door does the\nEntrance into a Room, was seal'd, I need not describe. The Use and\nManner of sealing the Doors of Closets, of Chests, and of Papers is\ncommon; and as it is an obvious Expedient, for the Satisfaction of the\nSignators, against Deceit; so it has been an antient as well as a modern\nPractice. _Darius_, King of _Babylon_,[311] seal'd the Door of the Den\nof Lions, wherein _Daniel_ was cast, with his own Signet: And wherefore\ndid he so? For the Satisfaction of himself and of his Courtiers, when he\ncame again to open and compare the Signature with his Signet, that no\nArt nor Artifice had been used for the Preservation of _Daniel_. So our\n_Chief Priests_ seal'd the Stone of _Jesus_'s Sepulchre, which they\ndesign'd to be present at the opening of, on the _third Day_, the Time\nappointed by _Jesus_ for his Resurrection, and then give ample\nSatisfaction to the People, that there was a real, or could be no\nResurrection of his Body. Wherefore else did they _seal_ the Stone of\nhis Sepulchre?\n\nYour _Grotius_[312] thinks, that _Pilate_'s Seal was affix'd to the\nStone of the Sepulchre; but, as I believe, _Pilate_ little concern'd\nhimself about the Prevention of Deceit here; so I much question it. It\nis more reasonable to think that the _Chief Priests_ and other Civil\nMagistrates of _Jerusalem_ with their several Seals, which could not\nbe open'd, but by themselves, without Suspicion of Fraud, sign'd the\nStone, and intended to be present, on the Day appointed, at the\nopening of the Sepulchre; not doubting, what no body could question,\nbut _Jesus_ would wait their coming, and arise to Life, if he could,\nin the Sight of themselves, and of a vast Concourse of People, that\nwere sure to attend on them to behold the Miracle. Such a Resurrection\nwould have been of Satisfaction to the whole Nation; and such a\nResurrection, reasonably speaking, _Jesus_ would, if he could, have\nvouchsafed in Accommodation to the _sealing_ of the _Stone_.\n\nBut, notwithstanding this Precaution, in sealing of the Stone, the\nbest that could be taken against Fraud, _Jesus_'s Body was privately\nslipt off, early in the Morning of the Day before, and a Resurrection\npretended by his Disciples; and you would have us and our Ancestors to\nbelieve, there was no Deceit in the Case; tho' confessedly none of the\n_Sealers_ of the Sepulchre were present: Who can believe it? Was, or\ncan there be, any Imposture more against Sense and Reason palm'd upon\nthe Understandings of Mankind? If there had been a real Resurrection,\nthe _Sealers_ of the _Stone_ would have been the _Openers_ of the\nSepulchre; wherefore else was the _Stone seal'd_?\n\nA Question, that here arises, is, On what Day, and what Time of the Day,\ndid our _Chief Priests_, the Sealers of the Stone, expect, what they\ncould not think would ever come to pass, _Jesus_'s Resurrection? Or what\nwas the Extent of the Time meant by _Jesus_, when he said that after\n_three Days_, or on the _third Day_ after his Passion, he should rise\nagain? If any Impostor or Prophet like _Jesus_ should in this Age so\npredict his Resurrection, and be executed on _Friday_, the Day for his\nResurrection would be presumed to be _Monday_, and not _Sunday_ Morning\nbefore Day. And I humbly conceive former Ages and Nations, and our\nNation in particular did compute after this Fashion. Accordingly on\n_Monday_ our _Chief Priests_ I don't doubt, intended to be present at\nthe opening of the Seals of the Sepulchre, and to behold the Miracle:\nBut _Jesus_'s Body was clandestinely moved off early on _Sunday_ (the\nDay before _that_ signified and predicted for his Resurrection) to the\nLaughter more than the Surprize of our Ancestors, at the Notoriety of\nthe Fraud committed, and at the Vanity of a Resurrection pretended upon\nit. And I may appeal even to your _Chief Priests_ of the Church,\nwhether here's not another Note of Cheat and Imposture; and whether the\nDisciples were not afraid to trust _Jesus_'s Body, its full time, in the\nGrave; because of the greater Difficulty to carry it off afterwards, and\npretend a Resurrection upon it.\n\nBut because your _Divines_ (who have singular Knacks at making two\nNights and a full Day, that _Jesus_ was buried, to be _three Days_ and\n_three Nights_; and whose various Ways of Computation I always smile\nat) do assert that _Sunday_ was the _third Day_, on which, in\nAccomplishment of _Jonah_'s Prophecy, and of his Own Prediction, he\nwas to rise again; I will suppose so with them, and will, if they\nplease, grant that our _Chief Priests_, and the _Sealers_ of the\nSepulchre, expected his Resurrection on that Day, and intended, for\nthe opening of the Seals, to be present at it.\n\nBut at what Time of the Day were they to come or could be expected at\nthe Sepulchre? Not long before Noon. But _Jesus_'s Body was gone\nbetimes in the Morning, before our _Chief Priests_ could be out of\ntheir Beds; and a barefac'd Infringment of the Seals of the Sepulchre\nwas made against the Laws of Honour and Honesty, and a Resurrection\nconfidently talk'd of by the Disciples; and yet your Christian\nPriesthood at this Day would have us to believe, there was no Fraud\nand Deceit in all this! O most monstrous!\n\nIf our _Chief Priests_ had trespass'd upon _Jesus_'s Patience, and\nwould not attend at the Sepulchre for the opening of the Seals, on the\nDay and Time appointed; if they had been for confining him longer in\nthe Grave than was meet, according to Prophecy, then his Resurrection,\nwithout their Presence, had been excusable and justifiable. But this\nhis pretended Rising to Life, not only a Day before the _Chief\nPriests_ could imagine he would, or earlier in the Morning than he\nshould, for the Sake of their requisite Presence, is, together with\nthe Fracture of the Seals against the Law of Security, such a manifest\nand indisputable Mark and Indication of Fraud, as is not to be\nequall'd in all or any of the Impostures, that ever were attempted to\nbe put upon the World.\n\nIn short, by the sealing of the Stone of the Sepulchre, we are to\nunderstand nothing less than a Covenant enter'd into between our _Chief\nPriests_ and the _Apostles_, by which _Jesus_'s Veracity, Power and\n_Messiahship_ was to be try'd. Tho' we read not of the Apostles giving\ntheir Consent to the Covenant, yet it was reasonably presum'd and could\nnot have been refus'd, if ask'd. The Condition of the seal'd Covenant\nwas, that if _Jesus_ arose from the dead in the Presence of our _Chief\nPriests_, upon their opening the Seals of the Sepulchre, at the Time\nappointed; then was he to be acknowledg'd to be the _Messiah_: But if he\ncontinued in a corrupt and putrified State of Mortality, then was he to\nbe granted to be an _Impostor_: Very wisely and rightly agreed! And if\nthe Apostles had stood to this Covenant, Christianity had been nipt in\nits Bud, and suppress'd in its Birth. But they had other Views, and\nanother Game to play at all Adventures. The Body was to be removed and a\nResurrection pretended, to the Delusion, if possible, of all Mankind, in\nwhich they have been more successful than could be imagin'd upon a\nProject that had so little Sense or Reason, so little Colour of Truth or\nArtifice in the Contrivance and Execution of it. Our _Chief Priests_\nwere apprehensive at first of their stealing the Body away, and\npretending a Resurrection: But after the _sealing_ of the _Stone_, those\nFears vanish'd; because upon the stealing the Body, away against such\nSecurity and Precaution, the Fraud would be self-evident, and want no\nDemonstration and Proof of it. But, for all this Precaution, I say, the\nBody was in a barefaced Manner taken away, a Resurrection talk'd of, and\nto the Amazement of every one, who can think freely, has been believed\nthro' all Ages of the Church since. Upon the whole then, I think, you\nmay as well say, when a seal'd Closet is broken open, and the Treasure\ngone without the Privity of the Signators, that there's no Wrong done;\nas that in the Resurrection of _Jesus_, there was no Fraud. The Cases\nare equal and parallel. What then can your Christian _Priests_ say to\nthis demonstrative Argument of a manifest and bare-faced Cheat in\n_Jesus_'s Resurrection? I have been thinking, what they will or can say;\nand upon the maturest Consideration I don't find they can make any other\nthan one or more of these shuffling Answers to it, _viz._\n\n1. That it was impossible for the Disciples to steal the Body of\n_Jesus_ away, because of the Watchfulness of the Guards, and therefore\nthere was a real Resurrection, tho' the _Chief Priests_ and _Sealers_\nof the Sepulchre were not present at it.\n\n2. That, tho' the _Chief Priests_ and _Sealers_ of the Stone of the\nSepulchre were not present, as I say they ought to have been, to\nbehold the Miracle; yet his Resurrection was afterwards made as\nmanifest to them, as if they had been there present.\n\n3. That if _Jesus_ did not really arise from the dead, the Belief of\nhis Resurrection could never have been so propagated at first, nor\nwould have been retain'd in the World for so many Ages since.\n\nI can think of no other Answers, and believe it impossible for your\nChristian _Priests_ to form any other, to the foresaid Argument of\nFraud in _Jesus_'s Resurrection: But how weak, frivolous and\ninsufficient they all and every one are, will appear upon a little\nExamination into them.\n\n1. Then, against the aforesaid demonstrative Argument of Fraud, it may\nbe pretended, _That it was impossible for the Disciples to steal the\nBody of_ Jesus _away, because of the Watchfulness of the Guards; and\ntherefore there was a real Resurrection, tho' the_ Chief Priests,\n_the_ Sealers _of the Sepulchre were not present at it_.\n\nTo which I reply, and confess, that if it was impossible to evade the\nGuards of the Sepulchre, then there was a real Resurrection; but if\nthere was but a bare Possibility of evading them, then this Answer is\nof no Force. And I am of Opinion, that the Thing was not only\npossible, but easy, feasible, and practicable. Tho' the _Roman_\nSoldiers were of as much Fidelity and Integrity as any of their\nProfession; yet it is well known, that such Creatures are subject to\nBribery and Corruption, if the Disciples had any Money to tempt them\nwith: Or if their Faithfulness to their Trust was untainted; yet it is\nnot improbable, but their Officers, at the Direction of _Pilate_, who\nfound his Account in the Distractions of our Nation, might give them\nthe Hint to wink hard at the Commission of such a Fraud. But not to\ninsist on either of these Ways to evade the _Watch_; our Ancestors\nsaid, what your _Evangelist_ has recorded, that the Disciples taking\nthe Opportunity of the Sleep of the Guards, carry'd the Body of\n_Jesus_ off; which was a thing both possible and probable.\n\nOf what Number the _Watch_ did consist is uncertain. Your _Whitby_[313]\nsays they were _sixty_; but he has no Reason nor Authority to think,\nthey were so many. If they had been to be a Guard against Violence, I\ncould easily have believed they were more; but in as much as they were\nonly a _Watch_ against Fraud, and against any casual defacing of the\n_Seals_ on the Stone, before the _Chief Priests_ came to open the\nSepulchre, _three_ or _four_ Soldiers were sufficient, and I don't\nthink, there were any more set to this Purpose.\n\nIt is not then at all improbable, that so few Soldiers should be fast\nasleep at that time of Night, or so early in the Morning, when the\nclandestine Work was done; especially after keeping such a _Gaudy-day_\nas was the Feast of the Passover, which, like the Festivals of other\nNations, was celebrated with Excess. Foot Soldiers then, you may be\nsure, upon the Bounty of one or other, did no more want, than they\nwould scruple to take their _Fill_, which like an Opiat, lock'd up\ntheir Senses for that Night, when the Disciples, being aware of the\nlucky Opportunity, carry'd the Body of _Jesus_ off safely.\n\nAnd where's the Absurdity to suppose, that the Disciples themselves\nmight contrive the Intoxication of the Guards? _Herodotus_ tells us a\nStory of a Deadbody's being stolen away by such an Artifice. And I\ndon't think the Disciples of _Jesus_ either so foolish or\nconscientious, as not to take the Hint, and enterprize the like Fraud.\n_Peter_, who, upon Occasion, could _swear_ and _curse_ like a\n_Trooper_, would hardly scruple to fuddle a few _Foot-Soldiers_. But\nwhich way soever it came to pass, the Watch were asleep, which is\nneither hard to conceive nor believe; and then the Disciples executed\n_that_ Fraud, which has been the Delusion of Nations and Ages since.\n\nYour _Evangelists_ would hint that the _Chief Priests_ gave Money to\nthe Soldiers to say, they were asleep, when the Disciples stole the\nBody of _Jesus_ away, as if they were brib'd to a false Testimony; but\nthere neither was nor could be any such thing. If there had been a\nreal Resurrection to their Astonishment and Amazement, as it is\nrepresented in your Gospels, no Money could so soon have corrupted\nthem to a false Witness, being under such Fears of God and of _Jesus_.\nI don't doubt but our _Chief Priests_ might reward the Soldiers for\nspeaking the Truth, and exhort them to persist in it, with a Promise\nto _secure_ them against the Anger of _Pilate_ for their sleeping and\nNeglect of their Duty.\n\nHere then is no _Answer_ to the foresaid Argument or Objection against\n_Jesus_'s Resurrection. It was not at all impossible for the\nDisciples, who stole the Body away, to avoid the Guards, who were and\nmay reasonably be supposed to be lull'd asleep, when the Disciples did\nit. Neither is there any more Force in the\n\n2. Second Answer to it, _viz. That tho' the Chief Priests, the Sealers\nof the Stone of the Sepulchre, were not present, opening the Seals and\nbeholding the Miracle; yet his Resurrection was afterwards made as\nmanifest to them, as if they had been there present_.\n\nAy, this is somewhat like an Answer, if there be any Truth in it. A\nManifestation of _Christ risen_ afterwards to our _Chief Priests_ would\nhave been equivalent to their Presence at and Sight of the Miracle. But\nhow was his Resurrection manifested to them? did _Jesus_ ever afterwards\nappear personally to them, to their Satisfaction, that he was the same\nPerson, whom they crucified and put to Death for a Deceiver and false\nProphet? No; this is not once affected by your _Evangelists_ or ever\ninsinuated by any antient or modern Writer. How then was _Jesus_'s\nResurrection made manifest to our Chief Priests? Why; your _Divines_\nsay, what is all that can be said here, that the Words of the Disciples,\nwho, being Men of Honesty, Simplicity and Integrity, would not lye, are\nto be taken for it. Very fine, indeed! our Chief Priests are to take the\nWords of the Disciples for _Jesus_'s Resurrection, and look upon them as\nMen of Veracity, when they knew and experienc'd them to be grand Cheats,\nnot only in stealing the Body of _Jesus_ away, but in the _known\nImposture_ of _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, or your _Evangelist_ had never\nimplicitly called it so. When therefore Deceivers will not be _Lyars_;\nnor Thieves _Dissemblers_ of the Fact they are accused of, I will own\n_Jesus_'s Resurrection to have been manifest enough to our _Chief\nPriests_. There's no need of more Argument here: He that bellows more\nWords on it, loses Time.\n\nIt has been a constant Objection of us _Jews_, against the\nResurrection of _Jesus_, that he appear'd not personally afterwards to\nour _Chief Priests_, to _Pilate_ and to others his Crucifiers and\nInsultors, to upbraid them with their Infidelity and ill Treatment of\nhim. Whether _Jesus_ would not have done so, if he really arose from\nthe dead; and whether he ought not in Reason, for the Conviction and\nConversion of Unbelievers, to have done so, with me is no Question.\n_Celsus_ of old[314] in the Name of the _Jews_ made the Objection; and\n_Olibio_, a late _Rabbi_[315] has repeated it. But in all my Reading\nand Conversation with Men or Books, I never met with a tolerable\nAnswer to it. _Origen_ and _Limborch_, the Writers against _Celsus_\nand _Olibio_, gently slide over the Objection, as if it was too hot or\nweighty to be touch'd and handled by them. To recite the poor, short\nand insufficient Answers of those two Great Authors, to the Objection,\nwould be the Exposing of them, and giving such Strength to the\nObjection, which it don't want. Therefore I will leave the Objection,\nwhich _Origen_[316] owns to be a considerable one, to the Meditation\nof your modern Advocates for Christianity; and when they can prove,\nthat _Jesus_, after his Resurrection did personally appear to his\nCrucifiers, the _Chief Priests_ and _Sealers_ of the Sepulchre, to\ntheir Confutation; or that, according to the Law of Reason, he ought\nnot to have appear'd to them, then I will turn _Christian_, and grant,\nthat in the Argument above, which proves plain Fraud in the\nResurrection, there's no Force nor Truth. In the mean time _Jesus_'s\nNon-Appearance to the _Chief Priests_ is a Confirmation, that he did\nnot arise from the Dead, but that his Body was stolen away, or he\nwould have waited in the Grave, the coming of the Sealers of the\nStone, and their regular opening of the Sepulchre, to the Conviction\nand Conversion of all there present, and Confirmation of the Faith of\nall Ages and Nations since. But,\n\n3. A third Answer to the foresaid Argument of Fraud in the Resurrection\nof _Jesus_, drawn from the Nature, Use and Design of sealing the Stone\nof the Sepulchre, is, _that tho' the_ Sealers _of the Sepulchre were not\npresent, opening the Seals and beholding the Miracle; yet_ Jesus _did\ncertainly arise from the Dead, or the Belief of his Resurrection could\nnever have been at first propagated by the Apostles, nor would for so\nmany Ages of the Church since have stood its Ground_.\n\nHere's as little Reason in this Answer as in either of the two former.\nWho knows not, that many Errors in Philosophy, and as many Frauds in\nReligion have been sometimes accidentally, sometimes designedly\nespoused and palm'd upon Mankind, who in Process of Time become so\nwedded to them thro' Prejudice and Interest, that they will not give\nthemselves Leave to enquire into the Rise and Foundation of them.\nFalse Miracles have been common Things among Christians; and as the\nResurrection of _Jesus_ is their grand and fundamental one, so it is\nnot at all difficult to account for the Rise, Propagation and\nContinuance of the Belief of it.\n\nWhy it has been believed thro' these latter Ages of the Church, is no\nWonder at all. The Priests had their Interest in it; the ignorant and\nsuperstitious had their Comfort in it; and the wise and considerate,\nfor fear of Persecution, durst not enquire into the Grounds of it.\n\nThe only Difficulty here is to know, upon what Principle, the Project\nand Story of _Jesus_'s Resurrection was at first devised. And whether\nit was Ambition or Revenge upon our ancient and Pharisaical\nPriesthood, that prompted the Apostles to it, is all one to me. Such\nbad Principles too often put Men upon desperate Attempts. But\nhowever, an Imposture it was, for the Argument above. To say the\nApostles and Confederates in the Fraud, would not have stood to it,\nand have dy'd for it, if the Resurrection had not been real Fact,\nsignifies nothing. Many Cheats and Criminals, besides them, have\nasserted their Innocencey, and deny'd their Guilt in the utmost\nExtremity of Death, without the like Views of Honour and Fame. The\nonly Thing that's surprizing and astonishing in this Sham-Miracle, is,\nthat tho' it was the most manifest, the most bare-faced, and the most\nself-evident Imposture that ever was put upon the World; yet it has\nbeen the most fortunate and successful, having past thro' many Ages\nand Nations with Reputation and Renown; and might have continued for\nas many Generations to come, but for the Argument above, that\nperfectly and clearly overthrows its Credit.\n\nBut some may say here, where was the Wisdom and Providence of God, all\nthis while, to suffer so many Ages and Nations to labour under such a\nDelusion? Why, I'll tell you; The Providence of God in it was, \"To\nhumble Mankind, in the End, for their vain Ostentation of Wisdom,\nLearning and _Science falsly so call'd_; \"To shame them for their\nMadness and Wickedness to persecute one another for different Opinions\nin that Religion, whose very Foundation is false and groundless; \"To\ncaution them against a blind and implicit Faith for the future;\nagainst believing any thing out of the Sight and Reach of their\nUnderstandings; \"To admonish them of the Necessity of Liberty to\nthink, speak and write freely about Religion, for the Correction of\nErrors and Discovery of Truth; and, lastly, \"To reduce the World, when\nit should be ripe for it, to the golden Religion of Nature, which upon\nthe Testimony of our old _Cabalistical_ Doctors, and of your _Jesus_\nhimself, is the _End of the Law and the Prophets_.\n\nAnd thus have I spoken to the _Answers_, which your _Christian\nPriesthood_ may be presumed to make, to the foresaid Argument of Fraud\nin _Jesus_'s Resurrection, drawn from the Design of our _Chief\nPriests_ in sealing of the Stone of his Sepulchre. I should not have\nconcern'd my self to speak to these their supposed _Answers_, but to\nsave them the Trouble of making them, and the Imagination of there\nbeing some Force in them.\n\nAs to the Stories in your _Evangelists_ of _Jesus_'s several Appearances\nafter his pretended Resurrection, sometimes to the Women, and at other\nTimes to his Disciples, I am not at all obliged to refute them. If these\nAppearances had been more frequent, better circumstanced, and more\nsolemnly averr'd, they would have wanted no Confutation. There's no\nDoubt on't, but the Disciples, who, for the Argument above,\nunquestionably stole _Jesus_'s Body away, in order to pretend a\nResurrection, would talk much of his appearing to them, and of the\nConversation afterwards, they had with him. And if they had told better\nand more plausible Tales of their Sight of and Conversation with him, it\nwould be nothing to the Purpose; _better_, I say, _and more plausible\nTales_ than those upon Record, which for Absurdity, Nonsense and\nIncoherence carry their own Confutation along with them.\n\nWhoever blends together the various History of the four _Evangelists_,\nas to _Jesus_'s Appearances after his Resurrection, will find himself,\nnot only perplex'd how to make an intelligible, consistent, and\nsensible Story of it; but must, with _Celsus_[317] needs think it, if\nhe closely think on't, like some of the confused and incredible\nwomanish Fables of the Apparitions of the Ghosts of deceased Persons,\nwhich the Christian World in particular has in former Ages abounded\nwith. The Ghosts of the Dead in this present Age, and especially in\nthis Protestant Country, have ceas'd to appear; and we now-a-days\nhardly ever hear of such an Apparition: And what is the Reason of it?\nWhy, the Belief of these Stories being banish'd out of Mens Minds, the\ncrafty and vaporous forbear to trump them upon us. There has been so\nmuch clear Proof of the Fraud in many of these Stories, that the wise\nand considerate Part of Mankind has rejected them all, excepting\n_this_ of _Jesus_, which, to Admiration, has stood its Ground. It's no\nWonder indeed, that the _Clergy_, who are more incredulous than other\nFolks as to Stories of Apparitions, do stick to _this_ of _Jesus_, the\nonly one excepted out of all others. It is a sweet Morsel of Faith,\nand they readily swallow and digest it, because they live by it;\notherwise this Story of _Jesus_'s Appearances after Death had hardly\nescaped the Fate of other Apparitions; nay, would have been rejected\none of the first of them; there being hardly one, I dare say it, among\nall the Stories of Apparitions, were they to be collected together;\nthat's more absurd and incredible than _this_ of _Jesus_.\n\nI have not Room here to make any Remarks on your Evangelical Story of\n_Jesus_'s Apparitions after his Death; and if I had, I durst not do it,\nfor fear of an offensive Ludicrousness, and of transgressing the Rules\nof _Decency_, _Sobriety_ and _Sedateness_ of Argument, you have confined\nme to. But however; I can't read the Story without smiling, and there\nare two or three Passages in it, that put me in Mind of _Robinson\nCruso_'s filling his Pockets with Biskets, when he had neither Coat,\nWaste-coat, nor Breeches on. Sometimes I think your _Evangelists_ wanted\nWit to adapt their Tale to Sense, and to accommodate the Transaction to\nNature; and sometimes I think them crafty, and were minded, like _Daniel\nde Foe_ in his aforesaid _Romance_, to put the Banter upon the Credulity\nof Mankind, with some disguised and latent Absurdities, that, in the\nConclusion and Discovery, they might be heartily laugh'd at for the\nBelief of them. I dare not, I say, so much as hint at one of these\nAbsurdities, lest I should be unwarily tempted to crack a Jest on it.\nBut the Time, I hope, is coming, when I shall use more Freedom. And\nshould your Priesthood, in Proof of _Jesus_'s Resurrection, urge any of\nthese Stories of his corporal Presence and Appearance after it, then I\ntrust, they'll permit me to make as merry Descants on them, as your\n_Bishops_, when Academical _Jesters_, used to do on other Men's Bulls\nand Blunders.\n\nIn the mean time I depend on the foregoing single, sober and sedate\nArgument of Fraud in this grand Miracle, which I found on the Nature\nand Design of sealing the Sepulchre; and for Confirmation of my\nOpinion and Proof of Fraud in it, will conclude this Letter with a\nparallel Case and Story. Not many Years since, one Dr. _Emms_, of the\nSociety of the _French_ Prophets, who in their Inspirations were, like\n_Jesus_ and his Disciples of old, Declaimers against the Pharisaical\nPriesthood of this Age, did by himself, or some of his Fraternity did\nfor him, predict his Resurrection on a certain Day, when there was a\nConcourse of People about his Grave in vain to behold the Miracle, as\nthere would have been about _Jesus_'s Sepulchre, if he had lain in it,\nhis full Time. But supposing in this Case, that the Magistrates and\nPriesthood of this City, to prevent a Cheat and Delusion of the\nPeople, had interr'd the _Doctor_ in a Church-Vault, and seal'd the\nDoor of it against the Day appointed for his Resurrection, commanding\na _Night-Watch_ to look to the Vault, that no Violence or Deceit be\nused: This would have been a wise Precaution against Fraud, as was in\nthe Case of _Jesus_. But what if his Fraternity, having a Mind, like\n_Jesus_'s Disciples, to bambouzle the People and Priesthood, had, some\nof them drawn the Watch aside to a _Gin-shop_, whilst others carry'd\nthe Body off, pretending a Resurrection? What would all reasonable Men\nhave said here? That it was an impudent and bare-fac'd Imposture. But\nto carry on the Farce; supposing, the _Doctor_'s Fraternity had\nafterwards averr'd that they had seen and convers'd with him alive,\nseveral Times, as before his Death; and had told particular Stories of\ntheir Conversation with him; as _first_ of all, how he appear'd to\nsome of their Women (who were admonish'd of the Certainty of his\nResurrection by a Youth or an Angel or two, they could not tell\nwhether, but they were as like to Angels, which they never saw before\nin their Lives, as Youths could be) who knew him, not by his\nCountenance, for _their Eyes were holden_, but by his Talk on\nScripture Prophecy, which was his usual Cant before his Death. And at\nanother Time he appear'd to his old Acquaintance, who knew him, not by\nthe Features of his Face, but by an habitual Motion and Action of his\nHand in _breaking of Bread_. And at another Time he was corporally\npresent, but _they thought, they saw a Spirit_. About _eight Days\nafter that_, he appear'd among more of his old Friends, but for all\ntheir former Intimacy with him, some of them _doubted_ whether it was\nthe _Doctor_ or not. At another Time he came to them in _another Form_\nand Shape, unlike to his pristine one, but they were sure it was _He_\nby his Exposition of the Scripture. At another Time, when they were\nassembled together and the Doors were lock'd, _for fear of the\nClergy_, the _Doctor_ slipt unexpectedly into their Company, either\nfrom behind a Curtain, or miraculously enter'd at the Key-hole. And\nthe last Time he appear'd, there was one of his intimate Friends had\nnot known him, but by a _Sore_ in his Breast, which the Power of God,\nin his Resurrection, did not heal: After which, they said, he\n_vanish'd away, was taken up into Heaven_, and they saw him no more.\nSupposing, I say, the _French_ Prophets had told such like Stories of\n_Doctor Emms_'s Resurrection and of his Appearances to them; what\nwould your Priests and all other wise Men have said to it? Why, that\nit was all idle Tales, manifest Lyes, Sham, and Imposture; and that if\nthe _Doctor_, in Confutation of the Errors of our Priests, had risen\nto Life, God would have kept him in his Sepulchre, his full time, and\nhave rais'd him in the Presence of Priests, Magistrates and People;\nand that he would have walk'd afterwards publickly in the Streets\nwithout Danger, to the Satisfaction of all, who knew him, that he was\nthe same _Emms_ who died and was bury'd: _Without Danger_, I say, from\nthe Populace, who would have been so far from affronting him, that\nthey would have almost adored him for the miraculous Favour God had\ndone him, in his Resurrection from the Dead; and that he would never\nhave skulk'd about, and absconded himself for _forty Days_ together,\nbefore he was pretendedly translated; and therefore there was nothing\nbut notorious Deceit and Imposture in all these Pretences.\n\nI need not make the Application of this Case and Story, which your\n_Priests_ know how to do for me. To say here, that there's none would\nbe so desperate to engage in such a Fraud, as is the supposed Case of\nDr. _Emms_ above, is a Mistake. Many Thousands for their Diversion\nwould enterprise it; and the Stories of the Apparitions of Ghosts,\nwhich are almost all the Frauds of the Crafty to delude the Ignorant,\ndo prove it. I my self would be forward to concert such an Intrigue,\nif it were but to put the Banter upon the _Clergy_, to ruffle their\nTempers, and secretly to laugh at them. Nothing would deter me from\nit, but Fears of the Civil Magistrate, which was not the Danger of the\nDisciples of _Jesus_, because _Pilate_, for the Sake of Rule over the\n_Jews_, was a Countenancer of every Faction amongst them; and\nparticularly[318] _Tiberius_, upon _Pilate_'s Representation of the\nMatter, soon commanded that the Disciples of _Jesus_ should not be\nmolested, nor call'd into Question: So the Disciples stood to the\nFraud, told the Story of _Jesus risen_ so often, till they believed it\nthemselves, and drew Multitudes into the Belief of it: Which Belief\nmust have continued thro' all Generations to come, but for my Argument\nof Fraud, before urg'd and argued.\n\nHere, Sir, before I conclude this Letter, I think it my Duty however to\ngive you my Opinion of the Religion, that _Jesus_ and his Disciples\nwere for introducing into the World. Tho' I believe, what I have proved,\nhis Resurrection, to be a Piece of Fraud, and his other Miracles to have\nbeen all Artifice; and tho' our _Chief Priests_ and ancient Nation are\njustifiable in the Sentence, that was pass'd and executed upon _Jesus_;\nyet I must do him and his Disciples the Justice, to own, that the\nDoctrine they taught was, for the most Part of it, good, useful and\npopular, being no other than the Law and Religion of Nature, which, all\nNations being wearied with their own Superstitions, and sick of the\nBurthen of their Priests, ran apace into. Accordingly one[319] of your\nancient Fathers says, that they _who lived according to the Law of\nNature, were true Christians_. And I must needs say, that if Christians,\nin Process of Time, had not sophisticated this primitive Religion of\n_Jesus_; if they had not built their systematical Divinity upon him, and\nbrought strange Inventions of Men into his Worship; if, lastly, they had\nnot again subjugated and entangled themselves with another and worse\nYoke of Bondage, to an intolerable and tyrannical Priesthood of the\nChurch, the World might have enjoy'd great Happiness under _Jesus_'s\nReligion, even _that Happiness_ which is now only to be expected upon a\nDisproof of his miraculous Resurrection, that has been the Foundation of\na most confused Superstructure of wild Doctrines and Opinions: Or more\ntruely speaking, _That Happiness_ of the State of Nature, Religion and\nLiberty, which may be look'd for upon the coming of our _Messiah_, the\nallegorical Accomplisher of the Law and the Prophets; whose Advent, upon\nthe Tradition of our _Cabalists_, will be towards the latter End of the\n_Sixth_ grand Age of the Creation, to remove from our Faces and our\nHearts the Veil of the Letter; and in the mean while I adhere to the\numbratical Rites, Ceremonies and way of Worship, derived from our\nForefathers.