Six Discourses on the Miracles of Our Saviour, and Defences of His Discourses
Date: 2012-10-27T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Jesus Christ -- Miracles -- Early works to 1800; Smalbroke; Richard; 1672-1749; Gibson; Edmund; 1669-1748

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Six Discourses on the Miracles of Our Saviour, and Defences of His Discourses

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Six Discourses on the Miracles of Our Saviour, and Defences of His Discourses

Author: Thomas Woolston

Release date: October 27, 2012 [eBook #41203]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Douglas L. Alley, III, David Ross and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SIX DISCOURSES ON THE MIRACLES OF OUR SAVIOUR, AND DEFENCES OF HIS DISCOURSES ***

Thomas Woolston

SIX DISCOURSES
ON THE MIRACLES
OF OUR SAVIOUR
and

DEFENCES
OF HIS DISCOURSES
1727-1730

Garland Publishing, Inc., New York & London

1979

A

DISCOURSE

ON THE

MIRACLES

OF OUR

SAVIOUR,

In View of the Present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates.

—Nostrum est tantus componere Lites.

The Fifth Edition.

By Tho. Woolston, B. D. sometime
Fellow of Sidney-College in Cambridge.

LONDON:

Printed for the Author, and Sold by him next door to the Star, in Aldermanbury, and by the Booksellers of London, and Westminster, 1728.

[Price One Shilling.]

TO THE

Right Reverend Father in God

EDMUND,

Lord Bishop of London.

My Lord,

pon no other View do I make a Dedication of this Discourse to your Lordship, then to submit it to your acute Judgment, expecting soon to hear of your Approbation or Dislike of it. If it so happen, that you highly approve of it, I beg of you to be sparing of your Commendations, least I should be puff'd up with them.

In my Moderator, some Expressions dropt from my Pen about the Miracles of our Saviour, which, for want of Illustration then, gave your Lordship some Offence, and brought upon me more Trouble: But, having now fully and clearly explain'd my self out of the Fathers, I hope you'll be reconciled to me; and as you are a Lover of Truth, will, against Interest and Prejudice, yield to the Force of it.

Whether your Prosecution of me, for the Moderator, was just and reasonable, I'll not dispute here, having already expostulated that Matter with you in several Letters, to which you would not condescend to give me any Answer. For what Reason you was silent, is best known to your self. But, in my own Vindication, I hope, I may publish without Offence, that your taking me for an Infidel, was such a Mistake as I thought no Scholar could have made; and the Injury done to my Reputation and low Fortunes, by the Prosecution, so considerable, that the least I expected from your Lordship, was a courteous Excuse, if not an ample Compensation, for it.

As to the Expediency of prosecuting Infidels for their Writings (in whose Cause I am the farthest of any Man from being engaged) I will here say nothing. The Argument, pro and con, has already, by one or other, been copiously handled. And I don't know but I might be, with your Lordship, on the persecuting side of the Question; but that it looks as if a Man was distrustful of the Truth of Christianity, and conscious of his own Inability to defend it; or he would leave that good Cause to God himself and the Sword of the Spirit, without calling upon the Civil Magistrate for his Aid and Assistance.

That scurvy Writer of the Scheme of literal Prophecy, &c. which your Lordship must have heard of, would insinuate, that they are only atheistical Priests, who, for fear of their Interests in the Church, set Persecutions on foot: But after your Lordship has publish'd a strenuous Defence of Christianity to the Purpose of our present Controversy, I'll have no such Suspicions of you.

Your Lordship's persecuting (or, if you will, prosecuting) Humour, is reputedly all pure Zeal for God's Glory; and, with all my Heart, let it be so accounted, whether it be according to Knowledge or not. Against Popery and Infidelity you are all Ardency! Who does not commend you? Who can question the Sincerity of the Zeal of a Protestant Bishop, and of a Protestant Clergy, when they persecute the Enemies of their Church, that considers their own Steadiness to Principles against Interest, under all Changes, since the Reformation; and their Abhorrence of Extortion upon the People, for the Duties of their Function, in and about this City. Such Honesty and Constancy in their Profession, is a Proof of the Integrity of their Hearts, or I know not where to find one.

But that your Lordship's Zeal for Religion is very remarkable and successful, I could prove by many Instances; one is, that of your routing a turbulent Sect of Peripateticks out of St. Paul's Cathedral; and if you could as effectually clear Christ's Church of Infidels, what a glorious Bishop would you be!

And what Pity is it, that Infidels likewise are not to be quell'd with your Threats and Terrors! which (without the Weapons of sharp Reasonings, and thumping Arguments, that others are for the Use of) would transmit your Fame to Posterity, for a notable Champion for Christianity, as certainly as, that your judicious Prosecution of the Moderator for Infidelity is here remember'd by,

London,
April 17,
1727.

My LORD,
The Admirer of
Your Zeal
Wisdom and
Conduct,
Thomas Woolston.

A

DISCOURSE

ON THE

MIRACLES

OF OUR

SAVIOUR, &c.

f ever there was an useful Controversy started, or revived in this Age of the Church, it is this about the Messiahship of the holy Jesus, which the Discourse of the Grounds, &c. has of late rais'd. I believe this Controversy will end in the absolute Demonstration of Jesus's Messiahship from Prophecy, which is the only way to prove him to be the Messiah, that great Prophet expected by the Jews, and promised under the Old Testament. And tho' this way of Proof from Prophecy seems to labour under many Difficulties at present; and tho' some Writers against the Grounds, being distressed with those Difficulties, are for seeking Refuge in the Miracles of our Saviour; yet we must persist in it, till what I have no doubt of, his Messiahship shall be clearly made out by it.

And the way in Prophesy that I would take for the Proof of Jesus's Messiahship, should be by an allegorical Interpretation, and Application of the Law and the Prophets to him; the very same way, that all the Fathers of the Church have gone in; and the very same way, in which all the ancient Jews say their Messiah was to fulfil the Law and the Prophets: But this way does not please our ecclesiastical Writers in this Controversy, neither will they at present give any Ear to it.

The Way in Prophecy that they are for taking, is by a literal Interpretation and Application of some Prophecies of the Old Testament to our Jesus, but they are hitherto unsuccessful in this Way. The Authors of the Grounds and of the Scheme, grievously perplex them with their Objections against this way of Proof, so far as, being sensible, I say, of almost insuperable Difficulties in it, they are flying apace to the Miracles of our Saviour, as to their sole and grand Refuge.

But to show that there's no Sanctuary for them in the Miracles of our Saviour, I write this Discourse: And this I do, not for the Service of Infidelity, which has no Place in my Heart, but for the Honour of the Holy Jesus, and to reduce the Clergy to the good old way of interpreting Prophecies, which the Church has unhappily apostatis'd from, and which, upon the Testimony of the Fathers, will, one Day, be the Conversion of Jews and Gentiles.

For this Opinion, that there is no Sanctuary in the Miracles of our Saviour, I chanc'd to say in the Moderator,[1] That Jesus's Miracles, as they are now-a-days understood, make nothing for his Authority and Messiahship. And again,[2] That I believe, upon good Authority, some of the Miracles of Jesus, as recorded by the Evangelists, were never wrought, but are only related as prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what will be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him: Which Expressions gave Offence to some of our Clergy, and brought upon me their Indignation and Displeasure. I see no Reason to depart from the said Expressions, or so much as to palliate and soften them, much less to retract them; but in Maintenance of my Opinion, to the Honour of our Messiah, and the Defence of Christianity, I write this Treatise on Jesus's Miracles, and take this Method following.

I. I will show, that the Miracles of healing all manner of bodily Diseases, which Jesus was justly famed for, are none of the proper Miracles of the Messiah, neither are they so much as a good Proof of his Divine Authority to found a Religion.

II. That the literal History of many of the Miracles of Jesus, as recorded by the Evangelists, does imply Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities, consequently they, either in whole or in part, were never wrought, as they are commonly believed now-a-days, but are only related as prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what would be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.

III. I shall consider what Jesus means, when he appeals to his Miracles as to a Testimony and Witness of his Divine Authority, and show, that he could not properly and ultimately refer to those he then wrought in the Flesh, but to those mystical ones, which he would do in the Spirit; of which those wrought in the Flesh are but mere Types and Shadows.

In treating on these Heads, I shall not confine my self only to Reason, but also to the express Authority of the Fathers, those holy, venerable, and learned Preachers of the Gospel in the first Ages of the Church, who took our Religion from the Hands of the Apostles, and of apostolical Men, who dy'd, some of them, and suffer'd for the Doctrine they taught; who professedly and confessedly were endu'd with divine and extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit; who consequently can't be supposed to be Corrupters of Christianity, or Teachers of false Notions about the Miracles of our Saviour, or so much as mistaken about the apostolical and evangelical Sense and Nature of them. I know not how it comes to pass, but I am a profound Admirer, and an almost implicit Believer of the Authority of the Fathers, whom I look upon as vast Philosophers, very great Scholars, and most orthodox Divines. Whatever they concurrently assert, I firmly believe. And tho' they are, for the most part, mysterious Writers out of the Reach of the Capacities of many, who slight them; yet I, who have had the Honour and Happiness of much of their Acquaintance, fancy my self well apprised of their Meanings. If at any time I read a Passage in them which I don't presently apprehend, I salute it with Veneration for all that, till my Understanding is opened to receive the Sense of it. If I meet with but a single Opinion in any one of them, I pay my Respects to it; but where there is an Harmony and Agreement of Opinion amongst them, it is with me, and ought to be with all Christians, of such Weight, as to bear down all Prejudice, Opposition, and Contradiction before it; or the Authority of no Man, whether ancient or modern, is to have any Regard paid to it; and of what ill Consequence to Religion such an utter Rejection of Authority will be, I need not say.

This I thought fit to premise, concerning the Authority of the Fathers, to abate of the Prejudice beforehand, which some may conceive against the following Discourse about the Miracles of Jesus. I don't question, but some may be startled at the foregoing Heads, as if, what is the farthest of any thing from my Heart, the Service of Infidelity was in View; but craving the Temper and Patience of such Readers for a while, and they shall find, that its no other than just Reasoning, clear Truth, and primitive Doctrine about Jesus's Miracles, that I advance: Or if it should so happen, that none besides my self should discern the Reasoning and Truth of the Argument; yet I hope it will not be thought a Crime to revive primitive Doctrine, which none will be able to deny it to be, whether they like it or not. If I err, I err upon Choice with the Fathers, of whose Faith I am. And if any are offended at what follows about the Miracles of Christ, let them turn their Displeasure and Indignation against the Fathers, for whose express or implicit Opinions I can be deserving of no Blame.

I am sorry for the Occasion of such a Preface against Offence, which the Apostacy of the Age, and its Unacquaintedness with the Fathers, has made necessary. So I enter upon the particular handling of the Heads foregoing. And,

I. I will show that the Miracles of healing all manner of bodily Diseases, which Jesus was justly famed for, are none of the proper Miracles of the Messiah, nor are they so much as a good Proof of Jesus's divine Authority to found and introduce a Religion into the World.

And to do this, let us consider, first, in general, what was the Opinion of the Fathers about the Writings of the Evangelists in which the Life of Christ is recorded. Eucherius says,[3] That the Scriptures of the New as well as Old Testament, are to be interpreted in an allegorical Sense. And this his Opinion, is no other than the common one of the first Ages of the Church, as might be proved by many the like Expressions of other Fathers. As in such Expressions, they do not except the Writings of the Evangelists; so they must include the History of Christ's Miracles, which as well as other Parts of the History of his Life, is to be allegoriz'd for the sake of its true Meaning; consequently the literal Story of Christ's Miracles proves nothing.

But let's hear particularly their Opinion of the Actions and Miracles of our Saviour. Origen says, that[4] Whatsoever Jesus did in the Flesh, was but typical and symbolical of what he would do in the Spirit; and to our Purpose,[5] that the several bodily Diseases which he healed, were no other than Figures of the spiritual Infirmities of the Soul, that are to be cured by him. St. Hilary is of the same Mind with Origen, as any one may see by the[6] Expressions referr'd to, and his Commentary on St. Matthew. St. Augustin,[7] and St. John[8] of Jerusalem, both say, that the Works of Jesus import farther Mysteries; and with them, the rest of the Fathers agree, making the Miracles that Jesus did then, no more than the Shadow of some more powerful and mystical Operations to be done by him, as I could show by more Citations out of them, if it was needful. But from the foregoing Citations out of the Fathers it is plain, in their Opinion, that our modern Divines are in the wrong of it, to lay much Stress on any of the Operations of Jesus, which he did in the Flesh, for the Proof of his divine Authority and Messiahship, which is only to be proved by his more mysterious Works, of which those done in the Flesh are but Type and Figure.

But to come closer to the Purpose, let's see how indifferently, I had almost said contemptibly, the Fathers speak of the Miracles of Jesus, and particularly of his Power of healing all bodily Diseases, which by modern Writers is so much magnified and extoll'd. St. Irenæus says,[9] that if we consider only the then temporal Use of Jesus's Power of Healing, he did nothing grand and wonderful; consequently Irenæus could not hold, that Jesus's Miracles then wrought, were a sufficient Proof of his divine Authority, much less of his Messiahship. Origen says[10] that tho' many were brought to believe in Jesus upon the Fame of the Miracles which he did once among the Jews, yet (what implies the Insufficiency of them for the Conversion of Men) he intimates that his greater and mystical Works do prove his Authority. St. John of Jerusalem says[11] that Jesus's Cures performed upon the Blind, &c. were indeed considerable and great, but unless he do daily as mighty Works in his Church, we ought to forbear our Admiration of him. St. Augustin not only says[12] that if we examine into Jesus's Miracles by human Reason, we shall find he did nothing great, considering his Almighty Power, and considering his Goodness, what he did was but little; but he tells us also, that[13] such Works as Jesus did, might be imputed to, and effected by Magic Art. And accordingly Moses and our Saviour himself confess, that false Prophets, and false Christ's, will do Miracles; and Anti-Christ himself, according to St. Paul, will do them to the Deception of Mankind. Nay, the Fathers[14] say, what I believe, that Anti-Christ will imitate and equal Jesus in all his Miracles which he wrought of old. How then can we distinguish the true Prophet from the false; the true Christ from the Anti-Christ by Miracles? our Divines will find it hard to do it, if what the Fathers say of Anti-christ be found true. Moreover History affords us Instances of Men, such as of Apollonius Tyanæus, Vespasian, and of the Irish Stroaker, Greatrex, who have miraculously cured Diseases to the Admiration of Mankind, as well as our Jesus: But if any of them, or any other greater Worker of Miracles than they were, should withall assume to himself the Title of a Prophet, and Author of a new Religion, I humbly conceive, we ought not to give heed to him.

Neither is there the least Reason that we should; for the Power of doing Miracles is no certain, nor rational Seal of the Commission and Authority of a divine Lawgiver. St. Paul says[15] there is a Diversity of the Gifts of the Spirit, for to one is given by the Spirit, the Word of Wisdom; to another the Word of Knowledge; to another the Gift of Healing; to another the working of Miracles; to another Prophecy; to another discerning of Spirits; to another divers Kinds of Tongues; to another the Interpretation of Tongues. These Gifts may be given apart and separately. One of them may be conferr'd on this Man, and another of them on his Neighbour. There is no Necessity that any two or more of these Gifts should meet in one Man. To argue then, that a Man, who has one of these Gifts, must have the other; that is, that he must needs have the Gift of Wisdom, or of Prophecy, or of discerning of Spirits, or of divers Kinds of Tongues, because he has the Gift of Healing and of working Miracles, is very inconclusive, and false Reasoning: And yet this is the Reasoning of our modern Writers who would prove Jesus's Authority, to found a Religion, from his Miracles. I don't question but Jesus had all the foresaid Gifts and Powers of the Spirit in a most superlative Degree; but then it is unreasonably inferr'd, for all that, that a Man, because he of Certainty has some of them, must of consequence have the other. St. Augustin[16] cautions us against being deceived into a good Opinion of a Man's Wisdom, because of his Power to do Miracles. And I think accordingly, that we may as well say, that the strongest Man is the wisest; or that a good Physician must needs be a good Casuist; or that the best Mathematician is the ablest Statesman, as that Jesus, because he was a Worker of Miracles, such as his are, and a Healer of all manner of Diseases, ought to be received as the Guide of our Consciencies, the Director of our Understandings, the Ruler of our Hearts, and the Author of a Religion.

What then will the Writers against the Grounds do to prove Jesus's Authority and Messiahship from his Miracles? Or how by his Miracles will they be able to distinguish him from an Impostor, a false Prophet, and the Anti-christ? Why, they will say perhaps,

1. That besides Greatness of Power, there was nothing but Goodness, Kindness, and Love to Mankind shewn in Jesus's Miracles. As to the Miracles of false Prophets and Impostors, if they be, many of them, of a kind and benevolent Aspect, yet the Devil's Foot, if we look well to it, will discover it self in some ludicrous and mischievous Pranks: But Jesus's Miracles were all of a beneficent Nature; He went about doing good, healing all manner of Diseases among the People, and did no Wrong to any one; which is a good Argument, they say, of his divine Authority, or God would not have suffer'd, nor the Devil have work'd such a Testimony in behalf of it. On this Head our Divines are copious and rhetorical, and many notable and florid Harangues have they made on it. But

In answer to them, they don't seem to have their Memories at Hand, when they declaim at this rate. The Fathers, upon whose Authority I write, will tell such Orators, that Jesus, if his Miracles are to be understood in the literal Sense, did not only as foolish Things as any Impostor could do, but very injurious ones to Mankind. I shall not here instance in the seemingly foolish and injurious Things which Jesus did for Miracles, intending under the next Head to speak to some of them: But they are such, if literally true, as our Divines do believe, as are enough to turn our Stomachs against such a Prophet; and enough to make us take him for a Conjuror, a Sorcerer, and a Wizard, rather than the Messiah and Prophet of the most High God. But

2. To prove the Messiahship of the Holy Jesus from his Miracles, our Divines urge the Prophecies of the Old Testament, such as that of Isaiah, C. xxxv. V. 5, 6. Then the Eyes of the Blind shall be opened, and the Ears of the Deaf shall be unstopp'd; then shall the lame Man leap as the Hart, and the Tongue of the Dumb sing; and say that these Prophecies were accurately fulfill'd by our Jesus in the several specifical Cures of Blindness, Deafness, Lameness, and Dumbness, which he often perform'd upon one or other; and, inasmuch as our Saviour seems to appeal to such Prophecies, do conclude this his Accomplishment of them, to be no less than a Demonstration, that he was the true Messiah, that great Prophet, who was to come into the World. To which I answer,

First, That the Accomplishment of Prophecies that can neither be given forth by human Foresight, nor fulfill'd in a Counterfeit, are good Proofs of Jesus's Messiahship: But then, what shall we say if others besides Jesus should do the like Cures and Miracles? It is said of Anti-christ, and I believe it, that he will not only do all the Miracles that Jesus did, but will appeal to the like Prophecies too. How then we are to distinguish the true Christ from the false Christ by Miracles and Prophecies in this Case, is the Question, which I leave with our Divines to consider of an Answer to, against the Time that it is proved that Anti-christ does all those Miracles, which Jesus in the Flesh wrought. But

Secondly, The foresaid Prophecies and others mentioned in Isaiah, neither were, nor could be Prophecies of the miraculous Cures of bodily Diseases which Jesus then did. And this may be made appear, not only from the Context of those Prophecies which received then no Accomplishment from Jesus, who ought to have fulfill'd one Part of the Prophecy as well as the other, or is not to be taken for the Fulfiller of either; but from the Opinion of both Jews and Fathers, who adjourn the Accomplishment of those Prophecies to Christ's spiritual Advent. But

Thirdly, The Prophet Isaiah, in the Place above cited, speaks not of bodily Blindness, &c. which the Messiah is to heal, but of the spiritual Distempers of the Soul, metaphorically so called; as may be easily proved, not only from the Prophecies themselves, but from the old Jews, who were allegorical Interpreters of those Distempers, and from the antient Fathers,[17] who so understood them. Consequently our Jesus's healing of those bodily Diseases, was no proper Accomplishment of those Prophecies. It is true our Saviour, Matt. xi. 4, 5. seems to appeal to those Prophecies, and to make his Cure of corporal Distempers an Accomplishment of them: But he means not in the literal Sense, that our Divines take him in, as I shall show hereafter, when I come to consider what Jesus means, by appealing to his Works and Miracles, as bearing Witness of him.

Our Divines then may admire and adore Jesus as much as they please for his Miracles of healing bodily Distempers; but I am for the spiritual Messiah that cures those Distempers of the Soul, that metaphorically pass under the Names of Blindness, Lameness, Deafness, &c. And the Cure of these spiritual Diseases, is the proper and miraculous Work of the true Messiah; for the sake of which, says[18] St. Augustin, Jesus condescended to do those little Miracles of healing bodily Distempers, which were but the Type and Shadow of his more stupendous Miracles of curing spiritual Diseases. The Cure of spiritual Infirmities is a God-like[19] Work, above the Imitation of Man or of Anti-christ, infinitely more miraculous than the healing any bodily Distempers can be.

Whether our Jesus be at this Day such a spiritual Messiah, I leave to our Divines to consider, with those spiritual Distempers of the Church, that seem to want his miraculous Hand and Touch. The Fathers of the Church said, that Jesus was in part such a spiritual Messiah in their time, and argued[20] his Messiahship, not from bodily Cures, but from his most miraculous Cures of the Diseases of the Soul: But there was another and future Time, in which he would be such a spiritual and glorious Messiah to the greatest Perfection. In the mean while, no healing of corporal Distempers can prove Jesus to be the Messiah, nor any other of his miraculous Works recorded in the Evangelists: So far from it, that

II. I shall prove that the literal Story of many of Jesus's Miracles, as they are recorded in the Evangelists, and commonly believed by Christians, does imply Improbabilities and Incredibilities, and the grossest Absurdities, very dishonourable to the Name of Christ; consequently, they, in whole, or in part, were never wrought, but are only related as prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what would be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.

The reading of this Head will, I doubt not, strike with Horror some of our squeamish Divines, who, notwithstanding they will sacrifice almost any Principles to their Interest, will not bear that our literal evangelical History of such renown'd Miracles should be thus called in Question, and contemptuously spoken of. What does this Author mean, will some say, thus to do Service to Atheism and Infidelity? Away with him! Our Indignation is moved against him! No Censure and Punishment can be too severe for such Impiety, Profaneness, and Blasphemy, as is aim'd at, and imply'd in this Proposition.

To calm therefore the Spirits, and abate the Prejudices of such Accusers, I must proceed with the greater Caution and with Reason and Authority well fortify myself before and behind, or I shall feel the Weight of the Displeasure of our Divines, who are prepossess'd of the Belief of the literal Story of all Jesus's Miracles.

Before then I enter upon the particular Examination of any of his Miracles, I will premise two or three general Assertions of the Fathers about them. And first Origen[21] says, that in the historical Part of the Scriptures, There are some Things inserted as History, which were never transacted, and which it was impossible should be transacted; and other Things, again, that might possibly be done, but were not. This he asserts of the Writings of the Evangelists, as well as of the Old Testament, and gives many Instances to this Purpose. St. Hilary[22] says, There are many historical Passages of the New Testament, that if they are taken literally, are contrary to Sense and Reason, and therefore there is a Necessity of a mystical Interpretation. And St. Augustin[23] says, that there are hidden Mysteries in the Works and Miracles of our Saviour, which if we incautiously and literally interpret, we shall run into Errors, and make grievous Blunders. Of the same Mind are the rest of the Fathers, as might be proved by express or implicit Citations; but, studying Brevity, I think the three Testimonies above, enough to cool the Rage, and assuage the Prejudices of my Adversaries against the Proposition before us, which I now come to a particular Consideration of; that is, to shew that the Story of many of Jesus's Miracles is literally absurd, improbable, and incredible. And

1. To speak to that Miracle of Jesus's driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple, which all the[24] four Evangelists make mention of.

I have read in some modern Author whose Name does not occur to my Memory, that this was, in his Opinion, the most stupendous Miracle that Jesus wrought. And, in truth, it was a most astonishing one, if literally true, and Jesus must appear more than a Man, he must put on an awful and most majestick Countenance to effect it. It is hard to conceive, how any one in the Form of a Man, and of a despised one too, (and we don't read that Jesus chang'd his human Shape) with a Whip in his Hand, could execute such a Work upon a great Multitude of People, who were none of his Disciples, nor had any regard for him. Supposing he could, by his divine Power, infuse a panick Fear into the People; yet what was the Reason that he was so eaten up with Zeal against the Profanation of that House, which he himself came to destroy, and which he permitted, I may say commanded, to be filthily polluted not long after. But not to form by my self an Invective against the Letter of this Story, let's hear what the Fathers say to it,

Origen makes the whole but a[25] Parable. His allegorical Expositions of it, are frequent, and one time or other he gives us the mystical Meaning of every Part of it. By the Temple, he understands the Church: By the Sellers in the Temple, he means such Preachers who make Merchandize of the Gospel, whom the Spirit of Christ, some time or other, would rid his Church of. He is so far from believing any thing of the Letter of this Story, that he has form'd a[26] large Argument against it: The Substance of which is, that if Jesus had attempted any such thing, the People would have resisted, and executed their Revenge on him; if he had effected it, the Merchants of the Temple might have reproach'd him with Damage done to their Wares; and would have justly accused him of a Riot against Law and Authority. Whether there is not Reason in this Argument of Origen, let any one judge.

St. Hilary is of the same Mind with Origen. He says that this Story is only a[27] Præfiguration of what will be done in Christ's Church upon another Occasion. And he admonishes[28] us to search into the profound and mystical Import of every Part of it; particularly he hints that[29] by the Seats of those who sell Doves, may be understood the Pulpits of Preachers who make Sale of the Gifts of the Spirit, which is represented by a Dove. As to the Letter of the Story, he is plain enough, that there was no such[30] Market kept in the Temple of Jerusalem: And if any Historians besides the Evangelists had asserted it, I know of none, who would have been so foolish as to believe that Oxen and Sheep and Goats were there sold.

St. Ambrose too is for the Mystery, and against the Letter of this Story, saying[31] what should be the Reason that Jesus should overturn the Seats of those that sold Doves? This must be, says he, a figurative Story, and signifies nothing less than the future Ejection of Priests out of his Church, who shall make Gain and Merchandize of the Gospel.

St. Jerome, as his manner is in other Cases, gives us a literal Exposition of this Miracle, as far as it will bear it: But then corrects himself again, saying, there are[32]Absurdities in the Letter; but, according to its mystical Meaning, Jesus will enter his Temple of the Church, and cast out of it Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, who make a Trade of Preaching. And in another Place he tells us of the mystical[33] Whip, that Jesus will make use of to this Purpose.

St. Augustin also is against the Letter of the Story of this Miracle, saying,[34] Where could be the great Sin of selling and buying Things in the Temple, that were for the Use of it, and offer'd as Sacrifice in it? We must therefore, says he, look for the Mystery in this[35] figurative Story, and enquire what is meant by the Oxen, and Sheep, and Doves, and who are the Sellers of them in Christ's Church; and he is very positive that Ecclesiasticks, who are selfish, and make worldly Gain of the Gospel, are here meant. And as to the Expression of turning the Temple into a Den of Thieves, he says it has Respect to the[36]Clergy in Time to come, who would make such a Den of Christ's Church.

Lastly, with the foregoing Fathers agrees St. Theophylact, who is an Allegorist too upon this Miracle, saying, that those[37] who sell Doves, are the Priests who sell spiritual Gifts; and that Christ sometime or other would overturn their Seats, and clear his Church of them. In another Place he intimates what are meant by Oxen and Sheep, viz. the literal Sense of the Scriptures. And if the literal Sense be irrational and nonsensical, the Metaphor we must allow to be proper, inasmuch as now-a-days, dull and foolish and absurd stuff we call Bulls, Fatlings, and Blunders.

Behold a wonderful Harmony among the Fathers in their Rejection of the literal, and Espousal of the mystical Sense of this Miracle. It is said of the Church in her first Ages, that she was inspired; and so she was, or before an Hire for the Priesthood was established, and pleaded for, she could never have written in this Fashion. If the Fathers had lived now, and written thus, we should have thought the Spirit of Quakerism was gotten amongst them, or they would never have given such an Exposition of this Story to favour an Enmity to an Hireling Priesthood.

How and when Christ's Power, according to the Figure and Parable before us, will enter his Church, and drive out of her these ecclesiastical Merchants, is not the Question. But when ever it does so effectually, it will be a stupendous Miracle, much greater than the typical one is supposed to be; and not only a Proof of Christ's divine Power and Presence in his Church, but an absolute Demonstration of his Messiahship from his Accomplishment both of the foresaid Prophecies of the Fathers, and of other remarkable ones of the Old Testament, which will be then clearly understood, and which it is not my Business here to apply or mention.

Against the aforesaid Exposition of this Miracle, perhaps it may be objected, that (excepting a little Reasoning against the Letter of it) this is only the chimerical and whimsical Dream of the Fathers, whose Notions are obsolete, and who[38] have adulterated Christianity with their Cant and Jargon; and that none of our Protestant and Orthodox Divines have ever given into their Opinion.

I confess, that none of our Protestant Divines, whom I know do embrace the foresaid Exposition of the Fathers, but it may be nothing the worse for all that: And tho' their Exposition may be very disagreeable to the Priesthood of this Age, yet I can tell them of the greatest Man of these last Ages, and that was Erasmus, who, cautiously expressing himself for fear of giving Offence to the Clergy, is of the same Mind with the Fathers; or he would not say that[39] that Work of Jesus did prefigure somewhat else: For Jesus could not be zealous against the Prophanation of that Temple of the Jews, which was soon to be destroy'd, but meant to shew his Dislike and Hatred of ecclesiastical Covetousness, which, after the Way of the Type, he would take his Opportunity to rid the Church of.

Before I dismiss this Miracle, I must observe, that if the Fathers are right above, then our Latin and English Translations of the Place in St. Matthew err in a main Point. Instead of reading, and Jesus cast out them that sold and bought, it should be, those who sold and preach'd; that is sold what they preach'd: For the Word αγοραζειν, does more properly signify to preach than to buy; and in this Sense here, according to the Fathers, it should be construed.

Again, I must observe, that our Commentators are a little perplex'd to know who, and what those κολλυβιστων, Money-Changers, were. The Greek[40] Word does import those who have a Knack to barter away little base and Brass Money, with the Effigies of an Ox or Bull on it, in exchange for good Coin. How applicable the Word was to any Merchants of the old Temple at Jerusalem, is hard to conceive. But it is very agreeable to our ecclesiastical Collybists, who, as I may appeal to Freethinkers, vend their brasen-faced Bulls and Blunders at an extravagant and great Price. And if τραπεζας, which is translated Tables, does properly signify[41] Pulpits, who can help it?

So much then on the Miracle of Jesus's driving the Sellers and Buyers out of the Temple. And how I appeal to our Divines, whether it be not an absurd, improbable, and incredible Story according to the Letter, and whether it be any other than, as the Fathers said of it, a prophetical and parabolical Narrative of what would be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by Jesus. And so I come to speak to a

2. Second Miracle of Jesus, and that is, that of his[42] casting the Devils out of the Madman or Madmen, and permitting them to enter into the Herd of Swine, which thereupon ran down a Precipice, and were all choaked in the Sea.

To exorcise, or cast Devils out of the Possess'd, without considering the Nature of such a Possession, or the Nature and Power of the Devil, we'll allow to be not only a kind and beneficent Act, but a great Miracle. But then, be the Miracle as great as can be imagined, it is no more than what false Teachers,[43]Workers of Iniquity, and even some Artists amongst the Jews, have done before; consequently, such a work of Exorcism in our Saviour, could be no Proof of his divine Authority. And if there was no more to be said against this Miracle, this is enough to set it aside, and to spoil the Argument of Jesus's divine Power from it. But there are many Circumstances in the Story literally consider'd, that would induce us to call the Truth of the whole into question. How came those Madmen to have their Dwelling amongst the Tombs of a Burying-Ground? Where was the Humanity of the People, that did not take Care of them, in Pity to them, as well as for the Safety of others? Or if no Chains, as the Text says, which is hardly credible, could hold them, it was possible surely, as well as lawful, to dispatch them, rather than their Neighbours and Passengers should be in Danger from them. Believe then this Part of the Story who can? But what's worse, its not credible there was any Herd of Swine in that Country. If any Historians but the Evangelists had said so, none would have believed it. The Jews are forbidden to eat Swine's Flesh; what then should they do with Swine (which are good for nothing till they are dead) who eat neither Pig, Pork, nor Bacon? Some may say that they were kept there for the Use of Strangers: but this could not be; because that after the Time of Antiochus, who polluted the Temple with the Sacrifice of an Hog, the Jews[44] forbad, under the Pain of an Anathema, the keeping of any Swine in their Country. Perhaps it may be said, that the Gadarens, so call'd from the Place of their Abode, were not Jews, but neighbouring Gentiles, with whom it was lawful to eat, and keep Swine. We will suppose so, tho' it is improbable; but then its unlikely (without better Reason than at present we are apprised of) that our Saviour would permit the Devils to enter into a Herd of them to their Destruction. Where was the Goodness and Justice of his so doing? Let our Divines account for it if they can. It is commonly said of our Saviour, and I believe it, that his Life was entirely innocent, that his Miracles were all useful and beneficial to Mankind, and that he did no Wrong to any one. But how can this be rightly said of him, if this Story be literally true? The Proprietors of the Swine were great Losers and Sufferers; and we don't read that Jesus made them amends, or that they deserv'd such Usage from him. The Proprietors of the Swine, it seems upon this Damage done them by Jesus, desire him to depart out of their Coasts, to prevent farther Mischief; which was gentler Resentment, then we can imagine any others would have made of the like Injury. I know not what our Divines think of this Part of the Story, nor wherefore Jesus escaped so well; but if any Exorcist in this our Age and Nation, had pretended to expel the Devil out of one possess'd, and permitted him to enter into a Flock of Sheep, the People would have said that he had bewitch'd both; and our Laws and Judges too of the last Age, would have made him to swing for it.

Without Offence, I hope, I have argued against the Letter of this strange Story of the holy Jesus; I should not have dared to have said so much against it, but upon the Encouragement of Origen and other Fathers, who say, we ought to expose the Absurdities of the Letter, as much as may be, to turn Men's Heads to the mystical and true Meaning.

Let's hear then what the Fathers say to this Miracle. Origen's Commentaries on this Part of St. Matthew, and St. Luke's Gospel, are lost; otherwise unquestionably he would not only have told us, that he believed no more of the Letter of this Story, than he did of the Devil's[45]taking our Saviour to the Top of a Mountain, and shewing him all the Kingdoms of the World; but, as he is an admirable Mystist, would have given us curious Light into the Allegory and Mystery of it. But without Origen, we have enough in the other Fathers against the Letter of this Story.

St. Hilary reckoning up all the Parts of this Miracle together, says of it, that it is[46] typical and parabolical, and written for our Meditation of what would be done hereafter by the holy Jesus. According to him, and other Fathers, the Madman is Mankind; or if they were two, they were Jew and Gentile at Christ's coming, who may be said to[47] be possess'd with Devils, in as much as they were under the Rule of diabolical Sins, and subject to the Worship of Δαιμονιων, false Deities, which we translate Devils. They were so fierce[48] as no Chains could hold them, because of their most furious Rage and Enmity to the Church, whom no Bonds of Reason could restrain from doing Violence to the Christians. They are said to be[49] naked, because they were destitute of the Clothing of the Spirit, and of Grace. And may be said to be among the[50] Tombs; because they were dead in Traspasses and Sins. After that Jesus had exorcis'd these diabolical Spirits out of the Gentiles, and brought them to their right Senses, which was upon their Conversion to the Faith; then a good Way off, some Ages after, did the like Devils, by divine Permission, enter into a[51] Herd of Swine, i. e. into Hereticks of impure Lives and furious Natures. What sort of Hereticks are meant, or whether they are not to be understood of Christians In general, let our Divines consider. But one would be apt to think that Ministers of the Letter are included, because the Letter of the Scripture is mystically call'd[52] Swines Food. I am not obliged to pursue the mystical Interpretation of this Parable (for so I will call it) thro' all its Parts, nor to say what is meant by the Sea, that the Swine are to be absorp't in; but leave our Divines to chew upon this mystical Construction given them in part, and to consider, whether there's not a Necessity for such an Interpretation to make the Story credible.

And thus have I given you the Opinion and Exposition of the Fathers upon this Miracle, which they turn all into Mystery. If our Divines are still far adhering to the Letter of this Story, let them account for the Difficulties it is involv'd with. To cure Men violently distracted, and possess'd with Devils, is, whether it be miraculous or not, a good and great Work; but to send the Devils, who without Jesus's Permission could not go into the Herd of Swine, was an Injury done to the Proprietors, and unbecoming of the Goodness of the holy Jesus. Neither is there any other Way to solve the Difficulty, than by looking upon the whole, with the Fathers, as Type and Figure.

If this miraculous Story had been recorded of Mahomet, and not of Jesus, our Divines, I dare say, would have work'd it up to a Confutation of Mahometanism. Mahomet should have been, with them, nothing less than a Wizard, an Enchanter, a Dealer with familiar Spirits, a sworn Slave to the Devil; and his Mussulmen would have been hard put to it to write a good Defence of him.

When our Saviour was brought before Pilate to be arraign'd, try'd, and condemned, Pilate put this Question to the Jews, saying, What Evil hath Jesus done? If both, or either of the Stories above, had been literally true of Jesus, there had been no need of false Witnesses against him. The Merchants of the Temple were at hand, who could have sworn "that he was the Author of an Uproar and Riot, the like was never seen on their Market-Day; that they were great Sufferers, and Losers in their Trades; and, whether he or his Party had stolen any of their Goods or not, yet some were embezzled, and others damaged; and all thro' the outragious Violence of this unruly Fellow, against Law and Authority." If such Evidence as this was not enough to convict him of a capital Crime, then the Swine-Herds of the Gadarenes might have deposed, "how they believed him to be a Wizard, and had lost two thousand Swine through his Fascinations: That he bid the Devils to go into our Cattle, is not to be deny'd. And if he cured one or two of our Countrymen of a violent Possession, yet in as much as he did us this Injury in our Swine, we justly suspect him of diabolical Practices upon both."

Upon such Evidence as this, Pilate asks the Opinion of the Jews, saying, What think you? If they all had condemn'd him to be guilty of Death, it is no wonder, since there is not a Jury in England would have acquitted any one arraign'd and accused in the like Case.

It is well for our literal Doctors, that such Accusations were not brought against Jesus; or their Heads would have been sadly puzzled to vindicate his Innocence, and to prove the Injustice and Undeservedness of his Death and Sufferings. But for this Reason, if no other, that no such Crimes were laid to his Charge, I believe little or nothing of either of the seemingly miraculous Stories before us, but look upon them both as prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what would mysteriously and more wonderfully, and consistently with the Wisdom and Goodness of Jesus, be done by him. And so I pass to a

3. Third Miracle of Jesus, and that is his Transfiguration[53] on the Mount. And this is the darkest and blindest Story of the whole Gospel, which a Man can make neither Head nor Foot of; and I question whether the Conceptions of any two thinking Doctors do agree about it. To say there is nothing in the Letter of this Story, we Believers must not, because St. Peter[54] says he was an Eye-witness of Jesus's Majesty, saw his Glory on the Mount, and heard the Voice out of the Cloud. But as Infidels will be prying into the Conduct of Jesus's Life, and forming their Exceptions to the Credibility or Probability of this or that part of it, so we Christians should be ready at an Answer, that might reasonably satisfy them; and not forcibly bear down their Opposition, which will make no sincere Converts of them. And I believe they would easily distress us with Difficulties and Objections to the Letter of this Story.

St. Augustin himself[55] owns, that the whole of it might be perform'd by Magic Art; and we know, in these our Days, that some Jugglers are strange Artists at the Imitation of a Voice, and to make it as if it came from a far off, when it is uttered close by us, and can cast themselves too into different Forms and Shapes, without a Miracle, to the Surprise and Admiration of Spectators.

But what, I trow, do our Divines mean by Jesus's Transfiguration. We read that his Countenance did shine like the Sun, and his Raiment was made as white as Snow, and that's all. And is this enough can we think, to demonstrate that Transaction, a miraculous Transfiguration? Philosophers will tell us, that the Reflections of the Light of the Sun will change the Appearance of Colours, and to none more than Whiteness; and Sceptics will say, that its no Wonder if the Countenance of Jesus look'd Rubicund, when the Sun might shine on it.

The Word in the Original for transfigured, is μεταμορφωθη, that is, he was metamorphosed, transform'd, or, if you will, transfigured. And what is to be understood by a Metamorphosis, we are to learn not only from the natural Import of the Word, but from the ancient Use of it. Accordingly, it signifies nothing less than the Change or Transformation of a Person into the Forms, Shapes, and Essences of Creatures and Things of a quite different Species, Size, and Figure: But Jesus, it is conceived, was not so transfigured. Our Divines, I suppose, would not have him thought such a Posture-Master for the whole World. If I, or anyone else, should assert, that Jesus upon the Mount transform'd himself into a Calf, a Lyon, a Bear, a Ram, a Goat, an Hydra, a Stone, a Tree, and into many other Things of the animate and inanimate World, I dare say there would, among our orthodox Divines, be such Exclamations against me for Blasphemy, as the like were never heard of. They, to be sure, will not hear of such a Transfiguration; nor, like good plain believers, will bear any thing more than that Jesus's Countenance did shine like the Sun, and the Colour of his Vestments was changed; which whether it comes up to the Import of a Metamorphosis or not, they don't care.

But to close with our Divines, and acknowledge that the glorious Change of Jesus's Countenance, and of the Colour of his Vestments, was a true and proper Transfiguration, and that it was as real and wonderful a Miracle as could be wrought: But then we may, I hope, ask them, what was the particular Reason and Use of this Miracle? Was it a Miracle only for the sake of a Miracle? That's an Absurdity in the Opinion of[56] St. Augustin, who says, what is reasonable to think, that all and every one of Jesus's Miracles had its particular End and Use; or he who is the Wisdom as well as Power of God, had never wrought them. And what, I pray, was the life of this Miracle? Of that the evangelical History is silent, and our Divines, with all their reasoning Faculties, can say nothing to it.

And what did Moses and Elias on the Mount with Jesus? Was it in their own proper Persons that they appear'd? or were they only some Spectres and Apparitions in resemblance of them? It is said, that they were talking with Jesus; what then did they talk about? The three greatest Prophets and Philosophers of the Universe could not possibly meet and confer together, but on the most sublime, useful, and edifying Subject. Its strange that the Apostles, who over-heard their Confabulation, did not make a Report of it, and transmit it to Posterity for our Edification and Instruction. St. Luke, as our English Translation has it, seems to say that they talk'd together of Jesus's Decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem; but this can't be the Meaning of St. Luke's[57] Words, which so interpreted, are no less than a Barbarism, and, I appeal to our Greek Criticks, an Improper Expression of such Signification. We must then look for a more proper Construction of the Phrase in St. Luke, or we must remain in the Dark, as to the Subject, that Moses and Elias talked with Jesus about.

But further, Why could not this Miracle have been wrought in the Valley as well as upon a Mountain, whither Jesus and his three Apostles ascended for the Work of it? Naughty Infidels will say, it was for the Advantage of a Cloud, which often moves and rests on the Tops of Mountains, to display his Pranks in. And why was it not done in the Presence of the Multitude, as well as of his three Apostles? The more Witnesses of a Miracle, the better it is attested, and the more reasonably credited; and there could not surely be too many Witnesses of this, any more than of others of Jesus's Miracles, if real ones. Ought not the unbelieving Multitude, for many Unbelievers unquestionably were amongst them, to have had a Sight and Hearing of this Miracle, as well as the Apostles? Who should rather see the Miracle, than those who wanted Conviction? Were they to take the Report of the Miracle upon the Word of the Apostles, who were Parties in the Cause? Our Divines may possibly say they ought: But Infidels and Free-Thinkers would cry out against them, for juggling Tricks, and pious Impostures.

These are all Difficulties and hard Questions about the Miracle of Christ's Transfiguration, which our Clergy, who are Admirers of the Letter of that Story, are obliged to account for; and I believe it will be long enough before they give a proper and satisfactory Answer to many of them.

Let's hear then what the Fathers say to this miraculous Story of Jesus's Transfiguration. And it is agreed amongst them, that the whole is but a Type,[58] Prefiguration, and[59] ænigmatical Resemblance of a future and more glorious and real Transfiguration. And whenever they speak of any Part of the Story, they never explain to us how the Matter went upon Mount Tabor, but tell us of what this or that Part of it is figurative and emblematical; and how it is to be understood, and will be fulfill'd in future Time. As thus, by the[60] six Days, they understood six Ages of the World, after which a real and mysterious Transfiguration will be exhibited to our intellectual Views. By Moses and Elias[61] talking with Jesus, they mean the Law and the Prophets, upon an allegorical Interpretation, bearing Testimony unto Christ as the Fulfiller of them. By the[62] Mountain on which this future Transfiguration will be exhibited, they understand the sublime and anagogical Sense of the Law and the Prophets. By his Transfiguration it self, they mean his taking upon him, and passing through the Forms of all the Types of him under the Law, as of a Lamb, a Lion, a Serpent, a Calf, a Rock, a Stone, and of many others, which he is to fulfil, and which will then be clearly discern'd by us. By the black Cloud[63] that at present obstructs this Vision, they understand the Letter of the Old Testament. By the white[64] Vestments of Jesus, they mean the Words of the Scriptures, which will then shine clear and bright. By the Voice out of the Cloud, they mean, with St. Peter, the Word of Prophecy, that will sound in the Ears of our Apprehensions. And lastly, they tell us, that the Way to attain to the Sight of this glorious Vision, is by ascending (not by local Motion, but by Reason) to the Tops of the Mountain of the mysterious and sublime Sense of the Law and the Prophets. If we continue in the Plains and Vallies[65] of the Letter, like the Multitude under the Mountain, we shall never see Jesus in his shining Vestments, nor how he was transform'd into the Types of the Law; nor Moses and Elias talking with him; nor the Law and the Prophets agreeing harmoniously in a Testimony to him.

After this fashion do the Fathers, one or other of them, copiously treat on every Part of this Transfiguration of Jesus. I could collect an almost infinite Number of Passages out of their Writings to this Purpose: But from these few it is plain, they look'd on the Story of Christ's Transfiguration, but as a Figure and Parable; and they were certainly in the right on't, in as much as this their Sense of the Matter, and no other, will solve the Difficulties before started against the Letter, as any one may discern, if he attentively review and compare one with the other: As, for instance, this their Sense and Interpretation lets us into the Reason of Moses and Elias's appearing on the Mount with Jesus; and gives us to understand what they talk'd about, and that was, not on Jesus's Decease which he would accomplish at Jerusalem, as our Translation has it, but on the Prophecy of the Old Testament; particularly, as St. Luke says, on Moses's Book of Exodus, and how he would fulfill it at the New Jerusalem.

Whether any, besides my self, does really apprehend, and is willing to understand this Story of Christ's Transfiguration, as I do, I neither know nor care. I am not bound to find others Ears, Eyes, and Capacities. What I have said is enough to shew the Sense of the Fathers about this Matter. If any dislike their concurrent Opinion of Jesus's Transfiguration's being an Emblem, an Enigma, and figurative Representation of a future and most glorious Transfiguration, such a one as they speak of; let him account for the Difficulties and Objections which I have before raised against the Letter of this Story. In the mean time I shall think it, literally, an absurd, improbable, and incredible one, and no other than a prophetical and parabolical Narrative of what will be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by Jesus.

And thus I have considered three of the Miracles of our Saviour, and shewn how they are Absurdities, according to the Letter, consequently do make nothing for his Authority and Messiahship. I can and will do as much by his other Miracles; for I would not have any one think I am gotten to the End of my Tedder, but for some Reasons best known to my self, I publish these Remarks on these three first. After the Clergy have chew'd upon these a while, I will take into Examination some others of Jesus's Miracles, which for their literal Story are admired by them. As for Instance,

I will take to task his Miracle[66] of changing Water into Wine at a Marriage in Cana of Galilee; which was the beginning of Jesus's Miracles, and should by right have been first spoken to; but I am almost too grave to handle the Letter of this Story as I ought; and if I had treated it as ludicrously as it deserves, I don't know but at setting out, I should have put the Clergy quite out of all Temper. I would not now for the World be so impious and profane, as to believe, with our Divines, what is contain'd and imply'd in the Letter of this Story. If Apollonius Tyanæus, and not Jesus, had been the Author of this Miracle, we should often have reproached his Memory with it. It is said of Apollonius Tyanæus, that a Table was all on a sudden, at his Command, miraculously spread with Variety of nice Dishes for the Entertainment of himself and his Guests; which Miracle, our Divines can tell him, makes not at all to his Credit, in as much as it was done for the Service and Pleasure of luxurious Appetites. But if Apollonius had done, as our Jesus did at this Wedding, they would have said much worse of him; and that, modestly speaking, he delighted to make his Friends thoroughly merry, or he would not be at the Pains of a Miracle to turn so much Water into Wine, after they had before well drank. If the Fathers then don't help us out at the mystical and true Meaning of this Miracle, such farther Objections may be form'd against the Letter, as may make our Divines asham'd of it.

I will also take into Examination Jesus's Miracle[67] of feeding many Thousands in the Wilderness with a few Loaves and Fishes; which, according to the Letter, are most romantick Tales. I don't in the least question Jesus's Power to magnify or multiply the Loaves, and, if he pleass'd, to meliorate the Bread: But that many Thousands of Men, Women, and Children, should follow him into the Wilderness, and stay with him three Days and Nights too, without eating, is a little against Sense and Reason. Whether the Wilderness was near to, or far from the People's Habitations, the Difficulties attending the Story are equally great. I wonder how Jesus amused them all the while, that they had the Patience to stay with him without Food; but I much more wonder, that no Victuallers besides the Lad with his Loaves and Fishes, of whom, and his Occupation, whether it was that of a Baker or Fishmonger; and of his Neglect of his Master's Business here; and of the Reason that he met with no hungry Chapmen for his Bread before, we shall make some Enquiry; but particularly why he alone, I say, and no other Victuallers, no other Retalers of Cakes and Gingerbread followed the Camp. In short, for all the imaginary Greatness of the Miracle (which there is a way to reduce and lessen) of Jesus's feeding his Thousands with a few Loaves, there must be some Fascination or Enchantment (condemn'd by the Laws of the Jews as well as of other Nations) in the Matter; or the People if they had stay'd one Day, would not two, much less three to faint, but would, especially the Women and Children, have been for returning the first Night home. We must then seek to the Fathers (who say the five Books of Moses are the five Barley Loaves, &c. and the septiform'd Spirit, the seven Loaves, &c.) for a good Notion of this Miracle, and if they don't make it a Parable; do what our Divines can, it will turn to the Dishonour of the holy Jesus.

I will also consider the Miracle of Jesus's[68] curing the Man sick of the Palsy, for whom the Roof of the House was broken up, to let him down into the Room where Jesus was, because his Bearers could not enter in at the Door for the Press of the People. This literally is such a Rodomontado, that were Men to stretch for a Wager, against Reason and Truth, none could out-do it. Where was the Humanity of the People, and wherefore did they so tumultuate against the Door of the House? Its strange they had not so much Compassion on the Paralytick, as to give way to him: Its more strange that his Bearers could get to the Top of the House with him and his Bed too, when they could not get to the Door, nor the Sides of it: Its yet stranger, that the good Man of the House would suffer his House to be broken up, when it could not be long ere the Tumult of the People would be appeas'd: But most strange, that Jesus, who could drive his thousands out at the Temple before him, and draw as many after him into the Wilderness, did not, by Force or Persuasion, make the People to retreat, but that such needless Trouble and Pains must be taken for the miraculous Cure of this poor Man. Let's think of these Things against the Time, that out of the Fathers I prove this Story to be a Parable.

I will also take into Consideration the Miracle of Jesus's curing the[69] blind Man, for whom Eye-Salve was made of Clay and Spittle; which Eye-Salve, whether it was balsamick or not, does equally affect the Credit of the Miracle. If it was naturally medicinal, there's an End of the Miracle; and if it was not at all medicinal, it was foolishly and impertinently apply'd, and can be no otherwise accounted for, than by considering it, with the Fathers, as a figurative Act in Jesus.

I will also take into Consideration the several Stories of Jesus's raising of the Dead; and, without questioning his actual bringing of the Dead to Life again, will prove from the Circumstances of those Stories, that they are parabolical, and are not literally to be apply'd to the Proof of Jesus's divine Authority and Messiahship; or, for Instance, Jesus, when he raised Jairus's[70] Daughter from the Dead, would never have turned the People out of the House, who should have been his best and properest Witnesses.

I will also consider the Miracle of Jesus's[71] cursing the Fig-Tree, for its not bearing Fruit out of Season; which, upon the bare mention of it, appears to be a foolish, absurd, and ridiculous Act, if not figurative.

I will also consider the[72] Journey of the Wisemen out of the East, with their (literally) senseless and ridiculous Presents of Frankincense and Myrrhe, to a new-born Babe. If with their Gold, which could be but little, they had brought their Dozens of Sugar, Soap, and Candles, which would have been of Use to the Child and his poor Mother in the Straw, they had acted like wise as well as good Men. But what, I pray, was the Meaning and Reason of a Star, like a Will-a-Whisp, for their Guide to the Place, where the holy Infant lay. Could not God, by divine Impulse, in a Vision or in a Dream, as he ordered their Return home, have sent them on this important Errand; but that a Star must be taken or made out of Course to this Purpose? I wonder what Communication passed between these Wisemen and the Star, or how they came to know one anothers Use and Intention. But the Fathers shall speak hereafter farther to the Senselessness of this Story literally, and make out the Mystery and true Meaning of it.

I will also, by the Leave of our Divines, take again into Consideration the miraculous Conception of the Virgin Mary, and the Resurrection of Jesus from the Dead. I do believe, if it may so please our Divines, that Jesus was born of a pure Virgin, and that he arose from the Dead: But speaking too briefly, in the Moderator, to these two Miracles, they took Offence. I will therefore give them a Review, and speak home to them; particularly to Christ's Resurrection, the evangelical Story of which literally, is such a Complication of Absurdities, Incoherences, and Contradictions, that unless the Fathers can help us to a better Understanding of the Evangelists than we have at present, we must of Necessity give up the Belief of it.

These and many[73] other of the historical and miraculous Parts of Jesus's Life, will I take into Examination, and shew, that none of them literally do prove his divine Authority: so far from it, that they are full of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities; but that his whole Life in the Flesh, is but[74] Type, Figure, and Parable of his mysterious and spiritual Life and Operations in Mankind.

In the End of this Head, it will be a curious and diverting Subject to examine the Miracles of Jesus as they are literally understood, by the Notions which our Divines have advanced about Miracles; and to shew, that even their Notions compared with Christ's Miracles, are destructive of his Authority, and subversive of Christianity. This, I say, would be a most diverting Undertaking, and it will be strange, if some Free-Thinker, that loves Pleasure of this kind, does not take the Hint, and snatch the Work out of my Hands. If I do it my self, I shall have especial Regard to the Writers against the Grounds, without passing by Mr. Chandler's Essay on Miracles; on which the more Remarks will be made, if it be but to pay my Respects to the Archbishop's Judgment, and to shew my Admiration at those extravagant Praises, which his Grace at Lambeth has bestowed on that Author. Among other his notable Notions of a Miracle (and the Archbishop says he has[75] set the Notion of a Miracle upon a clear and sure Foundation) one is,[76] That Miracles should be Things probable as well as possible, that they do not carry along with them the Appearance of Romance and Fable, which would unavoidably prejudice Men against believing them. This is certainly a good and right Notion of a divine Miracle; and I don't doubt, but according to it, Mr. Chandler and the Archbishop think, they can justify the literal Story of our Saviour's Miracles, against the Charge of Fable and Romance: But whether they are able to do it or not, I shall go on, in some Discourses hereafter to be publish'd, to prove that our Divines, by espousing the Letter of Christ's Miracles, have deceived themselves into the Belief of the most arrant Quixotism that can be devis'd and palm'd upon the Understandings of Mankind. I say, they have deceived themselves; for neither the Fathers, nor the Apostles, nor even Jesus himself, means that his Miracles, as recorded in the Evangelists, should be taken in a literal Sense, but in[77] a mystical, figurative, and parabolical one. And this should bring me to the

III. Head of my Discourse; that is, to consider what Jesus means, when he appeals to his Works and Miracles, as to a Witness and Testimony of his divine Authority; and to shew, that he could not properly and truly refer to those supposed to be wrought by him in the Flesh, but to those mystical ones he would do in the Spirit, of which those seemingly wrought by him in the Flesh, are but Types and Shadows.

But this Head can't be rightly spoken to, till I have more amply discuss'd the former, which, by God's Leave, I promise to do: And if my courteous Readers will be so kind as to trust me till that Time, I assure them to prove, that no Ignorance and Stupidity can be greater, than the Imagination that Jesus really appeal'd to his Miracles, supposed to have been wrought by him in the Flesh, as to a Witness and Testimony of his divine Authority, and Messiahship.

In the mean Time our Divines may go on in their own Way, if they think fit, and admire Jesus of old, and celebrate his Power and Praises for healing of bodily Diseases, and doing other notable Feats according to the Letter of the evangelical Story; but I am for the spiritual Jesus and Messiah, who cures the worse[78] Distempers of the Soul, and does other mysterious and most miraculous Works, of which those recorded in the Evangelists, are but Figure and Parable. This is the primitive and concurrent Opinion about the true Messiah, which the Fathers universally adher'd to. Whether our Jesus, at this Day, be such a spiritual Messiah to his Church, or whether she does not stand in need of such a one, is the Question that our Divines are to see to. But I will add here, what I believe, and than have another Opportunity to prove, that God on purpose suffer'd or empower'd false as well as true Prophets, bad as well as good Men, such as Apollonius, Vespasian, and many others to cure Diseases, and to do other mighty Works, equal to what are literally reported of Jesus, not only to defeat us of all distinction between true and false Miracles, which are the Object of our bodily Senses, but to raise and keep up our Thoughts to the constant Contemplation of Jesus's spiritual, mysterious, and most miraculous Works, which are the Object of our Understandings, and loudly bespeak the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God; and which are to be the absolute Demonstration of Jesus's divine Authority and Messiahship to the Conversion of Jews and Infidels.

I have no more to do at present, but, like a Moderator, to conclude with a short Address and Exhortation to Infidels and Apostates, the two contending Parties in the present Controversy. And

First, To Apostates, I mean the Writers against the Grounds and Scheme. Whether you, grave Sirs, who account your selves orthodox Divines, tho' there is little but Contradiction and Inconsistency amongst you, do like the Name of Apostates which is given you, I much question: But it is the properest, I could think of, for your Desertion of primitive Doctrine about Prophecy and Miracles. I could, not improperly have given you a worse Title, but I was willing to compliment you, rather than reproach you with this.

But setting aside the Title of Apostates, whether it be, in your Opinion, opprobrious or not; you may plainly perceive, that I am, Sirs, on your Side, as to the Truth of Christianity; and if you'll accept of my Assistance for the Proof of Jesus's Messiahship from Prophecy, upon the Terms of the allegorical Scheme proposed in my Moderator, you shall find me your hearty Abettor. Upon the allegorical Scheme, I don't doubt but we shall soundly drub and mawl Infidels, and beat them out of the Field of Battle. If you, being wedded to the literal Scheme, will not accept of my Assistance, you may go on in your own Way, and see the Event of the Controversy, which in the End will turn to your Dishonour.

You, Sirs, can't but be sensible, how those two great Generals, Mr. Grounds, and Mr. Scheme, with their potent Armies of Reasons and Authorities against your literal Prophecies, have grievously distress'd and gall'd you; and if you don't make an honourable Retreat in Time, and seek to Allegorists for Help, will gain a compleat Victory and Triumph over you.

Instead of the Help of Allegorists, you, I find, under the Disappointment of your literal Scheme, chuse rather to have Recourse to Jesus's Miracles: But what little Dependence there is upon his Miracles, in your Sense, I have in part proved in this Discourse; and this I have done (give me leave repeatedly to declare it) not for the Service of your unbelieving Adversaries, but to reduce you to the good old Way of interpreting Oracles, which, upon the Testimony of the Fathers, will, one Day, be the Conversion of the Jews and Gentiles.

Whether you, Sirs, will be pleas'd with this short Discourse on Christ's Miracles, I much question. But before you put your selves into a Rage against it, I beg of you to read St. Theophilus of Antioch, Origen, St. Hilary, St. Augustin, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, St. John of Jerusalem, St. Theophylact, and other occasional ancient Pieces on one part or other of the Evangelists; and you'll find how they countenance such a Discourse as this on Miracles, and will abundantly assist me in the Prosecution of it.

I expect, Sirs, that some of you will be ready to rave against me for this Discourse; but this is my Comfort, that if your Passion should arise to another Prosecution of me, you can't possibly separate any of mine from the Opinions of the Fathers to ground a Prosecution on: And what Dishonour in the End will redown to Protestant and pretendedly learned Divines of the Church of England, to persecute again the Fathers for primitive Doctrine, I desire you to think on.

But, as I suppose, you'll have more Wit, Sirs, than to prosecute me again for this Discourse; so I hope you'll have more Ingenuity, than odiously (after your wonted manner) to represent me to the Populace, for Profaneness, Blasphemy, and Infidelity. If you dislike the whole, or any part of this Discourse, appear like Men and Scholars, from the Press against it. Use me as roughly in Print as you think fit, I'll not take it ill.

Veniam petimus, dabimusq; vicissim.

I desire nothing more than to be furiously attack'd from the Press, which, if I am not much mistaken, would give me a long'd for Opportunity to expose your Ignorance to more Advantage.

Be not longer mistaken, good Sirs. The History of Jesus's Life, as recorded in the Evangelists, is an emblematical Representation of his spiritual Life in the Soul of Man; and his Miracles are Figures of his mysterious Operations. The four Gospels are in no Part a literal Story, but a System of mystical Philosophy or Theology.

If you are resolved not to come into this Opinion, I beg of you again, before you break forth into a Passion, to try to vindicate the literal Story of the three Miracles spoken to in this Discourse, viz. those of Jesus's driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple; of his exorcising the Devil out of the Madman; and of his Transfiguration on the Mount; which if you are able to defend against the Fathers, and my Objections, I'll give up the Cause to you, and own my self (what I am far enough from being) an impious Infidel and Blasphemer, and deserving of the worst Punishment. In the mean time, I make bold again to assert, that the literal Story of Christ's Life and Miracles, is an absurd and incredible Romance, full of Contradictions and Inconsistencies; and that modern Paraphrases are not only a consequential Reflection on the Intellects of the Evangelists, and their divine Gifts of the Spirit, as if they could not write an intelligible and coherent Piece of Biography without your Help at this Distance of Time; but have even darken'd and obscured the seemingly native Simplicity of the Story of the Life of Jesus. So leaving you to chew upon this, I turn

My Address to Infidels, particularly to the two most renown'd Writers of the Party, Mr. Grounds, and Mr. Scheme. I should, Gentlemen, by right, salute you with the Title of Free-Thinkers, a proper Name for your philosophical Sect, who are for the free Exercise of your Reason about divine and speculative Points in Theology. And I had distinguish'd you by this Title from your apostatical Adversaries, but that I had a mind to oblige my old Friends the Clergy, in giving you a no more honourable Title than I do them. And I trust you will not be offended at the Title of Infidels, since not only your Writings seem to have a Tendency to Infidelity; but, if there be any Fault in your Principles, you know how to charge it on your Adversaries, the pretended Advocates for Christianity, whose Absurdities, false Reasonings, Inconsistencies, and foolish Glosses on the Scriptures, have occasioned your Departure from the Faith in Christ.

I thank Mr. Scheme for the noble Present of his Book, which I received and read with Pleasure. But instead of one, he should have sent me a Dozen for the Use of Friends and Borrowers, who are very curious and importunate for the Perusal of it. For what Reason he envies the Booksellers the publick Sale of his Work, chusing rather to give it away gratis, than that they should reap any Profit by it, I know not. Surely it is not to bring an Odium on the Clergy for Persecutors, as if such an useful and philosophical Piece might not appear publickly without Danger from them: If so, I hope the Clergy will resent the Indignity, and invite him to a Publication of his Book, with a Promise of Impunity, which would wipe off the Reproach, which this clandestine Method of disposing of it has cast on them.

I once almost despair'd, Sirs, of seeing such another Piece from your Quarter. I was afraid the Prosecution of the Moderator, would have deterr'd you from the Press, whereby our excellent Controversy on Foot must have been dropt: But the sudden and unexpected Appearance of Mr. Scheme, has revived me, and rejoiced the Cockles of my Heart. Go on then, great Sirs, in this Controversy, which Mr. Grounds happily commenc'd; and if you are deny'd the Liberty of the Press, and publick Sale of your Books, I hope you'll, for all that, as occasion offers it self, oblige the Learned and Curious with some more of your bright Lucubrations, tho' you print them, and dispose of them in this clancular and subtil Method.

It is not that I wish well to your Cause of Infidelity, that I thus encourage you. You have more Sense and Reason than to suspect me tainted with unbelieving Principles. Christianity will stand its Ground against your battering Armour; and the Church of Christ will be the more firmly establish'd on a Rock of Wisdom, for that Opposition you make to it. Tho' you will entirely vanquish the literal Schemists, and ride in Triumph over them, yet other Defenders of the Faith, call'd Allegorists, will arise to your Confutation and final Overthrow.

If I am not mistaken, Sirs, your Adversaries, the literal Schemists, whom I call Apostates, are about making a Retreat, and yielding the Field of Battle to you. The Bishop of Litchfield, the greatest General on their Side, will not only find it hard to levy any more Forces in Defence of his twelve literal Prophecies; but he knows that, if he draws his Sword any more against you, he must attack too the Authority of the Fathers for the allegorical Interpretation of some of those Prophecies, already urg'd in my Supplements to the Moderator; or, if the Fathers are neglected by him; they and I, keeping out of the Reach of his Bug-Bear, will treat him with such familiar Language, as never was given to one of his Order.

Mr. Scheme seems to promise us a Discourse on the Miracles in the Scriptures; I hope he'll be as good as his Word, and ere long publish it. This Discourse of mine can't possibly supersede his. As I question not but his Thoughts and Remarks on Miracles will be very considerable; so I shall be a little impatient till I see them. But be his Discourse on Miracles of what Kind soever, I believe it will hardly be an Obstruction to my Undertaking in Hand, which I intend, by God's Leave, to go on with, to the Honour of the holy Jesus, our spiritual Messiah, to whom be Glory and Praise for ever and ever. Amen.

FINIS.

A SECOND

DISCOURSE

ON THE

MIRACLES

OF OUR

SAVIOUR,

In View of the present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates.

Audendum est, ut illustrata Veritas pateat, multique ab Errore liberentur. Lactant.

By Thomas Woolston, sometime Fellow of Sidney-College in Cambridge.

LONDON:

Printed for the Author, Sold by him in Bell-Alley, Coleman-Street, and by the Booksellers of London and Westminster. 1727.

[Price One Shilling.]

TO THE

Right Reverend Father in God

EDWARD,

Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

My Lord,

our Fame for that celebrated Book, call'd the Defence of Christianity, is the Occasion of this Dedication. I need not tell you, what vast Reputation you have acquired by it: You have been not only often applauded from the Press, but have met with large Compliments and Thanks from your Clergy for it. And tho' Mr. Scheme has very untowardly written against you, yet this is still your Honour, that you are an Author, not unworthy of his Regard and Notice.

I am, in Opinion with the Fathers, against an establish'd Hire for the Priesthood, thinking it of disservice to true Religion: But when I consider'd the Usefulness of your Lordship's Episcopal Riches and Honours to this Controversy, I almost chang'd my Mind. Your exalted Station in the Church, has given Credit and Authority to your Work, which, if it had came from the Hands of a poor Priest, had never been so much admir'd; neither would Mr. Scheme, I believe, nor my self, have paid so many Respects to it.

For this Reason, I wish some more of your Order would appear in this Controversy, that the World might see what famous Men are our Bishops, and of what Use their Hundreds and Thousands a Year are to the Defence of Christianity; which, if such able Hands were not amply hired to its Support, might be in Danger, as certainly as, that Men of low Fortunes must needs be Men of poor Parts, little Learning, and slender Capacities to write in Vindication of it.

Some have conceiv'd Hopes that the great Bishop of London, from his last Charge to his Clergy, will second you in this Controversy; if so, there's no doubt on't, but his Performance will be commensurate to his State and Revenues. Of his Zeal in the Controversy, he has already given a notable Instance, when he prosecuted the Moderator; and I dare say, he'll vouchsafe us a more remarkable Specimen of his Knowledge in it, as soon as he can spare Time for't; and then (Oh my Fears!) he'll pay me off for my Objection against Christ's Resurrection, which he would have persuaded the Civil Magistrate to have done for him.

But whether the Bishop of London seconds you or not, it's Time, my Lord, to expect another Volume from you, in Answer to Mr. Scheme, which, for all the Reports that are spread of your intended Silence, I hope soon to see publish'd. What will the People say, if that Philisthin goes off, giving you the last Blow in the Controversy? Nothing less than that he has gotten the better of the Learned Bishop of Lichfield, and has refuted Christianity to the Conviction of the Bishop himself, who would renounce it too, but for the temporal Advantages he enjoys by it.

Think, my Lord, on the Dishonour of such Reflections, and resume Courage against the Adversary. I look upon you as a more sturdy Gladiator than for one Cut on the Pate, to quit the Stage of Battle. Tho' Mr. Scheme has unluckily hit you on a soft Place, and weaken'd your Intellectuals for a while; yet he is a generous Combatant, and gives you Time to recover your wonted Strength of Reason. At him again then, my Lord, and fear not, in your Turn, to give him such a Home-Thrust, as will pierce his unbelieving Heart.

And when your Lordship engages him again from the Press, I hope you'll be more explicite for Liberty of Debate. Through godly Zeal for Church, you unhappily made a Slip, in your Dedication to the King, on the persecuting Side of the Question, which had lik'd to have sully'd the Glory of your whole Work. Such a grand Philosopher, as you are, should trust alone to the Goodness of your Cause, and the Strength of your Reasonings, in Defence of it: Such a potent Champion for Christianity, as you are, should disdain the Assistance of any, but of God, to fight for you. The Use of the Civil Sword on your Side, is not only a Disparagement to your Parts, but a Disgrace to our Religion.

I know not what your Lordship may think on't, but the Prosecution of the Moderator was, in the Judgment of others, more than of my self, some Reproach to you: Because of a few slender Animadversions, I made on your renown'd Book, some think I suffer'd a Prosecution, which you, in Honour, should have discourag'd. I am willing to acquit you as much as may be; and would, if I could, impute it to your Forgetfulness, rather than your Malice, that you step'd not between me and Danger.

Whether this Discourse will be acceptable to your Lordship, is somewhat uncertain; I am afraid it will be a little disgustful to your nice and delicate Taste in Theology, which relishes nothing better than the plain and ordinary Food of the Letter of Christ's Miracles: But however, you will readily interpret this Dedication to your Honour, and if you should make me a large present of Gold for it, I sincerely assure your Lordship, it will be more than I aim'd at; neither do I desire any other Return for it, than to be endulg'd the Liberty and Pleasure to pay my customary Respects to your Writings; and upon proper Occasions to testify to the World, how much I am,

London,
October 13th
1727.

My LORD,
The Admirer of
Your Wit, Learning
and Orthodoxy,
Thomas Woolston.

A Second

DISCOURSE

ON THE

MIRACLES

OF OUR

SAVIOUR, &c.

here publish another Discourse on our Saviour's Miracles, which I am not only oblig'd to, by the Promise I made in my former; but am encouraged to it by the Reception which that met with. If any of our Clergy were, and besides them, few or none could be offended at my former Discourse, they should have printed their Exceptions to it, and, if possible, their Confutation of it, which might perhaps have prevented me the giving them any more Trouble of this Kind.

In my former Discourse I fairly declar'd, that if the Clergy could disprove my Arguments against the Letter, and for the Spirit of the Miracles I there took to task, I would not only desist from the Prosecution of my Design, but own my self an impious Infidel and Blasphemer, and deserving of the worst Punishment: But since they are all mute and silent, even in this Cause, which in Honour and Interest they should have spoken out to, they ought not to be angry, if I proceed in it. I have given them time enough to make a Reply, if they had been of Ability to do it: What must I think then upon their Silence? Nothing less than that my Cause is impregnable, and my Arguments and Authorities in Defence of it irrefragable; and though they don't professedly yield to the Force of them; yet they have nothing to say in Abatement of their Strength, or it had certainly seen the Light before now.

I go on then in my undertaking to write against the literal Story of our Saviour's Miracles, and against the Use that is commonly made of them to prove his divine Authority and Messiahship: And this I do, I solemnly again declare it, not for the Service of Infidelity, but for the Honour of the Holy Jesus, and to reduce the Clergy to the good old Way, and the only Way of proving his Messiahship, and that is, by the allegorical Interpretation of the Law and the Prophets. Therefore, without any more Preamble, I resume again the Consideration of the three Heads of Discourse, before proposed to be treated on to this Purpose. And they are,

I. To shew, That the Miracles of healing all manner of Bodily Diseases, which Jesus was justly fam'd for, are none of the proper Miracles of the Messiah, neither are they so much as a good Proof of his divine Authority to found a Religion.

II. That the literal History of many of the Miracles of Jesus, as recorded by the Evangelists, does imply Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities; consequently they, either in whole or in part, were never wrought, as they are commonly believed now-a-days, but are only related as prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what would be mysteriously, and more wonderfully done by him.

III. To consider, what Jesus means, when he appeals to his Miracles, as to a Testimony and Witness of his divine Authority; and to shew that he could not properly and ultimately refer to those, he then wrought in the Flesh, but to those mystical ones, which he would do in the Spirit, of which those wrought in the Flesh are but mere Types and Shadows.

I have already spoken, what I then thought sufficient to the first of these Heads; and though I could now much enlarge my Reasons, and multiply Authorities upon it to the same Purpose; yet I shall not do it; but only, by Way of Introduction to my following Discourse, say, that if it had been intended by our Saviour, that any rational Argument for his divine Authority and Messiahship should be urged from his miraculous healing Power; the Diseases which he cured, would have been accurately described, and his Manner of Operation so cautiously express'd, as that we might have been sure the Work was supernatural, and out of the Power of Art and Nature to perform: But the Evangelists have taken no such Care in their Narrations of Christ's Miracles. As for Instance, Jesus is supposed often miraculously to cure Lameness; but there is no Account of the nature and degree of Lameness he cured; nor are we certain, whether the Skill of a Surgeon, or Nature it self, could not have done the Work without his Help. If the Evangelists had told us of Men, that wanted one or both their Legs, (and such miserable Objects of Christ's Power and Compassion, were undoubtedly in those Days as well as in ours) and how Jesus commanded Nature to extend itself to the entire Reparation of such Defects; here would have been stupendous Miracles indeed, which no Scepticism, nor Infidelity itself could have cavill'd at; nor could I, nor the Fathers themselves have told how to allegorize, and make Parables of them. But there is no such Miracle recorded of Christ, nor any thing equal to it; so far from it, that the best and greatest Miracles of Jesus, which must confessedly be those related at large, (for no Body can suppose he did greater than those more particularly specify'd) are liable to exception, being so blindly, and lamely, and imperfectly reported, as that, by Reasonings upon the Letter of the Stories of them, they may be dwindled away, and reduced to no Wonders, which brings me to treat again on the

II. Second Head of my Discourse, and that is, to shew, that the literal History of the Miracles of Jesus, as recorded in the Evangelists, does imply Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities; consequently they, in whole or in part, were never wrought, but are only related as parabolical Narratives of what would be mysteriously, and more wonderfully done by him.

To this Purpose I, in my former Discourse, took into Examination three of the Miracles of Jesus, viz. those, of his driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple; Of his exorcising the Devils out of the Madmen, and sending them into the Herd of Swine; and Of his Transfiguration on the Mount. How well I perform'd on these Miracles which have been admired for their literal Story, let others judge and say.