\n\nThus, Sir, have I finish'd my _Letter_ on _Jesus_'s Resurrection; and\nwhether I have not said enough to justify our _Jewish_ Disbelief of\nthat Miracle, let your _Chief Priests_ judge. I don't expect my\nArgument against it will be convincing of any of your Preachers. They\nhave a potent Reason for their Faith, which we _Jews_ can't come at;\nor I don't know but we might believe with them.\n\nI trust you'll meet with no Molestation for the Publication of this\n_Letter_; neither do I think, it was any thing of mine, inserted in\nyour Discourses, that at any time brought Trouble on you. It was your\nown Imprudence to rave, as you do, against _Ecclesiasticks_. What need\nhad you to talk of the Mischiefs and Inconveniences of an Hireling\nPriesthood? What Occasion had you to call them Ecclesiastical Vermin,\nand to speak of the Happiness of Mankind upon their Extinction? These\nthings are very provoking. And here's the true Source, in my Opinion,\nof all your Troubles!\n\nTho' I have here shewn, that _Christ is not risen_, yet I have more\nWit than to make the Inference of St. _Paul_, that _their Preaching is\nvain_. Their Oratory is still useful, if it be but to tickle the Ears\nand amuse the Understandings of the People about Doctrines they\nunderhand not, whether true or false. And such an Order of Men, as are\nyour Priesthood, are, by their Habit of long Robes, an Ornament to\nSociety; and it is an Honour to the Country to have them well fed and\nclad. Had I Room for it, I could write a curious _Encomium_ in Praise\nof them, and tell the World of what Use and Advantage they have been,\nin all Ages. O what Wars and Persecutions might have been rais'd in\nthe World, but for their pacifick Tempers! How would Sin and\nImmorality have broke in upon Mankind, like a Deluge, but for the\nGoodness of their Lives, and the Excellency of their Precepts! How has\nthe Increase and Multitude of their warm Sermons been the Ruin of\n_Satan_'s hot and divided Kingdom of Darkness and Error! It's owing to\ntheir Pains and Labours, that every Age, for many past, has been\nimproving in Virtue, till the present, which for Piety and good Morals\nis that perfection of Time, which is not to be meliorated but by the\nRestitution of the golden Age.\n\nSo could I enlarge in Praise of your _Clergy_; and so should you have\ndone; and then you might have disputed, as you do, against any\nDoctrines, Miracles and Articles of Faith, without Molestation. Try, if\nyou can't correct that fundamental Error, you have committed. Assert\nstill, if you can, with Dr. _Rogers_, the Necessity of an establish'd\nPriesthood, well paid, for the Service of the _King_ and the Country,\nunder all Changes of Religion; which may be a Means to retrieve their\nFavour, and will beget in me a better Opinion of your Prudence, than at\npresent is entertain'd by your _Assured Friend_ N. N.\n\nSo ends the Letter of my Friend, the _Jewish Rabbi_, in which, to my\nComfort, he has conform'd himself to the Rules of _Sedateness_,\n_Decency_ and _Sobriety_ of Argument, prescrib'd by the two great\n_Bishops_ of _London_ and St. _David_'s. If the Weight and Solidity of\nhis Argument don't grieve the _Clergy_, I am in no Pain for the Levity\nand Ludicrousness of it. And whether the Weight and Nature of his\nArgument against _Jesus_'s Resurrection will at all startle and\nsurprize them, I know not; but I profess for my self, that I might\nhave study'd long enough for such an Argument against it, as this\n_Rabbi_, with his great grey Beard, has presently hit of. He told me\nbeforehand, that his Thoughts on _Jesus_'s Resurrection should be out\nof the common Road of thinking; and I must needs say, he has been as\ngood as his Word, or no Man ever kept his Promise.\n\nThere are two Things very remarkable in his Argument: The _one_ is,\nthe Use and Design of sealing the Stone of _Jesus_'s Sepulchre, which\nhe lays great Stress on, to the Proof of Fraud in his Resurrection;\nand the _other_ is, his Application of these Words, _the last Error_\n(or as he reads Deceit or Imposture) _will be worse than the first_\nor former, in which he makes the _Chief Priests_ in their Speech to\n_Pilate_, to refer to _Lazarus_'s Resurrection as the former known\nImposture. If his Application be just and true, the Consequence is,\nthat the Resurrections of _Jesus_ and _Lazarus_ are both Impostures.\nIt grieves me to the Heart to think of this Consequence, which our\n_Divines_ are to see to, and evade, if they can. No sooner did I read\nhis Application of the foresaid Words, but I run to our _Commentators_\nfor another and better Exposition of them: But alas! to my Sorrow,\nthey made nothing of them, but a sort of a _proverbial Expression_,\nwhich the _Chief Priests_ must have spoil'd and knock'd out of Joint.\nBeing then under great Trouble for the Truth of Christianity, and the\nCertainty of these two grand Miracles, I refer the Matter to our\nLearned _Clergy_, desiring them to be as speedy as they can in another\nand more proper Interpretation of the foresaid Words, or _Jews_ and\n_Infidels_ will run away with them in the _Rabbi_'s Sense, to the\nConfutation of our holy Religion.\n\nI consider'd lately, that _Easter_ drew nigh, when it was usual for\nour _Divines_ in their Pulpits, to insist on the Proof of _Jesus_'s\nResurrection; and therefore I hasten'd the Publication of this\n_Discourse_, that they might have these two peculiar Texts, _viz._ of\n_sealing the Stone_ of the Sepulchre, and of _the last Error_ or\nImposture _will be worse than the first_, to treat on. He that\nproduces a Sermon or Sermons, wresting the foresaid Texts out of the\nHands of my _Rabbi_, and putting another Sense on them, to the Credit\nof _Jesus_'s and _Lazarus_'s Resurrection,\n\n      _Erit mihi magnus Apollo_,\n\nand by my Consent shall be the next _Arch-Bishop_ of _Canterbury_.\n\nBut my Heart aches a little for our _Divines_, and I almost despair of\ntheir clean Solutions of the foresaid two Difficulties. What must they\ndo then? Why, they must give up their _Religion_ as well as their\n_Church_, or go along with me to the Fathers for their mystical\nInterpretation of the whole Story of _Jesus_'s Resurrection.\n\nThat the Fathers, without questioning their Belief of _Jesus_'s\ncorporal Resurrection universally interpreted the Story and every Part\nof it mystically, is most certain. St. _Hilary_[320] enumerates many\nParticulars of the Story, and intimates what they are typical and\nfigurative of, as any one may see by the Citation referr'd to, which I\nhave not Room to translate and illustrate.\n\nSt. _Augustin_[321] says, that _Jesus_'s Resurrection from the Dead at\nthat time, was to exhibit an Image and Resemblance of his future and\nmystical Resurrection. And elsewhere says[322] that it's a holy Pleasure\nto consider and search for the things signified by the Story of it.\n\nThat _Origen_ is of the same Opinion, no body need question. A\nMultitude of his Testimonies might be produced to this Purpose, but I\nshall mention only one[323], wherein he asserts, that by the Sepulchre\nof _Jesus_ is to be understood the _Letter_ of the Scriptures, in\nwhich, as in a Rock, he is reposited.\n\nSt. _John_ of _Jerusalem_[324] by the Crucifiers of _Jesus_\nunderstands false Teachers, meaning _Ministers_ of the _Letter_ to be\nsure, because he himself was a great Allegorist.\n\nSt. _Hilary_ says that[325] _Barabbas_ is a Type of _Antichrist_; and\nby _Antichrist_, as I have elsewhere shewn out of the Fathers, is\nmeant the _Letter_ of the Scriptures, which modern Commentators and\nCrucifiers of _Jesus_ would prefer to the Spirit. For these are the\ntwo, _Letter_ and Spirit, the _Christ_ and _Antichrist_, that are\ncontrary one to another.\n\nSt. _Jerom_[326] says, that by the _Vail_ of the _Temple_ rent at\n_Jesus_'s Resurrection, is to be understood the opening the _Vail_ of\nthe _Letter_ of the Law and the Prophets for the Manifestation of the\ndivine Mysteries contain'd in them. And by the rending of the Rocks\naccording[327] to him is to be understood the Apertion of the Oracles\nof God, that were before as hard as a Rock, till his spiritual\nResurrection for the Illustration of them. And by the Earthquake, He\nsays is meant the Shaking of the[328] Hearts of Men, and preparing\nthem, by a Dereliction of their old Errors, for the Susception of the\ntrue Knowledge of God.\n\nAs to the Time that _Jesus_ was dead and bury'd, which modern\n_Divines_ call _three Days_ and _three Nights_, St. _Augustin_\nsays[329] that according to the Scripture he was not so long dead and\nburied. Many, says[330] he, have put various Constructions on the Time\nof _Christ_'s Burial, endeavouring to make three Days of it: But we,\nwithout slighting any of their Opinions, are for a mystical\nInterpretation, and suppose, that by the three Days are to be\nunderstood Three Ages of the World.\n\nThe Day would fail me to collect all the Passages out of the Fathers,\nin Interpretation of one or other of the Parts of the Story of\n_Jesus_'s Resurrection, but what I have here said in a few Citations,\nis enough to show, that they look'd upon the whole Story, as\nemblematical of his spiritual Resurrection out of the _Grave_ of the\n_Letter_ of the Scriptures, in which he has been buried about _three\nDays_ and _three Nights_, according to that mystical Interpretation of\nprophetical Numbers which I have learn'd of them.\n\nAnd thus have I done with the Miracle of _Jesus_'s Resurrection,\nwhich, by the Help of my Friend the Jewish _Rabbi_, I have shewn,\naccording to the Letter, to consist of the greatest Incredibilities.\nAnd with this I conclude my _Discourses_ on his Miracles, intending to\ntreat on no more of them, unless I am invited or provoked to it. I had\nonce an Inclination to make another _Discourse_ on _Jesus_'s\nmiraculous Conception, and on his feeding his Thousands, in the\nWilderness, with a few Loaves and Fishes; but upon a little\nConsideration on the Letter of those two Stories, I found myself too\ngrave for the Work; and my _Rabbi_'s Thoughts are too gay and wanton;\ntherefore it must be omitted, till the _Clergy_ importune me to it,\nand signify their Curiosity to see it perform'd by me.\n\nMy Discourses hereafter, if God spare me Life and Liberty, which under\nhis Providence I don't despair of, to publish another Volume, shall\ntreat on some historical Passages of the New Testament, such as, \"On\nthe Stories of _Jesus_'s Birth; and the Appearances of Angels to the\nShepherds keeping Watch over their Flocks by Night: \"The Journey and\nPresents of the Wise Men to _Jesus_: \"The Slaughter of the Innocents\nat _Bethlehem_, and of _Herod_'s Cruelty: \"The Travels of _Joseph_\nwith the Child _Jesus_ and his Mother into _Egypt_: \"The Disputation\nof _Jesus_ with the _Doctors_ in the Temple, and his Elopement from\nhis Parents: \"His riding on an Ass to _Jerusalem_; and on other such\nlike Passages of his Life. For I am resolv'd to give the Letter of the\nScripture no Rest, so long as God gives me Life and Abilities to\nattack it. _Origen_[331] _says_, that _when we dispute against\nMinisters of the Letter, we must select some historical Parts of\nScripture, which they understand literally, and shew that according to\nthe Letter, they can't stand their Ground, but imply Absurdities and\nNonsense_. And how then is such a Work to be perform'd to best\nAdvantage? Is it to be done in a grave, sedate, and serious Manner?\nNo, I think Ridicule should here take Place of sober Reasoning, as the\nmore proper and effectual Means to cure Men of their foolish Faith and\nabsurd Notions. As no wise Man hardly ever reprehends a Blunderbuss\nfor his Bull, any other way, than by laughing at him; so the Asserters\nof nonsensical Notions in Theology should, if possible, be satirized\nand jetted upon, or they'll never be put out of Countenance for, nor\ndesert their absurd Doctrines. And there never was a polemical Divine,\nthat, if he had an Opportunity and Advantage over the Weakness of his\nAdversary, did not take such a ludicrous and merry Course with him.\n\nBut on such historical Passages of the Gospel as before mention'd, do\nI trust to publish another Volume of _Discourses_, like to these on\n_Jesus_'s Miracles; and at present pass to my third general Head, at\nfirst proposed to be spoken to, and that is,\n\nIII. To consider what _Jesus_ means, when he appeals to his Works and\nMiracles, as to a Testimony and Witness of his Authority; and to show\nthat he did not properly and ultimately refer to these done in the\n_Flesh_, but to those mystical ones he would do in the _Spirit_, of\nwhich those done in the Flesh are but mere Types and Shadows.\n\nAnd on this Head I shall be short, there being no Occasion of many\nWords on it. The _Bishop_ of _London_[332] has collected many Sayings\nof _Jesus_, wherein he seems to appeal to the Works he then did and\nhad done in Flesh, as to a Witness of him. But why might not _Jesus_\nthen prophesy, and mean the spiritual Works which _He-in-us_ would do?\nIt is the known Way of the Prophets to speak of Things to come, as if\nthey were already past, because such Prophecies are not to be\nunderstood, till their Accomplishment: Even so did _Jesus_ prophesy,\nwhen he appeal'd to his Works, as I could prove from the Nature and\nManner of his Expressions, but that the Argument would be dry and\ntedious: And therefore I refer the Matter entirely to the Fathers, who\nasserted that _Jesus_ prophesied in his _Miracles_ as well as in his\n_Parables_, and that the Works he then did in the Flesh were but Types\nof his mysterious Operations, that would be the Demonstration of his\nAuthority and Messiahship. Hence it is that _Origen_[333] says that\n_Jesus_'s first coming was but a Type and Shadow of his spiritual\nAdvent and that his[334] true Miracles, by which his Authority is to\nbe proved, are spiritual: Hence it is that St. _Hilary_ repeatedly\nsays[335] that _Jesus_'s Works were significative and predictive of\nmysterious Operations, which we were especially to look to. And Hence\nit is that all the other Fathers interpreted the Miracles of _Jesus_\nin a mystical and allegorical Sense.\n\nThe Question then is, to what Miracles did _Jesus_ truly and properly\nappeal, in the Opinion of the Fathers, for his Authority and\nMessiahship? Was it to the Typical or Antitypal Works? was it to the\n_Shadow_ or to the _Substance_ of his Operations? To his substantial\nOperations, to be sure, which are and will be his spiritual ones upon\nthe Soul, that are greater than those once done on Men's Bodies, and\nwhich will be a proper Proof of his divine Power. And to declare my\nOpinion freely, I am only for such a spiritual _Messiah_, who will\ncure the _Errors_ call'd the Diseases of Mankind, which _Jesus_ of\n_Nazareth_ has not as yet done.\n\nBut not to dispute this Point with _Bishop Gibson_, I will leave him\nin the Enjoyment of his Opinion of his literal _Messiah_, and\nmiraculous Operator on Men's Bodies; if he'll but indulge me in the\nBelief of my spiritual _Messiah_ to come for the healing of modern\nDistempers call'd the Sins and Errors of Mankind. And in the mean time\nlet us draw the Comparison between his _literal_ and my _spiritual_\nJesus; and let the World judge, to whom the Preference is to be given\nfor Power and Authority.\n\nBishop _Gibson_ is for _Jesus_ of _Nazareth_'s Messiahship, because he\ncured the _bodily Blindness_ of many miraculously; And a good Work it\nwas: But I am for the Messiahship of a spiritual _Jesus_ to come, who\nwill open the _blind Eyes_ of our Understandings to discern Truth from\nError, which will be a most glorious Operation, that his _Jesus_ of\n_Nazareth_ has not as yet done.\n\nBishop _Gibson_ is for _Jesus_'s Messiahship, who once cured _bodily\nDeafness_ in many, which was indeed well done of him: But I am for the\nMessiahship of a spiritual _Jesus_ to come, to heal the _Deafness_ of\nour Souls, or their _Dulness_ in Apprehension of sublime Mysteries,\nwhich will be a divine Work, that his _Jesus_ has not as yet done.\n\nBishop _Gibson_ is for _Jesus_'s Messiahship, because he cured Men's\nbodily _Lameness_, for which I do praise him: But I am for a spiritual\n_Jesus_'s Messiahship, who will heal Mankind of their _Halting_\nbetween two and more Opinions; a more blessed Work, that _Jesus_ of\n_Nazareth_ has not as yet done for us!\n\nAnd so, comparing all other Diseases of Body and Soul together, I am for\nthe _Jesus_, who will heal the Diseases of the Soul; and have a much\nless Regard for _Bishop Gibson's Jesus_, who cured the Diseases of a few\nMen's Bodies; but for all that, am not angry with the _Bishop_ for his\nhigh Veneration of his _Jesus_, neither would I by any Means have him\nprosecuted and punish'd for not being of the same Mind with me.\n\nBut, because the _Bishop_ suspects me of Infidelity, in that I have\nludicrously treated some of the Miracles of his _Jesus_, which by the by\nhe has not vindicated from the Absurdities and Incredibilities I charged\nthem with; I will humour the _Bishop_, and supposing _Jesus_ wrought\nliterally those Miracles which are allegorically interpreted by me, will\nin those very Miracles compare his _literal_ and my _spiritual_ Jesus\ntogether; and appeal to all Men of Consideration, which is the most\nworthy of the Title and Honour of the true _Messiah_.\n\nBishop _Gibson_ is for his _Jesus_'s Messiahship, who miraculously\ndrove the _Buyers_ and _Sellers_ out of the Temple, just as if a Man,\nwas God to invest him with Power, should furiously drive the\n_Butchers_ and _Grasiers_ with their Cattle, to the Confusion of their\nseveral Properties, out of _Smithfield_: A notable Miracle That! But I\nam for the spiritual _Jesus_'s Messiahship, who according to the Form\nof that typical Story, will at his Coming expel Ecclesiastical\nMerchants out of his Church, who make Merchandise of the Gospel,\nselling their _Bulls_ and _Beasts_, and _Fatlings_ of the Letter: A\nmost glorious and beneficial Work to Mankind will this be! And to\nprepare Mens Souls for the Susception of such a spiritual _Jesus_, I\nintend to publish a _Discourse_ of the Mischiefs and Inconveniencies\nof an _Hireling Priesthood_, wherein it shall be proved, that Mankind\ncan't be either good, wise or happy under the Kingdom of this\n_Messiah_ to come, without an Abolition and Extirpation of them.\n\nBishop _Gibson_ is for the Messiahship of his _Jesus_, who _cast the\nDevils out of the Madmen, and permitted them to enter into the Herd of\nSwine_, that _ran violently down a Precipice, and were choak'd in the\nSea_: How great a Miracle it was thus to cure the Madmen, the _Bishop_\nmay know best, being perhaps better acquainted with the Devil than I\nam; but was it not for Pity to the _Swineherds_, for their Losses, I\ncould even now laugh at the Thoughts of the Hoggs running and tumbling\ndown-hill, as if the _Devil_ drove them: But leaving the Bishop\n_calmly_, _decently_, and _seriously_ to admire the Wisdom and Justice\nof his _Jesus_ in that Act, I am for the spiritual _Jesus_, who,\naccording to the typical Form of that Story, exorcis'd the furious and\ndiabolical Tempers out of the _Jews_ and _Gentiles_ of old, whom no\nChains of Reason could hold from doing Violence to the Christians,\ntill they were converted; and tho' He permitted the like persecuting\nand diabolical Spirits to enter into Ecclesiastical Swine; yet will\nthey be precipitated into the _Sea_ of the Knowledge of God, wherein\nthey will be absorpt with divine Visions and Contemplations. O most\nglorious Work! that bespeaks the Wisdom, Power and Goodness of our\nspiritual _Jesus_, from the Beginning to the End of it.\n\nBishop _Gibson_ admires his _Jesus_, for his Transfiguration on Mount\n_Tabor_, tho' neither He nor any Body else can tell, wherein lay the\nMiracle, nor into what various Figures and Shapes _Jesus_ was\ntransform'd: But I am for the spiritual _Jesus_, whose glorious\nTransfiguration, after _six_ grand Days of the Creation, will be\nconspicuous, when with the Eyes of our Understanding we shall behold\nhim metamorphosed into the Forms of all the Types of him under the\nLaw. I am now ravish'd with the intellectual View of this\nTransfiguration; and believe, was I to set about it, I could give\nothers (except the Bishop) an Idea and Conception or it to their\nAstonishment at the Glory of _Jesus_ in it.\n\nBishop _Gibson_ is for the Messiahship of _Jesus_ of _Nazareth_,\nbecause he cured a _Woman of an Issue of Blood_, after she had spent\nall she had upon Physicians to no purpose, which might be, or might\nnot be a Miracle, for any thing he can argue upon it: But I am for the\nspiritual _Jesus_'s Messiahship, who, at his Coming, will, according\nto that typical Story, cure the _Woman_ of the Church of her _Issue of\nBlood_, that is shed in Persecution and War, which her Ecclesiastical\nPhysicians of the _Clergy_ have not been able to stop, tho' they have\nreceiv'd large Fees and Stipends of the Church to that Purpose. Will\nnot this be a desirable and beneficial Work to all Nations? And who\nknows not, (excepting the _Bishop_) that it is of the Office of the\ntrue Messiah, to give _abundance of Peace_ to Mankind, to _make the\nLion to lye down with the Lamb_; and to induce Men to _break their\nSwords into Plough-shares_, and _their Spears into Pruning-hooks_; and\nto _make Wars to cease_ in all the World. Which Prophecies are so far\nfrom being fulfill'd by _Jesus_ of _Nazareth_, that there has been\nnothing but Wrangling and Jangling, and Scolding and Fighting about\nhim ever since. I wonder the Want of the Accomplishment of the\nforesaid Prophecies has not long before now occasion'd the Rejection\nof _Jesus_'s Messiahship, or of the Authority of the Prophets.\n\nBishop _Gibson_ is for his _Jesus_'s being the Messiah, because he\ncured an old _Woman_ of a _Spirit_ of, no body knows what,\n_Infirmity_; consequently little or nothing is to be laid for the\nGreatness of that Miracle. But I am for the spiritual _Jesus_'s\nMessiahship, who, according to the Figure of that literal Story, is to\nheal the _Woman_ of the Church of her _Infirmity of the Spirit_ of\nProphecy, which _Jesus_ of _Nazareth_ has not done for her, or there\nwould not be so many Disputes about Prophecies and their\nInterpretations, so far, as there is hardly one Prophecy that\nChristians are agreed about the Sense of. It is the grand\nCharacteristick of the true _Messiah_, that he's to restore Prophecy\nand the Way of Interpretation of the Prophets, upon the allegorical\nScheme too. I speak this, not only upon the Authority of the Prophets\nthemselves, but upon an almost infinite Number of Testimonies of\nancient _Jews_ and _Fathers_; accordingly I expect the Advent of a\nspiritual Messiah, who alone can do it, to heal the Church of her\npresent _Infirmity_, and to restore the Art and Gift of Prophecy.\n\nBishop _Gibson_ is an Admirer of _Jesus_ of _Nazareth_, because he\ntold a poor Whore of _Samaria_, her Fortune of _having had five\nHusbands_, and being then an Adulteress with another Man; which,\naccording to the Letter, is such a poor sort of a Miracle, that I can\nhardly think of it without blushing: But I am an Adorer beforehand of\nthe spiritual _Jesus_ who, according to that Type, will out of the Law\nand the Prophets, allegorically interpreted, tell the present\nheretical and adulterous Woman of the Church _all that she has done_,\nand how she has been wedded to the sensible Things of the _five_ Books\nof _Moses_, and is now an Adulteress with the _Anti-Christ_ of the\nLetter. Such an Information of the Church will be a most stupendous\nand miraculous Work, and a Demonstration of our _Jesus_'s Messiahship\nbeyond Contradiction, in as much as it will be agreeable to the\nOpinion, that all Antiquity entertain'd of the true _Messiah_, _viz._\nthat he was to let us into the Sight, Knowledge and Understanding of\nthe Wisdom and Beauty of Providence thro' all Ages of the World.\n\nBishop _Gibson_ admires _Jesus_ of _Nazareth_ for _his cursing the\nFigtree; for not bearing Fruit out of Season_: Shame on that Miracle,\naccording to the Letter, and on all Admirers of it! But I am for the\nspiritual _Jesus_, who, at his coming to the Figtree of his Church,\nwill make its present unfruitful State to _wither away_, and cause it\nto produce the Fruits of the Spirit, and allegorical Interpretations\nof the Scriptures, that are compared to sweet and ripe Figs. For such\nhis Advent to this miraculous and beneficial Purpose I daily pray and\nsay too, Blessed are all those who love his Appearance!\n\nAfter this Fashion could I go thro' the other Miracles, I have treated\non in these _Discourses_; and upon the Comparison set plainly before\nthe Eyes of my _Readers_ the Difference between the _literal_ Miracles\nof Bishop _Gibson's carnal_ Jesus and the _allegorical_ ones of my\n_spiritual_ Jesus, as to Stupendousness, Use and Excellency: But what\nI have here done in the seven Instances above, is enough to induce us\nto believe, with the Fathers, that _Jesus_'s first Coming in the\n_Flesh_ was but a Type and Shadow of his second Advent in the\n_Spirit_; and that _Jesus_ of old, when he appeal'd to his Works then\ndone, as to a Witness of his Authority, did only prophesy, and refer\nultimately to his mystical Operations, that are alone the Proof of his\nGodlike and divine Power. Bishop _Gibson_ says[336] of me, that\n_pretending to raise the Actions and Miracles of our Saviour to a more\nexalted and spiritual Meaning, I have labour'd to take away the\nReality of them, and by that to destroy one of the principal Evidences\nof Christianity_. But I presume now, he'll be sensible of the Rashness\nand Incogitancy of that Accusation. If he be not, I shall say of him,\nin Case he write any more for _Jesus's literal_ Miracles in Opposition\nto his _allegorical_ ones that he's like the Dog in the Fable (the\nBishop will excuse the Coarseness of the Comparison) that let go the\n_Substance_ of his Mutton, and catch'd at the Shadow, and so, like a\nfoolish _Cur_ as he was, lost both.\n\nAnd thus have I done with the _Three_ general Heads at first proposed\nto be handled in these _Discourses_. Now whether I am, upon the whole,\nan _Infidel_, or _Believer_ of Christianity, the World is to judge.\nI'll make no more solemn Declarations of my Belief of it, much less at\nthis Juncture of Time, when I am under Prosecution for Infidelity;\nbecause it would be a sneaking, tame, and cowardly Act in me, and such\nan Argument of that Meanness of Spirit, as I abhor and detest. My\n_Works_ shall speak for me, in which, being conscious of the Innocency\nof my Intentions, and of the Usefulness of my Design, I mean to\nproceed; not doubting but some of our _clergy_, upon two or three\nmore _Discourses_ against the Letter of the _New Testament_, will find\nme out, what I am, and whether I am not a true Professor of the\nReligion of the spiritual and holy _Jesus_.\n\nIn the mean Time I'll not compound the Difference depending between\nBishop _Gibson_ and my self, upon any other Terms, than his making me\nample Satisfaction for the Injuries done to my Reputation and low\nFortunes. Tho' he may thirst after my Life, or at least, my Liberty;\nyet under the Providence of God I fear not the Loss of either. God be\nprais'd, this Kingdom is bless'd with such a Civil Administration for\nWisdom, Justice and Mercy, as no Nation of the World can equal. Our\nMagistrates are all Philosophers, Lovers of Truth, and of an Enquiry\ninto it; and so tender of the religious as well as of the civil Rights\nof the Subject, that I have nothing to dread from them.\n\nThere is somewhat _popular_ indeed, tho' nothing true nor rational, in\nthe Clamour and Accusations of the _Clergy_ against me. Bishop _Gibson_\nwould insinuate[337] that my _Discourses_ on _Miracles_ strike _at the\nFoundation of civil Society_; but by an unnatural Consequence of his\nown making. I confess, it is an heinous Crime to write any Thing that\ntends to the Subversion or Prejudice of the civil Society: But how will\nthe _Bishop_ make me guilty of it? If the _Clergy_ will not be\nDisturbers of the Peace of the Publick upon my _Discourses_; it's\ncertain, that the Quiet of the World, which I wish and aim at, will be\ninviolably kept and preserv'd for all me. My Followers indeed, when I\nwalk the Streets of this City, are _numerous_; and if any of them should\nbreak the Peace, what serves my _Lord Mayor_'s Power for, but to\nchastise them for it? As for my self and my Adherents at home, which, as\nyet, are _without Number_, we are all _Quietists_ and should act against\nour Consciences and Religion, if we should injure any Man in his Person\nand Property. But I smile to see a _Clergyman_ all on a sudden, like the\n_Bishop_, so tender of the Welfare of the Publick, when\n_Ecclesiasticks_, in all Ages past, have been the _Bane_ of Society and\nthe _Pest_ of Mankind, as appears from the Wars and Persecution they\nhave rais'd in the World; and from that Strife, Variance and Discords,\nthey have occasion'd in Cities and Families. And with Submission to the\n_Bishop_, who I hope will not be angry for my saying it, I am sure, the\n_Clergy_ at this Juncture, are like an _high-mettal'd blind Horse_,\nthat were they not ridden by the Civil Authority with a strait Rein,\nwould be oppressing and trampling upon all, that flood in the Way of\ntheir Interests, to the Disturbance of _Civil Society_.\n\n_Profaneness_ too does the _Bishop_ charge me with. But why so? Because\nI ridicule the Nonsense and Absurdities of _Jesus_'s Miracles according\nto the Letter, which he venerates. Very fine indeed! The _Bishop_ would\nworship the _Head_ of an _Ass_, and a wiser Man than himself, without\nthe Charge of Profaneness, must not laugh at his foolish Superstition.\n\nAnd _Blasphemy_ lastly does the _Bishop_ accuse me of: And this is a\nsad _Bugbear_ Word, that has frighted Abundance of People into\ndreadful Apprehensions of my Guilt, even to the Abhorrence of me. But\nthe _Bishop_ should first have defined, what is meant by _Blasphemy_,\nand have proved me guilty of it, before he had made his Exclamations:\nOr the _Turks_ may say that a Jest upon their _Alcoran_, in which\nthere are no Contradictions, is as much a _Blasphemy_, as any\nLudicrousness upon the _Gospels_, which are full of Inconsistencies.\nThat there is such a Sin or Error, call'd _Blasphemy_, according to\nthe Scriptures, is certain: But our _Divines_ are undetermined about\nthe Nature of it. I intend to take my Opportunity to treat on the Sin\nof Blasphemy, and to prove, _Ministers_ of the _Letter_ are the only\nPersons that can be guilty of it. _Ministers_ of the _Letter_, upon\nthe Authority of the Fathers, are the Worshippers of the\n_Apocalyptical Beast_; and anti-allegorical Expositions are that\n_Blasphemy_, St. _John_ writes of, which the _Beast_ and his\nWorshippers will open their Mouths in, against the most High. This\nshall be proved as clear as the Light. But when I do it, I would not\nhave any think, it is with an Intention to bring the Bishops of\n_London_, _Litchfield_, and St. _David_'s, or any other _Divines_,\nunder Prosecution for that heinous Sin: No, my God is omnipotent,\nomniscient and omnipresent; and knows how and when to reckon with such\nBlasphemers, without calling upon the Civil Magistrate to do it for\nhim. Should I importune the Civil Authority to execute Vengeance upon\nthem, I should make a foolish _Calf_ or a Senseless _Idol_ of my God,\nthat was unable, or knew not how, nor when to vindicate his own Cause.\nSurely the _Bishop_ of _London_, upon his Prosecution of me for\n_Blasphemy_, must think his God now _asleep_ or _gone a Journey_ from\nHome; or he would not be for taking God's own Work out of his Hands,\nand committing it to the Care of the Civil Magistrates.\n\nThe _Bishop_ moreover should consider, that the Words _prophane_ and\n_blasphemous_ are of no Use and Signification among Philosophers, who in\nDisputation never cast them at each other, however they may differ in\nOpinion. Philosophers are all supposed to be such profound Venerators of\nthe Deity, as they would not be guilty of _Prophaneness_ and _Blasphemy_\nfor the whole World. If any of our School of _Free-Thinkers_ should say\nof his Opponent that he's _prophane_ and _blasphemous_, he would be\nreprimanded for want of Wit, Temper and good Manners; and be told that\nhe's like a _Billingsgate Scold_, who has Recourse to impertinent bad\nLanguage, when her Reason fails her for better Rhetorick.\n\nBut it may be, for ought I know, the _Bishop_ has some Design in his\nAccusations against me for _Profaneness_ and _Blasphemy_; but I hope\nit is a better than to prejudice the Civil Magistrate, or to incense\nthe Populace.\n\nAccording to the Fathers I am so far from being a Blasphemer, that\nthey say, _Christ_ upon the literal Interpretation of his Miracles is\nmetamorphosed into the False-Christ, call'd _Anti-Christ_. Whether\nthere is any Truth in this their Opinion I can't be positive, till the\nExperiment is fully made. But if our _Clergy_ will keep their Temper,\nand grant me a clear Stage of Battle, I'll try it out; and see whether\nI can't, by the Club of Reason and primitive Authority, give their\n_Anti-Christ_ a fatal Blow: Who knows but I may give Peace to the\nChurch, and reconcile all Parties by it?\n\nHowever this may be; I am sure, no Man can wish for a greater\nAdvantage over his Enemy, than I have over the _Bishop_ in this\nControversy: But he shall find me a generous Adversary, who will make\nno worse Use of my Advantage over him than now and then to put him in\nMind of his _Pastoral Letter_, and of the Prosecution; unless I should\nbe tempted, ere long, to publish my _Moderatorial_ Letter, like his\n_Pastoral_ one, to the People of _London_ and _Westminster_, with\n_Ten_ wholesome Rules in it, not only to caution them against false\nProphets and false Teachers, without forgetting the _Bishop_ of the\n_Diocese_, but to direct them to the Ecclesiastical Fountain of the\ngrowing Sins, Errors and Infidelity of the Age, which the _Clergy_\nknow I am of Ability to lay open.\n\nWhen I began the Publication of these _Discourses_, I own, I laid a\n_Trap_ for some considerable _Clergyman_; but little imagined, the\ngreat _Bishop_ of _London_ would be caught in it. But now I have taken\nhold of him, I'll not release him out of the Controversy, till he has\nsorely repented of his Ignorance or Malice in calling me a _Writer, in\nFavour of Infidelity_.\n\nSo much at present for the Bishop of _London_. I have been the quicker\nof late in the printing of _this_, because I am given to understand,\nthe _Bishop_ of St. _David_'s stays for it, intending to make but one\nWork of it, and answer all _six Discourses_ together. I hope my\n_Rabbi_'s Letter here will be thought by him, a good Payment for his\nPatience. And now I shall be in Expectation of his Mountainous\nProduction, and where I shall hide myself from the terrible Strokes of\nhis Pen, I have not as yet consider'd.\n\nI am not a little pleas'd to see a _Couple_ of Dissenting Preachers,\n_viz._ Dr. _Harris_ and Mr. _Atkinson_, lifted into the Controversy\nagainst me. If they had kept their Necks out of the Collar, they might\nhave dissembled and pretended, that, upon the Conclusion of the Battle,\nwhen it would have appear'd, I am a real Contender for Primitive\nChristianity, they had a better Understanding of the Fathers, and a\nclearer View of my Design, than to suspect me of Blasphemy and\nInfidelity: But now they are engag'd with equal Spite, Ignorance and\nDefamations against me, they must take their Share of the Fate and\nShame, with the _Clergy_, upon the Conclusion of the Controversy.\n\nThere's no Body can think it worth my while to bestow a Six-penny\n_Pamphlet_ upon either of these _Gentlemen_, but for all that, they\nshall not be altogether slighted and neglected by me. I have made a\nCollection of their Rhetorical Flowers, which occasionally shall be\npresented the Publick, to the Admiration of their Wit, Reason,\nLearning and Eloquence. And at present only take Notice, that they are\n_both_ for the Persecution of me; but not so much for my Opinions, as\nthe Indecency, Irreverence, and Immorality of my Stile; forsooth!\nwhich is just such a Distinction, as may be easily stretch'd to the\nJustification of the Persecution of all Authors, whom the Priesthood\nin Power shall not like. Mr. _Atkinson_'s Argument for the Persecution\nof me, is much the same with that, which _John Calvin_ used for the\nPersecution of that great Philosopher _Servetus_; the Injustice and\nCruelty of whose Death and Sufferings is a greater Reproach to the\nName of _Calvin_, than the Martyrdom of any _Protestant_ can be to the\nMemory of any Popish Prelate.\n\nTo conclude, what I have written, in these _Six Discourses_, is with a\nView to the Glory of God, the Advancement of Truth, the Happiness of\nMankind, the Demolition of _Babylon_, the Edification of _Jerusalem_,\nand the Demonstration of the Messiahship of our Spiritual _Jesus_, to\nwhom be Glory for ever. _Amen._\n\n\n                               ~_FINIS._~\n\n[Illustration]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[309] Revelations, Chap. xviii. 11.\n\n[310] _In his Pastoral Letter_, P. 35.\n\n[311] Daniel, Chap. vi. 17.\n\n[312] Adducor ut credam Pilati Annulo & hunc Lapidem signatum. _In\nLoc. Matt._\n\n[313] _Upon the Place in_ Matthew.\n\n[314] Si Jesus volebat re vera declarare suam divinam Potentiam,\ndebuerat suis Insultatoribus, ipsique Pr\u00e6sidi qui capitalem sententiam\ncontra se tulerat, denique c\u00e6teris omnibus se ostendere. _In Orig.\nLib._ ii. _contra Celsum_.\n\n[315] In _Limborchii_ Amica Collatione cum Jud\u00e6o.\n\n[316] Magna sane Res & miranda occurrit hoc loco, qu\u00e6 non solum\naliquem ex vulgo Credentium exercere posset, sed perfectiores etiam;\ncur non Dominus post Resurrectionem \u00e6que ac superioribus temporibus\nconspiciendum se pr\u00e6buerit. _In Lib._ ii. _cont._ Celsum.\n\n[317] Quamvis Celsus has Jesu post Resurrectionem Apparitiones\nconferre conetur cum vulgaribus Spectris & Visionibus. _In Origen.\nLib._ ii. _contra Celsum_.\n\n[318] Comminatus est periculum Accusatoribus Christianorum. _Tertul.\nApol. Cap._ v.\n\n[319] Justin Matyr. _In Apol._ ii.\n\n[320] Quod autem a Joseph, rogato Pilato ut Corpus redderet, & sindone\ninvolvitur, & in Monumento novo in Petra excisa reponitur, & Saxum\nOstio Monumenti advolvitur: Quanquam sit Ordo Gestorum, & sepeliri eum\nerat necesse, qui resurrecturus erat a mortuis, tamen non sine Rerum\naliquarum Momento expressa sunt singula. Joseph Apostolorum habet\nspeciem: & idcirco quanquam in duodecem numero Apostolorum non fuerit,\nDiscipulus Domini nuncupatur. Hic munda sindone corpus involvit; &\nquidem in hoc eodem linteo reperimus de coelo ad Petrum universorum\nAnimantium genera summissa. Ex quo forte non superflue intelligitur\nsub lintei hujus nomine consepeliri Christo Ecclesiam: quia tum in eo,\nut in Confusione Ecclesi\u00e6 mundorum atque immundorum Animalium fuerit\ncongesta diversitas. Domini igitur Corpus tanquam per Apostolorum\ndoctrinam in vacuam & novam requiem Lapidis excisi, _viz._ in pectus\nduriti\u00e6 Gentilis quodam doctrin\u00e6 opere excisum Christus infertur, rude\nscilicet & novum, & nullo antea ingressu timoris Dei pervium. Et quia\nnihil pr\u00e6ter cum oporteat in pectora nostra penetrare, Lapis Ostio\nadvolvitur: ut quia nullus antea in nos divin\u00e6 Cognitionis Auctor\nfuerat illatus, nullus absque eo postea inferatur. Metus deinde\nfurandi Corporis, & Sepulchri Custodia atque Obsignatio, Stultiti\u00e6\natque Infidelitatis Testimonium est; quod signare Sepulchrum ejus\nvoluerint, cujus pr\u00e6cepto conspexissent de Sepulchro mortuum\nsuscitatum. _In Loc. Matt._\n\n[321] Ad hoc enim Dominus hodie resurrexit, ut Imaginem nobis futur\u00e6\nResurrectionis ostenderet. _In Serm._ clxviii. _Append._\n\n[322] Quid singula significent, qu\u00e6rere sanct\u00e6 quidem Delici\u00e6 sunt.\n_In Johan. Evang. C._ xx. _Tract._ 120.\n\n[323] Monumentum Christi est divina Scriptura, in qua Divinitatis &\nHumanitatis ejus mysteria densitate Litter\u00e6 veluti quadam muniuntur\nPetra. _In Diversos Homil._ 2.\n\n[324] Ne putes, tunc solummodo traditus est Christus Principibus\nSacerdotibus & Scribis.----Quando enim vides Scripturas Prophetarum &\nEvangelii & Apostolorum traditas esse in Manus falsorum Sacerdotum &\nScribarum; num intelliges quia Verbum Veritatis traditum est\nPrincipibus iniquis & Scribis? _In Mat. C._ xx.\n\n[325] Interpretario autem Nominis Barabb\u00e6 est Patris Filius: Jam\nitaque Arcanum Infidelitatis futur\u00e6 ostenditur, Christo Patris Filium\npr\u00e6ferendo, Antichristum scilicet hominem Peccari & Diaboli filium,\npotiusque adhortantibus principibus suis eligunt, Damnationi\nreservatum, quam Salutis Authorem. _In Loc. Matt._\n\n[326] Velum Templi scissum est, & omnia Legis Sacramenta, qu\u00e6 prius\ntegebantur, prodita sunt atque ad Gentium Populum transierunt. _In\nLoc. Matt._\n\n[327] Petr\u00e6 sciss\u00e6, id est, universa Vaticinia Prophetarum. _In Epist.\nad Hedibriam._\n\n[328] Sed mihi videtur Terr\u00e6 Motus & reliqua typum ferre credentium,\nquod pristinis Errorum vitiis derelictis, & Cordis emollita duritia,\npostea agnoverint Creatorem. _In Loc. Matt._\n\n[329] Ipsum autem triduum, non totum & plenum fuisse Scriptura Testis\nest. _In Libro 4to de Trinitate, Sect. 10._\n\n[330] De tribus diebus, multi sancti multa hinc senserint atque\ndixerint----Sed nos neutram eorum vacantes sententiam; melius tamen,\nsi placet in his spiritualem requiramus Intellectum, tres Dies tria\nTempora S\u00e6culi ponentes. _In Serm. de Symbolo._\n\n[331] Cum disputamus adversus eos, & cum conquirimus advicem, tunc\nqu\u00e6rimus locum Dogmatis illius in litera Legis Histori\u00e6, & ostenditur\nsecundum Historiam stare non posse. _In Psal._ xxxvi.\n\n[332] _Pastoral Letter_, P. 25.\n\n[333] Adventus quidem Christi unus in Humilitate completus est, alius\nvero speratur in Gloria. Et hic primus Adventus in Carne, mystico\nquodam Sermone in Scripturis Sanctis Umbra ejus appellatur. _In Jesu\nNovo Homil._ viii.\n\n[334] Vera Christi Miracula & Sanatio Infirmorum est spiritualis. _In\nMatt. C._ xxv.\n\n[335] H\u00e6c licet in pr\u00e6sens gesta sunt, quid tamen in futurum\nsignificent contuendum est. _In Matt. C._ x. _S._ 1. Christi Gesta\naliud portendunt. _C._ xii. _S._ 1. Peragunt formam futuri gesta\npr\u00e6sentia. _C._ xxi.\n\n[336] _Pastoral Letter_, P. 3.\n\n[337] _Pastoral Letter_, P. 35.\n\n\n\n\n    _BOOKS written by Mr._ WOOLSTON, _and Sold by him next Door below\n    the_ Star _in_ Aldermanbury, _and by the Booksellers of_ London\n    _and_ Westminster.\n\n\nI. The Old Apology reviv'd, _&c._\n\nII. Dissertatio de Pontii Pilati Epistola ad Tiberium circa Res Jesu\nChristi gestas.\n\nIII. Origenis Adamantii Epistol\u00e6 du\u00e6 circa Fidem vere orthodoxam &\nScripturarum Interpretationem.\n\nIV. The exact Fitness of the Time of Christ's Advent demonstrated by\nReason against the Objections of the old Gentiles, and modern\nUnbelievers.\n\nV. Four Free-Gifts to the Clergy, or Challenges to a Disputation on\nthis Question, Whether the Hireling Priests of this Age, who are all\nMinisters of the Letter, be not Worshippers of the Apocalyptical\nBeast, and Ministers of Anti-Christ?\n\nVI. An Answer to the said Four Free Gifts.\n\nVII. Two Letters to Dr. _Bennet_ on this Question, Whether the People\ncall'd _Quakers_ do not the nearest of any other Sect in Religion,\nresemble the Primitive Christians, in Principle and Practice?\n\nVIII. An Answer to the said two Letters.\n\nIX. The Moderator between an Infidel and an Apostate: Or the\nControversy between the _Grounds_ and his Ecclesiastical Opponents,\nset in a clear Light, _&c._\n\nX. Two Supplements to the Moderator, _&c._\n\nXI. A Defence of the Miracle of the _Thundering Legion_, against a\nDissertation of _Walter Moyle_, Esq.;\n\nXII. Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour.\n\nXIII. His Defence of those Discourses, against the Bishops of St.\n_David_'s and _London_.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration ]\n\n                            Mr. _WOOLSTON_'S\n\n                                DEFENCE\n\n                                 OF HIS\n\n                           DISCOURSES, _&c._\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\n                        Mr. _Woolston_'s Defence\n\n                                 OF HIS\n\n                              _DISCOURSES_\n\n                                 ON THE\n\n                                MIRACLES\n\n                                 OF OUR\n\n                                SAVIOUR,\n\n                 Against the _Bishops_ of St. DAVID_'s_\n                   and LONDON, and his other\n                   _Adversaries_.\n\n                                PART I.\n\n       _Res Religionis non Verberibus sed Verbis est peragenda._\n                                                   Lactant.\n\n                 _London_: Printed for the Author, and\n                    Sold by him, next Door to the _Star_ in\n                    _Aldermanbury_, and by the Booksellers of\n                    _London_ and _Westminster_, 1729.\n\n                        [Price _One Shilling_.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                 TO THE\n\n                                 QUEEN.\n\n\nMadam,\n\n_Not long since the_ Bishop _of_ St. David_'s presented to Your_\nMajesty _his_ Vindication; as _I would have done this my_ Defence, _if\nI had known how to get Access to Your Royal Presence_.\n\n_Your_ Majesty _will perceive, that here's a sad War broke out\nbetween the_ Bishop _and my self, about_ Miracles; _which, in all\nprobability, will cost a large Effusion of Words; and, unless Your_\nMajesty _can accommodate the Difference, will hardly be terminated\nwithout the Slaughter of many Notions and Arguments_.\n\n_The_ Bishop _is for making Your_ Majesty _the Arbitress of our\nControversy, which I consent to; and he talks of Your singular\nQualifications to preside at it, which I as certainly believe, as that\na_ Bishop _will not lye nor flatter_.\n\n_Had I known before of Your_ Majesty's _Abilities at this Controversy,\nI should have gone near to have applauded You for them; and the World\nwould readily have believed my Praises of You to be just, because I\nhad no Bishoprick nor_ Translation _in View for them_.\n\n_If Your_ Majesty _has no extraordinary Talent at this Controversy, I\ntrust, You are wiser than to think the Better of Your self for the_\nBishop_'s Compliment. You'll not be vain; tho' he is fulsome._\n\n_But the Bishop_, Madam, _has done me wrong. He would insinuate, that\nI am disaffected to the_ King's _Title and Government; which is\nentirely false. I Love and Honour Your whole Royal Family, and often\npray for Your_ Majesty _too_, without Pay, _which is more than any_\nBishop _in_ England _has done for You_.\n\n_And what are my Prayers for Your_ Majesty? _That God may prolong Your\nDays to the comfort of Your Royal Progeny, and the Joy of these\nNations; That the Felicity of Your Life may be uninterrupted by\nEnemies and Misfortunes; and That after a good old Age, when Life is\nno longer desirable to the happyest Princes, You may be transferr'd to\nan heavenly and immortal Crown of Glory. This is the hearty and\nvoluntary Prayer of_,\n\n[Sidenote: London, September 27, 1729.]\n\n   Madam,\n  _Your Majesty's_\n       _most humble_,\n        _most obedient_,\n   _and faithful Servant_,\n   Thomas Woolston.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                   A\n\n                                DEFENCE\n\n                                 OF THE\n\n                       DISCOURSES on _Miracles_.\n\n\nAt Last, one Volume of _Bishop Smalbroke_'s mountainous Work, that the\n_Press_ has been so long pregnant with, is brought forth: And I don't\ndoubt, but it answers the Expectations of the _Clergy_, who will extol\nit to the Skies, and applaud it to the Populace, as an absolute\nConfutation of my _Discourses_; but I would advise them, if it be not\ntoo late, not to be too profuse in their Commendations of it, for fear\nthat an Occasion should be given them to blush for their want of\nJudgment. We have had Instances of Books before now (and one very\nremarkable, in the Case of _Boyle_ against _Bently_) that have met\nwith a general Approbation, till they have been sifted into, and upon\nExamination found empty; and it is not impossible, but _this_ of the\n_Bishop_ before us, may meet with the same Fate.\n\nI had conceived a great Opinion of this _Bishop_'s Learning and\nAbilities, and, if he had not sent[338] two simple _Harbingers_\nbefore-hand, should have been so apprehensive of his Acuteness, that\nnothing, but a thorough Persuasion of the Goodness of my Cause, and of\nmy Power to defend it, could have kept me from Flight before him. But\nI stand my Ground, and shall, against greater Adversaries than this\n_Bishop_, who has more weakly and maliciously attack'd me, than you'd\nhave been expected from one of his reputed Candour and Learning; and\ngiven me greater Advantages to insult and triumph over him, than I\ncould wish or desire.\n\nMany other little _Whifflers_ in Divinity have before attack'd me with\ntheir _Squibs_ and _Squirts_ from the _Press_, but I despised them\nall, as unworthy of my particular Regard and Notice, reserving my self\nfor Defence against this _Bishop_'s grand Assault; when, by the by, I\nmight have an Opportunity to animadvert on one or other of them. Some\nof these _Whifflers_, like Men of Honour, have set their Names to\ntheir Works; others very prudently have concealed their Names, which,\nupon the best Enquiry I could make, I have not been able to discover,\nor I had given them a Rebuke for their Impudence and Slanders. It may\nbe wonder'd, that any polemical Authors, especially when they write on\nthe orthodox and establish'd Side of the Question, should conceal\nthemselves, and that they are not tempted with the Hopes of Reward and\nApplause to make themselves known. I will say what I think here, that\nit's never Modesty in such _anonymous_ Authors (for we _Scribblers_ in\nDivinity, whatever we may pretend, have always a good Conceit of our\nselves) but Apprehensions of a sharp Reply to their Dishonour. And\nthis is the true Reason, why some of my Adversaries industriously\nconceal themselves, knowing that they are guilty of wilful and\nmalicious Lies and Calumnies, which I should chastise them for. But,\nas their Names are supprest, they know, it's to no Purpose for me to\nexpose their Malice, because no body can be put to shame for it.\n\nThe _Bishop_ of St. _David's_ acts here a more glorious Part: He comes\nnot behind me, like other _Cowards_, to give me a secret Knock on the\nPate, but like a courageous Champion, looks me in the Face, and\nadmonishes me to stand upon my Guard. This is bravely done in him! And\nI have no Fault to find, but that he is providing himself with\n_Seconds_ in the Controversy, I mean the _Civil Powers_, and calling\nupon them to destroy me, before the Battle is well begun, and whether\nhe gets the better of me or not. This is not fairly nor honourably\ndone of the _Bishop_, and I have Reason to complain of it. Tho' I\nthink my self equal, if not superior in the Dispute, to any of our\n_Bishops_, yet I am not a Match for the _King_'s Power, neither would\nI lift up my Hand, or use my Pen against him for all the World. If the\n_Bishop_ will yield to a fair Combat, and desire the Civil Authority\nto stand by and see fair Play between us, I will engage with him upon\nany Terms. But to make the _Civil Powers_ Parties in our Quarrel, and\nto bespeak them, right or wrong, to favour his Side, is intolerable,\nand what we spiritual Gladiators ought to abhor and detest.\n\nI liked the _Bishop_, when he proposed to the _Queen_ to be _Arbitress_\nof our Controversy. As I will not here question her Qualifications to\njudge in it, so the first Opportunity I have of waiting on her\n_Majesty_, I will join my Requests to her to accept of the Trouble and\nOffice. After she has fix'd the Terms of Disputation, and thought of a\nproper Reward for the _Victor_, or a Punishment for the _Conquer'd_,\nthen will we proceed, and either dispute the Matter from the Press, or\nscold it out in the Queen's Presence, as she shall think it most\nconducive to the Edification of herself, and of her Court-Ladies.\n\nBut the _Bishop_'s Proposal here, and Compliment on the _Queen_, is but\nthe Copy of his Countenance. He'll submit to no Arbitration: No, no,\nhe's for having the Civil Powers to be immediate Executioners (without\nfurther hearing what I have to say for my self) of his Wrath and\nVengeance upon me. He's for having them to take it for granted, that he\nhas proved me an _Infidel_ and _Blasphemer_, and would have them to\ninflict some exemplary Punishment upon me, so as to incapacitate me for\never writing more. Wherefore else does he say thus?[339] \"Indeed a more\nproper Occasion cannot possibly happen in a Nation, where Christianity\nis establish'd by human _Laws_, to invigorate the Zeal of the\nMagistrate, in putting the Laws in Execution against so flagrant a Sort\nof Profaneness, that tramples with such Indignity on the Grounds of the\n_Christian_ Faith; and to convince the World that the _Minister_ of that\n_God_, who is so highly affronted, _bears not the Sword in vain_. And\ncertainly the Higher Powers have great Reason to exert their Authority\non this and the like Occasions.\"\n\nI was astonish'd at this Passage, with some others, in the _Bishop_'s\n_Dedication_, and could hardly believe my Eyes when I read it; that a\nScholar, a Christian, and a Protestant Bishop, should breath so much\nFury and Fire for the kindling again of _Smithfield_ Faggots! That any\nThing of human Shape should so thirst after that Destruction of another,\nwhich would turn to the Ruin of his own Reputation and Honour! Does the\n_Bishop_ believe that he has clearly confuted me, or does he not? If he\nbelieves, and others know that I am absolutely confuted, then there's an\nEnd of the Controversy, the Danger of my _blasphemous_ Books is over;\nand why should I undergo any Punishment, which would move the Compassion\nof many, and give a greater Reputation to my Writings than they do\ndeserve? Does the _Bishop_ think he has confuted me? This is Honour and\nTriumph enough to him; who, of all Men, should not desire me to be\notherwise punish'd, for fear of getting the Character of a merciless and\nimplacable Conqueror. Am I in my own Opinion confuted and baffled? This\nwould be Pain and Mortification enough, even worse than Death. For,\nhowever we polemical _Writers_ may pretend a Readiness to part with our\nErrors upon Conviction, as if we could easily yield to our Adversaries,\nyet it goes to the Hearts of us to be out-done in Reason and Argument.\nAs it is said of _Bishop Stillingfleet_, that, being sensible of his\nInsufficiency to contend with Mr. _Lock_, he grieved and pined away upon\nit: So I, upon Supposition the Bishop of St. _David's_ has confuted me,\nmust not only necessarily afflict my self, but undergo the Shame of the\nReproaches of the People, for my wicked and impotent Efforts to subvert\ntheir Religion: And what would the _Bishop_ have more? He could desire\nno more, if he had absolutely confuted me: But it's plain he dares not\ntrust to his own Confutation of me; it's plain he's afraid of, what he\nis conscious may be made, a smart Reply to him, and therefore he calls\nupon the Civil Magistrate for his Help to prevent it.\n\nAfter that the _Bishop_ of _London_ had publish'd his _Pastoral\nLetter_, and it was reported that the _Bishop_ of St. _David's_ was\npreparing a strenuous Vindication of the _litteral_ Story of _Jesus_'s\nMiracles, I concluded that the Prosecution would immediately be\ndropp'd, and that the Clergy were betaking themselves to that\nChristian, Rational, and Philosophical Course of Confutation, and\nwould no longer make use of Persecution, which is the Armour of hot,\nfurious, and ignorant Bigots. And there is one Passage in the\n_Bishop_'s _Pastoral Letter_, which I interpreted as a Grant of full\nLiberty; but, whether I am apt to mistake the Sense of the Fathers of\nthe _Primitive_ Church or not, I find I did misconstrue the Words of a\nFather of our _English_ Church, and turn'd them to another and better\nPurpose than he aim'd at. His Words are these[340] \"And as to the\n_blasphemous manner_, in which a late Writer has taken the Liberty to\ntreat our Saviour's Miracles, and the Author of them; tho' I am far\nfrom contending, that the Grounds of the Christian Religion, and the\nDoctrines of it, may not be discuss'd at all Times in a calm, decent,\nand serious Way (on the contrary, I am sure that the more fully they\nare discuss'd, the more firmly they will stand) yet I cannot but think\nit the Duty of the Civil Magistrate, at all Times, to take Care that\nReligion be not treated in a _ludicrous_ or _reproachful_ Manner, and\neffectually to discourage such Books and Writings as strike equally at\nthe Foundation of all Religion, _&c._\" What the _Bishop_ of _L._ here\nsays, of his _thinking it the Duty of the Civil Magistrate at all\nTimes, to take Care that Religion be not treated in a ludicrous\nmanner_, I understood as an Excuse for what he had done in stirring up\nthe Civil Magistrate to a Prosecution of me; and that now, like a\nPhilosopher, he was for letting Truth and Religion to take its Course,\nand for leaving it to a free Discussion, whether in a _ludicrous_ or\nin a _calm_, _decent_ or _serious_ Way. But I confess, I have mistaken\nthe _Bishop_'s Words, finding by Experience, that (for all the\nnatural Import of his Expression, that Liberty should be used to\ndiscuss the Grounds of Religion in a _serious_ Manner) he'll no more\nsuffer it, if he can help it, to be contested in a _serious_, than in\na _ludicrous_ Way; wherefore else did he move for the Prosecution of a\nlate _London Journal_, which was all _calm_, _decent_, and _serious_\nArgument. And the Bishop of St. _David's_ his furious _Dedication_\nnow, confirms me in this Opinion, that our _Clergy_ (for all their\npreaching up Liberty with as much Force and Strength of Reason as any\nMen, and for all their Invitations to _Infidels_, to say and print\ntheir worst against Christianity) will by no means, if they can hinder\nit, suffer any Attacks to be made upon their Religion, nor cease their\nImportunities and Solicitations of the Civil Magistrate to\nPersecution. Blessed be God, the _Bishops_ are not my _Judges_ as well\nas my _Accusers_, or I know, what would become of me.\n\nMr. _Atkinson_, a little Writer against me, says,[341] \"That I call\nthe pretended Divines of the Church my Prosecutors, when they were not\nmy Prosecutors. And _again_, That there was no need of my Supposition,\nthat the _Clergy_ would have more Wit than to prosecute me again for\nthis _Discourse_; for he did not know that they had been concern'd in\nany Prosecution of me.\" And again he says, \"If the Civil Magistrate\nthinks it his Duty to chastise me for my Sin and Folly, I am to blame\nmy self, and not the _Clergy_, till I can prove the Zeal of our\nChristian Government to be excited by the malign Influence of the\n_Clergy_.\" Mr. _Atkinson_ is thus far certainly in the right on't,\nthat, strictly speaking, the _Clergy_ are not my Prosecutors, but the\nKing, who, in all probability, knows no more of my Books than the Man\nin the Moon. But whether Mr. _Atkinson_ could be so ignorant, as not\nto know the _Clergy_ were the grand Instigators to Prosecution, let\nothers judge. If he really was such a poor _Ignoramus_, I have no more\nto say: Otherwise, his Expressions above, will be look'd upon as the\nvilest Piece of Hypocrisy and Prevarication that can be, purposely\nutter'd to take off the _Odium_ of the Prosecution from the _Clergy_,\nand to cast it upon the Civil Government; which, whether Mr.\n_Atkinson_ believes it or not, had never, but for the Solicitations of\nthe _Bishops_, given me any Trouble. Mr. _Atkinson_ above, acts the\nPart of the Popish Clergy of _France_, upon the Revocation of the\nEdict of _Nantes_. After that the King, upon the urgent Importunities\nof the Clergy, had resolv'd to revoke that Edict; the Clergy were for\nexcusing themselves to the Protestants, and laying the Blame only on\nthe King, saying, _The King was bent and resolv'd on't, and they could\nnot help it_; which was such Jesuitical Prevarication in the Popish\nClergy, that the Protestants could not forbear _roguing_ them for it.\nMr. _Atkinson_ knows how to apply this Story; which I had not told,\nbut for the Use of the Bishop of _L._ who, upon a certain Occasion\ncould say, that it was not He, but the _Government_ that prosecuted\nMr. _Woolston_. If Mr. _Atkinson_ was really so ignorant as he seems\nto be, I suppose he is now of another Mind, upon reading the _Bishop_\nof St. _David's_ Dedication; and convinced that the Prosecution\nagainst me was began and carried on at the _malign influence_, as he\ncalls it, of the Clergy.\n\nI will here use no Arguments for Liberty of Debate, which Subject has\nalready been copiously handled, and wants nothing, that I can add unto\nit. But before I enter into the Body of the _Bishop_'s Book, and upon\na profess'd Defence of my Discourses against him, let us consider the\nmanifest Lies, Prevarications, and wicked Insinuations in his\n_Dedication_, whereby he would move the Secular Powers to a severe\nPunishment of me. I will pass by the _Motto_ of his Book, _viz. But\nJesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a\nKiss_; Whereby he would signify and intimate, not to _Scholars_ (for\nthey have more Wit than to think the worse of me for his Abuse of\nScripture) but to the ignorant Multitude, that I am another _Judas_, a\nTraitor and Rebel to _Jesus_. Commonly _Mottos_ of Books are suited to\ntheir Authors, and the Design of them; whether the _Bishop_ will be\nwilling to take this _Motto_ to himself or not, I will upon another\nOccasion give it a pleasant and pertinent Turn upon him. At present I\nshall only say, what the Learned will observe, that _this_ is of a\nwicked and malicious Use and Intention, of no less, than to create in\nthe Minds of the People an Hatred and Detestation of me; of no other,\nthan by dressing me up, as it were, in a Bear's Skin, to excite the\nEcclesiastical and merciless Mob to worry and destroy me. Such has\nbeen the roguish Artifice of priests of all Ages, to represent their\nAdversaries, whom they would destroy, under odious and borrow'd Names,\nthat their Persecutions of them might be thought the less cruel. But\npassing this by for the present, the\n\nI. First wicked and wilful Misrepresentation that the _Bishop_, in his\nDedication, has made of me, is that of being an _Infidel_, and an\n_Apostate_ Clergyman. Wherefore else does he say thus to the Queen:\n\"What is now presented to your Royal View, is an Apologetical Defence\nof our holy Religion, against one of the most virulent Libels on it,\nby an _Apostate Clergyman_, that has appear'd in any Christian\nCountry; and in Comparison of which, other _Infidels_ have acted a\nmodest Part.\" And again he calls my _Discourses_, \"A flagrant Sort of\nProfaneness, that tramples with Indignity on the Grounds of the\nChristian Faith.\" And again he signifies, \"That I am warmly engaged in\nsubverting the Christian Religion, and active in propagating\nInfidelity.\" This is all wilful and downright Calumny, to incense the\nQueen and the Government against me. The _Bishop_ knows in his Heart\nthat I am no _Infidel_, but a Believer of Christianity,\nnotwithstanding my _Discourses_ on Miracles, that have occasion'd such\na Clamour against me. In my _Discourses_, I have repeatedly and most\nsolemnly declared, that my Designs are not to do Service to\nInfidelity, but to advance the Glory of God, the Truth of\nChristianity, and to demonstrate the _Messiahship_ of the holy\n_Jesus_. If I have sometimes ridiculed the litteral Story of our\nSaviour's Miracles, I have profess'd as often that it was with Design\nto turn Men's Hearts to the mystical Interpretation of them, on which\nalone _Jesus_'s Authority and Messiahship is founded. I could collect\na great Number of Passages out of my _Discourses_ to this Purpose, if\nit would not be wasting of Time and Paper. And do all these solemn\nDeclarations of my Faith, and of the Integrity of my Heart, and of the\nSincerity of my Intentions, stand for nothing? Why should not my Word\nhere be taken? I can think of no other Reason, than because some other\nFolks are accustom'd to dissemble and prevaricate with God and Man in\ntheir Oaths and Subscriptions, therefore I may be suspected here of\nHypocrisy, notwithstanding my Professions to the contrary.\n\nBesides, the _Bishop_ knows by my other Writings, that I am certainly\na Christian, and a true Believer of the Religion of Christ, though I\nmay have some different Conceptions from other Men about it. It has\nbeen my good Luck before, not only to publish more Treatises purposely\nand professedly in Defence of Christianity, than any _Bishop_ in\n_England_; but some of them are of such a Nature, as it's impossible\nfor a Man to write without being a Christian, and impossible for him\nto depart from the Principles of them. This is my good Fortune and\nHappiness at this Juncture. The _Bishop_ has perused, I see, some of\nmy other Writings, and particularly, my _Old Apology for the Truth of\nChristianity revived_; and to his Praise, as well as my Comfort be it\nspoken, he apprehends and rightly relishes it. And as I was well\npleased with his Representation of the Design of that Book, from the\nPrinciples and allegorical Scheme of which, he says (in Twenty-four\nYears since) I am not departed; so I would appeal to his Conscience,\nWhether a Man, who wrote, as I did then, of the Typical and Antitupal\nDeliverance of the _Jewish_ and _Christian_ Church, can possibly be an\nInfidel, or ever depart from the Christian Faith? If the _Bishop_ has\nIngenuity equal to his Penetration into that Book, he must own and\nconfess to the World, that I was then, and am still a Christian, a Man\nof fix'd and unalterable Principles from that Day to this.