I now will take into Consideration three others of Jesus's Miracles, viz. those, Of his healing a Woman that was afflicted with an Issue of Blood, twelve Years; Of his curing the Woman that labour'd under a Spirit of Infirmity, eighteen Years; and Of his telling the Samaritan Woman her Fortune of having had five husbands, and living then in Adultery with another Man: Which are, all three, reputedly most miraculous and admired Stories. The two former, they say, are Arguments of Jesus's mighty Power; and the latter, of his immense Knowledge: But how little of certain Power and Knowledge there is in any of them, according to the Letter, will be seen in the sequel of this Discourse. Infidels, I dare say, if they had not wanted Liberty, would e'er now have facetiously exposed those Stories. If I snatch that Work out of their Hands, our Clergy ought to be glad, because what I do in it, is to the Honour of the Holy Jesus, and to turn those pretendedly miraculous Stories into divine Mysteries.

In my former Discourse I gave my Readers some Reason to expect, that in this I would treat on some of Jesus's Miracles, which I there mentioned, viz. On his turning Water into Wine at a Marriage in Cana of Galilee; and On his feeding of Thousands with a few Loaves and Fishes in the Wilderness; and On his Cure of the Paralytick, for whom the Roof of the House was broken up to let him down into the Room where Jesus was, &c. And I then really did design to speak to these Miracles, but upon Consideration, finding them most ludicrous Subjects according to the Letter, I forbear it at present, having no Inclination to put the Clergy quite out of all Temper. If any should say, this is Fear and Cowardice in me, I can't help it: But, for all that, now I have the Clergy in a tolerable good Humour for Liberty, I'll endeavour to keep them in it, and not disturb them by an hasty and unnecessary Provocation of them. Who knows not, that the Clergy, like an untamed Colt, that I have a mind to ride, may be apt to winch and kick, and may give me a Fall before I come at the end of my Journey, to the Disappointment of my Readers? They shall therefore be gently handled and stroak'd, till they are a little more inur'd to the Bit and Saddle: And for their Sakes will I postpone such Miracles as are most obnoxious to Ridicule, and at present chuse the aforesaid three, that of almost any in the Gospel may be most inoffensively treated on. I begin then,

1. To speak to that Miracle of Jesus's[79] healing a Woman diseased with an Issue of Blood, twelve Years. To please our Divines, I will allow as much of the Truth of the Letter of this Story, as they can desire. The Fathers themselves, who are for turning the whole History of Jesus's Life into Allegory and Mystery, don't deny that a Woman was cured of an Hæmorrhage, after the Manner that is here described by the Evangelists. St. Augustin says[80] of this Miracle, that it was done, as it is related; and I have a greater Veneration for his Authority, than to gainsay it. But for all that, Infidels may and will take into Examination the nature of this Miracle, and if possible make little or nothing of it. And if I do this for them, it is not to do Service to Infidelity, but to turn Mens Heads to the mystical Use of it, for which it is recorded.

As there is a particular Narration of this Miracle, among the few others, that are specified; so Reason should tell us, that if the Letter of the Story of Christ's Miracles, as our Divines hold, is only to be regarded, this is one of the greatest that Jesus wrought, or it would not be related by itself, but thrown into the Lump of all manner of Diseases, which He heal'd. And how then shall we come to the Knowledge of the greatness of this Miracle? Why, there are but two Ways to it, and they are,

First, By considering the nature of the Disease, or the lamentable Condition of the Patient before Cure. And

Secondly, By considering the Manner or Means by which the Cure was performed.

If one or both of these Considerations don't manifest the Certainty of a Miracle, Infidels may conclude there was none in it.

First, As to the nature of the Disease of this Woman, we are much in the Dark about it, and very uncertain of what Kind and Degree it was. St. Matthew writing of it, says the Woman was αιμορροουσα, that is, obnoxious to bleeding; St. Mark and St. Luke say of her, that ουσα εν ρευματε αιματος, she was in an efflux or running of Blood. But neither one nor the other of the Evangelists signify of what Degree her Hæmorrhage was, nor from what part of her Body it proceeded, nor how often or seldom she was addicted to it. It might be, for ought we know, only a little bleeding at the Nose, that now and then she was subject to: Or it might be an obnoxiousness to an Evacuation of Blood by Siege or Urine: Or it was, not improbably, of the menstruous Kind. Any of these might be the Case of this Woman for what's written; and I don't find that any of our Divines have determined of what sort it was. But a great Miracle is wrought, they think, in her Cure, without knowing the Disease; which Infidels will say is asserted at Random and without Reason, in as much as it is necessary to know the nature of the Distemper, or none truly and properly can say, there was a great, much less a miraculous Cure wrought.

But supposing this Hæmorrhage proceeded from what Part of the Body our Divines think fit; How will they make a grievous Distemper of it in order to a Miracle? The Woman subsisted too long under her Issue of Blood, and bore it too well, for any to make her Case very grievous. Beza[81] will have it, that is was a constant and incessant Effusion of Blood that the Woman labour'd with. But this could not be, nor was it possible, as I suppose Physicians will agree, for Nature to endure it so long, or the Woman to live twelve Days, much less twelve Years under it.

No more then, than some slight Indisposition can reasonably and naturally be made of this Woman's Distemper. And it would be well, if Infidels would rest here with their Objections against it. But what if they should say, that this Hæmorrhage was rather of Advantage to the Health of the Patient, than of Danger to her, and that the Woman was more nice than wise, or she would never have sought so much for Help and Cure of it? Some Hæmorrhages are better kept open than stop'd and dry'd up; and if Infidels should say, that this was a Preservative of the Life of the Woman, like an Issue, at which Nature discharges itself of bad Humours, Who can contradict them? Nay, if they should say that Jesus's Cure of this Woman's Hæmorrhage was a Precipitation of her Death, for she died some time after it, rather than a Prolongation of her Life, for she lived twelve Years under it, and was of good Strength, when she applied to our Saviour for Cure, or she could never have born the press of the People to come at him; Who can gainsay them? It is true she was very sollicitous for a Cure, and uneasy under her Distemper, or she would never have spent all she had on Physicians; which is a Sign, some may say, that her Disease was grievous, irksome, and dangerous, as well as incurable by Art. But Infidels will say, not so; for there are some slight cutaneous Distempers, sometimes issuing with a little purulent and bloody Matter, that nice Women will be at a great Expence for Relief, and are always tampering, and often advising about them, though to no Purpose: And if they should say that this was the worth of the Case of this Woman, Who can disprove it?

In short then here is an uncertain Distemper both in Nature and Degree; how then can there be any Certainty of a Miracle in the Cure of it? Mr. Moore, the Apothecary, accurately describes the Diseases he pretends to have cured; and he is in the right on't so to do, or he could not recommend his Art, and aggrandize his own Fame. So the Bodily Disease of this Woman should have been clearly and fully represented to our Understanding, or we can form no Conception of Christ's Power in the Cure of it. And I can't but think that the Evangelists, especially St. Luke the Physician, had made a better Story of this Woman's Case, if Christ's Authority and Power had been to be urg'd from the Letter of it. It's enough to make us think, Christ cured no extraordinary and grievous Maladies, or the Evangelists would never have instanced in this, that so much Exception is to be made to. As then, reasonably speaking, there was no extraordinary Disease in this Woman cured, and consequently no great Miracle wrought; so let us now,

Secondly, Consider the Manner of the Cure, and whether any Miracle is to be thence proved. The Woman said within her self,[82] that if she could but touch the Hem of Jesus's Garment, she should be made whole. And I can't but commend her, at this distance of Time, for the Power of her Faith, Persuasion, or Imagination in the Case, which was a good Preparative for Relief, and without which, it's certain, she had continued under her Disease. The Power of Imagination, it's well known, will work Wonders, see Visions, produce Monsters, and heal Diseases, as Experience and History doth testify. There being many Instances to be given of Cures performed by frivolous Applications, Charms, and Spells, which are unaccountable any other Way, than by the Imagination of the Patient. Against the Reason and Judgment of a Physician, sometimes the diseased will take his own Medicines and Benefit. And I don't doubt, but Stories may be told of Cures wrought, the Imagination of the Patient helping, by as mean a Trifle, as the Touch of Christ's Garments, and no Miracle talk'd on for it. Even in the ordinary, natural, and rational Use of Physick, it is requisite, that the Patient have a good Opinion of his Physician and of his Medicines. A good Heart in the Sick, tends not only to his Support, but helps the Operation of Prescriptions. As despair and dejection of Mind sometimes kills, where otherwise reasonably speaking, proper Medicines would cure; so a good Conceit in the Patient at other times, whether the Medicines be pertinent or not, is almost all in all. And if Infidels should say that this was the Case of this Woman in the Gospel; if they should say as St. John of Jerusalem[83] did, that her own Imagination cured herself; and should urge the Probability of it, because Jesus could do no Cures and[84] Miracles against Unbelief, Who can help it? In this Case our Divines must prove, that this Woman's Hæmorrhage was of that kind, that no Faith nor Fancy in herself could help her without the Divine Power; but this is impossible for them to do, unless there had been a more certain Description of her Disease, than the Evangelists have given of it.

Our Divines will indeed tell us, what I believe, that it was the Divine Power co-operating with the Faith and Imagination of the Woman that cured her; because Jesus says that Virtue had gone out of him to the healing of her: And I wish Infidels would acquiesce here, and not say, that Jesus's Virtue hung very loose on him, or the Woman's Faith, like a Fascination, could never have extracted it against his Will and Knowledge: But what if they should say, that Jesus, being secretly appriz'd of the Woman's Faith, and Touch of him, took the Hint; and to comfort and confirm her in her Conceit, and to help the Cure forward, said, Virtue was gone out of him? This would be an untoward Suggestion, which if Infidels should make, our Divines must look for a Reply to it.

It is said of the Pope, when he was last at Benevento, that he wrought three Miracles, which our Protestant Clergy, I dare say, believe nothing at all of. But, for all that, it is not improbable, but that some diseased People, considering their superstitious Veneration for the Pope, and their Opinion of the Sanctity of the Present, might be persuaded of his Gift of Miracles, and desirous of his Exercise of it; and if they fancyfully or actually received Benefit by his Touch, I don't wonder, without a Miracle. And what if we had been told of the Popes curing an Hæmorrhage like this before us? What would Protestants have said to it? Why, "that a foolish, credulous, and superstitious Woman had fancy'd herself cured of some slight Indisposition; and the crafty Pope and his Adherents, aspiring after popular Applause, magnified the presumed Cure into a Miracle. If they would have us Protestants to believe the Miracle, they should have given us an exacter Description of her Disease, and then we could better have judg'd of it". The Application of such a supposed Story of a Miracle wrought by the Pope, is easy; and if Infidels, Jews, and Mahometans who have no better Opinion of Jesus, than we have of the Pope, should make it, there's no Help for it.

And thus have I made my Descants on this supposed Miracle before us and argued, as much as I could, against the Miraculousness of it, both from the Nature of the Disease, and the Manner of the Cure of it. Whether any one shall think I have said any thing to the Purpose or not, is all one to me. My Design in what I have done, is not to do Service to Infidelity, but, upon the Command and Encouragement of the Fathers, to turn Mens Thoughts to the mystical Meaning of the said Miracle, which I come now to give an Account of.

None of the Fathers (excepting St. Chrysostom[85], who writes here more like an Orator than a Physician) ever trouble themselves, when they speak of this Miracle, about the Nature of the Disease, literally, in this Woman, or the greatness of the Cure of it; but alone bend their Studies to the mystical Interpretation, for the sake of which, this Evangelical Story was written, and originally transacted.

Accordingly, they tell us that this Woman is a Type[86] of the Church of the Gentiles in after Times. And as to her Hæmorrhage or Issue of Blood, they understand it of the[87] Impurity and Corruption of the Church by ill Principles and bad Morals, that the would flow with. Some of the Fathers, as[88] Gregory Nazianzen, and[89] Eusebius Gallicanus, will have the Issue of Blood to be a Type of the scarlet Sin of Blood-guiltiness in the Church: If so, we must understand it of the Effusion of Christian Blood by War and Persecution.

The twelve Years of the Woman's Affliction with her Hæmorrhage is a typical Number of the Church's impure State for above twelve Hundred Years. And whether some of the primitive Church did not, by the said twelve Years of the Woman, understand twelve Ages, I appeal to[90] Irenæus, to whom I refer my Readers, Accordingly this typify'd Woman of the Church, should be the same with the Woman[91] in the Wilderness, that, as St. John says, was twelve Hundred and sixty Days or Years there sustained; and by whom many Protestants, as well as the Fathers, understand the Church universal. When the said twelve Hundred and sixty Days or Years of the Church's being in the Wilderness, did commence or will end, is none of my Business to enquire or ascertain. But as this Woman in the Gospel is said after twelve Years Affliction, to be cured of her Disease by Jesus; so it is the Opinion of the Fathers, that the Church universal, after twelve Hundred Years of her Wilderness State, will be purified and sanctified by the Gifts of the Spirit of Christ, and enter upon a more holy, peaceable, and happy Condition, absolutely freed from her Issue of Blood, which, through Persecution and War, she has for many Ages labour'd under. It is not my Concern to collect all the Authorities of the Fathers to this Purpose; but only say, that if at the End of twelve Hundred and sixty Days or Years, the Church, like the Woman, be not cur'd of her Hæmorrhage and mystical Wounds and Sores; if her present impure and unsound State be not chang'd into an holy, healthy, and peaceable one; many good Protestants, as well as the Fathers, are mistaken, and abundance of Prophecies of the Old and New Testament, that have been hereunto urged, will lose their Credit.

But who are meant by the Physicians of the Woman, that have had the mystical Hæmorrhage and Diseases of the Church Under Cure all this while? Who should, but pretended Ministers, of the Gospel? Ministers of the Gospel are not only by the Fathers call'd metaphorically[92] spiritual Physicians; but our Divines and Preachers of all Denominations like the Metaphor, and think themselves able Physicians at the Diseases of the Church, which they are forward to prescribe and apply Medicines to, whenever, in their Opinion, she stands in need of them. Whether our Divines like to be accounted the Physicians of the Text before us, I much question; but it is certain that[93] Eusebius Gallicanus expressly says, that our Divines and pretended Philosophers are meant by them; and venerable Bede[94] upon the Place is of the same Mind too.

The Woman of the Gospel is said[95] to suffer many Things of many Physicians, and was nothing better'd, but rather grew worse; that is, she grew worse not in time only, but through the Use of her Physicians, who were her[96] Tormentors. So the Diseases of the Church in time have increased, for all the Use she has made of her spiritual Physicians, the Clergy. In every Age has the Church been degenerating in Morals and Principles, as any one knows, that is able to make an Estimate of Religion in times past; and all along have her ecclesiastical Quack Doctors contributed to her ill State of Health. As many Physicians with their different Applications tormented the poor Woman; so our many Empericks in Theology with their different Schemes of Church Government and various Systems of Divinity, like so many Prescriptions for Cure, have increased the Divisions, widen'd the Wounds, and inflamed the Sores of the Church. And if the Woman's Issue of Blood be, according to the Fathers, a particular Type of the Blood of the Church, that is shed in Persecution and War; our Theological Pretenders to Physick, have been so far from providing and prescribing a good Stiptic in this Case that they have been the Occasion of the Effusion of much Christian Blood; there having been many a War and Persecution, that these Incision Doctors, who should be all Balsam, have been the Cause of.

The Woman spent all her Living, all her yearly Income, upon her Physicians, and as it seems to a bad Purpose; so very great and large Revenues of the Church, are expended on her ecclesiastical Doctors in spiritual Physick: And to what End and Purpose? Why, to open and widen the bleeding Wounds of the Church, which they should heal and salve up. It is now about twelve Hundred Years, like the twelve Years of the Woman, that the Clergy, our Practitioners in Theological Physick, have received of the Church vast Fees, Stipends and Gratuities (for before that time her Doctors prescrib'd freely) to take care of her Health and Welfare; but unless God provide in due time a Medicine of his own, she is likely to continue in a diseased and sorrowful Condition for all them.

One would think that the Woman of the Gospel might have had more Wit than to lay out all she was worth upon Physicians to no good Purpose; one would think that after some Experience of their Insufficiency to cure her, she might have forborn seeing them, and reserved the Remains of her Estate for better Uses: So the Fees and Revenues of the Church, after due Experience of the Inability of her spiritual Doctors to heal her Sores, might have been in my Opinion better employ'd, and the Church of Christ more out of Danger of Wounds and Sickness, by Sin and Error. Certain it is, that many an Issue of Blood, through Persecution and War, had been prevented; if such barbarous and blood thirsty Doctors of Ecclesiastical Physick, had never been so fee'd and hired to take care of the Welfare of the Church, which, for all their Spiritual Medicines, will continue in a languishing Condition, till heal'd by the Virtue and Graces of the Spirit of Christ in his foresaid appointed Time.

So much then to the mystical Interpretation of the Story of the Cure of the Issue of Blood in this Woman. Every minute Circumstance of it is thus to be allegorized, if need was. Whether the Clergy will like this parabolical Explication of it, I neither know nor care. They have their Liberty with Atheists and Infidels to believe as little of it as they think fit; and I hope they'll give me leave with the Fathers of the Church to believe as much of it as I please. But whether they approve of this allegorical Interpretation of this supposed Miracle or not; they must own, that if the Church, after the foresaid twelve Ages, should be purified and sanctified; if her Errors and Corruptions, of which the Woman's Uncleanness is a Type, should be heal'd; if War and Persecution, typified by her Issue of Blood, should then entirely cease; if all Christians should then be united in Principle, Heart and Affection, and made to walk in a peaceable and quiet State, as the Woman was[97] bid to go in Peace; if the Church should then come behind Jesus (which[98] is a Figure of future Time) and rightly touch by Faith, and apprehend his[99] Garments or Words of Prophecy, about which Christians have hitherto been pressing and urgent; and if the Gifts of the Spirit, like Virtue on the Woman, should then be poured forth upon the Church to the absolute Cure of her present Diseases, we must, I say, allow the Story of this Woman to be an admirable Emblem and typical Representation; and the Accomplishment of it most miraculous and stupendous; and not only an indisputable Proof of the Power and Presence of Christ with his Church, but a Demonstration of his Messiahship, in as much as an almost infinite Number of Prophecies of the Old Testament, will thereupon receive that Accomplishment, which hitherto, by no shadow of Reason, can be pretended to.

After such a mystical Healing of the Hæmorrhage of the Church, there's no doubt on't, but the Story of this Woman in the Gospel will be allow'd to be typical and emblematical. In the mean time, without making a Parable of the Story of her, I assert, there is little or nothing of a Miracle to be made of her Cure, unless we were at a greater Certainty about the Nature of her Disease, and the Manner, rationally speaking, of Jesus's healing of it. And so I pass to the Consideration of

2. Another Story of a miraculous Cure perform'd by Jesus on another Woman, and that is on her, who[100] had a Spirit of Infirmity, eighteen Years, and was bow'd together, and could in no wise lift up herself——being bound of Satan, &c. This too, as I suppose, is with our Divines a great Miracle, and one of the greatest that Jesus wrought, or it had not been specify'd, but cast indiscriminately into the Number of all manner of Diseases, which he heal'd. And for the sake of the Letter, and to please our Divines, whom I would not offend wilfully, I will allow, that Jesus might lay his Hands on, and speak comfortably to such a drooping, stooping, and vaporous Woman, full of Fancies of the Devil's Temptation and Power over her; and she might thereupon recover, and be afterwards of a more cheerful Heart, and erect Countenance, freed from the whimsical Imagination of being Satan-ridden: And what of all that? Where's the Miracle? If the Story of such a Miracle had been related of any Impostor in Religion, of an Arch-Heretick, or Popish Exorcist, our Divines would have flouted at it; they would have told us, there was nothing supernatural and uncommon in the Event, nor any thing at all to be wonder'd at in it. Taking the Devil out of this Story, and there's no more in it, than what's common for a simple, melancholy, and drooping Woman, to be chear'd and elated upon the comfortable Advice and Admonition of a reputedly wise and good Man. And the putting the Devil into the Story, in another Case, our Divines would have said was only the Fancy of the Woman, or the Device of the Miracle-Monger, to magnify his own Art and Power. And if Infidels, Jews, and Mahometans, should say so of this Story of Jesus, they would be no more unreasonable in their Conjectures and Solutions of this Miracle, than we should have been in another and parallel Case.

The Pope, when last at Benevento, is said to have exorciz'd a Dæmon out of a young Maid, which our Divines no more believe than Infidels do. But it is not at all impossible or improbable, that a young Woman might be troubled with Vapours, and go droopingly upon it, whom the holy Father, of whose Prayers and Sanctity she had a good Opinion, might relieve with his Talk, and give another Turn to her Thoughts and Temper: And if she fancy'd herself before possess'd with a Dæmon, or rather, if the Pope's Partizans persuaded her so, it's not unlikely to make a Miracle on't. Just so may Infidels, with their Descants on this Miracle before us, reduce and lessen it: And what must we Believers do then? Why, we must find out a Way to ascertain the Truth and Greatness of the Miracle, or give it up. We must determine certainly what was the Woman's Distemper, and how the Cure of it by ordinary Means was impossible, or make no more Words about it.

And how can we come at the Knowledge of this Woman's Disease, but by the original Words of the Evangelist. St. Luke says, she was one πνευμα εχουσα ασθενειας, that had a Spirit of Weakness, that is, was poor-Spirited and pusilanimous; and if she was συγκυπτουσα, bow'd down upon't, its no more than might be expected of a disconsolate, melancholy and dejected Person. Here then is the Disease of the Woman: If it had been worse, St. Luke, the Physician, if he was of Sufficiency in his Art, should better have express'd himself; so as to give us another Conception of it. And if Satan had not been brought into the Tale, whom it is easy, by reasoning as above, to exorcise out of it, here is a no more grievous Distemper, than what upon the comfortable Exhortations of a wise Man may be cured. And do what our Divines can, they can make literally no more of this Story.

It is said, that for eighteen Years the Woman labour'd under this Disease. And she might be hippish and drooping for a longer time, and be no less easily at last cured. It's pity the Evangelist had not told us how old this Woman was, when the Distemper first seiz'd her; then we could have made better Conjectures about the Nature and Cure of it. If there was any room to suppose, either from the Words of Scripture or extra-scriptural History, that she was about fifty or sixty, when she first began to droop and the Devil got upon her Back; here had been Scope for a most stupendous Miracle; and our Divines might have asserted, what no Body could have contradicted, that Jesus had made an old Woman, who was bow'd down, not only under the Weight of Satan, but under the Burthen of seventy or eighty Years, young again; and had restored her to the Health, Vigor, and Beauty of one of fifteen. Here would have been a mighty Miracle indeed. And I don't doubt, but our Divines would willingly get into such a Notion of this Miracle, and would heartily espouse it, but for the Offence they must needs give to decrepid old Women, who may be out of Conceit with themselves upon it, as if they carried the Devil on their Shoulders, as the Cause of their Decripedness and Incurvity. And such an Offence would be of ill Consequence.

Reasonably then speaking, there was not much in the Disease and Cure of this Woman. Excepting that Part, which Satan bears, in the Story, there is nothing wonderful in it. And supposing Jesus might exorcise the Devil out of this Woman, or dismount him from off her Shoulders; yet even this makes nothing for his Divine Power and Authority, in as much as many Exorcists among the Jews and even among Papists, if Protestants had not more Wit than to believe it, could do as much. And after all, I don't believe the Evangelist intended, that our Saviour should be had in Admiration for the Letter of this Miracle, or St. Luke would accurately have described the Disease, so as to put it out of the Power of Nature and Art to heal it, and of the Wit of Infidels to cavil at the miraculous Cure of it. Neither do I find that the Fathers of the Church ever trouble themselves about the Letter of this Story, which is some Argument, that no great Heed is to be given to it; but are only curious about the Mystery, for which this Miracle was related, and which I come now to give an Account of.

As the Fathers said of the Woman with her Issue of Blood, that she was a Type of the Church; so they say of this Woman with her Spirit of Infirmity, that she is a[101] Figure of the Church too.

As the Woman was bow'd together; so the Church, as the Fathers do interpret, may be said to be[102] bow'd down to the Earth, when she is prone and bent to, and intent on the literal or earthly Interpretations of the Scriptures; and can in no wise lift up her self, like the Woman, that is, can't raise her Thoughts to the Contemplation of the cælestial, spiritual, and sublime Sense of them. Hence we see the Propriety of the Name of the Woman's Disease, call'd πνευμα ασθενειας, a Spirit of Weakness, which is not properly significative of any bodily Distemper, but succinctly is very expressive of the Church's Weakness at the Spirit of Prophecy, which at this Day she labours under.

As it was eighteen Years that the Woman was griev'd with her Spirit of Infirmity, for so long had her Distemper been growing on her; so it is almost eighteen (hundred) Years, or the eighteenth Century of Years, that this Infirmity of the Church at the Spirit of Prophecy has been coming on her: And she is now so bent to the Earth of the Letter, that nothing less than the Hand and Power of Jesus, that erected the Woman, can raise her to mystical, divine, and sublime Contemplations on the Law and Prophets. St. Augustin[103] will have these eighteen Years of the Woman's Infirmity, as she is a Type of the Church, to be synchronical with the[104] three Years of the Fig-Tree's Unfruitfulness. I don't rightly apprehend his mystical Arithmetic. But this is certain, upon the Authority of the Fathers, that those two Numbers, with the twelve Years of the Woman's Issue of Blood, are all conterminous and will end together: Consequently at the same time, that the Woman of the Church will be cured of her Issue of Blood, she will be heal'd of her Infirmity at the Spirit of Prophecy; that is, at the Conclusion of certain grand Periods of Time she will enter upon a blessed State of Peace and Vision; which is the concurrent Doctrine of the Fathers, as any one may discern, that has dip'd into them, and is a good Confirmation of our present Exposition, and mystical Application of the miraculous Story before us.

St. Luke says, that the Woman could not lift up herself εις το παντελες, v. 11. which, without animadverting on our English Translation, should be rendered, until all was perfected, or until the Perfection of Time, which, the Apostle[105] and the Fathers agree, is the Time for the Church to be cured of her Weakness, and to be endu'd with Power at the Spirit of Prophecy.

As the Woman was heal'd by Jesus on the Sabbath-Day; so the Church, upon the ample Authorities of the Fathers, which Men of Reading will excuse me the Production of, is certainly to be heal'd of her spiritual Infirmity, at the Understanding of Prophecy against the mystical and[106] grand Sabbath, which, according to the Fathers, commences at the Expiration of her eighteen (hundred) Years Weakness.

But the Ruler of the Synagogue is said to be moved with Indignation, v. 14. at this charitable Work of Jesus, in healing of the Woman, because it was done on the Sabbath-Day; which in my Opinion can't be literally true: Though I am willing enough, to please our Divines, to allow as much as may be of the Letter of this Story, yet I except against this Part of it. Origen says, there are some things of the Gospel related as Facts, which were not done; and I believe this of the Ruler of the Synagogue to be one of them. Human Nature, I think, is not capable of such base and unnatural Resentment. Works of Necessity, and requisite Offices of Kindness and Charity to Man and Beast, were allow'd by the Law, and practised by the Jews on the Sabbath: And the Cure of this Woman, though on the Sabbath-Day, was such an Act of Beneficence and Compassion in the Holy Jesus, that I can't but think bad, as well as good Men, would rather glorify God, that had given such Power unto Man, than find fault with it. But in the Mystery of this Part of the Story, there is clear Sense and Truth. Who then is this Archisynagogus, or Ruler of the Synagogue, that will be full of Indignation at the healing of the Church of her foresaid Infirmity at the Spirit of Prophecy? Origen says that the[107] right Interpretation of the Names of Persons and Places in Scripture is of good Use to the mystical Application. Accordingly Archisynagogus does signify the Chiefs of our Congregations: And who should they be then but the Clergy? And if this ben't enough to fix this Name and Character upon them, then let Theophanes Cerameus speak here, who says, that the Archisynagogus, is a[108] Type of all Priests, who will be against the foresaid miraculous healing of the Church. And why will the Clergy be mov'd 'with Indignation at the curing the Church of her Infirm, and restoring her to a sound Spirit of Prophecy? Because as St. Augustin says,[109] they are not only bow'd down to the Letter themselves; but because this Infirmity of the Church will be a Reproach to them, in as much as it is a Proof of their Apostacy and Insufficiency at Prophecy; and the Cure of it will be attended with such Consequences, as affect their Reputation and Interests. Who can question but the Clergy, who are the Archisynagogus of the Text, and who are for the Church's bending and stooping to the low Sense of the Letter of the Scripture, will be averse to her being rais'd, lifted up, and erected to the Contemplation of the sublime, anagogical, and heavenly Sense of it? Such an Healing and Erection of the Church will vex them at the Heart, as it will bring Shame and loss of Interest along with it; and they will undoubtedly be Adversaries to this good Work of Christ, which, upon the Testimony of all Antiquity, is to be done on or against the Evangelical and great Sabbath.

Our Saviour is supposed to reprove the Ruler of the Synagogue, for his Indignation at the Cure of the Woman on the Sabbath-Day, saying, v. 15. Thou Hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his Ox or his Ass from the Stall, and lead him away to Watering? And ought not this Woman to be loos'd from this Bond on the Sabbath-Day? There is Force in this Argument according to the Letter: And the Ruler of the Synagogue, and other Jesus's Adversaries hereupon, might well be asham'd for finding Fault with such a merciful and beneficent Work done on the Sabbath; when they themselves did Works on the Sabbath of much less Consequence. But to[110] the Mystery. What may be said to our Ministers of the Letter, of whom the Archisynagogus is a Type, for their Averseness to the healing of the Church in like manner? Why, that they are Hypocrites, that is, superficial Criticks on the Scriptures, and don't consider that the Law is spiritual, and how against the Evangelical Sabbath every Man is to be released from his Bondage and Servility to irrational Principles (for which he has been like an Ox and an Ass) and to be conducted to drink of the Waters of Divine Wisdom: For this grand Sabbath will be a Day of absolute Liberty, perfect Rest, immense Knowledge, real Vision and Contemplation on God and his Providence, as the antient Jews and Fathers so copiously declare, that they who are ignorant herein, may be ashamed; consequently they might know, that the Church is to be cured of her Spirit of Weakness at Prophecy on that Day.

But Satan is said to have v. 16. bound, and, as is supposed, bow'd down this Woman; the literal Truth of which I much question: But how then has Satan bound and bow'd down the Church? This, seemingly, is the great Difficulty in the mystical Application of this Story, and must be the great Curiosity of my Readers to know how I will account for it. If the Fathers don't help me out at this dead Lift, and that clearly and intelligibly too, I shall abate of my Veneration for them. If they don't tell me, and make me to apprehend, what this Satan is, that for many Ages has bound and oppress'd the Church after the supposed Manner of the typical Woman, I had better have held my Peace, and said nothing to this parabolical Miracle.

The Writings of the Evangelists so abound with Stories of Satan, Belzebub, the Devil, and of greater and less Number of Devils, and of Dæmons and of unclean Spirits, more than any Histories before, as one would think, if these Stories were literally to be understood, that was the Age in which Christ came, that Hell first broke loose, and then primarily infested Mankind; and that upon the Destruction of Judæa and Propagation of the Gospel, the Devils accompanied the Jews in their Dispersion, or the Apostles in their Travels, and have been the Tempters, Seducers, and Tormentors of other Nations ever since.

Arnobius[111] says, That before Christ, Devils were things unknown to the World; by which Arnobius must mean, either that they were hardly talk'd of before, or that their Nature was not understood, till Christ inform'd us of it. In both these Senses, I believe, Arnobius may be taken, viz. that there was not only little Talk of Satan and the Devil, but less of his Nature apprehended, before Christ by his Parables and parabolical Miracles, rightly interpreted, instructed us in it. And if after Ages have departed from the true and original Doctrine of Devils, making a literal Story of that, which is only mystical and cabalistical; and have formed to themselves Ideas of hideous and horrible Fiends, Mormos and Hobgoblins, it shall not disturb me.

As to the Place and State of Hell, many are the Notions of Divines of several Ages past, as well as of the present. I shall not recount them all here, much less refute any of them. But there is an antient, rational, and cabalistical Notion of Hell, which I have learned of the Fathers, who signify, that the babylonish and bewilder'd State of Christ's Church may be call'd Hell, because, as the Word αδης does import, it is a State without Vision. Hence Origen says,[112] that whoever can form to himself an Idea of the Church in time to come, when she will be dignified with the Title of the New Jerusalem, for her Peace and Vision may understand what is meant by Hell, and all that is written of it.

As then the Fathers had a cabalistical Notion of Hell, which modern Divines are Strangers to; so they had of Satan, and the Devil and his Angels. I own myself at a Loss for an express Testimony out of the Fathers about Satan in the Text before us; but according to their Explications of Satan in other Places, nothing more is meant by him here than, "That furious Principle and Temper in Man that is not only averse to Liberty in Religion, but for binding, restraining, and tying down the Church and Christian People to certain Opinions and Ways of Worship." In such a State of Bondage has the Woman of the Church been kept, by such a Satan, in one Order of Men or other, for all Ages past. And that this is a right and primitive Notion of Satan, I could prove by Authorities enough. Origen tells us[113] of the Names of Kings in prophetical Scripture, which would be Enemies to Christ's Church; but such Kings never did, nor would personally exist; their Names, according to Interpretation, standing only for so many Sins and Vices, reigning in Mankind. To the same Purpose he says[114] human Vices are Devils: And Satan himself, (as the Word signifies Adversary) is with him[115] and the antient Jews too, no other than an Aversness in Man to the Will of God. I could quote other Fathers to this Purpose; but being sparing of my Pains at present, I refer my Readers to my former[116] Discourse, in which they will see the Opinion of the Fathers about the Devils in the Madman, and afterwards in the Herd of Swine; from which let them judge, whether the Fathers could have any other Notion of Satan here, than what I have represented. It is certain, and may be easily prov'd, that by Satan, the Dragon and the Devil, mentioned in the Revelations, nothing more is to be understood, than a furious, persecuting, satanical, and diabolical Temper in Man; and if what St. John writes of Satan be cabalistical and allegorical; the other Assertions of the Evangelists and Apostles about him will of Course come under that Denomination; or the primitive Rule of Interpretation of Scripture according to the natural Signification of the Names of Persons and Places is not good.

As then the Woman of the Gospel was, as is supposed, v. 16. bound by Satan, loe, for eighteen Years: So the foresaid furious Principle in Man, which is a mystical Satan, an Adversary to Liberty, has bound the Church, loe, to the eighteenth Century of Years: But she is to be entirely released from this spiritual Bondage, and set at[117] perfect Liberty against the acceptable and Evangelical Sabbath. And here it is to be noted out of St. Augustin, and most worthy of Observation it is, that at the[118] same time, in which the Church will be loosed from her Bondage; Satan himself will[119] be bound and chain'd for a[120] thousand Years, the time of the evangelical Sabbath, that is, says Ephræm Syrus[121] for ever. And how will our mystical Satan or the Dragon be bound and chain'd? Not with Chains or Links of Iron or other Metal; but Vinculis Rationis, with the Chains of Reasons and Arguments for Christian Liberty, which will restrain the Adversary, Satan, from any more Impositions and Persecutions of the Church. And I can't here but applaud the great Mr. Grounds and Mr. Scheme, for their Work and Labour of Love to Mankind, in making Chains of Argumentations for Liberty, which I hope will prove of sufficient Strength to bind Satan and restrain him (in Dr. Rogers, Bishop G—bs—n, and others his Angels) from giving any more Molestation to Christian Philosophers in their Enquiries after, and Lucubrations on Divine Truth. All the Honour that I aim at in that Work is, by the Help of the Fathers, to point out that anti-Christian Principle or Temper in the Clergy[122] which, for its Averseness to Liberty, is called Satan; for its Calumnies, is called the Devil; for its Furiousness, is called the Dragon; and for its Unreasonableness, is called the Beast, to the intellectual Views of Mankind, and to direct them how to apprehend and lay hold on it.

Our Saviour, according to Origen, had never call'd Peter,[123] Satan, if Satan had been any Thing else than Man-averse to the Will of God.

And thus have I spoken to the Miracle of Jesus's healing the Woman of her Spirit of Infirmity, whom Satan had bound and bow'd down, which, according to the Letter, is no Miracle at all; and some Parts of the Story are improbable and incredible; but the mystical Completion of it will be most prodigious, and a Demonstration not only of Christ's Power and Presence in his Church, but of his Messiahship, in as much as a vast Number of Prophecies of the Old Testament, more than can soon be collated to this Purpose, will thereupon receive their Accomplishment. And so I come to a

3. Third miraculous Story of Jesus's, that is of his telling (John iv.) the Woman of Samaria her Fortune, of having had five Husbands, and being then an Adulteress, &c. in which there is a notable Miracle display'd, in the Opinion of our Divines, that proves Jesus's Omniscience, or he could not so have search'd into the Heart of this Woman, and told her such Occurrences, that concern'd her Life past. I thought once of transcribing here entirely this Story; and so I would, but that it is a long one, and might have set some Readers, who are by this time awaken'd to pry into the Absurdities of the Letter, a laughing, before I had time my self regularly to animadvert on it.

Whether there was any Truth at all in the Letter of this Story, I should much have questioned, but that some Fathers write of it, as if they believed it literally, tho' they make a mystical and allegorical Explication of the whole and every part of it. And I, having a sincere Veneration for the Fathers, will not contradict them, (and I hope this Concession will please the Clergy) but, for all that, can't like any part of this Story literally, but could almost wish, that the Fathers, for the Honour of Jesus, had made the whole no other than a Parable.

It's strange that no Jews or Infidels have as yet ludicrously treated this Story to the, almost, Confutation of our Religion. If their Tongues had not been ty'd by the aforesaid Satan or Adversary to Liberty, I can't think but they must have made some pleasant Animadversions upon it before now. If such a broken, elliptical, and absurd Tale had been told of any other Impostor in Religion; the Wits of our Clergy had been at Work to expose it plentifully; and indeed there's no need of much Wit to make this Tale nauseous and ridiculous to vulgar Understandings.

I shall not myself here make all the Remarks I can to the Disadvantage of this Story: I am not as yet so disposed to make Scoffers and Infidels laugh at the Clergy for their Adherence to the Letter of it. All I shall do now, is to make my Observations on the two Uses, that the Clergy very seriously put this Story to, and they are,

First, to prove the Expectation that there was amongst the Samaritans, of a Messiah to come; And

Secondly, to prove Jesus's Omniscience, or he could not have entered into the Heart of the Woman, and told her, that she had had five Husbands, and was then an Adulteress. To these two Purposes, I find this Story urged by our Divines, and I must needs say, as to the

First of them; it is rightly from hence asserted by the[124] Bishop of Lichfield and others, that the Samaritans had an Expectation of a Messiah: But why then did not the Bishop and others, who are now in Quest after Arguments of Jesus's Messiahship, prove him hence to be the Messiah, because he told the Samaritan woman her Fortune? If this was a real and substantial Argument to her of Jesus's Messiahship, it ought to be urg'd by the Clergy at this Day. The Controversy about Jesus's Messiahship is now on foot; Why do the Advocates for it overlook this Proof of it? Why, because, as I suppose, they are aware, that Infidels would make sport with it. But if Jesus's telling the Woman her Fortune was no real and conclusive Argument of his being the Messiah; St. John has told us an impertinent Tale of a simple Woman, upon whose Credulity and false Notions Jesus palm'd himself as the true Messiah; and whether he did not ill thus to banter and deceive the Woman, let any one judge.

But let us here behold the Difference amongst the Jews and Samaritans, as to the Expectation of a Messiah. Some of the old Jews, like the Apostles, expected the Messiah would be a temporal Prince, a great Warriour and Conqueror of the World. Others[125] of them, like the Fathers, expected he would be a Prophet like Moses in all Things, and deliver his People out of another Egypt: But here the Samaritans expected he would be a Conjurer and Fortune-Teller; or there is no Sense in what the Woman said to the Men of the City, v. 29. Come and see a Man that has told me all that I have done, particularly my Fortune of having had five Husbands, and being now an Adulteress, Is not this the Christ? What could she mean, but that the Messiah would be a strolling Fortune-Teller, to inform People of the Events of their Lives past and to come? And Jesus to humour the Woman in her Conception of himself and of the Messiah, says to her, v. 26. I that speak unto thee, am He. Whether our Divines like Jesus the better for this Story of him literally, I can't tell; but I am sure they dislike the Fortune-telling Trade at this Day in others, and believe it to be all Fraud, and are for punishing strolling Gypsys for Cheats, who practice it; and in the last Age were intent on the[126] Prosecution of judicial Astrologers, who pretended to it: And if antient History had furnish'd us with an Instance of the Punishment of a pretended Fortune-Teller in the Reign of Tiberius, they could not have found Fault with it. Whether any Accusations were laid against Jesus for such his Delusions of the People, we know not. Evangelical History is silent, or the Evangelists have prudently suppressed it. But I much wonder, that our Gypsys, from this Story, don't account themselves the genuine Disciples of Jesus, being endu'd with the like Gifts and exercising no worse Arts, than he himself practised.

If the Samaritans did not expect the Messiah would be a Fortune-Teller; how came the Thought into the Woman's Head, that Jesus was the Messiah, because he had told her, her Fortune? What can our Divines say to it? Why, they must either say, that his telling the Woman her Fortune was a real Proof of his Messiahship; or that the Woman was foolish and credulous, and drew a false Conclusion; and if she had not been an impudent and graceless Whore, would have gone away blushing, and never have divulg'd, as the Text supposes she did, her Shame to the Men of Sychar, who too had but little Wit, or they had never stir'd from their Homes, to see such a Fortune-Teller upon the Report of a poor Whore.

But the Men of the City had their Fortunes too told them by Jesus, and they concluded him to be the Messiah upon it; or there is no Sense in what they v. 42. said to the Woman, Now we believe not because of thy Saying, for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ: What could they hear, but their Fortunes, as the Woman had before? And if Jesus, whose Ability at all fair Questions in the magic Art I don't question, did tell them their Fortunes; I hope he had more Prudence than to talk to them in common of their Fornications and Adulteries, which might occasion domestick Jarrs, and the Breach of good Neighbourhood amongst them; but if he directed any of them to find their lost Cattle, and help'd them again to their stolen Goods, he did well, and they alone did amiss, to conclude thereupon, that he was indeed the Christ. Let our Divines now judge whether I have not made a natural and excellent Comment on this part of the Story, which relates to the Expectation and Opinion, which the Samaritans had of a Messiah to come. But,

Secondly, From this Story literally our Divines prove Jesus's[127] Omniscience; and Cardiognostick Power to tell what was in the Hearts and Thoughts of Man. But how so? Is it because he told a Woman, that she was an Adulteress, and had had five Husbands? Where's the Consequence? Duncan Campbel, and other Moorfields-judicial-Astrologers have done greater Feats at Conjuration than this, and never were thought to be Omniscient. And for any Thing appears in this Story of our Saviour, it might be all Cheat and Fraud in him. If Infidels should assert it, our Divines could not disprove it. If they should say, it was possible for Jesus to get Intimations of these and other Circumstances of the Woman's Life, before he attempted to tell her, her Fortune; we can't say, that this is an impious and unreasonable Suggestion, since it is the common Subtilty of delusive Fortune-Tellers, to get what Intelligence they can by Insinuations and Informations, before they utter their Oracles, and ambiguous Responses to simple poor Folks. And there is one Circumstance in this Story, that looks very ill upon Jesus, and is enough to make him suspected for a Cheat in his pretended Art, and that is, he seems to draw the Woman in by a[128] Wile to hear her Fortune, saying to her, v. 16. Woman go, call thy Husband; upon whose denying she had any Husband, Jesus was forward, very forward to surprize her with his Knowledge of her having had five Husbands, and living then in Adultery; which raising the silly Woman's Admiration of his prophetick and soothsaying Talent, he closes with her Conceptions, and what upon other Occasions, before wiser People, he was[129] backward to own, says to her, that he was the Messiah; and so he pass'd for the Messiah with her and the Men of Sychar, who had no more Wit than to receive him for such, upon such Proof, and gave him Entertainment for no less than v. 40. two Days. I am glad we hear of no Money, he squeez'd out of them for the exercise of his prophetick Art, which our Divines would have made an Argument of their Divine Right to Tythes, Fees, and Stipends for their Divinations.

But no more of this silly Story according to the Letter. To point at it is enough to expose it to the considerate and unprejudiced. I could not help saying so much as I have; because it is necessary to form some Invective against the Letter, to make way for the Reception of the mystical and allegorical Interpretation of it, which I am now to speak to.

Tho' the Fathers, against whose Authority I dare not write, or I should be tempted to it in this Case, acknowledge the Letter of this Story, suspecting only some[130] particular Passages of it; yet they look upon the whole, for all that, as a[131] typical Narration, and endeavour at the mystical Construction of all and every part of it. St. Augustin, as if he was afraid some Christians of after Times should espouse, as our Divines do, only the Letter, prefaces his Exposition of this Story with these Words, saying,[132] There are mysteries in all the Sayings and Actions of our Saviour, particularly in the Story of the Woman of Samaria, and whoever carelesly and imprudently (meaning literally) interprets it, will advance erroneous and pernicious Doctrine; which, if modern Commentators had any Regard for the Authority of St. Augustin, is enough to deter them from their literal Expositions. The most literal Interpreter among the Fathers, whom I know of, is St. Cyril, and he says[133] there is a Type and Parable in this Story. But to descend to Particulars.

By the Woman of Samaria is to be understood an[134] Heretical and Adulterous Church, which Jesus, being wearied with her[135] corrupt State, will meet with in the sixth Hour, that is in[136] the sixth grand Age of the World. So, by the By, according to the Fathers, Jesus will come to, and meet with the Samaritan Church to her Edification, at the same time, that he cures the Church of her Issue of Blood and Spirit of Infirmity.

And where did Jesus meet with the Woman of Samaria? At Jacob's Well, where she was for Water to quench Thirst: So at the[137] Well of the Holy Scriptures, whose Sense lies deep as in a Well, and flows with Knowledge as with Water, will Christ then find his Church, drawing and drinking of the[138] Waters of the Letter, which could not quench the Thirst of the Soul hitherto: But in the Perfection of Time, signified by the sixth Hour, will Christ, according to the Fathers, enable her to draw out of this Well of the Profundity of the Scriptures, spiritual Waters of Divine Knowledge, which will daily more and more, like the Fountains of the Waters of Life, arise and flow in upon the Soul, and constantly recreate and refresh her with Wisdom, to her Delight and Satisfaction; so as she may be said never to thirst more, after the Manner she does now.

And Jesus then told the Woman of Samaria, all that she had done: So will Christ in the sixth Hour, that is, towards the latter End of the sixth Age of the World, give the Woman of the Church to understand all that she has done, according to the Writings of Moses and the Prophets, who, upon the Testimony of the Fathers, have written a prophetical History of her, in Types, Symbols and Parables; which Understanding of the Things that have been prophecy'd of her, will enable her, of Consequence, to prove and declare to the World, with Joy and Pleasure, that Jesus is the true Messiah, the Christ, and Fulfiller of the Law and the Prophets.

But particularly, as Jesus then told the Woman that she had had five Husbands, and was then an Adulteress with one who was not her true Husband: So the Church will be made to apprehend, according to[139] Origen and[140] St. Augustin, and others, how she has had five Husbands of the five bodily Senses, that is, metaphorically speaking, has been wedded not only to sensual Pleasures, but to the sensible Things of the Letter of the five Books of Moses; and that at present, consequently, she lives in Adultery[141] with Anti-Christ, whom the Fathers call the Devil, instead of the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of the Law, who should be her true Spouse, whom she should call for, and believe in.

And not only the Woman of Samaria, but the Men of the City, Sychar, believ'd Jesus to be the Messiah, v. 42, upon what he said to themselves as well as to her: So the Ministers of the Letter, who are Sycharites, according to Origen and Theophanes Cerameus, will be clearly convinced, and be able to convince others, that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah, when they shall hear, learn and apprehend from the Spirit of the Law and the Prophets, that the Church and all she has been doing, was foretold and prophecy'd of.

Lastly, Jesus's Disciples, v. 27. are said to Marvel that he talk'd with the Woman. What in the Name of Wonder, literally, could be the Meaning of this? Did they Marvel at Jesus's Condescention to speak to a Woman, as if the Sex was beneath his Care? Or did they Marvel that he who was very bashful, had Courage to speak to one? Or did they Marvel at his Conversation with a Whore, for fear of his being tempted by her? Some one or other of these must be the Marvel of the Disciples; but how absurd and ridiculous they all are, according to the Letter, let a reasonable Man judge. But mystically, the true Disciples of our Lord, who understand the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, will, when they are apprized of Jesus's spiritual Conversation with his Church, and of all the Things that she has done according to Prophecy, Marvel with rapturous Astonishment at the Wisdom and Power of God in the Accomplishment of the Scriptures.

After such a Mystical and Allegorical Manner, is every minute Circumstance of this Story of the Samaritan Woman to be apply'd. St. Augustin[142] says there are so many great Mysteries contain'd in it, that they require much Time to go through them all. I find it so, and that no less than a Volume might be written of them, out of the Fathers. But what I have briefly here touch'd on, is enough to convince any one of the Absurdities of the Letter of this Miracle, which consisted in the telling a Woman her Fortune, and such a Fortune, as Jesus by Craft might come to the Knowledge of. Therefore, for the Honour of Jesus, let us look upon the whole Story as a typical and parabolical Representation of what would be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.

And thus I have spoken to the three Miracles, proposed to be treated on in this Discourse. Before I enter upon my third general Head, which is, to consider what Jesus means when he appeals to his Miracles as to a Witness of his Divine Authority; I must take to Task some more of his pretended Miracles even till I have not left him a good, credible and substantial Miracle, according to the Letter, to appeal to. The Consequence of which will be, that his mysterious Operations are to prove his Authority and Messiahship, or we must give up him and his Religion for a Piece of Fraud and Imposture.

What Miracles will be the Subject of my next Discourse, I can't certainly foretell, but there are many Historical as well as miraculous Parts of Jesus's Life, that according to the Letter, are to be call'd into Question; such as

The History of his riding on an Ass to Jerusalem. I have given some Offence on this Point already in my Moderator, and ought to excuse or justify my self, by calling the Fathers to Account for laughing at the Letter of that Story. It was an untoward saying of St. Jerome, that I there cited, and suffered a Prosecution for: But it is a worse Intimation of St. John of Jerusalem, who, if there was any literal Truth in the Peoples pulling off their Garments, and Branches of Trees, and strewing them in the Way of Jesus, will needs have it not respectfully but mischievously done, to make the Colt stumble, and so dismount his Rider. And according to him it may be questioned, whether the Hosannahs of the People were of any more Respect to Jesus, than the Huzzahs of a Mob would be to the Bishop of L——n, if to shew his Meekness and Lowlyness, he should ride upon an Ass, in his Pontificalibus through this City. But I have here a momentous Controversy to decide about the Beast Jesus rode on. St. Matthew seems to say, he rode upon both Ass and Colt together. St. Mark and St. Luke say, he rode upon the Colt, on which Man never before sat. The Bishop of Lichfield says, he rode upon the Ass (on which Man had before sat) and the Colt ambled after. St. Cyril and St. Chrysostom say, he rode upon the Colt, and the She-Ass trotted after. St. John the Evangelist says he rode upon a Mule, or an οναριον Ass-like Creature of the neuter Gender. The Jewish Cabalists say, their Messiah was to ride on a great huge Ass, big enough to carry him and all true Israelites, and that the Ministers of Antichrist would then hang an A-ss. So do the great Doctors of the World differ! To whom I shall decree the Prize of Orthodoxy, I shan't foretell; but am inclined to favour the Opinion of the Cabalists. However, I shall be very grave as well as learned on this Head: And if I can, I will, to oblige Dr. Sherlock, hook in a Digression about Shilo's binding his Fole to the Vine, and his Asses Colt to the choice Vine: The Accomplishment of which literal Prophecy seems to have been drop'd in the Providence of God, or the Dean of Chichester[143] had never stopt at it. I will endeavour to look it up, in some Corner of History, if it be but to merit the Praises of the Master of the Temple.

I must also sometime take into Consideration the Story of Jesus's Abode in the Wilderness, forty Days, in Company of the Devil, who tempted him. This literally, as our Divines understand it, is a Scandalous Story. The Jews, in our Saviour's Time, said, that through Belzebub, he cast out Devils; and their Posterity have asserted, that he learn'd the Magick Art of a Dæmon. This Story gives too much Grounds for such a Suspicion. Our Divines, who should know best, talk of abundance of Mischief, the Devil has been permitted to do in the World ever since; I hope it was not by Compact and Agreement between them; but it would have been of some Satisfaction to the Contrary, if the Evangelist had told us expresly upon what Terms they mett and parted. As Fables go, it is said to the Honour of St. Dunstan, that he took the Devil by the Nose, when he tempted him; and if Jesus had taken him by the Collar, and thrust him into his Dungeon, and there chain'd him, and shut Hell-Gates upon him; I appeal to honest plain Christians, whether such an Herculean Labour would not have pleased them well. Ever since I read of Martin Luther's Conversation with the Devil, I have had but indifferent Thoughts of his Protestantism; and unless the Fathers turn this Story before us into Mystery, Allegory and Cabalism, I shall think ill of Christianity.

I should also take into Examination the Story of an Angel's appearing to the Shepherds, and saying to them; Behold I bring you Tidings of great Joy, &c. If there was any Truth literally in this Story, and in that of a Star's appearing to the wise Men, there must be a great Mistake in the Report of both of them. St. Matthew and St. Luke have both blunder'd. It was the Star that appear'd to the Shepherds by Night; and the Angel (I speak upon Reason and Authority) that was sent to the wise Men. What then to do with these two Stories, and to salve the Credit of the Evangelists, I knew not, till the Fathers directed me to the Use of a mythological Metamorphosis: And then I presently learn'd the Trick on't, to transform Stars into Angels, and Shepherds too, or Pastors of Christ's Flock (which was the Difficulty) into wise Men; and so I made one Moral or Mistery of the two Fables.

I must also some Time take to task the Story of the many dead Bodies of the Saints, that upon Christs Resurrection, came out of their Graves, and appear'd unto many; which is too imperfectly related to merit Credit. The Evangelist, if he would have a reasonable Man believe his Story, should have told us, who those Saints were, and what Numbers of them; and whether they appear'd to the converted or unconverted Jews; whether they were some of the Patriarchs and Prophets of old, or some lately departed Disciples, who, for all Jesus's healing Power, died in the Time of his Ministry; and whether there were any Women among those Saints; and whether they appear'd naked (as Jesus modestly did to Mary Magdalen, unless he flip'd himself by Stealth into the Cloths of the Gardener, which might be the Reason of her Mistake, for she suppos'd she saw the Gardener) and whether they return'd again to Corruption, or ascended into Heaven. For want of these specifical Circumstances, the Evangelist has told us a Tale, that has neither Head nor Foot to it: and unless the Fathers mystically answer, to Satisfaction, every one of the aforesaid Queries, I'll reject this Story for mere Romance and Imposture.

These and many other historical and seemingly miraculous Stories of the Gospel, are some time to be taken into Consideration; for I will not give this Work over, till I have demonstrated beyond all Contradiction, that the evangelical Writings are but the Shadow of Divine Mysteries; and that literal Interpreters, whom[144] Origen calls vulgar Capacities, are under a Mistake, if they think, they understand any Thing, as they ought, of the four Gospels.

I should conclude now, as it becomes a Moderator, with an Address to Infidels and Apostates, the great Combatants in this Controversy. But I have not Room to be as large, as I would, in my Exhortations to them distinctly, so I can only desire them to continue the Controversy with Zeal and Vigour, not doubting but it will end to the Honour of Jesus, the Good of his Church, and the Happiness of Mankind. The blessed Fruits of this Controversy are already seen and felt in the almost Cure of a most malignant Distemper, call'd Bigottry, which has been the Bane of human Society, and in Times past more destructive of the World than either War or Pestilence. Go on then, Great and Good Sirs, till the Cure is perfected. And as you merit Praises and Rewards for your several Labours; So I hope you'll meet with them. The Nobility and Gentry, of the Kingdom, as I learn, are sensibly touch'd with the Usefulness of this Controversy; whereupon it is to be hoped the Legislative Authority will soon give Thanks to the great Mr. Grounds and Mr. Scheme for their Pains in it; and not forget to do Justice to the Bishops and Clergy according to their Merits. But I can't stay here to talk more on this Head, being obliged to make an Epistolary

P. S. To Mr. T. Ray, the Author of a Discourse, call'd Our Saviour's Miracles vindicated, &c. As I, Sir, enter'd the Press, you came forth, or I might possibly have paid more of my Respects to you another Way. But upon mature Consideration, I found a properer Reply could not be made to you, than is the foregoing Discourse; which, if you are not sick of your former Performance, will find you some more Work. And that you may write more pertinently against this Discourse, than you did against my other, I'll give you some Instructions, viz. if you think of writing to the Purpose, you must prove these two Things; First, that the Fathers did not hold the Stories of Jesus's Miracles to be typical and figurative; and Secondly, that Jesus's Miracles neither will nor can receive a mysterious and more wonderful Accomplishment. But you have not said one Syllable to either of these Points; consequently have written nothing to the Purpose against me. As for Instance; In the Miracle of Jesus's driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple: You should prove, First that the Fathers don't hold that Miracle to be typical of the future Ejection of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons out of the Church, that make Merchandize of the Gospel: And Secondly, that it was impossible that the Miracle should receive such an Accomplishment. But you have done nothing of this. So, if you should attempt again to write against this Discourse, as for Instance, against my Explication of the Miracle of Jesus's healing the Woman, that had an Issue of Blood; you must prove that that Story neither was in the Opinion of the Fathers Typical, nor could receive a mystical Accomplishment; or you may as well hold your Peace. And after all, whether your Reasonings for the Letter of Christ's Miracles, are equal to mine against it, let our Readers judge, who will easily discern, that you jump over my choicest Invectives against the Letter, as if you was afraid of being touch'd by them.

As to your charging me falsly in one or two Places, with Misrepresentations of the Fathers, I'll expostulate that Matter with you, when I hear that the Bishop of London gives your Performance, the Reputation of a solid, and substantial one, by a Change of your Cloak into a Gown, which you seem to aim at; or you had never so besmear'd the Bishop with your Compliments, nor had been so mealy-mouth'd as to the Point of Liberty.

But what need you, Sir, have told the World, that you take me for an Unbeliever of the Scriptures. If the Bishop's wise Prosecution of me for an Infidel had not given you the Hint, you could never of your self have made that Discovery. And why did you not join the Fathers with me in Unbelief? I thought I had been of the same Faith with them. A Man of your Penetration into another's Principles, will, I suppose, from this present going Discourse, conclude me to be a downright Atheist. And what must I do then to clear my self!

If you write any more, Sir, I desire you, without making more Haste than good Speed, to be as expeditious as you can; or you will not prevent my Publication of another Discourse, like these two, to the Honour of Jesus, to whom be Glory for ever and ever. Amen.

FINIS.

A THIRD

DISCOURSE

ON THE

MIRACLES

OF OUR

SAVIOUR,

In View of the Present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates.

Litteratos gravissimo Somno stertere convincam, Hieron.

The Third Edition.

By Tho. Woolston, B.D. sometime Fellow of Sidney-College in Cambridge.

LONDON:

Printed for the Author, and Sold by him next door to the Star, in Aldermanbury, and by the Booksellers of London, and Westminster. 1728.

[Price One Shilling.]

TO THE

Right Reverend Father in GOD

RICHARD,

Lord Bishop of St. David's.

My Lord,

n your Sermon before the Societies for Reformation of Manners, you are pleased to give a Character of my former Discourses on Christ's Miracles; which, tho' I don't at all like, yet I thank you for the Favour of taking Notice of them; a Favour that I have long'd for from a considerable Clergyman; but could not flatter myself with the Hopes of receiving it from so great a Prelate.

Some of the inferior Clergy, whom I despise for their Ignorance and Malice, have before in their Conversation represented me as an impious and blasphemous Infidel; and I have met with Affronts for it: But I never imagin'd that any, much less your Lordship, would have ventur'd such a Character of me from the Press, for fear of a Resentment, which would not be agreeable. Surely your Lordship has not read my Discourses, but has taken a Report of them upon Trust, from some Ecclesiastical Noodle; or you could never have been so much mistaken about my Design in them.

I took myself to be a Christian of the same Faith with the Fathers of the Church; and, without Vanity, think, I have publish'd some Tracts, in Defence of Christianity, equal, if not superior to any Thing this Age has produced. I repeatedly also in my Discourses on Miracles, to obviate the Prejudices of an ignorant Clergy, made solemn Protestations of the Sincerity of my Design, not to do Service to Infidelity, but to make Way for the Demonstration of Jesus's Messiahship from Prophecy: But all these Asseverations of the Integrity of my Heart, it seems, stand for nothing (and I don't wonder at it) with the Clergy, who in their Principles, their Oaths, and Subscriptions are so accustom'd to prevaricate with God and Man. I shall make no more serious Protestations of my Faith, but expect your Lordship should soon publish a Defence of your foul Charge against me, that I may see what Skill you have in the impious and blasphemous Writings of an Infidel.

And if your railing Accusation be not soon followed with a Dissertation of more Reason, I shall insist on a publick Reparation of the Injury done to my Reputation by your vile and slanderous Sermon; and appeal to the worshipful Societies for Reformation of Manners, whether it be not just and reasonable, you should do one or the other.

Now I have laid hold on your Lordship, than whom I could not have wish'd for an Adversary, that will do me more Honour to overcome, I will hold you fast; and you must expect to be teaz'd and insulted from the Press, if you enter not the Lists against me.

A clear Stage, my Lord, and no Favour. If you have the Sword of the Spirit in your Hand, cut as sharply as you can with it. I had conceiv'd a great Opinion of your Learning, and should have been a little apprehensive of the Power of it; if you had not in your Sermon betray'd as great Weakness and Ignorance, as could be in a poor Curat; or you had never asserted that the Greek Commentators adher'd more strictly, to the litteral Sense of the Holy Scriptures; as if you knew not, that St. Theophilus of Antioch, and even Origen himself and others, the greatest Allegorists, if a Comparison may be made, were Commentators of the Greek Church.

The sooner your Lordship appears from the Press, the better, in as much as you may possibly prevent my Publication of more Discourses of this Kind. And that it may not be long first, I will accept of a Dissertation from you, on any two or three of the Miracles, I have handled, as sufficient for all. Take your Choice of them: but don't I beseech you, touch the Miracle of Jesus's driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple, because it is a hot one, and may possibly burn your Fingers. The Miracles, that I have most ludicrously and, of consequence, most offensively handled, are the two of this present Discourse. If you please, my Lord, let them be the easy and short Task imposed on you. If you can defend the Letter of the Stories of these two Miracles, I'll quietly give up the Rest to you.

So heartily thanking your Lordship for the Favour done me, in taking Notice of my Discourses on Miracles, which shall be turn'd to good Use and Advantage, I subscribe myself,

Feb. 26.
1728

My LORD,
Your most obliged
Humble Servant,
Tho. Woolston.

A THIRD

DISCOURSE

ON THE

MIRACLES

OF OUR

SAVIOUR, &c.

y two former Discourses having met with a favourable Reception, I am encourag'd to go on and publish another; which, without any more Preface, I enter upon, by a Repetition of three general Heads, at first proposed to be spoken to, and they were,

I. To show that the Miracles of healing all Manner of bodily Diseases, which Jesus was justly famed for, are none of the proper Miracles of the Messiah, neither are they so much as a good Proof of his divine Authority, to found a Religion.

II. To prove, that the literal History of many of the Miracles of Jesus, as recorded by the Evangelists, does imply Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities; consequently they, either in whole or in part, were never wrought, as they are commonly believed now-a-days, but are only related as prophetical and Parabolical Narratives of what would be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.

III. To consider, what Jesus means, when he appeals to his Miracles, as to a Testimony and a Witness of his divine Authority; and to show that he could not properly and ultimately refer to those he then wrought in the Flesh, but to those Mystical ones, that he would do in the Spirit, of which those wrought in the Flesh are but mere Types and Shadows.

Tho' I have already, spoken what may be thought sufficient, to the first of these Heads; yet I have several Things still, both from Reason and Authority, to add to it; but having not here a convenient Place for that purpose, I defer it to a better Opportunity; and so pass immediately to the Resumption of my

II. Second general Head, and that is, to prove, that the literal History of many of the Miracles of Jesus, as recorded by the Evangelists, does imply Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities; consequently they, either in whole or in part were never wrought, as it is commonly believed now-a-days, but are only related, as Prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what would be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.

To this Purpose I have taken into Examination six of the Miracles of Jesus, viz. those.

1. Of his driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple.

2. Of his exorcising the Devils out of the Mad-men, and sending them into the Herd of Swine.

3. Of his Transfiguration on the Mount.

4. Of his healing a Woman, that had an Issue of Blood, twelve Years.

5. Of his curing a Woman that had a Spirit of Infirmity, eighteen Years, and

6. Of his telling the Samaritan Woman her Fortune of having had five Husbands, and being then an Adulteress with another Man.

Whether I have not prov'd the Storys of these Miracles, either in whole or in part, to consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and incredibilities, according to the Proposition before us, I leave my Readers to judge; and now will take in Hand

7. A Seventh Miracle of Jesus; viz. that[145] of his cursing the Figtree, for not bearing Fruit out of Season; which Miracle, upon the bare mention of it, appears to be such an absurd, foolish, and ridiculous, if not malicious and ill-natured Act in Jesus, that I question, whether, for Folly and Absurdity, it can be equalled in any Instance of the Life of a reputed wise Man. The Fathers, such as Origen, St. Augustin, St. John of Jerusalem, and others, have all said as smart Things, as the wittiest Infidels can, against the Letter of this Story. St. Augustin[146] very plainly says, that this Fact in Jesus, upon Supposition that it was done, was a foolish one. If therefore I treat this Story a little more ludicrously than ordinary, and expose the Folly of the Fact as well as of the modern Belief of it, I hope their Authority and Example will plead my Excuse for it.

Jesus was hungry, it seems, and being disappointed of Figs, to the Satisfaction of his Appetite, cursed the Figtree. Why so peevish and impatient? Our Divines, when they please, make Jesus the most patient, resign'd and easy under Sufferings, Troubles and Disappointments, of any Man. If he really was so, he could hardly have been so much out of Humour, for want of a few Figs, to the Allay of his Hunger. But to curse the Figtree upon it, was as foolishly and passionately done, as for another Man to throw the Chairs and Stools about the House; because his Dinner is not ready at a critical Time, or before it could be got ready for him.

But Jesus was hungry, some will say, and the Disappointment provoked him. What if he was hungry? He should, as he knew the Return of his Appetite, have made a better and more certain Provision for it. Where was Judas his Steward and Caterer with his Bag of Victuals as well as Money? Poor Forecast, and Management amongst them, or Jesus had never trusted to the uncertain Fruits of a Figtree, which he espy'd at a Distance, for his Breakfast.

And if Jesus was frustrated of a long'd-for Meal of Figs, what need he have so reveng'd the Disappointment on the[147] senseless and faultless Tree? Was it, because he was forc'd to fast longer than usual and expedient? not so, I hope neither: Could not Angels, if he was in a desert Place, have administered unto him? Or could not he miraculously have created Bread for himself and his Company, as he multiplied or increased the Loaves for his Thousands in the Wilderness? What Occasion then for his being out of Humour for want of Food? If he was of Power to provide Bread for others on a sudden, he might sure have supply'd his own Necessities, and so have kept his Temper, without breaking into a violent Fit of Passion, upon present Want and Disappointment.

But what is yet worse, the Time of Figs was not yet, when Jesus look'd and long'd for them. Did ever any one hear or read of any thing more[148] unreasonable than for a Man to expect Fruit out of Season? Jesus could not but know this before he came to the Tree, and if he had had any Consideration, he would not have expected Figs on it, much less, if he had regarded his own Reputation, as a wise Man, would he have so resented the Want of them. What, if a Yeoman of Kent should go to look for Pipins in his Orchard at Easter, (the supposed Time[149] that Jesus sought for these Figs) and, because of a Disappointment, cut down all his Trees; What then would his Neighbours make of him; Nothing less, than a Laughing-stock; and if the Story got into our publick News, he would be the Jest and Ridicule of Mankind. How Jesus salv'd his Credit upon this his wild Prank; and prevented the Laughter of the Scribes and Pharisees upon it, I know not; but I cannot think of this Part of the Letter of this Story, without smiling at it at this Day; and wonder our Divines are not laugh'd out of Countenance for reading it gravely, and having Jesus in Admiration for it.

Again, I would gladly know, whose Figtree this was, and whether Jesus had any legal Right to the Fruit, if haply he had found any on it, or any Leave or Authority to smite it with a Curse for its Unfruitfulness? As to the Tree's being Jesus's Property, that could not be. For he was so far from being either Landlord or Tenant, that it's said he had not where to lay his Head. During the Time of his Ministry, he was but a Wanderer, like a Mendicant Fryar, or an itinerant Preacher, and before that Time was no better than a Journeyman Carpenter (of whose Workmanship, I wonder, the Church of Rome has no holy Relicks, not so much as a Three-footed-stool, or a Pair of Nutcrackers;) consequently he had no House nor Land of his own by Law, much less any Figtree, and least of all this which he espy'd at a distance in his Travels. How then had he any Right to the Figs, if he had met with any? I hope he ask'd Leave beforehand of the Proprietor, or Infidels will say of him, that if he had had an Opportunity he would have been a Rob-Orchard. And it he had no Right to the Fruit, much less to smite the Tree with a Curse; where was his Honour,[150] his Justice, his Goodness, and his Honesty in this Act? The Evangelists, if they would have us to think, Jesus did no wrong to any Man, should have left us somewhat upon Record, to Satisfaction, in this Case; or Infidels, who have here Scope for it, will think worse of Jesus, than possibly he may deserve. Whether Jesus, modestly speaking, met with any Blame or Reprimand from the Proprietor, for his Act of Execration, none can affirm or deny. But if any one so spitefully and maliciously should destroy almost any other Tree, whether fruitful or not, of another Man's, in this Country, he would have good Luck, if he escaped the House of Correction for it.

And what now have our Divines to say, to all this Reasoning against the Letter of this Story? Nothing more than "That the Act of cursing the Figtree, whether it be at this Distance of Time reconcilable to Reason, Justice and Prudence or not, was a supernatural Work, above the Power of Nature or Art to imitate; consequently it was a Miracle, and they will admire and adore Jesus for it." And to agree with them at present, that it was a real Miracle, and a supernatural Event, yet I hope, they'll acknowledge, that if Jesus, as St. Augustin[151] says, had, instead of cursing the Figtree, made a dry, dead and withered one, immediately to bud, flourish and revive, and in an Instant to bring forth ripe Fruits, out of Season, it would have pleased them much better. Such an Instance of his Power had been an indisputable Miracle: Such an Instance of his divine Power had carry'd Goodness along with it, and none of the foresaid Exceptions could have been made to it: Such an Instance of his Almighty Power, had been a Demonstration of his being Lord of the Creation, and Author of the Fruits of the Earth for the Use of Man, in their Season, or he could not have produced them out of Season: In such an Instance of Power, his Divine Care and Providence against Hunger and Want would have been visible; and it would have been an Admonition to us, to depend daily upon him for the Comforts and Necessaries of Life: Such an Instance of his Power would have been, as St. Augustin says above, like his Miracles of healing Diseases, of making the Languid, Sound; and the Feeble, Strong; and we might more certainly have inferr'd from one with the other, that both were the Operations of a good God. But this Instance of his cursing the Figtree in this Fashion spoils the Credit, and sullies the Glory of his other Miracles. It is in its own Nature of such a malevolent Aspect, that its enough to make us suspect the Beneficence of Christ in his other Works, and to question whether there might not be some latent Poyson and diabolical Design under the Colour of his fairer Pretences to Almighty Power. It is so like the malignant Practices of Witches, who, as Stories go, upon Envy, Grudge, or Distaste, smite their Neighbours Cattle with languishing Distempers, till they die, that it's hard, if not impossible, to distinguish one from the other, in Spite and Malice. If Mahomet, and not Jesus, had been the Author of this Miracle, our Divines would presently have discover'd the Devil's Foot in it, and have said that Satan drew him into a Scrape, in the Execution of this mad and foolish Frolick, on purpose to expose him for a Wizard and his Musselmen of all Ages since for Fools in believing on him. The Spirit of Christ, who is all Love and Mercy, should, one would think, breath forth nothing but Goodness and Kindness to Mankind; but that such a pestilential Blast, like a mortiferous North-East Wind in some Seasons, should proceed from his Mouth, to the Destruction of another Man's harmless and inoffensive Tree, is what none upon Earth can account for.

Our Divines, one or other of them, have publish'd several notable Notions about Miracles, and have laid down good Rules to distinguish true from false ones; but none of them, as far as I perceive, have taken any Pains to shew the Consistence of Jesus's Miracles to their own Rules and Notions. Mr. Chandler, (who as the Archbishop[152] says, has rightly slated the Notion of a Miracle) among his Rules of judging by whom Miracles are perform'd, says,[153] That the Things pretended to be done, are to be such, as that it is consistent with the Perfections of God to interest himself in; and again, they must be such as answer to the Character of God as a good and gracious Being; and again, It seems reasonable to believe, that whenever the first and best of Beings is pleased to send an extraordinary Messenger with a Revelation of his Will, he will furnish him with such Proofs of his Mission, as may argue, not only the Power of him in whose Name be comes, but his Love to Mankind, and his Inclination to do them good. I have no Dislike to these Notions of Mr. Chandler; but as it is not to be questioned, that he (and the Archbishop too) had this Miracle of Jesus's cursing the Figtree, and some others, as of his boisterous driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple; of his sending the Devils into the Herd of Swine; of his turning Water into Wine for the Use of Men, who had before well drank, &c. in his View, when he gave forth the foresaid Rules; (for acute and learned Writers in Theology are supposed to have their Wits about them;) so it is to be hop'd that he or the Archbishop will soon publish somewhat to reconcile these Miracles of Jesus to their own Notions; tho' I don't expect it before latter Lammas.

But after all, it may be questioned, if Infidels should go about it, whether this Work of Jesus was miraculous; and whether there was not more of the Craft of Man, than of the Power of God in it; or to use Mr. Chandler's[154] Words, whether it don't look like the little Tricks and cunning Deceits of Impostors. St. Matthew says, presently the Figtree withered away; but this presently is an indeterminate Time, and may be understood of a Day, or a Week or two, as well as of the Moment in which the Words were spoken, Let no Fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. St. Mark says, that in the Morning as the Disciples passed by; they saw the Figtree dry'd up from the Roots, which was at least the Day[155] after the Curse was utter'd, so that there was certainly four and twenty Hours for its withering; and if it is said that the Tree dry'd up from the Roots, it does not imply that the Trunk of it perish'd, or was reduc'd to nothing; but only that the green Leaves of the Whole, and of every Part of it, were in a withering Condition: And might not all this be done without a Miracle? What if Jews and Infidels should say, that Jesus, being minded to impose on his Disciples and Followers, took a secret Opportunity beforehand to lay his Carpenter's Ax to the Root of this Tree, and so imperceptibly circumcised it, as that the Leaves did, what they will do, wither in a Night and a Day's Time. God forbid, that I should think, Jesus did so; but as to the Possibility of such a Fraud in an Impostor, none can doubt of it.