\n\nThe _Bishop_ would be thought in his _Preface_ to enumerate all my\nWritings; but there are three others, whether wilfully or negligently\nomitted by him, I know not, that are direct Defences of the Truth of\nChristianity; and there is not a learned _Clergy-man_ in _England_ (I\nhumbly presume to say it) who can read them, and not applaud them. If\nthe _Bishop_ will be pleas'd to read one of them, _viz. The Defence of\nthe Miracle of the Thundering Legion_, and say it from his Heart, that\nI might write that Book, and believe the Ecclesiastical Story of that\nMiracle, and yet be no Christian, then I will yield to his Accusation\nagainst me for Infidelity.\n\nBut why do I trouble my self thus to assert and vindicate my Belief of\nChristianity? The _Bishop_ would readily come into the Acknowledgment\nof my being a sincere Christian, but for his Interests and Prejudices,\nand other political Considerations, which influence him and the\n_Clergy_ so to decry and defame me, that, if possible, I must be\ndestroy'd, or at least have my Mouth stopp'd.\n\nIn short then, it is not because I am an _Infidel_, that the _Clergy_\nso exclaim against me and my _Discourses_; but because, as a\nChristian, I have particular Designs in view, which, if I can compass,\nwill tend to their Dishonour, and the Ruin of their Interests; and\ntherefore, by Defamations and Prosecutions, they will, if they can,\nin time put a stop to them. The Designs that, for the Truth of\nReligion, and Good of Mankind, I have in view, and which, maugre all\nOpposition, Terrors, and Sufferings, I will pursue to the utmost of my\nPower, are these three.\n\n1. To restore the Allegorical Interpretation of the Old and New\nTestament, that is call'd, say the Fathers, the sublime Mountain of\nVision, on which we shall contemplate the Wisdom and Beauty of the\nProvidence of God; and behold the glorious Transfiguration of _Jesus_\nwith _Moses_ and _Elias_, that is, the Harmony between the Gospel and\nthe Law and the Prophets, agreeably to _Jesus_'s typical\nTransfiguration. And this is such a glorious and beatifick Vision,\nthat it's enough to ravish our Hearts with the Hopes and Desires of\nattaining to it. The old _Jews_ say, that the allegorical\nInterpretation of the Scriptures will lead us to the sight of God and\nconvert even _Atheists_. The Fathers say, that the allegorical\nInterpretation will be the Conversion of the _Jews_ in the Perfection\nof Time; and St. _Augustin_ speaks of a great allegorical\n_Genius_,[342] that will be sent to that Purpose. I believe all this,\nand being convinced of the Truth of it, I am much addicted to\nAllegories. And it is plain enough, and wants no Proof, that the\nRevival of the allegorical Scheme, which I am fond of, portends Ruin\nto the _Ministry of the Letter_; and will be such an Argument of the\nIgnorance and Apostacy of our _Clergy_, that it's no wonder they\ndefame, calumniate, and persecute me for my Attempts towards it.\n\n_Origen_ says,[343] that _litteral Interpreters will run into\nInfidelity_, which is a Saying I am well pleased with, and thereupon\nwill try if I can't turn the Tables upon our _Clergy_; I'll try if I\ncan't shift from my self the present Load of Reproaches for Infidelity,\nand lay it upon them. What would the Wife and the Learned then say? That\nthe great _Bishops_ of _London_ and St. _David's_ had caught a _Tartar_.\n\nI have indeed ludicrously treated the Letter of the Scriptures (in my\n_Discourses_) which by the said _Bishops_ is falsly called\n_Blasphemy_: But should they either _ludicrously_ or _sedately_ write\nagainst the allegorical Sense of them, I could prove _that_ to be\nreal _Blasphemy_. However, I would not complain to the Civil Powers\nagainst them; no, it's God's peculiar Prerogative to punish that Sin,\nwhich ought not to be committed to the Care of the Civil Magistrate.\n\nBut what need I _ludicrously_ to handle the Letter of our Saviour's\nMiracles? Because some Sort of Stories are the proper Subjects of\n_Ridicule_; and because, _Ridiculum acri fortius & melius_, Ridicule\nwill cut the Pate of an Ecclesiastical Numbskull, which calm and\nsedate Reasoning will make no Impression on.\n\nTo speak then the Truth in few Words. As I am resolv'd at any Rate to\nrun down the _Letter_, in order to make way for the _Spirit_ of the\nScriptures, so certainly will our Clergy, for their Interests and\nHonour, as Ministers of the Letter, vilify and reproach me, and pursue\nme with an implacable Hatred: But I should think it meet for them to\nuse a little more Temper in their Revilings, for fear the Torrent of\nReproaches should sometime or other turn on them. It is asserted and\npredicted by the Fathers that, after a certain Time of the Church's\nApostacy to the _Letter_, the _Spirit of Life_, or the allegorical\nSense will re-enter the Scriptures, to the Advancement of divine\nKnowledge and true Religion; in the mean while the _Clergy_ will do\nwell to see to it. But,\n\n2. The Second Design which, as a Christian, I have in View, and which\noccasionally I write for, is an universal and unbounded Toleration of\nReligion, without any Restrictions or Impositions on Men's\nConsciences; for which Design, the _Clergy_ will hate and defame me,\nand, if possible, make an Infidel of me, as well as for the former.\nUpon an universal Toleration the World would be at quiet: That Hatred\nof one another, which is now so visible among different Sects, would\nthen be terminated by a Unity of their Interests, when they are all\nupon the Level in the Eye of the Civil Magistrate, who would choose\nMen to Places of Trust, not for their Faith and Affection to\nTheological Doctrines, but for their Abilities to serve the Publick.\nIn this Case, Ten thousand different _Notions_ in Religion would no\nmore obstruct the Welfare of the Community, than so many different\n_Noses_ do the Happiness of this City. The Variety of their\nTheological Opinions, would be the Diversion and Amusement of each\nother; and so long as it was out of their Power to oppress, they could\nnot hate one another for them. Such a Toleration, the _Clergy_ would\npersuade us, tends to Confusion and Distraction, as if Men would go to\n_Loggerheads_ upon it. But this is one of their Mistakes; there would\nbe a perfect Calm upon it, if such Incendiaries as they are did not\ndisturb the publick Tranquillity. They'll tell us again, that such a\nToleration makes Way for Dissoluteness of Morals, and would let in Sin\nlike a Deluge upon us; but this is another of their Errors. Such a\nToleration would promote Virtue, in as much as different Sects of\nReligion are a Check upon each other against Looseness of Morals,\nbecause every Sect would endeavour to approve itself above others, by\nthe Goodness of their Lives, as well as by the Excellency of their\nDoctrine. But the _Clergy_ will never hearken to such a Toleration,\nbecause it would be the Downfall of Ecclesiastical Power; for which\nReason, among many others, I am\n\n3. For the Abolition of an hired and establish'd Priesthood. And for\nthis, if for nothing else, I am sure to be prosecuted with Hatred and\nViolence, and loaded with the Calumnies and Reproaches of Infidelity\nand Blasphemy: And the _Clergy_, if possible, will have my Mouth\nstopp'd, and my Hands tied, before I proceed too far in my Labours\nand Endeavours to this End.\n\nAnd why should not the _Clergy_ of the Church of _England_ be turn'd\nto Grass, and be made to seek their Fortune among the People, as well\nas Preachers of other Denominations? Where's the Sense and Reason of\nimposing Parochial _Priests_ upon the People to take care of their\nSouls, more than Parochial _Lawyers_ to look to their Estates, or\nParochial _Physicians_ to attend their Bodies, or Parochial _Tinkers_\nto mend their Kettles? In secular Affairs every Man chooses the Artist\nand Mechanick that he likes best; so much more ought he in Spirituals,\nin as much as the Welfare of the Soul is of greater Importance than\nthat of the Body or Estate. The Church-Lands would go a good, if not a\nfull Step, towards the Payment of the Nation's Debts.\n\nI have promised the World, what, by the Assistance of God, and the\nLeave of the Government, shall be publish'd, a _Discourse_ on the\nMischiefs and Inconveniencies of an Hired and Establish'd Priesthood:\nIn which it shall be shewn,\n\nI. That the Preachers of Christianity in the first Ages of the Church\n(when the Gospel was far and near spread, and triumph'd over all\nOpposition of _Jews_ and _Gentiles_) neither received nor insisted on\nany Wages for their Pains, but were against preaching for Hire; and,\nas if they had been endew'd with the Spirit of Prophecy, before an\nHireling Priesthood was establish'd, predicted their Abolition and\nEjection out of Christ's Church.\n\nII. That since the Establishment of an _Hire_ for the Priesthood, the\nProgress of Christianity has not only been stopt, but lost Ground; the\nAvarice, Ambition, and Power of the Clergy having been of such\nunspeakable Mischief to the World, as is enough to make a Man's\nHeartake to think, read, or write of.\n\nIII. That upon an Abolition of our present establish'd Priesthood, and\non God's Call of his own Ministers, the Profession of the Gospel will\nagain spread; and Virtue, Religion, and Learning, will more than ever\nflourish and abound.\n\nThe Clergy are forewarn'd of my Design to publish such a _Discourse_;\nand this is the secret Reason, whatever openly they may pretend, of\ntheir Accusations against me for Blasphemy and Infidelity. Their Zeal\nand Industry will be never wanting to prevent the Publication of this\n_Discourse_; neither need I doubt of Persecution, if they can excite\nthe Government to it, to that End.\n\nIn my first Discourse on Miracles, I happen'd to treat on that of\nJesus's driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple; which, upon\nthe Authority of the Fathers, I shew'd to be a Figure of his future\nEjection of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons out of his Church, for\nmaking Merchandise of the Gospel. The _Bishop_ has taken me and that\nMiracle to task; and if ever any Man smiled at another's Impertinence,\nI then heartily laugh'd when I read him. I begg'd of the _Bishop_\nbefore-hand[344] not to meddle with that Miracle, because it was a hot\none, and would burn his Fingers. But for all my Caution; he has been\nso Fool-hardy, as to venture upon it; but has really touch'd and\nhandled it, as if it was a _burning Coal_. He takes it up, and as soon\ndrops it again to blow his Fingers; then endeavours to throw a little\nWater on _this_ and _that_ Part of it to cool it, but all would not\ndo. The most fiery Part of it, _viz._ that of its being a Type of\nJesus's future Ejection of mercenary Preachers out of the Church, he\nhas not, I may say it, at all touch'd, except by calling it[345] _my\nallegorical Invective against the Maintenance of the Clergy_; which is\nsuch a Piece of _Corinthian_ Effrontery in the _Bishop_, that was he\nnot resolv'd to lye and defame at all Rates, for the Support of their\nInterests, he could never have had the Face to have utter'd. If the\n_Bishop_ had proved that _that_ Miracle (which litterally was such\na----, as I dare not now call it) neither was nor could be a Shadow\nand Resemblance of Jesus's Ejection of hired Priests out of the Church\nat his second Advent, and that the Fathers were not of this Opinion,\nhe had knock'd me down at once. As he has done nothing of this, so he\nmight have spared his Pains in Support of the Letter of this Story.\nBut I shall have a great deal of Diversion with the _Bishop_, when I\ncome, in a proper Place, to defend my Exposition of that Miracle. In\nthe mean Time, as the Bishop has publish'd one of the Articles of my\nChristian Faith, thinking to render me odious for it; so here I will\ninsert another, _viz._[346] \"I believe upon the Authority of the\nFathers, that the Spirit and Power of Jesus will _soon_ enter the\nChurch, and expel Hireling Priests, who make Merchandise of the\nGospel, out of her, after the manner he is supposed to have driven the\n_Buyers_ and _Sellers_ out of the Temple.\"\n\nNow upon all this, whether the _Bishop_, modestly speaking, has not been\nunjust, uncharitable, and insincere, to represent me as an _Infidel_, I\nappeal to all learned and ingenuous Gentlemen. I am a Christian, though\nnot upon the _litteral_ Scheme, which I nauseate, yet upon the\n_allegorical_ one. And by the following easy and short Argument it may\nbe proved that I am most certainly a Christian. I heartily and zealously\ncontend for the allegorical Interpretation of the Scriptures, which the\n_Bishop_ allows to be true of me; consequently I must, and do believe\nthe Scriptures to be of divine Inspiration, or I could not think there\nwere such Mysteries and Prophecy latent under the Letter of them.\nWhether then a Believer of the divine Inspiration of the Scriptures can\nbe an Infidel (O most monstrous Paradox!) or any other than a Christian,\njudge Readers. Nay, if _Origen_'s and St. _Augustin_'s Testimony on my\nBehalf may be admitted, I am more truly a Christian and Disciple of the\nHoly Jesus, than any _litteral Schemist_ can be. _Origen_ says,[347]\nThat the Perfection of Christianity consists in a mystical\nInterpretation of the Old and New Testament, of the Historical, as well\nas other Parts of it. And St. _Augustin_ says,[348] That they who attain\nto the Understanding of the spiritual Signification of Jesus's Miracles,\nare the best Doctors in his School. The _Bishop_ understands this\nArgument as well as any Man, and therefore I charge it home upon him, as\na wilful and malicious Slander, to call and account me an Infidel in his\n_Dedication_, on purpose to incense the Government against me at this\nJuncture.\n\nBut the _Bishop_ moreover calls me, as above, an _Apostate Clergyman_;\nAnd why so? Because I have deserted the _Ministry of the Letter_, and\nbetaken my self to the _Ministry of the Spirit_ of the Scriptures.\nThat's like the Wit and Reasoning of his Pate! The _Bishop_ is old\nenough, and has read enough to know that _Apostacy_, in the Sense of\nthe Fathers, is a Desertion of the _Ministry of the Spirit_, and a\nFalling into the _Ministry of the Letter_ of the Scriptures; whereupon\nI make bold to retort upon the _Bishop_, and say of him, and his\nEpiscopal Brethren, that they are _Apostate Bishops_.\n\nBut to humour the _Bishop_ in his fond _Dedication_, I will suppose my\nself to be, what I am the farthest of any Man living from being, an\n_Infidel_ and _Apostate_; yet\n\nII. The _Bishop_ is a wilful Calumniator, or, at best, an unhappy\nMisrepresenter of me, and of other Infidels, saying in his\n_Dedication_, that our Design is _To sap the Foundation of all\nGovernment_, and----_That we were pursuing such Methods, as have a\nnatural Tendency to introduce Confusion_. If this was true of us\nInfidels (for now I speak of my self as one of them) it behoves Civil\nGovernors to look about them, and to punish and suppress us with all\nspeed; and we should be the most unreasonable Men alive, if we\ncomplain'd of Persecution, or call'd it hard Usage. And the _Bishop_\nof _London_, and other _Divines_ (like this _Bishop_) do commonly\ndeclaim on the Danger of Infidelity to Civil Society, but this is all\nEcclesiastical Cant and Jargon. I thought I had given[349] the\n_Bishop_ of _London_ so much on this Head of Complaint against\nInfidelity, as I could not suppose the _Bishop_ of St. _David's_ would\never have repeated it. It is true, what the _Bishop_ says, that\n_Religion is the firmest Support of Government_, and _Christianity\nespecially lays the greatest Obligations, on Men's Consciences, of\nObedience to the Civil Powers_. I believe all this, and that the\nbetter Christians Men are, the more quiet, peaceable, and useful\nSubjects, and the greater Friends would they be to the Civil\nAuthority. But does it follow from hence, that we _Infidels_, because\nwe have rejected the Belief of some systematical Divinity, as the\n_Clergy_ are fond of, should consequently be Enemies to the Civil\nGovernment, and Foes to the Peace, Order, and Welfare of Society? O\nfie upon the Drawers of such Consequences! We are, I believe, a\nnumerous and growing Sect in these Nations, though I am acquainted\nwith none, no, not so much as with the Great Mr. _Grounds_: But I\ncould never perceive that any of us, in Principle, were against Civil\nGovernment, and the Welfare of the Community; or were for _Confusion_,\nfor setting the People together by the Ears, to the Disturbance of the\npublick Peace and Tranquillity. No, no, our Interests in the World, as\nwell as other Men's, oblige us to consult the publick Welfare; and\nour Consciences, from the Religion of Nature, bind us to Obedience to\nGovernment; and, was it not agreeable to our Inclination, the\nNecessity of Affairs would force us to be as quiet and obedient as are\nany Christians: And I thank God, we have hitherto behaved our selves\nvery peaceably, clear of all Suspicion of Treason and Rebellion to any\nPrince or State. The _Bishop_ hints at Experience to the contrary, but\nit will puzzle him to give an Instance. One would think, by this\ncommon Harangue, of _Ecclesiasticks_ against us _Infidels_, that\nChristians, especially the Priesthood, being, as the _Bishop_ says,\nboth _under the Penalties of human Laws, and the stronger Impressions\nof a future State_, were of a Lamb-like Nature, and never given to\ndisturb the Civil Authority: And I will own the Christian _Laity_\nmight be acquitted here, but for the _Clergy_, who have been\nrepeatedly the _Pest_ and _Bane_ of human Society, the Trumpeters of\nSedition and Rebellion, and mere Make-bates in Cities and Families.\nAnd I dare say, that if the Civil Powers don't curb, and keep our\n_Priesthood_ in awe, they will upon this present Occasion be the\nDisturbers of the publick Peace. So little Sense and Truth is there\nin the _Bishop_'s present Invective against us Infidels! If he had not\nbeen infatuated to a Forgetfulness of the _Rogueries_ of Priests, in\nall Ages, against the Civil Powers, he could never have insinuated\nsuch a groundless and senseless Charge against us, to the Provocation\nof the Civil Magistrate to fall on us. But\n\nIII. The _Bishop_ calumniates us Infidels (for against his Conscience,\nwhether I will or not, he will have me to be one of them) not only for\nbeing Enemies to Government in general, which he will have us to\nadvance Principles destructive of; but insinuates and asserts that we\nare disaffected to the particular and present Government of these\nKingdoms, saying, that as \"we are active in propagating Infidelity, we\ndo in the last Resort, not only insult the Title of _Defender of the\nFaith_, but undermine the undoubted Right of his Majesty and his Royal\nFamily to the Crown of these Realms, as it is founded on the\nProfession of _Christianity_, reform'd, and now legally settled among\nus; and therefore Persons of that Character may well be consider'd, as\nequally false to the Author of our Faith, and to the present\nGovernment.----Therefore in a just Sense of that Allegiance which is\ndue to the King, and for the Security of your Majesties, and the\nRoyal Family, and thereby of the Publick it self, as well as out of a\ndeep Concern for the Honour and Preservation of our most holy Faith,\nthe ensuing Treatise is now offer'd, under your Majesty's Protection,\nto the View of the Publick.\" This is all such foolish and manifest\nSlander, that I can't but think the _Bishop_ mad with Rage and\nIndignation at me, when he writ it. I dare say the _Queen_, who is\nfirmly attach'd to the Interests of the Christian and Protestant\nReligion, did, when she read all this, almost grieve for the _Bishop_,\nand pity him for his Weakness and Ignorance. It is a _Maxim_ among all\nParties, that _Infidels_ are heartily affected to the present\nEstablishment of the State; yea, so far a _Maxim_, that _Jacobites_\nand _High-Church-men_ are apt to accuse all the well-affected to the\nGovernment, of Infidelity. From none of the Writings or Practice of\nInfidels, much less of my self, could the _Bishop_ gather any of these\nhis _childish_ Surmises. The Government, since the Succession of the\nIllustrious House of _Hanover_, has been twice attempted to be\ndisturb'd, and both times by profess'd Christians. The Rebellion at\n_Preston_ consisted of _Papists_ and _High-Church-men_, and tho'\nthere were but few _Clergy-men_ in Arms, yet they were join'd with the\nPrayers and Wishes of many Thousands of the _Clergy_, and even, as it\nwas suspected, of some _Oxonian Bishops_. Bishop _Atterbury_'s Plot\ntoo consisted of Rebellious Christians, without the least intermixture\nof us _Infidels_, who are the more zealously affected to the\nGovernment, because of the Danger it is sometimes in from the\n_High-Church Clergy_. Away then with the _Bishop_'s Slander, which,\nfor all we may be Unbelievers of Christianity, our Civil Magistrates\nwill laugh at and deride him for. But,\n\nIV. Another Misrepresentation, more foolish and absurd than the former,\nthat the _Bishop_ has made of us _Infidels_, is, that we are making Way\nfor Popery and Slavery: For thus he says of us, \"Nothing is more\ndemonstrable, than that those Adversaries (meaning us _Infidels_) of the\nChristian Religion, who are now so busily employ'd in infusing Doubts\ninto some weak Minds, in giving an Indifference and Coldness to other\nwell-meaning Persons, and in making others, that are viciously inclin'd,\nactual Proselites to Infidelity, are pursuing such Methods as have a\nnatural Tendency to introduce Confusion, and thereby betray us into\n_Popery_.\" And again he says of Infidels, \"That in Consequence of their\nown Infidelity, and their wicked Diligence in spreading that Infection,\nare bringing in upon us the real Persecutions of the Church of _Rome_;\nwho likewise, whilst they rail so plentifully at the most rational\nReligion in the World as Superstition, give great Advantages towards\nrestoring the insupportable _Superstitions_ of that Communion. These are\nthe Persons indeed that appear in favour of an unbounded Liberty, but\nGod grant it may not terminate in an absolute _Slavery_.\" _Risum quis\ntenerat?_ Who in his Wits could write such Stuff? And who without\nImpatience can read it? I was going about a particular Dissection of\nthese two Paragraphs, and to lay open the Wit, Sense, and Oratory of the\n_Bishop_, to the Contemplation of his Admirers; but I find it\nunnecessary, as well as tedious to do it: The very transcribing of them,\nand exposing them to View, is enough to render him ridiculous. If there\nbe no more danger of Popery, Slavery, Superstition, Tyranny, and real\nPersecution from our _Clergy_, than from us _Infidels_, the Nation is\nsafe. _Infidels_ find too much Inconvenience in the Power, Craft, and\nFollies of a Protestant _Clergy_, to make Way for _Popery_; which, as\nthe _Bishop_ rightly says, is a _Complication_ of Errors. There are,\nwhat the _Bishop_ should have thought of, many Protestant Priests for an\nAccommodation with the Church of _Rome_; and, if I mistake not, upon\nsuch easy Terms as _this_, _viz._ If she'll but part with some of her\nSuperstitions that are of no Use to her; our _Clergy_ will admit of\nothers as will be of Advantage to them. But _Infidels_ are\nirreconcilable Enemies to the Church of _Rome_, and so far from Wishes\nand Endeavours to restore Popery, that it is mere Nonsense to charge\nthem with either direct or consequential Designs so to enslave Mankind.\nBut\n\nV. The _Bishop_ says, that we Infidels (for I am one it seems) _labour\nindustriously to root out all Sense of Virtue and Religion among us_.\nThis is sad indeed, if true; and very bad Men should we be, and\ndeserving of the worst Punishment. But this wants Proof. How does he\nknow that we are for rooting out all Sense of Virtue and Religion\namongst Men? Does it appear so by our Writings or our Practices? Does he\nfind in our Books any Exhortations to Looseness and Immorality? Nothing\nof this I am sure. Is he then so well acquainted with Infidels, as to\nknow them to be of more depraved and debauch'd Lives than profess'd\nChristians? Nor this neither. I have not as yet heard that any of my\nDisciples have been hang'd, lamenting his Misfortune of reading my\n_Discourses_, as what encouraged him to Sin, and brought him to the\nGallows. No, those unhappy People, hitherto, die in the Faith and\nCommunion of the Church, either of _England_ or of _Rome_, and hope to\nbe saved through the Merits of their Saviour, Neither do, I hear of any\nGentleman, old or young, who has given a greater Loose to his Lusts and\nPassions, since he read my Books. Such News would trouble me.\n\nBut because of this Out-cry of the _Bishop_, and of other Preachers\nagainst us, that we labour industriously to root out all Sense of\nVirtue and Religion amongst Men, I wish (for Proof) that _Infidels_\nwere distinguishable from Christians, that a Comparison might be made,\nand the Difference discern'd between them, as to true Religion and\nVirtue. Tho' I am one of little Acquaintance with Infidels, yet it is\nmy Opinion that, on this Score, they may vie with, and, all things\nconsider'd, do surpass Christians. One would think, by the _Bishop_'s\nInsinuation above, that none but _good_ People were of his Christian\nFaith; and that all Infidels were profligate Sinners; but he knows\nbetter, and what's more, he should have been more ingenuous than to\ncharge _Infidels_ with _Labours to root out all Sense of Virtue and\nReligion amongst Men_, if it was but in Regard to that learned\nGentleman who is supposed to be at the Head of Infidelity, and who,\nthey say, is as exemplary for all social Virtues, as any _Bishop_; and\ndislikes Vice and Immorality as much as any Saint can do.\n\nWhatever be the _Virtue_ and _Religion_ of _Infidels_, it is all\ngenuine, natural, and sincere; and consequently more Praise-worthy than\n_that_ of hired Priests, who may be suspected of Hypocrisy, because of\ntheir Interests. I heard a wild Spark say, that he could be as grave as\nthe _Bishop_ of _London_, if he was but as well paid for it. Whether he\nbeliev'd the _Bishop_ would have been as loose as himself, but for his\n_Hire_, I can't tell. But this is certain that, what can't be said of\nInfidels, there are Priests who put on the Face and Form of Godliness,\nand want the Life and Power of it; who lift up their Hands and Eyes unto\nGod, when their Hearts are far from him; and were not their Interests\nmore than their Faith, a Restraint to their Lusts, it is commonly\nbeliev'd they would be a Company of loose _Blades_.\n\nWhat a Pother is here of the Danger and Mischief of Infidelity to\nChurch and State? Do but take away the Cause of Infidelity, and the\nEffect ceases. And what is the Cause of Infidelity? Why, what _Origen_\npredicted, I experience to be true, that the _Ministry of the Letter_\nis the Cause of it; and I appeal to Mr. _Grounds_, Whether litteral\nExpositions on the Scripture, and the absurd Doctrines which the\n_Clergy_ have built upon the _Letter_, have not been one Cause of his\ncalling into Question, the Truth of Christianity, and the divine\nInspiration of the holy Scriptures? But this is not the only Cause of\nInfidelity; there are other grand ones, which Dr. _Moore_ writes of,\nsaying thus:[350] \"That Men are exceedingly tempted to think the whole\nBusiness of Religion is at best but a Plot to enrich the Priests, and\nkeep the People in awe, from observing that they, who make the\ngreatest Noise about Religion, and are the most zealous therein, do\nneglect the Laws of Honesty and common Humanity; that they easily\ninvade other Men's Rights; that they juggle, dissemble, and lye for\nAdvantage; that they are proud, conceited, love the Applause of the\nPeople, are envious, fierce, and implacable, unclean and sensual,\nmerciless and cruel; care not to have Kingdoms flow in Blood, for\nmaintaining their Tyranny over the Consciences of poor deluded Souls.\"\nIf then there is any Danger of any kind in Infidelity, let the\n_Clergy_ take the Blame and Shame of it to themselves, and not lay\nthat Fault, which is their own, upon other Men.\n\nBut observing that Dr. _Moore_ above speaks of Priests, their\n_neglecting the Laws of Honesty_ and _common Humanity_, as a Cause of\nInfidelity, I must here do a piece of Justice to Infidels, who place\nthe very _Essence_ of all Religion (as I believe the Essence of\nChristianity consists) in _common Honesty_. If they keep to their\nPrinciples, and act agreeably, they will work such a Reformation in\nthe World for the better, as the _Priests_ of all Ages have not been\nable to do. The _Clergy_ have made such a Noise in the World about\n_Faith_ and _Doctrine_, that the People hardly think they need be\n_Honest_ to be good Christians and even many _Clergy-men_ are\nconceited of their being _orthodox_ and _sound Divines_, though by\ntheir Dishonesty, Profuseness, and Neglect of a Provision for their\nFamilies, they have, in the Judgment of[351] St. _Paul_, deny'd the\nFaith, and are worse than Infidels.\n\nAnd thus have I consider'd the Slanders and Misrepresentations of my\nself and Infidels, contain'd in the _Bishop_'s _Dedication_ to the\n_Queen_, which entirely is such a Piece of Fury, Railing, and\nImpertinence, as a Man shall hardly meet with. Surely he was not awake\nwhen he wrote his _Dedication_, it is so like the _Dream_ of a\ndisorder'd Brain which consists of confused Notions, and scatter'd\nIdeas, that are never to be so compacted together, as to make tolerable\nSense, Reason, and Truth. If I had not met with much such flaming Stuff\nin the Body of his Book, I should have suspected that some-body, more a\nFoe than a Friend to him, had palm'd it upon him, and over-persuaded him\nto print it, as what would recommend him to her Majesty's Favour.\n\nWhether he'll merit a _Translation_ to an _Arch-Bishoprick_, for this\nDedication, with me is no Question. For all he may take me for his\nEnemy, I wish him _translated_, as certainly as the Government has\n_transported_ some other Folks, who are no more the Bane of Society.\n_Buggs_ in a House, and _Caterpillars_ in a Garden, are not a greater\nGrievance, than some sort of Ecclesiastical _Vermin_ in Christ's\nChurch and Vineyard.\n\nThat the _Bishop_ himself admires his _Dedication_, and is pleas'd\nwith it, I don't doubt. Like as _Bears_ are fond of their ill-favour'd\n_Cubbs_, so the Brats of some Men's Brains, as well as those of their\nBodies, are pleasing to than; and however deform'd and irrational in\nthemselves, are hugg'd by them as so many Wits and Beauties. But\nwhether many, beside the _Bishop_ himself, will like his _Dedication_,\nis a great Question. I don't doubt, but there may be some for\nPersecution as well as the _Bishop_, and so far may approve of the\n_Dedication_: But whether there is any one that can think, he has not\ngreatly injured _Infidels_, and made a false Representation of them,\nfor being Enemies to our Civil Government, and to our present\nEstablishment, can't surely be question'd. If he be not look'd upon\nhere, by all Mankind, as a wilful and malicious Misrepresenter of\nthem, I shall much wonder at it.\n\nBut what's the _Dedication_ to the Book it self, will some here say?\nTho' the _Bishop_ may have made some Slips in his _Dedication_ which\nbetray Weakness and Ignorance; yet his following Performance may be\nStrenuous and Nervous, and a compleat Confutation of my _Discourses_. I\nanswer, that such a Dedication bodes ill to the Book; and a Man may as\nwell expect to find the inside of a House beautiful and richly adorn'd,\nwhen the Porch and Entrance into it is mean and nasty; as that an\nadmirable Treatise for Wit, Reason, and Learning, should follow upon\nsuch a poor, simple, and insipid _Dedication_. Commonly Authors take\nmore care in their _Dedications_, than in their following Treatise; that\nis, they see better to the Accuracy of their Expressions, the Exactness\nof their Stile, and Beauty of their Thoughts; and if they err at all in\nthem, it is only in Flattery, and excess of Compliments on their\nPatrons. Such Care too, after the best manner he was able, has the\n_Bishop_ taken in his _Dedication_ above; and whatever his Readers and\nAdmirers may think, the _Dedication_ is the best Part of the Book. The\nExceptions I have taken at the _Dedication_ are but small, in Comparison\nof the Faults I shall find and expose in the _Book_ it self; which is\nsuch a Complication of Impertinence and Errors, of Rage and Confidence,\nand of Calumnies and Reproaches, as is not to be equall'd; and is so\nfar from deserving the Character of a Confutation of my _Discourses_,\nthat it has done them Service; and will be, after the Animadversions I\nshall make on it, a Confirmation of the Goodness, Usefulness, and\nExcellency of my Design in them.\n\nI have not here room to make a compleat Dissection of the _Bishop_'s\nWork, and to display its Insufficiency, in answer to my _Discourses_;\nneither was it my Design in this _first Part_ of my _Defence_ to do\nit. But however, I will spare a Place here for a short Character and\nRepresentation of his Performance, which take as follows.\n\n    \"The _Bishop_'s sole Aim and Design is to vindicate the _litteral\n    Story_ of our Saviour's Miracles, against my rational and\n    authoritative Objections to it. And to this Purpose he wrangles with\n    me, where he can, about the Sense of this and that Citation out of\n    the Fathers; and after he has forc'd another Sense on it, than the\n    Words do naturally bear, then he insults me for a Misrepresentation.\n    And where he meets with a plain Testimony out of the Fathers, which\n    he can't mangle nor strain to his Purpose, he fluently passes by it;\n    tho' he would have his _Readers_ to believe, he has vindicated the\n    litteral Story against my Authorities, and shewn that the Fathers\n    were all on his Side.\n\n     \"He complains of my Mutilations of the Fathers, and of making too\n     curt Citations out of them; which is true, but more to my own\n     Disadvantage than to his. But, what is Matter of grand Triumph to\n     the _Bishop_, is, that I have quoted _spurious_ Works of the\n     Fathers for _genuine_ ones. And here he takes great Pains, and\n     wastes Time and Paper, to prove that _this_ and _that_ Book does\n     not belong to the Author under whose Name I cite it; and then has a\n     Fling at me for want of Skill in _Criticism_. But can the _Bishop_\n     be so weak, as to think, I did not know when I quoted a _spurious_\n     Work? Supposing the _Book_ I quoted do not belong to the reputed\n     Author, but to some other Writer, what's that to the Question\n     between us? The Citation is no less the Testimony of Antiquity, and\n     it's no matter whose Name it bears. If the _Bishop_ had thought a\n     little on this, he might have spared some Sheets of Paper, which he\n     has in vain wasted, to the Loss of his Readers Time and Money.\n\n     \"Again, where my rational Arguments against the _Letter_ seem to\n     the _Bishop_ to be weak and inconclusive; there, to do him\n     Justice, he handsomly turns upon me with his Reasoning, and\n     admonishes me of my Spitefulness against the _Letter_, or I would\n     never use such a slight Argument. But where I pinch and bear hard\n     upon the _Letter_, and the Jest is not to be digested, there,\n     instead of Reasoning against me, he makes a hideous Out-cry of\n     Buffoonery, Blasphemy, and Infidelity; and calls upon the Civil\n     Magistrate for his Help, or their Religion, and their _All_ is in\n     Danger, through the impious Writings of untoward Infidels.\n\n     \"The _Bishop_ in some Cases gives up the Cause, and seems himself\n     to be almost ashamed of the _Letter_; and for the Maintenance of\n     the Honour of _Jesus_, and the Dignity of his miraculous Operation,\n     flies to Allegory; allowing that _this_ and _that_ Miracle might be\n     typical and figurative of somewhat else, as his Thoughts did\n     suggest to him. But here he discovers his poor Talent at\n     Allegories, making no more Resemblance between the _Type_ and\n     _Antitype_, than between an _Apple_ and an _Oyster_.\n\n     \"I am repeatedly charg'd by the _Bishop_ with Infidelity, for\n     writing against the _Letter_, tho' I am as grave as a Judge at the\n     allegorical Interpretation; and he can't but know that Infidelity\n     and Allegorism are incompatible in the same Person. To prove me an\n     Infidel, he should have shewn that I meant to pour Contempt upon\n     the allegorical, as well as litteral Sense of Jesus's Miracles; but\n     he has not once hinted at this. A certain great Writer, call'd Mr.\n     _Grounds_, plays a double Game upon the _Clergy_, he laughs at the\n     _allegorical_ as well as _litteral_ Scheme, and distresses the\n     _Clergy_ with his Objections against both. But I have not done so;\n     I really am, or seem to be, a sincere Contender for the allegorical\n     Sense. And to make an _Infidel_ of an _Allegorist_, is more\n     difficult and impossible than to make a _Monkey_ of a _Bishop_.\n\n     \"The _Bishop_, as a _Minister of the Letter_, has spoken too\n     favourably of the allegorical Scheme; he has treated it with too\n     much Respect, both as to the Origin and Use of it, and done enough\n     to sap the Foundation of his Church; for which, I am afraid, he'll\n     meet with a Reprimand from his Episcopal Brethren. The _Bishop_ of\n     _Lichfield_ is the Man for my Money, to write against the\n     allegorical Scheme; he tells us, that[352] _St._ Paul _suffer'd in\n     the Esteem of the Jewish Christians for his Neglect of Allegories;\n     and seems to be brought into the Use of them against his own good\n     liking_. And again,[353] _It seems to have been in compliance with\n     Jewish Christians, who were affected with allegorick\n     Interpretations, that St._ Paul _used that way_. Which is as much\n     as to say, St. _Paul_ was more a _Minister of the Spirit_, than of\n     Inclination he was disposed to be, or, in truth, ought to have\n     been; and that, if he took upon him the Ministry of the Spirit for\n     the present, it was only craftily and politically done of him, to\n     catch the _Jews_ in their own Snare of Allegories. He was\n     consenting that the Preachers of the Gospel, in future Times,\n     should desert the _Ministry of the Spirit_, and betake themselves\n     to the _Letter_ of the Scriptures, as what is more agreeable to\n     Truth, and conducive to the Defence and Propagation of\n     Christianity. Such a _Craftsman_ was the inspir'd St. _Paul_, in\n     the Opinion of the _Bishop_ of _Lichfield_! However, the _Bishop_\n     of St. _David's_ ought to be of the same Mind; he should assert,\n     that the _Ministry_ of the _Spirit_ was all apostolical Craft and\n     antient Error; and that the present Generation of Priests, being\n     wiser, more learned, and more sincere than the Primitive and\n     Apostolical ones, do adhere to the _Ministry of the Letter_.\n     Because the _Bishop_ has not gone thus far by much, he leaves more\n     room, than he should, for the Revival of the _Ministry of the\n     Spirit_; that is, of the spiritual and allegorical Interpretation\n     of the Scriptures.\n\n     \"The _Bishop_ often reproves me for my primitive Interpretation of\n     _this_ and _that_ Text of Scripture, and then palms his own forc'd\n     Sense on us, for natural and genuine, contrary to the Judgment of\n     all Antiquity.\n\n     \"He is so _grave_, serious, and sedate at some simple Doctrines and\n     Arguments, that his _Readers_ must of necessity laugh, if not scoff\n     at him. Was I _ludicrously_ to handle the said Doctrines, my\n     _Readers_ would hardly smile. Such a wide Difference is there\n     between the _Levity_ of a Buffoon (as he is pleased to call me) and\n     the _Gravity_ of an Ass, to the exposing of Religion to the\n     Ridicule and Contempt of Mankind.\n\n     \"Lastly, He entirely mistakes the Design of my _Discourses_; he\n     knows not what I aim and drive at. There's one Paradox runs through\n     his whole Book, _viz._ That the litteral Story of our Saviour's\n     Miracles must of necessity be true, or I should have no Foundation\n     to build Allegories upon; which is a gross Mistake of other Writers\n     against me, as well as of himself. Who knows not that the profest\n     Parables of _Jesus_ have nothing of _Letter_ in them, yet are a\n     good Foundation for Allegory? And let me tell him here again, that\n     whatever was true, more or less, in the litteral Story of _Jesus_'s\n     Miracles, there is absolute Necessity, for the Honour and Credit of\n     them, to have Recourse to the Mystery; or litterally they are, and\n     shall be farther proved such----Stories, as I dare not at present\n     call them.\"\n\nThus have I given a brief Account of the _Bishop_'s mighty and pompous\nPerformance; like to which he has promis'd us another Volume, that I\nshall long for the publication of, next _Winter_. This my brief\nAccount is but introductory to future and larger Defences of my\n_Discourses_ on Miracles; which, by the Help of God, and Permission\nof the Civil Authority, shall be likewise publish'd.\n\nI have not, I say, room here so much as to defend my self on any one\nMiracle; and if I had, I would not do it. For as I can't do it without\nwriting in the same Stile and Strain for which I am prosecuted, so I\nwill do nothing that may be interpreted as an Act in Defiance and\nContempt of the Power of the Civil Magistrate. I did indeed publish\ntwo _Discourses_ after the Commencement of the Prosecution, because I\nimagined that our _Bishops_ were more in Jest than in Earnest; or if\ntheir Passions were raised for the present, I thought, that after a\nlittle Consideration of the unreasonableness of Persecution in\ngeneral, they would cool upon it, and drop the Prosecution. But since\nthey are in Earnest, and I must answer to the Civil Powers for some\nsupposed Crimes in my _Discourses_, I'll not repeat here the like\nActs, but be quiescent in respect to the said Powers, to whom\nReverence and Obedience is justly due. For, tho' I look upon the\nEcclesiastical Power as an Usurpation on the Consciences of Mankind,\nyet the _Civil_ is Sacred, is God's Ordinance, and ought to be\nregarded as such. But if I survive the Prosecution, and escape with my\nLife and Liberty, which I don't despair of, under so wise, just, and\ngood a Magistracy as this Nation is bless'd with, the _Bishop_ may\nexpect a strenuous Defence of my self against his weak Assaults on me.\n\nIf our _Bishops_ were any thing _Heroical_, they would stop the\nProsecution, and let the Controversy take its free Course. If they had\nany Sense of Honour and Reputation, any Regard for their Learning,\nthey would set any Adversary of their Church at Defiance, and disdain\nthe Assistance of the Civil Magistrate to punish him, whom they could\nnot confute. It is the Office of the _Bishops_ and _Priests_ of the\nChurch, or I know not what is, to convert _Infidels_, to refute\n_Hereticks_, and by Reason and Argument to put to Silence all\n_Gain-sayers_. Wherefore have they a liberal and academical Education,\nbut to qualify them for this Work? Wherefore do they receive large\nRevenues of the Church, but to oblige and encourage them to it?\nNothing more unreasonable, than that Men should receive Wages, when\nthey don't their Work. What will the People say hereupon less, than\nthat an Army of at least Twenty thousand Blackguards of the Church are\nhired to little or no Purpose? The meanest of the People may as well\nbe taken to Church Preferments, as our reputed learned Divines. They\ncan discharge other Ecclesiastical Offices; and when they are\ndistress'd with an Objection to their Religion, can do no worse than\ncall upon the Civil Magistrate for his Aid and Assistance. But after\nall, I am inclin'd to think our _Bishops_, in Honour, would forbear\nPersecution, but for their Interests, call'd their _All_, which depend\non the Issue of this Controversy.\n\nHowever, not to urge the Argument for Liberty of Debate any farther,\nwhich has been already by others treated on to Perfection, and will be\nagain returned, I doubt not, by some body else, on occasion of this\n_Bishop_'s _Dedication_, I can't but take Notice here how unpolitick,\nas well as unchristian, some Dissenters are in this Controversy,\nbeing, such as Dr. _Harris_, and Mr. _Atkinson_, no less for\nPersecution than the _Clergy_. If they had a Regard to their own\nInterests and Liberties, they would be silent. Infidels (of whom I am\nnone) should be consider'd as Dissenting Brethren, whom they should\nnot be forward to oppress, for fear in time, and by degrees, it should\ncome to their own Turn. Our _Dissenters_ indeed, collectively, are\nvastly numerous, and a potent Party, but may trust too much to their\nown Strength and Numbers. Taking them separately, they may possibly\nbe Extinguish'd by Ecclesiastical Art and Craft. If Blasphemy is a\njust Pretence for the Prosecution of me, the _Clergy_, upon Occasion,\ncan urge the same Crime against them. I'll tell them a Story. The\n_Calvinists_ and _Socinians_ were once equally tolerated in _Poland_,\nand if they had been fast Friends to each other, the _Papists_ could\nnever have suppress'd them: But the _Calvinists_ joining with the\n_Papists_, and urging them to complain against the _Socinians_ for\nBlasphemy, in denying the Divinity of the Son of God, moved the Civil\nAuthority to a Banishment of them; and the _Socinians_ had not been\nlong suppress'd, before the _Papists_ accus'd the _Calvinists_ of no\nless Blasphemy, in denying Adoration to the Virgin _Mary_; and so they\nwere sent packing too; otherwise they might both have enjoy'd their\nLiberty to this Day. The Application of the Story is easy. So if all\nwe _Dissenters_ from the Church, whether we like one another's\nPrinciples or not, don't hold together for the Preservation of our\nLiberties, it's easy for Ecclesiasticks to feign an Accusation of\n_Blasphemy_ against any of us. We have no Security, but in the Wisdom\nand Goodness of an excellent Government, which, if the _Clergy_\nshould ever get on the Back of, its hardly a Question, whether they\nwould not drive, _Jehu_ like, most furiously.\n\nBut to return to my _Bishop_. I once thought he would never have been\ndrawn into this Controversy. Sometime after the Publication of my\nThird _Discourse_, which, for a visible Reason, I dedicated to him,\nand invited him to Battle, I ask'd a dignify'd _Clergy-man_, Whether\nthe _Bishop_ would write against me? He answer'd, No: Whereupon I\nconcluded, that he had a Scent of somewhat, not here to be mention'd.\nBut my repeated Provocations of him afterwards, have forc'd him,\nagainst Inclination, to engage me. His Passion got the better of his\nReason, or he had been certainly quiescent: And the Violence of his\nPassion is so visible thro' his whole Book, that it's God's great\nMercy it did not throw him into a Fever and Convulsions, to the Danger\nof his Life and Health.\n\nI own here again, what I have done before, that I did lay a Trap for\nour _Clergy_; but little imagined that two such great _Bishops_, as of\n_London_ and St. _David's_, would, to my Pleasure and Satisfaction,\nhave been caught in it. If I had not baited my Trap well with\n_Ridicule_, I dare say, they would have kept themselves clear of it.\n\nBut when I experienc'd the hard Usage the Bishops had given me upon my\n_Discourses_, and the Fury with which they attack'd me, it surprised me,\nand brought to my Mind _Origen_'s Prediction[354] of this _very_ War and\nControversy of the _Spirit_ against the _Letter_ of the _Scriptures_,\nand of the Violence it would be carried on with. For all my Veneration\nfor the Authority of the Fathers, I did here suspect the Truth of\n_Origen_'s Prediction, believing him to be mistaken, and that the\nControversy would be manag'd in a _calm_, _decent_, and _sedate_ Manner;\nand so it had been, but for the Interests of the _Clergy_ that are at\nStake in it, which I was not aware of. Finding then the Truth of\n_Origen_'s Prediction contrary to my Expectations, I had the Curiosity\nfurther to consult the Fathers about the Issue of this Controversy; and\nthey presently, with their mystical Fingers, pointed to a Prophecy of it\nin the _Revelations_ of St. _John_; but, to say no more at present,\nassur'd me, that the _Spirit_ would get the Better of the _Letter_ in\nthe Conclusion of it. Tho' I am accounted an Infidel, I am so easy and\ncredulous a Christian as to believe all this; and I thank God have so\nmuch Courage in me, as to try the Truth of it.\n\nBut I must observe here, that besides my two _Bishops_, of _London_ and\nSt. _David's_, (and some other inconsiderable _Triflers_) there are two\n_anonymous_ Authors against me, whose Works have acquir'd some Fame. The\nOne is intitled, _The Miracles of Jesus vindicated_, in _Three Parts_.\nIf I could have gotten to the certain Knowledge of the Author, I should\nhave been tempted to have had a Bout with him; and to have expostulated\nwith him, both with Regard to his Arguments and good Manners. I would\nhave taught him a better Use, and a more proper Application of the Words\n_Dishonesty, and want of Honesty_, than to reproach me with them. Common\nFame says, Dr. _Pearse_, of St. _Martin's_, is the Author; but I am apt\nto think, the _King_'s Parish Priest, and other City _Divines_, have\nmore Wit and Craft than to upbraid me as above, for fear a just Charge\nof _Dishonesty_, for their Extortions and Exactions on the People,\nshould be retorted on them. Upon the Publication of the _First Part_ of\nthe foresaid Treatise, my _Jewish Rabbi_ comes to me in all haste,\nsaying to me, \"Look you here, do you see how this Author has new vampt\nthe old _mumpsimus_ Argument of _Jesus_'s Resurrection? Do you observe\nhow imperfectly, here and there, he answers my Objections to it; and\nsilently slips by some knotty Pieces of them, that were too hard for him\nto untie?\" Yes, _Rabbi_, said I, I do observe all this; (and what I have\nobserv'd since, he argues, awkwardly and backwardly, for the Certainty\nof _Jesus_'s other Miracles, from his Resurrection.) My _Rabbi_\npresently re-inforc'd his Resurrection-Objection against this Author,\nand would have had me to print it. No, no, _Rabbi_, said I; you may\nprint it your self, if you dare. I must wait to hear how Causes will go\nin _Westminster-Hall_, next Term, before I involve my self in another\nLaw-Suit. Besides, _Rabbi_, they say, I don't really thus correspond\nwith a _Jew_, but do only personate one; and the _Bishop_ of St.\n_David's_ hints, that I am answerable to publick Justice for so doing.\nHere my Rabbi stampt with Indignation; saying, What if you did personate\na _Jew_? Is it not lawful, and in Use with your _Divines_, to write\nConferences between a Christian and a _Jew_? And do you any more in this\nCase? Yes, _Rabbi_, said I, it is lawful to write such like Conferences,\nand to make _Jewish_ Objections to Christianity, when they are no\nstronger than may be easily dissipated: But when Men write from the\nHeart, as you do, and raise a D----l that our _Clergy_ can't easily lay,\nit is, they say, intolerable, and punishable; and either you or I, in\nthe Opinion of the _Bishop_, ought to suffer for it.\n\nThe other considerable _Treatise_ against me, is that of _The Trial of\nthe Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus_; which is an ingenious\nPiece, and I was well pleased with it. Some time after the Publication\nof this _Treatise_, I made my Jewish _Rabbi_ a Visit, when, drinking a\n_Dish_ of _Tea_ together, we talk'd it over; and my _Rabbi_ was\npleas'd to deliver his Sentiments of it in this fashion: \"Whoever was\nthe Author of this Treatise, God knows, but he's certainly a Friend to\nmy Objections against _Jesus_'s Resurrection, which he has fairly\nstated; but is so far from fully confuting all of them, that he\ndiscovers a Consciousness, here and there, that they are unanswerable.\nIt is commonly reported that Bishop _Sherlock_ is the Author of this\n_Treatise_, but this Report I look upon as an Artifice of the\nBooksellers, to make it sell well; or rather the Author's contrived\n_Banter_ upon the _Clergy_, and their weak Christian Brethren, to try\nhow far they may be imposed on, and drawn into the Approbation and\nAdmiration of a Treatise, that really makes against them. There is but\nvery little in this Treatise, to make it reputed a sufficient Answer\nto my Objections, excepting the Verdict of the _Jury_, who brought in\nthe Witnesses of the Resurrection, _Not Guilty_, of either Fraud or\nMistake in it. _Bishop Sherlock_ can't be the Author of this Treatise,\nif for no other Reason than this, that _that_ Author is visibly\nagainst that Ecclesiastical Wealth and Power, which the _Bishop_ is\npossess'd of, and does think not disagreeable to the Mind of Christ\nand his poor Apostles. If any _Bishop_ is the concealed Author of this\nTreatise, he must secretly be of the Opinion of the atheistical Pope,\nwho said, _quantum nobis profuit h\u00e6c de Christo Fabula_, what vast\nAdvantage has the Story of Christ been to us Popes and Bishops.\" I\nreadily gave into the Opinion of my _Rabbi_, and wonder'd, _Bishop\nSherlock_ did not so much as by a publick Advertisement clear himself\nof being the Author of this Treatise, and so put a Stop to the\nReport. It may be the _Bishop_ is above the Scandal of it; but I was\nso concern'd for his Reputation, that I drew up a _Vindication_ of him\nfrom the Slander of it; which I had publish'd, but for my _Rabbi_'s\nfarther Thoughts about the Resurrection of Jesus inserted in it, that\nour _Bishops_ might have possibly taken Offence at. So I dropp'd that\nDesign at present, but hope still for an Opportunity to publish the\nsaid Vindication of the _Bishop_, by which, I don't doubt, but to\nmerit his Friendship and Favour.\n\nBut whoever was the real Author of the foresaid Treatise, I humbly and\nheartily beg of him to publish, what in the Conclusion of it, he has\ngiven us some Hopes of, _The Trial of the Witnesses of the\nResurrection of_ LAZARUS, because my _Rabbi_'s Objections to it are a\nNovelty and Curiosity, which, by way of such a Reply to them, I should\nbe glad to see handled.\n\nBut having here by Chance mention'd my _Rabbi_'s Letter concerning\n_Lazarus_'s Resurrection, it brings to my Mind a Challenge I made to\nthe _Bishop_ of _London_ upon it, _viz._[355] \"If he would publish an\nAnswer to that Letter, and vouchsafe me the Pleasure of a Reply to it;\nthen (to save the _Civil Magistrates_ Trouble) I would suffer such\nPunishment that he in his Clemency should think fit to inflict on me,\nfor what's past.\" An ingenuous _Clergy-man_, upon reading this, said,\nthat the _Bishop_ was bound, in Honour, to accept of my Challenge, or,\nwhat was in his Power, in Generosity, to put a Stop to the\nProsecution. But the _Bishop_ is not of his Mind. And for what Reason\nhe does not accept of my Challenge, is best known to himself, and\nothers will conjecture. If he had not condescended to write against me\nin his _Pastoral Letter_, I should have imagined, that he thought it\nbeneath the Dignity of One of his exalted Station in the Church, to\nset his Wit (for dignified Priests, for the most part, think their Wit\nand Learning proportion'd to their Wealth and Power) against such a\npoor Author as I am. But this is not the Reason. It may be, he thinks\nhis Reputation and Honour secure in the Height of his Grandeur, and\nthat his Dependents will admire his Learning nothing the less for his\nNeglect of my Challenge. However it be, this I will say, that were we\nupon the Level in the World as to Fortune, as well as we are to Age\nand Education, the Learned would despise him for declining the\nreasonable Challenge of one, whom he has injuriously treated and\npersecuted. It's to no Purpose to challenge him here afresh; he, being\npurpos'd to carry the Matter with an high Hand, has taken other\nMeasures, and is resolv'd to make use of his Power and Interest to\nsuppress him, whom with Reason and Argument he can't convince.\n\nHowever, I will here make another Proposal to the _Bishop_ of St.\n_David's_. Because he thirsts after a very severe Punishment of me, or\nhe would not be so warm in his Exhortations of the Government to that\nPurpose, I'll tell him how he may glut his Revenge, and inflict a\ngreater Punishment on me, than, in all probability, the Civil Magistrate\nwill humour him in. If he'll but put a Stop to the Prosecution at\npresent (which is not out of the Power of our _Bishops_, whatever they\nmay pretend) and let the Controversy go on, till I have finish'd my\nReply to his _two Volumes_, which shall be done with all Expedition;\nthen, if his Passion is not allay'd, I will submit to any Punishment, he\nin his Wisdom and Justice, without Mercy, shall think fit to have laid\non me, whether it be to Death or Imprisonment. And what would he, or any\nimplacable Priest, desire more? This Proposal makes him my Judge as\nwell as my Accuser, and if he be not the most unreasonable Man alive, he\nmust accept of it. All my Hopes here are, that his Reason may recover\nits Dominion over his Passion, against the Conclusion of my _Defence_,\nor it will go hard with me. If the _Bishop_ will not comply with this\nProposal, I shall conclude, he's possess'd with the only certain and\nallegorical _Satan_, mention'd in my _Discourses_; and I shall be\nconfirm'd in the Opinion of St. _Hilary_ (whose Testimonies about\nDevils, the _Bishop_ has silently pass'd by, without any Charge upon me\nfor Misrepresentation) that there are no worse _Devils_ in the World,\nthan the calumniating, furious, and persecuting Tempers of Mankind. The\n_Bishop_, by the by, has taken Pains to prove there are other _Devils_,\nof an infernal, frightful, and independent Nature, and of a more certain\nExistence than _Hobgoblins_; and he gravely asserts, that three of those\n_Devils_ enter'd into each _Hog_, that ran violently down-hill; thereby\nmaking the little _Pigs_ to carry as great a Burden as the old _Boars_\nand _Sows_, which should have been better thought of by him. The\n_Bishop_, perhaps, for these my Descants, will say I am an Infidel; but\nI assure him, it is one of the Articles of my Primitive and Christian\nFaith, that the old _Dragon_, _Satan_, the _Serpent_, or the _Devil_,\nmention'd in the _Revelations_, is no other than the furious, violent,\nand persecuting Spirit in Man; which, upon the World's getting Liberty\nof Religion, will be bound and chain'd. And it is the Opinion of\nThousands, as well as of my self, that Mankind will never be Happy, nor\nat Rest, till this _Devil_ is exorcised out of the Priesthood, and so of\nconsequence chain'd up. According to the primitive Way of interpreting\nthe _Revelations_ of St. _John_, the Time is near at Hand for the\n_binding_ this Apocalyptical old _Dragon_ or _Satan_, that has pester'd\nthe World through all Ages past. All the Honour that I desire, is, by my\nStudies and Endeavours to be contributing to so great a Work, for the\nGood and Happiness of Mankind.\n\nTo conclude. I have been the more expeditious in printing of this\nDiscourse, not only for fear the _Bishop_'s _Vindication_ (as it is\ncall'd) should have a _malign Influence_ upon some People, I don't\nmean our _Civil Magistrates_, who are wiser and more learned than to\nbe guided by such outragious Stuff; but because he should not long\ntriumph in a Conceit of the Potency and Excellency of his\nPerformance, as if no Reply could or would be made to it. If I had at\nthis Time enjoy'd free Liberty of Debate, I should not have thought it\nworth my while to meddle with his _Dedication_, which with a Scorn I\nshould have pass'd by, and left to the Animadversions and Chastisement\nof other Enemies to Persecution; but would immediately have enter'd\nupon a Defence of my _Discourses_ against him. If I do retrieve my\nLiberty, and the free Use of my Pen, and should not publish Defences\nof my self, I should deserve (what _one_ said the _Bishop_ of\n_London_, for his declining my Challenge, deserv'd) to be piss'd upon\nfor a vain Pretender to Argument and Authority.\n\nIn the mean time, I have nothing to request of our _Clergy_, but that\nLiberty of Debate may be indulg'd us; _that_ Liberty of theological\nDisputation, which would be granted, if they did not industriously\nlabour to obstruct it. When will they cease to disgrace Truth, to\ndishonour their Religion, and to disparage their own Education and\nLearning; and no longer envy Mankind the blessed Enjoyment of such a\nLiberty!\n\nBut their Religion, they say, would be in Danger upon such a Liberty.\nHow can that be? How can Christianity be in Danger, that has not only\nthe Omnipotence of God on his Side, but a numerous standing Army of\nPriests, hired for the Defence of it? It is not then their Concern for\nReligion, that prompts them to so much Zeal here; but their Fears for\ntheir Interests, that depend on the Issue of this Controversy.\n\nWas I to write against any other honest _Trade_, that is practised in\nthis City, the Artificers of it, being sensible of the Usefulness of\ntheir Craft, would let me go on unmolested; and only pity and despise me\nfor the Vanity of my Attempt to subvert them: But the _Clergy_, being\nprick'd with a Consciousness of the Mischiefs and Inconveniencies of\ntheir Establishment, do therefore thus winch and kick.\n\nAnd who, besides the _Clergy_, are at this time Enemies to Liberty? None\nhardly, but their immediate Dependents, whom they can easily infuse\ntheir fiery and furious Notions into. Was it to be voted this Day among\nthe learned _Laity_, I dare say, the Friends of Persecution would be\nfound vastly short of the Numbers of their Adversaries. And I hope to\nGod, the Legislative Authority of these Nations will soon take the\nMatter into their Consideration; and either limit or enlarge the Bounds\nof Liberty, that honest and well-meaning Men may be no longer harrass'd\nand molested, for their sincere Endeavours to serve the Publick.\n\nNo Body, I trust, can complain of any disrespectful Usage, I have here\ngiven the _Bishop_ of St. _David's_, that considers, how he has treated\nme in _his Sermon before the Societies for Reformation_; and _in his\nCharge to the Clergy of his Diocese_; as well as _in his Vindication_.\nIt would be sufficient, if I had no other Excuse for my self than\n_this_, That Controversy is like a _Game_ at _Foot ball_, in which, if a\n_Lord_ will engage with a _Plowman_, and should meet with a Kick on the\nShins, he ought not to complain of the ill Manners of it: So if a\n_Bishop_ will dispute with one of lower Degree, he must look for a Rub\non his Intellects, a Rap on his Pate, and if his Adversary cuts him on a\nsoft Place, he should know how to bear it with Patience. But the\n_Bishop_, contrary to this _Game-Rule_ in Controversy, complains[356] of\nmy _unmannerly_ Treatment of him, and cries out of the Sufferings and\nReproaches he undergoes, as if he was already more than half a Martyr\nfor Religion. I can't pretend to equal him in Reproaches and Sufferings,\nhaving not so quick a Sense of them; and therefore I am willing, that\ngood Christian People should pity my poor _Bishop_, rather than me, in a\npersecuted and sorrowful Condition.\n\nHow long it will be, before I publish another, and _second_ Part of my\n_Defence_, is uncertain, for a Reason, that I need not again mention.\nBut if it please God, that I enjoy Life, Health, and Liberty, I'll go\non with my Designs. I am resolv'd to give the _Letter_ of the\nScriptures no Rest, so long as I am able by Reason and Authority to\ndisturb it. If our Ministers of the _Letter_ will not ascend with me,\nthe sublime and allegorical _Mountain_ of divine Contemplation, they\nthan have no Comfort nor Enjoyment of themselves in the low _Valley_\nof the _Letter_, if I can disquiet them. Notwithstanding what the\n_Bishop_ has written in _Vindication_ of _Jesus_'s Miracles, the\nlitteral Story of them, by the Leave of God, and of the Civil\nMagistrate, shall be afresh attack'd, and perhaps with more\n_Ridicule_, than I used before. What should I flinch for? The\nlitteral Story of _Jesus_'s Miracles is not, in the Opinion of the\nFathers, as well as of my self, agreeable to Sense and Reason; neither\ncan _Jesus_'s Authority and Messiahship be founded on the _Letter_ of\nthem. I am not for the _Messiahship_ of a carnal _Jesus_, who cured\nthe bodily Diseases of Blindness and Lameness; but for Messiahship of\nthe spiritual _Jesus_, who will cure the Blindness and Lameness of our\nUnderstandings. I am for the Messiahship of the spiritual _Jesus_, who\nwill expel the mercenary Preachers out of his Church, after the manner\nthat _Jesus_ in the Flesh is supposed to have driven the Sellers out\nof the Temple, which litterally is but a sorry Story. I am for the\nMessiahship of the spiritual _Jesus_, who exorcised the furious and\npersecuting Devils out of the Mad-men of _Jews_ and _Gentiles_; and\ntho' he permitted them to enter into a Herd of Ecclesiastical Swine,\nyet will precipitate them into the Sea of Divine Knowledge. I am for\nthe spiritual _Jesus_, who will cure the _Woman_ of the Church, of her\n_Issue of Blood_, that is shed in Persecution and War; which her\nEcclesiastical Physicians, and Quack-Doctors of the _Clergy_, have not\nbeen able to do, tho' they have received large Fees and Revenues to\nthat End. I am for a spiritual _Messiah_, who will cure the Woman of\nthe Church of her _Infirmity_, at the Spirit of Prophecy, of whose\nInfirmity this Age is her _eighteenth_ Year. So could I write of all\n_Jesus_'s Miracles; for the whole Evangelical History is Figure and\nShadow of the spiritual _Jesus_, whom we should _know to be in us of a\nTruth, unless we be Reprobates_. The _Clergy_, if they are not\nwilfully blind, may hence see my Christian Faith and Principles; and\nbe assured, that what I do in this Controversy, is with a View to the\nHonour of God, the Advancement of Truth, the Edification of the\nChurch, and Demonstration of the Messiahship of the Holy _Jesus_, to\nwhom be Glory for ever. _Amen._\n\n                               ~_FINIS._~\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[338] His Sermon before the Societies for Reformation; and his Charge\nto the Clergy.