I am so far from thinking there was any such Fraud in this supposed Miracle of Jesus, that I don't believe it was at all done by him according to the Letter: And for this I have not only a clear and intrinsick Proof from the Story itself; but the Authority of the Fathers. St. Ambrose, treating on the Parable of the Figtree in[156] St. Luke, intimates, that what St. Matthew and St. Mark write of Jesus's cursing the Figtree, is but[157] Part of the same Parable. And St. John of Jerusalem[158] says expressly enough, that the three Evangelists write of one and the same Figtree, consequently parabolically, and that, what St. Matthew and St. Mark write of it, was no more a literal Transaction, than the Parable in St. Luke. Thanks to these holy Fathers for their ridding us of the Belief of the Letter of this Story, which otherwise might have perplex'd us with its Absurdities before urg'd. And to their Opinion I desire it may be added and considered, whether it be not as reasonable in itself to take what the three Evangelists write of this Figtree as Part of one Story, as well as, what they write of the Woman with her Issue of Blood, and of Jesus's calling the Devils out of the Madmen, and of other Miracles which are but several Relations of the same Story, Parable or Miracle, Neither is it any Argument for a literal Transaction of this Miracle, that the Evangelists speak of it, as a Thing done: For, as Origen says, there are some Things spoken of in the Evangelists, as Facts, which were never transacted; so it is of the Nature of Prophecy (and our Saviour in his whole Life prophesied) to speak of Things to come, as if they were already past; because such Prophecies are not to be understood till after their Accomplishment, and then the Reason of the Use of the præter, instead of the future Tense, in Prophecy, will be visible. But what, in my Opinion, is an absolute Demonstration, that there's no Truth in the Letter of this Story, is, what our Saviour adds, upon the Disciples wondering at the sudden withering of the Figtree, saying,[159] that if they had Faith they should not only do what was done to the Figtree; but should say to this Mountain, (that was near him, I suppose) be thou removed and cast into the Sea, and it shall be done. But these Things were never litterally done by them, consequently Jesus himself did not litterally curse the Figtree; or the Disciples wanted Faith for the doing the said Miracles, which is an Absurdity to suppose; or Jesus talked idly of a Promise to invest them with a Power, they were never to be possess'd of. But of what ill Consequence to Religion, either of these Suppositions is, let the old Objection in Paschasius Rathertus[160] speak; which I shall not stay here to urge and revive; but only say at present, that if Jesus actually cursed a Figtree, his Disciples ought to have done so too, and to remove Mountains. If we adhere to the Letter in one Case, we must in the other also; but we are only to look to the Mystery in both, or St. Augustin[161] will tell us, that Jesus utter'd vain, empty and insignificant Words and Promises.

St. Augustin, who believes no more of the Letter of this Story, than I do, says, that the Works of Jesus are all figurative and of a spiritual Signification, which is so manifest from his Act of cursing the Figtree, as Men must,[162] whether they will or not acknowledge it. But he is mistaken: Tho' there might be none in his Time who would question, that this supposed Fact of Jesus had a mystical Signification; yet if he had liv'd in our Days, he would have met with Divines, who, for all the foresaid Absurdities and their Cogency to drive us to Allegory, do adhere to the Letter only, whether the Truth, Credibility and Reasonableness of it be defensible or not. But then to do Justice to St. Augustin's Assertion, he would have met with others, who against their Wills, interpret this Miracle figuratively, such as Dr. Hammond and Dr. Whitby, who say, Jesus cursed the Figtree by way of Type of the Destruction of the Jewish State, which declined and wasted away after the Similitude of this withering Tree. But why then don't these Commentators allegorically interpret and apply other Miracles of our Saviour? Because they think the Letter will stand good and abide the Test without an Allegory. And why do they allegorise this Miracle only? Because of the Difficulties and Absurdities of the Letter, which they can't account for. And are these Reasons good? No, certainly: The Evangelists should have made the Distinction for them. They should have told us, which Miracles are to be allegoris'd and mystically applied, and which are not; or we are to allegorise all or none at all. And how came these modern Allegorists of this Miracle to apply it as they do, and to make it a mystical Representation of the Ruin of the Jewish State? Did they take up this Notion of their own Heads, or did they borrow it of the Fathers? Why in all Probability they took the Hint from the Fathers; wherefore then don't they, what none of them do, cite and acknowledge their Authors for it? Because, like Men of Subtilty, they would be thought to devise it of themselves; for if they had quoted the Fathers for it, the Fathers would have oblig'd them, upon their Authority, to allegorise the rest of Jesus's Miracles, in the way that I have interpreted some of them; but this would not have agreed with their Stomachs for many Reasons. No Thanks then to the aforesaid Commentators for their allegorical Application of this Miracle, which they are again to desert, or abide the Consequence of allegorising others also, which for their Interests and Reputations they will not do. Therefore let them return again to the Letter of this Miracle, and say for it, what is all that is to be said for it, with Victor Antiochenus, an Apostatical Writer of the fifth Century,[163] that when we read this Passage of Scripture concerning the Figtree, Jesus cursed, we ought not curiously to enquire whether it was wisely or justly done of Jesus, or not; but we ought to contemplate and admire this Miracle, as well as that of Jesus's drowning the Swine, notwithstanding some think it void of the Face of Justice. Ay, ay, our Divines must allegorise all Jesus's Miracles, or betake themselves to this Opinion of Victor; which this Free-thinking Age will hardly let them quietly rest in. So, supposing our Divines to be, what they generally are, still Ministers of the Absurdity of the Letter, I pass to the Consideration of the Authority of the Fathers, and to see, whether we can't learn of them this Parable of the Figtree.

Who or what is meant by the Figtree seems not to be agreed among the Fathers; or, more properly speaking, they are not agreed, all of them to apply it always to one and the same Thing. Some, as[164] Gregory the Great, say Human Nature or Mankind is typified by the Figtree. Others, as[165] St. Hilary, say the Jewish Church or State is meant by it. Others, as[166] Origen say, it is a Type of the Church of Christ. So do the Fathers seem to be divided in their Opinions; but it is without any Difference or Inconsistency with each other. For as there is, according to the Fathers, Mystery upon Mystery in all the Actions of Jesus; so I believe the Figtree here, as a Type, may be properly enough apply'd to the foresaid three Purposes. And if the Fathers had been ask'd their Opinion in this Case, I dare say, they would have said so too. This is certain that Origen[167] understands it as applicable to the Jewish as well as the Christian Church. And St. Augustin, as Occasion offers itself, takes it in the foresaid three Senses. When they understand it as a Type of all Mankind, they say that the three Years of its Unfruitfulness are to be interpreted of the[168] three grand Periods of the World; the one before the Law of Moses; another under the Law; and the third under the Gospel; at the Conclusion of which third Period, as it was an ancient and common Opinion, Jesus in Spirit would come to his Figtree of Mankind, and animadvert on them for their Unfruitfulness, not by any Destruction of human Nature, but by a Cessation of its Unfruitful State, which then will wither away, and be turn'd into a fruitful one against the grand Sabbath, or acceptable Year, which is the Year signified in the Parable, that it is to be let alone to bring forth Fruit in. They that understand the Figtree as a Type of the Jewish State, mean by the three Years Jesus came to it, the three Years of his preaching among the Jews; at the End of which, after Christ's Passion and Resurrection, the Jewish State, like the Figtree, withered away, and, for its Unfruitfulness, was rooted up. They, that understand the Figtree as a Figure of the Church of Christ, by the three Years, mean the apocalyptical twelve hundred and sixty Days (that is, three Years and a half) of the Church's barren and unfruitful State in the Wilderness, at the Conclusion of which, the Fathers say, Jesus will come again to his Church or Figtree, seeking Fruit on it.

Some perhaps may be ready here to interpose with a Question, and say, how will Jesus then come to his Church? I have carefully perused the Fathers upon this Question, and can't find that they mean any more by Christ's second or spiritual Advent, than that clear Truth, right Reason and divine Wisdom (which are the mystical Names of Jesus) will descend upon the Church, on the Clouds of the Law and the Prophets, to the Removal of her unfruitful and unprofitable Errors, and to enable her to bring forth the Fruits of the Spirit, against the grand Sabbath. Neither can any reasonable Man conceive how otherwise[169] the Lord should come, (not with ten thousand of his Saints, as our Translation has it, but) εν μυριασιν αγιαις αυτου, that is, as Origen interprets, in his holy thousands of Allegorists ποιησαι κρισεν, to criticise upon all the Scripture, and to convince Ministers of the Letter of their abominable Errors, and of their horrid Blasphemies spoken, preach'd and printed against the Holy, (Ghost or) Spirit of the Law and Prophets. As to that literal and common Pulpit-Story (with all its Appendages) of Jesus's second Coming on ætherial Clouds, as on a Wool-sack, in his human, tho' glorious and majestick Appearance, for the Resurrection of Mens Bodies, by the Sound of a Trumpet, in the Audience of the Dead, &c. it is the most absurd, nonsensical and unphilosophical, (such groundless and worthless Stuff have the Clergy sold and preach'd to God's People!) that ever was told against Reason, against prophetick and evangelical Scripture, and against other antient and good Authority. It is no Place here to multiply Testimonies and Arguments to either of these Purposes which my Readers, if they do but attend, will see no Occasion for. But if our Divines should think I have put a false Gloss on the Text of St. Jude above, I have a Bundle of Arguments and Testimonies to produce in Defence of it, at their Service.

In the Parable of St. Luke, it is said, Lo, these three Years come I seeking Fruit on this Figtree; as if Jesus came annually and successively for three Years together: but according to the Original, it ought to be read, Lo, it is three Years and I now come, or, Lo, the three Years are now past, and I come. And here it is to be noted, that whether we understand the Figtree, as a Figure of the Church in particular, or of Mankind in general; the mystical Number of three Years will terminate about the same Time, against the Evangelical Sabbath, on which the Unfruitfulness of the Church, or of Mankind, according to the Fathers, is to have an End put to it.

And Jesus, when he came to the Figtree, found nothing thereon but Leaves only: So Jesus, when he comes to his Church, will find nothing in her but Leaves only. And what is here meant by Leaves? Let the Fathers, such as[170] St. Hilary, St. John[171] of Jerusalem, and[172] St. Theophylact tell us, who by Leaves understand a vain and empty Appearance of Wisdom and good Works, or the Words and Letter of the Scriptures, which are the Leaves of the Oracle, without any Figs of spiritual Interpretations of them. And whether this ben't the Case of the Church at present, our Divines are to consider. The Figs that Jesus may be supposed to look for at his Coming, are not only the Fruits of the Spirit mention'd by St. Paul, but[173] spiritual Interpretations of the Scriptures, which St. Jerome[174] says are mystical Figs; because, as ripe Figs are sweet to the Palate of our Mouths, so are they no less delicious to the Soul of Man.

But Jesus is said to be hungry after Figs: so will Jesus in Spirit hunger for the mystical Figs of his Church, that is, as Origen[175] rightly interprets, he will earnestly desire, like a Man that is hungry, the Fruits of the Spirit in his Church, which will be as grateful to him as Figs can be to a Man naturally. To understand this Expression of Jesus's Hunger literally, is such a mean Circumstance of Life, that unless it be, what's next to impossible, necessarily introductory to some noble Transaction, its unfit to be remember'd of a Saint in History. Diogenes Laertius would have disdain'd to mention such a frivolous Circumstance in the Life of a Philosopher as this of Jesus. But if we understand this Hunger in Jesus mystically, and figuratively of his Desires of the Fruits of the Spirit in his Church, it is sublime and noble; and the Emblem confessedly proper and instructive.

But Jesus is said to come to the Figtree at an unseasonable Time; For the Time of Figs was not yet; which Expression has been the Perplexity of Commentators, who with all their Wit and Sagacity can't get well over it. I shall not mention here all or any of their pretended Solutions of this Difficulty; but let us see whether we can't easily and at once unlose it. St. Mark's Words are ου γαρ ην καιρος συκων, which are and have been commonly translated, for the Time of Figs is not yet. But if we change the Point into an Interrogation, and read thus, for was it not the Time of Figs? the Difficulty vanishes as certainly, as that it is absurd to suppose Christ should come to his Figtree and look for Fruit, when he could not reasonably expect any. This my Solution of this Difficulty certainly serves the Purpose of the mystical Interpretation; and if it does not the litteral, I answer, we are not to heed the Letter, which seldom or never has any Sense or Truth in it. But, by the by, it does the litteral too, since there are no Grounds from the Text to think, what has been the common Opinion, that it was about the Jewish Passover that Jesus came to the Figtree. If this my Solution of the Difficulty don't please, I must say with[176] Heinsius, that it must be left as a Knot for Elias to untie, who, according to the[177] ancient Jews, is first to gather Fruits off this mystical Figtree, and present them to the intellectual Taste of Mankind. But, that my Solution is good, will appear by what follows.

And Jesus finding Leaves only says, in St. Matthew, to the Figtree, Let no Fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever; which (with its parallel Place in St. Mark) is in my Opinion a false Translation: The Original is, Μηκετι εκ σου καρπος γενηται εις τον αιωνα, and ought to be englished, not as yet, or not until now, (that I come) against the (grand) Age (of the Sabbath) has Fruit grown on thee. So that the Miracle of Jesus was to make the Figtree of the Church fruitful; and if her preceding unfruitful State, which (in St. Mark) Jesus is said to curse, or rather to devote to Ruin, wasted away, it was by Consequence.

But what Time of Day was it that Jesus came to the Figtree? It was in the Morning. And of what Day? That is uncertain as to the Letter, but according to the mystical Extent of the Three Years, whether we understand the Figtree as a Type of the Church, or of all Mankind of all Ages, it will be on the Morning of the great Sabbath, when, upon the Appearance of the Light of Christ, like the Rising of the Sun, an unfruitful and erroneous Church must needs wither away. And the Disciples on the said Morning will, as Origen[178] says, with their intellectual Eyes behold her waste with Admiration. And then too, they under Christ will do what is done to the Figtree, of the Church, and remove Mountains of Antichristian Power, that exalt themselves against him; as the Fathers interpret, and I need not explain.

And what is meant by the Means, which St. Luke speaks of, to make the Figtree of the Church fruitful on the Sabbatical Year; the Year it is to be let alone to bear Fruit in? There must be digging about it, that is[179] into the Earth of the Letter of the Scriptures, and dunging of it, that is calling[180] to Remembrance her Sins and Errors of the Time past, which rationally speaking will make the Church to bring forth good Fruit.

After this Fashion is the rest of the Parable of the Figtree to be allegorized out of the Fathers. St. Gregory[181] the Great and St. Augustin, make these two Stories or Parables, viz. of the Figtree, and of the Woman with her Spirit of Infirmity, as they are blended together in St. Luke, to be Figures of the same Mystery. The eighteen Years of the Woman's Infirmity and the three Years of the Figtree's Unfruitfulness, they will have to be mystically synchronical. And the Woman's Incurvity to the Earth is, they say, significative of the same Thing with the Unfruitfulness of the Figtree. And the Erection of the Woman on the Sabbath is of the same Import with the Reservation of the Tree for Fruitfulness on that Day. And let any one see, if they don't admirally agree, as I have interpreted these two Parables.

Before I dismiss this Story of the Figtree, I can't but adore the Providence of God, that the Miracle has been hitherto placed in the withering away of the Tree. If the Miracle had been a plain Story of a dead and wither'd Tree's being made to bring forth Leaves and Fruit on a sudden; this would have been such a manifestly supernatural Work, and so agreeable to modern Notionists about Miracles, that Mens Thoughts would have been so absorpt in the Consideration of the Letter, as they would never have extended them to the Contemplation of the Mystery. And our Divines would have made such a Noise, in our Ears of the Excellency and Marvellousness of such a Miracle, as that there would be no bearing of it. But But as the Evangelists have in a good Measure suppress'd all mention of the after Fruitfulness of the Tree; and the Story, by Misconstruction, is clog'd with the foresaid Difficulties and Absurdities, we are of Necessity driven to the search after Mystery for good Sense and Truth in it.

And thus have I spoken enough to the Miracle of Jesus's cursing the Figtree, which according to the Letter is a foolish and absurd Story: But the mystical Operation, of which the Letter is a Shadow, will be ravishing, marvellous and stupendous; and not only a Proof of Christ's Power, and Presence in his Church, but a Demonstration of his Messiahship, in as much as an infinite Number of Prophecys upon Prophecys, will thereupon be discern'd to be accomplish'd, or the Church can't bring forth the Fruits of the Spirit, that is Spiritual Interpretations of the Scriptures, like ripe Figs. And so I pass to an

8. Eighth Miracle of Jesus, and that is,[182] "of his healing a Man of an Infirmity, of thirty eight Years Duration, at the Pool of Bethesda, that had five Porches, in which lay a great Multitude of impotent Folk, blind, halt, withered, waiting the troubling of the Waters, upon the Descent of an Angel, who gave a Sanative Virtue to them, to the curing of any one, be his Distemper of what kind soever, who first stept down into them."

This whole Story is what our Saviour calls a Camel of a monstrous Size for Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities, which our Divines, and their implicit Followers of these last Ages, have swallowed without chewing; whilst they have been straining at Knats in Theology, and hesitating at frivolous and indifferent Things of the Church, of no Consequence.

As to Jesus's Miracle in this Story, which consisted in his healing a Man, of no body knows what Infirmity, there neither is nor can be proved any Thing supernatural in it, or there had been an express Description of the Disease, without which it is impossible to say, there was a miraculous Cure wrought. As far as one may reasonably guess, this Man's Infirmity was more Lazyness than Lameness, and Jesus only shamed him out of his pretended Illness, by bidden him to take up his Stool and walk off, and not lie any longer, like a lazy Lubbard and Dissembler, among the Diseased, who were real Objects of Pity and Compassion: Or, if he was no Dissembler, he was only fancyfully sick, and Jesus by some proper and seasonable Talk touch'd his Heart, to his Relief; and so, by the Help of his own Imagination, he was cured, and went his Way. This is the worst that can be made of this infirm Man's Case; and the best that can be said of Jesus's Power in the Cure of him, as will appear, by and by, upon Examination into it. But the other Parts of the Story of the healing Virtue of the Waters, upon the Descent of an Angel into them, is not only void of all good Foundation in History, but is a Contradiction to common Sense and Reason, as will be manifest after an Inquiry into the Particulars of it.

St. John was the beloved Disciple of our Lord, and I hope he lov'd his Master: or he was worse than an Heathen, who loves those who love him: But this Story, and some others, that are peculiar to his Gospel, such as, of Jesus's telling the Samaritan Woman her Fortune; of his healing the blind Man with Eye-Salve made of Clay and Spittle; Of his turning Water into Wine for the Use of Men, who had before well drank; and of his raising Lazarus from the Dead, are enough to tempt us to think, that he wilfully design'd, either to blast the Reputation of his Master, or to try how far the Credulity of Men who through blind Love were running apace into Christianity, might be imposed on; or he had never related such idle Tales, which, if the Priesthood, who should be the philosophical Part of Mankind, had not been amply hired into the Belief of them, would certainly have been rejected with Indignation and Scorn before now.

St. John wrote his Gospel many Years after the other Evangelists: What then should have been his peculiar Business? Certainly nothing more, than to add some remarkable Passages of Life, to Jesus's Honour, which they had omitted; and to confirm the Truths which they had before reported of him. But St. John is so far from doing this, that the Stories, he has particularly added, are not only derogatory to the Honour of Jesus, but spoil his Fame for a Worker of Miracles, which the other Evangelists would raise him to. By reading the other Evangelists, one would think, that Jesus was a Healer of all manner of Diseases, however incurable by Art and Nature, and that where-ever he came, all the sick and the maim'd (excepting a few Infidels) were perfectly cured by him. But this Story before us will be like a Demonstration, that Jesus was no such Worker of Miracles and Healer of Diseases, as he is commonly believed to have been; and that he wrought not near the Number of Cures, he is supposed to have done, much less any great ones. The best Conception that an impartial Reader of the Gospel can form of Jesus, is, that he was a tolerable good natural Orator, and could handsomely harangue the People off hand, and was according to the Philosophy of the Times, a good Cabalist; and his Admirers finding him endewed with the Gift of Utterance, which was thought by them more than human, they fancy'd he must have the Gift of healing too, and would have him to exercise it; which he did with Success, upon the Fancies and Imaginations of many, who magnified his divine Power for it. And the Apostles afterwards, to help forward the Credulity and Delusion of the People, amplified his Fame with extravagant Assertions and strange Stories of Miracles, passing the Belief of considerate and wise Men. Whether this Representation of the Case, according to the Letter of the Gospels, be false and improbable, let my Readers judge by the Story before us, which I come now to dissect, and make a particular Examination into the several Parts of it. Accordingly it is to be observ'd

First, that this Story of the Pool of Bethesda, abstractedly considered from Jesus's Cure of an infirm Man at it, has no good Foundation in History: It merits no man's Credit, nor will any reasonable Person give any heed to it. St. John is the only Author that has made any mention of this Story; and tho' his Authority may be good, and better than another Man's in Relation to the Words and Actions of Jesus, in as much as he was most familiar and conversant with him; yet, for foreign Matters, that have no immediate Respect to Jesus's Life, he's no more to be regarded than another Historian, who, if he palm upon his Readers an improbable Tale of senseless and absurd Circumstances, will have his Authority questioned, and his Story pry'd into by the Rules of Criticism, and rejected or received as it is found worthy of Belief and Credit. If there had been any Truth in this Story before us, I cannot think but Josephus or some other Jewish Writers, it is so remarkable, peculiar and astonishing an Instance of the Angelical Care and Love to the distressed of Jerusalem, would have spoken of it: But I don't find they have; or our modern Commentators would have refer'd to them, as to Testimony of the Credibility of the Gospel-History. Josephus has professedly written the History of the Jewish Nation, in which he seems to omit nothing that makes for the Honour of his Country, or for the Manifestation of the Providence of God over it. He tells us of the Conversation of Angels with the Patriarchs and Prophets, and intermixes Extra-Scriptural Traditions, as he thought them fit to be transmitted to Posterity. How came he then and all other Jewish Writers to forget this Story of the Pool of Bethesda? I think, we may as well suppose that a Writer of the natural History of Somersetshire would neglect to speak of the medicinal Waters of Bath, as Josephus should omit that Story, which, if true, was a singular Proof of God's distinguishing Care of his peculiar People, or an Angel had never been frequently, as we suppose, sent to this Relief of the Diseased amongst them. Is then St. John's single Authority enough to convey this Story down to us? Some may say, that there are several Prodigies, as well as political Events of antient Times, that, tho' they are reported but by one Historian, meet with Credit; and why may not St. John's Testimony be equal to another Writer's? I grant it; and tho' it is hardly probable but that this Story, if true, before us, must have had the Fortune to be told by others; yet St. John's single Authority shall pass sooner than another Man's, if the Matter be in itself credible and well circumstanc'd. But where it is blindly imperfectly and with monstrously incredible Circumstances related, like this before us, it ought to be rejected. Which brings me,

Secondly, To ask, what was the true Occasion of the Angel's Descent into this Pool? Was it to wash and bath himself? Or, was it to impart an healing Quality to the Waters for some one diseased Person? The Reason, that I ask the first of these two Questions, is, because some antient Readings of v. 4. say[183] the Angel ελουετο was washed, which supposes some bodily Defilement or Heat contracted in the Cælestial Regions, that wanted Refrigeration or Purgaton in these Waters: But how absurd such a Thought is, needs no Proof. To impart then compassionately an healing Power to the Waters for the Benefit of the Diseased was the sole Design of the Angel's Descent into them. And God forbid, that any should philosophically debate the Matter, and enquire how naturally the Waters deriv'd that Virtue from the Angel's corporal Presence. The Thing was providential and miraculous, our Divines will say, and so let it pass. But I may fairly ask, why one diseased Person only at a Time reap'd the Benefit? Or why the whole Number of impotent Folks were not at once healed? I have a notable Answer presently to be given to these Questions; but I am afraid beforehand, our Divines will not approve of it: Therefore they are to give one of their own, and make the Matter consistent with the Goodness and Wisdom of God; or the said Questions spoil the Credit of the Story, and make an idle and ridiculous Romance of it. And when their Hands are in, to make, what it impossible, a satisfactory Answer to the said Questions; I wish, that, for the sake of Orthodoxy, they would determine, whether the Angel descended with his Head or his Heels foremost, or whether he might not come, swauping upon his Breast into the Waters, like a Goose into a Horse-pond. But,

Thirdly, How often in the Week, the Month or the Year did the Angel vouchsafe his Descent into the Pool? And for how many Ages before Christ's Advent, and why not since and even[184] now, was this Gracious and Angelical Favour granted? St. John should have been Particular as to these Points, which he could not but know Philosophers would be curious to enquire about. If it was but once in the Year, as St. Chrysostom[185] hints, little Thanks are due to him for his Courtesy. One would think sometimes, that his Descent was frequent; or such a Multitude of impotent Folk, variously disorder'd had never attended on it. And again at other Times, one would think that his Descent was seldom, or the Diseased as fast as they came, which could not be faster than the Angel could dabble himself in the Waters, had been charitably dismissed with restor'd Health. Here then is a Defect in St. John's Story, and a Block, at which wise and considerate Freethinkers will stumble. But,

Fourthly, How came it to pass, that there was not better Care taken, either by the Providence of God, or of the Civil Magistrates of Jerusalem about the Disposal of the Angelical Favour to this or that poor Man, according to his Necessities or Deserts: But that he, who could fortunately catch the Favour, was to have it. Just as he who runs fastest obtains the Prize: So here the Diseased, who was most nimble and watchful of the Angel's Descent, and could first plunge himself into the Pool, carried off the Gift of Sanation. An odd and a merry Way of conferring a divine Mercy. And one would think that the Angels of God did this for their own Diversion, more than to do good to Mankind. Just as some throw a Bone among a Kennel of Hounds, for the Pleasure of seeing them quarrel for it; or as others cast a Piece of Money among a Company of Boys for the Sport of seeing them scramble for it: So was the Pastime of the Angels here. It was the Opinion of some Heathens, that Homines sunt Lusus Deorum, the Gods sport themselves with the Miseries of Mankind; but I never thought, before I considered this Story, that the Angels of the God of the Jews did so too. But if they delighted in it, rare sport it was to them, as could be to a Town-Mobb. For as the poor and distressed Wretches were not to be supposed to be of such a polite Conversation, as in Complaisance to give place to their betters, or in Compassion to make way for the most miserable; but upon the Sight or Sound of the Angel's Fall into the Pool, would without Respect of Persons strive who should be first: So those who were behind and unlikely to be cured, would like an unciviliz'd Rabble, push and press all before them into it. What a Number then, of some hundreds perhaps, of poor Creatures were at once tumbled into the Waters to the Diversion of the City Mob, as well as of God's Angels? And if one arose out of it, with the Cure of his Disease, the rest came forth like drown'd Rats, to the Laughter of the foresaid Spectators; and it was well if there was not sometimes more Mischief done, than the healing of one could be of Advantage, to those People. Believe then this Part of the Story, let him that can. If any Angel was concern'd in this Work, it was an Angel of Satan who delights in Mischief; and if he healed one upon such an Occasion, he did it by way of Bait, to draw others into Danger of Life and Limb. But as our Divines will not, I suppose, bear the Thoughts of its being a bad Angel; so I leave them to consider upon our Reasonings, whether it was credible that either a good or a bad Angel was concerned, and desire them to remember to give me a better Reason, why but one at a Time was healed.

If any Pool or Cistern of Water about this City of London was so blessed with the Descent of an Angel to such an End, the Magistrates, such is their Wisdom, would, if God did not direct, take care of the prudent Disposal of the Mercy to the best Advantage of the Diseased. And if they sold it to an infirm Lord or Merchant, who could give for it most Money, to be distributed among other Poor and distressed People, would it not be wisely done of them? To suppose they would leave the Angelick Favour to the Struggle of a Multitude, is absurd and incredible. And why then should we think otherwise of the Magistrates of Jerusalem? Away then with the Letter of this Story! And if this be not enough to confute it. Then,

Fifthly, Let us consider, to its farther Confutation, who and what were the impotent Folk, that lay in the Porches of Bethesda, waiting the Troubling of the Waters. St. John says they were Blind, Halt, Withered, and as some Manuscripts[186] have it, Paraliticks. And what did any of these there? How could any of them be supposed to be nimble enough of Foot to step down first into the Waters, and carry off the Prize of Sanation, before many others of various Distempers? Tho' the troubled Waters might be of such medicinal Force as to heal a Man of whatsoever Disease he had; yet none of the foresaid Persons for want of good Feet and Eyes could expect the Benefit of it. Tho' the Ears of the Blind might serve him to hear, when the Angel plump't like a Stone into the Waters, yet through want of Sight for the guidance of his Steps, he would by others be jostled out of the right Way down into them. And if the Lame had good Eyes to discern the Descent of the Angel, yet Feet were all in all to this Purpose: Consequently these impotent Folk, specified by St. John, might as well have stay'd at Home, as resorted to Bethesda for Cure. I know not what Fools the Diseased of Jerusalem of old might be, but if there was such a Prize of Health to be strove for, by the Distempered of this City, I appeal to all Men of common Sense, whether the Blind, the Lame, the withered and Paralyticks would offer to put in for it. St. John then forgot himself, or else blundered egregiously, or put the Banter upon us, to try how far an absurd Tale would pass upon the World with Credit. There might be, if there was any litteral Sense in the Story, many of other Distempers, but there could be neither blind, halt nor withered, without such an Absurdity, as absolutely disparages the Story, blasts the Credit of the Relator, or rather brings to mind the Assertion of St. Ambrose, that the Letter of the New as well as of the Old Testament lies abominably. If what I have here said does not overthrow the Letter of this Story; Then what I have,

Sixthly, To add, will do it more effectually, and that is, of the certain Man, that had an Infirmity thirty and eight Years, and lay at this Pool for an Opportunity to be cured of it. Tho' these thirty and eight Years are, in our English Translation prædicated of this Man's Infirmity, yet more truly, according to the Original, are they spoken of the Time he lay there? and the Fathers so understood St. John's Words. What this Man's Infirmity was, we are uncertain: For ασθενεια Weakness or Infirmity is a general Name of all Distempers, and may be equally apply'd to one as well as to another: Whereupon, tho' we can't certainly say from this Man's Infirmity, that he was a Fool to lay there so long, expecting that Cure, which it was impossible for him to obtain; yet what he says to our Saviour, I have no Man, when the Waters are troubled to put me into the Pool, but while I am coming another steppeth down before me, does imply his Folly sufficiently, or rather the Incredibility of the whole Story. What then did this infirm Man at this Pool, if he had neither Legs of his own good enough, nor a Friend to assist him, in the Attainment of Sanation? Was he not a Fool, if it was possible for any to be so great a one, for his Patience? Would it not have been as wisely done of him to wait, in the Fields so long, the Falling of the Sky, that he might catch Larks? The Fathers say, this Man's Infirmity was the Palsy; but whether they said so for the Sake of the Mystery, or to expose the Letter, I know not. But that Distemper, after thirty and eight Years Duration, and Increase; if it was more curable than another at first, had in that time undoubtedly so weakened and render'd him uncapable to struggle with others for this Relief, that it is without Sense and Reason to think he should wait so long for it. Our Divines, if they so please, may commend this Man for his Patience, but after a few Years, or rather a few Days Experience, another Man would have been convinc'd of the Folly and Vanity of his Hopes, and returned Home. If he could not put in for this Benefit, with Prospect of Success in his more youthful Days, when the Distemper was young too, much less Reason had he to hope for it in his old Age, after thirty and eight Years Affliction, unless he dream'd of, what was not to be imagin'd, an Opportunity, without Molestation and Competition, to go off with it. Whatever then our Divines may think of this Man and his Patience, I will not believe there ever was such a Fool; and for this Reason will not suppose St. John could literally so romance, unless he meant to bambouzle Mankind into the Belief of the greatest Absurdity. A Man that Lies with a Grace to deceive others, makes his Story so hang together, as to carry the Face and Appearance of Truth along with it; which this of St. John, that for many Ages has been swallowed, for the Reason before us, has not. But what is the worst of all against this Story is,

Seventhly, That which follows, and absolutely destroys the Fame and Credit of Jesus for a Worker of Miracles. And V. 1, 2, 3. Jesus went up to Jerusalem, where there was by the Sheep-Market, a Pool, called Bethesda, having five Porches, in which lay a great Multitude of impotent Folk, blind, halt, withered. Why then did not Jesus heal them? Here was a rare Opportunity for the Display of his Healing and Almighty Power; and why did he not exercise it, to the Relief of that Multitude of impotent Folk? If he could not cure them, there's an End of his Power of Miracles? and if he would not, it was want of Mercy and Compassion in him. Which way soever we take this Case, it turns to the Dishonour of the Holy Jesus. What then was the Reason, that of so great a Multitude of diseased People, Jesus exerted his Power, and extended his Mercy, on only one poor Paralytick? St. Augustin[187] puts this Question and Objection into my Mouth; and tho' neither He nor I start it for the Service of Infidelity, but to make Way for the Mystery, yet I know not why Infidels may not make Use of it, till Ministers of the Letter can give a satisfactory Answer and Solution to it.

The Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, tell such Stories of Jesus's healing Power, as would incline us to think he cured all where-ever he came. He heal'd, they say, all Manner of Diseases among the People, and they make mention of particular Times and Places, where all the Diseased were healed by him, which Assertions imply, that Jesus's healing Power was most extensive and (excepting to an hard-hearted and unbelieving Pharisee now and then) universal; so far that it might be question'd, whether any died, during the Time of his Ministry, the Places where he came: And our Divines have so harangued on Jesus's Miracles, as would confirm us in such an Opinion: But this Story in St. John confutes and confounds all. St. John in no Place of his Gospel talks of Jesus's healing of many, nor of all manner of Diseases, much less of all that were Diseased; which, if it be not like a Contradiction to the other Evangelists, is some Diminution of their Authority, and enough to make us suspect, that they stretch'd much in praise of their Master, and said more to his Honour than was strictly true. But this Place before us is a flat Contradiction to them, and Jesus is not to be supposed to heal many in any Place, much less all manner of Diseases, or he had never let such a Multitude of poor Wretches pass without the Exercise of his Power and Pity on them. Some good Reason then must be given for Jesus's Conduct here, and such a one as will adjust it to the Reports of the other Evangelists; or Infidels will think, that either they romanc'd for the Honour of their Master, or that St. John in Spite told this Story to the Degradation of him. I can conceive no better of this Matter according to the Letter.

The Bishop of Litchfield very remarkably says,[188] that Jesus where-ever he went, healed all that came to him without Distinction, the impotent, halt, withered. He certainly had this Text of St. John in his Eye, when he said so, because Impotent, Halt, Withered, are only mention'd here, where Jesus cured none of them: Whereupon if his Lordship had made but a marginal Reference to this Text, it would have been the best Jest and Banter, with a Sneer, that ever was put upon Jesus and his Power of Miracles: As it is, it's a very good one, and I desire my Readers to take Notice of it, that his Lordship may not lose the Credit and Praise of it. It's for such Circumspection of Thought, Exactness of Expression, and Acuteness of Wit, that I admire that Prelate, and must needs say of him, whether he ever be translated to Canterbury or York, or not, that he's an arch Bishop.

But to return and go on. The Conduct of Jesus, to all Appearance, is not only blameable, his Power of healing disputable, and his Mercy indefensible, for that he cured but one infirm Man out of a Multitude, at Bethesda, but,

Eightly, and lastly, it may reasonably be questioned, whether he wrought any Miracle in the healing of this one Man. Miracles (to say nothing of the ridiculous Distinction between divine and diabolical ones) are Works done out of the Course of Nature, and beyond the Imitation of human Art or Power. Now whether the Cure of this infirm Man can be brought under this Definition of a Miracle, may be doubted. What this Man's Infirmity, which is a general Name for all Distempers, was, we know not. How then can we say he was miraculously cured, unless we knew his Disease to be incurable by Art, which none can affirm? The worst that we know of this Man's Case, is, that it was of a long Continuance, no less than of eight and thirty Years: And the Bishop of Litchfield and others in their florid Harangues of Jesus's Works, make the Cure of such Chronical Diseases to be miraculous: But why so? Many Instances may be given of Infirmities of human Nature, of a long Duration, which in Time, and especially in old Age, wear off. If such Infirmities don't occur to the Memory of our Divines, I could put them in Mind of them. And who knows but this was the Case of this impotent Man, whose Infirmity Jesus observing to be wearing off, bid him to be gone, and take up his Couch, for he would soon be made whole.

The Fathers indeed call this Man's Infirmity the Palsy, which in truth is generally worse than better by Time, and after thirty and eight Years, must needs be very deplorable, and incurable without a Miracle. But why do they call it the Palsy? They have no Authority for it from the Text, without which, as our litteral Doctors will not subscribe to their Opinions in other Cases; so why should I here? In short, the Fathers had never call'd it the Palsy, but for the sake of the Mystery; and I am not bound to own that to have been the Distemper, any more than it was want of Legs; for that would be making of Miracles for Jesus, without Reason and Authority.

If Jesus here had healed the whole Multitude of impotent Folk; without Enquiry what Numbers there might be of them, I should have believed that he wrought there many great Miracles, in as much as in such a great Multitude, there must needs, in all Probability, be some incurable by Art or Nature: But since he cured only this one Man, it affords Matter of Speculation, whether he was the most or the least diseased amongst them. Our Divines, for the sake of the Miracle, may possibly suppose him to be the most grievously afflicted of any; but Infidels, on the other hand, will say, not so: but with their Cavils will urge that this infirm Man was either a Dissembler, whom Jesus shamed out of his pretended Disease, or that he was only hippish, and fancyfully more than really distemper'd of a long Time, whom Jesus by suitable Exhortations and Admonitions, working upon his Imagination, persuaded into a Belief of his Cure, and bid him to walk off. Certain it is, that Infidels will say, it was not a Power of Miracles in Jesus which heal'd him, or he had used it then and there for the Sanation of others also.

And thus have I finish'd my Invective against the Letter of this Story; which, if any are offended at, they enjoy, what is the most reasonable Thing in the World, the same Liberty to write for the Letter, which I have used against it: And so I pass to the Consideration of the Opinions and Expositions of the Fathers on this strange Story.

The Fathers, upon whose Authority I form'd my preceding Invective against the Letter, so universally betake themselves to the mystical Interpretation of this Story, that it may be question'd, whether any of them, more than myself, believ'd any Thing at all of the Letter of it. St. Chrysostom, who is as much a litteral Interpreter of the Scriptures as any of them, here intirely discards the Letter, saying admirably thus,[189] what a strange Way and Story of healing the Diseased is here? but what is the Mystery of it? that we are to look to. The Matter could not be so simply and unadvisedly transacted litterally, as it is related. There must be somewhat future here, as by a Type and Figure, signify'd; or the Story, it is so incredible in itself, will give Offence to many. St. Chrysostom was certainly in the right on't; and I wonder, for which no Reason but want of Liberty can be given, that Infidels have not before now, with their Jests and Cavils, ridiculed this Story. St. Augustin, to the same Purpose, says,[190] Can any one believe, that these Waters of Bethesda were wont to be troubled in this Fashion, and that there was not Mystery, and a spiritual Signification in it? Yes, I could tell St. Augustin, that our modern Divines seem to believe it, tho' he, if he was now alive, would laugh at them for it. But to come to the profound Mystery signified by this Story, which to use the Words of[191] St. Augustin, as God shall enable me, I will now speak to.

Our English Version says, There is at Jerusalem by the Sheep-Market, a Pool. How our Translators came by the Notion of a Market here, I can't imagine, since there is nothing to favour it in the Original, which stands thus, επι τη προβατικη κολυμβηθρα: By κολυμβηθρα, the Fathers understand[192] Baptism, or the spiritual Laver of Regeneration; and who is that for, but the Flock of Christ, signified by προβατικη? So we have another and clearer Interpretation of these two Words. And as to Bethesda, that is a mystical Name of the Church, which according to the Signification of Bethesda, is the House of Grace. And if it is said to be at Jerusalem, it is not to be understood of the Old Jerusalem, but of the New and Apocalyptical Jerusalem, at the Entrance into which the Flock of Christ will be baptiz'd by the Waters of the Spirit, as in a mystical Laver.

Bethesda is said to have five Porches, that is, as the Fathers[193] agree, the five Books of Moses, which are as so many Doors of Entrance into the House of Wisdom, or of the Grace of Christ.

At these five Porches of the five Books of Moses lay a great Multitude of impotent Folk, blind, halt, withered. And who are these mystically? The ignorant, erroneous, and unstable in Faith and Principle, as the Fathers often understand them spiritually. And what is the Reason of these their mystical Diseases? Because, as St. Augustin[194] and other Fathers say, they rest on the Letter of the Law, which throws them into various Errors, like Diseases, of different Kinds, of which they can't be cured without the Descent of the Spirit, like an Angel, to instruct them mystically to interpret.

With these impotent Folk lay a certain Man who had an Infirmity. And who is this infirm Man? Mankind in general, say St. Cyril[195] and[196] St. Augustin, And what is his Infirmity? The Fathers call it the[197] Palsy, because of his Instability, and Unsteadiness in Faith and Principles, which is now the Case of Mankind. St. John calls it ασθενειαν a Weakness, which being a general Name of all Distempers, we can't guess what might be here the specifical one. But reasonably speaking, according to the Rule of Interpretation, this Man's Infirmity is the same with the Woman's Spirit of Infirmity, and that is a Weakness at the Spirit of Prophecy, which Mankind, as well as the Woman of the Church, is to be cured of in the Perfection of Time.

And how long did this Man with his Infirmity lay in these Porches of Bethesda? Thirty eight Years: So has Mankind with his Weakness at the Spirit of Prophecy lay eight and thirty (hundred)[198] Years, reckoning two thousand under the Law, and eighteen hundred since under the Gospel. St. Augustin[199] has an ingenious and more mystical way of Computation of these thirty and eight Years, which pleases me too, but possibly some Readers may not so easily apprehend it, unless they are well acquainted with the Mystery of Prophetical Numbers.

And how is Mankind to be cured of his Infirmity at the Spirit of Prophecy? By being instructed, by the Spirit of Truth, who is to come at the Conclusion of the said thirty and eight mystical Years, to arise and take up his bed and walk, that is, to raise his Thoughts to the Contemplation of the divine Mysteries of the Law, and to lift up his Bed of the Letter, on which he has hitherto rested, into a sublime Sense, and then he will walk uprightly and steadily in the Faith, without wavering like a Paralytick.

And at what Season did Jesus come to this infirm Man? It was at a Feast of the Jews. Irenæus, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Cyril call it the Feast of Penticost. And the grand Feast of Penticost is, as St. Cyril[200] says upon the Place at the Perfection of Time, the Time of the Evangelical Sabbath, and of Jesus's spiritual Advent, which will be a Time of feasting on intellectual and divine Mysteries, of seeing Visions and of dreaming Dreams; consequently at that Time, as the ancient Jews and Fathers assert, Mankind will be cured of this Infirmity at the Spirit of Prophecy. And this too is the certain Season, that the Angel will descend and trouble the Waters. By Angel is here meant[201] the Spirit of Christ. And by Waters the Fathers understand,[202] the People of all Nations. But how will the Descent of the Spirit of Truth, like an Angel, trouble these Waters, that is, give any Molestations and Disturbance to the People? Is there not a Mistake in the Oracle? If the Clergy will be but greater Lovers of Truth than of their Interests; if they, who should be Teachers of Forbearance of one another in Love, will but keep their Temper, there would be found a mistake in it. But alas!

Lastly, The Jews, as is intimated, seem to have been mov'd with Indignation at the Cure of the infirm Man, saying to him, ver. 10. it is the Sabbath, it is not lawful for thee to carry thy Bed; which litterally could not be true. The Jews were not such precise Observers of the Sabbath; nor so stupid and foolish, as St. Cyril,[203] says, as to think the taking up and carrying a Stool to be a Breach of it. But mystically, it is to be fear'd, this will be most true, and that the Clergy, who would be Jews inwardly, and the Circumcision in Spirit, will be bitter Enemies to Man's Exaltation of his Couch of the Letter of the Scriptures on or against the Evangelical Sabbath, and will make it, if possible, an unlawful Work; because it will bring to them Shame, Dishonour and Loss of Interests along with it.

After this Manner is every other Circumstance of this Story to be allegorically apply'd out of the Fathers. The Moral or Mystery of the whole, in short, is this, that at the Perfection of Time, signified by the Sabbath, the Pentecost, the End of thirty eight Years, the Spirit of Truth will descend on Mankind, to their Illumination in Prophecy, and to the healing of their Errors, call'd Diseases; which is admirably represented by the Parable before us, that according to the Letter, has neither Reason nor common Sense in it.

And thus have I spoken to eight of the Miracles of Jesus; and whether I have not shew'd them, in whole or Part, according to the Proposition before us, to consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities; and whether they are not prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what will be mysteriously, and more wonderfully done by Jesus, I appeal to my Readers.

After another Discourse of some other Miracles, I intend to take into Examination the several Stories of Jesus's raising of the Dead as of Lazarus, Jairus's Daughter, and the Widow's Son of Naim; which reputedly are Jesus's grand Miracles; but, for all the seeming Greatness and Excellency of them, I don't doubt but to give the Letter of these Stories a Toss out of the Creed of a considerate and wise Man; at least show their Insufficiency for the Purpose for which they have been hitherto apply'd. And if I should afterwards, by the Leave and Patience of the Bishop of London, give my Objection against Christ's Resurrection a Review, and some more Force, then what will become of the Argument of Christ's Power, Authority, and Messiahship from his Miracles?

But, besides Jesus's Miracles, I am, as Opportunity serves, to take into Consideration some of the Historical Parts of his Life; and shew them to be no less sensless, absurd and ridiculous than his Miracles.

And why may I not sometimes treat on the Parables of Jesus, and show what nonsensical and absurd Things they are, according to the Expositions of our most famous Commentators of these last Ages. Jesus was certainly the absolute, and most consummate Perfection of a Cabalist, Mystist, Parabolist and Enigmatist; but according to modern Commentaries and Paraphrases, he was the merest Ideot and Blockhead that ever open'd his Mouth, in that sort of Learning, to the Instruction of Mankind. And I am oblig'd a little to speak to the Absurdities of Christ's Doctrine and Parables, because one Article of the Prosecution against me was for saying, that any of the Philosophers of the Gentiles, or any rational Man (meaning according to modern Expositions) would make a better Teacher, than Jesus was.

What a great deal of Work have I upon my Hands, which, if God spare my Life and Health, I intend to go on with: If what I have already done in it be not acceptable to the Clergy, their Way to prevent the Prosecution of this great Undertaking, is to battle me upon what's past. Who knows but they may write, if they would try their Strength, so acutely in Defence of the Letter of Jesus's Miracles already discuss'd, as may effectually stop my Mouth, and prevent my giving them any more Trouble of this Kind? And I suppose I have now gotten an Adversary in the Bishop of St. David's, who has already discharg'd one Fool's Bolt at me.

There has nothing been a more common Subject of Declamation among the Clergy than the Reasonableness of Christianity, which must be understood of the History of Christ's Life and Doctrine, or the Application of the Word Reasonableness to the Christian Religion is impertinent. But if I proceed, as I have begun in this Work, I shall shew Christianity, as it is understood, to be the most unreasonable and absurd Story, that ever was told; and our modern Systems of Theology groundless and sensless in almost every Part of them. Mahometanism, without Offence be it spoken, is a more reasonable Religion than the Christian, upon modern Schemes and Systems.

If what I here say is offensive to our Divines, the Press is open for them as well as for myself, and they may, if they can, shew their Resentment of it. Thanks unto God and our most excellent Civil Government for such a Liberty of the Press: A Liberty that will lead and conduct us to the Fountain of Wisdom and Philosophy, which Restraint is a down-right Enemy to. And that this Blessing of Liberty may be continued, for all Bishop Smallbrook and Dr. Roger's Hobbism, is, I dare say, the Desire of the curious, inquisitive, and philosophical Part of Mankind. If this Liberty should be taken away, what a notable Figure will our Divines make from the Press and Pulpit, declaiming on the Reasonableness, Excellency and Perfection of the Christian Religion, without an Adversary; and telling their Congregations, that all, their bitterest and acutest Enemies can object, is clearly answered!

The Press, of late Years, has been productive of so many cogent and persuasive Arguments for Liberty of debate, and the Advocates for this Liberty, in the Judgment of the impartial and considerate, have so far gotten the better of their Adversaries, that I wonder any one can appear in behalf of Persecution. If I was a Bishop or Doctor in Divinity, I shou'd think it a Disgrace to my Station and Education to ask the Assistance of the Civil Authority to protect my Religion: I should judge my self unworthy of the Wages and Emoluments I enjoy'd, for the Preaching and Propagation of the Gospel, if I was unable to give an Answer to any one, that ask'd a Reason of my Faith; Or if I was so Shallow-pated, as to think Heresy and Infidelity punishable by the Civil Magistrate, I should think myself as much oblig'd to confute by Reason, as he is to punish by the Sword. If the Bishop of London had taken this Course with me; if he had publish'd a Refutation of my supposed Errors, as well as endeavour'd at a Prosecution of me for them, I had forgiven him the Wrongs and Injuries done me, and made no repeated Demands of Satisfaction for them.

Christianity is, as I believe, founded on a Rock of Wisdom; and what's more, has an omnipotent and omniscient God on its Side, who can incline the Hearts of Men to believe, and open the Eyes of their Understanding to discern the Truth of it; consequently there can be no Danger in the Attempts of our Adversaries, whether, Jews, Turks or Domestick Infidels, against it. But Persecution implys Weakness and Impotency in God to defend his own Cause; or his Priests would not move for the Help of the Arm of Flesh in Vindication of it. And if, at this Time of Day, after so many Treatises of Infidels, and some of them as yet unanswered, against our Religion, this good Cause should be taken out of the Hands of God, and committed to the Care of the Civil Magistrate; if instead of Reason the Clergy should have Recourse to Force, what will By-standers, and even Well-wishers to Christianity say? Nothing less than that Infidels had gotten the better of Christ's Ministers, and beaten them at their own Weapons of Reason and Argument.

The two great Pleaders for Persecution, to the Disgrace of themselves and Dishonour of our Religion, that have lately arose are Dr. Rogers and the Bishop of St. David's. Dr. Rogers's chief Reason against Liberty of Debate, is because, as he says it is pernicious to the Peace and Welfare of the Community, by unsettling the Minds of the People about the Religion established: But here's no consequence, unless it could be proved, that such as the great Mr. Grounds and Mr. Scheme, have it in their Hearts to raise Mobbs upon the Government, and to beat out the Brains of the Clergy. All the Harm, or rather Good, they aim at, is to exercise the Wits of the Clergy with their Doubts and Objections; and if the Passions of our Ecclesiasticks are not raised upon it, to the doing of Violence to these Gentlemen, the Peace of the Publick will never be disturb'd. As to myself, tho' I have a vast and numerous Party on my Side, no less than all the Fathers and primitive Christians for some Ages; yet as we were peaceable and quiet Subjects of old and passively obedient to the Emperors of Rome; so we will continue to the Civil Authority of this Nation. We only take the Liberty to awaken the Clergy out of a Lethargy of Dulness and Ignorance; and hope the Civil Magistrate will consider the Goodness and Charity of our Intentions, and guard us against their Insults for it.

The Bishop of St. David's[204] says, "It is absurd to assert, that the Liberties of any Nation will allow, with Impunity, a Set of distinguish'd Infidels to insult and treat with the greatest Contempt and Scorn the most sacred and important Truths, that are openly professed, by the whole Body of the People, of whatever Denomination." By a Set of Infidels, I suppose, he means me and the Fathers: And by treating with Contempt and Scorn the most sacred and important Truths, he means, our burlesquing, bantering and ridiculing the Clergy for their Ministry of the Letter: And for this he would, I conceive, have incensed the Societies for Reformation of Manners to a Prosecution of me. And if they had not been wiser, and more merciful than their Preacher, I must have gone to Pot. But why should the Bishop dislike this way of Writing? Don't he know, that the Fathers of the Church used to jest and scoff at the Gentiles and their Priests for their foolish Superititions? Don't he know, that our Reformers banter'd and ridicul'd Popery out of Doors, and almost within the Memory of Man, it was reckon'd but a dull Sermon, that was not well humm'd for its Puns and Jest on the Papists? why then should the Bishop be against that way of writing, which was of good Use to the Reformers, and first Christians? The grand Subject for Burlesque and Banter, in my Opinion, is Infidelity; and that Bishop, who can't break two Jests upon Infidels for their one upon Christianity, has but a small Share of Wit. The Christian Religion according to the Bishop, will abide the Test of calm and sedate Reasoning against it, but can't bear a Jest; O strange!

But to leave these two Contenders for Persecution to the Chastisement of acuter Pens. What I have here pleaded for Liberty is not thro' any Fears of Danger to myself, but for the Love of Truth and Advancement of Christianity, which, without it, can't be defended, propagated and sincerely embraced. And therefore hope, that the Controversy before us, between Infidels and Apostates will be continued by the Indulgence of the Government, till Truth arises and shines bright to the Dissipation of the Mists of Error and Ignorance; like the Light of the Sun to the Dispersion of the Darkness of the Night. I will by God's Leave, go on to bear my part in the Controversy; And, if it was not more against the Interests than Reason of the Clergy to believe me, would again solemnly declare that what I do in it is with a View to the Honour of Jesus, our spiritual Messiah, to whom be Glory for ever. Amen.

FINIS.

A FOURTH

DISCOURSE

ON THE

MIRACLES

OF OUR

SAVIOUR,

In View of the Present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates.

Canes qui oblatrant contra Inquisitionem Veritatis. Clem. Alex.

The Third Edition.

By Tho. Woolston, B.D. sometime Fellow of Sidney-College in Cambridge.

LONDON:

Printed for the Author, and Sold by him next door to the Star, in Aldermanbury, and by the Booksellers of London, and Westminster, 1728.

[Price One Shilling.]

TO THE

Right Reverend Father in God

FRANCIS,

Lord Bishop of St. Asaph.

My Lord,

f the Convocation had been sitting, I would have made this Dedication to them, and humbly implored of them, what, for their Love to the Fathers, they would readily have granted, a Recommendation of these my Discourses on Miracles to the Clergy: But being unhappily disappointed of a Session of that Reverend and Learned Body, for whose wise Debates and orthodox Votes I have such a Veneration, as is not to be express'd in a few Words, I presently turn'd my Thoughts on your Lordship, to whom a Dedication is due, because of your Respect, often declared, for the Authority of the Fathers, which induces me to think, you now approve of the Use I have made of them.

But what I am here to applaud your Lordship for, is, your Discourse call'd Difficulties and Discouragements, &c. That admirable Satire against modern Orthodoxy and Persecution! How was I tickled in the Perusal of it! It is plainly the Sense of your Soul, or you had set your Name to it: And if the Temptation of Praise for it, had not been too great to be resisted, I could have wish'd you had always conceal'd your self; and then you had not written against the Grain, an aukward Piece on Church Power, like a Retraction, to reingratiate your self with some Ecclesiastical Noodles, whom you no more, than, I need to care for.

I have sometimes wondered, My Lord, where and when the Great Mr. Grounds imbibed his notable Notions about Religion and Liberty; for he suck'd them not in with his Mothers Milk, who, I suppose, train'd him up in the Belief of Christianity: But when I consider'd, that he was once the Pupil of Mr. Hare at Cambridge, my wonder ceas'd. Under your Lordship's Tuition, it seems he laid the Foundation of his distinguish'd Learning and Opinions! His Pupillage will be your immortal Honour! I wonder, none of the Writers against him have as yet celebrated your Praise for it! How does he imitate and resemble his Tutor in Principles! I can't say, he surpasses you, since there is such a Freedom of Thought and Expression in your Difficulties, &c. so strongly savouring of Infid—ty, that he has not as yet equall'd.

Upon your Lordship's Advancement to a Bishoprick, Difficultys and Discouragements of the Government in the choice of not withstanding, I wish'd, without prescribing to the Wisdom a learned Prelate, that the great Mr. Grounds, for the good of the Church too, might be soon consecrated: And I should not have despair'd of it, but that he is a Gentleman of real Probity and Conscience, and might possibly boggle at Subscriptions, unless you and Bishop Hoadly could help him to some of your Reserves and Distinctions, wherewith you must be both well Stock'd, to overcome that Difficulty. And why should not Dean Swift for his Writings, as well as some others, be made a Bishop? I should like to see him one; if the then Right Reverend Bishop Grounds would not think him, for his Tale of a Tub, too loose in the Faith, for his Company.

Don't, imagine, My Lord, that I am forming of Schemes for my self to be a Bishop. Tho' these my Discourses on Miracles are of very great Merit, as well as your Lordship's Difficulties, &c. yet you may be assured, I have no such View, when I tell you, that the Honour, the Fathers have exalted me to, of a Moderator in this Controversy, sets me above all Ecclesiastical Preferment, excepting the Arch-Bishoprick of Canterbury, which I'm afraid will be void, before the King is apprised of my singular Worth and Qualifications for it.

But however, if such excellent Prelates, as Grounds, Hoadly, Swift, Hare and my self were at the Head of Ecclesiastical Affairs, what would we do? What should we not do? What would not this free-thinking Age expect from us? Nothing less, than that, according to our Principles, we should endeavour to set Mankind at perfect Liberty, and to lay open the dirty Fences of the Church, call'd Subscriptions, which are not only the Stain of a good Conscience, but the Discouragements, your Lordship hints at, in the Study of the Scriptures: And if we made a Push for an Act of P——t to turn the Clergy to Grass, after King Henry VIIIth's Monks and Fryars; where would be the Harm of it? Nay, the Advantage to the Publick, as well as to Religion, would be great, if their Revenues were apply'd to the Payment of National Debts; with a Reserve to our selves (remember, My Lord) of large Emoluments out of them, according to our great Merits; otherwise worldly-wise Men will repute us impolitick Fools, which you and Bishop Hoadly, I humbly presume, will never endure the Reproach of.

So, hoping your Lordship will accept of this Dedication to your Praise, in as much Sincerity as it is written, I subscribe myself,

London, May
14. 1728.

My LORD,
The Admirer of your
Difficultys and
Discouragements,
Thomas Woolston.

A FOURTH

DISCOURSE

ON THE

MIRACLES

OF OUR

SAVIOUR, &c.

ow for a fourth Discourse on Jesus's Miracles, which, as before, I begin with a Repetition of the three general Heads, at first proposed to be treated on; and they are,

I. To show, that the Miracles of healing all manner of bodily Diseases, which Jesus was famed for, are none of the proper Miracles of the Messiah; neither are they so much as a good Proof of his divine Authority to found a Religion.

II. To prove that the literal History of many of the Miracles of Jesus, as recorded by the Evangelists, does imply Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities; consequently they, either in the whole or in part, were never wrought, as it is commonly believed now-a-days, but are only related as prophetical and parabolical Narratives, of what would be mysteriously, and more wonderfully done by him.

III. To consider what Jesus means, when he appeals to his Miracles, as to a Testimony and Witness of his divine Power; and to show that he could not properly and ultimately refer to those he then wrought in the Flesh, but to the mystical ones, he would do in the Spirit; of which those wrought in the Flesh are but mere Types and Shadows.

I am upon the second of these Heads, and according to it, have, in my former Discourses, taken into examination eight of the Miracles of Jesus, viz. those:

1. Of his driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple.

2. Of his exorcising the Devils out of the Mad-men, and sending them into the Herd of Swine.

3. Of his Transfiguration on the Mount.

4. Of his Healing a Woman, that had an Issue of Blood, twelve Years.

5. Of his curing a Woman, that had a Spirit of Infirmity, eighteen Years.

6. Of his telling the Samaritan Woman, her fortune of having had five Husbands, and being than an Adulteress with another Man.

7. Of his cursing the Fig-tree for not bearing Fruit out of season. And,

8. Of his healing a Man of an Infirmity at the Pool of Bethesda.

Whether it be not manifest, that the Literal and Evangelical Story of these Miracles, from what I have argu'd and reason'd upon them, does not consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities, according to the Proposition before us, let my Readers judge; and so I come to the Consideration of

9. A ninth Miracle of Jesus, viz. that[205] of his giving sight to a Man who was born blind, by the means of Eve-salve, made of Dirt and Spittle.

Blindness, as far as one may guess by the Evangelical History, was the Distemper that Jesus frequently exercis'd his Power on: And there is no doubt to be made, but he heal'd many of one Weakness, Defect and Imperfection, or other in their Eyes, but whether he wrought any Miracle upon any he is supposed to have cured, is uncertain. There are, as it's notorious, many kinds of Blindness, that are incurable by Art or Nature: and there are other kinds of it, that Nature and Art will relieve a Man in. But whether Jesus used his healing Power against the former, as well as the latter sort of Blindness, is more than can be affirm'd, or at least proved by our Divines. And unless we knew of a certainty, that the sore or blind Eyes, Jesus cured, were absolutely out of the reach of Art and Nature; Infidels will imagine, and suggest, that he was only Master of a good Ointment for sore Eyes, and being successful in the use of it, ignorant People would needs think, he wrought Miracles.

The World is often bless'd with excellent Oculists, who thro' Study and Practice have attain'd to wonderful Skill in Eye-Maladies, which, tho' they are of various sorts, yet, by Custom of Speech all pass under the general Name of Blindness. And sometimes we hear of famous Chance-Doctors, like Jesus, who by a Gift of God, Nature, or Fortune, without any Skill in the Structure of the Eyes, have been very successful in the Cure of one Distemper or other incident to them: Such was Sir William Read, who, tho' no Scholar, nor of acquir'd Abilities in Physick and Surgery, yet cured his Thousands of sore or blind Eyes; and many of them too to the surprise and astonishment of profess'd Surgeons and Physicians. Whether He, or Jesus, cured the greater number of Blindness may be question'd. To please our Divines, it shall be granted that Jesus cured the greater Numbers; but that he cured worse or more difficult Distempers in the Eyes, can't be proved. Sir William indeed met with many Cases of blind and sore Eyes, that were out of the reach of his Power; and so did Jesus too, or he had never let great Multitudes of the blind, and otherwise distemper'd People, go unheal'd by him. Our Divines will here say, that it was never want of Power in Jesus, but want of Faith in the diseased, if he did not heal them; but in other Surgeons and Physicians, it is confessedly their own Insufficiency: To which I have only this Answer, that our Physicians and Surgeons are to be commended for their Ingenuity, to impute it to their own Defect of Power, and not to lay the Blame upon their Patients, when they can't cure them: And it is luckly for us Christians, that we have this Salvo for the Credit of Jesus's miraculously healing Power, that it was not fit, he should exert it against Unbelief; otherwise reasonably speaking, He with Sir William Read, Greatrex, Vespasian, our former Kings of England, and Seventh-Sons, must have pass'd but for a Chance-Doctor.

But to come to the particular Consideration of the Miracle before us. Jesus restored, it seems, a blind Man to his Eye-sight, by the use of a peculiar Ointment, and washing of his Eyes, as directed, in the Pool of Siloam. Where lies the Miracle? I can't see it; but hope our Divines will take their opportunity to point it out to me. Our Surgeons, with their Ointments and Washings can cure sore and blind Eyes of one sort or other; and Jesus did no more here; and yet he must be reckon'd a Worker of Miracles; and they but artificial Operators: where's the Sense and Reason of this difference between them? If Mr. Moor, the Apothecary, for the notable Cures he performs, by the means of his Medicines, should write himself, and be accounted by his Admirers, a Miracle-worker; he and they would be but laugh'd at for it: And yet Jesus for his curing the sore Eyes of a poor Man with an Ointment, must be had in veneration for a divine and miraculous Operator, as much as if by the breath of his Mouth he had removed an huge Mountain!

A Miracle, if I mistake not the Notion of our Divines about it, is a supernatural Event, or a Work out of the Power of Nature or Art to effect. And when it is spoken of the Cure of a Disease, as of Blindness or Lameness, it ought to be so represented, as that skilful and experienced Surgeons and Physicians, who can do strange and surprizing Cures by Art, may give it upon their judgment, that no Skill of Man could reach that Operation; but that it ought to pass for the Work of a divine and almighty Hand and Power. But there is no such care taken in the Description of any of the Diseases, which Jesus cured; much less of this before us; against the miraculousness of which, consequently, there are these two Exceptions to be made:

First, that we know nothing of the Nature of this poor Man's Blindness; nor what was the defect of his Eyes; nor whether it was curable by Art or not: Without which Knowledge, it is impossible and unreasonable to assert, that there was a Miracle wrought in the Cure of him. If his blindness or weakness of Eye-sight was curable by human means, and Jesus did use those means, there's an end of the Miracle. If the Evangelist had given us an accurate Description of the Condition of this Man's Eyes before Cure, we could have judg'd better: But this is their constant neglect in all the Distempers Jesus heal'd, and is enough to induce us to doubt of his miraculous Power. There are, as I have said, some sorts of sore or blind Eyes curable by Art, as Experience does testify; and there are others incurable, as Physicians and Patients do lament. Of which sort this Man's was, we know not. The worst that we know of his Case, is, that he was blind from his Birth, or Infancy, which might be: and yet Time, Nature and Art, may give relief to him. As a Man advances in Years, the diseases of Childhood and Youth wear off. What we call the King's-Evil, or an Inflammation in the Eyes, in time will abate of its Malignity. Nature will not only by degrees work the Cure it-self, but the seasonable help of a good Oculist will soon expedite it, tho' in time of Infancy he could be of no use. And who knows but this might be the Case of this blind Man, whose Cure Jesus by his Art did only hasten and help forward. However, there are Grounds enough to suspect, that it was not divine Power which heal'd this Man, or Jesus had never prepared and order'd an Ointment and Wash for him.

Should our Divines suppose or describe, for the Evangelist, a state of Blindness in this Man, incurable by Art; that would be begging the Question, which no Unbeliever will grant. But to please them, I will yield, without Enquiry into the Nature of this Man's Blindness, that, if Jesus had used no Medicines; if with only a word of his Mouth he had cured the Man, and he had instantaneously recover'd, as the Word was spoken; here would have been a real and great Miracle, let the Blindness or Imperfection of the Man's Sight before, be of what kind or degree soever. But Jesus's use of Washings and Ointments absolutely spoils and destroys the Credit of the Miracle, and we ought by no means to ascribe that to the immediate Hand and Power of God, which Medicines and Balsams are apply'd to the Effect of. And this brings me to the

Second Exception against the miraculousness of the Cure of this blind Man, which is, that Jesus used human means for the Cure of him; which means, whether they were at all proper and effectual in themselves, do affect the Credit of the Miracle, and give occasion of suspicion, that it was Art and not divine Power that heal'd him, or Jesus, for his Honour, had never had recourse to the use of them. And what were those Means, or that Medicine, which Jesus made use of? Why, "He spit upon the Ground, and made a Balsam of Dirt and Spittle, and anointed the poor Man's Eyes with it, and he recover'd." A strange and odd sort of an Ointment, that I believe was never used before, nor since, for sore and blind Eyes! I am not Student enough in Physick and Surgery to account for the natural and rational use of this Balsam; but wish that skilful Professors of those Sciences would help me out at this difficulty. If they could rationally account for the use of this Eye-salve, tho' it was by supposing, that Jesus imperceptibly had in his Mouth a proper unctuous and balsamick Substance, which he dissolv'd into Spittle, they would do great service to a certain Cause; and I wonder none of them, whether well or ill affected to Religion, have as yet bent their Thoughts to it.

In the Practice of Physick and Surgery, there are sometimes very odd and unaccountable Medicaments made use of; and now-and-then very whimsical and seemingly ridiculous ones, by old Women, to good Purpose: But none of them are to be compared to Jesus's Balsam for sore Eyes. I have heard of a merry Mountebank of Distinction, whose catholick Medicine was Hasty-Pudding, which indeed is a notable Remedy against the Esuriency of the Stomach, that the Poor often labour under. But Jesus's Eye-Salve, for absurdity, whim, and incongruity, was never equall'd, either in jest or in earnest, by any Quack-Doctor. Whether Infidels think of this Ointment of the Holy Jesus with a smile; or reflect on it with disdain, I can't guess. As to myself, I should think with St. Chrysostom[206], that this Eye-Salve of Jesus would sooner put a Man's Eyes out, than restore a blind one to his Sight. And I believe that our Divines, for the Credit of the Miracle, and our Surgeons, for the Honour of their Science, will agree, that it could not be naturally operative and effective of the Cure of the blind Man.

What then was the Reason of Jesus's using this strange Eye-Salve; when, for the sake of the Miracle, and for the honour of his own Power, he should have cured the Man with a word speaking? This is a Question and Objection in St. Cyril[207] against Ministers of the Letter, who are obliged to give an Answer to it, that will consist with the Wisdom and Power of Jesus, otherwise they must give up the Miracle or make him a vain, insignificant and trifling Agent. St. Cyril, of whose mind I am, says[208] that the Reason of the use of this Balsam made of Dirt and Spittle is to be fetch'd from the Mystery. But, in as much as our Divines will never agree to that, which would be of ill Consequence to their Ministry, they must give a good Reason of their own, which I despair of seeing, that will comport with the Letter.

St. Irenæus too, says[209], that the Clay and Spittle was of no service to the Cure of the blind Man; and yet Jesus did not use it in vain. Is not this an Inconsistency? How will our Divines adjust it? With Irenæus, I am sure they'll not mystically solve the Difficulty; therefore if they don't provide another Solution of it to satisfaction; either their Ministry of the Letter, or the Reputation of Jesus, and this Miracle must suffer for it.

I am puzzled to think, how our Divines will extricate themselves out of this Strait, and account for the use of this Eye-Salve, without any Diminution of the Miracle. Surely, they will not say that Jesus used this sensless and insignificant Ointment to put a Slur upon the Practice of Physick and Surgery, as if other Medicines were of no more avail than his Dirt and Spittle. They have more wit than to say so; least it incense a noble and most useful Profession, not so much against themselves, as against Jesus, and provoke them to a nicer and stricter Enquiry, than I can make into his Miracles, the Diseases he cured, and his manner of Operation; and to infer from thence, that he could be no miraculous Healer of Diseases who used Medicines; nor his Evangelists orthodox at Theology, who were so inexpert at Anatomy and the Description of bodily Distempers. This might be of bad Consequence to Religion: And yet I wonder that none of them, who may be supposed a little disaffected to Christianity, have taken the Hint from this pretended Miracle before us, and some others, to endeavour at a Proof of Jesus's being little better than a Quack-Doctor.

If I was, what I am not, an Infidel, I should think, from the Letter of this Story, that Jesus was a juggling Impostor, who would pass for a miraculous Healer of Diseases, tho' he used underhand, proper Medicines. The Clay and the Spittle he made an open shew of, as what, to Admiration, he would cure the blind Man with; but in reserve he had a more sanative Balsam, that he subtilly slip't in the room of the Clay, and repeatedly to good purpose anointed the Man's Eyes with it. But as the Authority of the Fathers, and their mystical Interpretation of this Story is alone my safe-guard against such an ill opinion of Jesus; so I would now gladly know upon what Bottom the Faith of our Divines can stand, as to this Miracle, and Jesus's divine Power in it.

I have perused some of our Commentators on the Place, and don't perceive that they hesitate at this strange Eye-Salve; nor make any Questions about the pertinent or impertinent Use of it. Whether it is, that they sleep over the Story, or are aware of greater Difficultys in it, than can be easily surmounted, and therefore dare not touch on't, I know not. But now that we enjoy Liberty of debate, which will make us Philosophers, and I have taken the Freedom to make a stricter Scrutiny than ordinary into Jesus's Miracles, and to consider what Absurditys, their Stories, and this in particular, are clog'd with; it is incumbent on our Divines to answer solidly these Questions, viz. What was the Reason of Jesus's Use of this Eye-Salve made of Clay and Spittle? Whether, if it was of service to the Cure of the blind Man, it does not destroy the Miracle? And if it had no effect in the Cure of him, whether Jesus was not a vain and trifling Operator, making use of insignificant and impertinent Medicines to the Diminution of his divine Power? There Questions are not ludicrous, but calm and sedate Reasoning, which Bishop Smalbroke[210] does not disapprove of. Therefore a grave, rational, and substantial Answer is expected to them, such as will be a Vindication of the Wisdom and Power of Jesus, without any Diminution of the Miracle.

Should our Divines say, that this Matter was an Act of unsearchable Wisdom and must be left to the Will of our Saviour, and not curiously pry'd into, any more than some other Dispensations of Providence, that are past finding out: This Answer, which I believe to be the best, that can be given, will not do here. The Miracles of Jesus are, as our Divines own, Appeals to our Reason and Senses for his Authority; and by our Reason and Senses they are to be try'd, condemn'd or approved of. If they will not abide the test of Reason and Sense, they are to be rejected, and Jesus's Authority along with them. Therefore a more close, pertinent and serious Answer is to be given to the said Questions; which as I believe to be impossible, consistently with the Letter; so our Divines must of necessity go along with me to the Fathers for a mystical and allegorical Interpretation of the Story of this Eye-Salve; or the Miracle will fall to the Ground, and Jesus's divine Power be in great danger with it.

St. Cyril, (who is one of Bishop Smalbroke's Greek Commentators, that should strictly adhere to the Letter) signifies, as I before observ'd, that Jesus's Use of this Clay and Spittle would be an Absurdity, if it was not to be accounted for, from the Mystery.

Eusebius Gallicanus, treating on this Miracle, says[211]; "that our Saviour apparently manifests that his Miracles are of a spiritual and mystical Signification, because in the Work of them, he does somewhat or other, that literally has no Sense nor Reason in it. As for Instance, in the Cure of this blind Man, what occasion was there for Clay and Spittle to anoint his Eyes, if it was not of a mystical meaning, when with a Word of his Mouth, Jesus could have cured him? Let us then set aside the Letter of the Story, and Search for the Mystery, and consider who is meant by this Blind Man, &c."

Origen too, upon occasion of this Miracle, and its Absurdity according to the Letter, says[212]; "that whatever Jesus did in the Flesh was but a Type and Figure of what he would do in Spirit, as is apparent from the Miracle of his curing a blind Man, which nobody knows why it was so done, if it be not to be understood of a mystical Ointment to open the Eyes of the blind in Understanding."

And who then is this blind Man mystically? St. Augustin[213], St. Jerome[214], Eusebius Gallicanus[215], St. Theophilus of Antioch[216], Origen[217], St. Cyril of Alexandria[218], and St. Theophylact[219], (Four of them, Bishop Smalbroke's Greek and literal Commentators!) say, this blind Man is a Type of Mankind of all Nations, who in the Perfection of Time signified by the Sabbath[220] in the Story, is to be cured of this Blindness in Understanding.

And what is Mankind's Blindness here signified? St. Augustin[221], St. Cyril[222] and St. Theophylact[223], say, it is Ignorance, Error and Infidelity, or the want of the intellectual Sight and Knowledge of God and his Providence. Origen[224], St. John of Jerusalem[225], and St. Theophylact[226], (Still Bishop Smalbroke's literal and Greek Commentators!) tell us the Reason of this spiritual Blindness of Mankind, that is, because they adhere to the Letter of the Scriptures.

And how will Jesus, or right Reason and Truth, which are his mystical Names, cure Mankind of this his spiritual Blindness? By his mystical Spittle temper'd with mystical Dirt. And how shall we do to understand this mystical Ointment, so as to make it a proper Medicine for Mankind's spiritual Blindness? St. Theophilus of Antioch[227], has an allegorical Interpretation of this Clay and Spittle of our Lord; but as it is hard to apprehend his meaning, I shall not here insist on it. Origen says[228], that the anointing of the blind Man's Eyes with Spittle, is to be understood of the Unction of the Spirit of Christ. But this does not give us rightly to understand the Metaphor and Figure. St. John of Jerusalem says, that by the Clay and Spittle is meant[229] perfect Doctrine, which in Truth may open the Eyes of Mens Understanding: But what is perfect Doctrine? Why, to help the Fathers out here, without departing from their Opinions, by the Spittle of Jesus must be understood the Water of the Spirit instill'd into the Earth of the Letter of the Scriptures, which temper'd together, does, in the Judgment of them all, make perfect Doctrine to the opening of the Eyes of our Understanding in the Knowledge of the Providence of God of all Ages; which Knowledge, Light, Sight, or Illumination, Mankind has hitherto wanted.

St. Irenæus[230], gives an excellent and mystical Reason, by himself, for the use of this Ointment of Clay and Spittle, to the Cure of this blind Man, which I shall not stay to illustrate, but only have cited it for the Meditation of the Learned and Curious.