\n\n[339] In his Dedication.\n\n[340] Page 35.\n\n[341] _Vindication of three Miracles_, p. 76, 77.\n\n[342] Cum venerit ergo Elias exponendo Legem _Spiritaliter_, convertit\nCorda Patrum ad filios. _De Civit. Dei._ Lib. XX. c. 29.\n\n[343] Litteram Legis sequentes in Infidelitatem & vanas Superstitiones\nincurrunt. _In Matt. Tract._ 26.\n\n[344] In Dedication of Third _Discourse_.\n\n[345] Page 177.\n\n[346] _Discourse_ the Fifth, _p._ 69.\n\n[347] Inveniatur enim in Christianismo non minor (nequid dicam\narrogantius) fide Ratio & Enarratio Propheticorum \u00e6nigmatum,\nparabolarumque evangelicarum, aliarumque innumerarum figurarum, qu\u00e6\nvel in _Gestis_ continentur vel Legibus. _Cont. Celsum. Lib._ I.\n\n[348] Quidam corporalia ejus Miracula stupentes, majora intueri non\nnorunt. Quidam vero ea, qu\u00e6 gesta audiunt in Corporibus, nunc amplius\nin animis admirantur,----Tales nos esse debemus in Schola Christi. _In\nSerm._ xcviii.\n\n[349] In _Discourse_ the Sixth.\n\n[350] _Mystery of Godliness_, B. x. c. 2.\n\n[351] 1 Tim. v. 8.\n\n[352] _Defence of Christianity_, p. 347.\n\n[353] Ibid. p. 353.\n\n[354] Est adhuc alia Pugna his omnibus violentior; quod ii, quod Legem\nsecundum Carnem intelligunt, adversantur his, qui secundum spiritum\nsentiunt, & persequuntur eos. _In Genesi\u00e6 Hom._ vii.\n\n[355] In Fifth _Discourse_, p. 67.\n\n[356] In his Preface, _p._ 17, 18.\n\n\n\n\n                            Mr. _WOOLSTON_'s\n\n                                DEFENCE\n\n                                 OF HIS\n\n                               DISCOURSES\n\n                                 ON THE\n\n                       MIRACLES of our _Saviour_.\n\n                  Against the BISHOPS of St. _David_'s\n                    and _London_, and his other Adversaries.\n\n                                PART II.\n\n           _Nec Religionis est cogere Religionem, qu\u00e6 sponte\n                   suscipi debeat, non Vi._ Tertull.\n\n                               _LONDON_:\n\n                Printed for the AUTHOR, and Sold by him\n                  next Door to the _Star_, in _Aldermanbury_, and\n                  by the Booksellers of _London_ and _Westminster_.\n\n                                MDCCXXX.\n\n                        [_Price One Shilling._]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                 TO THE\n\n                            RIGHT HONOURABLE\n\n                       Sir _Robert Raymond_, Kt.\n\n                   Lord Chief Justice of the Court of\n                            _King's Bench_.\n\n\nMY LORD,\n\nThat I am no Flatterer of _Patrons_, appears by my other\n_Dedications_: If therefore I should tell your _Lordship_, what I can\nin Sincerity, that I think you as wise and good a Magistrate, as any\nof your _Predecessors_ in that _High Court_ of _Justice_, you may be\nassured, I don't dissemble.\n\nTho' I was so unfortunate, _My Lord_, as to receive a Sentence in your\nCourt, which I wish'd to avoid; yet I have no worse Opinion of your\nWisdom and Justice. Your Conduct towards me, from first to last, has\nrather heighten'd than lessen'd my Esteem and Veneration for you. I\nobserv'd in you such a Tenderness for our religious Liberties; such an\nAversion to Persecution; and such Moderation towards my self, that if\nI had been absolutely acquitted, it would have been but with somewhat\nmore Satisfaction.\n\nAnd if I now write to clear my self of all Suspicions of Infidelity,\nfor which I was sentenced; your _Lordship_, I humbly presume, will not\nthink the worse of me. It is not expected that the Innocent should\nconfess Guilt, in a Compliment to any Court of Justice: Nor does the\nCondemnation of the Guiltless, at any time almost, so much affect the\nJustice of the Magistrate, as the Honesty of the Evidence: So I, _My\nLord_, know how to lay the Blame entirely on my Ecclesiastical\nAccusers, and believe your _Lordship_ will be rather pleas'd than\noffended at any good Defence I can make for my self.\n\nFrom the Beginning of the Prosecution against me, _my Lord_, I hardly\nbelieved, that any Sentence would be pass'd on me, till the Day I\nreceived it: And the Reason was, not only because the good Tendency of\nmy _Discourses_ was so visible, that I thought it could not be\noverlook'd by the Wise and Learned; but because I imagin'd our\n_Bishops_ would have better consulted their Reputation, than to let\nMatters come to this Issue.\n\nThat it is a Transgression of the Law of the Land to write against\nChristianity, establish'd in it, I'll not question, since I have your\n_Lordship_'s Word for it: But for all that, I could wish, for the Sake\nof Christianity, that such a Liberty was indulg'd to _Infidels_.\nWhatever our zealous _Clergy_ may think, one Persecution of an\n_Infidel_ does more Harm to Religion, than the Publication of the\nworst _Book_ against it.\n\nLiberty is so essential, _My Lord_, to the Enquiry after Truth, that\nwhere It is wanted, Truth will want that Splendor, which it receives\nfrom Disputation: And Christianity would be the more tryumphant over\nits Enemies, for that unbounded Liberty, they may enjoy to contest it\nfrom the _Press_. I say this, not for the Security of my self; against\nfuture Prosecutions but, from a Heart, full of Zeal for the Religion\nof the Holy _Jesus_.\n\nEver since the _Reformation_, which was founded on our Natural and\nChristian Rights to Liberty of Conscience, has this great Blessing of\nLiberty, at Times, been interrupted by Persecutions: But whether any\nof them hitherto have done any Service to _Church_ or _State_, your\n_Lordship_ is a good Judge.\n\nHowever, tho' the Prosecution of my self, which was founded on a grand\nMistake, is attended with no ill Consequence; yet I hope our\n_Ecclesiasticks_ will grow cautious by it, and no more sollicit the\nmost indulgent Civil Magistracy of this Kingdom to the Persecution of\nany other, much less of,\n\n[Sidenote: London May 25. 1730.]\n\n  _My Lord_,\n    _Your Lordship's_\n       _Most Obedient and_\n          _Humble Servant_,\n     Tho. Woolston.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                   A\n\n                              SECOND PART\n\n                                 OF THE\n\n                             DEFENCE, _&c._\n\n\nIt's Time now to publish another _Part_ of my _Defence_, which, in my\nformer, I gave my _Readers_ some Reason to expect from me. If I should\nkeep Silence much longer, my _Adversaries_ will be ready to charge me\nwith Cowardice, or Insufficiency; and say, that I'm either absolutely\nconfuted by the _Writers_ against me, or so terrified by the Civil\nMagistrate's Authority, that I either can't, or dare not, engage\nafresh in the same Cause. And I must confess, that if I was not\nconvinced of the Goodness of my Cause, which is no other than God's,\nand of my Ability to defend it, I should chuse to hold my Peace, and\nbe glad that it has fared no worse with me.\n\nOne Reason indeed why I have been so long ere I publish'd _this_, is\npure Respect to the Civil Powers, whom I am oblig'd, as a Christian,\nto honour and reverence, so far as may be, without Disobedience to\nGod. Had I hastily, and as soon almost as _Sentence_ was pass'd on me,\npublish'd _this_, some might have interpreted it, as an Act of\nDefiance and Contempt of the Civil Authority, (for there are not\nwanting those who will put the worst Construction they can on my\nConduct;) therefore I forbore for a while: And now that I appear again\nfrom the _Press_, it is not without professing a profound Veneration\nfor our Civil Magistracy, who, I am sure, will never think the worse\nof a Man for vindicating his own Innocency, or for writing in a Cause\nthat, in his Conscience, he is persuaded is most just and good.\n\nAnother Reason why I committed this no sooner to the Press, was to wait\nthe Publication of the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s his _Second Volume_,\nwhich he promised us last Winter. I was almost of Opinion, that, in my\nformer _Defence_, I gave the _Bishop_ such Intimations of my sincere\nBelief of Christianity, notwithstanding my _Discourses_ on _Miracles_,\nand of the Falseness of his repeated Charge against me for Infidelity,\nthat I question'd whether he would write again in the same Strain. If\nthe _Bishop_ is convinced of this his grand Mistake about me, then the\nvery Foundation of his past and future Work is shaken, and I shall hear\nno more of him. But whether he is certainly convinc'd of his Mistake or\nnot, I am concern'd to go on with these _Defences_ of my self, and to\nvindicate the Goodness and Usefulness of the Design of my _Discourses_\non _Miracles_, against what the _Bishops_ of _London_ and _St. David_'s,\nand other _Adversaries_ have written to the contrary.\n\nBut, before I enter upon such a _Defence_ of my self and my\n_Discourses_, I must make, what is proper here, a short Preface. It is\nwell known, that I am for Liberty of Debate, and against all\nPersecution or Force, or Impositions on the Consciences of Mankind.\nBut for all that, there are some _Rules_ in Controversy that we\npolemical _Writers_ should observe, and be oblig'd to; or, instead of\ndiscovering and illustrating the Truth we pretend to search for, we\nshall but the more darken, obstruct and perplex it. As,\n\n_First_, We should endeavour to write as plainly and intelligibly as\nwe can, and never amuse our _Readers_ with Expressions void of Sense,\nor with false Reasoning against our _Adversaries_, where we want\nwhat's good and solid. This _Rule_ none can except against: Whether I\nam an Observer of this _Rule_, my Readers are to be Judges. As I am to\nanswer it to God and a good Conscience, I endeavour to observe it; but\nmuch question, whether some of my _Adversaries_ can say so too, or\nthey would never vent such dark, impertinent and unintelligible Stuff,\nif it was not, because they are at a Loss for what's clear and\nshining. There's no End of giving Instances out of their Writings to\nthis Purpose. I shall only mention one, that's repeated amongst them,\nand that is, of their pretended Distinction between Popish\n_Persecution_ and Protestant _Prosecution_ for Opinions, wherewith\nthey have amused weak and injudicious Heads. The Wife, I am sure, can\ndiscern no more Difference here, than between a _Rope_ and a _Halter_\nto hang an innocent Man, in which Case too there is a _nominal_\nDistinction without a _real_ Difference.\n\n_Secondly_, We should be open and sincere in our Opinions, and not\nprofess with our Mouths to believe, what we disown in our Hearts; nor,\nlike _Watermen_, that look one way and row another, should we pretend\nto have one Design in View, when we are pursuing the quite contrary.\nThis is a reasonable _Rule_, and ought to be observ'd, or we shall\nconfound the Understandings of our _Readers_, who will soon lose Sight\nof our Arguments, if they apprehend not their Aim and Drift. This\n_Rule_, my Adversaries will say, is levell'd at my self, than whom no\nbody has more dissembled and prevaricated in his Opinions. Have not\nyou, will they say to me, frequently declared, that your Design in\nyour _Discourses_ is to make way for the Proof of the Truth of\nChristianity, and of the Messiahship of the Holy _Jesus_, when you\nmean and intend the Subversion of both? And is not here grand\nHypocrisy, and a Transgression of this Rule? Yes, if I intend the\nSubversion of Christ's Religion and Messiahship, here is grand\nHypocrisy, and a Transgression of this _Rule_; and I can't think of\nsuch a Piece of Prevarication without Horror. The Bishop of _St.\nDavid_'s[357] and Mr. _Stackhouse_,[358] in particular, have\nanimadverted upon me for such Hypocrisy; and if I was guilty of it, in\nmuch gentler Terms than I deserv'd. This Hypocrisy, which they falsely\ncharge me with, is as heinous a Sin as I can think of; it is as bad as\nwilful _Perjury_, as bad as a _Clergyman_'s taking the Abjuration\nOath, with his Heart full of Zeal and Affection for the Pretender, and\nworse than his giving his solemn Assent and Consent to Articles of\nReligion he believes little or nothing of. I should hardly have\nmention'd this _Rule_ to be observ'd in Controversy, if I had been\nguilty of the Breach of it. It is somewhat excusable in _Infidels_ a\nlittle to disguise their real Sentiments, for fear of the Danger they\nmay incur by an open Profession of them: But such a gross and foul\nMask of Hypocrisy, as some think I have here put on, is intolerable,\nand must be hateful to _Infidels_ as well as _Christians_, being\nobstructive to Truth, which, in all Inquirers after her, loves\nSincerity and Simplicity. No doubt, but my _Adversaries_, some of\nthem, will still think me a Transgressor of this _Rule_; but my\npresent and following _Defences_ will absolutely clear me. And if none\nof my _Adversaries_ are more guilty of the Transgression of it than\nmy self, we are all entirely innocent.\n\n_Thirdly_, In Controversy we should avoid all wilful Misrepresentation\nof the Sense of our _Adversaries_, and of the _Authors_ we pretend to\ncite. Mistakes and Misapprehensions of one another will sometimes\nunavoidably happen, and are then as innocent things as involuntary\nErrors. But wilful Perversion and Falsification of another Author's\nWords, to the Service of our selves, or to the Prejudice of our\n_Adversaries_, is most blameable, and of that ill Consequence to the\nSearch after Truth, that it will keep us always at a Distance from her.\nThis then is another good _Rule_ to be observed in Controversy, which\nsome may wonder I have mention'd, because of that Misrepresentation and\nFalsification of Authorities I am charg'd with. And I must confess, my\n_Adversaries_ have here made an hideous Outcry against me; which if I\ncan't acquit my self of, I am the foulest Controvertist that ever\nappear'd in Print. The Bishop of _St. David_'s[359] calls my\n_Falsification_ of Authorities, an _Immorality_, and speculative\n_Forgery_; but if I was so guilty as he would have me thought, he speaks\ntoo favourably of it. He should have deem'd it as great a Crime as\npractical _Forgery_ by the Law; and all Philosophers and Lovers of Truth\nshould wish it might be likewise punish'd.\n\nBut, good Christian Reader, don't too hastily pass thy Judgment on me.\nSuspend awhile; it may be, that I may unexpectedly vindicate my self.\nThe Matter as yet is under Debate, whether my _Adversaries_ or I are\nthe grand Misrepresenters and Falsifiers of Authorities. One would\nthink, that my Adversaries, who were bent on the Accusation of me for\nthe foresaid Crime, should have kept themselves clear of it: But the\n_Bishop_ of _St. David_'s[360] is such a resolute _Misrepresenter_,\nthat he could not find in his Heart faithfully to transcribe the\n_Three Heads_ of my _Discourses_; but by a Suppression of some Words,\nand the Change of others, has given them an odious and invidious Turn\nto my Disadvantage: And he has studied so hard to pervert the Sense of\nthe Fathers against me, and so tortured his Brain to make me a\nMisrepresenter of them, that I should not wonder, if he had labour'd\nunder a Pain in his Head ever since, and is unable to write more. Tho'\nmy Word should not be taken for all this at present; yet in the\nSequel of these _Defences_, it will be made manifest.\n\nIt is a great Temptation to our _Bishops_ falsely to accuse and\nmisrepresent their Adversaries; because they know their Writings don't\nequally spread and go together among all their Readers. A _Bishop_'s\nWriting going more by itself amongst the _Clergy_, and other Friends\nto his Side of the Question, he is tempted to misrepresent his\nAdversaries, knowing his prejudiced Readers will take his Report of\nthem, and credit it. For this Reason, and no other, did the _Bishop_\nof _Litchfield_[361] falsely charge the _Author_ of the _Grounds_ with\nodious Assertions, to which there is nothing akin in the Places\nseemingly referr'd to, nor in all that Author's Work.\n\nHowever, the _Rule_ in Controversy before laid down is a good, useful\nand necessary one. I pray God we may all be religious and\nconscientious Observers of it, or we shall retard the Discovery of\nTruth, and render our Attainment of it difficult, if not impossible.\n\n_Fourthly_, We should think our selves oblig'd to set our Names to our\nWritings in Controversy, especially where it is such a _warm_ one as\nis ours at present. The Observation of this _Rule_ would not only\nprevent much of the Violation of the _two_ former; but would hinder\nabundance of the Dirt of Scandal, Lies and Defamations, that we too\noften throw at each other. For what Reason some of the _Writers_[362]\nagainst me have industriously conceal'd their Names, I know full well.\nThey perhaps would have it thought Modesty, and that they are not\nambitious of the publick Praises they may deserve for their learned\nand elaborate Performances. And possibly it may be Modesty in some\nTheological Authors to conceal themselves: But where Men have the\nImpudence to defame, it's in vain to pretend to the Cloak of Modesty\nto cover themselves under. Wherefore then do they sometimes who write\non the establish'd Side of the Question, on which Honour and\nPreferment goes, thus conceal themselves? Why, that they might belie\nand slander their Adversaries the more securely, without being\nexpostulated with for their Impudence. It's to no Purpose, they know,\nto upbraid an anonymous Author with his Scandal, because he can't be\nput to the Blush for it. And a wise Man will not lose his Labour to\nexpose and confute a libellous Writing, unless he knew whom to charge\nwith the Guilt of it. It is my Resolution to take no Notice of any\nnameless Authors against me, because I, being as it were blindfolded,\nengage them at a Disadvantage, whilst they have a full View of me. For\nthis Reason the _Tryal of the Witnesses_ was pass'd by, or I should\nhave been tempted to have made some Remarks on it. Let such _Authors_\ncome forth into the Light, and it may be, they'll meet with the same\nFavour I have done the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s. In the mean time, I\ndeclare my Abhorrence of Authors their Concealment of their Names, and\nI hope all ingenuous _Writers_ in Controversy will do so too; tho' for\nno other Reason, than to prevent Misrepresentations, Defamations, and\npersonal Reflections, which nameless Authors are too often guilty of.\n\n_Fifthly_, and _lastly_, Others make it a common _Rule_ to be observ'd\nin Controversy, that the _Disputants_ should consider each other's\nArguments impartially, without the Byass of Prejudice and Interest.\nAnd a very good _Rule_ this is, if Men would but put it into Practice.\nBut I shall long despair of such Impartiality in Controversy. Such is\nthe Power of Prejudice and Interest, that they will influence Men to\nbelieve against the most apparent Reason and Truth. Even Prejudice\nwill much darken the Eyes of Mens Understandings, but Interest will\nput them quite out. O what a horrible Obstacle to the free Enquiry\nafter Truth, is Interest! Against Demonstration itself will Men\ncontend for Interest. Interest, upon Occasion, will induce them to\ndesert the best Opinions, and keep them tight to the worst. This\nExperience proves true, and the various Faces of the Church, and\nChanges of the _Clergy_ (all for Interest) is a Witness of it. God\nforbid that I should judge uncharitably of the Corruption of human\nNature under the Power of Interest; but I believe, that was our\n_Legislature_ to do, what they never will, that is, set up the Figure\nof a _Calf_ in our Churches, there would be no want of Priests to\nworship him, if they were well paid for it; nor of Academical\n_Students_ to prove his divine Power and Godship, if the Road to\nPreferment lay that Way. For this Reason, among many others, I am for\nthe Abolition of an hired and establish'd Priesthood, that this grand\nBar of Interest may be removed out of our Way to Truth. And the\n_Bishop_ of _London_, that excellent Prelate, as _Bishop Smalbroke_\ncalls him (for so do we, like other Creatures, knab one another where\nit itches) should by rights be of my Mind, saying,[363] \"Where there\nis an Unwillingness to part with worldly Interests, there must of\nCourse be a _Desire_ that the Christian Religion should not be true;\nand a _Willingness_ to favour and embrace any Argument that is brought\nagainst it, and to cherish any Doubts and Scruples that shall be\nrais'd concerning it.\" So feelingly does this _Bishop_ speak of the\nPower of Interest, by which, as I would conceive, he honestly hints to\nthe Inhabitants of _London_ and _Westminster_, that the _Bishop_ of\ntheir Diocese, and the _Parson_ of their Parish, are most unfit Guides\nin Religion, because of the worldly Interests they may have to deceive\nthem, and keep them in Ignorance and Error.\n\nThus by way of Preface having spoken to the foregoing _Rules_ to be\nobserved in this Controversy, I come to a close. _Defence_ of myself\nagainst the Charge of Infidelity, and to vindicate the Usefulness of my\n_Discourses on Miracles_ for the Proof of the Truth of Christianity, and\nof the Messiahship of the Holy _Jesus_, against all my Adversaries. And\nthe Method I shall take to this Purpose, is this following.\n\nI. To show the Weakness, Childishness, and Insufficiency of the\nArguments of my _Adversaries_, for the _Letter_ of the Stories of\n_Jesus_'s Miracles; and further to prove both _ludicrously_ and\n_seriously_ the Absurdities, Incredibilities, and Improbabilities,\nthat their literal Stories labour under.\n\nII. To prove, that whether there be any Sense, Truth and Fact, or not,\nin the Letter of _Jesus_'s Miracles; yet they are Typical Things, and\nought to be allegorically interpreted, and will receive a mysterious\nand more wonderful Accomplishment, after the manner, and to the same\nPurpose, that the Fathers and I do apply them, being no other (whether\nactually wrought or not) than Figures, Signs and Emblems of his future\nand mysterious Operations.\n\nIII. To show that the mysterious and future Accomplishment of these\nsupposed Works and Miracles of _Jesus_ alone can and will be the Proof\nof his Messiahship.\n\nIf I perform well upon these Heads, which are deserving of my\n_Reader_'s Review, because of their Pertinency to the Cause in Hand, I\nshall not only vindicate myself from the Charge of Infidelity, but\njustify the Goodness and Usefulness of my _Discourses_, in order to\nthe Demonstration of _Jesus_'s Messiahship. And in the midst of my\nhandling of them, without going out of my Way, I shall, as Occasion\noffers itself, take Notice of particular Misrepresentations of the\nFathers, and false Citations out of them, that my Adversaries charge\nme with: And Bishop _Smalbroke_ and others had best to look to it, or\ntheir Accusations against me will recoil and return home to them. Then\n\nI. I should show the Weakness, Childishness and Insufficiency of the\nArguments of my _Adversaries_ for the _Letter_ of _Jesus_'s Miracles;\nand further argue both _ludicrously_ and _seriously_ the Absurdities,\nIncredibilities and Improbabilities, that their literal Stories labour\nunder.\n\nI should, I say, first treat on this Head, which naturally precedes\nthe two following; but in as much as to handle it to Perfection, I\nshould write as I did before, and shall run in Danger of Prosecution\nfor Blasphemy and Infidelity; I must of Necessity wave and postpone\nit, unless I could more than dispatch it in the Compass of this _Part_\nof my _Defence_.\n\nI have heretofore made solemn Professions of my Belief of\nChristianity, and most seriously declared in the plainest Terms, that\nmy Design was not to do Service to Infidelity, but to make way for the\nProof of Christ's Religion and Messiahship; but my Word was not taken,\nbeing look'd upon as a Dissembler, an Hypocrite, and Prevaricator, for\nall that. And should I now ever so gravely repeat the like\nAsseverations of the Integrity and Sincerity of my Heart, that my\nObjections against the Letter of _Jesus_'s Miracles are none against\nhis Religion, but only intended to turn Mens Heads to the mystical\nInterpretations of them; I question much whether I should be believed,\nand whether _Bishop Smalbroke_[364] would not say again, _that this is\ntoo thin a Disguise of what seems to be my great and worse Design_.\nWhat then in Prudence must I do in this Case? Why, I must let _This\nHead_, which reasonably should precede, rest for a while; and by\ntreating on the _Second_, tho' out of Place, I must first effectually\nconvince my Adversaries, that I am no _Infidel_ of wicked Designs to\nsubvert Christianity, but only the _Ministry of the Letter_; and then,\nI conceive, I may safely resume the Consideration of this _First\nHead_, and without the Imputations of Infidelity and Blasphemy, write\nas _merrily_ or _gravely_ as I please against the Letter.\n\nShould any say, that this pretended Reason for waving this _First Head_\nfor the present, is nothing but Cowardice and Inability to write more on\nit, I can't help it. _Ictus Piscator sapit_; I have already suffer'd\nmuch for the ludicrous Treatment of the _Letter_, and it is Wisdom to\nkeep, if I can, out of the like Danger; neither will I do any thing,\nthat in Conscience I can forbear, to incur the Displeasure of the Civil\nMagistrate. But however, if the _Bishop_ of _London_ would ensure me\nagainst, what the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s calls, the[365] _Nominal_\nPersecutions of _Protestants_, which I am more afraid of, than of the\n_real_ Persecutions of _Papists_, I will soon enter upon this Head;\notherwise for Self-Preservation against the _nominal_ Sufferings of\nFines and Imprisonment, _&c._ I will forbear, promising my Readers, that\nin due Time, and on a more proper Occasion, I will resume the _merry\nSubject_ of the _Letter_, and handle it to their entire Satisfaction.\n\nAnd when I resume _this Head_, I will begin where I before left off in\nmy _Discourses_ on _Miracles_; that is, with the Resurrection of\n_Jesus_, which tho' I believe to have been a miraculous Fact, that\nhappen'd, yet it was by no means timed and circumstanced, so as easily\nand readily to conciliate the Belief of Posterity. God has given to Man\nReason to judge of the Credibility of Events, and the Certainty of\nMiracles: And if the Reason of every Man does not disapprove of the\nManagement of that Event, (supposing it has no figurative Meaning in it)\nI am much mistaken, when we come to state a Case, how such a Miracle\nought to be wrought and conducted, to get and preserve the Credit of it.\n\nThus having told my Readers, why I postpone my _First Head_, I now\nenter upon the _Second_, which is\n\nII. To shew, that whether there be any Sense, Truth and Fact, or not,\nin the literal Stories of _Jesus_'s Miracles, yet they are all\ncertainly typical Facts, and ought to be allegorically interpreted,\nand will receive a mysterious and more wonderful Accomplishment after\nthe Manner, and to the same Purpose, that the Fathers and I do apply\nthem, being no other (whether actually wrought or not) than Figures,\nSigns and Emblems of his future and mysterious Operations.\n\nIf the Authority of the Fathers would be admitted of, as decisive on\n_this Head_, there would soon be an End of all Controversy upon it.\nGive me Leave to recite some of their Testimonies to this Purpose,\nwhich I have heretofore urg'd in my _Discourses_. _Origen_ says[366]\nThat _Jesus_'s Works were _Symbols_ of other Things to be done by his\nPower. St. _Hilary_[367] says, That _Jesus_'s Actions bore a\nResemblance of what he would do hereafter. St. _Augustin_[368] says,\nThat the Facts of _Jesus_ are Signs of somewhat else to be done by\nhim. And _Eusebius Gallicanus_[369] says, That our Saviour manifestly\nshews, that his Miracles are of a spiritual Signification, or in the\nWork of them he would not have done somewhat or other, that seems to\nwant Sense and Reason. These few, out of a Multitude of Citations from\nthe Fathers that might be produced, are sufficient to the Proof of the\npresent Proposition, if their Authority might determine our Dispute.\nAnd most pertinent Citations they are too, tho' _Bishop\nSmalbroke_[370] says, _that even the Passages cited by me from the\nFathers, that are not falsified, are impertinent_; which is such an\nextravagant Stretch against the most glaring Truth, that (to use the\nBishop's[371] own Words against himself) _it betrays a Mind lost to\nall Sense of Modesty and Religion_, or he could not have utter'd it.\n\nAnd not only the Miracles of _Jesus_ were Signs and Figures of future\nEvents; but, according to _Origen_,[372] _every thing else that he did_:\nFrom whence we may gather what was _Origen_'s Meaning, when he said[373]\n_Christ's first_ Advent in the Flesh is all Type and Shadow of his\n_second_, spiritual, and glorious Coming; which being an _Opinion_ that\nour _Clergy_ are Strangers to, I desire them to consider of it, and\nwhether there is any Possibility of Truth in it, because it is contrary\nto modern Conceptions about _Christ's second_ Advent.\n\nNay further, according to the Fathers,[374] the very Life and\nMinistry of _John_ the _Baptist_, so far as it is recorded by the\n_Evangelists_, is Type and Figure of another's Ministry before\nChrist's spiritual Advent; and I am almost, if not altogether of the\nsame Mind with them. It is beside my present Business, to insert here\nmany of their Testimonies to this Purpose: But if the _Bishop_ of _St.\nDavid_'s would spare a little Time, which can't be better employ'd,\nand make a Collection of the Opinions of the Fathers about the\n_Baptist_'s Ministry, and print it, I dare say he'll thereupon present\nthe learned World with the most surprizing Curiosity they ever were\nentertain'd with. Tho' it is improper for me to do such a Work; yet I\nwill here tell my _Readers_ what will be the true Meaning of _John's\nPreaching Repentance, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand_, when his\nMinistry revives, _viz._ \"It will be an Exhortation to Ministers of\nthe Letter, [Greek: metanoein], to reconsider the Matter and Error of\ntheir literal Expositions, and to betake themselves to spiritual and\nallegorical Interpretations of the Scriptures, in which allegorical\nand spiritual Senses of them consists the _Kingdom of Heaven_.\" This\nI assert upon the Authority of _Origen_,[375] and if the _Clergy_\nplease to consult St. _Austin_ and others, they'll find them of the\nsame Mind. But, this by the by, having no more to say to the\nTypicalness of _John_'s Ministry, than whenever his foresaid mystical\nPreaching of Repentance shall revive, it can hardly be to a more\nviperous Generation of Ecclesiastical _Scribes_ and _Pharisees_, than\nare the _Ministers_ of the _Letter_ at this present.\n\nBut against all these, and Ten Thousand more Testimonies of the\nFathers for the allegorical Interpretation of the Writings of the\n_Evangelists_, and of _Jesus_'s Miracles in particular, the _Bishop_\nof _St. David_'s says, the Fathers are not of good Authority in this\nCase, but, for all them, who were Men of whimsical and volatile\nFancies, we ought to adhere to the _Letter_ of the Story of _Christ_'s\nLife and Miracles. This the _Bishop_ asserts roundly and frequently in\nexpress or implicit Terms, as his Readers may observe; and I dare say,\nthe _Bishop_ himself will not here charge me with a Misrepresentation\nof his Opinion, tho', to spare Time and Paper, I quote not his own\nWords and large Passages.\n\nWhat Reason does the _Bishop_ give, why the Authority of the Fathers for\nthe allegorical Interpretation of the Evangelical Writings, and of\n_Jesus_'s Miracles, in particular, is not to be allow'd of? None at all.\nDoes he quote so much as a Canon of the Church, or a Vote in\nConvocation, or an Act of Parliament, or the consentient Opinion of all\nProtestant _Writers_ (which are the extrascriptural Standards of modern\nOrthodoxy) for his Opinion? No. Does he then reject the Authority of the\nFathers in all other Cases, as well as in _this_ before us? Nor this\nneither. He allows their Authority,[376] as they were good Persons and\ncredible Witnesses, \"In Testimony of _Facts_; \"And about the Observation\nof the Lord's Day; \"And concerning the three Orders of the _Clergy_;\n\"And about the Government of the Church by Bishops; \"And about the Books\nreceived into the Canon of the Scripture;\" But as for allegorical\nInterpretations of the Scriptures, they are of _little_, and (elsewhere)\nof _no_ Authority. Who can forbear smiling, unless the _Bishop_ had\nbetter _evinced_ the Reason of this Difference in their Authority? If\nhe had rejected their Authority in all Cases, he would have judged more\nequally and impartially of it.\n\nIn my Opinion, and I appeal to my _Readers_, whether it ben't their\nOpinion, that the _Bishop_ had been an ingenuous and plain Dealer, if\nhe had express'd himself about the Authority of the Fathers in this\nfollowing Manner, saying, \"That the Authority of the Fathers is good\nin _such_ and _such_ Cases as aforesaid; because their Authority is\nagreeable enough to the present Doctrine, Practice and Discipline of\nthe Church: But the Authority of the Fathers is not good for the\nallegorical Interpretation of the _New Testament_, because it is\ndisagreeable to our Prejudices, and because their allegorical\nExpositions of some Miracles, if they should receive such a Sense,\nwill bring Shame and Reproach to our Ministry. Neither is the\nAuthority of the Fathers for Toleration, and against Persecution,\ngood; because it is destructive of Ecclesiastical Power. Nor is the\ncopious Authority of the Fathers against Preaching for Hire, good;\nbecause it is averse to our Interests. Where the Authority of the\nFathers is agreeable to our Interests, Power, and Prejudices, there\nwill we be for the Authority of the Fathers: But where the Fathers\nare against us, there will we be against them; and why should we not?\"\nThis is the true Sense of the _Bishop_, tho' he is so unhappy as to\nwant the Talent clearly and plainly to express his Mind.\n\nBut, like many others, who can't write Coherence, nor consistently with\nthemselves; so the _Bishop_, for all his saying that the allegorical\nInterpretations of Scripture by the Fathers are of little or no\nAuthority, yet almost, if not altogether, contradicts himself, and\ngrants as much as I desire, saying[377] thus, \"With relation to any\nExpositions of Scripture made by the Fathers in early Times, they must\nbe allow'd to have had _some_ Advantage in being near to the Fountain\nitself.\" I ask for nothing more from the Bishop. Why do I contend for\nthe Authority of the Fathers as Interpreters and Expositors? Only\nbecause they lived nearer to the Days of _Christ_ and his Apostles,\nwhose Mind and Will consequently they must needs know better, than we at\nthis Distance: And because (what the _Bishop_ elsewhere grants) those\nprimitive Ages, as well as the Apostolical one, were in some measure\ninspired, upon the credible Testimonies of _Origen_, _Iren\u00e6us_, and\n_Eusebius_, whose Words I shall not stay here to produce.\n\nHence then, in the Authority of the Fathers, I should think, there is\nFoundation enough to build allegorical Interpretations on, and\nparticularly to prove the literal Stories of Christ's Miracles to be\nEmblems of future and mysterious Operations; but all this will not do\nto pacify and stop the Mouths of my Gainsayers. This Controversy is\n_pro Aris & Focis_, for the ALL of the Clergy that is dear to them;\nand therefore they will shuffle and trifle for and against any\nArgument, rather than yield. Tho' the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s above\nspeaks favourably of _Expositions made by the Fathers in early Times_,\nand may grant that the Church, in her first Ages was inspired, yet he\nwill still wrangle against allegorical Interpretations, especially\nsuch as I have made on some Miracles; as for Instance, \"On _Jesus_'s\ndriving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple; \"On his\nprecipitating the Swine with the Devils into the Sea; \"On his healing\nthe Woman of an Issue of Blood; and the Woman of a Spirit of\nInfirmity, _&c._ because the Interests and Reputations of the\n_Clergy_, as _Ministers_ of the _Letter_, are touch'd to the quick by\nthem. So true is that Saying of the _Bishop_ of _London_, which\ndeserves to be repeated, That \"where there is an Unwillingness to part\nwith Prejudices and worldly Interests, there must of Course be a\n_Desire_ that the Christian Religion (_which consists in the Ministry\nof the Spirit_) should not be true; and a _Willingness_ to favour and\nembrace any Argument that is brought against it, and to cherish any\nDoubts and Scruples that shall be rais'd concerning it.\n\nWhat must I do here then, since no Authority, no, not the most\nprimitive, will suffice in this Case? Why, I have nothing left to do,\nbut absolutely to demonstrate, and make the Matter as plain as a\n_Pike-Staff_, that the Miracles of _Jesus_ will certainly receive such\na mysterious Accomplishment, as the Fathers and I have before-hand\ninterpreted them in. Upon such a Demonstration, if the Mouths of my\nAdversaries are not stopt, yet the Eyes of all impartial _Readers_\nwill be open'd to behold what a Heap of Impertinence the _Bishop_ of\n_St. David_'s and others, have hitherto urg'd against me.\n\nNow to demonstrate absolutely, that the Stories of _Jesus_'s Miracles\nwill receive such a mysterious Accomplishment, as I, by the Help of\nthe Fathers, have understood them in, I must do these _two_ things.\n\n_First_, show, that the Old Testament is to be allegorically\ninterpreted, and is already in Part, and will be entirely fulfilled by\n_Jesus_, the true _Messiah_, in an allegorical Sense. And thence\n\n_Secondly_, Infer by a natural, obvious, and necessary Consequence,\nthat, what we vulgarly call the New Testament is to be allegorically\ninterpreted also, even in the Manner as I have understood some Parts\nof it.\n\nThe _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s allows, that there is better Authority,\ntho' not sufficient, for the Interpretation of the _Old Testament_\nallegorically; but supposing it was better than it is, yet there is no\nConsequence that the _New_ should be also allegorically interpreted.\nBehold his Words, for fear of a Charge of Misrepresentation[378]. \"But\nbesides this ill-founded Imitation of St. _Paul_ (in allegorical\nInterpretations of the _Old_ Testament) will his mystical Expositions of\nany Passages of the Old Testament support their Pretensions (meaning the\nFathers and mine) to interpret the _New_ in a like mystical manner? No,\nit will not.----And therefore (_after a little more Reasoning against\nthis Consequence, he concludes, that_) this Practice of _Origen_ and\nother Fathers, that were mystical Expositors of the _New Testament_, was\nvery precarious, and without Authority.\" From which Words of the\n_Bishop_, it is plain, that his Opinion is, that whatever Authority\nthere may be for the allegorical Interpretation of the _Old_ Testament,\nthere is no Consequence to be thence drawn, that the _New_ is to be\ninterpreted in a like mystical manner. But in Answer to the _Bishop_,\nand in Confutation of his wild and inconsiderate Assertion, I chuse to\ntreat on the two foregoing Particulars; and the\n\n_First_ is to show, that the _Old_ Testament is to be allegorically\ninterpreted, and is already in Part, and will be entirely fulfilled by\n_Jesus_ in an allegorical Sense.\n\nThat the _Old_ Testament is to be allegorically interpreted, I have\nAuthority, even ancient Authority enough, if that would be allow'd to be\nsufficient to prove my Point. We have Apostolical Authority and Example\nfor it. The Passages in the Epistles of St. _Paul_ and _Barnabas_ to\nthis Purpose are numerous, and so well known, that I need not recite\nall, or any of them. And from the Passages in St. _Paul_, that might be\nhere produced, the Fathers asserted and concluded from his Authority,\nthat the whole _Old_ Testament was to be allegorized. This I believe the\n_Bishop_ will grant, and spare me the Pains of Citations out of them.\nAnd if the _Bishop_, and my other _Adversaries_, were of the same Mind\nwith the Fathers, on St. _Paul_'s Expressions in relation to allegorical\nInterpretations of the _Old_ Testament, my present Dispute with them\nwould be half over. And what is the Reason that the _Bishop_ and others\nwill not give into the Opinion of the Fathers on the Apostolical\nPassages to this Purpose? Because of their Prejudices to the _Letter_ of\nthe _Old Testament_, otherwise they would urge St. _Paul_'s Authority\nfor the _Spirit_ of it, as much as the Fathers or I can do. But being, I\nsay, prepossess'd of _literal_ Interpretations, and not discerning any\nForce and Truth in _spiritual_ ones, they will not allow the mystical\nExpositions of Scripture by _Origen_ and other Fathers, tho' made in\nImitation of St. _Paul_, to be of good Authority. And therefore I must\ndemonstrate to Sense and Reason, or Primitive and Apostolical Authority\nwill stand me in no stead.\n\nAgain, If Authority for allegorical Interpretations of the _Old_\nTestament would avail any thing, there is ancienter, and I had like to\nhave said _better_, Authority for them, than _that_ of the Fathers\nand Apostles, _viz._ the Authority of the more ancient _Jews_. The\nBishop of _St. David_'s[379] says, \"The Christian Fathers (and why did\nhe not say the _Apostles_ too?) derived this allegorical Practice from\nthe Jewish Interpreters.\" He owns[380] \"that _Philo Jud\u00e6us_ was a\ngreat mystical Writer as his Works which are extant testify\"; and[381]\nconfesses that \"there is Reason to believe, that this mystical Way of\nexpounding Scripture was of greater Antiquity than _Philo_ himself,\neven amongst the _Essens_ and _Therapeuts_, whom _Philo_ writes of,\nand who had amongst them several ancient Books of their Predecessors\nor Founders, full of allegorical Interpretations.\" Thus far the\n_Bishop_ says well and truly. And what Observation should he, as a\nLover of Antiquity, have made hereupon? Should he not have said, _Id\nverius, quod prius_; the older any Doctrine was, the more likely to be\ntrue, in as much as Truth precedes Error?\n\nBut could not the Bishop have carry'd his Story of the allegorical\nInterpretation of the _Old Testament_ much higher? Yes, he might, and\nhave told us what I do him now, that the LXX Interpreters were\n_Allegorists_, as appears from the Translation itself, and from the\nOpinion of the ancient Jews and Fathers of the Church concerning them.\nAnd what's more still, he might, as a Christian, upon the Authority of\nSt. _Hilary_[382] have derived the allegorical Art of Interpretation\nfrom _Moses_ himself, who received it from God; and instructed the\n_Seventy Elders_ in it, from whom it continued thro' all Ages of the\nJewish and Christian Churches, without Interruption, excepting that\nOpposition which the later _Caraites_ of the Jews, and _Ministers_ of\nthe _Letter_ among Christians, have made to it. If this be true, as I\nfirmly believe it, then the allegorical Method of Interpretation is of\noriginal and divine Right. And it is reasonable to think accordingly,\nthat it is of _Mosaic_ and _divine_ Extraction, or the Apostles _Paul_\nand _Barnabas_, and the Fathers afterwards, had never been permitted of\nGod to countenance a Practice, in Imitation of the _Jews_, if it was of\na base, or of any other than _divine_ Original. The Consequence is,\nthat we at this Day ought to be allegorical Interpreters of the _Old\nTestament_, or we set ourselves against all Antiquity, and oppose a\nTradition that's like a Command, derived from _Moses_ and God himself.\n\nAnd what can the _Bishop_ of St. _David_'s say to this Consequence?\nWhy, he'll tell us, tho' the allegorical Method of Interpretation be\nas ancient as the _Therapeuts_ and some of their Predecessors, yet,\nwhatever the _Jews_ and Fathers may say of its Antiquity, it came not\nfrom God and _Moses_, or he would subscribe to it; but took its Rise,\nsome Ages after the Giving of the Law of _Moses_, tho' he knows not\nhow nor when. And I am willing the _Bishop_ should please himself with\nsuch an Answer and Opinion, till I have absolutely demonstrated the\nCertainty of the allegorical Method, and thence made it manifest, that\nit is of Mosaick and divine Original.\n\nAs to that other Account[383] of the Original of mystical Interpretation\nof Scripture, or at least of the greater Progress and Improvement of it,\nwhich the _Bishop_ out of _Porphyry_ gives, by saying the Fathers\nlearned it of the gentile Philosophers, it is the most senseless and\n_unscholarlike_ Opinion that a Christian can hold, and I was surprised\nto see it come from him. It is true that St. _Clement_ of _Alexandria_,\n_Origen_, and others, were very conversant in the Writings of the\n_Greek_ Philosophers: And wherefore were they so? Was it to learn\nmystical Theology of them? No, but, as St. _Jerom_[384] says, to confirm\nthe Doctrines of our Religion, and to confute the _Gentiles_ out of\ntheir own Books. For it was asserted by the Fathers, and confess'd by\nthe _Gentile_ Philosophers, that the Mythology of the _Greeks_, the\nhieroglyphical Learning of the _Egyptians_ and the Oneirocritism of the\n_Chald\u00e6ans_, was all borrowed from the _Hebrews_, and had their Rise\nfrom the mystical and allegorical Interpretation of the Scriptures, as\nshall be made manifest, if the _Bishop_ and I go on in this Controversy:\nAnd _therefore_ the Fathers studied the Writings of the _Greeks_, and\nmade the foresaid Use of them in the Conversion of the _Gentiles_; which\nthe _Bishop_ can't but know, if he remembers at all, what he has read in\nSt. _Clement_ of _Alexandria_, and other Fathers. But this, by the by,\nwith a Hint to the _Bishop_ to consider, whether he, who holds here with\n_Porphyry_, or I who hold with the Fathers, writes the most like an\n_Infidel_. So much then to the Accounts, which the _Bishop_ of St.\n_David_'s has given, of the Origine of the mystical Interpretation of\nScripture.\n\nThe _Bishop_ of _Litchfield_, who is to be looked on as a Writer in\nthis Controversy, has a large _Chapter_ against the allegorical Way of\nInterpretation. I shall comprise his Opinion in a few Words out of\nhim. He says,[385] _he is not concerned to vindicate the Antiquity,\nascribed by_ Philo, _to the allegoric Way of writing, much less the\nAbuse it was carry'd to in After-Ages; no, nor to defend, at all, this\nManner of writing_. And as to St. _Paul_'s allegorizing the\nScriptures, he says,[386] _It seems to be in compliance with the\nDemand of the Jewish Christians, who were affected with allegoric\nInterpretations, that St._ Paul (_who appears to have been no Fool_)\n_above all the other Apostles used that Way, which he was brought into\nagainst his own good liking_. And in another Place he says,[387] _The\nLaws and Facts recorded by_ Moses, _are commonly interpreted to\nnatural, moral, theological and even anagogick Senses, which no one\nsupposed to have been ever in_ Moses_'s Thoughts, or to be other than\nthe Exercise of a subtle Wit, for the Instruction and Entertainment of\nthe Hearers_. Whether this _Bishop_ had his Wits about him, when he\nsaid, _No one supposed the anagogick Senses of the Law to have been\never in_ Moses_'s Thoughts_, I can't tell; but if he had rubb'd up his\nMemory a little, he might have consider'd, what he says in another\nPlace,[388] that the Anagogical was the accustomed Way of the whole\nNation of the _Jews_ from _Moses_'s Time; and he might have known what\nSt. _Hilary_, whom I cited before, says, that _Moses_ taught the\nChildren of _Isr\u00e6l_ the anagogical and allegorical Way; and whatever\nhe may think, _Origen_ says,[389] that _Moses_ by the Acuteness of his\nUnderstanding, penetrated into the mystical and anagogical Meaning of\nhis own Law. And tho' this _Bishop_ says above, that he is not\nconcern'd to vindicate the Antiquity of the allegorick Way of writing;\nyet I am oblig'd to vindicate its Antiquity and Truth, or I can't\nwrite a good _Defence of Christianity_, which should now bring me (to\nwhat I have undertaken) to make an absolute Demonstration of the\nCertainty of the allegorical Method of Interpretation, and of\n_Jesus_'s Messiahship upon it.\n\nBut before I enter upon a close Proof of this grand Undertaking, I must\nbeg leave to tell my Readers a Story, which tho' it will for while defer\nmy undertaken Demonstration, yet it is properly introductory to it. I\nhad not long drawn up my foregoing Thoughts, (against the two Bishops,\nof _Litchfield_ and St. _David_'s) of the Jewish and Christian Antiquity\nof the allegorical Method of Interpretation of Scripture, before I\nimparted them to my old Friend the _Jewish Rabbi_, who is a Cabalist and\nAllegorist, and desired his Sentiments upon them. Whereupon he was so\nkind as to send me the following Letter, with a pertinent Objection in\nit, against the Messiahship of the _Jesus_ of our _Ministers_ of the\n_Letter_; with a pertinent, I say, and lucky Objection, which paves the\nWay for my Demonstration of the Certainty of the allegorical Way of\nInterpretation, and of the Messiahship of the _Jesus_ of us _Ministers_\nof the _Spirit_; and if I can but prevail upon the two forenamed\n_Bishops_, to give me their Assistance in answering the said Objection,\nby humouring my Rabbi in it; we shall go a better Step, than has been\nhitherto taken, for the Conversion of the _Jews_: And this is\nEncouragement enough to such hearty Friends to Christianity as we are,\nto set about so great and glorious a Work. The Letter is as follows.\n\n    SIR,\n\n     After condoling with you for the extraordinary Penalty that was\n     laid on you for my Invective against _Jesus_'s Miracle of _turning\n     Water into Wine_, which, in my Opinion, you should not have been so\n     heavily charg'd with, because it was purely _Cabalistical_, and\n     contains in it nothing better or worse than the Conceptions that we\n     _Jews_ entertain of _Jesus_ and his Miracles; I here send you my\n     Thoughts on the short Account you have given of the Antiquity of\n     the allegorical Method of the Interpretation of Scripture.\n\n     You and the Fathers of your Church are certainly in the right on't,\n     to make it as old as _Moses_, agreeably to the Opinion, that we\n     cabalistical _Jews_[390] at this Day entertain of it. If it was of\n     later Date and original, your Adversaries are oblig'd to assign the\n     Time _when_, and the Occasion _how_, such a surprising and\n     extraordinary Method of Interpretation was introduced into the\n     Jewish Nation. If our Ancestors in the Days of God's inspired\n     Prophet, _Moses_, heard of none but literal Senses of the Law, and\n     if neither he nor God himself ever intended they should run into\n     the allegorical Strain, I ask when and what was _that Incident_\n     which turn'd the Heads of our ancient Nation so religiously and\n     devoutly to it? I can easily conceive how it came to pass, that the\n     Sect of the _Caraites_ amongst us _Jews_, who now adhere to the\n     Letter, deserted mystical Interpretations; and why your _Ministers_\n     of the _Letter_ have forsaken them; and that was because they don't\n     relish nor apprehend those divine Mysteries, which _your_ and _our_\n     ancient Allegorists so much talk'd of, as veil'd and latent under\n     the Law of _Moses_. But if this be a good Reason, why they have\n     forsaken the allegorical Method, it is a much better Reason, why\n     our Ancestors, of themselves should never have taken it up. And\n     therefore it is plain to me, that God and _Moses_ upon the\n     Institution of the Law, at the same Time imparted the allegorical\n     Method; or it could never afterwards, _by chance_, have enter'd\n     into the Heads of Men, who have hitherto discern'd so little Use\n     and Fruits of it.\n\n     The Reason why God by _Moses_ communicated to the _Israelites_, and\n     by his Providence since has kept up the allegorical Way of\n     Interpretation of the Scriptures, was to prepare the World for the\n     Reception of the _Messiah_, who was to be the Accomplisher of them\n     in an allegorical Sense; and our Ancestors accordingly so much\n     excercised their Thoughts in divine and mystical Contemplations on\n     the Law; because, they fancied, they could thereby, as through _a\n     Glass darkly_, attain to some glimmering Foresight of the Kingdom\n     of the _Messiah_: For you must know, that our old Cabalists[391]\n     held (what your _Jesus_ undertook to fulfil) that all Things that\n     were written in the Law and the Prophets, were, _to a Tittle_, Type\n     and Prophecy of the _Messiah_, who would be so far the clear\n     Fulfiller and Illustrater of them, as that Men would then see God\n     _Face to Face_: And, to be particular, they expected, in the first\n     Place, that the _Messiah_ would work the Redemption of his Church\n     after the same manner, and by the like Signs and Wonders that\n     _Moses_ wrought the Deliverance of the _Israelites_ out of _Egypt_.\n\n     Agreeable to these our old Opinions of the Scripture, and to our\n     Expectations of a _Messiah_, did the Fathers of your Church\n     endeavour to prove _Jesus_'s Messiahship, by an allegorical\n     Explication and Application of the Law and the Prophets to him: But\n     in as much as they labour'd in vain, proving little or nothing,\n     this Way, to the Satisfaction of our old _Jews_; and in as much as\n     your Priesthood have altogether given over this Way of Proof; we\n     persist in our Disbelief of _Jesus_'s Messiahship, and expect\n     another for the foresaid grand Purposes. Give me Leave here to make\n     an Objection, founded on the concurrent and consentient Opinions of\n     _your_ Fathers and _our_ Ancestors, against the Messiahship of\n     _Jesus_, which if your Priests can answer, agreeably to their\n     united Opinions, they will not only make a Convert of me, but open\n     a Door for the Conversion of our whole Nation.\n\n     \"It is agreed between us Jews, and you Christians (excepting two or\n     three modern Commentators) that the Words of _Deuteronomy_, xviii.\n     18. _I will raise them up a Prophet from among their Brethren like\n     unto thee_, are a Prophecy of the Messiah. From which Prophecy our\n     Ancestors[392] look'd upon _Moses_ as a Type of the Messiah, _in\n     all Things_, and expected that the _Messiah_ at his coming would by\n     way of Antitype, imitate and resemble _Moses_ in all the History of\n     his Life, just as Face answereth to Face in a Glass, or as a\n     Substance agrees to its Shadow. And I am well assured that the\n     Fathers of your Church accordingly held and believed, what they\n     endeavoured to prove, that there was an exact Similitude between\n     _Jesus_ in the Christian Church, and _Moses_ in the Jewish. Now if\n     your Priesthood can perfect that Proof, and show me, either in a\n     literal or allegorical Sense, an exact Resemblance, Correspondence,\n     and Likeness between them, I must of Necessity turn Christian. It\n     may be perhaps a Work of too large an Extent for them to shew this\n     Agreement between _Jesus_ and _Moses_ in all and every Particular;\n     I will be content therefore, if they can shew me a Similitude\n     between them in a small Part of _Moses_'s Life; as for Instance, in\n     the History of _Moses_'s delivering the _Israelites_ out of\n     _Egypt_. It was most expressly the Opinion of our Ancestors, that\n     the Messiah would deliver his People from Bondage, and, if I forget\n     not, from _Roman_ Bondage, after the Manner, and by the like\n     Wonders, that _Moses_ delivered his People from _Egyptian_.\n     _Jerom_,[393] a Father of your Church has recorded _this_ as the\n     universal Opinion of our Ancestors, and therefore you have the less\n     Reason to question it. And agreeably to this Opinion of our\n     Ancestors, the Fathers of your Church asserted, that _Christ_ was\n     such a _Messiah_, and did deliver his Church from _Roman_\n     Servitude, after the same Manner (in a Figure) that _Moses_\n     delivered his _Israelites_ out of _Egypt_. Nay, your Apostle\n     _Paul_[394] seems to assert it, saying, _Brethren, I would not,\n     that ye should be ignorant, how that all our Fathers were under the\n     Cloud, and all passed through the Sea, and were all baptized unto\n     Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. Now these things were our\n     Examples or Types._ In which Words _Paul_ apparently alludes to,\n     and confirms the Opinion of our Ancestors, which he had imbibed\n     before his Conversion; and intimates that _Jesus_, whom he took for\n     the _Messiah_, was working a Redemption of his Church after the\n     Manner of the Deliverance of the _Israelites_ out of _Egypt_. And\n     so did your Fathers understand these Words of _Paul_, and\n     accordingly many of them labour'd to shew the Similitude between\n     the _Israelitish_ and _Christian_ Redemption, in order to the\n     Conversion of the _Jews_. But they, it seems, labour'd in vain,\n     shewing no tolerable nor visible Likeness of this sort between\n     _Jesus_ and _Moses_; and therefore our Nation to this Day continues\n     in Disbelief of _Jesus_'s Messiahship. However, we have not so\n     pertinaciously rejected _Jesus_'s Messiahship, as not to give you\n     Leave to resume the old Argument of it, from his Likeness to\n     _Moses_ in all things. If your _Priests_ can now show a Likeness\n     between them; if they can at this Day prove that _Jesus_ wrought\n     the like Miracles and Wonders (tho' in a figurative and allegorical\n     Sense) for the Redemption of his Church from _Roman_ Servitude, as\n     _Moses_ did for the Deliverance of _Israelites_ out of _Egypt_, we\n     will grant him to be the _Messiah_, and will believe in him. But as\n     we despair of such a Proof, so we reasonably persist in our\n     Disbelief of his Messiahship. Your _Divines_ indeed, because of the\n     foresaid Prophecy in _Deuteronomy_, do talk of a Likeness between\n     _Moses_ and _Jesus_; but it is not at all agreeable to the\n     Sentiments of _your_ Fathers, or the Expectations of _our_\n     Ancestors concerning the _Messiah_'s Similitude to _Moses_. They\n     tell us, that _Jesus_ and _Moses_ were alike, because both wrought\n     Miracles; but this will not do, till they prove a Likeness between\n     their Miracles, as to Number, Nature, Use and Circumstance. The\n     Miracles that the _Messiah_ is to work, and which are to prove his\n     Messiahship, must be of a similar Nature, and to the like Purpose\n     that _Moses_'s were in _Egypt_, as _our_ Ancestors asserted, and\n     _your_ Fathers granted: But since no such Similitude is shown to be\n     between them, we disown _Jesus_'s Messiahship, and appeal to the\n     Reason and Understanding of all indifferent Judges in the\n     Controversy, whether we are not in the right on't for so doing.\"\n\n     Thus, Sir, for the Use of your _Clergy_, have I form'd an Objection\n     against _Jesus_'s Messiahship, an Objection that is founded on the\n     concurrent Opinions of _our_ Ancestors and of _your_ Fathers: And I\n     shall with some Longings and Impatience wait till I hear what they\n     have to say to it. The Objection, in my Opinion, absolutely\n     destroys _Jesus_'s Pretences to the Messiahship, unless his\n     _Priests_, by way of Answer to it, can prove the foresaid\n     Similitude between him and _Moses_; between the Miracles of the One\n     and the Miracles of the Other; between the Deliverance of the\n     _Jewish_ and the Redemption of the _Christian_ Church, out of an\n     _Egypt_.\n\n     I am thinking what your _Clergy_ can say to the Objection. Will\n     they deny, that it was the Opinion of both _your_ Fathers and of\n     _our_ Ancestors, that there ought to be such a Similitude between\n     the _Messiah_ and _Moses_, as is before describ'd? That they can't\n     do, because of the innumerable Testimonies to be produced out of\n     them to confirm it. Will they then say, that it was a false and\n     erroneous Opinion, which both ancient Jews and Fathers entertain'd\n     concerning the _Messiah_? This surely they will not do; because of\n     the Consequence, which charges the Apostle _Paul_ himself (in the\n     above-cited Place) and the primitive Christians, with the grossest\n     Error and Mistake concerning _Jesus_ and his Messiahship; and yet\n     I can't think they will ever give into the joint Opinion aforesaid\n     of both _Jews_ and Fathers; because of the Impossibility of proving\n     _Jesus_ to be like _Moses in all Things_, according to the literal\n     Sense of the Law, which they adhere to; and because of the\n     Improbability of doing it, in an allegorical Sense, after the Way\n     of their Fathers, or, in all this Time surely, the Matter must have\n     been made out, to the Satisfaction and Conversion of our Nation.\n\n     I long, I tell you, to hear what your Christian _Priesthood_ will\n     say to the Objection, which surely they will not let slip, without\n     their Remarks and Observations upon it, any more than my Objections\n     against the literal Story of some of _Jesus_'s Miracles. And this\n     is your and my Comfort, that if you publish this present Objection\n     against _Jesus_'s Messiahship, the _Clergy_ can't account it a\n     ludicrous, profane, and blasphemous one (as they did my others) and\n     so bring you again under Prosecution for it: No, it is a plain,\n     serious, and reasonable Objection, founded on ancient Jewish and\n     Ecclesiastical Authority; and a pertinent, solid, and rational\n     Answer is expected to it.\n\n     Now the Controversy about _Jesus_'s Messiahship is thus far revived\n     and commenced, let us, in God's Name, go on with it, till we come\n     to a final Determination, either in the Demonstration, or\n     Confutation of it. Your _Clergy_, can't, I think, for Shame, any\n     more interrupt the free Course of the Controversy, which will make\n     us Jews secretly insult and triumph over them; and not only confirm\n     us in our Unbelief of _Jesus_'s Messiahship, but will occasion\n     others to desert their Faith in him.\n\n     It's a strange thing to consider how your Priesthood have, in these\n     latter Ages, managed the Controversy between Jews and Christians,\n     all by themselves, furiously disputing against Adversaries, whom\n     they will not allow with Impunity to speak in their own Cause: So\n     do they make God, who is to decide the Controversy, like an unjust\n     and partial Judge, that will hear only the Pleadings and Evidence\n     on one Side of the Question.\n\n     But your _Clergy_ will say, that in their Writings against the\n     Jews, they make Objections for us as well as Answers for\n     themselves, and that's sufficient. Not so, say I, unless their\n     Objections were as good and strong as we can make for our selves.\n     But however, if your _Divines_ so please, I will thus agree the\n     Matter with them, _viz._ That they alone shall make Objections for\n     us, if they'll let us alone to make Answers for them, which is most\n     just and equal; and then the World shall behold the most pleasant\n     and comical _Farce_ of a Controversy, they ever were entertain'd\n     with.\n\n     I remember, that in my Letter, you published, against _Jesus_'s\n     Resurrection, I promised the Controversy between the _Jews_ and\n     _Christians_, by my Consent, should turn on that Miracle. Your\n     _Clergy_, one or other of them, have answer'd that _Letter_; and so\n     might expect to hear of my Conversion, if I had nothing to reply to\n     them. My Reply you durst not publish, for fear of worldly\n     Tribulation, and so I am free from that Promise. But now that you\n     have fortunately given me an Occasion to make the more proper and\n     substantial Objection against _Jesus_'s Messiahship, herein\n     contain'd, I hope it will be freely and fully debated and\n     consider'd to the Determination of the Controversy between us. So\n     wishing you Health and Happiness, I am _Yours_,\n\n                                                   _N. N._\n\nSo ends the Letter of my good old Friend, the Jewish _Rabbi_, which\nwas a most seasonable and acceptable Present, in as much as the\nObjection, contain'd in it, will open a fair Way for me to prove,\nthat the Stories of _Jesus_'s Miracles, as recorded in the\nEvangelists, are and ought to be allegorically understood, and will\ncertainly receive such a mystical Accomplishment, as I, by the Help of\nthe Fathers, have conceived of them. The _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s,\nand my other Adversaries, may not, in all Probability, be aware of\nthis Use to be made of the foresaid Objection; and I don't expect that\non a sudden they should; but if they'll favour me with, what otherwise\nI'll endeavour to force them to, their Opinion and Debates about the\nforesaid Objection against _Jesus_'s Messiahship, they shall soon\ndiscern this Use and Consequence of it, that _Jesus_'s Miracles are\nnot _literally_ but _allegorically_ to be understood, and will\naccordingly receive an Accomplishment.