The Story of the blind Man, as St. John has related it, is long, and would take up more time, than I have to spare at present, to go thro' all the Parts of it. What I have done at present is enough to awaken others to the Consideration, not only of the Absurdities of the Letter, but of the mystical Interpretation of the rest.

The Miracle, which consisted literally in the Cure of a blind Man by the use of an Ointment made of Dirt and Spittle, is absurd, sensless and unaccountable; but in the Mystery, there is Wisdom and Reason. And the Cure of Mankind of the Blindness of his Understanding, by the Spirit's being temper'd with the Letter of the Scriptures, which is the mystical Eye-Salve, will not only be a most stupendous Miracle, but a Proof of Jesus's Messiahship beyond all contradiction, in as much as by such an opening of the Eyes of our Understandings, which have been hitherto dark, we shall see, how he is the Accomplishment of the Law and the Prophets. And so I pass to a

10. Tenth Miracle of Jesus, viz.[231] That of his turning Water into Wine, at a Marriage in Cana of Galilee. This is call'd the beginning of Jesus's Miracles; but whether it is to be understood of the First of his whole Life, or of the First that he wrought in Cana of Galilee, is not agreed amongst Divines. I shall not enter into the Dispute, which as it is of no Consequence to my Cause in hand; so I shall pass it by, and not urge any Arguments for or against either side of it.

Tho' I would not for the World be so impious and profane as to believe, what is contain'd and imply'd in the Letter of this Story; yet I am still too grave to handle it as ludicrously as I ought; and it is now against the grain, that I write so freely, as I shall against it, being unwilling, not only to put the Clergy out of all Temper, but, to give Scoffers and Infidels so great an Advantage against their Ministry of the Letter. Some may wonder that I, who have gone so far in the ludicrous display of the gross Absurdities of some other Miracles, should boggle at this. But to be ingenuous, and speak the Truth sincerely, I am still a Christian (for all what the Bishop of St. David's,[232] Archdeacon Stubbs, and others would make of me) upon the Principles of the Fathers, and have a greater Veneration for the Person of the Holy Jesus, than to be forward to make such sport with him, his Mother, and his Disciples, as this Story affords Scope for. And if it was not for the necessity of turning the Clergy's Heads to the Consideration of Mysteries; this Miracle should have been pass'd by in silence.

There were some antiently, whom St. Chrysostom[233] writes of, whether Jews, Gentiles, or Hereticks, I know not, who took great offence at the Story of this Wedding, accounting it, from what is related in St. John, as a riotous Feast, and that Jesus and his Mother, and his Disciples, not only bore a part in the Revellings, but were most to blame for them, or he should not have countenanced them with his Presence, much less promoted them, by the Change of a large quantity of Water into Wine for the use of a Company, who were already drunk with it. But I, with St. Chrysostom, am inclined to believe, that, if Jesus did grace this Wedding with his Presence, there was no Excess encouraged, or so much as suffer'd at it. If he did accept of the Invitation of the Bridegroom, it was for an Opportunity, not so much to turn Water into Wine, as to make a proper Discourse to the People of conjugal Duties; and, as he was a Searcher of the Hearts, secretly to admonish the Married of the Sin and Mischief of Adultery; tho' we read not of a seasonable and good Word spoken at it.

And the Empress Eudocia, a nursing Mother of the Church, has given us a Poetical, and I hope a fictitious Description of this Wedding. She makes a sumptuous and voluptuous Feast of it; and writes[234] of Musick and Dancing in abundance, enough to make us think of such Mirth and Pastime here, as was unbecoming of a Company of Saints to be present at. Whether it was, that this Empress, being only accustom'd to the Excesses of a Court, could form no meaner Conceptions of a Country Wedding; or whether she had any extra-scriptural Authority for what she writ, I know not: But I believe, that, if Jesus was at all at a Marriage-Feast, the whole was conducted with Decency, Order, and Sobriety; and if he there wrought any Miracle, it was to manifest his Glory, to the Conversion of some, and Confirmation of the Faith of others.

And our Translators of the Bible too have given occasion to suspect somewhat of Excess at this Wedding; or they need not have made the Waterpots to hold two or three Firkins apiece. If I had been the Translator, they should not have held above two or three Pints apiece, which Measure is as agreeable to the Original as Firkin; neither can I imagine, that Jesus, if he did convert Water into Wine, would do it in so large a Measure, for fear of an intemperate abuse of it, but only gave the Company a cast of his miraculous Power, and a little Taste of his Love and Good-will to them.

Such are the Conceptions, that, to the Honour of Jesus, I am willing to form of this Wedding; and wish that the Letter of the Story did suggest no worse Thoughts of it to us. I should be pleas'd, if no Infidel really could, what I, but for the sake of the Mystery most unwillingly should, write any ludicrous Descants on it. But if this Story had been related of Apollonius Tyranæus, as it is of our Jesus, I would have ridicul'd and satiriz'd it to the utmost of my Power, and have render'd him and his Disciples of all Nations, as contemptible as I could, for the Belief of it; and I don't doubt, but our Christian Priests would have given me ample Praises and Commendations for so doing. It is said of Apollonius, that for the Entertainment of his Friends, he commanded variety of nice Dishes of Meat, together with Bowls of choicest Wines, all on a sudden to descend upon his Table and range themselves in good Order. Whether there was any Truth in this Miracle of Apollonius, is not the Question; but Mr. Chandler[235] could see a Fault in it, (tho' none in Jesus's Wine at this Wedding) as if it was done for the Pleasure of luxurious Appetites, tho' we read of no Intemperance at it, which can't be said of the Wedding-Feast before us. Our Divines I suppose, no more than myself, believe any thing of the said Miracle in Apollonius; but, if it was really wrought, I fancy, I could have lampoon'd him for it, and would have made it a diabolical Work, like that, as Fables go, of the Feastings of Wizards and Witches; and our Divines (passing by Jesus's Wine here) would readily, as they are Believers of the Storys of Witchcraft, have struck in with me.

But setting aside that miraculous Story of Apollonius, which has but one Voucher; the Case before us is Jesus's turning Water into Wine for the use of Men, who had before well drank. How shall I force Nature and Faith to ridicule this Story? How shall I lay aside that profound Veneration for the Holy Jesus, which Conversation with the Fathers, more than the Prejudice of Education has begotten in me, and ludicrously here treat him and his Miracle too, as is incumbent upon me, to make way for the Mystery? In short, I can't do it, in my own Name; but having met with a satirical Invective of a supposed Jewish Rabbi to this purpose, I here publish it, that our Clergy, as well as myself, may think of an Answer to it, and so prevent that Mischief it may do by being handed about among Jews and Infidels, in Manuscript. It is as follows;

"You Christians pay Adoration to Jesus, whom you believe to be a divine Author of Religion, sent of God for the Instruction, Reformation and Salvation of Mankind, and what induces you to this Belief of him, is, (besides some obscure Prophecies, which you can't agree upon, and which neither your selves, nor any body else understands the Application of) the History of his Miracles: But I wonder, you should have a good opinion of him for his Miracles, which, if he wrought no better than what are recorded of him, by your Evangelists, are, if duly consider'd, enough to alienate your Hearts from him. I can't spare time now to examine into all of them, but according to the cursory Observation I have made on them, there is not one so well circumstanced, as to merit a considerate Man's belief, that it was the Work of an omnipotent, all-wise, just and good Agent. Some of them are absurd Tales, others foolish Facts, others unjust Actions, others ludicrous Pranks, others jugling Tricks, others magical Enchantments; and if many of them had been better and greater Operations than they are, and of a more useful and stupendous Nature than they seem to be; yet the first Miracle that he wrought, viz. that of his turning Water into Wine at an extravagant and voluptuous Wedding at Cana of Galilee, is enough to turn our Stomachs against all the rest. It is in itself enough to beget in us an ill opinion of Jesus, and to prepossess us with an aversion to his Religion, without farther Examination into it. It is enough to make us suspect his other Miracles, of what Name soever, to be of a base, magical, and diabolical Extraction; or he had never set up for a divine worker of Miracles with so ill a grace. Would any sober, grave, serious and divine Person, as you Christians suppose Jesus to have been, have vouchsafed his Presence at a Wedding; where such Levities, Diversions and Excesses (in our Nation of the Jews, as well as in all others) were indulg'd on such Occasions, as were not fit to be seen, much less countenanc'd by the Saint, you would make of him. If your Jesus, his Mother, and his Disciples had not been merry Folks in themselves, they would have declined the Invitation of the Bridegroom; nay, it they had been at all graver and more serious People than ordinary, no Invitation had been given to such Spoil-Sports: But boon Companions they were, and of comical Conversation, or there had been at a Wedding no Room for them. You Christians may fancy, what you please, of Jesus and his Mother's Saintship; but the very Text of the Story implies, they were Lovers of good Fellowship and Excess too, upon occasion; or he had never, upon her Intimation, turn'd so large a quantity of Water into Wine, after all or most of the Company were far gone with it. You may suppose, if you please, that all were sober, and none intoxicated, and that the Want of Wine proceeded from the abundance of Company, rather than excess in drinking; but why then did John the Evangelist use the word μεθυσθασι, which implies, they were more than half Seas over? And if Jesus and his Mother had not both a mind to top them up; the one would not have requested, nor the other have granted a Miracle to that purpose. Whether Jesus and his Mother themselves were at all cut, as were others of the Company, is not so certain. She might be an abstemious Dame for ought we know; tho' if old Stories are true of her familiarity with a Soldier, of whom came her chara Deûm Soboles, in all probability she would take a Dram and a Bottle too. But it looks as if Jesus himself was a little in for't, or he had never spoke so waspishly and snappishly to his Mother, saying, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine Hour is not yet come: which was very unbecoming of a dutiful Son, who, excepting when he ran away from his Parents, and put them to[236] Sorrow and Trouble to look him up, was, and is still in Heaven, say the Roman Catholicks a most obedient Child. You modern Christians may put what Construction you can upon the words above of Jesus to his Mother, to salve his Credit; but the Fathers of your Church[237] confess them to be a sharp and surly Reply to her, which, if it did not proceed from the natural badness of his Temper, derived, ex traduce, from his supposed Father yet, was certainly the effect of Drinking, and that's the more likely, because it is a broken and witless Sentence, such as Fuddlecaps utter by halves, when the Wine's in, and the Wit's out. Your modern Commentators are sadly puzzled to make good Sense of this broken and abrupt Sentence of Jesus, and a pertinent Reply of it, to what his Mother said to him, they have no Wine: If you will bear with me, I'll help you out at this dead lift, and give you the true meaning of it thus. Jesus's Mother being apprised of a deficiency of Wine, and willing, as well as the Bridegroom, that the Company should be thorowly merry before they parted, intimates to her Son, (whom she knew to be initiated in the Mysterys of Bacchus) that they had no Wine: But before she could finish her Request to him, He, mistaking her meaning, imagines, she was cautioning against drinking more Wine, and exhorting him to go home; whereupon he takes her up short and quick, saying, Woman, what have you to do with me? (for that too is the English of the Greek) I'll not be interrupted in my Cups, nor break Company; for mine Hour is not yet come to depart: But after he rightly apprehended her, he goes to work, and rather than the Company should want their fill, by trick of Art, like a Punch-maker, meliorates Water into what they call'd Wine. That this is the obvious Interpretation, and natural Paraphrase of the Words before us, shall be try'd by the Absurd Comments now-a-days put upon them, that are enough to make a considerate Man laugh, if not hiss at them.

"Some antient Hereticks[238], very gravely inferr'd from this Expression, Woman, what have I to do with thee, that Mary was neither a Virgin, nor Jesus her Son; or he had never accosted her with such blunt Language, that implys, they could not be so akin to each other. This was a perplexity to St. Augustin, and gave him some trouble to explain the Expression, consistently with her Virginity (for all she cohabited with the old Carpenter) and his Filiation. But this being a quibble, that has been long since dropt, I shall not revive, nor insist on it. But that the Expression above do's suppose a little Inebriation, in Jesus, I may avert, neither is there a better Solution to be made of it.

"The Fathers of your Church, being sensible of the absurdity, abruptness, impertinence, pertness, and senslesness of the Passage before us according to the Letter, had recourse to a mystical and allegorical Interpretation, as the only way to make it consistent with the Wisdom, Sobriety and Duty of the Holy Jesus. But you Moderns, abandoning Allegories and Mysteries on Miracles, have endeavour'd, I say, to put other Constructions upon it, as may comport with the Letter and Credit of Jesus: But how insipid and sensless they are, I appeal to a reasonable Man, who will give himself the trouble to consult them, upon the Place, and save me the Pains of a tedious and nauseous Work to recount them for him.

"But to Humour the Christian Priesthood at this Day, I will suppose that Jesus, and his Mother, and Disciples, tho' Fishermen, to have been all sober, grave and serious at this Wedding, suitably to the Opinion that their Followers now would have us to entertain of them. But then it is hard to conceive them, less than Spectators and even Encouragers of Excess and Intemperance in others; or Jesus, after their more than sufficient drinking for the satisfaction of Nature, had never turn'd Water into Wine, nor would his Mother have requested him to do it, if, I say, they had not a mind, and took Pleasure in it too, to see the Company quite stitch'd up.

"A sober, prudent and wise Philosopher or Magician, in the place of Jesus, if he had an Art or Power to turn Water into Wine, would never have exercised it upon such an occasion; no, not to please his best Friends, nor in obedience to the most indulgent Parent. What would he have said in such a Case? That the Company had drank sufficiently already, and there was no need of more Wine: The Bridegroom had kindly and plentifully entertain'd his Guests, and he would not for the Honour of God, who had endow'd him with a divine Power, be at the Expence of a Miracle to promote the least Intemperance. Whether such a Speech and Resolution in Jesus, upon this occasion, would not have been more commendable, than what he did, let any one judge.

"If I was a Christian, I would, for the Honour of Jesus, renounce this Miracle, and not magnify and extol it as a divine and good Act, as many now-a-days do. I would give into, and contend for the Truth of that Gloss, which the Gentiles of old[239] by way of Objection put upon it, viz. That the Company having exhausted the Bridegroom's Stock of Wine, and being in Expectation of more; Jesus, rather than the Bridegroom should be put to the Blush for deficiency, palm'd a false Miracle, by the help of the Governour of the Feast, upon a drunken Crew; that is, having some spirituous Liquors at hand, mingled them with a quantity of Water, which the Governour of the Feast vouch'd to be incomparable good Wine, miraculously made by Jesus: and the Company being, thro' a vitiated Palate, uncapable of distinguishing better from worse, and of discovering the Fraud, admired the Wine and the Miracle; and applauded Jesus for it, and perhaps became his Disciples upon it. If I, I say, was a Disciple of Jesus, I would give this Story such an old turn for his Credit. And I appeal to indifferent Judges, whether such a daubing of the Miracle, to remove the Offence of Infidels at this Day, would not be politically and wisely done of me. Whether modern Christians may be brought into such a Notion of this supposed Miracle, I know not; but really there is room enough to suspect such a Fraud in it.

"But supposing Jesus's Change of Water into Wine to have been a real Miracle; none commission'd of God for the Reformation and Instruction of Mankind would ever have done it here. Miracles (as Mr. Chandler[240] says excellently well) must be such things, as that it is consistent with the Perfections of God, to interest himself in; and again, they must argue not only the Power of God, but his Love to Mankind, and his Inclination to do them good; which this of Jesus is so far from, that it has an evil Aspect and Tendency, as is above represented; consequently it is to be rejected, and no longer esteem'd a divine Miracle; neither is Jesus to be received as a Revealer of God's Will for it, as Mr. Chandler will bear me witness.

"No doubt on't, but you Christian Priests would have us Jews and Infidels, to believe the whole Company at this Wedding, for all what is intimated by St. John to the contrary, to consist of sober and demure Saints. I will suppose so; but then, what occasion had they at all for Wine? What reason could there be for God's Power to interpose and make it, especially in so large a quantity, for them? I can conceive none. If any of the Company had been taken with fainting Fits; and Jesus for want of a Cordial Bottle, had created a chearing Drain or two, I could not have found fault with it; tho' even here, if he had restored the Patient with a word of his Mouth, it had been a better Miracle, than making of Wine for him: But that he should make for a Company of Sots, a large quantity of Wine, of no less than twelve or eighteen Firkins of English Measure, enough to intoxicate the whole Town of Cana of Galilee, is what can never be accounted for by a Christian, who should, one would think, wish this Story, for the Reputation of Jesus expunged out of the New Testament.

"Besides, if Jesus had really and miraculously made Wine, which no Power or Art of Man could do, he should, to prevent all suspicion of deceit in the Miracle, have done it without the use of Water. You Christians say, he is the original Cause of all Things out of nothing; why then did he not[241] create this Wine out of nothing? why did he not order the Pots to be emptied of their Water, if there was any in them, and then with a word of his Mouth command the filling them with Wine instead of it? Here had been an unexceptionable Miracle, which no Infidels could have cavil'd at, for any thing, but the needlessness of it. But this subject Matter of Water spoils the Credit of the Miracle. The Water-Pots, it seems, are to be fill'd, before Jesus could do the notable Feat; is not this enough to make us think, that Jesus was but an artificial Punch-maker? Could not he create Wine without Water for a Transmutation? Yes, you'll say he could: what was the Reason then, that he did not? This is a reasonable Question to a learned Priesthood: and a rational Answer should be given to it. And a Question too it is that heretofore has been under debate. Some said that the Water might be used to abate of the[242] immensity of the Miracle, which otherwise for its greatness might have surpass'd all Belief. But this Reason will not do. A Miracle can't be too great in itself, if well attested, to transcend Credit: but it may easily be too little to conciliate the Faith of a Free-Thinker. The Fathers of your Church fetch'd a Reason, for the use of Water here, from the Mystery; but since Mysterys on Miracles are set aside by the Priesthood of this Age, they are to assign another and good Reason of their own; or this Miracle is to be rejected, as a Piece of Art and Craft in the Operator, if for no other Reason than this, that Jesus used Water to make Wine.

"All that I have to say more to this Miracle, is, that it is to be wish'd, if Jesus could turn Water into Wine, that he had imparted the Secret and Power to his Disciples of the Priesthood of all Ages since, which would have been of greatest Advantage to them in this World. He has empower'd them, they say, to remit Sins, which few old Sinners think themselves the less in danger for: And he has enabled them, some say, to transubstantiate Bread into Flesh, and Wine into Blood, which none but foolish and superstitious Folks believe they ever did: And he promised to invest them with a Power to do greater Miracles than himself, even to remove Mountains, and to curse Trees; but I thank God, they never were of so strong a Faith, as to put it in Practice, or we might have heard of the natural state, as well as we do now of the civil state of some Countrys, ruin'd and overturn'd by them. But this Power to transmute Water into Wine, without Labour and Expence, would have been of better worth to them, than all their other Priestly Offices. Not, that our Conduits would thereupon run with Wine, instead of Water; or that Wine would be cheaper and more plentiful than it is now, excepting among themselves, if they could withal curse Vineyards. They would make the best Penny they a could of their divine Power. And as surely as they can now fell the Waterdrops of their Fingers at a Christening, at a good Rate, they would set a better Price on their miraculously made Wine, and give a notable Reason for its dearness, viz. that Miracles should not be cheap, which would bring them into Contempt, and lessen the Wonder and Admiration of them."

So ends the Invective of a suppos'd Jewish Rabbi against this Miracle; which our Divines, as well as myself, are to consider of an Answer to. Whether they shall think themselves able to answer the rational Parts of it, consistently with the Letter, I know not; but I own myself unable, and believe it impossible for them, to do it: And therefore they must of necessity go along with me to the mystical Interpretation of the Fathers; or this Miracle will turn to the dishonour of Jesus, and disadvantage of his Religion.

Justin Martyr[243] says, it is absurd to take the Stories of the Marriages and Concubinages of the Patriarchs of the Old Testament in a literal Sense. And indeed, literally consider'd, they are some of them too luscious Tales to be related by divine and inspired Penmen: whereupon he, as well as St. Paul and Philo-Judæus[244], turn these Stories for the Honour of God and Edification of his Church, into an Allegory. Consequently, if Justin had had an occasion to speak of this Marriage before us, there's no doubt on't, but he would have made Mystery of all and every Part of it.

To the same purpose Origen[245] says, "That since the Law is a shadow of good Things to come, and writes sometimes of Marriages and of Husbands and Wives; we are not to understand it of Marriages according to the Flesh, but of the spiritual Marriage between Christ and his Church. As for Instance, Abraham had two Sons, &c. here we ought not to confine our Thoughts to carnal Marriages, and their Offsprings; but to extend them to the Mysteries here signified. And there are almost a thousand other places in Scripture about Marriages; but in every place (unusquisque Locus castum & divinum de Nuptiis continet Intellectum secundum Expositionem moralem) is to have a divine, moral, and mystical Construction put on't. Whoever therefore reads the Scriptures about Marriages, and understands no more by them, than carnal Marriages; he errs, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God." From hence may be easily concluded, what was Origen's opinion about this Marriage in Cana of Galilee, if there were no other Passages in him for a Confirmation of it. But to come closer to the Purpose.

St. Augustin[246] says, there is Mystery signified in the Story of this Marriage, as in all Jesus's Miracles, which it becomes us to open and search for; till, if possible, we are inebriated with the spiritual and invisible Wine, that Jesus made at this Feast. And again[247] says, Let us then consider the several Particulars of the Story, and what is meant by the six Waterpots; and the Water that is turn'd into Wine; and the Governor of the Feast; and who are the Bridegroom and the Bride; and who is the Mother of Jesus in a Mystery; and what is to be understood by the Marriage.

And again, says St. Augustin[248], there is Mystery in this Marriage, or Jesus upon no invitation had gone to it. The Bridegroom is our Lord himself, to whom it is said thou hast reserv'd the good Wine of the Gospel until now, that is, until the typified Time of the Celebration of this mystical Marriage, which according to St. Augustin[249] is to be on the sixth Age of the World, signified by the six Water-Pots, holding two or three Firkins apiece, that is, all Mankind, as they are divided into the two sorts of Jews and Gentiles, or into three, as they are descended of the three Sons of Noah.

And in another Place, the same St. Augustin interpreting this Story, says[250] thus; "Our Saviour is invited to a Marriage; what can that mean but that the Holy Spirit is courted and invocated by the Church, wishing to be espoused to him? Jesus comes with his Disciples, that is, into a holy Place of a Company of Saints. Mary the Mother of our Lord signifies to him, that they have no Wine; so the Church makes known to him, the Deficiency of the Spirit, which she waits for the Power of. And if Jesus calls Mary, a Woman; he means the Church, who by Transfiguration may be a Virgin, the Mother, the Spouse of Christ, and a Whore too."

And again St. Augustin explaining[251] what is meant by the Water, and the Wine that it wou'd be turn'd into, at the Time of the spiritual Celebration of this Marriage of Christ with his Spouse of the Church, says plainly enough, that by Water is meant the Letter of the Scriptures; and by the best Wine is to be understood spiritual Interpretations, which would transport the understandings of Men with divine knowledge; and warm their Hearts and Affections into a spiritual Inebriation; after the similitude of Wine natural.

St. Theophilus of Antioch, a most antient Greek Commentator (who according to Bishop Smalbroke should strictly adhere to the Letter) says[252], that by this Marriage is meant the Conjunction of Christ and his Church, as it is the Tradition of the Old and New Testament. And that Jesus himself is the Bridegroom; and Moses the Governor of the Feast.

Other Fathers, such as St. Cyril, St. Theophylact and St. Jerome are of the same mind about the mystical Interpretation of this Marriage, as might be prov'd by Passages out of them, if I had room here to cite them. But I must observe here, that according to the Fathers, the Story of this Marriage is but another Emblem of the Marriage of the Lamb with the Bride of the New Jerusalem, spoken of in the Revelations, to which all the Fowls of the Air will be invited, that is, spiritual and heavenly minded Christians, who[253] soar and fly aloft in their divine and sublime Contemplations on the anagogical Sense of the Scriptures, which will exhibit those intellectual Dainties, they are there to be entertain'd with.

What I have here said out of the Fathers to the Story of this Marriage, is enough to quicken our Divines to search for the like mystical Interpretation of the whole. The Part of it that's most difficult to be spiritually expounded, is that saying of Jesus to his Mother, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine Hour is not yet come. For the clear interpretation of which, I own, I meet with little in the Fathers. But St. Augustin[254] assures us, there's latent Mystery in the words. How then shall we come at it? Why, if we cast away the Interrogation, and look upon the Sentence, as ellyptical, like an infinite number of prophetical ones, the Sense paraphrastically, and agreeably to the rest of the Mystery, arises thus: In answer to the Woman of the Church's Expectation of the Wine of the Spirit; Jesus will tell her or make her to understand of what importance it is to her (and himself) to be supply'd with that mystical Wine to her Edification, which it was not his time to pour forth upon the Church, till the Celebration of his Nuptials with her.

And thus have I done with the Miracle of Jesus's turning Water into Wine at a Marriage of Cana of Galilee. Whether it be not an absurd and offensive Story according to the Letter, let any one judge. If the supposed Jewish Rabbi has forced a worse Sense upon it, than it will naturally bear, our Clergy may expostulate with him for it, which they hardly will any otherwise than by Exclamations against him, without Reason and Authority. But in the mystical Operation of this Miracle at the Marriage of Christ with his Church, there will be the Wisdom and Power and Goodness of God visible. And it will be a demonstration of Jesus's Messiahship, in as much as the Water of the Letter of the Law and the Prophets can't be turn'd into the Wine of spiritual Interpretations, but we must discern how he is the Accomplisher and Fulfiller of them. And so I pass to an

11. Eleventh Miracle of Jesus, viz.[255] That of his healing a Paralytick, for whom the Roof of the House was broken up to let him down into the Room where Jesus was.

And this Story (without excepting that of the Pool of Bethesda) is the most monstrously absurd, improbable and incredible of any according to the Letter. There is not one Miracle of Jesus specifically related, that does not labour under more or less Absurdities, either in Substance or Circumstance: But this, for number and greatness of Absurdities, I think surpasses them all: And the Absurdities of it too are so obvious and stare a Man in the Face, that I wonder they are hitherto overlook'd; and that considerate and intelligent Persons have not before now hesitated and boggled at them. If Interest had not blinded the Eyes of our learned Clergy, they would easily have descry'd the Incredibilities and Absurdities of this Story; and in another Impostor's Case presently have pointed them out to the ridicule of his Admirers and Adorers.

If a Man was to torture his Brains for the Invention of a romantick Tale of improbable and surprizing Circumstances, that he might, withal, hope to palm for a Truth, if it was but for a Week or a Day, upon the Faith and Understanding of the Credulous; he could never have presumed, I think, so far upon the weakness of their Intellects, as to imagine any thing so grossly and notoriously contradictory to Sense and Reason, would have gone down with them, as is this before us, which has pass'd currently thro' many Ages of the Church, has been read with attention by the Learned, and revered by the rest of Christians, without any exception, hesitation, or doubt of the Truth of it. In short, so palpable is the falsity of the Story of this Miracle, that it requires no Sagacity to detect it; and was it not for the sake of the Mystery more than to expose the Folly of the Clergy in believing of it, I had never bestow'd the following Pains on it.

The People, it seems, so press'd and throng'd about the Door of the House, where Jesus was, that the Paralytick and his Bearers could not get near it. What did they so throng and press for? Was it to see Jesus, who was without Form and Comeliness, according to the Prophet Isaiah; or, who was one of the most graceful of the Sons of Men, as Painters and Publius Lentulus do describe him? This could not be the Reason of the Croud. Tho' a Person extraordinary, either for Beauty or Deformity may attract the Eyes of the People, and occasion too a Throng about him; yet this could be no Reason for a Press about Jesus, at Capernaum, where he dwelt, and was commonly seen and well known.

Was it then to hear him preach? Nor this neither. Tho' an excellent Preacher does sometimes, and a very indifferent one does oftener draw multitudes after him; yet Jesus, as a Prophet, was without Honour at Capernaum, his own Country; consequently, it is not to be supposed that, for his Doctrine, he was so much follow'd here, tho' we read, that he preach'd the Word unto them.

Was it then to behold him working of Miracles and curing of the diseased? This is the likeliest Reason of the Crouds and Throng about him. And perhaps it was a Day appointed beforehand for his healing of the diseased, which might occasion a more than ordinary Concourse of the People. But then this Reason would have induced the People to make way for the Lame, Blind, and Paralyticks to come to Jesus; for they frustrated their own Hopes and Expectations of seeing Miracles wrought; and acted more unreasonably than ever Mob did, or can be supposed to do.

But whatever was the Reason of this tumultuous Crouding, which is hard to be accounted for; it's said, the poor Paralytick with his Bearers could not get to the Door of the House for the Press, and therefore in all haste is he haul'd to the Top of the House, and let down, thro' a breach of the Roof, into the Room where Jesus was. What need was there of such Haste and Pains to get to Jesus for a Cure? It was but waiting a while, not many Hours, and in all probability the Tumult would be appeas'd, and access easily had to him. But that the Bearers of the poor Man should enterprise a trouble and difficulty, that could not require less Time, than the Tumult could be supposed to last, is a little strange and somewhat incredible.

St. Chrysostom says[256], that the Paralytick saw that the Market-place or Street was throng'd with People, who had obstructed all Passage to the House, where Jesus was; and yet he did not so much as say to his Friends and Bearers, "What's the Reason of this Tumult? Let's stay till it is appeas'd, and the House clear'd of the People, who ere long will depart; and then we shall privately and quietly get admittance to Jesus," But why did he not say so? Any one beside himself and his Bearers, if they had any Reason and Senses about them, would have so argued. St. Chrysostom says, it was their Faith that made them in such haste to get to Jesus: But I should have thought their Faith might have work'd Patience, and disposed them to stay till Jesus could come out to them, or they get in to him: And it is an Addition to the strangeness and incredibility of this Story, that it did not.

But supposing this Paralytick in such haste and danger of Life, that he could not wait the dispersion of the Tumult, but, for want of a free entrance at the Door, is, cost what it will, to be rais'd to the top of the House, and a breach must be there made for him. The Question is, whether such an Enterprize was or could be feisable and practicable? I have no Conception of the possibility of it. If they could not get to the Door of the House for the Press; of consequence they could not come at the Sides of it. How should they? over the Heads of the People? That's not to be imagined; consequently here's another difficulty in the Story, that renders it yet more strange and incredible.

But, without questioning the possibility and easiness of getting the Paralytick and his Couch over the Heads of the Mob, to the sides of the House; thither he is brought, where we now behold him and his Bearers with their Pullies, Ropes, and Ladders (that were not at hand, nor could suddenly be procured) hauling and heaving him to the top of the House. Of what height the House was, is not of much Consequence. Some for the Credit of the Story may say[257], it was a very low one; tho' antient and modern Commentators are pretty well agreed, that it was an upper-Room, where Jesus was; consequently the House was at least two Stories high: But if it was much higher, I'll allow that Art and Pullies (which they wanted for the present) would raise the Man and his Bed to the top of it: So we will not dispute nor differ upon that matter. On the top of the House then, we are now to behold the Paralytick and his Bearers with their Hatchets and Hammers, &c. (which they forgot to bring with them, for they could not think of any use they should have of them) uncovering the Roof of the House; breaking up Tiles, Spars, and Rafters, and making a Hole, capacious enough for the Man and his Bed to be let thro'. An odd, strange, and unaccountable Work this, which, if they had not been cunning Fellows, would hardly have enter'd into their Heads to project. But at work they are, when it was well, if Jesus and his Disciples escaped with only a broken Pate, by the falling of Tiles, &c., and if the rest were not almost smother'd with the Dust; for it was over their Heads that the breach was made. Where was the good Man of the House all this while? Would he suffer his House to be thus broken up, and not command them to desist from their foolish and needless Attempt, till the Mob was quell'd, and there was a free entrance at the Door of his House, which could not be long first? Is there nothing in all this, of difficulty and obstruction in the way of the belief of this Story?

Some modern Commentators, being aware of these difficulties in this Story, and willing to reconcile Men to the earlier belief of it, say, as Drusius[258] did, that the Houses of Judæa were flat-roof'd, and not ridg'd: And Doctors, Lightfoot and Whitby[259] say, there was a Door on their flat Roofs, by which the Jews used to ascend to the top of their Houses, where they discours'd on the Law and religious Matters; and that it was thro' such a Door, by a little widening of the sides of it, that the Paralytick was let down in the presence of Jesus. To which Opinion I would yield, if it was not liable to these Objections, viz. that it is not reconcilable to what St. Luke says, of their letting the Paralytick down thro' the Tiling with his Couch, in the midst, where Jesus was; nor hardly consistent with what St. Mark says of their uncovering and breaking up the Roof of the House: which Expressions the Evangelists had never used, if there had been a Door for him to descend by. But to indulge Lightfoot and Whitby in their Notion; I may ask them, what occasion was there then of widening the doorway, and breaking down the sides of it? They'll say, because the Passage otherwise was too narrow, for the Man's Couch to get thro'. Why then did not they take him out of his Couch, and let him down in a Blanket, a Chair, or a Basket? Or rather, why did not Jesus, to prevent this Trouble and Damage to the House, ascend thro' this Door, to the Top of it, and their speak the healing Word to this poor Man? To say, that Jesus could not or would not go up to the Paralytick, I would not, for Fear of an Imputation of Blasphemy against me. Our Divines therefore are to look for, what they'll hardly find, an Answer to the said Question, which will consist with the Wisdom, the Goodness and Honour of Jesus; or here will be another and insuperable Bar to the Credibility of this Story.

In short, there are more and greater Difficultys affecting the Credit of this Miracle, on the side of Jesus, than any before urg'd. Could not he, as it was antiently[260] objected, have made the Access to himself more easy? Could not he, to prevent all this Trouble and Pains of getting to the Top of the House, and of breaking up the Roof of it, have desired or even forc'd the People to make way for this poor Man and his Bearers? This was not impossible for him to do. If it was hard for another; it was not for him, who was omnipotent. He that could drive his Thousands before him out of the Temple; and draw as many after him into the wilderness, might surely, by Force or Persuasion have made the People, how unreasonably mobbish soever, to retreat. And why did he not? Without a good and satisfactory Answer, which I can't conceive, to this Question, here is the most unaccountable and incredible part of the whole Story, that reflects on the Wisdom, the Power and Goodness of Jesus. If there had been no other absurd Circumstances of it, this is enough to spoil its Credit, so far as that I believe it impossible for Ministers of the Letter, with all their Wit, Penetration and Sagacity to get over it.

Believe then the Story of this Miracle, thus taken to Pieces, who can? It is such an Accumulation of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities, that a Man of the most easy Faith, if he at all think, can't digest. It's not credible, I said, to suppose, the People of Capernaum, where Jesus dwelt, and was well known and little admired, would at all press to see or hear him: And if the occasion of their Concourse was to behold his Miracles; it is less-reasonable to think they would tumultuate to their own disappointment; but rather make way for the diseased, for the satisfaction of their own Curiosity, to come to him: And if they did mob it to their own disappointment, about the Door of the House; it was next to impossible for the poor Man and his Couch to be heav'd over their Heads, and rais'd to the top of it: More unreasonable yet to think, the master of the House would suffer the Roof of it to be so broken up: But most of all against Reason to suppose, Jesus would not give forth the healing word, and prevent all this Labour, or by his divine Power disperse the People, that the Paralytick might have present and easy access to him.

Whether all this be not absolutely shocking of the Credit of this Story, let my Readers judge. In my Opinion, no Tale more monstrously romantick can be told. I don't here question Jesus's Power to heal this Paralytick, nor the miraculousness of the Cure of him: The trouble of that Question is saved me, by the many other incredible Circumstances of the Story, which are such a Contradiction to Sense and Reason, as is not to be equall'd, in any thing, that's commonly receiv'd and believ'd by Mankind. Cicero says, that there is nothing so absurd, which some of the Philosophers have not held. And they might and did, some of them, hold gross Absurdities. But the Letter of the Story of this Miracle before us, which is the Object of the Faith of our learned Priesthood at this Day is a Match for the worst of them.

But as absurd, as this Story is, I expect that our Clergy will be disgusted at my ludicrous display of it; and that Arch Deacon Stubbs in particular will again be ready to exclaim against me, and say, that this is turning a miraculous Fact and a divine Testimony of our Religion into Ridicule. Whereupon it is to be wish'd, that Arch-Deacon would write, what would be a Pleasure to see, a Vindication of this Story. If he can account for the possibility and credibility of the Letter of it, he shall have my leave to make another dull Speech in Convocation against me. And it is not unlikely, but he may say as much for it, as another Man: For as the Story is senseless, so it is the better suited to his Head and Brains. But if he don't, I much question, whether any other Clergyman of more Wit will, appear in Defence of it.

So absurd is the Letter of this Story, that for the Honour of Jesus, and Credibility of his Gospel, it is absolutely necessary to turn it into Allegory. To the Fathers then, let us go for their help in this Case. If they did not read me a better Lecture upon this Miracle, than do our modern Commentators, I should be almost tempted to renounce my Religion upon it: But as they have rationally and rightly instructed me in its true meaning, so I retain my Christian Faith, and admire the Sublimity of the Mystery, which I am now to give an account of.

By this Paralitick, St. Hilary[261] says, is to be understood Mankind of all Nations, which opinion too the Fathers held of the Paralitick, who was heal'd at the Pool of Bethesda. And by his Palsy is not meant any bodily Distemper, but the spiritual Palsy of the Soul, that is, as St. Augustin[262] and St. Jerome[263] interpret, a dissoluteness of Morals, and an unsteadiness of Faith and Principles, which is the Condition of Mankind at present, who want Jesus's help for the Cure of it. Eusebius Gallicanus[264] says, our Saviour's words signify, that it is not a bodily but a spiritual Disease here meant; or he had never said to the Paralytick, Son, thy Sins are forgiven thee, which words respect the inward Man, and demonstrate the Palsy here to be a disease Of the Soul.

The Man sick of the Palsy had four Bearers. And who are they mystically in this Case? Why, the Fathers[265] understand by them the four Evangelists, on whose Faith and Doctrine Mankind is to be carry'd unto Christ; for no Soul can be brought unto him, for the Sanation of his Sins and Errors, but by these four.

But to the top of the House is Mankind, thus paralytically diseased, to be carry'd by the four Evangelists, his Bearers. And what then is this House and its Top? The House of Jesus is the intellectual Edifice of the World, otherwise call'd Wisdom's House; of the beautiful Buildings of which the Scriptures prophetically treat: therefore to the sublime Sense of the Scriptures, call'd the Top[266] of the House, is Man to be taken: He is not to abide in the low and literal Sense[267] of them, where People press and strive in vain to come to Jesus: But if he is taken to the Sublimity of the Scriptures and there open[268] the House of Wisdom, he will presently be admitted to the Presence and Knowledge of Jesus.

Venerable Bede, who is altogether a Transcriber of the Fathers, for which Reason I cite him among the Fathers, says[269], that by the Tiles of the House spoken of in St. Luke, is meant the Letter of the Scriptures, which is to be laid open for the manifestation of Christ and of divine Mysteries to the healing of Man's spiritual Palsy, the unsteadiness and dissoluteness of his Morals and Principles.

So much, in short, then to the mystical Interpretation of the Story of this Miracle. The literal Sense of it is so encumber'd with romantick Circumstances, as are enough to turn a Man's Heart against Christianity it self: But in the Mystery there will be a most stupendous Miracle, which will be not only an Argument of Jesus's divine Power, but of his Messiahship, as certainly as his House of Wisdom, of which the Scriptures write, is open'd to the Manifestation of his Presence, and to the Cure of Mankind of his paralytical Disease, call'd an instability of Faith and Principles.

And thus have I, in this Discourse, taken into Examination three more of Jesus's Miracles; which I submit to the Judgment of my Readers, whether the literal Story of them does not consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities according to the Proposition before us; and whether there is not a necessity, for the Honour of Jesus, to turn them into prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what will be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.

My next Discourse, if my mind hold, shall treat on the three Stories of Jesus's raising of the dead, viz. of the Widow of Naim's Son, of Jairus's Daughter, and of Lazarus; after which I will give the literal History of Christ's Resurrection, that sandy Foundation of the Church, a Review; and so conclude my Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour.

To run thro' all the Miracles of Jesus, and handle them in the manner I have done the foregoing, would be a long and tedious Work. But if our Divines shall think, I have selected only those Miracles, which are obnoxious to Cavil and Ridicule; and have omitted others, that literally are a more unexceptionable Testimony of Jesus's divine Power, and Authority; I will, for their Satisfaction take more of them to Task, and give the Letter of their Stories, the like ludicrous treatment. If I mistake not, the Miracles already spoken to, together with those of Jesus's raising of the dead, and of his own Resurrection, are the most famous and remarkable of any others: And according to the Observation I have made on the rest, they are no less but rather more liable to Ridicule and Exception. But if any are of a contrary Opinion, and will let me know, which in their Judgment are more unexceptionable Miracles, I will vouchsafe them an Examination. I am sure there is not one Miracle, which the Fathers of the Church did not turn into Allegory; and if we don't at this Day make mystical Operations of them, they will none of them according to the Letter, stand their Ground, nor abide the Test of a critical Inquiry into them.

I don't expect, that this Discourse will be any more pleasing and acceptable to the Clergy, who are Ministers of the Letter of Jesus's Miracles, as well as of the Prophecies of him, than any of my former: But their Displeasure in the Case will give me no Disturbance, nor am I concern'd about any Resentment, they can make of it. If they are offended at these Discourses, they should as they came forth, have written solid Confutations of them, and so have prevented my Publication of any more of this kind: But instead of serious and potent Reasonings against me, I have met with little else but oral Railings, Exclamations, Defamations, and attempts for Prosecution; which have been so far from terrifying me, that they give me a secret Pleasure, and animate me to proceed in the Undertaking in hand.

I did not much question but the Bishop of St. Davids, whom I look'd upon as a Person of Ingenuity and Learning, would, before this Time, have publish'd somewhat in Confutation of one or other of my former Discourses. Whether he was not obliged to it, or to make me some publick Reparation of the Injury done to my Reputation, by his slanderous Sermon, I appeal now to the worshipful Societys for Reformation of Manners; to whom, and to other Civil Magistrates, I hope his Sermon, without Reason, will be a Caution, that no Pulpit-Invective move them to prosecute or think the worse of any Author.

Liberty of thinking, writing and judging for our selves in Religion is a natural, a Christian, and a protestant Right: It is a Right that the Magistrates as well as the Subjects are interested in, and are to see to the Conservation of, or their Understandings as well as their Purses will be ridden and oppress'd by an ignorant and tyrannical Priesthood. I urge not this for my own security against Prosecution for Infidelity and Blasphemy, declaring that if the Bishops of London, St. Davids, or Arch-Deacon Stubbs, who are zealous for Persecution, will but engage me on the Stage of Controversy, and make good their Accusations against me, I will submit to the worst Punishment, that can be inflicted on the worst Offender.

In the mean time I will go on with my Undertaking, to the advancement of Truth, and demonstration of the Messiahship of the Holy Jesus, to whom be Glory for ever, Amen.

FINIS.

A FIFTH

DISCOURSE

ON THE

MIRACLES

OF OUR

SAVIOUR,

In View of the Present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates.

——Ridiculum acri
Fortius & melius magnas plerumq; secat Res.

The Second Edition.

By Tho. Woolston, B.D. sometime Fellow of Sidney-College in Cambridge.

LONDON:

Printed for the Author, and Sold by him next door to the Star, in Aldermanbury, and by the Booksellers of London, and Westminster, 1728.

[Price One Shilling.]

TO THE

Right Reverend Father in God

THOMAS,

Lord Bishop of Bangor.

My Lord,

hatever we poor Authors may sometimes pretend to, by the Dedication of our Works to Great Men; it's certain we aim at nothing less than Rewards and Preferments, whether we deserve them or not: That this is my Design in Dedications, is so apparent, that it's to no Purpose to deny or dissemble it.

Wherefore else have I made Choice of some of our Learned and Wealthy Bishops for the Patrons of these Discourses, which I foresaw would be grateful to their nice and critical Palates? Wherefore else have I been so profuse of such Compliments on their Lordships, as I was sure, they would take great Pleasure in? Wherefore else, My Lord, do I inscribe this to your Right Reverend Name, but that I expect your Approbation of it, and hope for a Recompence, equal to the Honour, that is here done you.

Some, who are envious, My Lord, of my good Fortune in Episcopal Patrons, will not believe that I have receiv'd so much as one Purse of Gold for any of my Dedications; but I would have such Malignants to know, that the less I have receiv'd, the more there is behind: And I can moreover assure them, that their Lordships have it in their Heads and their Hearts too, highly to advance me in the World; and if their Endeavours for my Promotion fail not, I shall be a very Great Man.

Such primitive Doctrine, My Lord, as I have reviv'd, must, in the Judgment of our Bishops, be deserving of their distinguish'd Favours: And if they should Design for me such a mystical Crown of Glory, as the Gentile Priests help'd some of the Fathers of the Church to; I profess without Dissimulation, that, for all my Love to Mysteries, it will be more than I am ambitious of: But if the Honour is forc'd on me, it will be my Duty to their Lordships, to sound an allegorical Trumpet of their Fame, that their Names, which, might otherwise be soon forgotten, may be everlastingly remember'd for their Love and Good-will towards me.

But the chief Foundation, My Lord, of my Merits lies, they say, in my Treatment of the Miracles of our Saviour, after the Manner you handled a Scripture-Prophecy, of a Man's kicking a Serpent on the Pate, for biting him by the Heels: And if your Lordship got a Welsh-Bishoprick upon it, what may not I expect for my more meritorious Works of the same kind? The Great Mr. Scheme has celebrated your Praise for that Effort of your Wit: And I must needs say, to your Lordship's Applause, that were not your Thoughts unhappily shackled with Interest and Subscriptions, (an Unhappiness you sadly lament!) you would endeavour to make as pleasant Work with the Letter of the Old, as I can do with that of the New Testament.

I have not here Room, My Lord, for a sufficient and deserv'd Encomium on your Use and Intent of Prophecy; therefore must be content to say of it, in short, that it is a most curious Piece of, what the Fathers call, Engastromuthism; or such a singular Specimen of a Webb, spun out of a Man's own Bowels, as one of fewer Brains in his Head can hardly equal.

It was wisely done of your Lordship to caution your Readers against taking your Book for an Answer to Mr. Grounds; otherwise it had not been impossible, but some others as well as the Worshipful Benchers of the Temple might have mistaken the Use and Intent of it.

After I had gone thro' your beautifully-printed Work, I wish'd, My Lord, for another Decoration of it, that some Annotations out of the Fathers had been subjoin'd to it. How would your Notions then and Theirs about Prophecy have stood as a Foil to each other! How should I then have admired the Difference between a Rich Bishop and a Poor Father as to Wit and Sense! How should I then have contemplated the Usefulness of Ecclesiastical Wealth in our Clergy for the Understanding of the Inspirations of the poor old Prophets!

When your Lordship is call'd upon for another Edition of your Book, vouchsafe me the Favour of making some marginal Remarks on it, which shall not be without their good Use. As you know, savoury Sawce makes some sort of Food go down the better; so a little more of that Salt, which Mr. Scheme has too sparingly sprinkled on your Work, will give your Readers, a right Relish of it: But whether I am indulg'd this Favour or not; I than take another opportunity, according to Promise elsewhere made, of testifying to the World, how much I am,

October 25.
1728.

My LORD,
The Admirer of
Your Use and
Intent of Prophecy,
Thomas Woolston.

A FIFTH

DISCOURSE

ON THE

MIRACLES

OF OUR

SAVIOUR, &c.

ccording to Promise in my last Discourse, I am in this to take into Examination the three Miracles of Jesus's raising the dead, viz. Of Iairus's Daughter[270]; of the Widow of Naim's Son[271]; and of Lazarus[272]: The literal Stories of which I shall show to consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities, in Order to the mystical Interpretation of them: And because some of our Bishops and Clergy were a little disgusted at the ludicrous Treatment of the Letter of some foregoing Miracles, I will handle these with the more Caution; being as unwilling, as any Man of my primitive Faith can be, to offend weak Brethren.

Whether Jesus rais'd any more from the dead, besides the foresaid three Persons is uncertain from the Evangelical History. St. Augustin[273] thinks, he rais'd many others; and he founds his Opinion on the modest Hyperbole of St. John, who supposes[274] the World it self could not contain the Books that might be Written of Jesus. And Eusebius Gallicanus, of whose Mind entirely I am, says[275] the Reason lies in the Mystery, why these three, and no more than these three Miracles of this Kind are recorded by the Evangelists. But since our Divines are averse to Mysteries on Miracles, I would gladly know their Opinion, whether Jesus rais'd any others from the dead, or not: I have made some search into modern Writers for their Opinion in this Case, but can't find it: And unless I knew their Opinion, it would be lost Labour to argue against either Side of the Question, and much more against both Sides of it: But I can assure our Divines, that, which Side of the Question soever they should hold, the Consequence upon the Argument would be neither better nor worse, than that they must of necessity espouse the mystical and allegorical Interpretation of these Miracles, or grant that Jesus literally rais'd none from the dead at all.

But waving that sort of Argument for the present against the Letter; these three Miracles are reputed the greatest that Jesus wrought: And I believe, it will be granted on all hands, that the restoring a Person, indisputably dead, to Life again, is a stupendous Miracle; and that two or three such Miracles well circumstanced, and credibly reported, are enough to conciliate the Belief of Mankind, that the Author of them was a divine Agent, and invested with the Power of God, or he could not do them. But God knows, (and for the sake of the Mystery, I am not sorry to say it) this is far from being the Case of these three Miracles before us, or of any one them.

That these three Miracles are not equally great, but differ in Degree, is visible enough to any one, that but cursorily reads, and compares theirs Stories one with another. The Fathers of the Church[276] have taken Notice of such a Difference amongst them. The greatest of the three, and indeed, the[277] greatest Miracle, that Jesus is suppos'd to have wrought, is that of Lazarus's Resurrection; which, in Truth, was a most prodigious Miracle, if his Corps was putrified and stank; or if there were no just Exceptions to be made to the Credibility of the Story. Next to that, in magnitude, is Jesus's raising of the Widow's Son, as they were carrying him to his Burial: And a great Miracle it was to bring him to Life again; if none before or since had been mistaken for dead, and carried to their Graves alive; or if no Impostor and his Confederates could frame such a seemingly miraculous Scene, as is that whole Story, to his own Glory. The least of the three is that of his raising Jairus's Daughter, which in Appearance is so far from a Miracle, that according to the Story itself, she was but asleep, or by the Shrieks of By-standers frighted out of her Senses for the present.

But however it really might be with these three supposed dead and revived Persons; the Case of none of them was well enough circumstanced to serve the Purpose of our Divines. I am apt to believe with the Fathers, that Jesus actually did raise the dead; but then, as these Miracles are only recorded for the sake of the Mystery, I affirm that none of them, as to the Letter, will abide the Test of a critical Examination, nor stand its Ground against such Exceptions as may be made to them. If Jesus was to raise any dead Bodies to Life, for a Testimony of his divine Power and Authority, he would and should have made Choice of other dead Persons, under other Circumstances of Death; and the History of their Resurrection should have been more credibly and carefully transmitted to Posterity, so as there should have been no Room left to make a reasonable Doubt of the Truth of it. But this, I say, is not the Case in the Resuscitation of any of these Persons, as will appear from the following Remarks and Observations upon them. And

1. Observe, that the unnatural and preposterous Order of Time, in which these Miracles are related, justly brings them all under suspicion of Fable and Forgery. The greatest of the three is indisputably that of Lazarus's Resurrection; but since this is only mention'd by St. John, who wrote his Gospel after the other Evangelists, and above sixty Years, according to the best Computation, after our Lord's Ascension; here is too much Room for Cavil and Question, whether this Story be not entirely his Invention. What could be the Reason that Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who all wrote their Gospel's before John, and many Years nearer to the Death of our Saviour, should omit to record this remarkable and most illustrious Miracle of Lazarus? They could not forget it, nor be ignorant of it, if the Story had been really true; and to assign any other Reason than Ignorance or Forgetfulness, is hard and impossible. To aggrandize the Fame of their Master, for a Worker of Miracles, was the Design of all the Evangelists, especially of the three first, who may be presumed to make a Report of the greatest, if not of all, that Jesus wrought: But that there should come after them an Evangelist with an huge and superlatively great Miracle, and meet with Credit for it, is against all Sense and Reason; neither is there any Story, so disorderly told, in all History, that Critics will admit of the Belief of. The first Writer of the Life of an Hero, to be sure makes mention of all the grand Occurrences of it, and leaves no Room for Biographers afterwards, but to enlarge and paraphrase upon what he has written, with some other Circumstances and Additions of less Moment. If a third or a fourth Biographer after him shall presume to add a more illustrious Transaction of the Hero's Life, it will be rejected as Fable and Romance, tho' for no other Reason than this, that the first Writer must have been appris'd of it, and would have inserted its Story, if there had been any Truth in it. And whether St. John's Story of Lazarus's Resurrection, that Miracle of Miracles, ought not to be subjected to the like Criticism upon it, Christians may consider, and Infidels will judge.

What then was the Reason, I ask again, that the three first Evangelists neglected to record this renown'd Miracle of Lazarus? And why too (may I enquire here) did not Matthew and Mark mention the Story of the Widow of Naim's Son, as they could not but know of it, if true, more certainly than Luke, the Companion of Paul, who alone has made a Report of it? Grotius says,[278] it may seem strange that this illustrious Miracle of the Widow's Son was omitted by Matthew and Mark: And what is the Reason that Grotius gives for this strange Omission? Why, he tells us[279] that these two Evangelists were content with one miraculous Instance of this Kind, by which Christians might judge of Jesus's Power in others also. And is this Reason sufficient? True it is, they were content with one Instance; but if they had made a Report of two or three more of the same sort, no body would have thought their History of Christ overcharg'd with impertinent and tautological Repetitions. But one Instance of a Person rais'd from the dead, they were, says Grotius, content with: And I'll grant one to be sufficient: But which then should they, as wise and considerate Historians have made Choice of, the greatest or the least Miracle? The greatest, to be sure, and that was of Lazarus, or of the Widow's Son, if they knew of either. But instead of either of these, they tell us the Story of Jairus's Daughter, that is[280] an imperfect and disputable Miracle, in Comparison of the other two, which consequently they knew nothing at all of, or they would have preferr'd the Report of them.

If Matthew, the first Writer, had recorded only the Story of Lazarus, whose Resurrection was the greatest Miracle; and if Luke had added that of the Widow of Naim's Son; and John lastly had remember'd us of Jairus's Daughter, which the other Evangelists, not through Ignorance or Forgetfulness, but studying Brevity, had omitted, then all had been well; and no Objection had hence lain against the Credit of any of these Miracles, or against the Authority of the Evangelists: But this unnatural and preposterous Order of Time, in which these Miracles are recorded (the greatest being postponed to the least) administers just Occasion of suspicion of the Truth and Credibility of all their Stories. And it is lucky for Christianity, that Jews and Infidels have not hitherto hit upon the Absurdity of this preposterous Narration, or they might have form'd a cogent Objection against these Miracles thus, saying;

"Jesus, it is manifest, rais'd not the dead at all. The only Person, that Christians can reasonably pretend, he did raise, was Jairus's Daughter, whom Matthew writes of; and she, according to the Story was only in a Sleep, or an Extacy, when Jesus revived her. But the Galileans, who were after a Time call'd Christians, finding their Account in a Resurrection-Miracle; Luke, for the former Advantage of the Cause, devised another Story of better Circumstances, in the Widow of Naim's Son: But this not being so great a Miracle, as the Church still wanted; John, when no body was alive to contradict and expostulate with him for it, trumps up a long Story of a thumping Miracle, in Jesus's raising of Lazarus, who had been not only dead, but buried so long that he stank again. But to prove the Story of this Miracle to be false and fabulous, we need say no more than that it was last recorded. If there had been any Truth in it, the first Evangelist would have remember'd us of it.

"We don't suppose, that you Christians, because of your Prejudices, will subscribe to this Account, that we thus give of the Rise of these Miracles: But this is certain, that if these three Miracles had not been reported of Jesus, but of Mahomet, in the same disorder of Time, by three different Historians, you would presently have scented the Forgery and Imposture: You would justly have affirm'd that the three Stories were apparently three Fables and Falsehoods; and that the three Historians visibly strove to outstretch each other: That the first was sparing and modest in his Romance; and the second, being sensible of the Insufficiency of the former's Tale, devises a Miracle of a bigger Size; which still not proving sufficient to the End proposed; the third Writer, rather than his Prophet's Honour should sink for want of a Resurrection-Miracle, forges a Story of a monstrously huge one; against which it is, and always will be Objection enough, that it was not related by the first Historian. So would you Christians argue against these three Miracles in another Impostor's Case; and there is not a judicious Critic in the Universe, that would not approve of the Argument, and applaud the Force of it, tho' you will not endure the Thoughts of it in the Case of your Jesus.

"But to come nearer home to you; supposing John (who was then above a Hundred, and in his Dotage) had not reported this Miracle of Lazarus; but that Clement (joining it with his[281] incredible Story of the Resurrection of a Phœnix) or Ignatius, or Polycarp, or the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions had related it; would not your Christian Critics have been at work to explode it? There is not an antient extra-evangelical Tradition of any Note about Jesus, that some or other of your Critics have not boggled at; but such a Story as this of Lazarus would have been received by none. I question, whether Mr. Whiston would not have rejected the Constitutions upon such a Story in them; or if his Fancy for some other Things in them had overcome his Reason against this; yet Bishop Smallbroke, who has written against the Canonicalness of the Constitutions, with his judicious Animadversions upon this Story, would absolutely have overthrown their Authority. And what would he have said here? Not only that the Miracle smells rankly of Forgery and Fraud, or the Evangelists, especially Matthew, had never forgotten to record it; but he would have reminded us of intrinsic Notes (hereafter to be mention'd) of Absurdity, and Incredibility, that would for ever have cashier'd the Belief of it. And whether we Infidels ought not to take the same Liberty to criticize on John's Gospel, which you do on your Apostolical Fathers, who wrote before him, let the impartial and unprejudiced judge: If in justice we ought to take it; we are sure we could give two or three notable Reasons (but that We will not now put Christians out of Temper with them) why John may be suspected of a Mistake or Fraud in this Miracle, rather than any other Christian Writer of the first or second Century."

To such an unhappy Objection, arising from the unnatural and preposterous Order of Time, in which they are recorded, are these three Miracles before us obnoxious. And I am thinking how Ministers of the Letter will be able to get over it. As for my self, who am for the mystical Interpretation of these Miracles, I have a solid and substantial Answer at hand to the foresaid Objection, an Answer that curiously accounts for the Order of Time in which these Miracles are related; but my Answer will not please our Divines, nor stand them in any stead; therefore they must look up another good one of their own, that will comport with the Letter; or the said Objection, improved with another presently against Lazarus's Resurrection, will be too hard, not for Christianity it self, but for their Ministry.

Grotius, being aware of the foresaid Objection, has given us such a[282] Solution of it as then occurr'd to his Thoughts. Dr. Whitby, not being satisfied with Grotius's Solution, has given us[283] another: But how weak and insufficient both their Solutions are, I will not spare Time to consider, till some Writer shall appear in Defence of the Sufficiency and Strength of one or other of them. And so I pass to a

2. Second Observation, by Way of Objection to the Letter of these Miracles, and that is, by enquiring, what became of these three Persons after their Resurrection? How long did they live afterwards? And of what Use and Advantage were their restored Lives to the Church or to Mankind? The Evangelical and Ecclesiastical History is entirely silent as to these Questions, which is enough to make us suspect their Stories to be merely romantick or parabolical; and that there were no such Persons rais'd from the dead; or we must have heard somewhat of their Station and Conversation in the World afterwards. It's true, that Ephiphanius[284] says, what he found among Traditions, that Lazarus lived thirty Years after his Resurrection: But how did he spend his Time all that while? Was it to the Honour of Jesus, to the Service of the Church, and Propagation of the Gospel? Of that we know nothing; tho' in Reason and Gratitude to Jesus, his Benefactor, it ought to have been so spent; and if it had been so employ'd, History surely would have inform'd us of it. According to the Opinion of Grotius, in a Citation above, Lazarus for the rest of his restored Life absconded, and skull'd about the Country for Fear of the Jews, who lay in Wait for him; which is a Suggestion, not only dishonourable to Jesus, as if the same Power, that rais'd him from the dead, could not protect him against his Enemies; but reproachful to Lazarus himself, who should have chosen to suffer Death again, rather than not bear an open Testimony to Jesus, the Author of his Resurrection. However it was, we hear no more of Lazarus, than that he lived thirty Years afterwards, which Tradition, without other Memorials of his Life, brings the Miracle more under suspicion of Fable, than if he had dy'd soon after it. And of Jairus's Daughter, and of the Widow of Naim's Son, which is astonishing, we read nothing at all. Does not this Silence in History about them, make their Miracles questionable, and but like Gulliverian Tales of Persons and Things, that out of the Romance, never had any Being.

Jesus did but[285] call a little Child, and set him in the midst of his Disciples; and that Act was remember'd in the Piety and Zeal[286] of Ignatius, who made a renown'd Bishop. But the Favour and Blessing conferr'd on these three rais'd Persons was exceedingly greater; and one might have expected, that Lazarus and the Widow's Son would have been eminent Ministers of the Gospel. But instead of that, their Lives afterwards were pass'd in Obscurity, or, what's as bad, Ecclesiastical History has neglected a Report of them. What can any one hereupon think less, than that the Favour of the Miracles was lost on undeserving Persons, which I abhor the Thoughts of; or that their Stories are but Parables, which I rather incline to.

Ministers of the Letter may here say, "That the Ecclesiastical History of the Apostolical Age is very scanty; and that many Memorials of other Persons and Transactions are lost and buried in Oblivion: Which unhappy Fate has attended the after-Lives and Actions of these rais'd Persons, or undoubtedly we should have had a famous Record of them." This is not impossible; tho' in the Wisdom of Providence it is hardly probable, but that some more Remembrance must have been left of one or other, if not of all the three Persons; in as much as such a Remembrance of them would now-a-days have no less gain'd a Belief of the Miracles, than this Historical Silence tends to the Discredit of them.

It's somewhat strange, that we hear no more of the after-Fame and Life of any of the diseased Persons, whom Jesus miraculously cured; excepting of the Woman, heal'd of an Issue of Blood; who, tho' she spent ALL she had, even ALL her Living upon Physicians; yet out of the Remains of it erected, says[287] Eusebius, at Cæsarea Philippi, two most costly Statues of Brass, to the Memory of Jesus and of herself, and of the Miracle wrought by him; which Dr. Whitby[288] as if he was tainted with Infidelity, endeavours to make an idle Tale of. But excepting, I say this Story of this Woman, we hear nothing of any other heal'd Person; which is Matter of some Speculation: But that the Persons rais'd from the dead should not at all be mention'd in History for their Labours and Lives afterwards to the Honour of Jesus, is absolutely unaccountable. Whether such a profound Silence in History about them be not shocking of the Credit of the Miracles, let our Divines consider. I am of Opinion that if Jesus really rais'd these Persons from the dead; this and no other Reason, in the Providence of God, can be given for the Silence of Ecclesiastical History about them afterwards, than to make dead-letter'd Stories of their Miracles, in order to turn our Heads entirely to the Consideration of their mystical Signification, without which the Letter, for the Argument before us, is deserving of no Regard nor Credit. But

3. By way of Objection to the Letter of these three Miracles, let us consider the Condition of the Persons rais'd from the dead; and whether they were at all proper Persons for Jesus to work such a Miracle upon, in Testimony of his divine Power. If they were improper Persons according to the Letter, it's not credible that He, who was the Wisdom of God, would raise them; or if he did, it was because they were the properest to make mystical Emblems of their Stories.

That Jesus ought to have rais'd all that dy'd, where-ever he came, during the Time of his Ministry, none, I presume, can hold. Two or three Instances of his almighty and miraculous Power of this Kind will be allow'd to be sufficient: But then they must be wisely and judiciously made Choice of, out of a vast Number of Persons, that must needs die in that Time. Where then was his Wisdom and Prudence to chuse these three Persons above others to that Honour? Why were all of them, or indeed any one of them preferr'd to other Persons of a different Age and Condition in the World? Nay, if the Letter of their Stories is only to be regarded, were not all these three Persons almost the improperest and most unfit of any for Jesus to exercise that Power on?

Jairus's Daughter was an insignificant Girl of twelve Years old: And there could be no Reason for raising her, but to wipe sorrow from the Hearts, and Tears from the Eyes of her Parents, who ought to have been better Philosophers, than immoderately to grieve for her. And was here a good Reason for Jesus to interpose with his Almighty Power? No certainly; a Lecture of Patience and Resignation this Case had been enough. And tho' Jesus could raise her from the dead; yet for as much as that Favour was to be conferr'd but on a few; and his Miracles ought to be useful as well as conspicuous, she should have been pass'd by, as an improper Object of his Power, in Comparison of many others, presently to be named. If therefore a better Reason, than what's discernible in the Letter, is not to be fetch'd from the Mystery; I can't suppose that Jesus, the Wisdom of God would raise this Girl; but that the modern Belief of her Resuscitation, exclusive of the mystical Signification, is, as shall be by and by argued, altogether groundless.

The Widow of Naim's Son too was but a νεανισκος Youth, and whether any thing older than the Girl above is doubtful; but his Life certainly was of no more Importance to the World after, than before his Resurrection. And why was he then one of the three to be rais'd from the dead? Why had he this Honour done him, before others of greater Age, Worth, and Use to Mankind? Some will say, for the Comfort or his sorrowful Mother. And is this Reason sufficient? A Discourse on the Pleasures of Abraham's Bosom, where she would e'er long meet her Son, had been enough to chear her Heart. If therefore the Fathers don't help me to a solid mystical Reason, why the Son and only Son of a Widow was to be rais'd by Jesus, as they were carrying him to his Burial, I'll not believe, He would raise this dead Boy rather than many others, for the Manifestation of his Power; but that the Story of his Resurrection, as shall soon be reasonably proved, was all Sham and Cheat.

Lazarus indeed was Jesus's Friend, whom he Loved; and as I will not question but Jesus's Affection was wisely and deservedly placed on him; so here, to Appearance, was a better Reason for the raising of him, than of either of the other Two. But even this Reason, supposing Jesus was to raise but three Persons, is not sufficient against the Cases of many others, that may be put for the Manifestation of his Power, for the Illustration of his Wisdom and Goodness, and for the Conversion of Unbelievers: Consequently, if this Story of Lazarus be not parabolical, the litteral Fact is disputable, and obnoxious to such Exceptions presently to be observed against it, as will not be easily got over.

Jesus rais'd the dead, and wrought other Miracles, say our Divines often, not only to manifest his own Power and Glory, but his Love to Mankind, and his Inclination to do them good: For which Reason his Miracles are useful and beneficial as well as stupendous and supernatural Acts, on purpose to conciliate Men's Affections as well as their Faith to him. On this Topick our Divines are copious and rhetorical, when they write on Jesus's Miracles, as if no more useful and wonderful Works could be done, than what he did. And I do agree with them, that (what Reason bespeaks) the Miracles of a pretended Author of Religion ought to be both as useful and great as well as could be. But such were not Jesus's Miracles according to Letter, and least of all his Acts of raising the dead. For if we consider the Persons rais'd by him, we shall find, he could hardly have exerted his Power on any of less Importance to the World, both before and after their Resurrection. A young Girl indeed is fitter to be raised than a decripid old Woman, who by the Course of Nature was to return to Corruption again, as soon as restored to Life: And a Boy rather than an infirm old Man for the same Reason: And Lazarus the Friend of Jesus, perhaps, and but perhaps, rather than his profess'd Enemy. But what are these three Persons in Comparison of many others of other Circumstances? Instead of a Boy, and a Girl and even of Lazarus, who were all of no Consequence to the Publick, either before or since; I should think, Jesus ought to have rais'd an useful Magistrate, whose Life had been a common Blessing; an industrious Merchant, whose Death was a publick Loss; a Father of a numerous Family, which for a comfortable Subsistance depended on him. Such dead Objects of Jesus's Power and Compassion could not but offer themselves, during the Time of his Ministry, and if he meant to be as useful as he could, in his Miracles, he would have laid hold on them. If a few Persons only were to be rais'd from the dead, the foresaid were the properest, whose Resurrection and Return to Life would have begotten the Applause as well as the Wonder of the World; would most extensively have spread Jesus's Fame; and would have gain'd him the Love and Discipleship of all that heard of his being so great a Benefactor to Mankind. Such Instances of his Power would have demonstrated him to be a most benign as well as a mighty Agent; and none in Interest or Prejudice could have open'd their Mouths against him, especially if the Persons rais'd from the dead were selected upon the Recommendation of the People of this or that City. But that an insignificant Boy and a Girl, (forsooth!) and the obscure Lazarus, are preferr'd by Jesus, to such publick and more deserving Persons is unaccountable. Their Story therefore, upon this Argument, savours of Romance and Fraud; and unless the Mystery help us to, what the Letter can't, a good reason for Jesus's Conduct here, the Miracles may be hence justly question'd, and the Credibility of their Report disputed.

But now I am speaking of the Fitness and Unfitness of deceased Persons to have this grand Miracle wrought on them; it comes into my Head to ask, why Jesus rais'd not John the Baptist to Life again? A Person of greater Merits, and more Worthy of the Favour of Jesus and of this Miracle, could not be. If Jesus could raise any from the dead he would surely have raised him; and why did he not? This is a reasonable Question and an Answer should be thought on for it. Was it a Thing out of Jesus's Power? Not so; He was Omnipotent, and could by Force or Persuasion have rescued John's Head out of the Hands of his Enemies; and the tacking it again to his Body, and the infusing new Life into him was no more difficult to Jesus, than the Resuscitation of a stinking Carcass. If Jesus had here exerted his Power, and rais'd his dearest Friend and choicest Minister for the Preparation, if not Propagation of the Gospel, none could question his Ability to raise any others, tho' he had rais'd no more. But in as much as John the Baptist, one of his singular Merits and Services to Christ, was overlook'd and neglected by him; and three useless and insignificant Persons had this Honour done them, the Facts may reasonably be called into question, and, if the Mysteries don't solve the Difficulty, their litteral Stories may hence be accounted foolish, fictitious and fabulous; especially if we consider,

4. That none of these three rais'd Persons had been long enough dead to amputate all Doubt of Jesus's miraculous Power in their Resurrection. As to Jairus's Daughter, she was but newly expired, if at all dead, when Jesus brought her to Life again. Jesus himself says, she was but asleep. And according to Theophanes Cerameus[289], and Theophilact[290] there is Room to suspect that this Girl was only Κατοχος beside herself. And it is not impossible, but the passionate Skreams of the Feminine By-standers might fright her into Fits, that bore the Appearance of Death; otherwise why did Jesus turn there inordinate Weepers out of the House, before he could bring her to her Senses again? And why did he tell her Parents, that she was only in a sleep, but to Comfort them with the Possibility of his awakening her out of it? Is not this destructive of the Miracle, and making no more of it, than what another Man might do? And is there not some Probability, that here's all of this Story? But supposing she was really dead, yet for the sake of an indisputable Miracle in her Resurrection, it must be granted, that she ought to have been much longer, some Days if not Weeks, dead and buried.

As to the Widow of Naim's Son, there was somewhat more of the Appearance of Death in him, than in Jairus's Daughter. He was carried forth to his Burial, and so may be presumed to be really a dead Corpse. But might not here be Fraud or Mistake in the Case? History and common Fame affords Instances of the mistaken Deaths of Persons, who sometimes have been unfortunately buried alive, and at other Times happily, by one Means or other, restored to Life: And who knows but Jesus, upon some Information or other, might suspect this Youth to be in a lethargick State, and had a Mind to try, if by chafeing, &c. he could not do, what successfully he did, bring him to his Senses again: Or might not a Piece of Fraud be here concerted between Jesus, a subtil Youth, and his Mother and others; and all the Formalities of a Death and Burial contrived, that Jesus, whose Fame for a Worker of Miracles was to be rais'd, might here have an Opportunity to make a shew of a grand one. The Mourning of the Widow, who had her Tears at Command and Jesus's casual meeting of the Corpse upon the Road, looks like Contrivance to put the better Face upon the Matter. God forbid, that I should suspect, there was any Fraud of this Kind here; but of the Possibility of it, none can doubt. And where there is a Possibility of Fraud, it is Nonsense, and mere Credulity to talk of a real, certain and stupendous Miracle, especially where the Juggler and pretended Worker of Miracles has been detected in some of his other Tricks. All that I have to say here to this Matter, is, that if Jesus had a Mind to raise the Son of this Widow, in Testimony of his divine Power, he should have suffer'd him to have been buried two or three Weeks first; otherwise, if the Mystery don't account for Jesus's stopping the Bearers of the Corpse upon the Road, here is too much Room for suspicion of Cheat in the Letter of the Story.

Lazarus's Case seems to be the less exceptionable of the three. He had been buried four Days, and supposed to be putrified in the Opinion of his Sister Mary, and of modern Christians: And if so, his Resuscitation was a most grand and indisputable Miracle. And I could have wish'd, if I had not loved the Mystery rather than the Letter, that no Cavil and Exception could have been made to it. Whether Lazarus, who was Jesus's Friend and beloved Disciple, would not come into Measures with his Lord, for the Defence of his Honour, and Propagation of his Fame, Infidels, who take Christianity for an Imposture, will not question: And whether he would not consent to be interr'd alive, in a hollow Cave, where there was only a Stone laid at the Mouth of it, as long as a Man could fast, none of them will doubt. Four Days was almost too long for a Man to fast without danger of Health; but if those four Days are number'd according to the Arithmetick of Jesus's three Days in his Grave, they are reducible to two Days and three Nights, which Time, if no Victuals were secretly convey'd with him, a Man might fast in Lazarus's Cave. As to the stinking of Lazarus's Carcass: that, Infidels will say, was but the Assertion of his Sister beforehand, like a Prologue to a Farce. None of the Spectators at his Resurrection say one Word of his stinking. And as to the Weepings and Lamentations of Jesus and of Lazarus's Sisters, they will say that was all Sham and Counterfeit, the better to carry on the Juggle of a feign'd Resurrection. And what's worst of all, they will say, that tho' Jesus did call Lazarus forth with a loud Voice, as if he had been as deaf as a dead Man; yet his Face was bound about with a Napkin, so that the Spectators could not discern what was of the Essence of the Miracle, the Change of his Countenance from a dead to a live one, which is a plain Sign, that it was all Fraud and Imposture.

God forbid, that I should have the same sense with Infidels, of this Matter; but to be just to their Suggestions and Imaginations here, I must needs say, there are some other unhappy Circumstances, presently to be consider'd, in this Story, which, if they are not emblematical, make it the most notorious Cheat and Imposture that ever was put upon Mankind. In the mean Time, from what is here argued, it is plain, that Lazarus was not so long dead and buried, as that there is no Room to doubt of the Miracle of his Resurrection.

Now whether these Arguments against these three Miracles, drawn from the Shortness of the Time, in which these Persons lay for dead, have any Force in them, let our Divines consider. If nothing of all this is in their Opinion affecting of the Credit of the Miracles; yet they must allow, that Jesus, if he could raise the dead, might have made Choice of other Instances of Persons, more unquestionably dead, who had lain longer in their Graves, and were in a visible State of Putrefaction. And if this grand Miracle of raising the dead was to be wrought by Jesus for the Manifestation of his Glory, and in Testimony of his Authority; he should have exercised his Power on some such Persons, nominated by the Magistrates of this or that City, who with the People should be present at the miraculous Operation, beholding the putrified Bodies, (without a Napkin before their Faces) and how they were suddenly enliven'd and invigorated with new Flesh, after the Similitude of their pristine Form, when in Health and full Strength. Because that Jesus rais'd not some such Persons to Life, I must take the Stories of the three Miracles before us to be but typical of more mysterious Works; or believe them for the Arguments above to be downright Cheats and Fables. And what is enough to induce a modern Divine to this Opinion. Is

5. The Consideration, that none of these rais'd Persons did or could, after the Return of their Souls to their Bodies, tell any Tales of their separate Existence otherwise the Evangelists had not been silent in this main Point, which is of the Essence of Christianity. Are not our Divines here reduced to an unhappy Dilemma, either to deny the separate Existence of the Soul, or the precedent Deaths of these rais'd Persons? As Christians, We profess to believe both, which seemingly are incompatiable; or the Evangelists had made such a Relation, as their return'd Souls had given of the other World. Was any Person, in this Age, to be rais'd to Life, that had been any time dead; the first Thing that his Friends and Acquaintance would enquire of him, would be to know, where his Soul had been; in what Company; and how it had fared with him; and Historians would certainly record his Narrative. The same Curiosity could not but possess People of old, when these Miracles were wrought; and if the rais'd Persons had told any Stories of their separate Existance, the Evangelists no less unquestionally would have reported them, in as much as such a Report would have been, not only a Confirmation of that Doctrine; which is of the Essence of our Religion; but an absolute Confutation of the Sadducees and Sceptists of that Age, and of the Materialists of this. But this their Silence in this Case is of bad Consequence, either to the Doctrine of the Soul's Existence in Separation from the Body, or to these Miracles themselves, since we must hereupon almost necessarily hold, that these rais'd Persons were not at all dead, or that their Souls dy'd with them.

The Author of a Sermon, ascrib'd to St. Augustin tells us[291] that Lazarus after his Resurrection made a large Report of Hell, where he had been: But as this is a mere Fiction of that Author, without the least Authority from Scripture; so I presume it will be accounted a Blunder in him, to suppose the Soul of Lazarus, the Friend and beloved of Jesus, was in Hell. The Soul of Jesus indeed, for Reasons best known to himself, upon his Death, descended into Hell, when some think he should rather have gone, with the penitent Thief, into Paradise. But the Thoughts, that any of Jesus's Friends should go to Hell, I suppose will not be born with; or what will become of the Preachers of this Age, who would be accounted Men or that Denomination. And if Lazarus's Soul had been in Paradise, it was hardly a good Work in Jesus to recall it, for thirty Years afterwards, to the Miseries and Troubles of this wicked World. I wish therefore our Divines could determine, where Lazarus's Soul was for the four Days of his Burial; because I can't possibly conceive any thing else, than that he was not really dead, or that his Soul dy'd with him, or went to a bad place, otherwise after his Resurrection he had never absconded for fear of the Jews, as if he was unwilling to die again, and return to the Place from whence he came.

But however it was with the Souls of these rais'd Persons before their Re-union to their Bodies, here is another Difficulty and Objection against these Miracles; and how will our Divines get over it? Perhaps they may say, that tho' these rais'd Persons were before really dead; yet their Souls were not as yet gone to their Places prepared of God for them, but continued hovering about their Bodies, like the Flame about the Snuff of a Candle, with desires

——iterumq; reverti
Corpora——

to be again rejoin'd to them. And withall my Heart let this Answer pass, if our Divines and Infidels can so agree upon it. As for my own Opinion, it is this, that these Miracles of Jesus are Parables, and that it was beside the Purpose of the Parable, and of the Evangelists to say any thing of the Place and State of the Soul upon its Separation from the Body; otherwise the Letter of their Stories is manifestly obnoxious to the Objection above, or the Deaths of these pretended rais'd Persons, upon Christian Principles, are questionable. But

6. And lastly, Let us consider the intrinsick Absurdities and Incredibilities of the several Stories of these three Miracles. And such Absurdities shall we find in them, that, if they had been intended as Testimonies of Jesus's divine Power, had never been inserted in their Narratives.

As to Jairus's Daughter, and her Resurrection from the dead, St. Hilary[292] hints, that there was no such Person as Jairus whose Name was fictitious, and coin'd with a spiritual Signification for the Use of the Parable; and he gives this Reason, and a good Reason it is, why he thought so, because it is elsewhere[293] intimated in the Gospel, that none of the Rulers of the Synagogues confessedly believed on Jesus. Is not here then a stumbling-Block at the Threshold of the Letter of this Story? But why did Jesus say, this Girl was but in a Sleep? If he was going to work a Miracle in her Resuscitation, he should not have call'd Death, Sleep; but if others had been of a contrary Opinion, he should first have convinced them of the Certainty of her Death, before he did the great Work on her. And why did he charge the Parents of the Girl not to speak of the Miracle? If he meant it as Testimony of his divine Power, he should rather have exhorted them, in justice to himself to publish it, and make it well known. And why, as St. Ambrose[294] puts the Question, did he turn the People out of the House, before he would raise her? The more Witnesses are present at a Miracle, the better it is attested, and the more readily believed by others; and who should be present at the Miracle rather than those who were incredulous of Jesus's divine Power? Are not all these Circumstances, so many Absurdities, which, if they are not to be accounted for in the Mystery, are so far destructive of the Letter, as that it is Nonsense and Folly in our Divines to talk of a Miracle here, against Jesus's express Word and Prohibition to the contrary.

As to the Story of the Widow of Naim's Son, excepting what is before observed of the shortness of the Time, in which he lay dead, and of the Unfitness of his Person to be rais'd before an Husband and Father of a Family, to the Comfort of his Wife and Children, (which are enough to overthrow the Credulity of the Miracle) I have here no more Fault to find in the Letter of it.

But the long Story of Lazarus is so brimful of Absurdities, that, if the Letter alone is to be regarded; St. John, who was then above a hundred, when he wrote it, had lived beyond his Reason and Senses, or he could not have committed them.

I have not Room here to make Remarks on all these Absurdities, which would be the Work of a Volume; but shall single out three or four of them at present, reserving the rest for another Opportunity, when the whole Story of this Miracle will appear to be such a Contexture of Folly and Fraud in its Contrivance, Execution, and Relation, as is not to be equall'd in all Romantick History; and our Divines will find themselves so distress'd upon the Dissection and Display of it, as that they must of Necessity allow this Story to be but a Parable; or, what's most grievous to think on, give up their Religion upon it.

First then, observe that Jesus is said to have wept and groan'd for the Death of Lazarus: But why so, says[295] St. Basil? Was not this an Absurdity to weep at all for the Death of him, whom he could, and was about to recover to Life again? Another Man may as reasonably grieve for the Absence of his Friend, whose Company and Presence he can retrieve in an Instant, as that Jesus should shed Tears for Lazarus in this Case. If Jesus could not or would not raise him from the dead, he ought not, as a Philosopher, who knows Man is born to die, to betray so much Weakness as to weep for him. Patience and Resignation unto God upon the Death of our dearest Friends and Relations is what all Philosophers have rightly taught; and Jesus, one would think, should have been the most Heroical Example of these Graces; and how came he to fail of it here? A Stoical Apathy had better became him than such childish and effeminate Grief, which not only makes him a mean and poor-spirited Mortal; but is a gross Absurdity and Incredibility upon Consideration of his Will and Power to fetch Lazarus to Life again. If there be not, according to the Fathers, Mystery in these Tears of Jesus, they are a foolish and unnatural Prelude to a Farce, he was acting in the pretended Resuscitation of Lazarus.

Some antient Catholicks, not being apprised of the Mystery, were so offended at these Words, Jesus wept, that, as Epiphanius[296] says, they expung'd them out of their Bibles; and I wonder, they have not, before now, disturb'd the Faith of Ministers of the Letter, to the utter Rejection of the Miracle.

Secondly, Observe that John says, it was with a loud Voice, that Jesus call'd Lazarus forth out of his Cave. And why, I pray, a louder Voice than ordinary? Was dead Lazarus deafer than Jairus's Daughter, or the Widow's Son? Or was his Soul at so great a Distance from his Body, as he could not hear a still and low Voice? Some such silly Reason as this must be given for this loud Voice here; but how absurd it is according to the Letter, Infidels will judge, till Christians can assign a better. The dead can hear the Whisper of the Almighty, if Power go along with it, as soon as the Sound of a Trumpet. St. John then should not have written of a loud Voice, unless he meant to adapt his Story to the Capacities and Conceptions of the Vulgar, who have no Apprehensions of God's Power, out of sensible and human Representations of it.

Thirdly, Because that a Miracle should be well guarded against all Suspicion of Fraud, I was thinking to make it an Absurdity, that the Napkin, before Jesus rais'd Lazarus, was not taken from his Face, that the Spectators might behold his mortified Looks, and the miraculous Change of his Countenance from Death unto Life. What Infidels think of this Circumstance I know not: I hope it is not with them a Token of Fraud and Imposture; tho' I must needs say, that if the Fathers did not let me in to the Mystery of the Napkin about Lazarus's Face when Jesus call'd him forth, I should not my self like it.

Fourthly, and lastly, Observe, St. John says, v. 45. that many of the Jews, who had seen the Things that Jesus did here; believed on him; and some of them, v. 46. who did not believe, went their Ways to the Pharisees and told them what Things Jesus had done in this pretended Miracle, and how the Business was transacted: Whereupon the Chief Priests and Pharisees were so far incens'd as v. 53. from that Day forth they took Council together to put him to Death; and Ch. xii. 10. consulted, that they might put Lazarus also to Death. Jesus therefore (and his Disciples and Lazarus fled for it, for they) v. 54. walk'd no more openly among the Jews, but went thence into a Country near to the Wilderness (a convenient hiding Place) and there continued with his Disciples; otherwise in all Probability they had been all sacrificed.

I dare not argue upon these Circumstances, neither would I, for the Honour of Jesus have mention'd them; but that my old Friend, the Jewish Rabbi, who help'd me to the Satirical Invective against Jesus's Miracle of turning Water into Wine, has hence form'd an Objection against Lazarus's Resurrection, and sent me a Letter upon it, desiring me to publish it, and exhort the Clergy to answer it; otherwise he would clandestinely hand it about to the Prejudice of our Religion: Whereupon I, rather than Christianity should so suffer, do here publish it, and it is as follows.

"Sr. When we last discours'd on Jesus's Miracles, I promised to send you my Thoughts on Lazarus's Resurrection, which I look upon as a notorious Imposture, and for the Proof of it, need go no farther, than to the Circumstances of its Story, which your Evangelist has related.

"If there had been an indisputable Miracle wrought in Lazarus's Resurrection; why were the Chief-Priests and Pharisees so incens'd upon it, as to take Council to put both Jesus and Lazarus to Death for it? Where was the Provocation? I can conceive none. Tho' the Jews were ever so canker'd with Malice and Hatred to Jesus before; yet such a most stupendous Miracle was enough to stop their Mouths, and turn their Hearts: Or if their Prejudices against Jesus were insuperable, and they hated him but the more for the Number and Greatness of his Miracles; yet why is poor Lazarus, inoffensive Lazarus, upon whom this good and great Work was wrought, an Object of their Hatred too? Your Divines are to give a credible and probable Account of this Matter, such a one as will comport with Reason and Sense; or we shall conclude, that it was Fraud, detected in this pretended Miracle, which justly provok'd the Indignation of our Ancestors.

"To say, what is all you can say, that it was downright Inhumanity, Barbarity and Brutality in the Jews to hate Lazarus as well as Jesus, will not do here. Tho' this may pass with many Christians, who are ready to swallow, without chewing, any evil Reports of our Nation; yet it can't go down with reasonable and unprejudic'd Men, who must have other Conceptions of human Nature in all Ages and Nations, than to think it possible, that a Man, in Lazarus's Case, can be hated and persecuted for having had such a good and wonderful Work done on him. And why then was he hated and persecuted? I say, for this, and no other Reason, than because he was a Confederate with Jesus in the wicked Imposture, he was putting upon Mankind.

"But supposing, what is never to be granted, that the Jews of old were so inhuman, brutish, and barbarous as to hate and persecute Lazarus as well as Jesus for this Miracle; yet why did Jesus and his Disciples, with Lazarus, run away and abscond upon it? for they v. 54. walk'd no more openly among the Jews, but went thence into a Country near to the Wilderness, and there Jesus continued with his Disciples. Is not here a plain Sign of Guilt and of Fraud? Men, that have God's Cause, Truth and Power on their Side, never want Courage and Resolution to stand to it. And however your Christian Priests may palliate the cowardly and timerous Conduct of Jesus and his Confederates in this Case; yet with me, it's like Demonstration, that there was a discover'd Cheat in the Miracle, or they would undauntedly have faced their Enemies, without Fears And Apprehensions of Danger from them.

"Our Ancestors then, who unquestionably detected the Fraud, were in the right on't to prosecute with Severity, the whole Party concern'd in it: And if they had aveng'd the Wickedness of it upon Lazarus as well as they did upon Jesus, I should have commended them for it. Whether such a monstrous Imposture, as was this pretended Miracle, happily discover'd does not call aloud for Vengeance and most exemplary Punishment; and whether any Nation of the World would suffer the like with Impunity, let any Man judge.

"For all the Reports of your Gospels, it is unnatural to hate a miraculous Healer of Diseases; and there must be somewhat supprest about the Inveteracy of the Jews to Jesus, or his healing Power, if it was so great as is imagined, must have reconciled them to him: But that they should hate not only Jesus for raising the dead, but the Person rais'd by him, is improbable, incredible, and impossible.

"If Historians can parallel this Story of the Malignity of the Jews towards Jesus and Lazarus upon such a real Miracle, with any Thing equally barbarous and inhuman, in any other Sect or Nation; we will acknowledge the Truth of it against our ancient Nation: Or if such Inhumanity, abstractedly consider'd, be at all agreeable to the Conceptions any one can form of Human Nature in the most uncivilis'd and brutish People, we will allow our Ancestors, in this Case, to have been that People.

"Was such a real and indisputable Miracle, as this of Lazarus is supposed, to be wrought at this day in Confirmation of Christianity, I dare say, it would bring all us Jews, to a Man, into the Belief of it: And I don't think it possible, for any People to be so begotten, byass'd, and prejudiced, as not to be wrought on by it. Or if they would not part with their Interests and Prejudices upon it, they would have more Wit and Temper, than to break forth into a Rage against all or any of the Persons concern'd in it. And, for my Life, I can entertain no worse Thoughts of our old Nation.

"Supposing God should send an Ambassador at this day, who, to convince Christians of the Mischiefs and Inconvenience of an Hireling Priesthood, should work such a Miracle as was this of Lazarus's Resurrection, in the Presence of a multitude of Spectators; how would your Bishops and Clergy behave themselves upon it? Why, they would be as mute as Fishes; or if they did fret and grieve inwardly for the Loss of their Interests; yet they would have more Prudence (ask them else,) than to show their Anger openly, and persecute both Agent and Patient for it. Wherefore then are they so censorious and uncharitable as to preach and believe another Notion and Doctrine of our Ancestors?

"But if a false Prophet, for the subversion of an Hireling Priesthood, should, in spite to the Clergy, counterfeit such a Miracle, and be detected in the Operation; how then would Priests and People, Magistrates and Subjects behave upon it? Why, they would be full of Indignation, and from that day forth would take Council to put the Impostor and his Confederate to Death, of which they would be most deserving; and if they did not abscond and fly for it, like Jesu and his Disciples to a Wilderness in the Country to hide themselves, the Rage of the Populace would hardly wait the Leisure of Justice to dispatch and make terrible Examples of them. Was not this exactly the Case of Jesus's Imposture in the Resurrection of Lazarus; and of the Punishment he was threaten'd with, and afterwards most justly underwent for it?

"Mankind may be in some Cases very obdurate, and so hard of Belief, as to stand it out against Sense, Reason and Demonstration: But I will not think worse of our Ancestors than of the rest of Mankind; or that they any more than others would have withstood a clear and indisputable Miracle in Lazarus's Resuscitation. Such a manifest Miracle, let it be wrought for what End and Purpose, we can possibly imagine, would strike Men with Awe and Reverence; and none could hate and persecute the Author of the Miracle; least He who could raise the dead, should exert his Power against themselves, and either wound or smite them dead with it. For which Reason, the Resurrection of Lazarus, on the certain Knowledge of our Ancestors, was all Fraud, or they would have reverenc'd and adored the Power of him, that did it.

"It may be true, what John says, that many of the Jews, who had seen the Things that Jesus did, believed on him, that is, believed that he had wrought here a great Miracle: But who were these? the ignorant and credulous, whom a much less juggler than Mr. Fawkes could easily impos'd on. But on the other hand, it is certain, according to Christian Commentators, that some of them did not believe the Miracle, but went their ways to the Pharisees and told them what Things Jesus had done, that is, told them, after what manner the Intrigue was managed; and complain'd of the Fraud in it. How they came to suspect and discover the Fraud, was not John's Business to relate; and for want of other ancient Memorials, we can only guess at it. Perhaps they discern'd some motion in Lazarus's Body, before the Word of Command, to come forth, was given; perhaps they discover'd some Fragments of the Food, that for four days in the Cave, he had subsisted on. But however this was, they could not but take Notice of the Napkin about his Face all the while; which Jesus, to prevent all suspicion of Cheat, should have first order'd to be taken off, that his mortify'd Countenance might be view'd, before the miraculous Change of it to Life was wrought. This neglect in Jesus (which I wonder John had no more Wit than to hint at) will be a lasting Objection to the Miracle. Jesus was wiser, than not to be aware of the Objection, which he would have obviated, if he durst, by a Removal of the Napkin, to the satisfaction of all Spectators there present. Because this was not done, we Jews now deny, there was any Miracle wrought; and, whether our Unbelief upon this Circumstance be not well grounded, we appeal to Christian Priests themselves, who must own, that if there was a Miracle here, the Matter was ill conducted by Jesus, or foolishly related by his Evangelist."

"It is a sad Misfortune, that attends our modern enquiry after Truth, that there are no other Memorials extant of the Life and Miracles of Jesus, than what are written by his own Disciples. Not only old Time has devour'd, but Christians themselves, (which in the Opinion of the impartial makes for us) when they got Power into their Hands, wilfully destroy'd many Writings of our Ancestors, as well as of Celsus and Porphiry and others, which they could not answer; otherwise I doubt not but they would have given us clear Light into a the Imposture of Lazarus's Resurrection: But if Jesus, according to his own Evangelists, was arraign'd for a Deceiver and Blasphemer, in pretending to the Sonship and Power of God by his Miracles; in all Probability this Piece of Fraud in Lazarus was one Article of the Indictment against him; and what makes it very likely, is that the Chief Priests and Pharisees, from the Date of this pretended Miracle, took Council together to put him to Death, not clandestinely or tumultuously to murder him, but judicially to punish him with Death, which, if they proved their Indictment by credible and sufficient Witnesses, he was most worthy of.

"As it is plain from the Story in John, that there was a Dispute among the By-standers at Lazarus's Resurrection, whether it was a real Miracle or not; so it is the Opinion of us Jews, which is of the Nature of a Tradition, that the Chief-Priests and civil Magistrates of Bethany, for the better Determination of the Dispute and quieting of the Minds of the People, requir'd that Jesus should re-act the Miracle upon another Person, there lately dead and buried. But Jesus declining this Test of his Power, the whole Multitude of Believers as well as of Unbelievers before, question'd the Resurrection of Lazarus; and were highly incens'd against both him and Jesus for the Deceit in it. And this was one Reason among others of that vehement and Universal Outcry and Demand, at Jesus's Tryal, for his Crucifixion. I'll not answer for the Certainty of this Tradition or Opinion, but as the Expedient was obvious, so it has the Face of Truth and Credibility; and for the Proof of it, I need only appeal to Christian Priests and Magistrates; whether, under a Dispute of a Miracle of that Consequence, they would not require, for full Satisfaction, it should be acted over again; and, if the Juggler refused, whether there would not be a general Clamour of People of all Ranks for his Execution.

"Matthew, Mark and Luke, who knew as much of this Sham-Miracle as John, had not the Confidence to report it; because, when they wrote, many Eye-Witnesses of the Fraud were alive to disprove and contradict them; therefore they confined their Narratives to Jesus's less juggling Tricks, that had pass'd more current: But after the Jewish State was dissolved, their judicial Records were destroy'd, and every Body dead that could confute him, John ventures abroad the Story of this Miracle; and if the good Providence of God had not infatuated him, in the Insertion of the Circumstances here observed, it might have pass'd through all Generations to come, as well as it has done for many past, for a grand Miracle.

"Thus, Sir, have you a few of my Thoughts on the pretended Miracle of Lazarus's Resurrection. I have more to bestow on it, but that I would not be tedious. There's no need to argue against the other two Resurrection-Stories. You know omne majus includit minus, and if the greatest of the three Miracles be an Imposture, the two less ones of Consequence are Artifice and Fraud. And rather than the Miracle of Lazarus shall stand its Ground, I'll have t'other Bout at it from some other Circumstances; the Consideration of which will make it as foolish and wicked an Imposture, as ever was contrived and transacted in the World; such a wicked Imposture of most pernicious Consequence to the Welfare of the Publick, that it is no Wonder, the People, by an unanimous Voice, call'd for the Releasement of Barabbas, a Robber and Murderer, before Jesus. I don't suppose these Arguments against this Miracle will be convincing of your Christian Clergy, who are hired to the Belief of it. But however, a Bishop of many thousands a Year to believe, can't in Conscience deny, that the Arguments above are a sufficient Justification of our Jewish Disbelief of it.

"If you, Sir, should write a Discourse gainst the Letter of the Story of Jesus's Resurrection, I beg of you to accept of a few of my Conceptions on that Head, which, I promise you, shall be out of the common Road of thinking. Your Divines think they have exhausted that Subject, and absolutely confuted all Objections that can be made against it, but are much mistaken. Sometimes we Jews dip into their Writings on this Head, and always smile with Indignation at their foolish Invectives against the Blindness of the Eyes, and Hardness of the Hearts of our Ancestors. If they would but favour us with a Liberty to write for our selves, a reasonable Liberty, which in this Philosophical Age we don't despair of, especially under so wise just and good a Civil Administration, as this Nation is happily bless'd with, we would cut them out some more Work, which they are not aware of. In the mean Time I am your assured Friend,"

N.N.

So ends the Letter of my Friend, the Jewish Rabbi, which consists of calm and sedate Reasoning, or I would not have publish'd it; for I am resolv'd he shall no more impose upon me with his ludicrous and bantering Stuff, like his Satirical Invective against Jesus's Miracle of turning Water into Wine, so offensive to our Godly Bishops. And because it consists of calm and sedate Reasoning, which Bishop Smalbroke allows of, I hope his Lordship will take it into Consideration, and write an Answer to it, which I, without the Help of the Mystery, can't do.

If the foresaid Letter be offensive to our Clergy, who don't judge it meet that the Jews should take this Liberty to write against the Miracles of our Saviour, and in Vindication of their own disbelief of Christianity, I beg of them, for the Love of Jesus, not to let their Displeasure be visibly seen; because the Jews will then laugh in their Sleeves, and perhaps openly insult and triumph upon it: But if they will privately acquaint me with their Displeasure at it, I'll promise them to hold no more Correspondence with such Jewish Rabbies; neither will I ever hereafter publish any other Objections against Christ's Religion and Miracles, than what come from the Hotentots and Pawawers: and then it will be strange, if our dignified Clergy, of most grave and demure Looks, can't solidly confute the worst, that such ignorant and illiterate People can urge against them.

And thus have I done with my Objections against the Letter of these three Miracles. If our Divines shall think there is little or nothing of Force in them; then an Answer, which I should be glad to see, may the more easily be made to them. As for my part, without being conceited of the Acuteness and Strength of any of the Objections, I think it impossible satisfactorily to reply to them, without having Recourse to the Opinions of the Fathers, that these three Miracles, whether they were ever litterally transacted or not, are now but emblematical Representations of mysterious and more wonderful Operations to be perform'd by Jesus.

To the Fathers then let us go for their mystical Interpretation of these Miracles. St. Augustin, in his Introduction to a Sermon on the Widow of Naim's Son, says[297] thus, "There are some so silly as to stand amazed at the corporal Miracles of Jesus, and have no Consideration of his greater and spiritual Miracles, signified by them: but others who are wiser can hear of the Things that Jesus did on Men's Bodys, without being astonish'd at them, chusing rather to contemplate with Admiration his more wonderful Works on Men's Souls; after the similitude of bodily Miracles. And these are the Christians that conform their Studies to the Will of our Lord; who would have his corporal Miracles, spiritually interpreted: For He wrought not Miracles in the Flesh, for the sake of such Miracles abstractedly consider'd; but that, if they were surprising to some Mens Senses, they should be more astonishing to the Understanding of others, who apprehend the spiritual Meaning of them. And they who by Contemplation can attain to the mystical Signification of Jesus's Miracles, are the best Scholars and most learn'd Disciples in his Church and School. And, (speaking of the Absurdity of Jesus's cursing the Figtree according to the Letter) presently after says, that this he observ'd, that he might persuade his Hearers to think, that our Lord Jesus therefore wrought Miracles, that he might signify somewhat by them, which he would have his Disciples to learn and consider of. Come now, says he, and let us see what we are mistically and spiritually to understand by the Stories of the three Persons rais'd from the dead."

There are two Ways, that the Fathers took in the moral and mystical Interpretation of these Miracles: One was from the Number three, and their Difference in Magnitude. According to which they said with St. Augustin[298] that these three sorts of dead Persons, so rais'd to Life, are Figures of three sorts of Sinners, whom Jesus raiseth from the death of Sin to the Life of Righteousness. They who have conceiv'd Sin in their Hearts, and have not brought it forth into Act; are figured by Jairus's Daughter, who lay dead in the House of her Father, and was not taken forth to her Burial. Others, who after Cogitation and Consent, pass into actual Sin are figured by the Young Man, carried towards his Grave. But those Sinners, who are habituated and long accustom'd to Sin, are like Lazarus bury'd, and in a stinking Condition under the Corruption of it; whom Jesus, for all that, with the loud Voice of the Prædication of his Gospel, will call forth out of the Death and Grave of their Sins to a new Life. So does St. Augustin make these three dead Persons and their Resurrections, Emblems of the said three Sorts of Sinners, who are dead in Trespasses and Sins, and by the Power of Jesus quicken'd to a Life of Righteousness. And to this Opinion of St. Augustin, do St. Ambrose, Eusebius Gallicanus, and Venerable Bede agree. And according to this Notion of these Miracles they descend to a particular Explication of the several Parts of their Stories. As to give you two or three Instances.

The People who were turn'd out of the House, upon the raising of Jairus's Daughter, which is an Absurdity according to the Letter are, says[299] Bede, a Multitude of wordly and wicked Thoughts, which, except they are excluded from the Secrets of the Heart, are a Hindrance of the Resurrection of a Sinner to a new Life.

The Bearers of the Young Man[300] to his Burial are Vices, evil Spirits, Hæreticks, and Seducers; and the Widow, his Mother, to whom he was restored, is the Church, who mourns for the Death of such Sinners, as are typified by that Young Man.

Jesus's weeping for dead Lazarus, which is an Absurdity according to the Letter, is a Sign[301] of the deplorable State, that habitual Sinners are in, enough to excite the Sorrows and Mournings of good Christians, who have the Spirit of Christ, for them. And the Stone that lay at the Grave of Lazarus, is[302] a figure of the Hardness of the Heart of such a Sinner which must be taken away before Jesus will call him to a new Life. So do the Fathers moralise and allegorise every Minute Circumstance of these three Miracles, as any one, who will consult them, may find, and save me the Trouble of a tedious Recital of their Authorities.

But the other mystical Way of interpreting these three Miracles is by making them Types of three great Events at the Time of Christ's spiritual Advent. Accordingly the raising of Jairus's Daughter is a Type of the Conversion of the Jews at that Day, as Eusebius Gallicanus[303] and venerable Bede[304] and others expound it. By Jairus, the Ruler of a Synagogue; is meant Moses[305]; and by his Daughter is to be understood the Jewish Church, which, being at present in a State of Spiritual Death, will be revived and converted in the Perfection of Time. And to the mystical Resurrection or Restitution of the Jewish Synagogue, call'd Jairus's Daughter, will Jesus come[306] at the same Time he heals the Woman of the Church of her Issue of Blood. And this is the Reason that the Stories of these two Miracles are blended together by the Evangelists, with their synchronical Numbers of the Age of the Girl and of the Disease of the Woman; because they are Types of that blessed Scene of Affairs at the Conversion of the Jews, when the Fulness of the Gentiles is come in. Concerning which blessed state of the Church, Origen[307] says, Jesus wrought many Miracles, by Way of Type and Figure.

Among all the Miracles that Jesus wrought, and are recorded by the Evangelists, I think, as far as I have had Occasion to observe, the Fathers are most scanty in their Interpretations of that of the Widow of Naim's Son: Excepting what is before noted of his being a figure of a Sinner dead in actual, tho' not habitual Sin, I find very little. But if Origen's Comments on this Miracle had been extant, I dare say he would have given us this following Interpretation of it. This Widow, he would have call'd the Church; and her only Son or masculine Offspring, he would have call'd the Spiritual Sense of the Scriptures, which is now dead, and that the Ministers of the Letter, who are his Bearers, are for interring him within the Earth of the Letter: But Jesus, upon his Spiritual Advent will put a stop to the Intention of such Bearers, by reviving the Spiritual Sense of the Scriptures; and by restoring it, like a quicken'd Son, to the Comfort of his Mother, the Church; who has been in a sorrowful and lamentable Condition upon the Death and Want of it: This, I am sure, would be Origen's Interpretation of this Miracle, which, if I had Room here, by a little Circumlocution, I could prove.

As to Lazarus's Resurrection, it is in the Opinion of the Fathers[308] a Type of the general and mystical Resurrection of Mankind in the Perfection of Time. But this is a most copious Subject; and unless I could here throughly handle it, I had much better say nothing.

And thus have I done with the three Resurrection Stories. If the Convocation, next Session, would determine by an Orthodox Vote, whether Jesus rais'd any more, than the said three Persons, from the dead or not; I would present them with a new and more entertaining Chain of Thoughts against these Miracles; such a Chain of Thoughts, as, upon the Conclusion, let them hold which Side of the Question, they please, will necessarily induce us to hold the mystical Meaning of these Miracles, or to grant that Jesus rais'd none from the dead at all.

My next and last Discourse on Jesus's Miracles shall be against the Letter of the Story of his own Resurrection, in which, if our Bishops will keep their Temper and Patience, till I publish it, I'll cut out such a Piece of Work for our Boylean Lectures, as shall hold them tug, so long as the Ministry of the Letter and an Hireling Priesthood shall last. If Christ be not risen, then, according to the Inference of St. Paul, is their Preaching vain; and why should the People be any longer charg'd with the Maintenance of an ignorant and idle Order of Men, to no Use and Purpose?

If I had not had Experience of it, I could never have believed that, for all the ludicrous Nature of these Discourses, our dignified Clergy could have been so foolish or malicious as to prosecute me for an Infidel and Blasphemer upon them. How a Man may be mistaken in himself! I took my self for a real Advocate for the Truth of Christianity; and was so vain as to imagine these Discourses tended to a Demonstration of Jesus's Messiahship: And tho' the Bishop of London may be of a contrary Opinion, yet I am still so conceited of my Ability to defend our Religion, that I'll stake my Life against his Bishoprick, which I'll not be troubled with, if I win it, that he can't form an Objection against Christianity, which I can't solidly confute, and make our Readers merry too, with his Weakness and Impertinence in it. But perhaps it may be unbecoming of his Lordship's Character, and against the Grain, to make an Objection to that Religion, which he finds much temporal, as well as some spiritual Comfort in the Profession of; I will therefore descend to another Proposal, viz. If he'll but publish an Answer to the Jewish Rabbi's Letter in this Discourse, and vouchsafe me the pleasure of a Reply to him; then (to save the Civil Magistrate's Trouble) I will suffer any Punishment that in his Clemency he shall think fit to inflict on me, for what's past. Oh, what a Hazard do I here run of Life or Liberty!

Some Christians, in my Case, would think it a sad Misfortune to be odiously represented as an Infidel and Blasphemer; but I, in Temper and Principle, despise such Obloquies, Slanders and Defamations; and would not give a Rush to remove them, so long as I had the Answer of a good Conscience that I was undeserving of them: But considering, that it is the Duty of a Christian to seek the Peace and Friendship of all about him, and especially of our good Bishops, who, in Compassion to the Danger they think my Soul is in, have taken zealous and laudable Pains with the Civil Magistrate for my Conviction and Conversion; I do here, for the sake of a Reconciliation with their Lordships and other good People, make a formal and solemn Confession of my Christian Faith, which tho' I don't express in the Words of the Apostical, Nicene or Athanasian Creeds; yet will do it in such Terms as will be a Demonstration that at the Bottom I am found as a Roch. Be it known then to all Christian People, that

Imprimis, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Ministry of the Letter of the Old and New Testament is downright Antichristianism.

Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Miracles of Jesus, as they are recorded by the Evangelists, litterally understood, are the lying Wonders of Antichrist.

Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that all opposition and Contradiction to spiritual and allegorical Interpretations of the Scripture, is the Sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Ministry of the Spirits or allegorical Interpretations of the Law and the Prophets will be the Conversion of Jews and Gentiles.

Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Ministry of the Letter, and an Hireling-Priesthood have been the Cause of the Infidelity and Apostacy of these latter Times.

Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Spirit and Power of Jesus will soon enter the Church and expel Hireling-Priests, who make Merchandise of the Gospel, out of her, after the manner he is suppos'd to have driven the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple.

These are a few Articles of that Faith, once deliver'd to the Saints of the primitive Church, which I firmly believe, and will earnestly contend for. Now I appeal to the Christian World, whether a Man of such a Faith, like Heart of Oak, can be an Infidel or Blasphemer. Upon this ingenuous Confession of my Faith, which I make by way of Atonement for my past supposed Errors and Offences, I hope the Bishops and all good Christian People will be reconciled to me.

St. James says, that Faith without Works is dead, and how a Man ought to show his Faith by his Works, without which Faith is an empty and airy Nothing. Accordingly I am making what haste I can to show the Sincerity of my Faith by these my Works and Discourses of this Kind. And by the Grace of God, I hope our Bishops will find me as unmoveable as a Rock in the said Faith.

According to the foresaid Articles of this my Faith, I am so fully convinced, not only of the Error of the Ministry of the Letter, but of the Mischiefs and Inconveniences of an Hireling-Priesthood, that, having set my Shoulders to the Work, I am resolv'd, by the Help of God, to endeavour to give both a Lift out of this World. This is fair and generous Warning to our Clergy to sit fast, and look to their own Safety, or they may find me a stronger Man than they may be aware of. And tho' I don't expect long to survive the Accomplishment of so great and glorious a Work; yet I am delightfully ravish'd and transported with the Forethought and Contemplation of the Happiness of Mankind, upon the Extinction of Ecclesiastical Vermin, out of God's House; when the World will return to its Primogenial and Paradisaical State of Nature, Religion and Liberty; in which we shall be all taught of God, and have no need of a foolish and contentious Priest, hired to harangue us with his Noise and Nonsense. Which blessed State of the World God of his infinite Mercy hasten, for the sake of our Spiritual Messiah, Mediator and Redeemer Jesus Christ. To whom be Glory for ever, Amen.

FINIS.

BOOKS written by Mr. Woolston, and Sold by him next Door below the, Star in Aldermanbury, and by the Booksellers of London and Westminster.

I. The old Apology reviv'd, &c.

II. Dissertatio de Pontii Pilati Epistola ad Tiberium circa Res Jesu Christi gestas.

III. Origenis Adamantii Epistolæ duæ circa Fidem vere orthodoxam & scripturarum Interpretationem.

IV. The exact Fitness of the Time of Christ's Advent. demonstrated by Reason, against the Objections of the old Gentiles, and modern Unbelievers.

V. Four Free-Gifts to the Clergy, or Challenges to a Disputation on this Question, Whether the Hireling Priests of this Age, who are all Ministers of the Letter, be not Worshippers of the Apocalyptical Beast and Ministers of Anti-Christ.

VI. An Answer to the said four Free-Gifts.

VII. Two Letters to Dr. Bennet, on this question, Whether the People call'd Quakers, do not the nearest of any other Sect in Religion, resemble the Primitive Christians in Principle and Practice.

VIII. An Answer to the said two Letters.

IX. The Moderator between an Infidel and an Apostate: or the Controversy between the Grounds and his ecclesiastical Opponents, set in a clear Light, &c.

X. Two Supplements to the Moderator, &c.

XI. A Defence of the Miracle of the Thundering Legion, against a Dissertation of Walter Moyle Esq.

XII. Five Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour.

A SIXTH

DISCOURSE

ON THE

MIRACLES

OF OUR

SAVIOUR,

In View of the Present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates.

Jamque Opus exegi,——

The Second Edition.

By Tho. Woolston, B.D. sometime Fellow of Sidney-College in Cambridge.

LONDON:

Printed for the Author, and Sold by him next Door to the Star, in Aldermanbury, and by the Booksellers of London and Westminster.

MDCCXXIX.

[Price One Shilling.]

TO THE

Right Reverend Father in God,

JOHN,

Lord Bishop of Oxford.

My Lord,

hen the following Discourse was finish'd and ready for the Press, I consider'd to what Bishop the Dedication of it would be most acceptable (for I am resolv'd that none but Bishops as yet shall have the Honour of my Dedications) and I had not long ponder'd upon the Matter, before I hit upon your Lordship, who must needs be pleas'd with this Discourse, because of the Advantage, that you, as well as my self, in the End, will reap by it.

By Virtue of your Professorship at Oxford, you, my Lord, are a Moderator at theological Disputations, as I am here: And whether the Execution of your Office be as troublesome as mine is, I know not: But if the Design of this Discourse takes Place, we shall find that modern Controversies about Religion are all vain; and thereupon be both of us soon eas'd of the Trouble of our Moderations at them.

It may be, my Lord, you are not so weary of your Moderatorship, as I am: Besides, that you are better paid for your Pains, your Disputants are more amicable, and, in the midst of their Disputes, more tractable: Tho' they may warmly contend, at the present, for and against the Point in Debate; yet like Lawyers who are no less zealous for their Clients in the Day, they commonly agree to drink a Bottle together at Night, and go to Bed, good Friends. And this is very well done of them.

But my Disputants, my Lord, call'd Infidels and Apostates, at whose Controversy I have the Trouble, by the Appointment of the Fathers, to preside, are more stubborn, turbulent and refractory. What ill Treatment they would give each other, if it was in their Power, I know not: But my Apostates, since they can't be aveng'd on their Adversaries, are full of Resentment against their Moderator, because I am not altogether partial to their Side; and how I shall escape their Indignation, God alone knows.

Whatever the Clergy, my Lord, whom I dignify with the Title of Apostates, may think, I look upon my self as a notable Moderator of the Controversy; I have shewn them all the Favour I can in it, and would have brought them off with Honour, but for a little Flaw, here discover'd, in the Foundation of their Church, which, for the Determination of our Disputes, must be confess'd and granted.

If your Lordship, upon reading this Discourse, should be of the same Mind with me, I beg of you to stroak the Clergy into Temper, Patience and Compliance: Tell them, they have been long orthodox and glorious Victors over Infidels, and that it would be now an Act of Generosity to yield to them in a small Point; upon which such a Pacification would ensue, as nothing hereafter would be able to dissolve.

But I have another Favour, my Lord, here to crave of you, viz. that you would be pleas'd to persuade my old Friend, the Bishop of London, to stay at Home this Lent, and keep to his Prayers and Fasting, for the casting out a certain Kind of ——, that by Fits he's unhapily troubled with; or upon the Publication of this Discourse, I shall be in Danger of being soon knapp'd for it.

If your Lordship will do me that Favour, then I will do you as good a Turn; and praise you for your Doctrine of Passive Obedience, preach'd at the Coronation: Tho' many may laugh at your Revival of that Doctrine, saying the Clergy upon an Occasion, which our most excellent Sovereign will never give them, would again have Recourse to their Reserves and Distinctions; yet I say it was well done of your Lordship to preach it, that the Tongues and the Hands (to say nothing of the Hearts) of the Clergy might go together in Subscriptions to Articles and Homilies; and so avoid that Prevarication and Inconsistency, which some now have no more Wit than to charge them with.

So not questioning your Lordship's Approbation of this Discourse and the Dedication; nor doubting but you'll make me as bountiful a Recompence for it, as any of my other Episcopal Patrons have done; I subscribe my self,

Feb. 15th
1728-9

My Lord,
The Admirer of your
Passive Obedience Sermon,
Thomas Woolston.

A SIXTH

DISCOURSE

ON THE

MIRACLES

OF OUR

SAVIOUR, &c.

ere goes my sixth and last Discourse on Jesus's Miracles; the Subject whereof is the literal Story of his own Resurrection; which, according to the Proposition in Hand, I am to shew to consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities. And I hope our Bishops will quietly permit the Publication of this Discourse, especially if I assure them that I mean nothing worse by it, than to make way for the understanding what the Fathers write of the mystical Resurrection of Jesus out of the Grave of the Letter of the Law and the Prophets; of which mystical Resurrection of our spiritual Jesus, the Evangelical Story of the Resurrection of a carnal Christ is but mere Type and Shadow.

I am so far from designing any Service to Infidelity by this Discourse, that I aim at the Accomplishment of some of St. John's Apocalyptical Visions. The Fathers say that a Church, built on the Letter of the Scriptures, particularly on the Letter of Jesus's Miracles, is Babylon; and that antiliteral Arguments and mystical Interpretations will be the Downfal of her. Whether there is any Truth in this Opinion of the Fathers, I am minded to make the Experiment; and tho' I should bring the old House of the Church over my Head, and be crush'd to Pieces in its Ruins, I can't forbear it: But however, I would advise the Clergy to make Haste and come out of Babylon, for Fear of the worst; or they, who upon the Authority of the Fathers are the Merchants of Babylon, will weep[309] and mourn upon her Fall, because none will buy their Merchandize of the Letter any more. Dear Jesu, that such a Student as I am in the Revelations of St. John, and an Interpreter of them too, upon the Authority of the Fathers, should be charg'd with Blasphemy and Infidelity!

So to Work I went; and I had not been long musing by myself, how to sap this Foundation of the Church, before I was sensible of my own Insufficiency for it. Whereupon I sent to my old Friend, the Jewish Rabbi, for his Thoughts on this grand Miracle of Jesus's Resurrection, which he gave me some Promise of. But I desired him to forbear all Ludicrousness, Satire and Banter, for fear of Offence: For tho' our Clergy liked Volumes of Jests and Facetiousness, if they were discharg'd against Jews, Turks, and Infidels; yet when they were levell'd at Ministers of the Letter, the Case was alter'd, as quoth Plowden, and they were not to be borne with. Therefore he was to remember that Decency, Seriousness and Calmness of Argument, required by the Bishop of London[310] or I durst not print it.

In Compliance with my Desires he sent me the following Letter, which, having purg'd it of a few Puns and Cunundrums, because all Appearance of Wit, as of Evil, was to be abstain'd from, I here publish, and it runs thus.

SIR,

According to your Request, I here send you my Thoughts on Jesus's Resurrection, in which I shall be shorter than I would be, because of the customary Bounds of your Discourses.

The Controversy between us Jews and you Christians about the Messiah has hitherto been of a diffusive Nature: But as the Subject of this is the Resurrection of your Jesus; so, by my Consent, we'll now reduce the Controversy to a narrow Compass, and let it turn intirely on this grand Miracle and Article of your Faith. If your Divines can prove Jesus's Resurrection against the following Objections, then I will acknowledge him to be the Messiah, and will turn Christian, otherwise he must still pass with us for an Impostor and false Prophet.

I have often lamented the Loss of such Writings, which our Ancestors unquestionably dispers'd against Jesus, because of the clear Sight they would give us, into the Cheat and Imposture of his Religion. But I rejoice and thank God, there is little or no Want of them, to the Point in Hand. For I had not long meditated on the Story of Jesus's Resurrection, as your Evangelists have related it, but I plainly discern'd it to be the most notorious and monstrous Imposture, that ever was put upon Mankind. And if you please to attend to my following Arguments, which require no Depth of Judgment and Capacity to apprehend, I am persuaded that you and every one disinterested, will be of the same Mind too.

To overthrow and confute the Story of this monstrous and incredible Miracle, I was thinking once to premise an Argument of the Justice of the Sentence denounc'd against and executed upon Jesus, who was so far from being the innocent Person, you Christians would make of him, that, as may easily be proved, he was so grand a Deceiver, Impostor and Malefactor, as no Punishment could be too great for him. But this Argument (which I reserve against a Day of perfect Liberty, to publish by it self in Defence of the Honour and Justice of our Ancestors) would be too long for the Compass of this Letter; and therefore I pass it by, tho' it would give Force to my following Objections; it being hard and even impossible to imagine, that God would vouchsafe the Favour of a miraculous Resurrection to one, who for his Crimes deservedly suffer'd and underwent Death.

But waving, I say, that Argument for the present, which of itself would be enough to prejudice a reasonable Man against the Belief of Jesus's Resurrection; I will allow Jesus to have been a much better Man, than I believe him to have been; or as good a one in Morals as your Divines do suppose him; and will only consider the Circumstances of the Evangelical Story of his Resurrection; from which, if I don't prove it to have been the most bare-fac'd Imposture that ever was put upon the World, I deserve for the Vanity of this Attempt, a much worse Punishment, than he for his Frauds endured.

I have sometimes wonder'd, considering the Nature and Heinousness of Jesus's Faults, for which he dy'd, that our Chief Priests and Pharisees had any Regard to his Prediction (which was so like a Bambouzlement of the Populace) that he was to rise again the third Day after his Crucifixion. There's no other Nation in the World, which would not have slighted such a vain Prognostication of a known Impostor. Let him foretell with ever so much Confidence his speedy Return to Life, I dare say, any other Magistrates of ordinary Prudence would have despised him for a presumptuous Enthusiast: But, when I reflected on the Imposture of Lazarus's Resurrection, and of what pernicious Consequence it had like to have proved to the Peace and Welfare of our Nation, if it had not been happily discover'd, my Wonder here ceas'd; and I as much admire now the Wisdom, Caution and Circumspection of our Chief Priests against all possible Fraud and Deceit in the foretold Resurrection of Jesus. Tho' Jesus himself, the Head of the Confederacy, and prime Projector of the design'd Cheat in the Case of Lazarus was cut off, yet his Associates were still numerous; and it was not impossible, but they might concert a Project of a counterfeited Resurrection of him, in Accomplishment of his Prophecy, that might be of more fatal Consequence, and tend to such Confusions and Distractions among the People, as would not be soon quell'd and quieted. Whereupon our Chief Priests very prudently consider of Precautions against Cheat here, and wisely make Application to Pilate the Governour, that proper and effectual Measures may be taken against a false and feign'd Resurrection, for Fear of the ill Effects of it. And one of them, as the Spokesman of their Company, seems, according to Matthew, Ch. xxviii. to have made the Speech following.

SIR, "We remember that this Deceiver and Impostor Jesus, who was yesterday crucified, and justly suffer'd Death for his Blasphemy and many Delusions of the People (that were of bad Consequence, and might have been of much worse, if he had not been timely brought to condign Punishment) said repeatedly before, that notwithstanding the Death he was to undergo he should rise again to Life the third Day after. It is not that we are at all apprehensive of such a wonderful and miraculous Event, which knowing him to have been a false Prophet as well as a deceitful Juggler, we have no Fears nor Belief of. But as it is not long since, that the Inhabitants in and about Bethany had like to have been fatally deluded and imposed on by him, in the pretended Resuscitation of Lazarus, one of his Disciples and Confederates in Iniquity; so it is not altogether impossible nor improbable but his Disciples and Accomplices, who are many, may project a feign'd Resurrection of Jesus (in Accomplishment of his Prediction) by stealing his Body away, and pretending he is risen from the dead. Should such a Sham-Miracle be contrived amongst them, and cunningly executed, it would be πλανη (not an Error but) an Imposture of worse Consequence to our Nation and Religion, than the former in Lazarus could have been, if it had never been detected: We crave therefore the Favour of your Excellency, to give Command for the making his Sepulchre sure, till the third Day is past, that neither his dead Body may be taken away, and a Resurrection pretended; nor a living one slipt into its Place, and a Miracle counterfeited on that Day, when we will be present at the opening of the Sepulchre, and give Satisfaction to the People of his being a false Prophet."

Whether Pilate was at all intent on the Prevention of Fraud in this Case, or would not willingly have connived at it, to increase the Divisions and Distractions of our then unhappy Nation, may be question'd: But the Request of our Chief Priests was so reasonable, and their Importunities so urgent, that he could not resist them; and therefore order'd them a Watch for the Sepulchre, which they might make as sure, as they could, against Fraud and Imposture, till the third Day.

Whereupon our Chief Priests deliberate, what Measures were fittest to be taken to this Purpose. And as I can't, and don't believe any Man else can, devise any better for the Security of the Sepulchre against Fraud, than what they took; so I admire and applaud their Prudence, Circumspection, and Precaution in the Case. They seal'd the Stone at the Mouth of the Sepulchre, and placed a Guard of Soldiers about it; which were Two such certain Means for the Prevention or Detection of Cheat in a Resurrection, as are not to be equall'd by any other.

They seal'd the Stone of the Sepulchre, which, tho' it was no Security at all against Violence, yet was an absolute one against Fraud. How the Stone which fitted the Mouth of the Sepulchre, as a Door does the Entrance into a Room, was seal'd, I need not describe. The Use and Manner of sealing the Doors of Closets, of Chests, and of Papers is common; and as it is an obvious Expedient, for the Satisfaction of the Signators, against Deceit; so it has been an antient as well as a modern Practice. Darius, King of Babylon,[311] seal'd the Door of the Den of Lions, wherein Daniel was cast, with his own Signet: And wherefore did he so? For the Satisfaction of himself and of his Courtiers, when he came again to open and compare the Signature with his Signet, that no Art nor Artifice had been used for the Preservation of Daniel. So our Chief Priests seal'd the Stone of Jesus's Sepulchre, which they design'd to be present at the opening of, on the third Day, the Time appointed by Jesus for his Resurrection, and then give ample Satisfaction to the People, that there was a real, or could be no Resurrection of his Body. Wherefore else did they seal the Stone of his Sepulchre?

Your Grotius[312] thinks, that Pilate's Seal was affix'd to the Stone of the Sepulchre; but, as I believe, Pilate little concern'd himself about the Prevention of Deceit here; so I much question it. It is more reasonable to think that the Chief Priests and other Civil Magistrates of Jerusalem with their several Seals, which could not be open'd, but by themselves, without Suspicion of Fraud, sign'd the Stone, and intended to be present, on the Day appointed, at the opening of the Sepulchre; not doubting, what no body could question, but Jesus would wait their coming, and arise to Life, if he could, in the Sight of themselves, and of a vast Concourse of People, that were sure to attend on them to behold the Miracle. Such a Resurrection would have been of Satisfaction to the whole Nation; and such a Resurrection, reasonably speaking, Jesus would, if he could, have vouchsafed in Accommodation to the sealing of the Stone.

But, notwithstanding this Precaution, in sealing of the Stone, the best that could be taken against Fraud, Jesus's Body was privately slipt off, early in the Morning of the Day before, and a Resurrection pretended by his Disciples; and you would have us and our Ancestors to believe, there was no Deceit in the Case; tho' confessedly none of the Sealers of the Sepulchre were present: Who can believe it? Was, or can there be, any Imposture more against Sense and Reason palm'd upon the Understandings of Mankind? If there had been a real Resurrection, the Sealers of the Stone would have been the Openers of the Sepulchre; wherefore else was the Stone seal'd?

A Question, that here arises, is, On what Day, and what Time of the Day, did our Chief Priests, the Sealers of the Stone, expect, what they could not think would ever come to pass, Jesus's Resurrection? Or what was the Extent of the Time meant by Jesus, when he said that after three Days, or on the third Day after his Passion, he should rise again? If any Impostor or Prophet like Jesus should in this Age so predict his Resurrection, and be executed on Friday, the Day for his Resurrection would be presumed to be Monday, and not Sunday Morning before Day. And I humbly conceive former Ages and Nations, and our Nation in particular did compute after this Fashion. Accordingly on Monday our Chief Priests I don't doubt, intended to be present at the opening of the Seals of the Sepulchre, and to behold the Miracle: But Jesus's Body was clandestinely moved off early on Sunday (the Day before that signified and predicted for his Resurrection) to the Laughter more than the Surprize of our Ancestors, at the Notoriety of the Fraud committed, and at the Vanity of a Resurrection pretended upon it. And I may appeal even to your Chief Priests of the Church, whether here's not another Note of Cheat and Imposture; and whether the Disciples were not afraid to trust Jesus's Body, its full time, in the Grave; because of the greater Difficulty to carry it off afterwards, and pretend a Resurrection upon it.

But because your Divines (who have singular Knacks at making two Nights and a full Day, that Jesus was buried, to be three Days and three Nights; and whose various Ways of Computation I always smile at) do assert that Sunday was the third Day, on which, in Accomplishment of Jonah's Prophecy, and of his Own Prediction, he was to rise again; I will suppose so with them, and will, if they please, grant that our Chief Priests, and the Sealers of the Sepulchre, expected his Resurrection on that Day, and intended, for the opening of the Seals, to be present at it.

But at what Time of the Day were they to come or could be expected at the Sepulchre? Not long before Noon. But Jesus's Body was gone betimes in the Morning, before our Chief Priests could be out of their Beds; and a barefac'd Infringment of the Seals of the Sepulchre was made against the Laws of Honour and Honesty, and a Resurrection confidently talk'd of by the Disciples; and yet your Christian Priesthood at this Day would have us to believe, there was no Fraud and Deceit in all this! O most monstrous!

If our Chief Priests had trespass'd upon Jesus's Patience, and would not attend at the Sepulchre for the opening of the Seals, on the Day and Time appointed; if they had been for confining him longer in the Grave than was meet, according to Prophecy, then his Resurrection, without their Presence, had been excusable and justifiable. But this his pretended Rising to Life, not only a Day before the Chief Priests could imagine he would, or earlier in the Morning than he should, for the Sake of their requisite Presence, is, together with the Fracture of the Seals against the Law of Security, such a manifest and indisputable Mark and Indication of Fraud, as is not to be equall'd in all or any of the Impostures, that ever were attempted to be put upon the World.

In short, by the sealing of the Stone of the Sepulchre, we are to understand nothing less than a Covenant enter'd into between our Chief Priests and the Apostles, by which Jesus's Veracity, Power and Messiahship was to be try'd. Tho' we read not of the Apostles giving their Consent to the Covenant, yet it was reasonably presum'd and could not have been refus'd, if ask'd. The Condition of the seal'd Covenant was, that if Jesus arose from the dead in the Presence of our Chief Priests, upon their opening the Seals of the Sepulchre, at the Time appointed; then was he to be acknowledg'd to be the Messiah: But if he continued in a corrupt and putrified State of Mortality, then was he to be granted to be an Impostor: Very wisely and rightly agreed! And if the Apostles had stood to this Covenant, Christianity had been nipt in its Bud, and suppress'd in its Birth. But they had other Views, and another Game to play at all Adventures. The Body was to be removed and a Resurrection pretended, to the Delusion, if possible, of all Mankind, in which they have been more successful than could be imagin'd upon a Project that had so little Sense or Reason, so little Colour of Truth or Artifice in the Contrivance and Execution of it. Our Chief Priests were apprehensive at first of their stealing the Body away, and pretending a Resurrection: But after the sealing of the Stone, those Fears vanish'd; because upon the stealing the Body, away against such Security and Precaution, the Fraud would be self-evident, and want no Demonstration and Proof of it. But, for all this Precaution, I say, the Body was in a barefaced Manner taken away, a Resurrection talk'd of, and to the Amazement of every one, who can think freely, has been believed thro' all Ages of the Church since. Upon the whole then, I think, you may as well say, when a seal'd Closet is broken open, and the Treasure gone without the Privity of the Signators, that there's no Wrong done; as that in the Resurrection of Jesus, there was no Fraud. The Cases are equal and parallel. What then can your Christian Priests say to this demonstrative Argument of a manifest and bare-faced Cheat in Jesus's Resurrection? I have been thinking, what they will or can say; and upon the maturest Consideration I don't find they can make any other than one or more of these shuffling Answers to it, viz.

1. That it was impossible for the Disciples to steal the Body of Jesus away, because of the Watchfulness of the Guards, and therefore there was a real Resurrection, tho' the Chief Priests and Sealers of the Sepulchre were not present at it.

2. That, tho' the Chief Priests and Sealers of the Stone of the Sepulchre were not present, as I say they ought to have been, to behold the Miracle; yet his Resurrection was afterwards made as manifest to them, as if they had been there present.

3. That if Jesus did not really arise from the dead, the Belief of his Resurrection could never have been so propagated at first, nor would have been retain'd in the World for so many Ages since.

I can think of no other Answers, and believe it impossible for your Christian Priests to form any other, to the foresaid Argument of Fraud in Jesus's Resurrection: But how weak, frivolous and insufficient they all and every one are, will appear upon a little Examination into them.

1. Then, against the aforesaid demonstrative Argument of Fraud, it may be pretended, That it was impossible for the Disciples to steal the Body of Jesus away, because of the Watchfulness of the Guards; and therefore there was a real Resurrection, tho' the Chief Priests, the Sealers of the Sepulchre were not present at it.

To which I reply, and confess, that if it was impossible to evade the Guards of the Sepulchre, then there was a real Resurrection; but if there was but a bare Possibility of evading them, then this Answer is of no Force. And I am of Opinion, that the Thing was not only possible, but easy, feasible, and practicable. Tho' the Roman Soldiers were of as much Fidelity and Integrity as any of their Profession; yet it is well known, that such Creatures are subject to Bribery and Corruption, if the Disciples had any Money to tempt them with: Or if their Faithfulness to their Trust was untainted; yet it is not improbable, but their Officers, at the Direction of Pilate, who found his Account in the Distractions of our Nation, might give them the Hint to wink hard at the Commission of such a Fraud. But not to insist on either of these Ways to evade the Watch; our Ancestors said, what your Evangelist has recorded, that the Disciples taking the Opportunity of the Sleep of the Guards, carry'd the Body of Jesus off; which was a thing both possible and probable.

Of what Number the Watch did consist is uncertain. Your Whitby[313] says they were sixty; but he has no Reason nor Authority to think, they were so many. If they had been to be a Guard against Violence, I could easily have believed they were more; but in as much as they were only a Watch against Fraud, and against any casual defacing of the Seals on the Stone, before the Chief Priests came to open the Sepulchre, three or four Soldiers were sufficient, and I don't think, there were any more set to this Purpose.

It is not then at all improbable, that so few Soldiers should be fast asleep at that time of Night, or so early in the Morning, when the clandestine Work was done; especially after keeping such a Gaudy-day as was the Feast of the Passover, which, like the Festivals of other Nations, was celebrated with Excess. Foot Soldiers then, you may be sure, upon the Bounty of one or other, did no more want, than they would scruple to take their Fill, which like an Opiat, lock'd up their Senses for that Night, when the Disciples, being aware of the lucky Opportunity, carry'd the Body of Jesus off safely.

And where's the Absurdity to suppose, that the Disciples themselves might contrive the Intoxication of the Guards? Herodotus tells us a Story of a Deadbody's being stolen away by such an Artifice. And I don't think the Disciples of Jesus either so foolish or conscientious, as not to take the Hint, and enterprize the like Fraud. Peter, who, upon Occasion, could swear and curse like a Trooper, would hardly scruple to fuddle a few Foot-Soldiers. But which way soever it came to pass, the Watch were asleep, which is neither hard to conceive nor believe; and then the Disciples executed that Fraud, which has been the Delusion of Nations and Ages since.

Your Evangelists would hint that the Chief Priests gave Money to the Soldiers to say, they were asleep, when the Disciples stole the Body of Jesus away, as if they were brib'd to a false Testimony; but there neither was nor could be any such thing. If there had been a real Resurrection to their Astonishment and Amazement, as it is represented in your Gospels, no Money could so soon have corrupted them to a false Witness, being under such Fears of God and of Jesus. I don't doubt but our Chief Priests might reward the Soldiers for speaking the Truth, and exhort them to persist in it, with a Promise to secure them against the Anger of Pilate for their sleeping and Neglect of their Duty.

Here then is no Answer to the foresaid Argument or Objection against Jesus's Resurrection. It was not at all impossible for the Disciples, who stole the Body away, to avoid the Guards, who were and may reasonably be supposed to be lull'd asleep, when the Disciples did it. Neither is there any more Force in the

2. Second Answer to it, viz. That tho' the Chief Priests, the Sealers of the Stone of the Sepulchre, were not present, opening the Seals and beholding the Miracle; yet his Resurrection was afterwards made as manifest to them, as if they had been there present.

Ay, this is somewhat like an Answer, if there be any Truth in it. A Manifestation of Christ risen afterwards to our Chief Priests would have been equivalent to their Presence at and Sight of the Miracle. But how was his Resurrection manifested to them? did Jesus ever afterwards appear personally to them, to their Satisfaction, that he was the same Person, whom they crucified and put to Death for a Deceiver and false Prophet? No; this is not once affected by your Evangelists or ever insinuated by any antient or modern Writer. How then was Jesus's Resurrection made manifest to our Chief Priests? Why; your Divines say, what is all that can be said here, that the Words of the Disciples, who, being Men of Honesty, Simplicity and Integrity, would not lye, are to be taken for it. Very fine, indeed! our Chief Priests are to take the Words of the Disciples for Jesus's Resurrection, and look upon them as Men of Veracity, when they knew and experienc'd them to be grand Cheats, not only in stealing the Body of Jesus away, but in the known Imposture of Lazarus's Resurrection, or your Evangelist had never implicitly called it so. When therefore Deceivers will not be Lyars; nor Thieves Dissemblers of the Fact they are accused of, I will own Jesus's Resurrection to have been manifest enough to our Chief Priests. There's no need of more Argument here: He that bellows more Words on it, loses Time.

It has been a constant Objection of us Jews, against the Resurrection of Jesus, that he appear'd not personally afterwards to our Chief Priests, to Pilate and to others his Crucifiers and Insultors, to upbraid them with their Infidelity and ill Treatment of him. Whether Jesus would not have done so, if he really arose from the dead; and whether he ought not in Reason, for the Conviction and Conversion of Unbelievers, to have done so, with me is no Question. Celsus of old[314] in the Name of the Jews made the Objection; and Olibio, a late Rabbi[315] has repeated it. But in all my Reading and Conversation with Men or Books, I never met with a tolerable Answer to it. Origen and Limborch, the Writers against Celsus and Olibio, gently slide over the Objection, as if it was too hot or weighty to be touch'd and handled by them. To recite the poor, short and insufficient Answers of those two Great Authors, to the Objection, would be the Exposing of them, and giving such Strength to the Objection, which it don't want. Therefore I will leave the Objection, which Origen[316] owns to be a considerable one, to the Meditation of your modern Advocates for Christianity; and when they can prove, that Jesus, after his Resurrection did personally appear to his Crucifiers, the Chief Priests and Sealers of the Sepulchre, to their Confutation; or that, according to the Law of Reason, he ought not to have appear'd to them, then I will turn Christian, and grant, that in the Argument above, which proves plain Fraud in the Resurrection, there's no Force nor Truth. In the mean time Jesus's Non-Appearance to the Chief Priests is a Confirmation, that he did not arise from the Dead, but that his Body was stolen away, or he would have waited in the Grave, the coming of the Sealers of the Stone, and their regular opening of the Sepulchre, to the Conviction and Conversion of all there present, and Confirmation of the Faith of all Ages and Nations since. But,

3. A third Answer to the foresaid Argument of Fraud in the Resurrection of Jesus, drawn from the Nature, Use and Design of sealing the Stone of the Sepulchre, is, that tho' the Sealers of the Sepulchre were not present, opening the Seals and beholding the Miracle; yet Jesus did certainly arise from the Dead, or the Belief of his Resurrection could never have been at first propagated by the Apostles, nor would for so many Ages of the Church since have stood its Ground.

Here's as little Reason in this Answer as in either of the two former. Who knows not, that many Errors in Philosophy, and as many Frauds in Religion have been sometimes accidentally, sometimes designedly espoused and palm'd upon Mankind, who in Process of Time become so wedded to them thro' Prejudice and Interest, that they will not give themselves Leave to enquire into the Rise and Foundation of them. False Miracles have been common Things among Christians; and as the Resurrection of Jesus is their grand and fundamental one, so it is not at all difficult to account for the Rise, Propagation and Continuance of the Belief of it.

Why it has been believed thro' these latter Ages of the Church, is no Wonder at all. The Priests had their Interest in it; the ignorant and superstitious had their Comfort in it; and the wise and considerate, for fear of Persecution, durst not enquire into the Grounds of it.

The only Difficulty here is to know, upon what Principle, the Project and Story of Jesus's Resurrection was at first devised. And whether it was Ambition or Revenge upon our ancient and Pharisaical Priesthood, that prompted the Apostles to it, is all one to me. Such bad Principles too often put Men upon desperate Attempts. But however, an Imposture it was, for the Argument above. To say the Apostles and Confederates in the Fraud, would not have stood to it, and have dy'd for it, if the Resurrection had not been real Fact, signifies nothing. Many Cheats and Criminals, besides them, have asserted their Innocencey, and deny'd their Guilt in the utmost Extremity of Death, without the like Views of Honour and Fame. The only Thing that's surprizing and astonishing in this Sham-Miracle, is, that tho' it was the most manifest, the most bare-faced, and the most self-evident Imposture that ever was put upon the World; yet it has been the most fortunate and successful, having past thro' many Ages and Nations with Reputation and Renown; and might have continued for as many Generations to come, but for the Argument above, that perfectly and clearly overthrows its Credit.

But some may say here, where was the Wisdom and Providence of God, all this while, to suffer so many Ages and Nations to labour under such a Delusion? Why, I'll tell you; The Providence of God in it was, "To humble Mankind, in the End, for their vain Ostentation of Wisdom, Learning and Science falsly so call'd; "To shame them for their Madness and Wickedness to persecute one another for different Opinions in that Religion, whose very Foundation is false and groundless; "To caution them against a blind and implicit Faith for the future; against believing any thing out of the Sight and Reach of their Understandings; "To admonish them of the Necessity of Liberty to think, speak and write freely about Religion, for the Correction of Errors and Discovery of Truth; and, lastly, "To reduce the World, when it should be ripe for it, to the golden Religion of Nature, which upon the Testimony of our old Cabalistical Doctors, and of your Jesus himself, is the End of the Law and the Prophets.

And thus have I spoken to the Answers, which your Christian Priesthood may be presumed to make, to the foresaid Argument of Fraud in Jesus's Resurrection, drawn from the Design of our Chief Priests in sealing of the Stone of his Sepulchre. I should not have concern'd my self to speak to these their supposed Answers, but to save them the Trouble of making them, and the Imagination of there being some Force in them.

As to the Stories in your Evangelists of Jesus's several Appearances after his pretended Resurrection, sometimes to the Women, and at other Times to his Disciples, I am not at all obliged to refute them. If these Appearances had been more frequent, better circumstanced, and more solemnly averr'd, they would have wanted no Confutation. There's no Doubt on't, but the Disciples, who, for the Argument above, unquestionably stole Jesus's Body away, in order to pretend a Resurrection, would talk much of his appearing to them, and of the Conversation afterwards, they had with him. And if they had told better and more plausible Tales of their Sight of and Conversation with him, it would be nothing to the Purpose; better, I say, and more plausible Tales than those upon Record, which for Absurdity, Nonsense and Incoherence carry their own Confutation along with them.

Whoever blends together the various History of the four Evangelists, as to Jesus's Appearances after his Resurrection, will find himself, not only perplex'd how to make an intelligible, consistent, and sensible Story of it; but must, with Celsus[317] needs think it, if he closely think on't, like some of the confused and incredible womanish Fables of the Apparitions of the Ghosts of deceased Persons, which the Christian World in particular has in former Ages abounded with. The Ghosts of the Dead in this present Age, and especially in this Protestant Country, have ceas'd to appear; and we now-a-days hardly ever hear of such an Apparition: And what is the Reason of it? Why, the Belief of these Stories being banish'd out of Mens Minds, the crafty and vaporous forbear to trump them upon us. There has been so much clear Proof of the Fraud in many of these Stories, that the wise and considerate Part of Mankind has rejected them all, excepting this of Jesus, which, to Admiration, has stood its Ground. It's no Wonder indeed, that the Clergy, who are more incredulous than other Folks as to Stories of Apparitions, do stick to this of Jesus, the only one excepted out of all others. It is a sweet Morsel of Faith, and they readily swallow and digest it, because they live by it; otherwise this Story of Jesus's Appearances after Death had hardly escaped the Fate of other Apparitions; nay, would have been rejected one of the first of them; there being hardly one, I dare say it, among all the Stories of Apparitions, were they to be collected together; that's more absurd and incredible than this of Jesus.

I have not Room here to make any Remarks on your Evangelical Story of Jesus's Apparitions after his Death; and if I had, I durst not do it, for fear of an offensive Ludicrousness, and of transgressing the Rules of Decency, Sobriety and Sedateness of Argument, you have confined me to. But however; I can't read the Story without smiling, and there are two or three Passages in it, that put me in Mind of Robinson Cruso's filling his Pockets with Biskets, when he had neither Coat, Waste-coat, nor Breeches on. Sometimes I think your Evangelists wanted Wit to adapt their Tale to Sense, and to accommodate the Transaction to Nature; and sometimes I think them crafty, and were minded, like Daniel de Foe in his aforesaid Romance, to put the Banter upon the Credulity of Mankind, with some disguised and latent Absurdities, that, in the Conclusion and Discovery, they might be heartily laugh'd at for the Belief of them. I dare not, I say, so much as hint at one of these Absurdities, lest I should be unwarily tempted to crack a Jest on it. But the Time, I hope, is coming, when I shall use more Freedom. And should your Priesthood, in Proof of Jesus's Resurrection, urge any of these Stories of his corporal Presence and Appearance after it, then I trust, they'll permit me to make as merry Descants on them, as your Bishops, when Academical Jesters, used to do on other Men's Bulls and Blunders.

In the mean time I depend on the foregoing single, sober and sedate Argument of Fraud in this grand Miracle, which I found on the Nature and Design of sealing the Sepulchre; and for Confirmation of my Opinion and Proof of Fraud in it, will conclude this Letter with a parallel Case and Story. Not many Years since, one Dr. Emms, of the Society of the French Prophets, who in their Inspirations were, like Jesus and his Disciples of old, Declaimers against the Pharisaical Priesthood of this Age, did by himself, or some of his Fraternity did for him, predict his Resurrection on a certain Day, when there was a Concourse of People about his Grave in vain to behold the Miracle, as there would have been about Jesus's Sepulchre, if he had lain in it, his full Time. But supposing in this Case, that the Magistrates and Priesthood of this City, to prevent a Cheat and Delusion of the People, had interr'd the Doctor in a Church-Vault, and seal'd the Door of it against the Day appointed for his Resurrection, commanding a Night-Watch to look to the Vault, that no Violence or Deceit be used: This would have been a wise Precaution against Fraud, as was in the Case of Jesus. But what if his Fraternity, having a Mind, like Jesus's Disciples, to bambouzle the People and Priesthood, had, some of them drawn the Watch aside to a Gin-shop, whilst others carry'd the Body off, pretending a Resurrection? What would all reasonable Men have said here? That it was an impudent and bare-fac'd Imposture. But to carry on the Farce; supposing, the Doctor's Fraternity had afterwards averr'd that they had seen and convers'd with him alive, several Times, as before his Death; and had told particular Stories of their Conversation with him; as first of all, how he appear'd to some of their Women (who were admonish'd of the Certainty of his Resurrection by a Youth or an Angel or two, they could not tell whether, but they were as like to Angels, which they never saw before in their Lives, as Youths could be) who knew him, not by his Countenance, for their Eyes were holden, but by his Talk on Scripture Prophecy, which was his usual Cant before his Death. And at another Time he appear'd to his old Acquaintance, who knew him, not by the Features of his Face, but by an habitual Motion and Action of his Hand in breaking of Bread. And at another Time he was corporally present, but they thought, they saw a Spirit. About eight Days after that, he appear'd among more of his old Friends, but for all their former Intimacy with him, some of them doubted whether it was the Doctor or not. At another Time he came to them in another Form and Shape, unlike to his pristine one, but they were sure it was He by his Exposition of the Scripture. At another Time, when they were assembled together and the Doors were lock'd, for fear of the Clergy, the Doctor slipt unexpectedly into their Company, either from behind a Curtain, or miraculously enter'd at the Key-hole. And the last Time he appear'd, there was one of his intimate Friends had not known him, but by a Sore in his Breast, which the Power of God, in his Resurrection, did not heal: After which, they said, he vanish'd away, was taken up into Heaven, and they saw him no more. Supposing, I say, the French Prophets had told such like Stories of Doctor Emms's Resurrection and of his Appearances to them; what would your Priests and all other wise Men have said to it? Why, that it was all idle Tales, manifest Lyes, Sham, and Imposture; and that if the Doctor, in Confutation of the Errors of our Priests, had risen to Life, God would have kept him in his Sepulchre, his full time, and have rais'd him in the Presence of Priests, Magistrates and People; and that he would have walk'd afterwards publickly in the Streets without Danger, to the Satisfaction of all, who knew him, that he was the same Emms who died and was bury'd: Without Danger, I say, from the Populace, who would have been so far from affronting him, that they would have almost adored him for the miraculous Favour God had done him, in his Resurrection from the Dead; and that he would never have skulk'd about, and absconded himself for forty Days together, before he was pretendedly translated; and therefore there was nothing but notorious Deceit and Imposture in all these Pretences.

I need not make the Application of this Case and Story, which your Priests know how to do for me. To say here, that there's none would be so desperate to engage in such a Fraud, as is the supposed Case of Dr. Emms above, is a Mistake. Many Thousands for their Diversion would enterprise it; and the Stories of the Apparitions of Ghosts, which are almost all the Frauds of the Crafty to delude the Ignorant, do prove it. I my self would be forward to concert such an Intrigue, if it were but to put the Banter upon the Clergy, to ruffle their Tempers, and secretly to laugh at them. Nothing would deter me from it, but Fears of the Civil Magistrate, which was not the Danger of the Disciples of Jesus, because Pilate, for the Sake of Rule over the Jews, was a Countenancer of every Faction amongst them; and particularly[318] Tiberius, upon Pilate's Representation of the Matter, soon commanded that the Disciples of Jesus should not be molested, nor call'd into Question: So the Disciples stood to the Fraud, told the Story of Jesus risen so often, till they believed it themselves, and drew Multitudes into the Belief of it: Which Belief must have continued thro' all Generations to come, but for my Argument of Fraud, before urg'd and argued.

Here, Sir, before I conclude this Letter, I think it my Duty however to give you my Opinion of the Religion, that Jesus and his Disciples were for introducing into the World. Tho' I believe, what I have proved, his Resurrection, to be a Piece of Fraud, and his other Miracles to have been all Artifice; and tho' our Chief Priests and ancient Nation are justifiable in the Sentence, that was pass'd and executed upon Jesus; yet I must do him and his Disciples the Justice, to own, that the Doctrine they taught was, for the most Part of it, good, useful and popular, being no other than the Law and Religion of Nature, which, all Nations being wearied with their own Superstitions, and sick of the Burthen of their Priests, ran apace into. Accordingly one[319] of your ancient Fathers says, that they who lived according to the Law of Nature, were true Christians. And I must needs say, that if Christians, in Process of Time, had not sophisticated this primitive Religion of Jesus; if they had not built their systematical Divinity upon him, and brought strange Inventions of Men into his Worship; if, lastly, they had not again subjugated and entangled themselves with another and worse Yoke of Bondage, to an intolerable and tyrannical Priesthood of the Church, the World might have enjoy'd great Happiness under Jesus's Religion, even that Happiness which is now only to be expected upon a Disproof of his miraculous Resurrection, that has been the Foundation of a most confused Superstructure of wild Doctrines and Opinions: Or more truely speaking, That Happiness of the State of Nature, Religion and Liberty, which may be look'd for upon the coming of our Messiah, the allegorical Accomplisher of the Law and the Prophets; whose Advent, upon the Tradition of our Cabalists, will be towards the latter End of the Sixth grand Age of the Creation, to remove from our Faces and our Hearts the Veil of the Letter; and in the mean while I adhere to the umbratical Rites, Ceremonies and way of Worship, derived from our Forefathers.