\n\nI trust then, that the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s, who is principally\nconcern'd, will, without more Importunity, favour me with his Opinion\non the foregoing _Jewish_ Objection, which may be done in a small\nCompass of Paper, either in _Print_, or in an _Epistle_.\n\nI expect he should tell me plainly and expressly, whether it was\nreally the joint Opinion of the ancient _Jews_ and Fathers of the\nChurch, as is affected in the Objection, that the _Messiah_ was to be\na Prophet like _Moses_ in all things, in the whole History of his\nLife, and particularly with regard to the miraculous Deliverance of\nthe _Israelites_ out of _Egypt_. If the _Bishop_ should, what I humbly\nconceive he will not, deny that it was the joint Opinion of both\n_Jews_ and Fathers, as is before represented in the Objection, and\nshould pretend to urge Reasons and Authorities, which he will hardly\nfind, why such a Likeness and Agreement between the _Messiah_ and\n_Moses_ ought not to be look'd for; then my _Rabbi_ and I will confirm\nthe joint Opinion aforesaid, with Citations, almost innumerable out of\nthe _Jews_ and Fathers, till the _Bishop_ shall yield to the Number\nand Clearness of them.\n\nIf the _Bishop_ should own, what I am almost persuaded he will, that\nit was the joint Opinion of Fathers and _Jews_, that there ought to be\nsuch a Similitude and Harmony between the _Messiah_ and _Moses_, as is\nrepresented above; but should say, that it was an erroneous and false\nOpinion, which the old Cabalistical _Jews_, by chance, and\nunfortunately took up; and which the Fathers, even the Apostle\nhimself, unwarily and unhappily run into, complying with an Opinion of\nthe _Jews_ about the _Messiah_, without Consideration of the Weakness\nof it; then I, with a little of my _Rabbi_'s Help, will further prove\nthe Truth and Certainty of the said Opinion, and demonstrate, that He\ncan be no true Messiah, who in the History of himself and of his\nChurch does not exactly, _to a tittle_, correspond to the History of\n_Moses_ and of his People.\n\nBut if the _Bishop_ should, what I am willing to hope he will,\ningenuously confess, there ought to be such an Agreement and Likeness\nbetween _Moses_ and the _Messiah_ as is signified in the Objection,\nthen he and I will go heartily to Work, and for the Honour of _Jesus_,\nwhom we believe to be the _Messiah_, will absolutely demonstrate the\nSimilitude, there is between him and _Moses in all Things_. And this,\nby the by, in the Opinion of our Fathers, is the _ONLY_ Way to prove\n_Jesus_'s Messiahship, _viz._ by his Resemblance to _Moses_, and by\nhis Accomplishment of the Mosaick Types and Prophecy concerning him,\nwho, upon his own Word, came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets _to a\nTittle_.\n\nIf the _Bishop_ and I should be so fortunate, and I trust in God we\nshall, as to prove a most apparent and manifest Likeness between _Jesus_\nand _Moses_, even such a Likeness as my _Rabbi_ above demands, then\nshall we stop his Mouth, and soon pave a certain Way (which will be vast\nHonour to the _Bishop_) for the Conversion of the _Jews_.\n\nI don't despair of the _Bishop_'s joint Labours and Endeavours with\nmine to so great and good a Work (for I can't think in my Heart, that\nhe'll otherwise wrangle about the Objection above) so (if the _Bishop_\npleases) we'll begin this Work with a Demonstration of the Likeness\nthere is between the Redemption of the _Christian_ Church, and the\nDeliverance of the _Israelitish_ out of _Egypt_. Not only St.\n_Augustin_[395] hints that they who would show a Likeness between\n_Jesus_ and _Moses_ ought to begin here; but thereby we shall humour\nmy _Rabbi_ in his Objection, who calls for (upon the concurrent\nTestimonies of _Jews_ and Fathers) a Proof of such a Likeness between\nthe Redemptions of the two Churches, or he shall think it reasonable\nstill to persist in his Disbelief of _Jesus_'s Messiahship.\n\nAnd if the _Bishop_ and I should be so happy as to shew in an apparent\nManner, this Similitude between the Redemption of the Jewish and\nChristian Church out of _Egypt_, then meeting with Success in our\nStudies, will we proceed further, and illustrate other Prophecies of\nsucceeding Times of the Church; for I will not part with the _Bishop_,\ntill he is able to travel by himself, in his Contemplations on the Law\nand the Prophets, and to behold, what with an ordinary _Telescope_ at\nthe Eyes of his Understanding he may discern, and show to his Episcopal\nBrethren, _Christ_ spiritually sitting and coming on the Clouds of the\n_Letter_ to the same Purposes that the old Jews, Fathers and Apostles\nsay he is to come, _viz._ To open and illustrate the Parables and\n\u00c6nigma's of the Scriptures, to restore Prophecy, to shew us God Face to\nFace; and to raise All from a spiritual Death to Life again. And blessed\nare all those, who love and desire such his Appearance.\n\nIn my _Third Discourse_ on _Miracles_, I happen'd to speak of\n_Christ_'s second and spiritual Advent on the Clouds of the Law and\nProphets; and to say \"that the common Notion of his Coming on \u00e6rial\nClouds for the Resurrection of dead Bodies, _&c._ is the most\nsenseless and unphilosophical, that ever was taught to Mankind;\" which\ngave Offence to my _Bishop_, who animadverted upon me for it; but if\nhe ever get Sight, which I don't question, of _Christ_'s Coming on\nthe metaphorical Clouds of Prophecy, he'll not only be of my Mind\nhere, but will be sensible with me, that all or most of our\nsystematical Divinity, that is built on the _Letter_ of the\nScriptures, is false and groundless; and of that ill Tendency to the\nCorruption of Mens Morals, that it is not so much a Wonder, that wise,\ngood, and thinking _Gentlemen_ are betaking themselves to Natural\nReligion, as it is, that there are any Believers of Christianity, upon\nthe _Literal Scheme_, left among us. If it had not been _Force_, more\nthan _Reason_, that has hitherto kept Mankind in their Christian\nFaith; or if Liberty had been indulg'd them to consider the\nAbsurdities of the _Letter_ of the Scriptures, they would have run ere\nnow, by Shoals, into Infidelity: But the allegorical Interpretation\n(which the Cabalistical _Jews_[396] say, will convert _Atheists_) will\nreduce Mankind to the Belief of the inspired Authority of the\nScriptures, by shewing them the perfect _Reason_, the divine _Wisdom_,\nand resplendent _Truth_ of them; otherwise call'd the Messiah, the\n[Greek: chrisma], the Spirit, or the _Christ_ of them, than _whom_, or\nthan _which_ nothing can be more desired by Philosophers, to come for\nthe spiritual Renovation, Restoration, Resurrection and Illumination\nof Man; _consequently_ and implicitly for the Work of those mystical\nMiracles, of which those wrought by _Christ_ in the Flesh are but\nTypes and Figures. Whether the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s be already\napprised of this Consequence, I can't tell; but if he rub his\nIntellects but a little, he must needs apprehend the Consequence of\nthe foresaid spiritual Advent of _Christ thus_ far \"That Ministers of\nthe Letter then are certainly to be turn'd out of the Church: \"That\nthe Woman of the Church then will be cured of her Infirmity at the\nSpirit of Prophesy: \"That the Eyes of Mankind, like the blind Man's,\nwill be then open'd to see, what he has hitherto been dark about, the\nMystery of the Providence of God in all Ages. And so of the mystical\nAccomplishment of the other Miracles, with a little Application of\nThought, may he discern the Consequence. And when he does so, then he\nwill see too, what sort of a Christian I am, whom our _Ecclesiasticks_\nhave falsely accused, and unjustly persecuted for Impiety,\nProfaneness, Blasphemy and Infidelity, only because I have written\nagainst the _Letter_ of _Jesus_'s Miracles, in order to turn Mens\nHeads to the Consideration of their mystical Accomplishment at\n_Christ_'s second spiritual and glorious Advent on the Clouds of the\nLaw and the Prophets.\n\nI have indeed written against the _literal_ Stories of _Jesus_'s\nMiracles, which I still nauseate and abominate the Confinement of Mens\nThoughts to it; but if our _Clergy_ would but a little bear with me,\nthey shall see, I _alone_ do Honour to their literal Stories, by\nmaking them beautiful Emblems of future and more wonderful Operations.\nI have indeed call'd _Jesus_ an Impostor, Juggler, Fortune teller (and\nwhat not?) by way of Objection against the _Letter_ of his Miracles;\nbut I _alone_ shall do him Honour, in those very Miracles, which he\nwrought in the Flesh, by proving him to be the Wisdom, as well as\nPower of God, and that _God was in him of a Truth_, and endued him\nwith a divine Prescience of Futurities, or he could not then have\nwrought such curious and admirable Models and Prefigurations of his\nmysterious Works at his _second_ Advent.\n\nWhether the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s, and others, can as yet\ncertainly discern the foresaid Consequence of Christ's mystical\nAccomplishment of his Miracles upon his spiritual Advent, I can't\nguess; but if they'll favour me with their Opinion on my _Rabbi_'s\nObjection above, which will lead us to the allegorical Interpretation\nof the Law, they shall soon clearly see it.\n\nAnd now I would have the _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s to compare _this\nPart_ of my _Defence_ with the _Third Chapter_ of his _Vindication_,\nwhich treats _on the Practice of the Fathers in interpreting the\nScriptures in a mystical and allegorical Method_, and consider whether\nHe or I write the most like a Christian of an orthodox and primitive\nFaith and Practice. The _Bishop_ says[397] \"That it is certain, that\nwithout such Assistance (_of the Spirit_) as St. _Paul_ enjoy'd, the\nmystical Expositions of the Scripture by _Origen_ and other Fathers,\ntho' made in Imitation of St. _Paul_, have no such Authority as that\nof St. _Paul_ stampt on them.\" What, in the Name of Wonder, does the\n_Bishop_ here mean? Tho' St. _Paul_ has not allegoriz'd the whole Law,\nbut only some few Parts; yet he expressly says, often enough, that the\nwhole is a _Figure_ and _Shadow_ of Things to come under _Christ_; and\nour Saviour himself, as the Fathers understood him, intimates often,\nthat all Things that were written in the Law and the Prophets, are\nTypes and Prophecy of him, and that he came to fulfil them _to a\nTittle_. Is not here Authority enough for the Fathers to allegorize\nthe whole Law and the Prophets, in order to shew the Agreement between\nthe Type and Antitype; between the Shadow and the Substance; between\nthe Figure and the Thing figured; and between the Prophecy and its\nAccomplishment. And whether the Fathers, in their allegorical\nExpositions, rightly or not, hit off the Sense of the Prophecy; (for\nit must be confess'd they variously allegorized _this_ and _that_\nPassage of Scripture) yet it was _their_ and _our_ Duty and Office,\nfrom the Words of _Christ_, and the Practice of the Apostle, to keep\non in the allegorical Method, till an Harmony between the Prophecy and\nits Accomplishment was made most clear.\n\nThe _Bishop_ says in this his _Third Chapter_ of his _Vindication_,\n\"That the Fathers and I have abusively cited this Passage of St.\n_Paul_, _The Letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth Life_, in\nJustification of our mystical Expositions;\" whereupon the _Bishop_\ngave us a large Explication out of his own Head, on that whole Verse;\nwhich (because of the Shallowness of my own Pate, or the Confusion of\nthe Bishop's) I don't understand, and much question, whether the\n_Bishop_ understands himself. However, I will here paraphrastically\ngive my _Readers_ the easy, plain, and intelligible Sense of the\nFathers and my self on that whole Verse[398] thus, _Who hath made us\nable Ministers of the New Testament, not of the Letter_ [that is, not\nof the literal Sense of the Law and the Prophets, which is the _Old_\nTestament] _but of the Spirit_, [that is, of the spiritual Sense of\nthe Law and the Prophets, which is the _New_ Testament] _for_ [as the\nTestimony of _Jesus_, according to St. _John_, is the Spirit of\nProphecy, so] _the Letter_ [that is, the literal Sense of the Law and\nProphets] _killeth_ [that is, nulls the Testimony of _Jesus_ which is\nin them] _but the Spirit_ [that is, the spiritual Sense of the Law and\nProphets] _giveth Life_ [to their prophetical Testimony.] This is most\ncertainly the Sense of the Fathers on this Text; and I believe the\n_Bishop_ will not gainsay it, tho' he may dislike it. Hence the\nFathers, when they spoke _properly_ and not _vulgarly_, call'd the\nspiritual Sense of the Law and the Prophets, the[399] _New Testament_,\nand asserted that there was or would be such an Agreement between the\n_Old_ and _New_ Testament; that is, between the Testament of the\n_Letter_, and the Testament of the _Spirit_ of the Scriptures, as that\nthere would not be[400] one Tittle in the _one_, that would not be\nconsonantly fulfilled in the _other_; and so far as I already\napprehend this Harmony between these two Testaments, of the _Letter_,\nand of the _Spirit_, I must needs say with _Origen_[401] that it's\n_pleasant and ravishing to behold and contemplate it_, and hope in a\nshort time to make the Bishop of St. _David_'s a Partaker of the same\nPleasure. The same right Notion had the Fathers of the _Gospel_ of\n_Christ_, which they have of the _New Testament_. _Vulgarly_ speaking,\nthe Writings of the Evangelists, and of the Apostles, were call'd the\n_Gospel_ of _Christ_: But properly speaking, Christ's _spiritual\nAccomplishment_ of the Law was the _Gospel_: Hence is the Meaning of\ntheir frequent saying, \"That under the Law the Gospel was vail'd, and\nunder the Gospel the Law was reveal'd.\" Hence they said, \"That those\nMen had nothing of the _Gospel_, who understood not the Spirit of the\n_Law_.\" Hence they said, \"The Gospel was hid to those, who had the\nVeil of the _Letter_ upon their Hearts in reading of the Old\nTestament.\" Hence it was too, that they said, \"That the Gospel was but\n_in Part_, and that too in a very _little Part_, reveal'd at\n_Christ_'s first Coming; the full Revelation of it being reserv'd for\nhis second and more glorious Advent, which the World is now in great\nWant of, for the curing of their spiritual _Blindness_, _Deafness_,\nand _Lameness_; that is, for the Correction of their gross Ignorance\nand Errors in Religion; for the Healing of their Divisions; for the\nManifestation of Truth; for the Conversion of _Jews_ and _Gentiles_;\nand for the Reformation of the Manners of Mankind.\n\nDear _Jesu_, to what a sad Purpose have our Hired Priesthood and\n_Ministers_ of the _Letter_, of all Denominations, hitherto studied and\npreach'd, even till they have lost the true, primitive, and Apostolical\nNotion of \"the _Gospel_; \"of _Revelation_; and \"of the _New Testament_!\n\nThe Bishop of _London_ has of late publish'd two _Pastoral Letters_ on\nthe Certainty, Necessity, and Use of Revelation, against _Infidels_,\nparticularly against my self, whom he (God help his Understanding!)\ntakes for a Favourer of Infidelity: And to do the _Man_ Justice, I\nbelieve he's sincere, and laments at his Heart the Unbelief of this\nAge: But however, when the true _Gospel_, otherwise call'd the\n_Revelation_ of the Law and the Prophets, or the _New Testament_\n(which will be fatal to the Ministry of the Letter, and an hired\nPriesthood) shall be republished, restored, and repreach'd, I dare\nsay, without Censoriousness, or pretending to a prophetick Spirit,\nthat He, of all the Inhabitants of _London_ and _Westminster_, will be\nthe greatest Enemy to it; and for no other Reason than his own,\n\"because of his Unwillingness to part with his worldly Interests,\nwhich will induce him to embrace any Arguments against it, and to\ncherish any Doubts and Scruples concerning it.\"\n\nWhether the Bishop of St. _David_'s intends to proceed in this\nControversy against me, as he has begun, I know not. He promised us\nhis _Second Volume_ last Winter, but has adjourn'd the Publication of\nit to the next, and I am apt to think he'll defer it to _latter\nLammas_: For being, I suppose, sensible, that his _First Volume_ is\nbuilt on the false Bottom of my supposed Infidelity, he'll hardly\ntrouble the World with another of that kind. But however, I'll not\nrelease him out of the Controversy. I shall insist upon his letting\nme know his Opinion on my _Rabbi_'s Objection against _Jesus_'s\nMessiahship, herein contain'd, which if he'll favour me with, I'll\nforgive him all the Virulence, and pass by all the Impertinence (to\nsay no worse) of his _Vindication_: Otherwise I shall be tempted to do\nan unpleasant Work to myself, as well as an ungrateful one to him;\nthat is, further to expostulate with him for his false Accusations,\nMisrepresentations, and other ill Usage of me.\n\nWhen I review my _Discourses_ on _Miracles_, and consider not only\ntheir visible Tendency to the Proof of _Jesus_'s Messiahship, but my\nsolemn Declarations of the Belief of Christianity; I wonder that such\na Number of Writers against me should all of them (excepting Mr.\n_Laurence_[402] whom I here thank and praise for his Ingenuity) take\nme for an Infidel. I don't indeed much wonder, that the inferior Tribe\nof _Levi_ (such is their egregious Ignorance!) should take me for one;\nbut that such presumed great _Scholars_, as are the Bishops of\n_London_ and St. _David_'s, should so mistake me, is astonishing. And\nI am not as yet fully satisfied, whether it be their _Ignorance_ or\ntheir _Malice_, thus to accuse me of Infidelity: If it was really\n_Ignorance_ in them, they'll soon be convinced of their Error; and\nthen, like good Christians, they'll make me Satisfaction for the\nInjuries done me. But if it was _Malice_, and in Revenge on me for\nwriting so much against an _Hired-Priesthood_, then they'll go on, and\n_die hard_, without any Remorse for the Troubles, Sufferings and\nExpences they have put me to.\n\nAs I am really a Christian, and shall, by God's Help, demonstrate the\nMessiahship of _Jesus_, to which my _Discourses_ on his _Miracles_\nwere subservient; so I will make bold to tell the _Bishops_ concern'd,\nthat I am as certainly persecuted, as ever any Christian was since the\nDays of the Apostles: And they will do well to consider, whether they\nhave not everlastingly disgraced themselves, and done some Dishonour\nto the best Civil Administration, that ever Nation was bless'd with,\nby engaging them in the Persecution of the most sincere Advocate for\nthe Truth of Christianity, that ever set Pen to Paper.\n\nI am so far from being an Infidel, that, notwithstanding my\n_Discourses_ on _Miracles_, I am an implicit Believer, and most devout\nAdmirer of Doctrines, Historical Facts, and Traditions of the\nprimitive Church, adhering to many Notions of the Fathers, besides\ntheir allegorical Scheme (as will be seen in the Sequel of this\nControversy) which the _Divines_ of these last Ages have rejected, as\nso many Weaknesses and Mistakes in them. And when I come more fully to\nopen my Mind, it will be well if the _Clergy_ don't change their\n_Note_ about me; and instead of accusing me of Infidelity, ridicule me\nfor too much Credulity, and even Superstition; or I would not espouse\n_such_ and _such_ Doctrines and Traditions, which all learned and\nProtestant _Criticks_ have discarded. Some of these old Notions I'll\nkeep to myself, for fear of being over-much laught at by the _Clergy_\nfor them, but others upon Occasion I will divulge; and don't care if I\ntell my _Readers_ here one of them, thus:\n\n\"The Fathers intimate that _Ministers_ of the _Letter_ are Worshippers\nof the Apocalyptical _Beast_, or _Anti-Christ_; and that _that Beast_\nof a God, old _Baal_, was a Type of _Anti Christ_.\" This their Opinion\nI found hard to digest; but if there be any Truth in it, it can't be\nunlawful to jest a little with his Priests, or to ridicule their\nnonsensical, foolish and absurd Doctrines, founded on the _Letter_.\n\nBut let my Theological Notions and Speculations be of what kind\nsoever; what Harm can my Arguings for them do to the Community? None\nat all. If they are not of God, they will come to nought sooner and\nbetter than by a Persecution of me for them. But if they are of God,\nthey will stand and prevail against all Opposition of the _Clergy_,\nwho will lose their Reputation, if they take any other Measures, than\nwhat Reason and Religion do allow of, to suppress them.\n\nMy earnest Request then to the _Clergy_ is, that under the Debate I am\nlike to have with them, they would be pleased to keep their Temper; or\nwise and impartial By-standers will say, that it's more for their\nInterests than the Truth, that they are zealous and furious.\n\nI am not afraid of another Prosecution at Law, because I already have,\nor soon shall cut off all Pretences to it, by clearing myself of all\nSuspicions of Infidelity; but, for all that, I am more apprehensive of\nthe Rage and Indignation of the _Clergy_, than if I had been a\ndownright _Atheist_. No _Atheist_ or _Deist_ is or can be of that\ndangerous Consequence to the modern Priesthood, as the Christian\nAllegorist. Against the Growth of Deism and Atheism, the _Clergy_ may\nbe able for some time to maintain their Ground; but upon the Revival\nof the _Ministry_ of the _Spirit_ of the Law and the Prophets, they\ncan't stand long. And if I should demonstrate, what I have undertaken,\nthe Certainty of the allegorical Scheme, and _Jesus_'s Messiahship\nupon it; tho' _Jews_ and _Infidels_ then will be ready to rejoice, yet\nMinisters of the Letter, notwithstanding their pretended Love to, and\nFaith in _Jesus_, will be enraged; and it will be well, if I don't\nfeel the Weight of their Displeasure and Resentment. If that foolish\nold _Dotard_, Mr. _Ayscough_[403] the _Rector_ of St. _Olave_'s,\n_Southwark_, could find in his Heart to instigate the Mob to _drag me\nthrough the Streets, and throw me into some Repository of Filth and\nNastiness_, what may I not dread from young hot-headed _Priests_, upon\nthe Performance of what is here undertaken? But I hope our pious and\ngood _Bishops_, notwithstanding the Danger of their _Thousands_ a\nYear, will be my Safeguard.\n\nAfter all, it is a sad and melancholick Consideration, that the\nUnderstandings of Mankind, especially of the Wise, Thinking and\nPhilosophical Part of them, should be enslaved to the Interests of\nEcclesiastical _Clodpates_, who for the sake of _Mammon_ more than\n_Truth_, are furious and turbulent; otherwise any Opinions in Religion\nmight be profess'd, consistently with the Peace of the Publick; and\nany Speculations publish'd without Animosities and Molestations.\n\nWhat Course can be taken with the _Clergy_, to persuade them to\nPatience and Forbearance, whilst I prove them to be the most stupid\nSect of Philosophers, who have amongst them the fewest Rudiments of\ntrue Philosophy, and even of the Gospel, of any Sect the World ever\nknew? It's said, there is nothing so absurd, which some of the old\nPhilosophers have not held; but there is nothing, for Absurdity, equal\nto this Belief, that the _Bible_, for its literal Story, is the Word\nof God, and given by Inspiration of him.\n\nThe _Bishop_ of _St. David_'s complains[404] of my unmannerly\nBehaviour towards my Ecclesiastical Superiors; and I must confess, I\nam no body at that low and _Right Reverend_ Bow, that he is fam'd for,\nor I might have put in for a _Bishoprick_ before now: But if our\n_Bishops_ and _Clergy_ will be pleased to keep their Temper, till I\nget to the End of this Controversy, I'll pass such Compliments upon\nthem for their good Humour and Learning too, if they deserve it, as\nthey hardly ever met with.\n\nTo conclude, I have written as plainly and intelligibly as I can, in\nthis _Part_ of my _Defence_. If any one shall complain of Obscurity\nany where, I will, upon Intimation, endeavour to illustrate it. I\nhave, in some Places, asserted Things upon the Authority of the\nFathers, without producing their Testimonies, in Proof of them; but if\nany question, whether their Testimonies can be here or there urg'd,\nthey shall, upon a proper Occasion, have Satisfaction given them. The\nReason why I have sometimes omitted the Testimonies of the Fathers,\nwhere they might be look'd for, is because I study Brevity, intending\nnever to publish at once a larger _Volume_ than this present. And no\nbody need question my Testimonies to be ready at Hand; because I have\nneither the Courage nor Confidence (like many others) to vent any new\nDoctrines out of my own Head. My Talent is only to illustrate what the\nFathers have asserted; and tho' some would account me a Falsifier and\nMisrepresenter of primitive Authorities, my honest Endeavours shall be\nto turn the Hearts of our _Clergy_, who are like Children in\nUnderstanding, to the Fathers. I shall end all _seriously_,\n_gravely_, _calmly_ and _sedately_, with the same Words that I began\nmy _First Discourse_ on _Miracles_ with, saying, \"If ever there was a\nuseful Controversy started or revived in this Age of the Church, it is\nthis about the Messiahship of the Holy _Jesus_, which the _Discourse\nof the Grounds_, &c. has of late rais'd. I believe this Controversy\nwill end in the absolute Demonstration of _Jesus_'s Messiahship from\nProphecy, which is the only Way to prove him to be the Messiah, that\ngreat Prophet expected by the _Jews_, and promised under the old\nTestament.\" And whether Bishop _Smalbroke_ or Mr. _Stackhouse_ will\nbelieve me, or not, I do now solemnly declare, that what I have\nwritten in my _Discourses_, or shall write in these _Defences_, is\nwith a View to, what I am persuaded I shall effect, the absolute\nDemonstration of the Messiahship of the Holy _Jesus_, to whom be Glory\nfor ever and ever. _Amen._\n\n                               ~_FINIS._~\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[357] _Vindication in Preface, p._ ix. x.\n\n[358] _Fair State of the Controversy_, p. 293, 294.\n\n[359] _In his Preface_, p. xi.\n\n[360] _Vindication_, p. 2.\n\n[361] _Defence of Christianity_, p. 295, 310.\n\n[362] _Some Observations of a Layman._ 2. Tom _of_ Bedlam'_s Letter to\nhis Cousin_ T. Woolston. 3. _For God or the Devil: Or, Just Chastisement\nno Persecution._ 4. _A Defence of the Scripture-History, &c._\n\n[363] _In his_ First Pastoral Letter, p. 5.\n\n[364] _In his Preface_, p. ix.\n\n[365] _In his Dedication to the Queen._\n\n[366] Siquidem Symbola qu\u00e6dam erant, qu\u00e6 tunc gerebantur, eorum qu\u00e6\nJesu virtute semper perficiuntur. _In Matt._ C. xv.\n\n[367] Peragunt Formam futuri Gesta pr\u00e6sentia. _In Matt._ C. xxi.\n\n[368] Qu\u00e6 a Jesu facta alicujus significantia erant. _In Serm._ lxxvii.\n\n[369] Ipse Salvator noster apertissim\u00e8 ostendit, qu\u00f2d ejus miracula\naliquid significent, dum ea faciendo aliquid agit, quod ratione carere\nvideatur. _In Hom. quarta post Dominic. quartam._\n\n[370] _In his Preface_, p. xi.\n\n[371] _Ibid._ p. x.\n\n[372] Similitudo erat & Typus futurorum unumquodque, quod Jesus\nfaciebat in Corpore. _In Isai._ C. vi.\n\n[373] Adventus Christi unus quidem in Humilitate completus est, alius\nver\u00f2 speratur in Gloria: Et hic primus Adventus in Carne, mystico\nquodam Sermone, in Scripturis sanctis umbra ejus appellatur. _In Jesu\nNave_, C. viii.\n\n[374] Pertingit ad usque secundum & diviniorem Christi Adventum\nJohannis Testimonium. _Origen. in Lucam. Tom._ V.\n\n[375] Appropinquat enim Regnum Coelorum, ut Scrib\u00e6 qui in simplici\nLittera acquiescunt, resipiscentes ab ejusmodi Intellectu, erudiantur\nspirituali Doctrina, qu\u00e6 est per Jesum Christum, vivum Verbum, qu\u00e6\nvocatur Regnum Coelorum. _In Matt._ C. xiii.\n\n[376] _P._ 123, 124.\n\n[377] _P._ 124.\n\n[378] _P._ 108.\n\n[379] _P._ 93.\n\n[380] _P._ 94.\n\n[381] Ibid.\n\n[382] Nam idem Moses quamvis Veteris Testamenti verba in literis\ncondidisset, tamen separatim qu\u00e6dam ex occultis Legis secretiora\nmysteria septuaginta senioribus, qui Doctores deinceps manerent,\nintimaverat. _In Psal._ ii. Sect. 2.\n\n[383] _P._ 96.\n\n[384] _Origenes_ decem scripsit Stromateas, omnia nostr\u00e6 religionis\ndogmata de _Platone_, _Aristotele_, _Numenio_, _Cornutoque_\nconfirmans. _In Epist. ad Magnum._\n\n[385] _Defence of Christianity_, p. 345.\n\n[386] _P._ 347, 353, 358.\n\n[387] _P._ 341.\n\n[388] _P._ 344.\n\n[389] Perspicuum est Mosem mentis acie Legis Veritatem Historiarumque\napud Scripturam Allegorias juxta Anagogen vidisse. _In Johan. Tom._ VI.\n\n[390] Asseverant Jud\u00e6i, deum Mosi prim\u00f9m Legem scriptam tradidisse,\narque hanc postea in longo illo Dierum 40 spatio, quo in monte apud se\nagebat Moses, exposuisse, ita ut singulorum pr\u00e6ceptorum genuinum\nSensum, Causas, & Fines tum Rationem quoque eadem adimplendi illi\naccurate declararet. _Apud Wagens. Tel. ignea._ p. 580.\n\n[391] See _Basnage_'s History of the _Jews_, p. 189.\n\n[392] Doctioribus inter Jud\u00e6os notissimum est, quod Moses qui primus\nfuit Salvator Israelis, etiam in omni Vita & Operibus suis fuerit\nTypus & Figura ultimi Redemptoris. _Christiani Meyer_ de Gen. Christi,\n_p._ 145.\n\n[393] Jud\u00e6i veteres expectabant similem \u00c6gyptiac\u00e6 Liberationem, ut\nscilicet Pharoah & omnis ejus Exercitus qui per 430 Annos Populum Dei\ncaptivum tenuit, in mari rubro submersus est; sic etiam Romani qui\neodem Annorum numero Jud\u00e6os possessuri, ultione Domini deleantur. _In\nJoelis_ C. iii.\n\n[394] 1 Cor. _C._ x, 1, 2, 6.\n\n[395] Eloquar Propositiones sive \u00c6nigmata ab Initio, id est, ex quo\nPopuli Congregatio adducta est ex \u00c6gypto. _In Ps._ lxxvii. _Sect._ 4.\n\n[396] See _Basnage_'s History of the _Jews_, p. 189.\n\n[397] _P._ 108.\n\n[398] 2 _Cor._ iii. 6.\n\n[399] Et non Litera Legis, sed ejus Spiritus, hoc est, Novitas\nTestamenti. _Tertull. contra Marcion_, Lib. V. C. 11.\n\n[400] Veteris Testamenti ad Novum tanta Congruentia, ut Apex nullus,\nqui non consonet, relinquetur. _Sti. Augustini de Utilit. Credendi_,\nSect. 9.\n\n[401] Jucundum est istum Consensum intelligere circa convenientia\nduorum Testamentorum. _In Matt. Tract._ 6.\n\n[402] _In his Expostulatory Letter to Mr._ Woolston.\n\n[403] _In his_ Lent Sermon _at St._ Saviour_'s_, Anno 1729.\n\n[404] _In his Preface_, p. xvii.\n\n\n\n\n    _BOOKS written by Mr._ WOOLSTON, _and sold by him next Door to\n    the_ Star _in_ Aldermanbury, _and by the Booksellers of_ London\n    _and_ Westminster.\n\n\nI. The old Apology reviv'd, _&c._\n\nII. Dissertatio de Pontii Pilati Epistola ad Tiberium circa Res Jesu\nChristi gestas.\n\nIII. Origenis Adamantii Epistol\u00e6 du\u00e6 circa Fidem vere orthodoxam &\nScripturarum Interpretationem.\n\nIV. The exact Fitness of the Time of Christ's Advent, demonstrated by\nReason, against the Objections of the old Gentiles, and modern\nUnbelievers.\n\nV. Four Free-Gifts to the _Clergy_, or Challenges to a Dispute on this\nQuestion, whether the Hireling Priests of this Age, who are all\nMinisters of the Letter, be not Worshippers of the Apocalyptical\nBeast, and Ministers of Anti-Christ.\n\nVI. An Answer to the said Four Free-Gifts.\n\nVII. Two Letters to Dr. _Bennet_, on this Question, Whether the People\ncall'd _Quakers_, do not the nearest of any other Sect in Religion,\nresemble the primitive Christians in Principle and Practice.\n\nVIII. An Answer to the said two Letters.\n\nIX. The Moderator between an Infidel and an Apostate: Or, the\nControversy between the _Grounds_ and his ecclesiastical Opponents,\nset in a clear Light, _&c._\n\nX. Two Supplements to the Moderator, _&c._\n\nXI. A Defence of the Miracle of the _Thundering Legion_, against a\nDissertation of _Walter Moyle_ Esq.\n\nXII. Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour.\n\nXIII. Two Defences of the said Discourses.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nNon-Latin characters have been replaced with the nearest Latin\nequivalent for example [oe] (the oe ligature), was replaced with oe.\n\nInconsistent hyphenation has been left as in the original text.\n\nInconsistent use of contractions are left as in the original text.\n\nThe long s has been replaced with the modern s in order to improve\nreadability.\n\nIn some cases the footnotes refer to the text prior to the footnote\nanchor and in some cases they refer to the text after. All anchors\nhave been attached to the word before the anchor.\n\nBishop Smalbroke and Smallbroke are used interchangeably throughout as\nare Lichfield and Litchfield, left as in the original text.\n\nInconsistent italicising appears throughout, left as in the original\ntext.\n\nThere are several words that are consistently misspelled and also\ncorrectly spelled in the text (i.e. litteral, sensless, antient,\nideot), these were left as in the original text.\n\nThere are several places where closing quotes are not present, left as\nin the original text.","title":"Six Discourses on the Miracles of Our Saviour, and Defences of His Discourses","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":126357}