Thus, Sir, have I finish'd my Letter on Jesus's Resurrection; and whether I have not said enough to justify our Jewish Disbelief of that Miracle, let your Chief Priests judge. I don't expect my Argument against it will be convincing of any of your Preachers. They have a potent Reason for their Faith, which we Jews can't come at; or I don't know but we might believe with them.

I trust you'll meet with no Molestation for the Publication of this Letter; neither do I think, it was any thing of mine, inserted in your Discourses, that at any time brought Trouble on you. It was your own Imprudence to rave, as you do, against Ecclesiasticks. What need had you to talk of the Mischiefs and Inconveniences of an Hireling Priesthood? What Occasion had you to call them Ecclesiastical Vermin, and to speak of the Happiness of Mankind upon their Extinction? These things are very provoking. And here's the true Source, in my Opinion, of all your Troubles!

Tho' I have here shewn, that Christ is not risen, yet I have more Wit than to make the Inference of St. Paul, that their Preaching is vain. Their Oratory is still useful, if it be but to tickle the Ears and amuse the Understandings of the People about Doctrines they underhand not, whether true or false. And such an Order of Men, as are your Priesthood, are, by their Habit of long Robes, an Ornament to Society; and it is an Honour to the Country to have them well fed and clad. Had I Room for it, I could write a curious Encomium in Praise of them, and tell the World of what Use and Advantage they have been, in all Ages. O what Wars and Persecutions might have been rais'd in the World, but for their pacifick Tempers! How would Sin and Immorality have broke in upon Mankind, like a Deluge, but for the Goodness of their Lives, and the Excellency of their Precepts! How has the Increase and Multitude of their warm Sermons been the Ruin of Satan's hot and divided Kingdom of Darkness and Error! It's owing to their Pains and Labours, that every Age, for many past, has been improving in Virtue, till the present, which for Piety and good Morals is that perfection of Time, which is not to be meliorated but by the Restitution of the golden Age.

So could I enlarge in Praise of your Clergy; and so should you have done; and then you might have disputed, as you do, against any Doctrines, Miracles and Articles of Faith, without Molestation. Try, if you can't correct that fundamental Error, you have committed. Assert still, if you can, with Dr. Rogers, the Necessity of an establish'd Priesthood, well paid, for the Service of the King and the Country, under all Changes of Religion; which may be a Means to retrieve their Favour, and will beget in me a better Opinion of your Prudence, than at present is entertain'd by your Assured Friend N. N.

So ends the Letter of my Friend, the Jewish Rabbi, in which, to my Comfort, he has conform'd himself to the Rules of Sedateness, Decency and Sobriety of Argument, prescrib'd by the two great Bishops of London and St. David's. If the Weight and Solidity of his Argument don't grieve the Clergy, I am in no Pain for the Levity and Ludicrousness of it. And whether the Weight and Nature of his Argument against Jesus's Resurrection will at all startle and surprize them, I know not; but I profess for my self, that I might have study'd long enough for such an Argument against it, as this Rabbi, with his great grey Beard, has presently hit of. He told me beforehand, that his Thoughts on Jesus's Resurrection should be out of the common Road of thinking; and I must needs say, he has been as good as his Word, or no Man ever kept his Promise.

There are two Things very remarkable in his Argument: The one is, the Use and Design of sealing the Stone of Jesus's Sepulchre, which he lays great Stress on, to the Proof of Fraud in his Resurrection; and the other is, his Application of these Words, the last Error (or as he reads Deceit or Imposture) will be worse than the first or former, in which he makes the Chief Priests in their Speech to Pilate, to refer to Lazarus's Resurrection as the former known Imposture. If his Application be just and true, the Consequence is, that the Resurrections of Jesus and Lazarus are both Impostures. It grieves me to the Heart to think of this Consequence, which our Divines are to see to, and evade, if they can. No sooner did I read his Application of the foresaid Words, but I run to our Commentators for another and better Exposition of them: But alas! to my Sorrow, they made nothing of them, but a sort of a proverbial Expression, which the Chief Priests must have spoil'd and knock'd out of Joint. Being then under great Trouble for the Truth of Christianity, and the Certainty of these two grand Miracles, I refer the Matter to our Learned Clergy, desiring them to be as speedy as they can in another and more proper Interpretation of the foresaid Words, or Jews and Infidels will run away with them in the Rabbi's Sense, to the Confutation of our holy Religion.

I consider'd lately, that Easter drew nigh, when it was usual for our Divines in their Pulpits, to insist on the Proof of Jesus's Resurrection; and therefore I hasten'd the Publication of this Discourse, that they might have these two peculiar Texts, viz. of sealing the Stone of the Sepulchre, and of the last Error or Imposture will be worse than the first, to treat on. He that produces a Sermon or Sermons, wresting the foresaid Texts out of the Hands of my Rabbi, and putting another Sense on them, to the Credit of Jesus's and Lazarus's Resurrection,

Erit mihi magnus Apollo,

and by my Consent shall be the next Arch-Bishop of Canterbury.

But my Heart aches a little for our Divines, and I almost despair of their clean Solutions of the foresaid two Difficulties. What must they do then? Why, they must give up their Religion as well as their Church, or go along with me to the Fathers for their mystical Interpretation of the whole Story of Jesus's Resurrection.

That the Fathers, without questioning their Belief of Jesus's corporal Resurrection universally interpreted the Story and every Part of it mystically, is most certain. St. Hilary[320] enumerates many Particulars of the Story, and intimates what they are typical and figurative of, as any one may see by the Citation referr'd to, which I have not Room to translate and illustrate.

St. Augustin[321] says, that Jesus's Resurrection from the Dead at that time, was to exhibit an Image and Resemblance of his future and mystical Resurrection. And elsewhere says[322] that it's a holy Pleasure to consider and search for the things signified by the Story of it.

That Origen is of the same Opinion, no body need question. A Multitude of his Testimonies might be produced to this Purpose, but I shall mention only one[323], wherein he asserts, that by the Sepulchre of Jesus is to be understood the Letter of the Scriptures, in which, as in a Rock, he is reposited.

St. John of Jerusalem[324] by the Crucifiers of Jesus understands false Teachers, meaning Ministers of the Letter to be sure, because he himself was a great Allegorist.

St. Hilary says that[325] Barabbas is a Type of Antichrist; and by Antichrist, as I have elsewhere shewn out of the Fathers, is meant the Letter of the Scriptures, which modern Commentators and Crucifiers of Jesus would prefer to the Spirit. For these are the two, Letter and Spirit, the Christ and Antichrist, that are contrary one to another.

St. Jerom[326] says, that by the Vail of the Temple rent at Jesus's Resurrection, is to be understood the opening the Vail of the Letter of the Law and the Prophets for the Manifestation of the divine Mysteries contain'd in them. And by the rending of the Rocks according[327] to him is to be understood the Apertion of the Oracles of God, that were before as hard as a Rock, till his spiritual Resurrection for the Illustration of them. And by the Earthquake, He says is meant the Shaking of the[328] Hearts of Men, and preparing them, by a Dereliction of their old Errors, for the Susception of the true Knowledge of God.

As to the Time that Jesus was dead and bury'd, which modern Divines call three Days and three Nights, St. Augustin says[329] that according to the Scripture he was not so long dead and buried. Many, says[330] he, have put various Constructions on the Time of Christ's Burial, endeavouring to make three Days of it: But we, without slighting any of their Opinions, are for a mystical Interpretation, and suppose, that by the three Days are to be understood Three Ages of the World.

The Day would fail me to collect all the Passages out of the Fathers, in Interpretation of one or other of the Parts of the Story of Jesus's Resurrection, but what I have here said in a few Citations, is enough to show, that they look'd upon the whole Story, as emblematical of his spiritual Resurrection out of the Grave of the Letter of the Scriptures, in which he has been buried about three Days and three Nights, according to that mystical Interpretation of prophetical Numbers which I have learn'd of them.

And thus have I done with the Miracle of Jesus's Resurrection, which, by the Help of my Friend the Jewish Rabbi, I have shewn, according to the Letter, to consist of the greatest Incredibilities. And with this I conclude my Discourses on his Miracles, intending to treat on no more of them, unless I am invited or provoked to it. I had once an Inclination to make another Discourse on Jesus's miraculous Conception, and on his feeding his Thousands, in the Wilderness, with a few Loaves and Fishes; but upon a little Consideration on the Letter of those two Stories, I found myself too grave for the Work; and my Rabbi's Thoughts are too gay and wanton; therefore it must be omitted, till the Clergy importune me to it, and signify their Curiosity to see it perform'd by me.

My Discourses hereafter, if God spare me Life and Liberty, which under his Providence I don't despair of, to publish another Volume, shall treat on some historical Passages of the New Testament, such as, "On the Stories of Jesus's Birth; and the Appearances of Angels to the Shepherds keeping Watch over their Flocks by Night: "The Journey and Presents of the Wise Men to Jesus: "The Slaughter of the Innocents at Bethlehem, and of Herod's Cruelty: "The Travels of Joseph with the Child Jesus and his Mother into Egypt: "The Disputation of Jesus with the Doctors in the Temple, and his Elopement from his Parents: "His riding on an Ass to Jerusalem; and on other such like Passages of his Life. For I am resolv'd to give the Letter of the Scripture no Rest, so long as God gives me Life and Abilities to attack it. Origen[331] says, that when we dispute against Ministers of the Letter, we must select some historical Parts of Scripture, which they understand literally, and shew that according to the Letter, they can't stand their Ground, but imply Absurdities and Nonsense. And how then is such a Work to be perform'd to best Advantage? Is it to be done in a grave, sedate, and serious Manner? No, I think Ridicule should here take Place of sober Reasoning, as the more proper and effectual Means to cure Men of their foolish Faith and absurd Notions. As no wise Man hardly ever reprehends a Blunderbuss for his Bull, any other way, than by laughing at him; so the Asserters of nonsensical Notions in Theology should, if possible, be satirized and jetted upon, or they'll never be put out of Countenance for, nor desert their absurd Doctrines. And there never was a polemical Divine, that, if he had an Opportunity and Advantage over the Weakness of his Adversary, did not take such a ludicrous and merry Course with him.

But on such historical Passages of the Gospel as before mention'd, do I trust to publish another Volume of Discourses, like to these on Jesus's Miracles; and at present pass to my third general Head, at first proposed to be spoken to, and that is,

III. To consider what Jesus means, when he appeals to his Works and Miracles, as to a Testimony and Witness of his Authority; and to show that he did not properly and ultimately refer to these done in the Flesh, but to those mystical ones he would do in the Spirit, of which those done in the Flesh are but mere Types and Shadows.

And on this Head I shall be short, there being no Occasion of many Words on it. The Bishop of London[332] has collected many Sayings of Jesus, wherein he seems to appeal to the Works he then did and had done in Flesh, as to a Witness of him. But why might not Jesus then prophesy, and mean the spiritual Works which He-in-us would do? It is the known Way of the Prophets to speak of Things to come, as if they were already past, because such Prophecies are not to be understood, till their Accomplishment: Even so did Jesus prophesy, when he appeal'd to his Works, as I could prove from the Nature and Manner of his Expressions, but that the Argument would be dry and tedious: And therefore I refer the Matter entirely to the Fathers, who asserted that Jesus prophesied in his Miracles as well as in his Parables, and that the Works he then did in the Flesh were but Types of his mysterious Operations, that would be the Demonstration of his Authority and Messiahship. Hence it is that Origen[333] says that Jesus's first coming was but a Type and Shadow of his spiritual Advent and that his[334] true Miracles, by which his Authority is to be proved, are spiritual: Hence it is that St. Hilary repeatedly says[335] that Jesus's Works were significative and predictive of mysterious Operations, which we were especially to look to. And Hence it is that all the other Fathers interpreted the Miracles of Jesus in a mystical and allegorical Sense.

The Question then is, to what Miracles did Jesus truly and properly appeal, in the Opinion of the Fathers, for his Authority and Messiahship? Was it to the Typical or Antitypal Works? was it to the Shadow or to the Substance of his Operations? To his substantial Operations, to be sure, which are and will be his spiritual ones upon the Soul, that are greater than those once done on Men's Bodies, and which will be a proper Proof of his divine Power. And to declare my Opinion freely, I am only for such a spiritual Messiah, who will cure the Errors call'd the Diseases of Mankind, which Jesus of Nazareth has not as yet done.

But not to dispute this Point with Bishop Gibson, I will leave him in the Enjoyment of his Opinion of his literal Messiah, and miraculous Operator on Men's Bodies; if he'll but indulge me in the Belief of my spiritual Messiah to come for the healing of modern Distempers call'd the Sins and Errors of Mankind. And in the mean time let us draw the Comparison between his literal and my spiritual Jesus; and let the World judge, to whom the Preference is to be given for Power and Authority.

Bishop Gibson is for Jesus of Nazareth's Messiahship, because he cured the bodily Blindness of many miraculously; And a good Work it was: But I am for the Messiahship of a spiritual Jesus to come, who will open the blind Eyes of our Understandings to discern Truth from Error, which will be a most glorious Operation, that his Jesus of Nazareth has not as yet done.

Bishop Gibson is for Jesus's Messiahship, who once cured bodily Deafness in many, which was indeed well done of him: But I am for the Messiahship of a spiritual Jesus to come, to heal the Deafness of our Souls, or their Dulness in Apprehension of sublime Mysteries, which will be a divine Work, that his Jesus has not as yet done.

Bishop Gibson is for Jesus's Messiahship, because he cured Men's bodily Lameness, for which I do praise him: But I am for a spiritual Jesus's Messiahship, who will heal Mankind of their Halting between two and more Opinions; a more blessed Work, that Jesus of Nazareth has not as yet done for us!

And so, comparing all other Diseases of Body and Soul together, I am for the Jesus, who will heal the Diseases of the Soul; and have a much less Regard for Bishop Gibson's Jesus, who cured the Diseases of a few Men's Bodies; but for all that, am not angry with the Bishop for his high Veneration of his Jesus, neither would I by any Means have him prosecuted and punish'd for not being of the same Mind with me.

But, because the Bishop suspects me of Infidelity, in that I have ludicrously treated some of the Miracles of his Jesus, which by the by he has not vindicated from the Absurdities and Incredibilities I charged them with; I will humour the Bishop, and supposing Jesus wrought literally those Miracles which are allegorically interpreted by me, will in those very Miracles compare his literal and my spiritual Jesus together; and appeal to all Men of Consideration, which is the most worthy of the Title and Honour of the true Messiah.

Bishop Gibson is for his Jesus's Messiahship, who miraculously drove the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple, just as if a Man, was God to invest him with Power, should furiously drive the Butchers and Grasiers with their Cattle, to the Confusion of their several Properties, out of Smithfield: A notable Miracle That! But I am for the spiritual Jesus's Messiahship, who according to the Form of that typical Story, will at his Coming expel Ecclesiastical Merchants out of his Church, who make Merchandise of the Gospel, selling their Bulls and Beasts, and Fatlings of the Letter: A most glorious and beneficial Work to Mankind will this be! And to prepare Mens Souls for the Susception of such a spiritual Jesus, I intend to publish a Discourse of the Mischiefs and Inconveniencies of an Hireling Priesthood, wherein it shall be proved, that Mankind can't be either good, wise or happy under the Kingdom of this Messiah to come, without an Abolition and Extirpation of them.

Bishop Gibson is for the Messiahship of his Jesus, who cast the Devils out of the Madmen, and permitted them to enter into the Herd of Swine, that ran violently down a Precipice, and were choak'd in the Sea: How great a Miracle it was thus to cure the Madmen, the Bishop may know best, being perhaps better acquainted with the Devil than I am; but was it not for Pity to the Swineherds, for their Losses, I could even now laugh at the Thoughts of the Hoggs running and tumbling down-hill, as if the Devil drove them: But leaving the Bishop calmly, decently, and seriously to admire the Wisdom and Justice of his Jesus in that Act, I am for the spiritual Jesus, who, according to the typical Form of that Story, exorcis'd the furious and diabolical Tempers out of the Jews and Gentiles of old, whom no Chains of Reason could hold from doing Violence to the Christians, till they were converted; and tho' He permitted the like persecuting and diabolical Spirits to enter into Ecclesiastical Swine; yet will they be precipitated into the Sea of the Knowledge of God, wherein they will be absorpt with divine Visions and Contemplations. O most glorious Work! that bespeaks the Wisdom, Power and Goodness of our spiritual Jesus, from the Beginning to the End of it.

Bishop Gibson admires his Jesus, for his Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, tho' neither He nor any Body else can tell, wherein lay the Miracle, nor into what various Figures and Shapes Jesus was transform'd: But I am for the spiritual Jesus, whose glorious Transfiguration, after six grand Days of the Creation, will be conspicuous, when with the Eyes of our Understanding we shall behold him metamorphosed into the Forms of all the Types of him under the Law. I am now ravish'd with the intellectual View of this Transfiguration; and believe, was I to set about it, I could give others (except the Bishop) an Idea and Conception or it to their Astonishment at the Glory of Jesus in it.

Bishop Gibson is for the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth, because he cured a Woman of an Issue of Blood, after she had spent all she had upon Physicians to no purpose, which might be, or might not be a Miracle, for any thing he can argue upon it: But I am for the spiritual Jesus's Messiahship, who, at his Coming, will, according to that typical Story, cure the Woman of the Church of her Issue of Blood, that is shed in Persecution and War, which her Ecclesiastical Physicians of the Clergy have not been able to stop, tho' they have receiv'd large Fees and Stipends of the Church to that Purpose. Will not this be a desirable and beneficial Work to all Nations? And who knows not, (excepting the Bishop) that it is of the Office of the true Messiah, to give abundance of Peace to Mankind, to make the Lion to lye down with the Lamb; and to induce Men to break their Swords into Plough-shares, and their Spears into Pruning-hooks; and to make Wars to cease in all the World. Which Prophecies are so far from being fulfill'd by Jesus of Nazareth, that there has been nothing but Wrangling and Jangling, and Scolding and Fighting about him ever since. I wonder the Want of the Accomplishment of the foresaid Prophecies has not long before now occasion'd the Rejection of Jesus's Messiahship, or of the Authority of the Prophets.

Bishop Gibson is for his Jesus's being the Messiah, because he cured an old Woman of a Spirit of, no body knows what, Infirmity; consequently little or nothing is to be laid for the Greatness of that Miracle. But I am for the spiritual Jesus's Messiahship, who, according to the Figure of that literal Story, is to heal the Woman of the Church of her Infirmity of the Spirit of Prophecy, which Jesus of Nazareth has not done for her, or there would not be so many Disputes about Prophecies and their Interpretations, so far, as there is hardly one Prophecy that Christians are agreed about the Sense of. It is the grand Characteristick of the true Messiah, that he's to restore Prophecy and the Way of Interpretation of the Prophets, upon the allegorical Scheme too. I speak this, not only upon the Authority of the Prophets themselves, but upon an almost infinite Number of Testimonies of ancient Jews and Fathers; accordingly I expect the Advent of a spiritual Messiah, who alone can do it, to heal the Church of her present Infirmity, and to restore the Art and Gift of Prophecy.

Bishop Gibson is an Admirer of Jesus of Nazareth, because he told a poor Whore of Samaria, her Fortune of having had five Husbands, and being then an Adulteress with another Man; which, according to the Letter, is such a poor sort of a Miracle, that I can hardly think of it without blushing: But I am an Adorer beforehand of the spiritual Jesus who, according to that Type, will out of the Law and the Prophets, allegorically interpreted, tell the present heretical and adulterous Woman of the Church all that she has done, and how she has been wedded to the sensible Things of the five Books of Moses, and is now an Adulteress with the Anti-Christ of the Letter. Such an Information of the Church will be a most stupendous and miraculous Work, and a Demonstration of our Jesus's Messiahship beyond Contradiction, in as much as it will be agreeable to the Opinion, that all Antiquity entertain'd of the true Messiah, viz. that he was to let us into the Sight, Knowledge and Understanding of the Wisdom and Beauty of Providence thro' all Ages of the World.

Bishop Gibson admires Jesus of Nazareth for his cursing the Figtree; for not bearing Fruit out of Season: Shame on that Miracle, according to the Letter, and on all Admirers of it! But I am for the spiritual Jesus, who, at his coming to the Figtree of his Church, will make its present unfruitful State to wither away, and cause it to produce the Fruits of the Spirit, and allegorical Interpretations of the Scriptures, that are compared to sweet and ripe Figs. For such his Advent to this miraculous and beneficial Purpose I daily pray and say too, Blessed are all those who love his Appearance!

After this Fashion could I go thro' the other Miracles, I have treated on in these Discourses; and upon the Comparison set plainly before the Eyes of my Readers the Difference between the literal Miracles of Bishop Gibson's carnal Jesus and the allegorical ones of my spiritual Jesus, as to Stupendousness, Use and Excellency: But what I have here done in the seven Instances above, is enough to induce us to believe, with the Fathers, that Jesus's first Coming in the Flesh was but a Type and Shadow of his second Advent in the Spirit; and that Jesus of old, when he appeal'd to his Works then done, as to a Witness of his Authority, did only prophesy, and refer ultimately to his mystical Operations, that are alone the Proof of his Godlike and divine Power. Bishop Gibson says[336] of me, that pretending to raise the Actions and Miracles of our Saviour to a more exalted and spiritual Meaning, I have labour'd to take away the Reality of them, and by that to destroy one of the principal Evidences of Christianity. But I presume now, he'll be sensible of the Rashness and Incogitancy of that Accusation. If he be not, I shall say of him, in Case he write any more for Jesus's literal Miracles in Opposition to his allegorical ones that he's like the Dog in the Fable (the Bishop will excuse the Coarseness of the Comparison) that let go the Substance of his Mutton, and catch'd at the Shadow, and so, like a foolish Cur as he was, lost both.

And thus have I done with the Three general Heads at first proposed to be handled in these Discourses. Now whether I am, upon the whole, an Infidel, or Believer of Christianity, the World is to judge. I'll make no more solemn Declarations of my Belief of it, much less at this Juncture of Time, when I am under Prosecution for Infidelity; because it would be a sneaking, tame, and cowardly Act in me, and such an Argument of that Meanness of Spirit, as I abhor and detest. My Works shall speak for me, in which, being conscious of the Innocency of my Intentions, and of the Usefulness of my Design, I mean to proceed; not doubting but some of our clergy, upon two or three more Discourses against the Letter of the New Testament, will find me out, what I am, and whether I am not a true Professor of the Religion of the spiritual and holy Jesus.

In the mean Time I'll not compound the Difference depending between Bishop Gibson and my self, upon any other Terms, than his making me ample Satisfaction for the Injuries done to my Reputation and low Fortunes. Tho' he may thirst after my Life, or at least, my Liberty; yet under the Providence of God I fear not the Loss of either. God be prais'd, this Kingdom is bless'd with such a Civil Administration for Wisdom, Justice and Mercy, as no Nation of the World can equal. Our Magistrates are all Philosophers, Lovers of Truth, and of an Enquiry into it; and so tender of the religious as well as of the civil Rights of the Subject, that I have nothing to dread from them.

There is somewhat popular indeed, tho' nothing true nor rational, in the Clamour and Accusations of the Clergy against me. Bishop Gibson would insinuate[337] that my Discourses on Miracles strike at the Foundation of civil Society; but by an unnatural Consequence of his own making. I confess, it is an heinous Crime to write any Thing that tends to the Subversion or Prejudice of the civil Society: But how will the Bishop make me guilty of it? If the Clergy will not be Disturbers of the Peace of the Publick upon my Discourses; it's certain, that the Quiet of the World, which I wish and aim at, will be inviolably kept and preserv'd for all me. My Followers indeed, when I walk the Streets of this City, are numerous; and if any of them should break the Peace, what serves my Lord Mayor's Power for, but to chastise them for it? As for my self and my Adherents at home, which, as yet, are without Number, we are all Quietists and should act against our Consciences and Religion, if we should injure any Man in his Person and Property. But I smile to see a Clergyman all on a sudden, like the Bishop, so tender of the Welfare of the Publick, when Ecclesiasticks, in all Ages past, have been the Bane of Society and the Pest of Mankind, as appears from the Wars and Persecution they have rais'd in the World; and from that Strife, Variance and Discords, they have occasion'd in Cities and Families. And with Submission to the Bishop, who I hope will not be angry for my saying it, I am sure, the Clergy at this Juncture, are like an high-mettal'd blind Horse, that were they not ridden by the Civil Authority with a strait Rein, would be oppressing and trampling upon all, that flood in the Way of their Interests, to the Disturbance of Civil Society.

Profaneness too does the Bishop charge me with. But why so? Because I ridicule the Nonsense and Absurdities of Jesus's Miracles according to the Letter, which he venerates. Very fine indeed! The Bishop would worship the Head of an Ass, and a wiser Man than himself, without the Charge of Profaneness, must not laugh at his foolish Superstition.

And Blasphemy lastly does the Bishop accuse me of: And this is a sad Bugbear Word, that has frighted Abundance of People into dreadful Apprehensions of my Guilt, even to the Abhorrence of me. But the Bishop should first have defined, what is meant by Blasphemy, and have proved me guilty of it, before he had made his Exclamations: Or the Turks may say that a Jest upon their Alcoran, in which there are no Contradictions, is as much a Blasphemy, as any Ludicrousness upon the Gospels, which are full of Inconsistencies. That there is such a Sin or Error, call'd Blasphemy, according to the Scriptures, is certain: But our Divines are undetermined about the Nature of it. I intend to take my Opportunity to treat on the Sin of Blasphemy, and to prove, Ministers of the Letter are the only Persons that can be guilty of it. Ministers of the Letter, upon the Authority of the Fathers, are the Worshippers of the Apocalyptical Beast; and anti-allegorical Expositions are that Blasphemy, St. John writes of, which the Beast and his Worshippers will open their Mouths in, against the most High. This shall be proved as clear as the Light. But when I do it, I would not have any think, it is with an Intention to bring the Bishops of London, Litchfield, and St. David's, or any other Divines, under Prosecution for that heinous Sin: No, my God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent; and knows how and when to reckon with such Blasphemers, without calling upon the Civil Magistrate to do it for him. Should I importune the Civil Authority to execute Vengeance upon them, I should make a foolish Calf or a Senseless Idol of my God, that was unable, or knew not how, nor when to vindicate his own Cause. Surely the Bishop of London, upon his Prosecution of me for Blasphemy, must think his God now asleep or gone a Journey from Home; or he would not be for taking God's own Work out of his Hands, and committing it to the Care of the Civil Magistrates.

The Bishop moreover should consider, that the Words prophane and blasphemous are of no Use and Signification among Philosophers, who in Disputation never cast them at each other, however they may differ in Opinion. Philosophers are all supposed to be such profound Venerators of the Deity, as they would not be guilty of Prophaneness and Blasphemy for the whole World. If any of our School of Free-Thinkers should say of his Opponent that he's prophane and blasphemous, he would be reprimanded for want of Wit, Temper and good Manners; and be told that he's like a Billingsgate Scold, who has Recourse to impertinent bad Language, when her Reason fails her for better Rhetorick.

But it may be, for ought I know, the Bishop has some Design in his Accusations against me for Profaneness and Blasphemy; but I hope it is a better than to prejudice the Civil Magistrate, or to incense the Populace.

According to the Fathers I am so far from being a Blasphemer, that they say, Christ upon the literal Interpretation of his Miracles is metamorphosed into the False-Christ, call'd Anti-Christ. Whether there is any Truth in this their Opinion I can't be positive, till the Experiment is fully made. But if our Clergy will keep their Temper, and grant me a clear Stage of Battle, I'll try it out; and see whether I can't, by the Club of Reason and primitive Authority, give their Anti-Christ a fatal Blow: Who knows but I may give Peace to the Church, and reconcile all Parties by it?

However this may be; I am sure, no Man can wish for a greater Advantage over his Enemy, than I have over the Bishop in this Controversy: But he shall find me a generous Adversary, who will make no worse Use of my Advantage over him than now and then to put him in Mind of his Pastoral Letter, and of the Prosecution; unless I should be tempted, ere long, to publish my Moderatorial Letter, like his Pastoral one, to the People of London and Westminster, with Ten wholesome Rules in it, not only to caution them against false Prophets and false Teachers, without forgetting the Bishop of the Diocese, but to direct them to the Ecclesiastical Fountain of the growing Sins, Errors and Infidelity of the Age, which the Clergy know I am of Ability to lay open.

When I began the Publication of these Discourses, I own, I laid a Trap for some considerable Clergyman; but little imagined, the great Bishop of London would be caught in it. But now I have taken hold of him, I'll not release him out of the Controversy, till he has sorely repented of his Ignorance or Malice in calling me a Writer, in Favour of Infidelity.

So much at present for the Bishop of London. I have been the quicker of late in the printing of this, because I am given to understand, the Bishop of St. David's stays for it, intending to make but one Work of it, and answer all six Discourses together. I hope my Rabbi's Letter here will be thought by him, a good Payment for his Patience. And now I shall be in Expectation of his Mountainous Production, and where I shall hide myself from the terrible Strokes of his Pen, I have not as yet consider'd.

I am not a little pleas'd to see a Couple of Dissenting Preachers, viz. Dr. Harris and Mr. Atkinson, lifted into the Controversy against me. If they had kept their Necks out of the Collar, they might have dissembled and pretended, that, upon the Conclusion of the Battle, when it would have appear'd, I am a real Contender for Primitive Christianity, they had a better Understanding of the Fathers, and a clearer View of my Design, than to suspect me of Blasphemy and Infidelity: But now they are engag'd with equal Spite, Ignorance and Defamations against me, they must take their Share of the Fate and Shame, with the Clergy, upon the Conclusion of the Controversy.

There's no Body can think it worth my while to bestow a Six-penny Pamphlet upon either of these Gentlemen, but for all that, they shall not be altogether slighted and neglected by me. I have made a Collection of their Rhetorical Flowers, which occasionally shall be presented the Publick, to the Admiration of their Wit, Reason, Learning and Eloquence. And at present only take Notice, that they are both for the Persecution of me; but not so much for my Opinions, as the Indecency, Irreverence, and Immorality of my Stile; forsooth! which is just such a Distinction, as may be easily stretch'd to the Justification of the Persecution of all Authors, whom the Priesthood in Power shall not like. Mr. Atkinson's Argument for the Persecution of me, is much the same with that, which John Calvin used for the Persecution of that great Philosopher Servetus; the Injustice and Cruelty of whose Death and Sufferings is a greater Reproach to the Name of Calvin, than the Martyrdom of any Protestant can be to the Memory of any Popish Prelate.

To conclude, what I have written, in these Six Discourses, is with a View to the Glory of God, the Advancement of Truth, the Happiness of Mankind, the Demolition of Babylon, the Edification of Jerusalem, and the Demonstration of the Messiahship of our Spiritual Jesus, to whom be Glory for ever. Amen.

FINIS.

BOOKS written by Mr. Woolston, and Sold by him next Door below the Star in Aldermanbury, and by the Booksellers of London and Westminster.

I. The Old Apology reviv'd, &c.

II. Dissertatio de Pontii Pilati Epistola ad Tiberium circa Res Jesu Christi gestas.

III. Origenis Adamantii Epistolæ duæ circa Fidem vere orthodoxam & Scripturarum Interpretationem.

IV. The exact Fitness of the Time of Christ's Advent demonstrated by Reason against the Objections of the old Gentiles, and modern Unbelievers.

V. Four Free-Gifts to the Clergy, or Challenges to a Disputation on this Question, Whether the Hireling Priests of this Age, who are all Ministers of the Letter, be not Worshippers of the Apocalyptical Beast, and Ministers of Anti-Christ?

VI. An Answer to the said Four Free Gifts.

VII. Two Letters to Dr. Bennet on this Question, Whether the People call'd Quakers do not the nearest of any other Sect in Religion, resemble the Primitive Christians, in Principle and Practice?

VIII. An Answer to the said two Letters.

IX. The Moderator between an Infidel and an Apostate: Or the Controversy between the Grounds and his Ecclesiastical Opponents, set in a clear Light, &c.

X. Two Supplements to the Moderator, &c.

XI. A Defence of the Miracle of the Thundering Legion, against a Dissertation of Walter Moyle, Esq.;

XII. Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour.

XIII. His Defence of those Discourses, against the Bishops of St. David's and London.

Mr. WOOLSTON'S

DEFENCE

OF HIS

DISCOURSES, &c.

Mr. Woolston's Defence

OF HIS

DISCOURSES

ON THE

MIRACLES

OF OUR

SAVIOUR,

Against the Bishops of St. David's and London, and his other Adversaries.

Part I.

Res Religionis non Verberibus sed Verbis est peragenda.

Lactant.

London: Printed for the Author, and Sold by him, next Door to the Star in Aldermanbury, and by the Booksellers of London and Westminster, 1729.

[Price One Shilling.]

TO THE

QUEEN.

Madam,

ot long since the Bishop of St. David's presented to Your Majesty his Vindication; as I would have done this my Defence, if I had known how to get Access to Your Royal Presence.

Your Majesty will perceive, that here's a sad War broke out between the Bishop and my self, about Miracles; which, in all probability, will cost a large Effusion of Words; and, unless Your Majesty can accommodate the Difference, will hardly be terminated without the Slaughter of many Notions and Arguments.

The Bishop is for making Your Majesty the Arbitress of our Controversy, which I consent to; and he talks of Your singular Qualifications to preside at it, which I as certainly believe, as that a Bishop will not lye nor flatter.

Had I known before of Your Majesty's Abilities at this Controversy, I should have gone near to have applauded You for them; and the World would readily have believed my Praises of You to be just, because I had no Bishoprick nor Translation in View for them.

If Your Majesty has no extraordinary Talent at this Controversy, I trust, You are wiser than to think the Better of Your self for the Bishop's Compliment. You'll not be vain; tho' he is fulsome.

But the Bishop, Madam, has done me wrong. He would insinuate, that I am disaffected to the King's Title and Government; which is entirely false. I Love and Honour Your whole Royal Family, and often pray for Your Majesty too, without Pay, which is more than any Bishop in England has done for You.

And what are my Prayers for Your Majesty? That God may prolong Your Days to the comfort of Your Royal Progeny, and the Joy of these Nations; That the Felicity of Your Life may be uninterrupted by Enemies and Misfortunes; and That after a good old Age, when Life is no longer desirable to the happyest Princes, You may be transferr'd to an heavenly and immortal Crown of Glory. This is the hearty and voluntary Prayer of,

London,
September
27, 1729.

Madam,
Your Majesty's
most humble,
most obedient,
and faithful Servant,
Thomas Woolston.

A

DEFENCE

OF THE

Discourses on Miracles.

t Last, one Volume of Bishop Smalbroke's mountainous Work, that the Press has been so long pregnant with, is brought forth: And I don't doubt, but it answers the Expectations of the Clergy, who will extol it to the Skies, and applaud it to the Populace, as an absolute Confutation of my Discourses; but I would advise them, if it be not too late, not to be too profuse in their Commendations of it, for fear that an Occasion should be given them to blush for their want of Judgment. We have had Instances of Books before now (and one very remarkable, in the Case of Boyle against Bently) that have met with a general Approbation, till they have been sifted into, and upon Examination found empty; and it is not impossible, but this of the Bishop before us, may meet with the same Fate.

I had conceived a great Opinion of this Bishop's Learning and Abilities, and, if he had not sent[338] two simple Harbingers before-hand, should have been so apprehensive of his Acuteness, that nothing, but a thorough Persuasion of the Goodness of my Cause, and of my Power to defend it, could have kept me from Flight before him. But I stand my Ground, and shall, against greater Adversaries than this Bishop, who has more weakly and maliciously attack'd me, than you'd have been expected from one of his reputed Candour and Learning; and given me greater Advantages to insult and triumph over him, than I could wish or desire.

Many other little Whifflers in Divinity have before attack'd me with their Squibs and Squirts from the Press, but I despised them all, as unworthy of my particular Regard and Notice, reserving my self for Defence against this Bishop's grand Assault; when, by the by, I might have an Opportunity to animadvert on one or other of them. Some of these Whifflers, like Men of Honour, have set their Names to their Works; others very prudently have concealed their Names, which, upon the best Enquiry I could make, I have not been able to discover, or I had given them a Rebuke for their Impudence and Slanders. It may be wonder'd, that any polemical Authors, especially when they write on the orthodox and establish'd Side of the Question, should conceal themselves, and that they are not tempted with the Hopes of Reward and Applause to make themselves known. I will say what I think here, that it's never Modesty in such anonymous Authors (for we Scribblers in Divinity, whatever we may pretend, have always a good Conceit of our selves) but Apprehensions of a sharp Reply to their Dishonour. And this is the true Reason, why some of my Adversaries industriously conceal themselves, knowing that they are guilty of wilful and malicious Lies and Calumnies, which I should chastise them for. But, as their Names are supprest, they know, it's to no Purpose for me to expose their Malice, because no body can be put to shame for it.

The Bishop of St. David's acts here a more glorious Part: He comes not behind me, like other Cowards, to give me a secret Knock on the Pate, but like a courageous Champion, looks me in the Face, and admonishes me to stand upon my Guard. This is bravely done in him! And I have no Fault to find, but that he is providing himself with Seconds in the Controversy, I mean the Civil Powers, and calling upon them to destroy me, before the Battle is well begun, and whether he gets the better of me or not. This is not fairly nor honourably done of the Bishop, and I have Reason to complain of it. Tho' I think my self equal, if not superior in the Dispute, to any of our Bishops, yet I am not a Match for the King's Power, neither would I lift up my Hand, or use my Pen against him for all the World. If the Bishop will yield to a fair Combat, and desire the Civil Authority to stand by and see fair Play between us, I will engage with him upon any Terms. But to make the Civil Powers Parties in our Quarrel, and to bespeak them, right or wrong, to favour his Side, is intolerable, and what we spiritual Gladiators ought to abhor and detest.

I liked the Bishop, when he proposed to the Queen to be Arbitress of our Controversy. As I will not here question her Qualifications to judge in it, so the first Opportunity I have of waiting on her Majesty, I will join my Requests to her to accept of the Trouble and Office. After she has fix'd the Terms of Disputation, and thought of a proper Reward for the Victor, or a Punishment for the Conquer'd, then will we proceed, and either dispute the Matter from the Press, or scold it out in the Queen's Presence, as she shall think it most conducive to the Edification of herself, and of her Court-Ladies.

But the Bishop's Proposal here, and Compliment on the Queen, is but the Copy of his Countenance. He'll submit to no Arbitration: No, no, he's for having the Civil Powers to be immediate Executioners (without further hearing what I have to say for my self) of his Wrath and Vengeance upon me. He's for having them to take it for granted, that he has proved me an Infidel and Blasphemer, and would have them to inflict some exemplary Punishment upon me, so as to incapacitate me for ever writing more. Wherefore else does he say thus?[339] "Indeed a more proper Occasion cannot possibly happen in a Nation, where Christianity is establish'd by human Laws, to invigorate the Zeal of the Magistrate, in putting the Laws in Execution against so flagrant a Sort of Profaneness, that tramples with such Indignity on the Grounds of the Christian Faith; and to convince the World that the Minister of that God, who is so highly affronted, bears not the Sword in vain. And certainly the Higher Powers have great Reason to exert their Authority on this and the like Occasions."

I was astonish'd at this Passage, with some others, in the Bishop's Dedication, and could hardly believe my Eyes when I read it; that a Scholar, a Christian, and a Protestant Bishop, should breath so much Fury and Fire for the kindling again of Smithfield Faggots! That any Thing of human Shape should so thirst after that Destruction of another, which would turn to the Ruin of his own Reputation and Honour! Does the Bishop believe that he has clearly confuted me, or does he not? If he believes, and others know that I am absolutely confuted, then there's an End of the Controversy, the Danger of my blasphemous Books is over; and why should I undergo any Punishment, which would move the Compassion of many, and give a greater Reputation to my Writings than they do deserve? Does the Bishop think he has confuted me? This is Honour and Triumph enough to him; who, of all Men, should not desire me to be otherwise punish'd, for fear of getting the Character of a merciless and implacable Conqueror. Am I in my own Opinion confuted and baffled? This would be Pain and Mortification enough, even worse than Death. For, however we polemical Writers may pretend a Readiness to part with our Errors upon Conviction, as if we could easily yield to our Adversaries, yet it goes to the Hearts of us to be out-done in Reason and Argument. As it is said of Bishop Stillingfleet, that, being sensible of his Insufficiency to contend with Mr. Lock, he grieved and pined away upon it: So I, upon Supposition the Bishop of St. David's has confuted me, must not only necessarily afflict my self, but undergo the Shame of the Reproaches of the People, for my wicked and impotent Efforts to subvert their Religion: And what would the Bishop have more? He could desire no more, if he had absolutely confuted me: But it's plain he dares not trust to his own Confutation of me; it's plain he's afraid of, what he is conscious may be made, a smart Reply to him, and therefore he calls upon the Civil Magistrate for his Help to prevent it.

After that the Bishop of London had publish'd his Pastoral Letter, and it was reported that the Bishop of St. David's was preparing a strenuous Vindication of the litteral Story of Jesus's Miracles, I concluded that the Prosecution would immediately be dropp'd, and that the Clergy were betaking themselves to that Christian, Rational, and Philosophical Course of Confutation, and would no longer make use of Persecution, which is the Armour of hot, furious, and ignorant Bigots. And there is one Passage in the Bishop's Pastoral Letter, which I interpreted as a Grant of full Liberty; but, whether I am apt to mistake the Sense of the Fathers of the Primitive Church or not, I find I did misconstrue the Words of a Father of our English Church, and turn'd them to another and better Purpose than he aim'd at. His Words are these[340] "And as to the blasphemous manner, in which a late Writer has taken the Liberty to treat our Saviour's Miracles, and the Author of them; tho' I am far from contending, that the Grounds of the Christian Religion, and the Doctrines of it, may not be discuss'd at all Times in a calm, decent, and serious Way (on the contrary, I am sure that the more fully they are discuss'd, the more firmly they will stand) yet I cannot but think it the Duty of the Civil Magistrate, at all Times, to take Care that Religion be not treated in a ludicrous or reproachful Manner, and effectually to discourage such Books and Writings as strike equally at the Foundation of all Religion, &c." What the Bishop of L. here says, of his thinking it the Duty of the Civil Magistrate at all Times, to take Care that Religion be not treated in a ludicrous manner, I understood as an Excuse for what he had done in stirring up the Civil Magistrate to a Prosecution of me; and that now, like a Philosopher, he was for letting Truth and Religion to take its Course, and for leaving it to a free Discussion, whether in a ludicrous or in a calm, decent or serious Way. But I confess, I have mistaken the Bishop's Words, finding by Experience, that (for all the natural Import of his Expression, that Liberty should be used to discuss the Grounds of Religion in a serious Manner) he'll no more suffer it, if he can help it, to be contested in a serious, than in a ludicrous Way; wherefore else did he move for the Prosecution of a late London Journal, which was all calm, decent, and serious Argument. And the Bishop of St. David's his furious Dedication now, confirms me in this Opinion, that our Clergy (for all their preaching up Liberty with as much Force and Strength of Reason as any Men, and for all their Invitations to Infidels, to say and print their worst against Christianity) will by no means, if they can hinder it, suffer any Attacks to be made upon their Religion, nor cease their Importunities and Solicitations of the Civil Magistrate to Persecution. Blessed be God, the Bishops are not my Judges as well as my Accusers, or I know, what would become of me.

Mr. Atkinson, a little Writer against me, says,[341] "That I call the pretended Divines of the Church my Prosecutors, when they were not my Prosecutors. And again, That there was no need of my Supposition, that the Clergy would have more Wit than to prosecute me again for this Discourse; for he did not know that they had been concern'd in any Prosecution of me." And again he says, "If the Civil Magistrate thinks it his Duty to chastise me for my Sin and Folly, I am to blame my self, and not the Clergy, till I can prove the Zeal of our Christian Government to be excited by the malign Influence of the Clergy." Mr. Atkinson is thus far certainly in the right on't, that, strictly speaking, the Clergy are not my Prosecutors, but the King, who, in all probability, knows no more of my Books than the Man in the Moon. But whether Mr. Atkinson could be so ignorant, as not to know the Clergy were the grand Instigators to Prosecution, let others judge. If he really was such a poor Ignoramus, I have no more to say: Otherwise, his Expressions above, will be look'd upon as the vilest Piece of Hypocrisy and Prevarication that can be, purposely utter'd to take off the Odium of the Prosecution from the Clergy, and to cast it upon the Civil Government; which, whether Mr. Atkinson believes it or not, had never, but for the Solicitations of the Bishops, given me any Trouble. Mr. Atkinson above, acts the Part of the Popish Clergy of France, upon the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. After that the King, upon the urgent Importunities of the Clergy, had resolv'd to revoke that Edict; the Clergy were for excusing themselves to the Protestants, and laying the Blame only on the King, saying, The King was bent and resolv'd on't, and they could not help it; which was such Jesuitical Prevarication in the Popish Clergy, that the Protestants could not forbear roguing them for it. Mr. Atkinson knows how to apply this Story; which I had not told, but for the Use of the Bishop of L. who, upon a certain Occasion could say, that it was not He, but the Government that prosecuted Mr. Woolston. If Mr. Atkinson was really so ignorant as he seems to be, I suppose he is now of another Mind, upon reading the Bishop of St. David's Dedication; and convinced that the Prosecution against me was began and carried on at the malign influence, as he calls it, of the Clergy.

I will here use no Arguments for Liberty of Debate, which Subject has already been copiously handled, and wants nothing, that I can add unto it. But before I enter into the Body of the Bishop's Book, and upon a profess'd Defence of my Discourses against him, let us consider the manifest Lies, Prevarications, and wicked Insinuations in his Dedication, whereby he would move the Secular Powers to a severe Punishment of me. I will pass by the Motto of his Book, viz. But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a Kiss; Whereby he would signify and intimate, not to Scholars (for they have more Wit than to think the worse of me for his Abuse of Scripture) but to the ignorant Multitude, that I am another Judas, a Traitor and Rebel to Jesus. Commonly Mottos of Books are suited to their Authors, and the Design of them; whether the Bishop will be willing to take this Motto to himself or not, I will upon another Occasion give it a pleasant and pertinent Turn upon him. At present I shall only say, what the Learned will observe, that this is of a wicked and malicious Use and Intention, of no less, than to create in the Minds of the People an Hatred and Detestation of me; of no other, than by dressing me up, as it were, in a Bear's Skin, to excite the Ecclesiastical and merciless Mob to worry and destroy me. Such has been the roguish Artifice of priests of all Ages, to represent their Adversaries, whom they would destroy, under odious and borrow'd Names, that their Persecutions of them might be thought the less cruel. But passing this by for the present, the

I. First wicked and wilful Misrepresentation that the Bishop, in his Dedication, has made of me, is that of being an Infidel, and an Apostate Clergyman. Wherefore else does he say thus to the Queen: "What is now presented to your Royal View, is an Apologetical Defence of our holy Religion, against one of the most virulent Libels on it, by an Apostate Clergyman, that has appear'd in any Christian Country; and in Comparison of which, other Infidels have acted a modest Part." And again he calls my Discourses, "A flagrant Sort of Profaneness, that tramples with Indignity on the Grounds of the Christian Faith." And again he signifies, "That I am warmly engaged in subverting the Christian Religion, and active in propagating Infidelity." This is all wilful and downright Calumny, to incense the Queen and the Government against me. The Bishop knows in his Heart that I am no Infidel, but a Believer of Christianity, notwithstanding my Discourses on Miracles, that have occasion'd such a Clamour against me. In my Discourses, I have repeatedly and most solemnly declared, that my Designs are not to do Service to Infidelity, but to advance the Glory of God, the Truth of Christianity, and to demonstrate the Messiahship of the holy Jesus. If I have sometimes ridiculed the litteral Story of our Saviour's Miracles, I have profess'd as often that it was with Design to turn Men's Hearts to the mystical Interpretation of them, on which alone Jesus's Authority and Messiahship is founded. I could collect a great Number of Passages out of my Discourses to this Purpose, if it would not be wasting of Time and Paper. And do all these solemn Declarations of my Faith, and of the Integrity of my Heart, and of the Sincerity of my Intentions, stand for nothing? Why should not my Word here be taken? I can think of no other Reason, than because some other Folks are accustom'd to dissemble and prevaricate with God and Man in their Oaths and Subscriptions, therefore I may be suspected here of Hypocrisy, notwithstanding my Professions to the contrary.

Besides, the Bishop knows by my other Writings, that I am certainly a Christian, and a true Believer of the Religion of Christ, though I may have some different Conceptions from other Men about it. It has been my good Luck before, not only to publish more Treatises purposely and professedly in Defence of Christianity, than any Bishop in England; but some of them are of such a Nature, as it's impossible for a Man to write without being a Christian, and impossible for him to depart from the Principles of them. This is my good Fortune and Happiness at this Juncture. The Bishop has perused, I see, some of my other Writings, and particularly, my Old Apology for the Truth of Christianity revived; and to his Praise, as well as my Comfort be it spoken, he apprehends and rightly relishes it. And as I was well pleased with his Representation of the Design of that Book, from the Principles and allegorical Scheme of which, he says (in Twenty-four Years since) I am not departed; so I would appeal to his Conscience, Whether a Man, who wrote, as I did then, of the Typical and Antitupal Deliverance of the Jewish and Christian Church, can possibly be an Infidel, or ever depart from the Christian Faith? If the Bishop has Ingenuity equal to his Penetration into that Book, he must own and confess to the World, that I was then, and am still a Christian, a Man of fix'd and unalterable Principles from that Day to this.

The Bishop would be thought in his Preface to enumerate all my Writings; but there are three others, whether wilfully or negligently omitted by him, I know not, that are direct Defences of the Truth of Christianity; and there is not a learned Clergy-man in England (I humbly presume to say it) who can read them, and not applaud them. If the Bishop will be pleas'd to read one of them, viz. The Defence of the Miracle of the Thundering Legion, and say it from his Heart, that I might write that Book, and believe the Ecclesiastical Story of that Miracle, and yet be no Christian, then I will yield to his Accusation against me for Infidelity.

But why do I trouble my self thus to assert and vindicate my Belief of Christianity? The Bishop would readily come into the Acknowledgment of my being a sincere Christian, but for his Interests and Prejudices, and other political Considerations, which influence him and the Clergy so to decry and defame me, that, if possible, I must be destroy'd, or at least have my Mouth stopp'd.

In short then, it is not because I am an Infidel, that the Clergy so exclaim against me and my Discourses; but because, as a Christian, I have particular Designs in view, which, if I can compass, will tend to their Dishonour, and the Ruin of their Interests; and therefore, by Defamations and Prosecutions, they will, if they can, in time put a stop to them. The Designs that, for the Truth of Religion, and Good of Mankind, I have in view, and which, maugre all Opposition, Terrors, and Sufferings, I will pursue to the utmost of my Power, are these three.

1. To restore the Allegorical Interpretation of the Old and New Testament, that is call'd, say the Fathers, the sublime Mountain of Vision, on which we shall contemplate the Wisdom and Beauty of the Providence of God; and behold the glorious Transfiguration of Jesus with Moses and Elias, that is, the Harmony between the Gospel and the Law and the Prophets, agreeably to Jesus's typical Transfiguration. And this is such a glorious and beatifick Vision, that it's enough to ravish our Hearts with the Hopes and Desires of attaining to it. The old Jews say, that the allegorical Interpretation of the Scriptures will lead us to the sight of God and convert even Atheists. The Fathers say, that the allegorical Interpretation will be the Conversion of the Jews in the Perfection of Time; and St. Augustin speaks of a great allegorical Genius,[342] that will be sent to that Purpose. I believe all this, and being convinced of the Truth of it, I am much addicted to Allegories. And it is plain enough, and wants no Proof, that the Revival of the allegorical Scheme, which I am fond of, portends Ruin to the Ministry of the Letter; and will be such an Argument of the Ignorance and Apostacy of our Clergy, that it's no wonder they defame, calumniate, and persecute me for my Attempts towards it.

Origen says,[343] that litteral Interpreters will run into Infidelity, which is a Saying I am well pleased with, and thereupon will try if I can't turn the Tables upon our Clergy; I'll try if I can't shift from my self the present Load of Reproaches for Infidelity, and lay it upon them. What would the Wife and the Learned then say? That the great Bishops of London and St. David's had caught a Tartar.

I have indeed ludicrously treated the Letter of the Scriptures (in my Discourses) which by the said Bishops is falsly called Blasphemy: But should they either ludicrously or sedately write against the allegorical Sense of them, I could prove that to be real Blasphemy. However, I would not complain to the Civil Powers against them; no, it's God's peculiar Prerogative to punish that Sin, which ought not to be committed to the Care of the Civil Magistrate.

But what need I ludicrously to handle the Letter of our Saviour's Miracles? Because some Sort of Stories are the proper Subjects of Ridicule; and because, Ridiculum acri fortius & melius, Ridicule will cut the Pate of an Ecclesiastical Numbskull, which calm and sedate Reasoning will make no Impression on.

To speak then the Truth in few Words. As I am resolv'd at any Rate to run down the Letter, in order to make way for the Spirit of the Scriptures, so certainly will our Clergy, for their Interests and Honour, as Ministers of the Letter, vilify and reproach me, and pursue me with an implacable Hatred: But I should think it meet for them to use a little more Temper in their Revilings, for fear the Torrent of Reproaches should sometime or other turn on them. It is asserted and predicted by the Fathers that, after a certain Time of the Church's Apostacy to the Letter, the Spirit of Life, or the allegorical Sense will re-enter the Scriptures, to the Advancement of divine Knowledge and true Religion; in the mean while the Clergy will do well to see to it. But,

2. The Second Design which, as a Christian, I have in View, and which occasionally I write for, is an universal and unbounded Toleration of Religion, without any Restrictions or Impositions on Men's Consciences; for which Design, the Clergy will hate and defame me, and, if possible, make an Infidel of me, as well as for the former. Upon an universal Toleration the World would be at quiet: That Hatred of one another, which is now so visible among different Sects, would then be terminated by a Unity of their Interests, when they are all upon the Level in the Eye of the Civil Magistrate, who would choose Men to Places of Trust, not for their Faith and Affection to Theological Doctrines, but for their Abilities to serve the Publick. In this Case, Ten thousand different Notions in Religion would no more obstruct the Welfare of the Community, than so many different Noses do the Happiness of this City. The Variety of their Theological Opinions, would be the Diversion and Amusement of each other; and so long as it was out of their Power to oppress, they could not hate one another for them. Such a Toleration, the Clergy would persuade us, tends to Confusion and Distraction, as if Men would go to Loggerheads upon it. But this is one of their Mistakes; there would be a perfect Calm upon it, if such Incendiaries as they are did not disturb the publick Tranquillity. They'll tell us again, that such a Toleration makes Way for Dissoluteness of Morals, and would let in Sin like a Deluge upon us; but this is another of their Errors. Such a Toleration would promote Virtue, in as much as different Sects of Religion are a Check upon each other against Looseness of Morals, because every Sect would endeavour to approve itself above others, by the Goodness of their Lives, as well as by the Excellency of their Doctrine. But the Clergy will never hearken to such a Toleration, because it would be the Downfall of Ecclesiastical Power; for which Reason, among many others, I am

3. For the Abolition of an hired and establish'd Priesthood. And for this, if for nothing else, I am sure to be prosecuted with Hatred and Violence, and loaded with the Calumnies and Reproaches of Infidelity and Blasphemy: And the Clergy, if possible, will have my Mouth stopp'd, and my Hands tied, before I proceed too far in my Labours and Endeavours to this End.

And why should not the Clergy of the Church of England be turn'd to Grass, and be made to seek their Fortune among the People, as well as Preachers of other Denominations? Where's the Sense and Reason of imposing Parochial Priests upon the People to take care of their Souls, more than Parochial Lawyers to look to their Estates, or Parochial Physicians to attend their Bodies, or Parochial Tinkers to mend their Kettles? In secular Affairs every Man chooses the Artist and Mechanick that he likes best; so much more ought he in Spirituals, in as much as the Welfare of the Soul is of greater Importance than that of the Body or Estate. The Church-Lands would go a good, if not a full Step, towards the Payment of the Nation's Debts.

I have promised the World, what, by the Assistance of God, and the Leave of the Government, shall be publish'd, a Discourse on the Mischiefs and Inconveniencies of an Hired and Establish'd Priesthood: In which it shall be shewn,

I. That the Preachers of Christianity in the first Ages of the Church (when the Gospel was far and near spread, and triumph'd over all Opposition of Jews and Gentiles) neither received nor insisted on any Wages for their Pains, but were against preaching for Hire; and, as if they had been endew'd with the Spirit of Prophecy, before an Hireling Priesthood was establish'd, predicted their Abolition and Ejection out of Christ's Church.

II. That since the Establishment of an Hire for the Priesthood, the Progress of Christianity has not only been stopt, but lost Ground; the Avarice, Ambition, and Power of the Clergy having been of such unspeakable Mischief to the World, as is enough to make a Man's Heartake to think, read, or write of.

III. That upon an Abolition of our present establish'd Priesthood, and on God's Call of his own Ministers, the Profession of the Gospel will again spread; and Virtue, Religion, and Learning, will more than ever flourish and abound.

The Clergy are forewarn'd of my Design to publish such a Discourse; and this is the secret Reason, whatever openly they may pretend, of their Accusations against me for Blasphemy and Infidelity. Their Zeal and Industry will be never wanting to prevent the Publication of this Discourse; neither need I doubt of Persecution, if they can excite the Government to it, to that End.

In my first Discourse on Miracles, I happen'd to treat on that of Jesus's driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple; which, upon the Authority of the Fathers, I shew'd to be a Figure of his future Ejection of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons out of his Church, for making Merchandise of the Gospel. The Bishop has taken me and that Miracle to task; and if ever any Man smiled at another's Impertinence, I then heartily laugh'd when I read him. I begg'd of the Bishop before-hand[344] not to meddle with that Miracle, because it was a hot one, and would burn his Fingers. But for all my Caution; he has been so Fool-hardy, as to venture upon it; but has really touch'd and handled it, as if it was a burning Coal. He takes it up, and as soon drops it again to blow his Fingers; then endeavours to throw a little Water on this and that Part of it to cool it, but all would not do. The most fiery Part of it, viz. that of its being a Type of Jesus's future Ejection of mercenary Preachers out of the Church, he has not, I may say it, at all touch'd, except by calling it[345] my allegorical Invective against the Maintenance of the Clergy; which is such a Piece of Corinthian Effrontery in the Bishop, that was he not resolv'd to lye and defame at all Rates, for the Support of their Interests, he could never have had the Face to have utter'd. If the Bishop had proved that that Miracle (which litterally was such a——, as I dare not now call it) neither was nor could be a Shadow and Resemblance of Jesus's Ejection of hired Priests out of the Church at his second Advent, and that the Fathers were not of this Opinion, he had knock'd me down at once. As he has done nothing of this, so he might have spared his Pains in Support of the Letter of this Story. But I shall have a great deal of Diversion with the Bishop, when I come, in a proper Place, to defend my Exposition of that Miracle. In the mean Time, as the Bishop has publish'd one of the Articles of my Christian Faith, thinking to render me odious for it; so here I will insert another, viz.[346] "I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Spirit and Power of Jesus will soon enter the Church, and expel Hireling Priests, who make Merchandise of the Gospel, out of her, after the manner he is supposed to have driven the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple."

Now upon all this, whether the Bishop, modestly speaking, has not been unjust, uncharitable, and insincere, to represent me as an Infidel, I appeal to all learned and ingenuous Gentlemen. I am a Christian, though not upon the litteral Scheme, which I nauseate, yet upon the allegorical one. And by the following easy and short Argument it may be proved that I am most certainly a Christian. I heartily and zealously contend for the allegorical Interpretation of the Scriptures, which the Bishop allows to be true of me; consequently I must, and do believe the Scriptures to be of divine Inspiration, or I could not think there were such Mysteries and Prophecy latent under the Letter of them. Whether then a Believer of the divine Inspiration of the Scriptures can be an Infidel (O most monstrous Paradox!) or any other than a Christian, judge Readers. Nay, if Origen's and St. Augustin's Testimony on my Behalf may be admitted, I am more truly a Christian and Disciple of the Holy Jesus, than any litteral Schemist can be. Origen says,[347] That the Perfection of Christianity consists in a mystical Interpretation of the Old and New Testament, of the Historical, as well as other Parts of it. And St. Augustin says,[348] That they who attain to the Understanding of the spiritual Signification of Jesus's Miracles, are the best Doctors in his School. The Bishop understands this Argument as well as any Man, and therefore I charge it home upon him, as a wilful and malicious Slander, to call and account me an Infidel in his Dedication, on purpose to incense the Government against me at this Juncture.

But the Bishop moreover calls me, as above, an Apostate Clergyman; And why so? Because I have deserted the Ministry of the Letter, and betaken my self to the Ministry of the Spirit of the Scriptures. That's like the Wit and Reasoning of his Pate! The Bishop is old enough, and has read enough to know that Apostacy, in the Sense of the Fathers, is a Desertion of the Ministry of the Spirit, and a Falling into the Ministry of the Letter of the Scriptures; whereupon I make bold to retort upon the Bishop, and say of him, and his Episcopal Brethren, that they are Apostate Bishops.

But to humour the Bishop in his fond Dedication, I will suppose my self to be, what I am the farthest of any Man living from being, an Infidel and Apostate; yet

II. The Bishop is a wilful Calumniator, or, at best, an unhappy Misrepresenter of me, and of other Infidels, saying in his Dedication, that our Design is To sap the Foundation of all Government, and——That we were pursuing such Methods, as have a natural Tendency to introduce Confusion. If this was true of us Infidels (for now I speak of my self as one of them) it behoves Civil Governors to look about them, and to punish and suppress us with all speed; and we should be the most unreasonable Men alive, if we complain'd of Persecution, or call'd it hard Usage. And the Bishop of London, and other Divines (like this Bishop) do commonly declaim on the Danger of Infidelity to Civil Society, but this is all Ecclesiastical Cant and Jargon. I thought I had given[349] the Bishop of London so much on this Head of Complaint against Infidelity, as I could not suppose the Bishop of St. David's would ever have repeated it. It is true, what the Bishop says, that Religion is the firmest Support of Government, and Christianity especially lays the greatest Obligations, on Men's Consciences, of Obedience to the Civil Powers. I believe all this, and that the better Christians Men are, the more quiet, peaceable, and useful Subjects, and the greater Friends would they be to the Civil Authority. But does it follow from hence, that we Infidels, because we have rejected the Belief of some systematical Divinity, as the Clergy are fond of, should consequently be Enemies to the Civil Government, and Foes to the Peace, Order, and Welfare of Society? O fie upon the Drawers of such Consequences! We are, I believe, a numerous and growing Sect in these Nations, though I am acquainted with none, no, not so much as with the Great Mr. Grounds: But I could never perceive that any of us, in Principle, were against Civil Government, and the Welfare of the Community; or were for Confusion, for setting the People together by the Ears, to the Disturbance of the publick Peace and Tranquillity. No, no, our Interests in the World, as well as other Men's, oblige us to consult the publick Welfare; and our Consciences, from the Religion of Nature, bind us to Obedience to Government; and, was it not agreeable to our Inclination, the Necessity of Affairs would force us to be as quiet and obedient as are any Christians: And I thank God, we have hitherto behaved our selves very peaceably, clear of all Suspicion of Treason and Rebellion to any Prince or State. The Bishop hints at Experience to the contrary, but it will puzzle him to give an Instance. One would think, by this common Harangue, of Ecclesiasticks against us Infidels, that Christians, especially the Priesthood, being, as the Bishop says, both under the Penalties of human Laws, and the stronger Impressions of a future State, were of a Lamb-like Nature, and never given to disturb the Civil Authority: And I will own the Christian Laity might be acquitted here, but for the Clergy, who have been repeatedly the Pest and Bane of human Society, the Trumpeters of Sedition and Rebellion, and mere Make-bates in Cities and Families. And I dare say, that if the Civil Powers don't curb, and keep our Priesthood in awe, they will upon this present Occasion be the Disturbers of the publick Peace. So little Sense and Truth is there in the Bishop's present Invective against us Infidels! If he had not been infatuated to a Forgetfulness of the Rogueries of Priests, in all Ages, against the Civil Powers, he could never have insinuated such a groundless and senseless Charge against us, to the Provocation of the Civil Magistrate to fall on us. But

III. The Bishop calumniates us Infidels (for against his Conscience, whether I will or not, he will have me to be one of them) not only for being Enemies to Government in general, which he will have us to advance Principles destructive of; but insinuates and asserts that we are disaffected to the particular and present Government of these Kingdoms, saying, that as "we are active in propagating Infidelity, we do in the last Resort, not only insult the Title of Defender of the Faith, but undermine the undoubted Right of his Majesty and his Royal Family to the Crown of these Realms, as it is founded on the Profession of Christianity, reform'd, and now legally settled among us; and therefore Persons of that Character may well be consider'd, as equally false to the Author of our Faith, and to the present Government.——Therefore in a just Sense of that Allegiance which is due to the King, and for the Security of your Majesties, and the Royal Family, and thereby of the Publick it self, as well as out of a deep Concern for the Honour and Preservation of our most holy Faith, the ensuing Treatise is now offer'd, under your Majesty's Protection, to the View of the Publick." This is all such foolish and manifest Slander, that I can't but think the Bishop mad with Rage and Indignation at me, when he writ it. I dare say the Queen, who is firmly attach'd to the Interests of the Christian and Protestant Religion, did, when she read all this, almost grieve for the Bishop, and pity him for his Weakness and Ignorance. It is a Maxim among all Parties, that Infidels are heartily affected to the present Establishment of the State; yea, so far a Maxim, that Jacobites and High-Church-men are apt to accuse all the well-affected to the Government, of Infidelity. From none of the Writings or Practice of Infidels, much less of my self, could the Bishop gather any of these his childish Surmises. The Government, since the Succession of the Illustrious House of Hanover, has been twice attempted to be disturb'd, and both times by profess'd Christians. The Rebellion at Preston consisted of Papists and High-Church-men, and tho' there were but few Clergy-men in Arms, yet they were join'd with the Prayers and Wishes of many Thousands of the Clergy, and even, as it was suspected, of some Oxonian Bishops. Bishop Atterbury's Plot too consisted of Rebellious Christians, without the least intermixture of us Infidels, who are the more zealously affected to the Government, because of the Danger it is sometimes in from the High-Church Clergy. Away then with the Bishop's Slander, which, for all we may be Unbelievers of Christianity, our Civil Magistrates will laugh at and deride him for. But,

IV. Another Misrepresentation, more foolish and absurd than the former, that the Bishop has made of us Infidels, is, that we are making Way for Popery and Slavery: For thus he says of us, "Nothing is more demonstrable, than that those Adversaries (meaning us Infidels) of the Christian Religion, who are now so busily employ'd in infusing Doubts into some weak Minds, in giving an Indifference and Coldness to other well-meaning Persons, and in making others, that are viciously inclin'd, actual Proselites to Infidelity, are pursuing such Methods as have a natural Tendency to introduce Confusion, and thereby betray us into Popery." And again he says of Infidels, "That in Consequence of their own Infidelity, and their wicked Diligence in spreading that Infection, are bringing in upon us the real Persecutions of the Church of Rome; who likewise, whilst they rail so plentifully at the most rational Religion in the World as Superstition, give great Advantages towards restoring the insupportable Superstitions of that Communion. These are the Persons indeed that appear in favour of an unbounded Liberty, but God grant it may not terminate in an absolute Slavery." Risum quis tenerat? Who in his Wits could write such Stuff? And who without Impatience can read it? I was going about a particular Dissection of these two Paragraphs, and to lay open the Wit, Sense, and Oratory of the Bishop, to the Contemplation of his Admirers; but I find it unnecessary, as well as tedious to do it: The very transcribing of them, and exposing them to View, is enough to render him ridiculous. If there be no more danger of Popery, Slavery, Superstition, Tyranny, and real Persecution from our Clergy, than from us Infidels, the Nation is safe. Infidels find too much Inconvenience in the Power, Craft, and Follies of a Protestant Clergy, to make Way for Popery; which, as the Bishop rightly says, is a Complication of Errors. There are, what the Bishop should have thought of, many Protestant Priests for an Accommodation with the Church of Rome; and, if I mistake not, upon such easy Terms as this, viz. If she'll but part with some of her Superstitions that are of no Use to her; our Clergy will admit of others as will be of Advantage to them. But Infidels are irreconcilable Enemies to the Church of Rome, and so far from Wishes and Endeavours to restore Popery, that it is mere Nonsense to charge them with either direct or consequential Designs so to enslave Mankind. But

V. The Bishop says, that we Infidels (for I am one it seems) labour industriously to root out all Sense of Virtue and Religion among us. This is sad indeed, if true; and very bad Men should we be, and deserving of the worst Punishment. But this wants Proof. How does he know that we are for rooting out all Sense of Virtue and Religion amongst Men? Does it appear so by our Writings or our Practices? Does he find in our Books any Exhortations to Looseness and Immorality? Nothing of this I am sure. Is he then so well acquainted with Infidels, as to know them to be of more depraved and debauch'd Lives than profess'd Christians? Nor this neither. I have not as yet heard that any of my Disciples have been hang'd, lamenting his Misfortune of reading my Discourses, as what encouraged him to Sin, and brought him to the Gallows. No, those unhappy People, hitherto, die in the Faith and Communion of the Church, either of England or of Rome, and hope to be saved through the Merits of their Saviour, Neither do, I hear of any Gentleman, old or young, who has given a greater Loose to his Lusts and Passions, since he read my Books. Such News would trouble me.

But because of this Out-cry of the Bishop, and of other Preachers against us, that we labour industriously to root out all Sense of Virtue and Religion amongst Men, I wish (for Proof) that Infidels were distinguishable from Christians, that a Comparison might be made, and the Difference discern'd between them, as to true Religion and Virtue. Tho' I am one of little Acquaintance with Infidels, yet it is my Opinion that, on this Score, they may vie with, and, all things consider'd, do surpass Christians. One would think, by the Bishop's Insinuation above, that none but good People were of his Christian Faith; and that all Infidels were profligate Sinners; but he knows better, and what's more, he should have been more ingenuous than to charge Infidels with Labours to root out all Sense of Virtue and Religion amongst Men, if it was but in Regard to that learned Gentleman who is supposed to be at the Head of Infidelity, and who, they say, is as exemplary for all social Virtues, as any Bishop; and dislikes Vice and Immorality as much as any Saint can do.

Whatever be the Virtue and Religion of Infidels, it is all genuine, natural, and sincere; and consequently more Praise-worthy than that of hired Priests, who may be suspected of Hypocrisy, because of their Interests. I heard a wild Spark say, that he could be as grave as the Bishop of London, if he was but as well paid for it. Whether he believ'd the Bishop would have been as loose as himself, but for his Hire, I can't tell. But this is certain that, what can't be said of Infidels, there are Priests who put on the Face and Form of Godliness, and want the Life and Power of it; who lift up their Hands and Eyes unto God, when their Hearts are far from him; and were not their Interests more than their Faith, a Restraint to their Lusts, it is commonly believ'd they would be a Company of loose Blades.

What a Pother is here of the Danger and Mischief of Infidelity to Church and State? Do but take away the Cause of Infidelity, and the Effect ceases. And what is the Cause of Infidelity? Why, what Origen predicted, I experience to be true, that the Ministry of the Letter is the Cause of it; and I appeal to Mr. Grounds, Whether litteral Expositions on the Scripture, and the absurd Doctrines which the Clergy have built upon the Letter, have not been one Cause of his calling into Question, the Truth of Christianity, and the divine Inspiration of the holy Scriptures? But this is not the only Cause of Infidelity; there are other grand ones, which Dr. Moore writes of, saying thus:[350] "That Men are exceedingly tempted to think the whole Business of Religion is at best but a Plot to enrich the Priests, and keep the People in awe, from observing that they, who make the greatest Noise about Religion, and are the most zealous therein, do neglect the Laws of Honesty and common Humanity; that they easily invade other Men's Rights; that they juggle, dissemble, and lye for Advantage; that they are proud, conceited, love the Applause of the People, are envious, fierce, and implacable, unclean and sensual, merciless and cruel; care not to have Kingdoms flow in Blood, for maintaining their Tyranny over the Consciences of poor deluded Souls." If then there is any Danger of any kind in Infidelity, let the Clergy take the Blame and Shame of it to themselves, and not lay that Fault, which is their own, upon other Men.

But observing that Dr. Moore above speaks of Priests, their neglecting the Laws of Honesty and common Humanity, as a Cause of Infidelity, I must here do a piece of Justice to Infidels, who place the very Essence of all Religion (as I believe the Essence of Christianity consists) in common Honesty. If they keep to their Principles, and act agreeably, they will work such a Reformation in the World for the better, as the Priests of all Ages have not been able to do. The Clergy have made such a Noise in the World about Faith and Doctrine, that the People hardly think they need be Honest to be good Christians and even many Clergy-men are conceited of their being orthodox and sound Divines, though by their Dishonesty, Profuseness, and Neglect of a Provision for their Families, they have, in the Judgment of[351] St. Paul, deny'd the Faith, and are worse than Infidels.

And thus have I consider'd the Slanders and Misrepresentations of my self and Infidels, contain'd in the Bishop's Dedication to the Queen, which entirely is such a Piece of Fury, Railing, and Impertinence, as a Man shall hardly meet with. Surely he was not awake when he wrote his Dedication, it is so like the Dream of a disorder'd Brain which consists of confused Notions, and scatter'd Ideas, that are never to be so compacted together, as to make tolerable Sense, Reason, and Truth. If I had not met with much such flaming Stuff in the Body of his Book, I should have suspected that some-body, more a Foe than a Friend to him, had palm'd it upon him, and over-persuaded him to print it, as what would recommend him to her Majesty's Favour.

Whether he'll merit a Translation to an Arch-Bishoprick, for this Dedication, with me is no Question. For all he may take me for his Enemy, I wish him translated, as certainly as the Government has transported some other Folks, who are no more the Bane of Society. Buggs in a House, and Caterpillars in a Garden, are not a greater Grievance, than some sort of Ecclesiastical Vermin in Christ's Church and Vineyard.

That the Bishop himself admires his Dedication, and is pleas'd with it, I don't doubt. Like as Bears are fond of their ill-favour'd Cubbs, so the Brats of some Men's Brains, as well as those of their Bodies, are pleasing to than; and however deform'd and irrational in themselves, are hugg'd by them as so many Wits and Beauties. But whether many, beside the Bishop himself, will like his Dedication, is a great Question. I don't doubt, but there may be some for Persecution as well as the Bishop, and so far may approve of the Dedication: But whether there is any one that can think, he has not greatly injured Infidels, and made a false Representation of them, for being Enemies to our Civil Government, and to our present Establishment, can't surely be question'd. If he be not look'd upon here, by all Mankind, as a wilful and malicious Misrepresenter of them, I shall much wonder at it.

But what's the Dedication to the Book it self, will some here say? Tho' the Bishop may have made some Slips in his Dedication which betray Weakness and Ignorance; yet his following Performance may be Strenuous and Nervous, and a compleat Confutation of my Discourses. I answer, that such a Dedication bodes ill to the Book; and a Man may as well expect to find the inside of a House beautiful and richly adorn'd, when the Porch and Entrance into it is mean and nasty; as that an admirable Treatise for Wit, Reason, and Learning, should follow upon such a poor, simple, and insipid Dedication. Commonly Authors take more care in their Dedications, than in their following Treatise; that is, they see better to the Accuracy of their Expressions, the Exactness of their Stile, and Beauty of their Thoughts; and if they err at all in them, it is only in Flattery, and excess of Compliments on their Patrons. Such Care too, after the best manner he was able, has the Bishop taken in his Dedication above; and whatever his Readers and Admirers may think, the Dedication is the best Part of the Book. The Exceptions I have taken at the Dedication are but small, in Comparison of the Faults I shall find and expose in the Book it self; which is such a Complication of Impertinence and Errors, of Rage and Confidence, and of Calumnies and Reproaches, as is not to be equall'd; and is so far from deserving the Character of a Confutation of my Discourses, that it has done them Service; and will be, after the Animadversions I shall make on it, a Confirmation of the Goodness, Usefulness, and Excellency of my Design in them.

I have not here room to make a compleat Dissection of the Bishop's Work, and to display its Insufficiency, in answer to my Discourses; neither was it my Design in this first Part of my Defence to do it. But however, I will spare a Place here for a short Character and Representation of his Performance, which take as follows.

"The Bishop's sole Aim and Design is to vindicate the litteral Story of our Saviour's Miracles, against my rational and authoritative Objections to it. And to this Purpose he wrangles with me, where he can, about the Sense of this and that Citation out of the Fathers; and after he has forc'd another Sense on it, than the Words do naturally bear, then he insults me for a Misrepresentation. And where he meets with a plain Testimony out of the Fathers, which he can't mangle nor strain to his Purpose, he fluently passes by it; tho' he would have his Readers to believe, he has vindicated the litteral Story against my Authorities, and shewn that the Fathers were all on his Side.

"He complains of my Mutilations of the Fathers, and of making too curt Citations out of them; which is true, but more to my own Disadvantage than to his. But, what is Matter of grand Triumph to the Bishop, is, that I have quoted spurious Works of the Fathers for genuine ones. And here he takes great Pains, and wastes Time and Paper, to prove that this and that Book does not belong to the Author under whose Name I cite it; and then has a Fling at me for want of Skill in Criticism. But can the Bishop be so weak, as to think, I did not know when I quoted a spurious Work? Supposing the Book I quoted do not belong to the reputed Author, but to some other Writer, what's that to the Question between us? The Citation is no less the Testimony of Antiquity, and it's no matter whose Name it bears. If the Bishop had thought a little on this, he might have spared some Sheets of Paper, which he has in vain wasted, to the Loss of his Readers Time and Money.

"Again, where my rational Arguments against the Letter seem to the Bishop to be weak and inconclusive; there, to do him Justice, he handsomly turns upon me with his Reasoning, and admonishes me of my Spitefulness against the Letter, or I would never use such a slight Argument. But where I pinch and bear hard upon the Letter, and the Jest is not to be digested, there, instead of Reasoning against me, he makes a hideous Out-cry of Buffoonery, Blasphemy, and Infidelity; and calls upon the Civil Magistrate for his Help, or their Religion, and their All is in Danger, through the impious Writings of untoward Infidels.

"The Bishop in some Cases gives up the Cause, and seems himself to be almost ashamed of the Letter; and for the Maintenance of the Honour of Jesus, and the Dignity of his miraculous Operation, flies to Allegory; allowing that this and that Miracle might be typical and figurative of somewhat else, as his Thoughts did suggest to him. But here he discovers his poor Talent at Allegories, making no more Resemblance between the Type and Antitype, than between an Apple and an Oyster.

"I am repeatedly charg'd by the Bishop with Infidelity, for writing against the Letter, tho' I am as grave as a Judge at the allegorical Interpretation; and he can't but know that Infidelity and Allegorism are incompatible in the same Person. To prove me an Infidel, he should have shewn that I meant to pour Contempt upon the allegorical, as well as litteral Sense of Jesus's Miracles; but he has not once hinted at this. A certain great Writer, call'd Mr. Grounds, plays a double Game upon the Clergy, he laughs at the allegorical as well as litteral Scheme, and distresses the Clergy with his Objections against both. But I have not done so; I really am, or seem to be, a sincere Contender for the allegorical Sense. And to make an Infidel of an Allegorist, is more difficult and impossible than to make a Monkey of a Bishop.

"The Bishop, as a Minister of the Letter, has spoken too favourably of the allegorical Scheme; he has treated it with too much Respect, both as to the Origin and Use of it, and done enough to sap the Foundation of his Church; for which, I am afraid, he'll meet with a Reprimand from his Episcopal Brethren. The Bishop of Lichfield is the Man for my Money, to write against the allegorical Scheme; he tells us, that[352] St. Paul suffer'd in the Esteem of the Jewish Christians for his Neglect of Allegories; and seems to be brought into the Use of them against his own good liking. And again,[353] It seems to have been in compliance with Jewish Christians, who were affected with allegorick Interpretations, that St. Paul used that way. Which is as much as to say, St. Paul was more a Minister of the Spirit, than of Inclination he was disposed to be, or, in truth, ought to have been; and that, if he took upon him the Ministry of the Spirit for the present, it was only craftily and politically done of him, to catch the Jews in their own Snare of Allegories. He was consenting that the Preachers of the Gospel, in future Times, should desert the Ministry of the Spirit, and betake themselves to the Letter of the Scriptures, as what is more agreeable to Truth, and conducive to the Defence and Propagation of Christianity. Such a Craftsman was the inspir'd St. Paul, in the Opinion of the Bishop of Lichfield! However, the Bishop of St. David's ought to be of the same Mind; he should assert, that the Ministry of the Spirit was all apostolical Craft and antient Error; and that the present Generation of Priests, being wiser, more learned, and more sincere than the Primitive and Apostolical ones, do adhere to the Ministry of the Letter. Because the Bishop has not gone thus far by much, he leaves more room, than he should, for the Revival of the Ministry of the Spirit; that is, of the spiritual and allegorical Interpretation of the Scriptures.

"The Bishop often reproves me for my primitive Interpretation of this and that Text of Scripture, and then palms his own forc'd Sense on us, for natural and genuine, contrary to the Judgment of all Antiquity.

"He is so grave, serious, and sedate at some simple Doctrines and Arguments, that his Readers must of necessity laugh, if not scoff at him. Was I ludicrously to handle the said Doctrines, my Readers would hardly smile. Such a wide Difference is there between the Levity of a Buffoon (as he is pleased to call me) and the Gravity of an Ass, to the exposing of Religion to the Ridicule and Contempt of Mankind.

"Lastly, He entirely mistakes the Design of my Discourses; he knows not what I aim and drive at. There's one Paradox runs through his whole Book, viz. That the litteral Story of our Saviour's Miracles must of necessity be true, or I should have no Foundation to build Allegories upon; which is a gross Mistake of other Writers against me, as well as of himself. Who knows not that the profest Parables of Jesus have nothing of Letter in them, yet are a good Foundation for Allegory? And let me tell him here again, that whatever was true, more or less, in the litteral Story of Jesus's Miracles, there is absolute Necessity, for the Honour and Credit of them, to have Recourse to the Mystery; or litterally they are, and shall be farther proved such——Stories, as I dare not at present call them."

Thus have I given a brief Account of the Bishop's mighty and pompous Performance; like to which he has promis'd us another Volume, that I shall long for the publication of, next Winter. This my brief Account is but introductory to future and larger Defences of my Discourses on Miracles; which, by the Help of God, and Permission of the Civil Authority, shall be likewise publish'd.

I have not, I say, room here so much as to defend my self on any one Miracle; and if I had, I would not do it. For as I can't do it without writing in the same Stile and Strain for which I am prosecuted, so I will do nothing that may be interpreted as an Act in Defiance and Contempt of the Power of the Civil Magistrate. I did indeed publish two Discourses after the Commencement of the Prosecution, because I imagined that our Bishops were more in Jest than in Earnest; or if their Passions were raised for the present, I thought, that after a little Consideration of the unreasonableness of Persecution in general, they would cool upon it, and drop the Prosecution. But since they are in Earnest, and I must answer to the Civil Powers for some supposed Crimes in my Discourses, I'll not repeat here the like Acts, but be quiescent in respect to the said Powers, to whom Reverence and Obedience is justly due. For, tho' I look upon the Ecclesiastical Power as an Usurpation on the Consciences of Mankind, yet the Civil is Sacred, is God's Ordinance, and ought to be regarded as such. But if I survive the Prosecution, and escape with my Life and Liberty, which I don't despair of, under so wise, just, and good a Magistracy as this Nation is bless'd with, the Bishop may expect a strenuous Defence of my self against his weak Assaults on me.

If our Bishops were any thing Heroical, they would stop the Prosecution, and let the Controversy take its free Course. If they had any Sense of Honour and Reputation, any Regard for their Learning, they would set any Adversary of their Church at Defiance, and disdain the Assistance of the Civil Magistrate to punish him, whom they could not confute. It is the Office of the Bishops and Priests of the Church, or I know not what is, to convert Infidels, to refute Hereticks, and by Reason and Argument to put to Silence all Gain-sayers. Wherefore have they a liberal and academical Education, but to qualify them for this Work? Wherefore do they receive large Revenues of the Church, but to oblige and encourage them to it? Nothing more unreasonable, than that Men should receive Wages, when they don't their Work. What will the People say hereupon less, than that an Army of at least Twenty thousand Blackguards of the Church are hired to little or no Purpose? The meanest of the People may as well be taken to Church Preferments, as our reputed learned Divines. They can discharge other Ecclesiastical Offices; and when they are distress'd with an Objection to their Religion, can do no worse than call upon the Civil Magistrate for his Aid and Assistance. But after all, I am inclin'd to think our Bishops, in Honour, would forbear Persecution, but for their Interests, call'd their All, which depend on the Issue of this Controversy.

However, not to urge the Argument for Liberty of Debate any farther, which has been already by others treated on to Perfection, and will be again returned, I doubt not, by some body else, on occasion of this Bishop's Dedication, I can't but take Notice here how unpolitick, as well as unchristian, some Dissenters are in this Controversy, being, such as Dr. Harris, and Mr. Atkinson, no less for Persecution than the Clergy. If they had a Regard to their own Interests and Liberties, they would be silent. Infidels (of whom I am none) should be consider'd as Dissenting Brethren, whom they should not be forward to oppress, for fear in time, and by degrees, it should come to their own Turn. Our Dissenters indeed, collectively, are vastly numerous, and a potent Party, but may trust too much to their own Strength and Numbers. Taking them separately, they may possibly be Extinguish'd by Ecclesiastical Art and Craft. If Blasphemy is a just Pretence for the Prosecution of me, the Clergy, upon Occasion, can urge the same Crime against them. I'll tell them a Story. The Calvinists and Socinians were once equally tolerated in Poland, and if they had been fast Friends to each other, the Papists could never have suppress'd them: But the Calvinists joining with the Papists, and urging them to complain against the Socinians for Blasphemy, in denying the Divinity of the Son of God, moved the Civil Authority to a Banishment of them; and the Socinians had not been long suppress'd, before the Papists accus'd the Calvinists of no less Blasphemy, in denying Adoration to the Virgin Mary; and so they were sent packing too; otherwise they might both have enjoy'd their Liberty to this Day. The Application of the Story is easy. So if all we Dissenters from the Church, whether we like one another's Principles or not, don't hold together for the Preservation of our Liberties, it's easy for Ecclesiasticks to feign an Accusation of Blasphemy against any of us. We have no Security, but in the Wisdom and Goodness of an excellent Government, which, if the Clergy should ever get on the Back of, its hardly a Question, whether they would not drive, Jehu like, most furiously.

But to return to my Bishop. I once thought he would never have been drawn into this Controversy. Sometime after the Publication of my Third Discourse, which, for a visible Reason, I dedicated to him, and invited him to Battle, I ask'd a dignify'd Clergy-man, Whether the Bishop would write against me? He answer'd, No: Whereupon I concluded, that he had a Scent of somewhat, not here to be mention'd. But my repeated Provocations of him afterwards, have forc'd him, against Inclination, to engage me. His Passion got the better of his Reason, or he had been certainly quiescent: And the Violence of his Passion is so visible thro' his whole Book, that it's God's great Mercy it did not throw him into a Fever and Convulsions, to the Danger of his Life and Health.

I own here again, what I have done before, that I did lay a Trap for our Clergy; but little imagined that two such great Bishops, as of London and St. David's, would, to my Pleasure and Satisfaction, have been caught in it. If I had not baited my Trap well with Ridicule, I dare say, they would have kept themselves clear of it.

But when I experienc'd the hard Usage the Bishops had given me upon my Discourses, and the Fury with which they attack'd me, it surprised me, and brought to my Mind Origen's Prediction[354] of this very War and Controversy of the Spirit against the Letter of the Scriptures, and of the Violence it would be carried on with. For all my Veneration for the Authority of the Fathers, I did here suspect the Truth of Origen's Prediction, believing him to be mistaken, and that the Controversy would be manag'd in a calm, decent, and sedate Manner; and so it had been, but for the Interests of the Clergy that are at Stake in it, which I was not aware of. Finding then the Truth of Origen's Prediction contrary to my Expectations, I had the Curiosity further to consult the Fathers about the Issue of this Controversy; and they presently, with their mystical Fingers, pointed to a Prophecy of it in the Revelations of St. John; but, to say no more at present, assur'd me, that the Spirit would get the Better of the Letter in the Conclusion of it. Tho' I am accounted an Infidel, I am so easy and credulous a Christian as to believe all this; and I thank God have so much Courage in me, as to try the Truth of it.

But I must observe here, that besides my two Bishops, of London and St. David's, (and some other inconsiderable Triflers) there are two anonymous Authors against me, whose Works have acquir'd some Fame. The One is intitled, The Miracles of Jesus vindicated, in Three Parts. If I could have gotten to the certain Knowledge of the Author, I should have been tempted to have had a Bout with him; and to have expostulated with him, both with Regard to his Arguments and good Manners. I would have taught him a better Use, and a more proper Application of the Words Dishonesty, and want of Honesty, than to reproach me with them. Common Fame says, Dr. Pearse, of St. Martin's, is the Author; but I am apt to think, the King's Parish Priest, and other City Divines, have more Wit and Craft than to upbraid me as above, for fear a just Charge of Dishonesty, for their Extortions and Exactions on the People, should be retorted on them. Upon the Publication of the First Part of the foresaid Treatise, my Jewish Rabbi comes to me in all haste, saying to me, "Look you here, do you see how this Author has new vampt the old mumpsimus Argument of Jesus's Resurrection? Do you observe how imperfectly, here and there, he answers my Objections to it; and silently slips by some knotty Pieces of them, that were too hard for him to untie?" Yes, Rabbi, said I, I do observe all this; (and what I have observ'd since, he argues, awkwardly and backwardly, for the Certainty of Jesus's other Miracles, from his Resurrection.) My Rabbi presently re-inforc'd his Resurrection-Objection against this Author, and would have had me to print it. No, no, Rabbi, said I; you may print it your self, if you dare. I must wait to hear how Causes will go in Westminster-Hall, next Term, before I involve my self in another Law-Suit. Besides, Rabbi, they say, I don't really thus correspond with a Jew, but do only personate one; and the Bishop of St. David's hints, that I am answerable to publick Justice for so doing. Here my Rabbi stampt with Indignation; saying, What if you did personate a Jew? Is it not lawful, and in Use with your Divines, to write Conferences between a Christian and a Jew? And do you any more in this Case? Yes, Rabbi, said I, it is lawful to write such like Conferences, and to make Jewish Objections to Christianity, when they are no stronger than may be easily dissipated: But when Men write from the Heart, as you do, and raise a D——l that our Clergy can't easily lay, it is, they say, intolerable, and punishable; and either you or I, in the Opinion of the Bishop, ought to suffer for it.

The other considerable Treatise against me, is that of The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus; which is an ingenious Piece, and I was well pleased with it. Some time after the Publication of this Treatise, I made my Jewish Rabbi a Visit, when, drinking a Dish of Tea together, we talk'd it over; and my Rabbi was pleas'd to deliver his Sentiments of it in this fashion: "Whoever was the Author of this Treatise, God knows, but he's certainly a Friend to my Objections against Jesus's Resurrection, which he has fairly stated; but is so far from fully confuting all of them, that he discovers a Consciousness, here and there, that they are unanswerable. It is commonly reported that Bishop Sherlock is the Author of this Treatise, but this Report I look upon as an Artifice of the Booksellers, to make it sell well; or rather the Author's contrived Banter upon the Clergy, and their weak Christian Brethren, to try how far they may be imposed on, and drawn into the Approbation and Admiration of a Treatise, that really makes against them. There is but very little in this Treatise, to make it reputed a sufficient Answer to my Objections, excepting the Verdict of the Jury, who brought in the Witnesses of the Resurrection, Not Guilty, of either Fraud or Mistake in it. Bishop Sherlock can't be the Author of this Treatise, if for no other Reason than this, that that Author is visibly against that Ecclesiastical Wealth and Power, which the Bishop is possess'd of, and does think not disagreeable to the Mind of Christ and his poor Apostles. If any Bishop is the concealed Author of this Treatise, he must secretly be of the Opinion of the atheistical Pope, who said, quantum nobis profuit hæc de Christo Fabula, what vast Advantage has the Story of Christ been to us Popes and Bishops." I readily gave into the Opinion of my Rabbi, and wonder'd, Bishop Sherlock did not so much as by a publick Advertisement clear himself of being the Author of this Treatise, and so put a Stop to the Report. It may be the Bishop is above the Scandal of it; but I was so concern'd for his Reputation, that I drew up a Vindication of him from the Slander of it; which I had publish'd, but for my Rabbi's farther Thoughts about the Resurrection of Jesus inserted in it, that our Bishops might have possibly taken Offence at. So I dropp'd that Design at present, but hope still for an Opportunity to publish the said Vindication of the Bishop, by which, I don't doubt, but to merit his Friendship and Favour.

But whoever was the real Author of the foresaid Treatise, I humbly and heartily beg of him to publish, what in the Conclusion of it, he has given us some Hopes of, The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Lazarus, because my Rabbi's Objections to it are a Novelty and Curiosity, which, by way of such a Reply to them, I should be glad to see handled.

But having here by Chance mention'd my Rabbi's Letter concerning Lazarus's Resurrection, it brings to my Mind a Challenge I made to the Bishop of London upon it, viz.[355] "If he would publish an Answer to that Letter, and vouchsafe me the Pleasure of a Reply to it; then (to save the Civil Magistrates Trouble) I would suffer such Punishment that he in his Clemency should think fit to inflict on me, for what's past." An ingenuous Clergy-man, upon reading this, said, that the Bishop was bound, in Honour, to accept of my Challenge, or, what was in his Power, in Generosity, to put a Stop to the Prosecution. But the Bishop is not of his Mind. And for what Reason he does not accept of my Challenge, is best known to himself, and others will conjecture. If he had not condescended to write against me in his Pastoral Letter, I should have imagined, that he thought it beneath the Dignity of One of his exalted Station in the Church, to set his Wit (for dignified Priests, for the most part, think their Wit and Learning proportion'd to their Wealth and Power) against such a poor Author as I am. But this is not the Reason. It may be, he thinks his Reputation and Honour secure in the Height of his Grandeur, and that his Dependents will admire his Learning nothing the less for his Neglect of my Challenge. However it be, this I will say, that were we upon the Level in the World as to Fortune, as well as we are to Age and Education, the Learned would despise him for declining the reasonable Challenge of one, whom he has injuriously treated and persecuted. It's to no Purpose to challenge him here afresh; he, being purpos'd to carry the Matter with an high Hand, has taken other Measures, and is resolv'd to make use of his Power and Interest to suppress him, whom with Reason and Argument he can't convince.

However, I will here make another Proposal to the Bishop of St. David's. Because he thirsts after a very severe Punishment of me, or he would not be so warm in his Exhortations of the Government to that Purpose, I'll tell him how he may glut his Revenge, and inflict a greater Punishment on me, than, in all probability, the Civil Magistrate will humour him in. If he'll but put a Stop to the Prosecution at present (which is not out of the Power of our Bishops, whatever they may pretend) and let the Controversy go on, till I have finish'd my Reply to his two Volumes, which shall be done with all Expedition; then, if his Passion is not allay'd, I will submit to any Punishment, he in his Wisdom and Justice, without Mercy, shall think fit to have laid on me, whether it be to Death or Imprisonment. And what would he, or any implacable Priest, desire more? This Proposal makes him my Judge as well as my Accuser, and if he be not the most unreasonable Man alive, he must accept of it. All my Hopes here are, that his Reason may recover its Dominion over his Passion, against the Conclusion of my Defence, or it will go hard with me. If the Bishop will not comply with this Proposal, I shall conclude, he's possess'd with the only certain and allegorical Satan, mention'd in my Discourses; and I shall be confirm'd in the Opinion of St. Hilary (whose Testimonies about Devils, the Bishop has silently pass'd by, without any Charge upon me for Misrepresentation) that there are no worse Devils in the World, than the calumniating, furious, and persecuting Tempers of Mankind. The Bishop, by the by, has taken Pains to prove there are other Devils, of an infernal, frightful, and independent Nature, and of a more certain Existence than Hobgoblins; and he gravely asserts, that three of those Devils enter'd into each Hog, that ran violently down-hill; thereby making the little Pigs to carry as great a Burden as the old Boars and Sows, which should have been better thought of by him. The Bishop, perhaps, for these my Descants, will say I am an Infidel; but I assure him, it is one of the Articles of my Primitive and Christian Faith, that the old Dragon, Satan, the Serpent, or the Devil, mention'd in the Revelations, is no other than the furious, violent, and persecuting Spirit in Man; which, upon the World's getting Liberty of Religion, will be bound and chain'd. And it is the Opinion of Thousands, as well as of my self, that Mankind will never be Happy, nor at Rest, till this Devil is exorcised out of the Priesthood, and so of consequence chain'd up. According to the primitive Way of interpreting the Revelations of St. John, the Time is near at Hand for the binding this Apocalyptical old Dragon or Satan, that has pester'd the World through all Ages past. All the Honour that I desire, is, by my Studies and Endeavours to be contributing to so great a Work, for the Good and Happiness of Mankind.

To conclude. I have been the more expeditious in printing of this Discourse, not only for fear the Bishop's Vindication (as it is call'd) should have a malign Influence upon some People, I don't mean our Civil Magistrates, who are wiser and more learned than to be guided by such outragious Stuff; but because he should not long triumph in a Conceit of the Potency and Excellency of his Performance, as if no Reply could or would be made to it. If I had at this Time enjoy'd free Liberty of Debate, I should not have thought it worth my while to meddle with his Dedication, which with a Scorn I should have pass'd by, and left to the Animadversions and Chastisement of other Enemies to Persecution; but would immediately have enter'd upon a Defence of my Discourses against him. If I do retrieve my Liberty, and the free Use of my Pen, and should not publish Defences of my self, I should deserve (what one said the Bishop of London, for his declining my Challenge, deserv'd) to be piss'd upon for a vain Pretender to Argument and Authority.

In the mean time, I have nothing to request of our Clergy, but that Liberty of Debate may be indulg'd us; that Liberty of theological Disputation, which would be granted, if they did not industriously labour to obstruct it. When will they cease to disgrace Truth, to dishonour their Religion, and to disparage their own Education and Learning; and no longer envy Mankind the blessed Enjoyment of such a Liberty!

But their Religion, they say, would be in Danger upon such a Liberty. How can that be? How can Christianity be in Danger, that has not only the Omnipotence of God on his Side, but a numerous standing Army of Priests, hired for the Defence of it? It is not then their Concern for Religion, that prompts them to so much Zeal here; but their Fears for their Interests, that depend on the Issue of this Controversy.

Was I to write against any other honest Trade, that is practised in this City, the Artificers of it, being sensible of the Usefulness of their Craft, would let me go on unmolested; and only pity and despise me for the Vanity of my Attempt to subvert them: But the Clergy, being prick'd with a Consciousness of the Mischiefs and Inconveniencies of their Establishment, do therefore thus winch and kick.

And who, besides the Clergy, are at this time Enemies to Liberty? None hardly, but their immediate Dependents, whom they can easily infuse their fiery and furious Notions into. Was it to be voted this Day among the learned Laity, I dare say, the Friends of Persecution would be found vastly short of the Numbers of their Adversaries. And I hope to God, the Legislative Authority of these Nations will soon take the Matter into their Consideration; and either limit or enlarge the Bounds of Liberty, that honest and well-meaning Men may be no longer harrass'd and molested, for their sincere Endeavours to serve the Publick.

No Body, I trust, can complain of any disrespectful Usage, I have here given the Bishop of St. David's, that considers, how he has treated me in his Sermon before the Societies for Reformation; and in his Charge to the Clergy of his Diocese; as well as in his Vindication. It would be sufficient, if I had no other Excuse for my self than this, That Controversy is like a Game at Foot ball, in which, if a Lord will engage with a Plowman, and should meet with a Kick on the Shins, he ought not to complain of the ill Manners of it: So if a Bishop will dispute with one of lower Degree, he must look for a Rub on his Intellects, a Rap on his Pate, and if his Adversary cuts him on a soft Place, he should know how to bear it with Patience. But the Bishop, contrary to this Game-Rule in Controversy, complains[356] of my unmannerly Treatment of him, and cries out of the Sufferings and Reproaches he undergoes, as if he was already more than half a Martyr for Religion. I can't pretend to equal him in Reproaches and Sufferings, having not so quick a Sense of them; and therefore I am willing, that good Christian People should pity my poor Bishop, rather than me, in a persecuted and sorrowful Condition.

How long it will be, before I publish another, and second Part of my Defence, is uncertain, for a Reason, that I need not again mention. But if it please God, that I enjoy Life, Health, and Liberty, I'll go on with my Designs. I am resolv'd to give the Letter of the Scriptures no Rest, so long as I am able by Reason and Authority to disturb it. If our Ministers of the Letter will not ascend with me, the sublime and allegorical Mountain of divine Contemplation, they than have no Comfort nor Enjoyment of themselves in the low Valley of the Letter, if I can disquiet them. Notwithstanding what the Bishop has written in Vindication of Jesus's Miracles, the litteral Story of them, by the Leave of God, and of the Civil Magistrate, shall be afresh attack'd, and perhaps with more Ridicule, than I used before. What should I flinch for? The litteral Story of Jesus's Miracles is not, in the Opinion of the Fathers, as well as of my self, agreeable to Sense and Reason; neither can Jesus's Authority and Messiahship be founded on the Letter of them. I am not for the Messiahship of a carnal Jesus, who cured the bodily Diseases of Blindness and Lameness; but for Messiahship of the spiritual Jesus, who will cure the Blindness and Lameness of our Understandings. I am for the Messiahship of the spiritual Jesus, who will expel the mercenary Preachers out of his Church, after the manner that Jesus in the Flesh is supposed to have driven the Sellers out of the Temple, which litterally is but a sorry Story. I am for the Messiahship of the spiritual Jesus, who exorcised the furious and persecuting Devils out of the Mad-men of Jews and Gentiles; and tho' he permitted them to enter into a Herd of Ecclesiastical Swine, yet will precipitate them into the Sea of Divine Knowledge. I am for the spiritual Jesus, who will cure the Woman of the Church, of her Issue of Blood, that is shed in Persecution and War; which her Ecclesiastical Physicians, and Quack-Doctors of the Clergy, have not been able to do, tho' they have received large Fees and Revenues to that End. I am for a spiritual Messiah, who will cure the Woman of the Church of her Infirmity, at the Spirit of Prophecy, of whose Infirmity this Age is her eighteenth Year. So could I write of all Jesus's Miracles; for the whole Evangelical History is Figure and Shadow of the spiritual Jesus, whom we should know to be in us of a Truth, unless we be Reprobates. The Clergy, if they are not wilfully blind, may hence see my Christian Faith and Principles; and be assured, that what I do in this Controversy, is with a View to the Honour of God, the Advancement of Truth, the Edification of the Church, and Demonstration of the Messiahship of the Holy Jesus, to whom be Glory for ever. Amen.

FINIS.

Mr. WOOLSTON's

DEFENCE

OF HIS

DISCOURSES

ON THE

Miracles of our Saviour.

Against the Bishops of St. David's and London, and his other Adversaries.

PART II.

Nec Religionis est cogere Religionem, quæ sponte suscipi debeat, non Vi. Tertull.

LONDON:

Printed for the Author, and Sold by him next Door to the Star, in Aldermanbury, and by the Booksellers of London and Westminster.

MDCCXXX.

[Price One Shilling.]

TO THE

Right Honourable

Sir Robert Raymond, Kt.

Lord Chief Justice of the Court of
King's Bench.

My Lord,

hat I am no Flatterer of Patrons, appears by my other Dedications: If therefore I should tell your Lordship, what I can in Sincerity, that I think you as wise and good a Magistrate, as any of your Predecessors in that High Court of Justice, you may be assured, I don't dissemble.

Tho' I was so unfortunate, My Lord, as to receive a Sentence in your Court, which I wish'd to avoid; yet I have no worse Opinion of your Wisdom and Justice. Your Conduct towards me, from first to last, has rather heighten'd than lessen'd my Esteem and Veneration for you. I observ'd in you such a Tenderness for our religious Liberties; such an Aversion to Persecution; and such Moderation towards my self, that if I had been absolutely acquitted, it would have been but with somewhat more Satisfaction.

And if I now write to clear my self of all Suspicions of Infidelity, for which I was sentenced; your Lordship, I humbly presume, will not think the worse of me. It is not expected that the Innocent should confess Guilt, in a Compliment to any Court of Justice: Nor does the Condemnation of the Guiltless, at any time almost, so much affect the Justice of the Magistrate, as the Honesty of the Evidence: So I, My Lord, know how to lay the Blame entirely on my Ecclesiastical Accusers, and believe your Lordship will be rather pleas'd than offended at any good Defence I can make for my self.

From the Beginning of the Prosecution against me, my Lord, I hardly believed, that any Sentence would be pass'd on me, till the Day I received it: And the Reason was, not only because the good Tendency of my Discourses was so visible, that I thought it could not be overlook'd by the Wise and Learned; but because I imagin'd our Bishops would have better consulted their Reputation, than to let Matters come to this Issue.

That it is a Transgression of the Law of the Land to write against Christianity, establish'd in it, I'll not question, since I have your Lordship's Word for it: But for all that, I could wish, for the Sake of Christianity, that such a Liberty was indulg'd to Infidels. Whatever our zealous Clergy may think, one Persecution of an Infidel does more Harm to Religion, than the Publication of the worst Book against it.

Liberty is so essential, My Lord, to the Enquiry after Truth, that where It is wanted, Truth will want that Splendor, which it receives from Disputation: And Christianity would be the more tryumphant over its Enemies, for that unbounded Liberty, they may enjoy to contest it from the Press. I say this, not for the Security of my self; against future Prosecutions but, from a Heart, full of Zeal for the Religion of the Holy Jesus.

Ever since the Reformation, which was founded on our Natural and Christian Rights to Liberty of Conscience, has this great Blessing of Liberty, at Times, been interrupted by Persecutions: But whether any of them hitherto have done any Service to Church or State, your Lordship is a good Judge.

However, tho' the Prosecution of my self, which was founded on a grand Mistake, is attended with no ill Consequence; yet I hope our Ecclesiasticks will grow cautious by it, and no more sollicit the most indulgent Civil Magistracy of this Kingdom to the Persecution of any other, much less of,

London May
25. 1730.

My Lord,
Your Lordship's
Most Obedient and
Humble Servant,
Tho. Woolston.

A

SECOND PART

OF THE

DEFENCE, &c.

t's Time now to publish another Part of my Defence, which, in my former, I gave my Readers some Reason to expect from me. If I should keep Silence much longer, my Adversaries will be ready to charge me with Cowardice, or Insufficiency; and say, that I'm either absolutely confuted by the Writers against me, or so terrified by the Civil Magistrate's Authority, that I either can't, or dare not, engage afresh in the same Cause. And I must confess, that if I was not convinced of the Goodness of my Cause, which is no other than God's, and of my Ability to defend it, I should chuse to hold my Peace, and be glad that it has fared no worse with me.

One Reason indeed why I have been so long ere I publish'd this, is pure Respect to the Civil Powers, whom I am oblig'd, as a Christian, to honour and reverence, so far as may be, without Disobedience to God. Had I hastily, and as soon almost as Sentence was pass'd on me, publish'd this, some might have interpreted it, as an Act of Defiance and Contempt of the Civil Authority, (for there are not wanting those who will put the worst Construction they can on my Conduct;) therefore I forbore for a while: And now that I appear again from the Press, it is not without professing a profound Veneration for our Civil Magistracy, who, I am sure, will never think the worse of a Man for vindicating his own Innocency, or for writing in a Cause that, in his Conscience, he is persuaded is most just and good.

Another Reason why I committed this no sooner to the Press, was to wait the Publication of the Bishop of St. David's his Second Volume, which he promised us last Winter. I was almost of Opinion, that, in my former Defence, I gave the Bishop such Intimations of my sincere Belief of Christianity, notwithstanding my Discourses on Miracles, and of the Falseness of his repeated Charge against me for Infidelity, that I question'd whether he would write again in the same Strain. If the Bishop is convinced of this his grand Mistake about me, then the very Foundation of his past and future Work is shaken, and I shall hear no more of him. But whether he is certainly convinc'd of his Mistake or not, I am concern'd to go on with these Defences of my self, and to vindicate the Goodness and Usefulness of the Design of my Discourses on Miracles, against what the Bishops of London and St. David's, and other Adversaries have written to the contrary.

But, before I enter upon such a Defence of my self and my Discourses, I must make, what is proper here, a short Preface. It is well known, that I am for Liberty of Debate, and against all Persecution or Force, or Impositions on the Consciences of Mankind. But for all that, there are some Rules in Controversy that we polemical Writers should observe, and be oblig'd to; or, instead of discovering and illustrating the Truth we pretend to search for, we shall but the more darken, obstruct and perplex it. As,

First, We should endeavour to write as plainly and intelligibly as we can, and never amuse our Readers with Expressions void of Sense, or with false Reasoning against our Adversaries, where we want what's good and solid. This Rule none can except against: Whether I am an Observer of this Rule, my Readers are to be Judges. As I am to answer it to God and a good Conscience, I endeavour to observe it; but much question, whether some of my Adversaries can say so too, or they would never vent such dark, impertinent and unintelligible Stuff, if it was not, because they are at a Loss for what's clear and shining. There's no End of giving Instances out of their Writings to this Purpose. I shall only mention one, that's repeated amongst them, and that is, of their pretended Distinction between Popish Persecution and Protestant Prosecution for Opinions, wherewith they have amused weak and injudicious Heads. The Wife, I am sure, can discern no more Difference here, than between a Rope and a Halter to hang an innocent Man, in which Case too there is a nominal Distinction without a real Difference.

Secondly, We should be open and sincere in our Opinions, and not profess with our Mouths to believe, what we disown in our Hearts; nor, like Watermen, that look one way and row another, should we pretend to have one Design in View, when we are pursuing the quite contrary. This is a reasonable Rule, and ought to be observ'd, or we shall confound the Understandings of our Readers, who will soon lose Sight of our Arguments, if they apprehend not their Aim and Drift. This Rule, my Adversaries will say, is levell'd at my self, than whom no body has more dissembled and prevaricated in his Opinions. Have not you, will they say to me, frequently declared, that your Design in your Discourses is to make way for the Proof of the Truth of Christianity, and of the Messiahship of the Holy Jesus, when you mean and intend the Subversion of both? And is not here grand Hypocrisy, and a Transgression of this Rule? Yes, if I intend the Subversion of Christ's Religion and Messiahship, here is grand Hypocrisy, and a Transgression of this Rule; and I can't think of such a Piece of Prevarication without Horror. The Bishop of St. David's[357] and Mr. Stackhouse,[358] in particular, have animadverted upon me for such Hypocrisy; and if I was guilty of it, in much gentler Terms than I deserv'd. This Hypocrisy, which they falsely charge me with, is as heinous a Sin as I can think of; it is as bad as wilful Perjury, as bad as a Clergyman's taking the Abjuration Oath, with his Heart full of Zeal and Affection for the Pretender, and worse than his giving his solemn Assent and Consent to Articles of Religion he believes little or nothing of. I should hardly have mention'd this Rule to be observ'd in Controversy, if I had been guilty of the Breach of it. It is somewhat excusable in Infidels a little to disguise their real Sentiments, for fear of the Danger they may incur by an open Profession of them: But such a gross and foul Mask of Hypocrisy, as some think I have here put on, is intolerable, and must be hateful to Infidels as well as Christians, being obstructive to Truth, which, in all Inquirers after her, loves Sincerity and Simplicity. No doubt, but my Adversaries, some of them, will still think me a Transgressor of this Rule; but my present and following Defences will absolutely clear me. And if none of my Adversaries are more guilty of the Transgression of it than my self, we are all entirely innocent.

Thirdly, In Controversy we should avoid all wilful Misrepresentation of the Sense of our Adversaries, and of the Authors we pretend to cite. Mistakes and Misapprehensions of one another will sometimes unavoidably happen, and are then as innocent things as involuntary Errors. But wilful Perversion and Falsification of another Author's Words, to the Service of our selves, or to the Prejudice of our Adversaries, is most blameable, and of that ill Consequence to the Search after Truth, that it will keep us always at a Distance from her. This then is another good Rule to be observed in Controversy, which some may wonder I have mention'd, because of that Misrepresentation and Falsification of Authorities I am charg'd with. And I must confess, my Adversaries have here made an hideous Outcry against me; which if I can't acquit my self of, I am the foulest Controvertist that ever appear'd in Print. The Bishop of St. David's[359] calls my Falsification of Authorities, an Immorality, and speculative Forgery; but if I was so guilty as he would have me thought, he speaks too favourably of it. He should have deem'd it as great a Crime as practical Forgery by the Law; and all Philosophers and Lovers of Truth should wish it might be likewise punish'd.

But, good Christian Reader, don't too hastily pass thy Judgment on me. Suspend awhile; it may be, that I may unexpectedly vindicate my self. The Matter as yet is under Debate, whether my Adversaries or I are the grand Misrepresenters and Falsifiers of Authorities. One would think, that my Adversaries, who were bent on the Accusation of me for the foresaid Crime, should have kept themselves clear of it: But the Bishop of St. David's[360] is such a resolute Misrepresenter, that he could not find in his Heart faithfully to transcribe the Three Heads of my Discourses; but by a Suppression of some Words, and the Change of others, has given them an odious and invidious Turn to my Disadvantage: And he has studied so hard to pervert the Sense of the Fathers against me, and so tortured his Brain to make me a Misrepresenter of them, that I should not wonder, if he had labour'd under a Pain in his Head ever since, and is unable to write more. Tho' my Word should not be taken for all this at present; yet in the Sequel of these Defences, it will be made manifest.

It is a great Temptation to our Bishops falsely to accuse and misrepresent their Adversaries; because they know their Writings don't equally spread and go together among all their Readers. A Bishop's Writing going more by itself amongst the Clergy, and other Friends to his Side of the Question, he is tempted to misrepresent his Adversaries, knowing his prejudiced Readers will take his Report of them, and credit it. For this Reason, and no other, did the Bishop of Litchfield[361] falsely charge the Author of the Grounds with odious Assertions, to which there is nothing akin in the Places seemingly referr'd to, nor in all that Author's Work.

However, the Rule in Controversy before laid down is a good, useful and necessary one. I pray God we may all be religious and conscientious Observers of it, or we shall retard the Discovery of Truth, and render our Attainment of it difficult, if not impossible.

Fourthly, We should think our selves oblig'd to set our Names to our Writings in Controversy, especially where it is such a warm one as is ours at present. The Observation of this Rule would not only prevent much of the Violation of the two former; but would hinder abundance of the Dirt of Scandal, Lies and Defamations, that we too often throw at each other. For what Reason some of the Writers[362] against me have industriously conceal'd their Names, I know full well. They perhaps would have it thought Modesty, and that they are not ambitious of the publick Praises they may deserve for their learned and elaborate Performances. And possibly it may be Modesty in some Theological Authors to conceal themselves: But where Men have the Impudence to defame, it's in vain to pretend to the Cloak of Modesty to cover themselves under. Wherefore then do they sometimes who write on the establish'd Side of the Question, on which Honour and Preferment goes, thus conceal themselves? Why, that they might belie and slander their Adversaries the more securely, without being expostulated with for their Impudence. It's to no Purpose, they know, to upbraid an anonymous Author with his Scandal, because he can't be put to the Blush for it. And a wise Man will not lose his Labour to expose and confute a libellous Writing, unless he knew whom to charge with the Guilt of it. It is my Resolution to take no Notice of any nameless Authors against me, because I, being as it were blindfolded, engage them at a Disadvantage, whilst they have a full View of me. For this Reason the Tryal of the Witnesses was pass'd by, or I should have been tempted to have made some Remarks on it. Let such Authors come forth into the Light, and it may be, they'll meet with the same Favour I have done the Bishop of St. David's. In the mean time, I declare my Abhorrence of Authors their Concealment of their Names, and I hope all ingenuous Writers in Controversy will do so too; tho' for no other Reason, than to prevent Misrepresentations, Defamations, and personal Reflections, which nameless Authors are too often guilty of.

Fifthly, and lastly, Others make it a common Rule to be observ'd in Controversy, that the Disputants should consider each other's Arguments impartially, without the Byass of Prejudice and Interest. And a very good Rule this is, if Men would but put it into Practice. But I shall long despair of such Impartiality in Controversy. Such is the Power of Prejudice and Interest, that they will influence Men to believe against the most apparent Reason and Truth. Even Prejudice will much darken the Eyes of Mens Understandings, but Interest will put them quite out. O what a horrible Obstacle to the free Enquiry after Truth, is Interest! Against Demonstration itself will Men contend for Interest. Interest, upon Occasion, will induce them to desert the best Opinions, and keep them tight to the worst. This Experience proves true, and the various Faces of the Church, and Changes of the Clergy (all for Interest) is a Witness of it. God forbid that I should judge uncharitably of the Corruption of human Nature under the Power of Interest; but I believe, that was our Legislature to do, what they never will, that is, set up the Figure of a Calf in our Churches, there would be no want of Priests to worship him, if they were well paid for it; nor of Academical Students to prove his divine Power and Godship, if the Road to Preferment lay that Way. For this Reason, among many others, I am for the Abolition of an hired and establish'd Priesthood, that this grand Bar of Interest may be removed out of our Way to Truth. And the Bishop of London, that excellent Prelate, as Bishop Smalbroke calls him (for so do we, like other Creatures, knab one another where it itches) should by rights be of my Mind, saying,[363] "Where there is an Unwillingness to part with worldly Interests, there must of Course be a Desire that the Christian Religion should not be true; and a Willingness to favour and embrace any Argument that is brought against it, and to cherish any Doubts and Scruples that shall be rais'd concerning it." So feelingly does this Bishop speak of the Power of Interest, by which, as I would conceive, he honestly hints to the Inhabitants of London and Westminster, that the Bishop of their Diocese, and the Parson of their Parish, are most unfit Guides in Religion, because of the worldly Interests they may have to deceive them, and keep them in Ignorance and Error.

Thus by way of Preface having spoken to the foregoing Rules to be observed in this Controversy, I come to a close. Defence of myself against the Charge of Infidelity, and to vindicate the Usefulness of my Discourses on Miracles for the Proof of the Truth of Christianity, and of the Messiahship of the Holy Jesus, against all my Adversaries. And the Method I shall take to this Purpose, is this following.

I. To show the Weakness, Childishness, and Insufficiency of the Arguments of my Adversaries, for the Letter of the Stories of Jesus's Miracles; and further to prove both ludicrously and seriously the Absurdities, Incredibilities, and Improbabilities, that their literal Stories labour under.

II. To prove, that whether there be any Sense, Truth and Fact, or not, in the Letter of Jesus's Miracles; yet they are Typical Things, and ought to be allegorically interpreted, and will receive a mysterious and more wonderful Accomplishment, after the manner, and to the same Purpose, that the Fathers and I do apply them, being no other (whether actually wrought or not) than Figures, Signs and Emblems of his future and mysterious Operations.

III. To show that the mysterious and future Accomplishment of these supposed Works and Miracles of Jesus alone can and will be the Proof of his Messiahship.

If I perform well upon these Heads, which are deserving of my Reader's Review, because of their Pertinency to the Cause in Hand, I shall not only vindicate myself from the Charge of Infidelity, but justify the Goodness and Usefulness of my Discourses, in order to the Demonstration of Jesus's Messiahship. And in the midst of my handling of them, without going out of my Way, I shall, as Occasion offers itself, take Notice of particular Misrepresentations of the Fathers, and false Citations out of them, that my Adversaries charge me with: And Bishop Smalbroke and others had best to look to it, or their Accusations against me will recoil and return home to them. Then

I. I should show the Weakness, Childishness and Insufficiency of the Arguments of my Adversaries for the Letter of Jesus's Miracles; and further argue both ludicrously and seriously the Absurdities, Incredibilities and Improbabilities, that their literal Stories labour under.

I should, I say, first treat on this Head, which naturally precedes the two following; but in as much as to handle it to Perfection, I should write as I did before, and shall run in Danger of Prosecution for Blasphemy and Infidelity; I must of Necessity wave and postpone it, unless I could more than dispatch it in the Compass of this Part of my Defence.

I have heretofore made solemn Professions of my Belief of Christianity, and most seriously declared in the plainest Terms, that my Design was not to do Service to Infidelity, but to make way for the Proof of Christ's Religion and Messiahship; but my Word was not taken, being look'd upon as a Dissembler, an Hypocrite, and Prevaricator, for all that. And should I now ever so gravely repeat the like Asseverations of the Integrity and Sincerity of my Heart, that my Objections against the Letter of Jesus's Miracles are none against his Religion, but only intended to turn Mens Heads to the mystical Interpretations of them; I question much whether I should be believed, and whether Bishop Smalbroke[364] would not say again, that this is too thin a Disguise of what seems to be my great and worse Design. What then in Prudence must I do in this Case? Why, I must let This Head, which reasonably should precede, rest for a while; and by treating on the Second, tho' out of Place, I must first effectually convince my Adversaries, that I am no Infidel of wicked Designs to subvert Christianity, but only the Ministry of the Letter; and then, I conceive, I may safely resume the Consideration of this First Head, and without the Imputations of Infidelity and Blasphemy, write as merrily or gravely as I please against the Letter.

Should any say, that this pretended Reason for waving this First Head for the present, is nothing but Cowardice and Inability to write more on it, I can't help it. Ictus Piscator sapit; I have already suffer'd much for the ludicrous Treatment of the Letter, and it is Wisdom to keep, if I can, out of the like Danger; neither will I do any thing, that in Conscience I can forbear, to incur the Displeasure of the Civil Magistrate. But however, if the Bishop of London would ensure me against, what the Bishop of St. David's calls, the[365] Nominal Persecutions of Protestants, which I am more afraid of, than of the real Persecutions of Papists, I will soon enter upon this Head; otherwise for Self-Preservation against the nominal Sufferings of Fines and Imprisonment, &c. I will forbear, promising my Readers, that in due Time, and on a more proper Occasion, I will resume the merry Subject of the Letter, and handle it to their entire Satisfaction.

And when I resume this Head, I will begin where I before left off in my Discourses on Miracles; that is, with the Resurrection of Jesus, which tho' I believe to have been a miraculous Fact, that happen'd, yet it was by no means timed and circumstanced, so as easily and readily to conciliate the Belief of Posterity. God has given to Man Reason to judge of the Credibility of Events, and the Certainty of Miracles: And if the Reason of every Man does not disapprove of the Management of that Event, (supposing it has no figurative Meaning in it) I am much mistaken, when we come to state a Case, how such a Miracle ought to be wrought and conducted, to get and preserve the Credit of it.

Thus having told my Readers, why I postpone my First Head, I now enter upon the Second, which is

II. To shew, that whether there be any Sense, Truth and Fact, or not, in the literal Stories of Jesus's Miracles, yet they are all certainly typical Facts, and ought to be allegorically interpreted, and will receive a mysterious and more wonderful Accomplishment after the Manner, and to the same Purpose, that the Fathers and I do apply them, being no other (whether actually wrought or not) than Figures, Signs and Emblems of his future and mysterious Operations.

If the Authority of the Fathers would be admitted of, as decisive on this Head, there would soon be an End of all Controversy upon it. Give me Leave to recite some of their Testimonies to this Purpose, which I have heretofore urg'd in my Discourses. Origen says[366] That Jesus's Works were Symbols of other Things to be done by his Power. St. Hilary[367] says, That Jesus's Actions bore a Resemblance of what he would do hereafter. St. Augustin[368] says, That the Facts of Jesus are Signs of somewhat else to be done by him. And Eusebius Gallicanus[369] says, That our Saviour manifestly shews, that his Miracles are of a spiritual Signification, or in the Work of them he would not have done somewhat or other, that seems to want Sense and Reason. These few, out of a Multitude of Citations from the Fathers that might be produced, are sufficient to the Proof of the present Proposition, if their Authority might determine our Dispute. And most pertinent Citations they are too, tho' Bishop Smalbroke[370] says, that even the Passages cited by me from the Fathers, that are not falsified, are impertinent; which is such an extravagant Stretch against the most glaring Truth, that (to use the Bishop's[371] own Words against himself) it betrays a Mind lost to all Sense of Modesty and Religion, or he could not have utter'd it.

And not only the Miracles of Jesus were Signs and Figures of future Events; but, according to Origen,[372] every thing else that he did: From whence we may gather what was Origen's Meaning, when he said[373] Christ's first Advent in the Flesh is all Type and Shadow of his second, spiritual, and glorious Coming; which being an Opinion that our Clergy are Strangers to, I desire them to consider of it, and whether there is any Possibility of Truth in it, because it is contrary to modern Conceptions about Christ's second Advent.

Nay further, according to the Fathers,[374] the very Life and Ministry of John the Baptist, so far as it is recorded by the Evangelists, is Type and Figure of another's Ministry before Christ's spiritual Advent; and I am almost, if not altogether of the same Mind with them. It is beside my present Business, to insert here many of their Testimonies to this Purpose: But if the Bishop of St. David's would spare a little Time, which can't be better employ'd, and make a Collection of the Opinions of the Fathers about the Baptist's Ministry, and print it, I dare say he'll thereupon present the learned World with the most surprizing Curiosity they ever were entertain'd with. Tho' it is improper for me to do such a Work; yet I will here tell my Readers what will be the true Meaning of John's Preaching Repentance, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand, when his Ministry revives, viz. "It will be an Exhortation to Ministers of the Letter, μετανοειν, to reconsider the Matter and Error of their literal Expositions, and to betake themselves to spiritual and allegorical Interpretations of the Scriptures, in which allegorical and spiritual Senses of them consists the Kingdom of Heaven." This I assert upon the Authority of Origen,[375] and if the Clergy please to consult St. Austin and others, they'll find them of the same Mind. But, this by the by, having no more to say to the Typicalness of John's Ministry, than whenever his foresaid mystical Preaching of Repentance shall revive, it can hardly be to a more viperous Generation of Ecclesiastical Scribes and Pharisees, than are the Ministers of the Letter at this present.

But against all these, and Ten Thousand more Testimonies of the Fathers for the allegorical Interpretation of the Writings of the Evangelists, and of Jesus's Miracles in particular, the Bishop of St. David's says, the Fathers are not of good Authority in this Case, but, for all them, who were Men of whimsical and volatile Fancies, we ought to adhere to the Letter of the Story of Christ's Life and Miracles. This the Bishop asserts roundly and frequently in express or implicit Terms, as his Readers may observe; and I dare say, the Bishop himself will not here charge me with a Misrepresentation of his Opinion, tho', to spare Time and Paper, I quote not his own Words and large Passages.

What Reason does the Bishop give, why the Authority of the Fathers for the allegorical Interpretation of the Evangelical Writings, and of Jesus's Miracles, in particular, is not to be allow'd of? None at all. Does he quote so much as a Canon of the Church, or a Vote in Convocation, or an Act of Parliament, or the consentient Opinion of all Protestant Writers (which are the extrascriptural Standards of modern Orthodoxy) for his Opinion? No. Does he then reject the Authority of the Fathers in all other Cases, as well as in this before us? Nor this neither. He allows their Authority,[376] as they were good Persons and credible Witnesses, "In Testimony of Facts; "And about the Observation of the Lord's Day; "And concerning the three Orders of the Clergy; "And about the Government of the Church by Bishops; "And about the Books received into the Canon of the Scripture;" But as for allegorical Interpretations of the Scriptures, they are of little, and (elsewhere) of no Authority. Who can forbear smiling, unless the Bishop had better evinced the Reason of this Difference in their Authority? If he had rejected their Authority in all Cases, he would have judged more equally and impartially of it.

In my Opinion, and I appeal to my Readers, whether it ben't their Opinion, that the Bishop had been an ingenuous and plain Dealer, if he had express'd himself about the Authority of the Fathers in this following Manner, saying, "That the Authority of the Fathers is good in such and such Cases as aforesaid; because their Authority is agreeable enough to the present Doctrine, Practice and Discipline of the Church: But the Authority of the Fathers is not good for the allegorical Interpretation of the New Testament, because it is disagreeable to our Prejudices, and because their allegorical Expositions of some Miracles, if they should receive such a Sense, will bring Shame and Reproach to our Ministry. Neither is the Authority of the Fathers for Toleration, and against Persecution, good; because it is destructive of Ecclesiastical Power. Nor is the copious Authority of the Fathers against Preaching for Hire, good; because it is averse to our Interests. Where the Authority of the Fathers is agreeable to our Interests, Power, and Prejudices, there will we be for the Authority of the Fathers: But where the Fathers are against us, there will we be against them; and why should we not?" This is the true Sense of the Bishop, tho' he is so unhappy as to want the Talent clearly and plainly to express his Mind.

But, like many others, who can't write Coherence, nor consistently with themselves; so the Bishop, for all his saying that the allegorical Interpretations of Scripture by the Fathers are of little or no Authority, yet almost, if not altogether, contradicts himself, and grants as much as I desire, saying[377] thus, "With relation to any Expositions of Scripture made by the Fathers in early Times, they must be allow'd to have had some Advantage in being near to the Fountain itself." I ask for nothing more from the Bishop. Why do I contend for the Authority of the Fathers as Interpreters and Expositors? Only because they lived nearer to the Days of Christ and his Apostles, whose Mind and Will consequently they must needs know better, than we at this Distance: And because (what the Bishop elsewhere grants) those primitive Ages, as well as the Apostolical one, were in some measure inspired, upon the credible Testimonies of Origen, Irenæus, and Eusebius, whose Words I shall not stay here to produce.

Hence then, in the Authority of the Fathers, I should think, there is Foundation enough to build allegorical Interpretations on, and particularly to prove the literal Stories of Christ's Miracles to be Emblems of future and mysterious Operations; but all this will not do to pacify and stop the Mouths of my Gainsayers. This Controversy is pro Aris & Focis, for the ALL of the Clergy that is dear to them; and therefore they will shuffle and trifle for and against any Argument, rather than yield. Tho' the Bishop of St. David's above speaks favourably of Expositions made by the Fathers in early Times, and may grant that the Church, in her first Ages was inspired, yet he will still wrangle against allegorical Interpretations, especially such as I have made on some Miracles; as for Instance, "On Jesus's driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple; "On his precipitating the Swine with the Devils into the Sea; "On his healing the Woman of an Issue of Blood; and the Woman of a Spirit of Infirmity, &c. because the Interests and Reputations of the Clergy, as Ministers of the Letter, are touch'd to the quick by them. So true is that Saying of the Bishop of London, which deserves to be repeated, That "where there is an Unwillingness to part with Prejudices and worldly Interests, there must of Course be a Desire that the Christian Religion (which consists in the Ministry of the Spirit) should not be true; and a Willingness to favour and embrace any Argument that is brought against it, and to cherish any Doubts and Scruples that shall be rais'd concerning it.

What must I do here then, since no Authority, no, not the most primitive, will suffice in this Case? Why, I have nothing left to do, but absolutely to demonstrate, and make the Matter as plain as a Pike-Staff, that the Miracles of Jesus will certainly receive such a mysterious Accomplishment, as the Fathers and I have before-hand interpreted them in. Upon such a Demonstration, if the Mouths of my Adversaries are not stopt, yet the Eyes of all impartial Readers will be open'd to behold what a Heap of Impertinence the Bishop of St. David's and others, have hitherto urg'd against me.

Now to demonstrate absolutely, that the Stories of Jesus's Miracles will receive such a mysterious Accomplishment, as I, by the Help of the Fathers, have understood them in, I must do these two things.

First, show, that the Old Testament is to be allegorically interpreted, and is already in Part, and will be entirely fulfilled by Jesus, the true Messiah, in an allegorical Sense. And thence

Secondly, Infer by a natural, obvious, and necessary Consequence, that, what we vulgarly call the New Testament is to be allegorically interpreted also, even in the Manner as I have understood some Parts of it.

The Bishop of St. David's allows, that there is better Authority, tho' not sufficient, for the Interpretation of the Old Testament allegorically; but supposing it was better than it is, yet there is no Consequence that the New should be also allegorically interpreted. Behold his Words, for fear of a Charge of Misrepresentation[378]. "But besides this ill-founded Imitation of St. Paul (in allegorical Interpretations of the Old Testament) will his mystical Expositions of any Passages of the Old Testament support their Pretensions (meaning the Fathers and mine) to interpret the New in a like mystical manner? No, it will not.——And therefore (after a little more Reasoning against this Consequence, he concludes, that) this Practice of Origen and other Fathers, that were mystical Expositors of the New Testament, was very precarious, and without Authority." From which Words of the Bishop, it is plain, that his Opinion is, that whatever Authority there may be for the allegorical Interpretation of the Old Testament, there is no Consequence to be thence drawn, that the New is to be interpreted in a like mystical manner. But in Answer to the Bishop, and in Confutation of his wild and inconsiderate Assertion, I chuse to treat on the two foregoing Particulars; and the

First is to show, that the Old Testament is to be allegorically interpreted, and is already in Part, and will be entirely fulfilled by Jesus in an allegorical Sense.

That the Old Testament is to be allegorically interpreted, I have Authority, even ancient Authority enough, if that would be allow'd to be sufficient to prove my Point. We have Apostolical Authority and Example for it. The Passages in the Epistles of St. Paul and Barnabas to this Purpose are numerous, and so well known, that I need not recite all, or any of them. And from the Passages in St. Paul, that might be here produced, the Fathers asserted and concluded from his Authority, that the whole Old Testament was to be allegorized. This I believe the Bishop will grant, and spare me the Pains of Citations out of them. And if the Bishop, and my other Adversaries, were of the same Mind with the Fathers, on St. Paul's Expressions in relation to allegorical Interpretations of the Old Testament, my present Dispute with them would be half over. And what is the Reason that the Bishop and others will not give into the Opinion of the Fathers on the Apostolical Passages to this Purpose? Because of their Prejudices to the Letter of the Old Testament, otherwise they would urge St. Paul's Authority for the Spirit of it, as much as the Fathers or I can do. But being, I say, prepossess'd of literal Interpretations, and not discerning any Force and Truth in spiritual ones, they will not allow the mystical Expositions of Scripture by Origen and other Fathers, tho' made in Imitation of St. Paul, to be of good Authority. And therefore I must demonstrate to Sense and Reason, or Primitive and Apostolical Authority will stand me in no stead.

Again, If Authority for allegorical Interpretations of the Old Testament would avail any thing, there is ancienter, and I had like to have said better, Authority for them, than that of the Fathers and Apostles, viz. the Authority of the more ancient Jews. The Bishop of St. David's[379] says, "The Christian Fathers (and why did he not say the Apostles too?) derived this allegorical Practice from the Jewish Interpreters." He owns[380] "that Philo Judæus was a great mystical Writer as his Works which are extant testify"; and[381] confesses that "there is Reason to believe, that this mystical Way of expounding Scripture was of greater Antiquity than Philo himself, even amongst the Essens and Therapeuts, whom Philo writes of, and who had amongst them several ancient Books of their Predecessors or Founders, full of allegorical Interpretations." Thus far the Bishop says well and truly. And what Observation should he, as a Lover of Antiquity, have made hereupon? Should he not have said, Id verius, quod prius; the older any Doctrine was, the more likely to be true, in as much as Truth precedes Error?

But could not the Bishop have carry'd his Story of the allegorical Interpretation of the Old Testament much higher? Yes, he might, and have told us what I do him now, that the LXX Interpreters were Allegorists, as appears from the Translation itself, and from the Opinion of the ancient Jews and Fathers of the Church concerning them. And what's more still, he might, as a Christian, upon the Authority of St. Hilary[382] have derived the allegorical Art of Interpretation from Moses himself, who received it from God; and instructed the Seventy Elders in it, from whom it continued thro' all Ages of the Jewish and Christian Churches, without Interruption, excepting that Opposition which the later Caraites of the Jews, and Ministers of the Letter among Christians, have made to it. If this be true, as I firmly believe it, then the allegorical Method of Interpretation is of original and divine Right. And it is reasonable to think accordingly, that it is of Mosaic and divine Extraction, or the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, and the Fathers afterwards, had never been permitted of God to countenance a Practice, in Imitation of the Jews, if it was of a base, or of any other than divine Original. The Consequence is, that we at this Day ought to be allegorical Interpreters of the Old Testament, or we set ourselves against all Antiquity, and oppose a Tradition that's like a Command, derived from Moses and God himself.

And what can the Bishop of St. David's say to this Consequence? Why, he'll tell us, tho' the allegorical Method of Interpretation be as ancient as the Therapeuts and some of their Predecessors, yet, whatever the Jews and Fathers may say of its Antiquity, it came not from God and Moses, or he would subscribe to it; but took its Rise, some Ages after the Giving of the Law of Moses, tho' he knows not how nor when. And I am willing the Bishop should please himself with such an Answer and Opinion, till I have absolutely demonstrated the Certainty of the allegorical Method, and thence made it manifest, that it is of Mosaick and divine Original.

As to that other Account[383] of the Original of mystical Interpretation of Scripture, or at least of the greater Progress and Improvement of it, which the Bishop out of Porphyry gives, by saying the Fathers learned it of the gentile Philosophers, it is the most senseless and unscholarlike Opinion that a Christian can hold, and I was surprised to see it come from him. It is true that St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others, were very conversant in the Writings of the Greek Philosophers: And wherefore were they so? Was it to learn mystical Theology of them? No, but, as St. Jerom[384] says, to confirm the Doctrines of our Religion, and to confute the Gentiles out of their own Books. For it was asserted by the Fathers, and confess'd by the Gentile Philosophers, that the Mythology of the Greeks, the hieroglyphical Learning of the Egyptians and the Oneirocritism of the Chaldæans, was all borrowed from the Hebrews, and had their Rise from the mystical and allegorical Interpretation of the Scriptures, as shall be made manifest, if the Bishop and I go on in this Controversy: And therefore the Fathers studied the Writings of the Greeks, and made the foresaid Use of them in the Conversion of the Gentiles; which the Bishop can't but know, if he remembers at all, what he has read in St. Clement of Alexandria, and other Fathers. But this, by the by, with a Hint to the Bishop to consider, whether he, who holds here with Porphyry, or I who hold with the Fathers, writes the most like an Infidel. So much then to the Accounts, which the Bishop of St. David's has given, of the Origine of the mystical Interpretation of Scripture.

The Bishop of Litchfield, who is to be looked on as a Writer in this Controversy, has a large Chapter against the allegorical Way of Interpretation. I shall comprise his Opinion in a few Words out of him. He says,[385] he is not concerned to vindicate the Antiquity, ascribed by Philo, to the allegoric Way of writing, much less the Abuse it was carry'd to in After-Ages; no, nor to defend, at all, this Manner of writing. And as to St. Paul's allegorizing the Scriptures, he says,[386] It seems to be in compliance with the Demand of the Jewish Christians, who were affected with allegoric Interpretations, that St. Paul (who appears to have been no Fool) above all the other Apostles used that Way, which he was brought into against his own good liking. And in another Place he says,[387] The Laws and Facts recorded by Moses, are commonly interpreted to natural, moral, theological and even anagogick Senses, which no one supposed to have been ever in Moses's Thoughts, or to be other than the Exercise of a subtle Wit, for the Instruction and Entertainment of the Hearers. Whether this Bishop had his Wits about him, when he said, No one supposed the anagogick Senses of the Law to have been ever in Moses's Thoughts, I can't tell; but if he had rubb'd up his Memory a little, he might have consider'd, what he says in another Place,[388] that the Anagogical was the accustomed Way of the whole Nation of the Jews from Moses's Time; and he might have known what St. Hilary, whom I cited before, says, that Moses taught the Children of Isræl the anagogical and allegorical Way; and whatever he may think, Origen says,[389] that Moses by the Acuteness of his Understanding, penetrated into the mystical and anagogical Meaning of his own Law. And tho' this Bishop says above, that he is not concern'd to vindicate the Antiquity of the allegorick Way of writing; yet I am oblig'd to vindicate its Antiquity and Truth, or I can't write a good Defence of Christianity, which should now bring me (to what I have undertaken) to make an absolute Demonstration of the Certainty of the allegorical Method of Interpretation, and of Jesus's Messiahship upon it.

But before I enter upon a close Proof of this grand Undertaking, I must beg leave to tell my Readers a Story, which tho' it will for while defer my undertaken Demonstration, yet it is properly introductory to it. I had not long drawn up my foregoing Thoughts, (against the two Bishops, of Litchfield and St. David's) of the Jewish and Christian Antiquity of the allegorical Method of Interpretation of Scripture, before I imparted them to my old Friend the Jewish Rabbi, who is a Cabalist and Allegorist, and desired his Sentiments upon them. Whereupon he was so kind as to send me the following Letter, with a pertinent Objection in it, against the Messiahship of the Jesus of our Ministers of the Letter; with a pertinent, I say, and lucky Objection, which paves the Way for my Demonstration of the Certainty of the allegorical Way of Interpretation, and of the Messiahship of the Jesus of us Ministers of the Spirit; and if I can but prevail upon the two forenamed Bishops, to give me their Assistance in answering the said Objection, by humouring my Rabbi in it; we shall go a better Step, than has been hitherto taken, for the Conversion of the Jews: And this is Encouragement enough to such hearty Friends to Christianity as we are, to set about so great and glorious a Work. The Letter is as follows.

SIR,

After condoling with you for the extraordinary Penalty that was laid on you for my Invective against Jesus's Miracle of turning Water into Wine, which, in my Opinion, you should not have been so heavily charg'd with, because it was purely Cabalistical, and contains in it nothing better or worse than the Conceptions that we Jews entertain of Jesus and his Miracles; I here send you my Thoughts on the short Account you have given of the Antiquity of the allegorical Method of the Interpretation of Scripture.

You and the Fathers of your Church are certainly in the right on't, to make it as old as Moses, agreeably to the Opinion, that we cabalistical Jews[390] at this Day entertain of it. If it was of later Date and original, your Adversaries are oblig'd to assign the Time when, and the Occasion how, such a surprising and extraordinary Method of Interpretation was introduced into the Jewish Nation. If our Ancestors in the Days of God's inspired Prophet, Moses, heard of none but literal Senses of the Law, and if neither he nor God himself ever intended they should run into the allegorical Strain, I ask when and what was that Incident which turn'd the Heads of our ancient Nation so religiously and devoutly to it? I can easily conceive how it came to pass, that the Sect of the Caraites amongst us Jews, who now adhere to the Letter, deserted mystical Interpretations; and why your Ministers of the Letter have forsaken them; and that was because they don't relish nor apprehend those divine Mysteries, which your and our ancient Allegorists so much talk'd of, as veil'd and latent under the Law of Moses. But if this be a good Reason, why they have forsaken the allegorical Method, it is a much better Reason, why our Ancestors, of themselves should never have taken it up. And therefore it is plain to me, that God and Moses upon the Institution of the Law, at the same Time imparted the allegorical Method; or it could never afterwards, by chance, have enter'd into the Heads of Men, who have hitherto discern'd so little Use and Fruits of it.

The Reason why God by Moses communicated to the Israelites, and by his Providence since has kept up the allegorical Way of Interpretation of the Scriptures, was to prepare the World for the Reception of the Messiah, who was to be the Accomplisher of them in an allegorical Sense; and our Ancestors accordingly so much excercised their Thoughts in divine and mystical Contemplations on the Law; because, they fancied, they could thereby, as through a Glass darkly, attain to some glimmering Foresight of the Kingdom of the Messiah: For you must know, that our old Cabalists[391] held (what your Jesus undertook to fulfil) that all Things that were written in the Law and the Prophets, were, to a Tittle, Type and Prophecy of the Messiah, who would be so far the clear Fulfiller and Illustrater of them, as that Men would then see God Face to Face: And, to be particular, they expected, in the first Place, that the Messiah would work the Redemption of his Church after the same manner, and by the like Signs and Wonders that Moses wrought the Deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt.

Agreeable to these our old Opinions of the Scripture, and to our Expectations of a Messiah, did the Fathers of your Church endeavour to prove Jesus's Messiahship, by an allegorical Explication and Application of the Law and the Prophets to him: But in as much as they labour'd in vain, proving little or nothing, this Way, to the Satisfaction of our old Jews; and in as much as your Priesthood have altogether given over this Way of Proof; we persist in our Disbelief of Jesus's Messiahship, and expect another for the foresaid grand Purposes. Give me Leave here to make an Objection, founded on the concurrent and consentient Opinions of your Fathers and our Ancestors, against the Messiahship of Jesus, which if your Priests can answer, agreeably to their united Opinions, they will not only make a Convert of me, but open a Door for the Conversion of our whole Nation.

"It is agreed between us Jews, and you Christians (excepting two or three modern Commentators) that the Words of Deuteronomy, xviii. 18. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their Brethren like unto thee, are a Prophecy of the Messiah. From which Prophecy our Ancestors[392] look'd upon Moses as a Type of the Messiah, in all Things, and expected that the Messiah at his coming would by way of Antitype, imitate and resemble Moses in all the History of his Life, just as Face answereth to Face in a Glass, or as a Substance agrees to its Shadow. And I am well assured that the Fathers of your Church accordingly held and believed, what they endeavoured to prove, that there was an exact Similitude between Jesus in the Christian Church, and Moses in the Jewish. Now if your Priesthood can perfect that Proof, and show me, either in a literal or allegorical Sense, an exact Resemblance, Correspondence, and Likeness between them, I must of Necessity turn Christian. It may be perhaps a Work of too large an Extent for them to shew this Agreement between Jesus and Moses in all and every Particular; I will be content therefore, if they can shew me a Similitude between them in a small Part of Moses's Life; as for Instance, in the History of Moses's delivering the Israelites out of Egypt. It was most expressly the Opinion of our Ancestors, that the Messiah would deliver his People from Bondage, and, if I forget not, from Roman Bondage, after the Manner, and by the like Wonders, that Moses delivered his People from Egyptian. Jerom,[393] a Father of your Church has recorded this as the universal Opinion of our Ancestors, and therefore you have the less Reason to question it. And agreeably to this Opinion of our Ancestors, the Fathers of your Church asserted, that Christ was such a Messiah, and did deliver his Church from Roman Servitude, after the same Manner (in a Figure) that Moses delivered his Israelites out of Egypt. Nay, your Apostle Paul[394] seems to assert it, saying, Brethren, I would not, that ye should be ignorant, how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud, and all passed through the Sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. Now these things were our Examples or Types. In which Words Paul apparently alludes to, and confirms the Opinion of our Ancestors, which he had imbibed before his Conversion; and intimates that Jesus, whom he took for the Messiah, was working a Redemption of his Church after the Manner of the Deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt. And so did your Fathers understand these Words of Paul, and accordingly many of them labour'd to shew the Similitude between the Israelitish and Christian Redemption, in order to the Conversion of the Jews. But they, it seems, labour'd in vain, shewing no tolerable nor visible Likeness of this sort between Jesus and Moses; and therefore our Nation to this Day continues in Disbelief of Jesus's Messiahship. However, we have not so pertinaciously rejected Jesus's Messiahship, as not to give you Leave to resume the old Argument of it, from his Likeness to Moses in all things. If your Priests can now show a Likeness between them; if they can at this Day prove that Jesus wrought the like Miracles and Wonders (tho' in a figurative and allegorical Sense) for the Redemption of his Church from Roman Servitude, as Moses did for the Deliverance of Israelites out of Egypt, we will grant him to be the Messiah, and will believe in him. But as we despair of such a Proof, so we reasonably persist in our Disbelief of his Messiahship. Your Divines indeed, because of the foresaid Prophecy in Deuteronomy, do talk of a Likeness between Moses and Jesus; but it is not at all agreeable to the Sentiments of your Fathers, or the Expectations of our Ancestors concerning the Messiah's Similitude to Moses. They tell us, that Jesus and Moses were alike, because both wrought Miracles; but this will not do, till they prove a Likeness between their Miracles, as to Number, Nature, Use and Circumstance. The Miracles that the Messiah is to work, and which are to prove his Messiahship, must be of a similar Nature, and to the like Purpose that Moses's were in Egypt, as our Ancestors asserted, and your Fathers granted: But since no such Similitude is shown to be between them, we disown Jesus's Messiahship, and appeal to the Reason and Understanding of all indifferent Judges in the Controversy, whether we are not in the right on't for so doing."

Thus, Sir, for the Use of your Clergy, have I form'd an Objection against Jesus's Messiahship, an Objection that is founded on the concurrent Opinions of our Ancestors and of your Fathers: And I shall with some Longings and Impatience wait till I hear what they have to say to it. The Objection, in my Opinion, absolutely destroys Jesus's Pretences to the Messiahship, unless his Priests, by way of Answer to it, can prove the foresaid Similitude between him and Moses; between the Miracles of the One and the Miracles of the Other; between the Deliverance of the Jewish and the Redemption of the Christian Church, out of an Egypt.

I am thinking what your Clergy can say to the Objection. Will they deny, that it was the Opinion of both your Fathers and of our Ancestors, that there ought to be such a Similitude between the Messiah and Moses, as is before describ'd? That they can't do, because of the innumerable Testimonies to be produced out of them to confirm it. Will they then say, that it was a false and erroneous Opinion, which both ancient Jews and Fathers entertain'd concerning the Messiah? This surely they will not do; because of the Consequence, which charges the Apostle Paul himself (in the above-cited Place) and the primitive Christians, with the grossest Error and Mistake concerning Jesus and his Messiahship; and yet I can't think they will ever give into the joint Opinion aforesaid of both Jews and Fathers; because of the Impossibility of proving Jesus to be like Moses in all Things, according to the literal Sense of the Law, which they adhere to; and because of the Improbability of doing it, in an allegorical Sense, after the Way of their Fathers, or, in all this Time surely, the Matter must have been made out, to the Satisfaction and Conversion of our Nation.

I long, I tell you, to hear what your Christian Priesthood will say to the Objection, which surely they will not let slip, without their Remarks and Observations upon it, any more than my Objections against the literal Story of some of Jesus's Miracles. And this is your and my Comfort, that if you publish this present Objection against Jesus's Messiahship, the Clergy can't account it a ludicrous, profane, and blasphemous one (as they did my others) and so bring you again under Prosecution for it: No, it is a plain, serious, and reasonable Objection, founded on ancient Jewish and Ecclesiastical Authority; and a pertinent, solid, and rational Answer is expected to it.

Now the Controversy about Jesus's Messiahship is thus far revived and commenced, let us, in God's Name, go on with it, till we come to a final Determination, either in the Demonstration, or Confutation of it. Your Clergy, can't, I think, for Shame, any more interrupt the free Course of the Controversy, which will make us Jews secretly insult and triumph over them; and not only confirm us in our Unbelief of Jesus's Messiahship, but will occasion others to desert their Faith in him.

It's a strange thing to consider how your Priesthood have, in these latter Ages, managed the Controversy between Jews and Christians, all by themselves, furiously disputing against Adversaries, whom they will not allow with Impunity to speak in their own Cause: So do they make God, who is to decide the Controversy, like an unjust and partial Judge, that will hear only the Pleadings and Evidence on one Side of the Question.

But your Clergy will say, that in their Writings against the Jews, they make Objections for us as well as Answers for themselves, and that's sufficient. Not so, say I, unless their Objections were as good and strong as we can make for our selves. But however, if your Divines so please, I will thus agree the Matter with them, viz. That they alone shall make Objections for us, if they'll let us alone to make Answers for them, which is most just and equal; and then the World shall behold the most pleasant and comical Farce of a Controversy, they ever were entertain'd with.

I remember, that in my Letter, you published, against Jesus's Resurrection, I promised the Controversy between the Jews and Christians, by my Consent, should turn on that Miracle. Your Clergy, one or other of them, have answer'd that Letter; and so might expect to hear of my Conversion, if I had nothing to reply to them. My Reply you durst not publish, for fear of worldly Tribulation, and so I am free from that Promise. But now that you have fortunately given me an Occasion to make the more proper and substantial Objection against Jesus's Messiahship, herein contain'd, I hope it will be freely and fully debated and consider'd to the Determination of the Controversy between us. So wishing you Health and Happiness, I am Yours,

N. N.

So ends the Letter of my good old Friend, the Jewish Rabbi, which was a most seasonable and acceptable Present, in as much as the Objection, contain'd in it, will open a fair Way for me to prove, that the Stories of Jesus's Miracles, as recorded in the Evangelists, are and ought to be allegorically understood, and will certainly receive such a mystical Accomplishment, as I, by the Help of the Fathers, have conceived of them. The Bishop of St. David's, and my other Adversaries, may not, in all Probability, be aware of this Use to be made of the foresaid Objection; and I don't expect that on a sudden they should; but if they'll favour me with, what otherwise I'll endeavour to force them to, their Opinion and Debates about the foresaid Objection against Jesus's Messiahship, they shall soon discern this Use and Consequence of it, that Jesus's Miracles are not literally but allegorically to be understood, and will accordingly receive an Accomplishment.

I trust then, that the Bishop of St. David's, who is principally concern'd, will, without more Importunity, favour me with his Opinion on the foregoing Jewish Objection, which may be done in a small Compass of Paper, either in Print, or in an Epistle.

I expect he should tell me plainly and expressly, whether it was really the joint Opinion of the ancient Jews and Fathers of the Church, as is affected in the Objection, that the Messiah was to be a Prophet like Moses in all things, in the whole History of his Life, and particularly with regard to the miraculous Deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt. If the Bishop should, what I humbly conceive he will not, deny that it was the joint Opinion of both Jews and Fathers, as is before represented in the Objection, and should pretend to urge Reasons and Authorities, which he will hardly find, why such a Likeness and Agreement between the Messiah and Moses ought not to be look'd for; then my Rabbi and I will confirm the joint Opinion aforesaid, with Citations, almost innumerable out of the Jews and Fathers, till the Bishop shall yield to the Number and Clearness of them.

If the Bishop should own, what I am almost persuaded he will, that it was the joint Opinion of Fathers and Jews, that there ought to be such a Similitude and Harmony between the Messiah and Moses, as is represented above; but should say, that it was an erroneous and false Opinion, which the old Cabalistical Jews, by chance, and unfortunately took up; and which the Fathers, even the Apostle himself, unwarily and unhappily run into, complying with an Opinion of the Jews about the Messiah, without Consideration of the Weakness of it; then I, with a little of my Rabbi's Help, will further prove the Truth and Certainty of the said Opinion, and demonstrate, that He can be no true Messiah, who in the History of himself and of his Church does not exactly, to a tittle, correspond to the History of Moses and of his People.

But if the Bishop should, what I am willing to hope he will, ingenuously confess, there ought to be such an Agreement and Likeness between Moses and the Messiah as is signified in the Objection, then he and I will go heartily to Work, and for the Honour of Jesus, whom we believe to be the Messiah, will absolutely demonstrate the Similitude, there is between him and Moses in all Things. And this, by the by, in the Opinion of our Fathers, is the ONLY Way to prove Jesus's Messiahship, viz. by his Resemblance to Moses, and by his Accomplishment of the Mosaick Types and Prophecy concerning him, who, upon his own Word, came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets to a Tittle.

If the Bishop and I should be so fortunate, and I trust in God we shall, as to prove a most apparent and manifest Likeness between Jesus and Moses, even such a Likeness as my Rabbi above demands, then shall we stop his Mouth, and soon pave a certain Way (which will be vast Honour to the Bishop) for the Conversion of the Jews.

I don't despair of the Bishop's joint Labours and Endeavours with mine to so great and good a Work (for I can't think in my Heart, that he'll otherwise wrangle about the Objection above) so (if the Bishop pleases) we'll begin this Work with a Demonstration of the Likeness there is between the Redemption of the Christian Church, and the Deliverance of the Israelitish out of Egypt. Not only St. Augustin[395] hints that they who would show a Likeness between Jesus and Moses ought to begin here; but thereby we shall humour my Rabbi in his Objection, who calls for (upon the concurrent Testimonies of Jews and Fathers) a Proof of such a Likeness between the Redemptions of the two Churches, or he shall think it reasonable still to persist in his Disbelief of Jesus's Messiahship.

And if the Bishop and I should be so happy as to shew in an apparent Manner, this Similitude between the Redemption of the Jewish and Christian Church out of Egypt, then meeting with Success in our Studies, will we proceed further, and illustrate other Prophecies of succeeding Times of the Church; for I will not part with the Bishop, till he is able to travel by himself, in his Contemplations on the Law and the Prophets, and to behold, what with an ordinary Telescope at the Eyes of his Understanding he may discern, and show to his Episcopal Brethren, Christ spiritually sitting and coming on the Clouds of the Letter to the same Purposes that the old Jews, Fathers and Apostles say he is to come, viz. To open and illustrate the Parables and Ænigma's of the Scriptures, to restore Prophecy, to shew us God Face to Face; and to raise All from a spiritual Death to Life again. And blessed are all those, who love and desire such his Appearance.

In my Third Discourse on Miracles, I happen'd to speak of Christ's second and spiritual Advent on the Clouds of the Law and Prophets; and to say "that the common Notion of his Coming on ærial Clouds for the Resurrection of dead Bodies, &c. is the most senseless and unphilosophical, that ever was taught to Mankind;" which gave Offence to my Bishop, who animadverted upon me for it; but if he ever get Sight, which I don't question, of Christ's Coming on the metaphorical Clouds of Prophecy, he'll not only be of my Mind here, but will be sensible with me, that all or most of our systematical Divinity, that is built on the Letter of the Scriptures, is false and groundless; and of that ill Tendency to the Corruption of Mens Morals, that it is not so much a Wonder, that wise, good, and thinking Gentlemen are betaking themselves to Natural Religion, as it is, that there are any Believers of Christianity, upon the Literal Scheme, left among us. If it had not been Force, more than Reason, that has hitherto kept Mankind in their Christian Faith; or if Liberty had been indulg'd them to consider the Absurdities of the Letter of the Scriptures, they would have run ere now, by Shoals, into Infidelity: But the allegorical Interpretation (which the Cabalistical Jews[396] say, will convert Atheists) will reduce Mankind to the Belief of the inspired Authority of the Scriptures, by shewing them the perfect Reason, the divine Wisdom, and resplendent Truth of them; otherwise call'd the Messiah, the χρισμα, the Spirit, or the Christ of them, than whom, or than which nothing can be more desired by Philosophers, to come for the spiritual Renovation, Restoration, Resurrection and Illumination of Man; consequently and implicitly for the Work of those mystical Miracles, of which those wrought by Christ in the Flesh are but Types and Figures. Whether the Bishop of St. David's be already apprised of this Consequence, I can't tell; but if he rub his Intellects but a little, he must needs apprehend the Consequence of the foresaid spiritual Advent of Christ thus far "That Ministers of the Letter then are certainly to be turn'd out of the Church: "That the Woman of the Church then will be cured of her Infirmity at the Spirit of Prophesy: "That the Eyes of Mankind, like the blind Man's, will be then open'd to see, what he has hitherto been dark about, the Mystery of the Providence of God in all Ages. And so of the mystical Accomplishment of the other Miracles, with a little Application of Thought, may he discern the Consequence. And when he does so, then he will see too, what sort of a Christian I am, whom our Ecclesiasticks have falsely accused, and unjustly persecuted for Impiety, Profaneness, Blasphemy and Infidelity, only because I have written against the Letter of Jesus's Miracles, in order to turn Mens Heads to the Consideration of their mystical Accomplishment at Christ's second spiritual and glorious Advent on the Clouds of the Law and the Prophets.

I have indeed written against the literal Stories of Jesus's Miracles, which I still nauseate and abominate the Confinement of Mens Thoughts to it; but if our Clergy would but a little bear with me, they shall see, I alone do Honour to their literal Stories, by making them beautiful Emblems of future and more wonderful Operations. I have indeed call'd Jesus an Impostor, Juggler, Fortune teller (and what not?) by way of Objection against the Letter of his Miracles; but I alone shall do him Honour, in those very Miracles, which he wrought in the Flesh, by proving him to be the Wisdom, as well as Power of God, and that God was in him of a Truth, and endued him with a divine Prescience of Futurities, or he could not then have wrought such curious and admirable Models and Prefigurations of his mysterious Works at his second Advent.

Whether the Bishop of St. David's, and others, can as yet certainly discern the foresaid Consequence of Christ's mystical Accomplishment of his Miracles upon his spiritual Advent, I can't guess; but if they'll favour me with their Opinion on my Rabbi's Objection above, which will lead us to the allegorical Interpretation of the Law, they shall soon clearly see it.

And now I would have the Bishop of St. David's to compare this Part of my Defence with the Third Chapter of his Vindication, which treats on the Practice of the Fathers in interpreting the Scriptures in a mystical and allegorical Method, and consider whether He or I write the most like a Christian of an orthodox and primitive Faith and Practice. The Bishop says[397] "That it is certain, that without such Assistance (of the Spirit) as St. Paul enjoy'd, the mystical Expositions of the Scripture by Origen and other Fathers, tho' made in Imitation of St. Paul, have no such Authority as that of St. Paul stampt on them." What, in the Name of Wonder, does the Bishop here mean? Tho' St. Paul has not allegoriz'd the whole Law, but only some few Parts; yet he expressly says, often enough, that the whole is a Figure and Shadow of Things to come under Christ; and our Saviour himself, as the Fathers understood him, intimates often, that all Things that were written in the Law and the Prophets, are Types and Prophecy of him, and that he came to fulfil them to a Tittle. Is not here Authority enough for the Fathers to allegorize the whole Law and the Prophets, in order to shew the Agreement between the Type and Antitype; between the Shadow and the Substance; between the Figure and the Thing figured; and between the Prophecy and its Accomplishment. And whether the Fathers, in their allegorical Expositions, rightly or not, hit off the Sense of the Prophecy; (for it must be confess'd they variously allegorized this and that Passage of Scripture) yet it was their and our Duty and Office, from the Words of Christ, and the Practice of the Apostle, to keep on in the allegorical Method, till an Harmony between the Prophecy and its Accomplishment was made most clear.

The Bishop says in this his Third Chapter of his Vindication, "That the Fathers and I have abusively cited this Passage of St. Paul, The Letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth Life, in Justification of our mystical Expositions;" whereupon the Bishop gave us a large Explication out of his own Head, on that whole Verse; which (because of the Shallowness of my own Pate, or the Confusion of the Bishop's) I don't understand, and much question, whether the Bishop understands himself. However, I will here paraphrastically give my Readers the easy, plain, and intelligible Sense of the Fathers and my self on that whole Verse[398] thus, Who hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament, not of the Letter [that is, not of the literal Sense of the Law and the Prophets, which is the Old Testament] but of the Spirit, [that is, of the spiritual Sense of the Law and the Prophets, which is the New Testament] for [as the Testimony of Jesus, according to St. John, is the Spirit of Prophecy, so] the Letter [that is, the literal Sense of the Law and Prophets] killeth [that is, nulls the Testimony of Jesus which is in them] but the Spirit [that is, the spiritual Sense of the Law and Prophets] giveth Life [to their prophetical Testimony.] This is most certainly the Sense of the Fathers on this Text; and I believe the Bishop will not gainsay it, tho' he may dislike it. Hence the Fathers, when they spoke properly and not vulgarly, call'd the spiritual Sense of the Law and the Prophets, the[399] New Testament, and asserted that there was or would be such an Agreement between the Old and New Testament; that is, between the Testament of the Letter, and the Testament of the Spirit of the Scriptures, as that there would not be[400] one Tittle in the one, that would not be consonantly fulfilled in the other; and so far as I already apprehend this Harmony between these two Testaments, of the Letter, and of the Spirit, I must needs say with Origen[401] that it's pleasant and ravishing to behold and contemplate it, and hope in a short time to make the Bishop of St. David's a Partaker of the same Pleasure. The same right Notion had the Fathers of the Gospel of Christ, which they have of the New Testament. Vulgarly speaking, the Writings of the Evangelists, and of the Apostles, were call'd the Gospel of Christ: But properly speaking, Christ's spiritual Accomplishment of the Law was the Gospel: Hence is the Meaning of their frequent saying, "That under the Law the Gospel was vail'd, and under the Gospel the Law was reveal'd." Hence they said, "That those Men had nothing of the Gospel, who understood not the Spirit of the Law." Hence they said, "The Gospel was hid to those, who had the Veil of the Letter upon their Hearts in reading of the Old Testament." Hence it was too, that they said, "That the Gospel was but in Part, and that too in a very little Part, reveal'd at Christ's first Coming; the full Revelation of it being reserv'd for his second and more glorious Advent, which the World is now in great Want of, for the curing of their spiritual Blindness, Deafness, and Lameness; that is, for the Correction of their gross Ignorance and Errors in Religion; for the Healing of their Divisions; for the Manifestation of Truth; for the Conversion of Jews and Gentiles; and for the Reformation of the Manners of Mankind.

Dear Jesu, to what a sad Purpose have our Hired Priesthood and Ministers of the Letter, of all Denominations, hitherto studied and preach'd, even till they have lost the true, primitive, and Apostolical Notion of "the Gospel; "of Revelation; and "of the New Testament!

The Bishop of London has of late publish'd two Pastoral Letters on the Certainty, Necessity, and Use of Revelation, against Infidels, particularly against my self, whom he (God help his Understanding!) takes for a Favourer of Infidelity: And to do the Man Justice, I believe he's sincere, and laments at his Heart the Unbelief of this Age: But however, when the true Gospel, otherwise call'd the Revelation of the Law and the Prophets, or the New Testament (which will be fatal to the Ministry of the Letter, and an hired Priesthood) shall be republished, restored, and repreach'd, I dare say, without Censoriousness, or pretending to a prophetick Spirit, that He, of all the Inhabitants of London and Westminster, will be the greatest Enemy to it; and for no other Reason than his own, "because of his Unwillingness to part with his worldly Interests, which will induce him to embrace any Arguments against it, and to cherish any Doubts and Scruples concerning it."

Whether the Bishop of St. David's intends to proceed in this Controversy against me, as he has begun, I know not. He promised us his Second Volume last Winter, but has adjourn'd the Publication of it to the next, and I am apt to think he'll defer it to latter Lammas: For being, I suppose, sensible, that his First Volume is built on the false Bottom of my supposed Infidelity, he'll hardly trouble the World with another of that kind. But however, I'll not release him out of the Controversy. I shall insist upon his letting me know his Opinion on my Rabbi's Objection against Jesus's Messiahship, herein contain'd, which if he'll favour me with, I'll forgive him all the Virulence, and pass by all the Impertinence (to say no worse) of his Vindication: Otherwise I shall be tempted to do an unpleasant Work to myself, as well as an ungrateful one to him; that is, further to expostulate with him for his false Accusations, Misrepresentations, and other ill Usage of me.

When I review my Discourses on Miracles, and consider not only their visible Tendency to the Proof of Jesus's Messiahship, but my solemn Declarations of the Belief of Christianity; I wonder that such a Number of Writers against me should all of them (excepting Mr. Laurence[402] whom I here thank and praise for his Ingenuity) take me for an Infidel. I don't indeed much wonder, that the inferior Tribe of Levi (such is their egregious Ignorance!) should take me for one; but that such presumed great Scholars, as are the Bishops of London and St. David's, should so mistake me, is astonishing. And I am not as yet fully satisfied, whether it be their Ignorance or their Malice, thus to accuse me of Infidelity: If it was really Ignorance in them, they'll soon be convinced of their Error; and then, like good Christians, they'll make me Satisfaction for the Injuries done me. But if it was Malice, and in Revenge on me for writing so much against an Hired-Priesthood, then they'll go on, and die hard, without any Remorse for the Troubles, Sufferings and Expences they have put me to.

As I am really a Christian, and shall, by God's Help, demonstrate the Messiahship of Jesus, to which my Discourses on his Miracles were subservient; so I will make bold to tell the Bishops concern'd, that I am as certainly persecuted, as ever any Christian was since the Days of the Apostles: And they will do well to consider, whether they have not everlastingly disgraced themselves, and done some Dishonour to the best Civil Administration, that ever Nation was bless'd with, by engaging them in the Persecution of the most sincere Advocate for the Truth of Christianity, that ever set Pen to Paper.

I am so far from being an Infidel, that, notwithstanding my Discourses on Miracles, I am an implicit Believer, and most devout Admirer of Doctrines, Historical Facts, and Traditions of the primitive Church, adhering to many Notions of the Fathers, besides their allegorical Scheme (as will be seen in the Sequel of this Controversy) which the Divines of these last Ages have rejected, as so many Weaknesses and Mistakes in them. And when I come more fully to open my Mind, it will be well if the Clergy don't change their Note about me; and instead of accusing me of Infidelity, ridicule me for too much Credulity, and even Superstition; or I would not espouse such and such Doctrines and Traditions, which all learned and Protestant Criticks have discarded. Some of these old Notions I'll keep to myself, for fear of being over-much laught at by the Clergy for them, but others upon Occasion I will divulge; and don't care if I tell my Readers here one of them, thus:

"The Fathers intimate that Ministers of the Letter are Worshippers of the Apocalyptical Beast, or Anti-Christ; and that that Beast of a God, old Baal, was a Type of Anti Christ." This their Opinion I found hard to digest; but if there be any Truth in it, it can't be unlawful to jest a little with his Priests, or to ridicule their nonsensical, foolish and absurd Doctrines, founded on the Letter.

But let my Theological Notions and Speculations be of what kind soever; what Harm can my Arguings for them do to the Community? None at all. If they are not of God, they will come to nought sooner and better than by a Persecution of me for them. But if they are of God, they will stand and prevail against all Opposition of the Clergy, who will lose their Reputation, if they take any other Measures, than what Reason and Religion do allow of, to suppress them.

My earnest Request then to the Clergy is, that under the Debate I am like to have with them, they would be pleased to keep their Temper; or wise and impartial By-standers will say, that it's more for their Interests than the Truth, that they are zealous and furious.

I am not afraid of another Prosecution at Law, because I already have, or soon shall cut off all Pretences to it, by clearing myself of all Suspicions of Infidelity; but, for all that, I am more apprehensive of the Rage and Indignation of the Clergy, than if I had been a downright Atheist. No Atheist or Deist is or can be of that dangerous Consequence to the modern Priesthood, as the Christian Allegorist. Against the Growth of Deism and Atheism, the Clergy may be able for some time to maintain their Ground; but upon the Revival of the Ministry of the Spirit of the Law and the Prophets, they can't stand long. And if I should demonstrate, what I have undertaken, the Certainty of the allegorical Scheme, and Jesus's Messiahship upon it; tho' Jews and Infidels then will be ready to rejoice, yet Ministers of the Letter, notwithstanding their pretended Love to, and Faith in Jesus, will be enraged; and it will be well, if I don't feel the Weight of their Displeasure and Resentment. If that foolish old Dotard, Mr. Ayscough[403] the Rector of St. Olave's, Southwark, could find in his Heart to instigate the Mob to drag me through the Streets, and throw me into some Repository of Filth and Nastiness, what may I not dread from young hot-headed Priests, upon the Performance of what is here undertaken? But I hope our pious and good Bishops, notwithstanding the Danger of their Thousands a Year, will be my Safeguard.

After all, it is a sad and melancholick Consideration, that the Understandings of Mankind, especially of the Wise, Thinking and Philosophical Part of them, should be enslaved to the Interests of Ecclesiastical Clodpates, who for the sake of Mammon more than Truth, are furious and turbulent; otherwise any Opinions in Religion might be profess'd, consistently with the Peace of the Publick; and any Speculations publish'd without Animosities and Molestations.

What Course can be taken with the Clergy, to persuade them to Patience and Forbearance, whilst I prove them to be the most stupid Sect of Philosophers, who have amongst them the fewest Rudiments of true Philosophy, and even of the Gospel, of any Sect the World ever knew? It's said, there is nothing so absurd, which some of the old Philosophers have not held; but there is nothing, for Absurdity, equal to this Belief, that the Bible, for its literal Story, is the Word of God, and given by Inspiration of him.

The Bishop of St. David's complains[404] of my unmannerly Behaviour towards my Ecclesiastical Superiors; and I must confess, I am no body at that low and Right Reverend Bow, that he is fam'd for, or I might have put in for a Bishoprick before now: But if our Bishops and Clergy will be pleased to keep their Temper, till I get to the End of this Controversy, I'll pass such Compliments upon them for their good Humour and Learning too, if they deserve it, as they hardly ever met with.

To conclude, I have written as plainly and intelligibly as I can, in this Part of my Defence. If any one shall complain of Obscurity any where, I will, upon Intimation, endeavour to illustrate it. I have, in some Places, asserted Things upon the Authority of the Fathers, without producing their Testimonies, in Proof of them; but if any question, whether their Testimonies can be here or there urg'd, they shall, upon a proper Occasion, have Satisfaction given them. The Reason why I have sometimes omitted the Testimonies of the Fathers, where they might be look'd for, is because I study Brevity, intending never to publish at once a larger Volume than this present. And no body need question my Testimonies to be ready at Hand; because I have neither the Courage nor Confidence (like many others) to vent any new Doctrines out of my own Head. My Talent is only to illustrate what the Fathers have asserted; and tho' some would account me a Falsifier and Misrepresenter of primitive Authorities, my honest Endeavours shall be to turn the Hearts of our Clergy, who are like Children in Understanding, to the Fathers. I shall end all seriously, gravely, calmly and sedately, with the same Words that I began my First Discourse on Miracles with, saying, "If ever there was a useful Controversy started or revived in this Age of the Church, it is this about the Messiahship of the Holy Jesus, which the Discourse of the Grounds, &c. has of late rais'd. I believe this Controversy will end in the absolute Demonstration of Jesus's Messiahship from Prophecy, which is the only Way to prove him to be the Messiah, that great Prophet expected by the Jews, and promised under the old Testament." And whether Bishop Smalbroke or Mr. Stackhouse will believe me, or not, I do now solemnly declare, that what I have written in my Discourses, or shall write in these Defences, is with a View to, what I am persuaded I shall effect, the absolute Demonstration of the Messiahship of the Holy Jesus, to whom be Glory for ever and ever. Amen.

FINIS.

BOOKS written by Mr. Woolston, and sold by him next Door to the Star in Aldermanbury, and by the Booksellers of London and Westminster.

I. The old Apology reviv'd, &c.

II. Dissertatio de Pontii Pilati Epistola ad Tiberium circa Res Jesu Christi gestas.

III. Origenis Adamantii Epistolæ duæ circa Fidem vere orthodoxam & Scripturarum Interpretationem.

IV. The exact Fitness of the Time of Christ's Advent, demonstrated by Reason, against the Objections of the old Gentiles, and modern Unbelievers.

V. Four Free-Gifts to the Clergy, or Challenges to a Dispute on this Question, whether the Hireling Priests of this Age, who are all Ministers of the Letter, be not Worshippers of the Apocalyptical Beast, and Ministers of Anti-Christ.

VI. An Answer to the said Four Free-Gifts.

VII. Two Letters to Dr. Bennet, on this Question, Whether the People call'd Quakers, do not the nearest of any other Sect in Religion, resemble the primitive Christians in Principle and Practice.

VIII. An Answer to the said two Letters.

IX. The Moderator between an Infidel and an Apostate: Or, the Controversy between the Grounds and his ecclesiastical Opponents, set in a clear Light, &c.

X. Two Supplements to the Moderator, &c.

XI. A Defence of the Miracle of the Thundering Legion, against a Dissertation of Walter Moyle Esq.

XII. Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour.

XIII. Two Defences of the said Discourses.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Page 44.

[2] Page 53.

[3] Universam porro Sacram Scripturam tam Novi quam Veteris Testamenti ad allegoricum sensum esse sumendam, admonet nos vel illud, Aperiam os meum in Parabolis. In Prasat. ad Form. Spirit. Intell.

[4] Si quidem Symbola quædam erant quæ tunc gerebantur eorum, quæ Jesu virtute semper perficiuntur. In Mat. C. xv.

[5] Omnis languor & omnis Infirmitas quam sanavit salvator tunc in Populo referuntur ad Infirmitates spirituales Animarum, &c. In Mat. C. xvii.

[6] Christi Gesta aliud portendunt. In Mat. C. xii. Evangelicis gestis est interior Sensus, C. xiv. Hæc licet in præsens gesta sunt, quid tamen in futurum significent contuendum est, C. x. Peragunt formam futuri gesta præsentia, C. xxi.

[7] Quæ a Jesu facta sunt, alicujus significantia erant. Serm. 77.

[8] Omne quod fecit Jesus, Sacramenta sunt. Homil. 31. in Marc. 9.

[9] Si enim temporalis erat ab eo Utilitas, nihil grande præstitit iis, qui ab eo curati sunt, L. V. C. 12. S. 6.

[10] Contra Celsum, L. 11.

[11] Cœcum curavit, magnum quidem est, quod fecit, sed nisi quotidie fiat, quod olim factum, nobis quidem magnum esse cessavit. Homil. 30. in Marc. 9.

[12] Si humano captu & ingenio consideremus Jesum facientem, & quod ad potestatem non magnum aliquid fecit, & quod ad benignitatem, parvum fecit. In Johan. Cap. v. Tract. 17.

[13] Etsi attestabantur Miracula, non defuissent (sicut & nunc mussitant) qui magicæ potentiæ cuncta illa tribuerent. Cont. Faust. L. XII. C. 45.

[14] Vid. Sanctum Augustinum de Anti-christo.

[15] 1 Cor. C. xii.

[16] Atque illud ad Rem maxime partineat, ne decipiamur tendentes ad Contemplationem Veritatis——Arbitrantes ibi esse invisibilem sapientiam, ubi Miraculum visibile viderimus. In Serm. Dom. in monte, Lib. 2. Sect. 84.

[17] Interim completur & Isaiæ Prophetia non tantum in corporalibus, verum etiam in spiritualibus, Origen. In Matt. Cap. xv. Aperientur igitur Oculi cæcorum, aures surdorum audient, nam qui quondam divinis sermonibus rejectis mysticam Sanctorum Institutionem recipere non studuerunt, libenter eam admittent. St. Cyril in Loc. Is. Vide & Sanctum Hieronymum in Loc. Isai.

[18] Et nunc majores sanitates operatur, propter quas non est dedignatus tunc exhibere illas minores. In Serm. 88.

[19] In quibus Spiritualibus maxime Christi Persona eminet. August. Quest. 2. in Lucan.

[20] Modo Caro cæca non aperit oculos miraculo Domini, sed cor cæcum aperit oculos Sermoni Domini. Modo non resurgit mortale cadaver, sed resurgit anima quæ mortua jucebat in vivo Cadavere, &c. August. Serm. 88. S. 3.

[21] Historia Scripturæ interdum interferit quædam vel minus gesta, vel quæ omnino geri non possunt, interdum quæ possunt geri, nec tamen gesta sunt. De Principiis, Lib. 4.

[22] Multa sunt, quæ non sinunt nos simplici sensu dicta evangelica suscipere. Interpositis enim non nullis Rebus quæ ex Natura humani sensus sibi contraria sunt; Rationem quærere cælestis Intelligentiæ admonemur. In Matt. L. xx. S. 2.

[23] Evangelica Sacramenta in Christi factis signata omnibus non patent, & ea nonnulli minus diligenter interpretando asserunt plerumque pro salute Perniciem, & pro Cognitione Veritatis Errorem, &c. De Quæst. Divers. Quest. 84.

[24] Matt. xxi. Mark xi. Luke xix. John ii.

[25] In Comment. in Matth. xxi.

[26] Porro cui curæ est accuratior Inquisitio considerabit, an juxta dignitatem præsentis Vitæ erat, ut Jesus rem talem auderet facere, extrudere videlicet Mercatorum Multitudinem, qui ad Diem festum ascenderant, distributuri boves ditioribus, & tanto populo oves mactandas per domos familiarium, quæ multorum millium complerent numerum; atque eos qui in rebus talibus gloriantes producturi erant in medio Columbas, quas multi emptori erant, ceu in Conventu celeberrimo convivaturi. Considerabit hic etiam, an Nummulariorum erat non accusare Jesum contumeliose propter suas ipsorum effusas pecunias & mensas subversas. Quis autem flagello e funiculis verberatus & expulsus ab eo qui penes eos habebatur vilis, hunc adortus non inclamasset totis viribus sese ulciscens? Cum præsertim haberet tantam multitudinem eorum, qui sibi æque contumeliam fieri credebant, faventem sibi adversum Jesum? Insuper consideremus, Dei filium funiculos sumentem; sibique flagellum tenentem ad extrudendum e templo, annon repræsentet Præter audaciam & temeritatem, inordinatum etiam quiddam? In Johan. Tom. XI.

[27] Præfiguratio futurorum dictis præsentibus continetur. In Matt. xxi.

[28] Admomemur altius Verborum Virtutes in istius modi significationibus contuendas, ibid.

[29] In Cathedra est sacerdotii sedes; & eorum qui Spiritus sancti Donum venale habent, Cathedras evertet, ibid.

[30] Non habebant Judæi quod venire possent, neque erat quod emere quis posset, ibid.

[31] Cathedra autem Vendentium Columbas cur everterit? Secundum Litteram non intelligo. Admonet Typo ejectorum de Templo hujusmodi Mercatorum, in Ecclesia Dei Consortium eos habere non posse, qui sancti Spiritus Gratiam nundinentur. In Loc. Luc.

[32] Juxta simplicem Intelligentiam—quod ponitus absurdum—cæterum secundum Mysticos In tellectus Jesus ingreditur Templum Patris & ejicit omnes Episcopos, Presbyteros, & Diaconos, &c. In Loc. Mat.

[33] Faciet Dominus Flagellum de Scripturarum Textuum Testimoniis. In Zechar. C. xiv.

[34] Non magnum Peccatum, si hoc vendebant in Templo, quod emebatur, ut offerretur in Templo. In Loc. Johan.

[35] Qui sunt tamen qui boves vendunt? ut in figura quæramus Mysterium facti, qui sunt qui Oves vendunt Columbas? ipsi sunt qui sua quærunt in Ecclesia, non quæ Jesu Christi. Ibid.

[36] Vos enim fecistis Domum meum, Domum Negotiationis & speluncam Latronum, significant futuros in Ecclesia. L. II. Evang. Quæst. Quast. 48.

[37] Διδασκαλος ων, ου καταγγελλει λογον, ει μη κερδος εχει, και τουτου την τραπεζαν ανατρεπει ο Κυειος. In Johan. C. ii.

[38] Chandler's Vindication, &c. p. 145.

[39] Hoc facto longe aliud significabat Jesus, nec enim illum tantopere commovebat Templum illud mercimoniis Boum, Ovium, Hircorum & Columbarum profanatum; sed ostendere voluit Avaritiam & Quæstum sore capitalem Pestem Ecclesiæ, quam Templum, cujus Religio mox erat abolenda, figurabat—In nullum Hominum Genus acrius sæviit Jesus, sed hos ipse sibi servavit ejiciendos, cum videbitur. In Loc. Matt. xxi.

[40] Vid. Suicerum in Κολλυβυστης.

[41] Τραπεζα, apud Aristophanem est Pulpitum. Vid. Scapulam.

[42] Matt. viii. Mark v. Luke viii.

[43] Luke xiii. v. 27.

[44] Spencer de Legibus Hebræ, p. 117.

[45] Lib. IV. De Principiis.

[46] Hanc habeant Causam, ut esset in rebus gerendis futuri plena meditatio. In Loc. Matt. In hoc Typica ratio servata est. Ibid.

[47] Significatæ sunt gentes quæ multis dæmonibus serviebant. Augustin in Luc. Quest. 13.

[48] Humanum genus ad Adventum Domini vexabatur furore dementi, rumpens vincula rationis. St. Amb. in Loc. Luc.

[49] Nudus quicunque tegumentum Naturæ suæ & Virtutis amisit. Amb. Ibid.

[50] In tumulis Sepulchrorum; quid enim aliud sunt Corpora perfidorum, nisi quædam defunctorum Sepulchra in quibus Dei verbum non habitat. Ibid.

[51] Videntes Dæmones non sibi jam locum in gentibus derelinqui, ut patiatur habitare se in Hæreticis deprecantur. Hilar. in Loc. Matt.

[52] Litera est Palea, & frequenter evenit, ut homines hujus sœculi mystica nescientes, simplici Scripturarum Lectione pascuntur. Hieron. in Isa. xi.

[53] Matt. xvii. Mark ix. Luke ix.

[54] 2 Pet. i. 16, 17, 18.

[55] Possunt infideles istam Vocem delatam de Cælo, per conjecturas humanas & illicitas Curiositates ad magicas Artes reserte. In Serm. xliii. Sect. 5.

[56] Neque enim Miracula propter Miracula faciebat, sed ut illa quæ faciebat, mira essent videntibus, vera essent intelligentibus. In Serm. xcviii. Sect. 3.

[57] Ἑλεγον την εξοδον αυτου ην εμελλε πληρουν, C. ix. V. 31.

[58] Regni cœlestis Honor prefiguratur. St. Hilar. in Loc. Matt. In Transfiguratione futura Regni Præmeditatio & Gloria demonstrata est. St. Hierom. in Loc. Matt.

[59] Αινιγματωδης παροδειξις της Βασιλειας, Anast. in Transfig. Dom. Υποδειγμα της δοξης εκεινης. St. Chrysost. in Loc. Matt.

[60] Sex millium scilicet Annorum Temporibus evolutis. St. Hilar. in Loc. Matt. Sic post Sex ætates Dominus a perfectis Famulis conspicietur. Dionys. Alex. apud Damascen. in Orat. de Transfig.

[61] Et Moses & Elias apparuerunt in Gloria, cum Jesu colloquentes, in quo ostenditur Legem & Prophetas, cum Evangeliis consonare & in eadem Gloria spiritualis intelligentiæ refulgere. Origen. in Epist. ad Rom. c. 1.

[62] Montem ascendit ut te doceat, ne quæras eum nisi in Legis & Prophetarum montibus. Origen in Cantic. Cantic. Hom. 3.

[63] Per nubem tetram intellige opacitatem Legis. Damascen. in Orat. de Transfigur.

[64] Vestimenta candida Jesu sunt Sermones & Scripta Evangeliorum. Origen in Loc. Matt.

[65] Si quis Litteram sequitur, & deorsum est totus, hic non potest videre Jesum in veste candida; qui autem sequitur Sermonem Dei & ad montana, id est, excelsa Legis conscendit, isti Jesus commutatur—— Quamdiu Litteram sequimur occidentem, Moses & Elias cum Jesu non loquuntur; sin spiritualiter intelligimus, statim Moses & Elias veniunt, id est Lex & Prophetæ & colloquuatur cum Evangelio. Johan. Hieros. Hom. 32.

[66] John ii.

[67] Matt. C. xiv. and xv. &c.

[68] Mark ii. Luke v.

[69] John ix.

[70] Mark v.

[71] Matt. xxi. Mark xi.

[72] Matt. ii.

[73] Alia quam plurima his similia in Evangeliis inveniet, quicunque attentius legerit. Origen. de Principiis, lib. iv.

[74] Quæ Enarratio erit Evangelii sensibilis, nisi accommodetur ad intelligible & spirituale? Nulla sane, Origen. is Præfat. ad Johan. Evang.

[75] See Archbishop Wake's Manuscript Letter to Mr. Chandler, which is handed about Town and Country.

[76] Chandler's Vindication, &c. p. 81.

[77] Dominus noster ea quæ faciebat corporaliter, etiam spiritualiter volebat intelligi, &c. August. Serm. xcviii. Sect. 3.

[78] Quos in corporibus morbos sanavit Christus, hi in animabus existunt, & supernam ejus opem requirunt. Johan. Nepos. Hieros. Hom. LXI.

[79] Matt. Ch. ix. Luke Ch. viii. Mark Ch. v.

[80] Factum quidum est, &, ita ut narratur, impletum. In Serm. lxxvii. Sect. 7.

[81] On Mat. Chap. ix.

[82] Matt. Ch. ix. v. 21.

[83] Non autem Fimbria Jesu, sed ejus Cogitatio eam salvam fecit. In Loc. Marci.

[84] Matt. Ch. xiii. v. 58.

[85] In Locum Matt.

[86] Illa vero Mulier quæ Fluxum Sanguinis patiebatur, Ecclesiam figurabat ex Gentibus. St. August. in Serm. lxxvii. Sect. 8. Præparatur igitur Mulier, in cujus Typo universalis Ecclesia sub specie designetur. Paschas. Ratbert. in Loc. Matt.

[87] Hæc Mulier, i. e. Sancta Ecclesia de Gentibus congregata quæ lapsu Criminum deperibat Sancti Ambrosii in Loc. Luc. Ut Mulier, quæ fluxum sanguinis patiebatur, &c. ita omnis Anima percussa incurabili Vulnere Peccati, habens fontem pravarum Cogitationum, &c. Macarii Ægypt. in Hom. xx.

[88] Επιγαζες γαρ την φοινικην αμαρτιαν. In Orat. xl.

[89] Quæ est enim hæc Mulier nisi Ecclesia Gentium—Fluxum Sanguinis patiebatur, quia in suorum Peccatorum Sanguine versabatur; quia Sanguinum Rapina & Occisione nutriebatur. In Dominic. xxiv.

[90] Adversus Hæreses. Lib. I. Cap. iii.

[91] Revel. Chap. xii. v. 6.

[92] Excellentes Verbi Prædicatores tanquam magni Medici.—Sancti August. in Psal. Lxxxvii. Sect. 10.

[93] Per hos enim Medicos, Ariolos & Philosophos intelligere possumus, quorum persuasionibus cæteri credentes a fidei Veritate aberrantes ad Animæ Sanitatem attingere non valebant. In Dominic. xxiv.

[94] Per Medicos intellige falsos Theologos. In Loc. Marci.

[95] Mark Ch. v. v. 26.

[96] Medici Molestiam potius quam Sanitatem ægrotanti præbentes. Ephræm. Syri. p. 63.

[97] Mark Ch. v. v. 34.

[98] Dei Posteriora sunt novissima tempora. Origen in Psal. xxxvi.

[99] Vestimenta Jesu sunt Sermones & Scripta Evangeliorum. Origen in Matt. Ch. xvii.

[100] Luke Ch. xiii.

[101] In Muliere infirma est Figura Ecclesiæ. Theoph. Antioch. in Loc. Lucæ. Unde intelligitur illa Mulier in Typo Ecclesiæ a Domino sanata & erecta, quam curvaverat Infirmitas, alligante Satana, Sancti August. de Trinit. Lib. iv. Sect. 7. In Typo Ecclesiæ fæminam salvat. Sancti Ambros. in Loc. Lucæ.

[102] Totum Genus humanum tanquam ista Mulier curvatum est ad terram,—Diabolus & Angeli ejus Animas hominum curvaverunt ad terras, id est, ut pronæ in ea quæ terrena, superna non quærerent. Sancti. August. in Serm. cccxcii. Qui occidentem sequuntur Literam terrena sapiunt. Sancti Hieron. in Lib. Amos, Ch. i.

[103] Quid illa Mulier octo decem Annos habens in Infirmitate. Sex Diebus Deus perfecit opera sua. Ter seni decem & octo faciunt. Quod ergo significavit triennium in Arbore, hoc octo decem Anni in illa Muliere. In. Serm. cx.

[104] Luke Ch. xiii. 7.

[105] 1 Cor. Ch. xiii. 9, 10.

[106] Ut Deus sex Dies in tantis Rebus fabricandis laboravit; ita & Religio ejus & Veritas in his sex millibus Annorum laboret, necesse est, malitia dominante & prevalente. Et rursus, quoniam perfectis operibus requievit Die septimo, eumque benedixit; necesse est, ut in sine sexti millessimi Anni Malitia omnis aboleatur e terra & regnet per Annos mille justitia; sitq; tranquilltas & requies a Laboribus, quos Mundus jamdiu perpessus est. In Lanctant. Instit. Lib. VII. Ch. xiv. Dies septimus etiam nos ipsi erimus quando (Christi) Benedictione & sanctificatione fuerimus pleni & refecti; ibi vacantes videbimus, quoniam ipse est Deus. Sancti August. de Civit. Dei. Lib. XXII. Ch. xxx.

[107] Contemnenda non est accurata circa Nomina Diligentia ei qui volucrit prole intelligere sacras Literas. In Johan. Evang. Tom. 8.

[108] Jam Archi-Synagogus adumbrat omnes Sacerdotes, &c. In. Hom. xii.

[109] Caluminabantur autem erigenti, qui, nisi curvi? In Serm. cccxcii.

[110] Sed nesciebat Archi-Synagogus vel hoc vel illud multo excellentius sacramentum, quod Sabbato curando Dominus intimabat, quia scilicet post sex hujus seculi Ætates perpetuæ Vitæ immortalis erat gaudia daturus. Venerab. Bed. in Loc.

[111] Ante Christum in cogniti & a solo sciente detecti. In Lib. II. adv. Gentes.

[112] Consequens autem est ei, qui cognoscit quæ sit Hierusalem in divisione veræ Hæreditatis filiorum Isræl, ut intelligat Sermonem de Gehenna. In Matt. Ch. xxiii.

[113] Ego puto quod nomina hæc Scriptura divina non pro Historia narraverit sed pro Causis & Rebus,—non enim tam Regum quam Vitiorum Nomina, quæ regnant in hominibus referuntur. In Numer. Ch. xxxi.

[114] Quid ergo mirum videtur, si per singula genera Peccatorum singuli Dæmones ascribuntur. In Lib. Josu. Ch. xi.

[115] Sed in alio quodam Libello, qui apellatur Testamentum duodecem Patriarcharum, talem quendam sensum invenimus, quod per singulos peccantes, singuli Satanæ intelligi debeant. Evidentius autem & ipsa Nominis ejus interpretatio hoc idem significare videtur; Satanas namq; Adversarius dicitur. Omnes ergo qui adversantur dei voluntati, Satanæ possunt dici. Ibid.

[116] On Miracles, p. 36.

[117] Quamdiu vera Pax veniat, & Sabbatismus, & Septem decadarum Numerus.—Ecclesia non plenam recipiat Libertatem. Sancti. Hieron. in Zechar. Ch. i.

[118] Illa Mulier curvata intelligitur figurare Ecclesiam, quam in Sexta Mundi Ætate a Captivitate Diaboli Jesus liberabit. In Quæst. 25. Dialog. lxv Quæst.

[119] Vidi Angelum habentem Clarem & Catenam ad ligandum draconem.—In Sexto Annorum Millenario hæc Res agitur. De Civit. Dei. L. XX. Ch. vii.

[120] Revel. Ch. xx. v. 2.

[121] Propter Infinitatem Annorum Mille Annos dixit. In Serm. de Pænitentia.

[122] Diaboli Forman assumimus—Leonis Personam induimus & Draconis,—quando crudeles & callidi sumus. Origen. in Luc. Hom. viii.

[123] Mark Ch. viii. v. 33.

[124] Defence of Christianity, p. 8.

[125] Doctioribus inter Judæos notissimum est,—quod Moses qui primus fuit Salvator Isrælis etiam in omni Vita & Operibus suis fuerit Typus & Figura ultimi Redemptoris. Christian. Meyer de Gen. Christi, p. 145. Judæi Veteres expectabant similem Ægyptiacæ Liberationem, ut scilicet Pharaoh & omnis ejus Exercitus qui per 430 Annos Populum Dei Captivum tenuit, in Mari Rubro submersus est; sic etiam Romani qui eodem Annorum Numero Judæos possessuri, Ultione Domini deleantur. Sancti Hieron. in Joel. Ch. v.

[126] See the Life of William Lilly.

[127] See Dr. Hammond on the Place.

[128] Percontando de Viro, Occasionem cepit occulta revelandi. Sancti Cyril. Alex. in Loc.

[129] John Ch. x. v. 24.

[130] Fortasse verum non erat, Judæos cum Samaritanis Commmercium non habere,—ac ne illud quidem verum, neque Haustorium habes, & Puteus altus est,—fortasse etiam neque illud, quod Jacob ex Puteo biberit, & filii ejus, & Pecora ejus. Origen. in Loc.

[131] Plena Mysteriis & gravida Sacramentis. Sancti August. in Johan. Ch. iv.

[132] Evangelica Sacramenta in Domini nostri Jesu Christi dictis factisque signata non omnibus patent, & ea nonnulli minus diligenter, minusque sobrie interpretando, afferunt plerumque pro salute Perniciem, & pro Cognitione Veritatis Errorem, inter quæ illud est Sacramentum quod Scriptum est de hac Samaritana, &c. In Quæst. 63, de Lxxxiii. Quest.

[133] Ως εν τυπω παλιν ημιν και δι αινιγματος υποδεικνευς. In Loc. Johan.

[134] Illa Mulier Typum gerebat Ecclesiæ, quæ ventura erat ex Gentibus—Ecclesiæ non justificatæ, sed justificandæ. Sancti. August. in Loc. Johan.

[135] Tunc fatigatur Christus, quando nullam Virtutem in Populo suo recognoscit. Sancti August. in Serm. xciii. Appen.

[136] Hora sexta id est, sexta Ætate Generis Humani. Sancti August. in Quæst. 64. lxxxiii. Quæst.

[137] Puteus est Divina Scriptura, scientia scatens, ut aqua, Cujus putei Profunditas sunt plena Mysteriis Symbola. In Theoph. Ceram Homil. xxxviii. de Samaritana.

[138] Lex secundum Literam est aqua amara. Hieronym. in Ezekiel. Ch. xlvii. Qui bibit ex hac aqua sitiet rursus, id est, qui participat profunditatem humanæ sapientiæ, prudentesque Rationes, receptis Intelligentiis judicio suo inventis, tamen rursus secundo cogitans, denuo dubitabit de his in quibus requieverat. Origen. in Loc. Johan.

[139] In Locum Johan. Evang.

[140] Quinque enim Viros habuisti, & nunc quem habes non est Vir tuus. Sed non sunt hæc carnabiter accipienda, ne huic ipsi Mulieri Samaritanæ similes videamur,—Per quinque Viros, quinque Libros Mosis Nonnulli accipiunt—sed quinque Viri intelliguntur quinque Corporis sensus. Et quia naturales sunt ipsi Sensus, qui ætatem primam regunt, recte dicuntur Mariti. In Quæst. 64. de lxxxiii. Quæst.

[141] Et nunc quem habes non est Vir tuus; Quia non est in te (Ecclesia) Spiritus qui intelligat Deum, cum quo legitimum potes habere conjugium; sed Error Diaboli potius dominatur, qui te adulterina Contaminatione corrumpit. Venerab. Bedæ in Locum.

[142] Magna quidem acta sunt Sacramenta, sed augustum Tempus est, ut omnia pertractentur. In Serm. xci. Sect. 2.

[143] In his Dissertation on the Blessing of Judah.

[144] Ut Lex Umbram continet futurorum bonorum, quæ declarantur ab ea Lege; sic etiam Evangelium, quod vel a quibusque vulgaribus intelligi existimatur, Umbram docet Mysteriorum Christi. In Præfat. ad Johan. Evang.

[145] Matt. Chap. xxi. Mark, Chap. xi.

[146] Hoc factum, nisi figuratum, stultum invenitur. In Serm. lxxvii.

[147] Nulla esset Ligni Culpa, quia Lignum sine sensu non habebat Culpam. Augustin in Serm. lxxxix.

[148] Quærit poma; necesciebat tempus nondum esse? quod Cultor Arboris sciebat, Creator Arboris nesciebat? Augustini in Serm. lxxxix.

[149] Hoc ideo probamus, quia Passionis Domini Dies propinquabat, et scimus quo tempore passus sit. Ibid.

[150] Arbor non est justé siccato. Johan. Hierosol in Loc. Marci.

[151] Si miraculum fuerat tantummodo commendandum, et non alquid prophetice figurandum, multo clementiùs dominus et sua misericordia digniùs fecerat, Si quam aridam invenerat, viridem redderet, sicut languentes sanavit. Tunc vero e contrario, quasi adversus Regulam Clementiæ suæ invenit Arborem virentem, præter tempus fructus nondum habentem, non tamen fructum agricolæ negantem, et aridam fecit. In Serm. lxxxix. Sect. 3.

[152] See Arch-Bishop Wake's Letter to Mr. Chandler, which is handed about Town and Country.

[153] Vindication of the Christian Religion, p. 82.

[154] Ibid.

[155] Quod sequenti die viderint exaruisse fieum. Theophylact. in Locum Marci.

[156] Chap. xiii.

[157] Quid sibi vult, quod in Evangelio suo Dominus Fici Parabolam frequenter inducit: Habes enim alibi, quod jussu Domini Viriditas omnis hujus Ligni frondentis aruerit. In Loc. Lucæ.

[158] Videamus, ubi alibi scriptum de ista ficu; in Evangelio secundum Lucam legimus, &c. In Loc. Marci. Hom. xii.

[159] Matth. Chap. xxi. 21.

[160] Quanquam igitur juxta Literam Hæc facta non legantur ab Apostolis, sicut quidam Paganorum calumniati sunt, et garriunt contra nos, etiam in suis scriptis asserentes Apostolos non habuisse fidem, quia monues non transtulerunt neque Ficulneas verbo exsiccarunt. In Loc. Matth.

[161] Legimus Apostolorum miracula, nusquam autem legimus arborem ab his arefactam, aut montem in mare translatum; quæramus ergo in mysterio ubi factum sit, non enim Verba Domini vacare potuerant. In Serm. lxxxix.

[162] Sed futurum aliquid Miraculo commendasse, multa sunt quæ nos admoneant, nobisq; persuadeant imo ab invitis extorqueant. Ibid.

[163] Porro quando in hunc locum incidimus, nemo curiose inquirat, aut anxie disputet, justene an secus factum sit; sed Miraculum editum contempletur et admiretur. Nam de submersis Porcis quoq; nonnulli hanc quæstionem moverant, factumq; justitiæ coloræ destitutum prædicare veriti non sunt. In Loc. Merci.

[164] Quid Arbor fici, nisi humanam naturam designet? In Homil. xxxi.

[165] In Ficu, Synogogæ positum Exemplum est. In Loc. Matt.

[166] Absit a nobis, ut, Jesu veniente ad nos et volente manducare de ficu (Ecclesiæ) non inveniatur Fructus in ea. In Matth. Tract. xxx.

[167] Potest autem ficus illa intelligi populus Circumcisionis. Ibid.

[168] Arbor ficulnea Genus humanum est——Triennium autem tria sunt Tempora, unum ante Legem, alterum sub Lege, tertium sub gratia. St. Augustin in Serm. cx.

[169] Jude, ver. 14.

[170] Inveniet infæcundam, foliis tantummodo vestitam, id est Verbis inanibus gloriantem, sed fructibus vacuam, Operibus quippe bonis sterilem. In Loc. Matt.

[171] Habentem folia et non fructus; Verba, non Sensus; Scripturas, non intelligentiam Scripturarum. In Loc. Marci.

[172] Folia sola habentem, hoc est, apparentem Litteram, non Fructus Spiritus. In Loc. Matt.

[173] Qærens non Sensiles Fructus sed intellectilem ex Lege et Prophetis dulcemq, Fæcunditatem. Cæsarii in Dialog. 40.

[174] Ficus sunt dona dulcissima Spiritus Sancti, Spiritualia dogmata et Scientia Scripturarum. In Aggæ; Cap. ii.

[175] Esuriit autem Jesus semper in justis, volens manducare Fructum Spiritus Sancti i neis. In Matt. Tract. xxx.

[176] Ad quem (Locum) intelligendum, ut oportet, expectandum esse Eliæ, ut nonnunquam loquuntur Veteres de Locis obscurissimis Adventum. In Excercitat. Sac. Lib. ii. cap. 6.

[177] Fructus dulces omne genus de arbore Vitæ comedendum præbebit Elias. Apud Buxtorf. Synag. p. 738.

[178] Oculis Spiritalibus viderunt Mysterium fici siccatæ. Matt. Tract. xvi.

[179] Effodientes Literam Legis. Cyril. Glaphyr. L. 1. P. 1.

[180] Mittitur ergo Cophinus Stercoris ad Radicem Arboris, quando pravitatis suæ Conscientia tangitur memoria Cogitationis. Gregor. M. in Hom. xxxi.

[181] Sed hoc significat Ficulnea infructuosa, quod Mulier inclinata; et hoc Ficulnea reservata, quod Mulier erecta. Hoc autem & octodecem Annorum Numero signatur, quod tertio die Dominus Vineæ Ficulneam venisse perhibetur. In Homil. xxxi.

[182] John, Chap. v.

[183] Vid. Milli. Nov. Test. In Loc.

[184] Quare modo non movetur Aqua? St. Ambros de Sacrament. Lib. C. 2.

[185] Εις μονος του ενιαυτου εθεραπευετο. In Serm. contra Eberietatem.

[186] Vid. Milli. Nov. Test. In Loc.

[187] Tot jacebant & unus curatus, cum posset uno Verbo omnes erigere. Quid ergo intelligendum est, nisi quia Potestas & Bonitas illa magis agebat, &c. In Loc. Johan.

[188] Defence of Christianity, P. 415.

[189] Quis hic Curationis modus? quid hoc nobis mysterium significatur? non απλως nec εικη hæc, sed futura nobis, tanquam imagine et figura quadam describuntur, ne res nimium incredibilis et inexpectata, accedente fidei Virtute, Multitudinis Animas offenderet. In Loc. Johan.

[190] Aqua turbata——credas hoc Angelica Virtute fieri solere, non tamen sine significante aliquo Sacramento? In Loc. Johan.

[191] Cujus Rei & cujus signi profundum mysterium, quantum Dominus donare dignatur, loquar ut potero. Ibid.

[192] Piscina illa Baptismum designat. Theophyl. In Loc. Quænam igitur hæc descriptio? Futurum erat Baptisma plenum maximæ Potestatis & Gratiæ purgaturum peccata. Chrysost. In Loc.

[193] Per quinque Porticus, quinque Libras Mosis intelligo, St. Theophil. Antioch. in Loc. Quinque Porticus sunt quinque Libri Mosis. St. August. in Loc.

[194] Mosis quinque Libros scripsit, sed in quinque Porticibus Piscinam cingentibus languidi jacebant, et curari non poterant. Vide quomodo manet littera, convincens eum non salvans iniquum. Illis enim quinque Porticibus, in figura quinque Librorum prodebantur potius quam sanabantur ægroti. Ergo quicunque amatis litteram fine gratia, in Porticibus remanebitis, ægri eritis, jacentes non convalescentes, de littera enim præsumitis. In Psal. lxx.

[195] Est Figura Populi in ultimis temporibus sanandi. In Loc. Johan.

[196] Languidus ille, de quo in Evangelio legimus, quia jacebat, Typum Generis humani habere videbatur. In Serm. cclxxiv. Append.

[197] Paralyticum qui juxta Natatoriam jacebat. Irenæi. Lib. ii. Chap. 22.

[198] Tempus et Annus sunt centum Anni, Tichonii in Reg. 5a

[199] Quod autem triginta et octo Annos in Languoribus positut erat, do illo Quadraginta numero, quem supra diximus duo minus habens; et quæ sunt ista duo, nisi duo præcepta, dilectio Dei et Proximi. Ista duo, in quibus tota Lex pendet et Prophetæ, si non habuerit, languidus et Paralyticus jacet. In Ps. lxxxiii.

[200] Quod autem sub finem Hebdomadum Sanctæ Pentecostes ipse revertitur Hierosolymam, figuraté et ænigmatice significat futurum nostri Salvatoris Reversionem ultimis præsentis ævi temporibus. In Loc. Johan.

[201] Turbabat Angelus,——dictus est Dominus magni consilii Angelus. Augustin in Serm. cxxv. Sect. 3.

[202] Turbavit Aquam, id est, turbavit Populum. Ejusdem in Ps. cii.

[203] Sabbatum est et Grabatum non licet tollere. Quid stupidius aut inertius esse potest? In Loc. Johan.

[204] Sermon before the Society for Reformation, &c. p. 12.

[205] John. ix.

[206] Quid Lutum i linere opporet? hoc potius eæcum reddere, quis unquam hoc pacto curatus est? In Loc. Johan.

[207] Quam ob causam dicet aliquis, cum omnia solo Verbo præstare possit, nulloque negotio, Lutum quidem sputo macerat? In Loc. Johan.

[208] Sed Rationem quandam mysticam habet Vis Rei istius de sputo. Ibid.

[209] Ei autem qui cæcus fuerat a Nativitate, jam non per sermonem sed per operationem præstitit visum; non vane, neque prout evenit, hoc faciens, sed ut ostenderet manum Dei, eam quæ ab initio plasmavit Hominem, &c. Contra Hæres. L. v. c. 15.

[210] See his Sermons before the Societys for Reformation. p. 12.

[211] Ipse Salvator noster apertissime ostendit, quod ejus Miracula Aliquid significent, dum ea faciendo, aliquid agit, quod Ratione carere videatur. Nisi enim aliquid significaret, quid necessarium fuit, in hujus cæci Illuminatione, ut Lutum faceret, quo oculos ejus liniret, cui solum dicere sufficiens erat. Quæramus igitur significationem, & videamus quid cæcus iste significet. In Homil. quarta post quartam Dominicam.

[212] Similitudo erat & Typus futurorum unumquodque quod fiebat in Corpore. Veluti nescio quis à Nativitate cæcus Visum recuperavit. Vere autem cæcus iste erat à Nativitate Gentilium Populus, cui Salvator reddidit Visum, Saliva sua ungens oculos ejus & mittens ad Siloam, quod interpretatur missus, mittebat quippe illos quos spiritu unxit ad Apostolos. In Isai. c. vi.

[213] Genus humanum est iste cæcus. In Loc. Johan.

[214] Cæcus humanum Genus significatur. In Com. Johan.

[215] Cæcus iste a Nativitate, Genus humanum esse videtur à primo homine.——Hæc enim cæcitas non Corporis sed Animæ est. In Loc. supra laudat.

[216] Per cæcum naturaliter non videntem & illuminatum significat Genus humanum. In Loc. Johan.

[217] Vere autem cæcus iste erat a Nativitate Gentilium Populus. In Isai. c. vi.

[218] Cæci hujus Curationem in figuram & typus vocationis Gentium accepimus. In Loc. Johan.

[219] Intellige hoc Miraculum spiritualiter. Nam cæcus quidem erat omnis homo à Nativitate, id est, ab Initio Mundi. In Loc. Johan.

[220] In Sabbato est figura ultimi Temporis. St. Cyril in Loc. Johan.

[221] Cæcitas est Infidelitas. In Loc.

[222] Cæcus qui destituitur divino Lumine. De Adorat. p. 414.

[223] Cæcus qui sedet in tenebris omnis Ignorantiæ, & non potuit videre Conditorem Mundi. In Loc. Johan.

[224] Literam Legis sequentes, in Errores, Superstitiones & Infidelitatem incurrunt. In Matt. Tract. xxvi.

[225] Cæcus iste est cæcus in Litera, & hoc statu Sanari non potest. In Marc. c. viii.

[226] Cæci qui imperiti Scripturarum. In Loc. Johan.

[227] Lutum vero factum de Saliva oris Domini, ac positum super oculos cæci, significat hic, quod naturæ deerat, opere suo implere Figulum. In Loc. Johan.

[228] Saliva sua ungens Oculos cæci & mittens ad Siloam quod interpretatur Missus, mittebat quippe illos, quos spiritu unxit. &c. In Isa. c. vi.

[229] Saliva est perfecta Doctrina. In Marc. c. viii.

[230] Ei autem qui cæcus fuerat à Nativitate, jam non per sermonem sed per operationem præstitit Visum; non vane neque prout evenit hoc faciens, sed ut ostenderet manum Dei, eam quæ ab Initio plasmavit hominem. Quapropter expuit in Terram, & fecit Lutum, & superlinivit illud Oculis, ostendens antiquam Plasmationem, quemadmodum facta est, & manum Dei manifestans his qui intelligere possunt, per quam è Limo plasmatus est homo. Cont. Hæreses. L. v. c. 15.

[231] John ii.

[232] See his Speech in Convocation, printed in the Post-Boy of March the 30th.

[233] Rursus hoc in loco calumniantur nonnulli hunc ebriosorum fuisse Conventum, &c. In Loc. Johan.

[234]

Pueri aut Saltatores volutabantur, in his autem
Tibiæ, Lyræque Vocem habebant. Mulieres autem
Cantum accipientes, volvebantur per medias
Quæcunque optimatum erant uxores atque filiæ.
Illi vero ad Saltationem & desiderabilem Cantum
Conversi delectabantur, &c.
In Homero-Centon.

[235] Vindication of the Christian Religion. p. 82.

[236] Luke ii. 48.

[237] Christus asperius respondit, quid tibi & mihi, Mulier? St. Chrysost. in Loc. Johan. Vide & Theopolact. in Loc.

[238] Vide Sanctum Augustinum. In Loc. Johan.

[239] Apud St. Chrysostomum In Loc. Johan.

[240] Vindication of the Christian Religion, p. 82.

[241] Sed quanam gratia, antequam implerentur, non fecit Miraculum, quod longe fuisset admirabilius? Siquidem aliud est subjectæ Materiæ qualitatem mutare, aliud ipsam substantiam ex nihilo facere. Chrysos. in Loc.

[242] Sæpe obest Magnitudo, ne Miracula creditu sint facilia. Theophylact. in Loc.

[243] In Dialog. cum Tryphone, p. 364.

[244] In Lib. de Abrahamo.

[245] In Matt. Tract. xxii.

[246] Aliquid enim & in ipsis factis innuit nobis, puto, quia non sine causa venit ad Nuptias. Excepto Miraculo, aliquid in ipso facto Mysterii & Sacramenti latet. Pulsemus ut aperiet & de Vino invisibili inebriet nos. In Loc. Johan.

[247] Nihil dicemus, quid sibi velint Hydriæ, quid Aqua in Vinum conversa, quid Architriclinius, quid Sponsus, quid Mater Jesu in Mysterio, quid ipsæ Nuptiæ? Ibid.

[248] Per hoc invitatus Dominus venit ad Nuptias, ut ostenderetur Sacramentam Nuptiarum,——Illarum Nuptiarum Sponsus Personam Domini figurabat, cui dictum est, servasti bonum Vinum usque adhuc, Bonum Vinum id est Evangelium servasti usque adhuc. Ibid.

[249] Sex Hydriæ sunt sex Ætates Temporum capientes Prophetiam pertinentem ad omnes gentes sive in duobus generibus hominum, id est, Judæis & Græcis, sive in tribus propter Noe tres Filios. Ibid.

[250] Vocatur Salvator ad Nuptias, hoc est, Ecclesiæ voto spiritus sanctus invocatur——Venit cum Discipulis suis, id est, in Loco sancto, Turba sanctorum. Mirabilia Dei Maria Mater expectat, hoc est, Virtutem Christi expectat Ecclesia.——Maria ait, ecce Vina deficiant, hoc est, Vinum Spiritus Ecclesia optat excipere.——Numquid Mulierem dicit Jesu Mariam, quæ Virgo post Pactum inventa est? Sed Ecclesiam alloquitur, quæ non solum Mulier, sed meretrix nuncupatur. In Sermon xcii. Append.

[251] Vinum multis Locis accipimus Scripturas Sanctas meracissimum Vigorem cœlestis sapientæ continentes; quibus incalescant sensus & inebrientur Affectus. Operante Christo in Cana Galileæ Vinum defecit & Vinum sit, id est, Umbra removetur & Veritas præsentatur. Recedit Lex, Gratia succedit. Carnalia spiritualibus commutantur. Bonum quidem Vinum est vetus Testamentum, sed sine spirituali Intellectu vanescit in Litera. In Sermon xc. Append. Sed illud quod in Litera Legis aquam sapiebat, dum spiritualiter intellgi fecit, aquam in Vinum convertit. In Sermon xci. Append.

[252] Per Nuptias, Conjunctionem Christi Ecclesiæ, hoc est Veteris & Novi Testamenti Traditionem debemus accipere. Sponsus est Christus. Architriclinius est Moses. In Loc. Johan.

[253] Voluores Cœli sunt verè puri & ad cælestis sapientiæ Cognitionem evolare parati. Clem. Alex. Strom. L. iv.

[254] Quid mihi & tibi est, Mulier? Procul dubio, Fratres, latet ibi aliquid Mysterii. In Loc. Johan.

[255] Matt. ix. Mark ii. Luke v.

[256] Paralyticus reppletum videret Theatrum, Aditus Interclusos, Portum obseptum,——Non tamen dixit Propinquis suis, quid hoc Rei est? Expectemus quousque Domus evacuetur, Theatrum dimittatur, recedent, qui congregati sunt, poterimus privatim ad ilium accedere. In Homil. de hoc Paralyt.

[257] Dicet aliquis valde dimissum fuisse Locum, à quo per Tegulas deposuerunt Paralytici Lectum. Johan. Nepot. Hieros. in Loc. Luc.

[258] Judæorum Tecta plana erant, & non in Coniformam lastigiata. In Loc. Luc.

[259] In Loc. Marci.

[260] Numquid enim facilem illi potuit Accessum redere? Apud Chrysostom. de hoc Paralyt.

[261] In Paralytico Gentium universitas offertur me denda. In Loc. Matt.

[262] Paralyticus potest intelligi Anima dissoluta Membris, id est, bonis operibus. Inter. Quæst. Evang.

[263] Paralysis Typus est Torporis, quo piger jacet in Malitia Carnis, habens desiderium Salutis, & Torporis Ignavia & duplis Cogitationibus, ac si enervatus Membris ostendit. In Loc. Marci.

[264] In hoc enim quod ait, remittuntur tibi Peccata, interiorem hominem, id est, spiritum paryliticum esse demonstrat. Hoc enim non dixisset, si ad Corporis Infirmitatem respexisset. Non ideo Corpus sanatur, quia Anima a peccatis liberatur. In Homil. in Dominic. xix. post Pentecost.

[265] Sed qui sunt isti quatuor, qui hunc Paralyticum portant & Domino offerunt. Per hos enim nescio, qui melius quam quatuor Evangelistæ intelligi possunt. Nulla enim Anima nisi per istos Domino offertur, nulla Anima nisi per istorum fidem sanatur. Euseb. Gallican. ibid. Sum Paraliticus, quia non operantur & immobiles sunt Vires Animæ meæ ad bonum, sed si a quatuor Evangelistis gestatus & adductus fuero ad Dominum, tunc audiam, remittuntur Peccata. Theophylact. in Loc. Marci.

[266] Tectum Domus qua Christus docet, ascendendum, id est, Sacræ Scripturæ Sublimitas est appetenda. Bedæ in Loc. Lucæ.

[267] Non utique in Infirmis exterius, qua turbæ tumultuantur remanendum, sed Tectum Domus, &c. Ibid.

[268] Patefacto Tecto ægerad Jesum summittitur, quia reseratis Scripturarum Mysteriis, ad Notitiam Christi pervenitur. Bedæ in. Loc. Marci. Est Paralysis interior, ut pervenias ad Christum (forte enim latet Medicus & intus est, hoc est, iste verus Intellectus in Scriptoris occultus est) exponendo quod occultum est aperi Tectum, & depone Paraliticum. Augustin. In Serm. XLVI. Sect. 13. Impediri turbis nisi Tecta id est operta Scripturarum aperiat, ut per hæc ad Notitiam Christi perveniat. Ejusdam in Quæst. 4ta in Evangel. Lucæ.

[269] Et bene Domus Jesu juxta alterius Evangelistæ Narrationem tegulis esse contecta reperitur, quia sub contemptibili Literarum Velamine, si adsit, qui reseret, divina spiritualis Gratiæ Virtus invenietur. Denudatio etenim Tegularum in Domo Jesu, Apertio est, in utilitate Literæ, sensus spiritualis ac arcanorum cœlestium. In Loc. Marci.

[270] Mat. ix. Mark v. Luke viii.

[271] Luke vii.

[272] John xi.

[273] Quot autem mortuos visibiliter suscitaverat quis novit? non enim omnia quæ fecit scripta sunt. Johannes hoc dicit, multa alia fecit Jesus, quæ si scripta essent, arbitror totum Mundum non posse Libros capere. Multi ergo sunt alii sino dubio suscitati, sed non frustra tres commemorati. In Serm. xcviii.

[274] John xxi. 25.

[275] Non autem vacat a Mysterio, quod, cum plures Dominus suscitaverat, tres tantum Evangelistæ eum suscitasse scripserunt. In Homil. Feriæ quintæ post Dominis. 4tam.

[276] Suscitaverat Dominus filiam Jairi Principis Synagogæ, sed adhuc mediante morte, adhuc viante Spiritu, adhuc Anima Claustra Tartari nesciente. Suscitavit & unicum Matris filium, sed sic ut retineret Pheretrum, ut anticiparet Sepulchrum, ut Corruptionem suspenderet, & præveniret fætorem; ut ante mortuo Vitam redderet, quam tota mortuus jura Mortis intraret. Circa Lazarum vero quod geritur totum singulare est, quem circa Vis tota Mortis impleta est. In Pet. Chrysol. Serm. lxiii.

[277] Inter omnia Miracula quæ fecit Dominus noster Jesu Christus, Lazari Resurrectio præcipue prædicatur. St. August. in Loc. Johan.

[278] Mirum videri potest Historiam hanc tam illustrem a Matthæo & Marco omissam. In Loc. Luc.

[279] Sed videtur mihi horum uterq; contentus fuisse uno Exemplo redditæ Vitæ in Jairi filia ex quo similia alia possunt intelligi. In Loc. Luc.

[280] Nondum perfecta Mors est in Puella. St. August. in Serm. xcviii.

[281] In Epist. prima ad Corinth. Cap. xxv.

[282] Quæri solet, cur hanc tam nobilem Historiam priores Evangelii scriptores non attigerint. Mihi hoc succurrit, cum illi scriberent, vixisse resuscitatum Lazarum, & periculum ei fuisse a judæis, si quod illi acciderat, palam vulgaretur. Nam etiam mox narratur C. xii. 10, ob hoc ipsum structas ei insidias. Quare visum illis hoc ad tempus subticeri posse, cum alia Exempla resuscitatorum suppeterent. At mortuo Lazaro, cum jam nemini Periculum ex rei Narratione fieri posset, additum hoc a Johanne in hac quasi prætermissorum Collectione. In Loc. Johan.

[283] The last of the three Evangelists writing but fifteen Years after our Lord's Ascension, might think it needless so mention a Miracle concerning a Person, living so near Jerusalem, where there was so great a Fame thereof, and so many living Witnesses. St. John, writing his Gospel, say the Ancients, above sixty Years after our Lord's Ascension, when by the Deaths of the Person, and most of the Witnesses that were present at his Resurrection, the Memory and Fame of it might be much impair'd, had great Reason to perpetuate the Memory of it, by this large Rehearsal of it. In Loc. Johan.

[284] Quin & illud inter traditiones reperimus triginta tum Annos natum fuisse Lazarum, cum a mortuis excitatus est; atq; idem ille postea triginta aliis annis vixit. In Hæres. lxvi. Sect. 34.

[285] Matt. xviii. 2.

[286] In Nicephor. Callist. Eccl. Hist. L. ii. c. 35.

[287] In Eccl. Hist. L. vii. c. 18.

[288] In Loc. Matthæi.

[289] Puellam ex illo Tumultu plangentium stupore correptam esse, non vero defunctam. In Homil. de Juri filia.

[290] In Loc. Matthæ.

[291] Atque ut miraculum divinæ Virtutis accresceret, dum Convivis interrogantibus tristia Loca pænarum, sedesq; alta nocte semper obscuras, Lazarus indicat diligenti narratione per ordinem. Diu quæsiti longisq; temporibus ignorati invenerunt tandem Inferi Proditotem. In Serm. cxvi. Append. St. August.

[292] Princeps hic, Lex esse intelligitur, quæ Dominum orat pro Plebe, quam ipsa Christo prædicata ejus Adventos Expectatione nutriverat, ut Vitam mortuæ reddat. Nam nullum Principem credidisse legimus, ex quo Persona hujus principis orantis merito in Typum aptabitur. In Loc. Matt.

[293] John vii. 48, and xii. 42.

[294] Quæ tamen tantæ diversitatis Causa? Supra publice Viduce filius suscitatur, hic removentur plures arbitri. In Loc. Luc.

[295] Qua igitur Ratione, qui tanta hæc erat facturus, id quod evenit, judicasset merito Lacrymis esse prosequendum? In Homil. de Gratiarum Actione.

[296] Lacrymatus est Jesus, quod aliquando erasum fuisse a Catholicis quibusdam scribit Epiphanius. Vid. Drusium in Loc. Johan.

[297] Quidam corporalia ejus Miracula stupentes, majora intueri non norunt. Quidam vero ea, quæ gesta audiunt in Corporibus nunc amplius in Animis admirantur.——Dominus enim noster Jesus Christus ea quæ faciebat corporaliter, etiam spiritaliter volebat intelligi; neque enim Miracula propter Miracula faciebat, sed ut illa quæ faciebat, mira essent Videntibus, vera essent Intelligentibus.——Alii & facta mirati & intellecta assecuti. Tales nos esse debemus in Schola Christi.——Hoc dixi (de ficu arefacta) ut persuaderem Dominum Jesum Christum ideo Miracula fecisse, ut aliquid illis Miraculis significaret; ut excepto eo, quod mira & magna & divina erant, aliquid inde etiam disceremus. Videamus ergo quid nos discere voluit in tribus mortuis, quos suscitavit. In Serm. xcviii.

[298] Ista tria Genera Mortuorum, sunt tria Genera Peccatorum, quos hodie suscitat Christus.——Sunt ergo instar filiæ Synagogæ Principis, qui peccatum intus in Corde babent, in facto nondum habent. Condemnatur Consensus ad Iniquitatem; respiratur ad Salutem atq; Justitiam. Surgit mortuus in Domo, reviviscit Cor in Cogitationis Secreto. Facta est ista Resurrectio Animæ mortuæ intus intra Latebras Conscientiæ, tanquam intra Domesticos Parietes.——Alii post Consensum eunt in factum, tanquam efferentes mortuum, ut quod latebat in Secreto, appareat in publico. Nonne illi juveni dictam est, Tibi dico, surge & redditus est Matri; sic qui jam fecerit, si forte admonitus & commotus Verbo Veritatis ad Christi Vocem resurgit, vivus redditur Ecclesiæ.——Qui autem faciendo quod malum est, etiam mala Consuetudine se implicant, tales Consuetudine maligna pressi, tanquam sepulti, ita sepulti ut de Lazaro dictum est, jam putet. In Serm. xcviii.

[299] Cum ejecta esset Turba, intravit. Moraliter non resurgit Anima, quæ intrinsecus jacet mortua, nisi prius a secretioribus Cordis excludatur inopportuna sæcularium Cogitationum Multitudo. In Loc. Matt.

[300] Mali isti Portitores, qui ad sepeliendum hominem ferunt, sunt Vitia & maligni spiritas, Hæretici & seductores. Hos enim nisi Dominus sisteret, quoscunq; semel acciperent, sepulturæ & æternæ Damnationi traderent. Suscitatus igitur Adolescens sedet, loquitur & Matri redditur, quia ad Penitentiam conversus in Ecclesiæ pace quiescit, Dei Magnalia loquitur, sua peccata confitetur; & Ecclesiæ reconciliatur. Euseb. Gallic. in Homil. Feriæ quinta post Domin. 4tam.

[301] Et lacrymatus est Jesus. Lacrymemur igitur & nos pro omnibus illis, quos in Fætore Vitiorum jacere sentimus. Euseb. Gallic. in Homil. Feriæ 5ta post Domin. 4tam.

[302] Lapis autem revolutus a Monumento significat Infidelitatis Duritiam ab Hominum Corde submotam. Theop. Antioch. in Loc. Johan.

[303] Quod enim tunc temporis factum est in una Puella, hoc in sine Temporum futurum est, ut fiat in tota Sonagoga. In Homil. Feriæ 5ta post Domin. 4tam.

[304] Synagoga circa finem sæculi erit restituta saluti. In Loc. Matt.

[305] Jairus illuminatus vel illuminans, Moses intelligitur. Bed. in Loc. Mat.

[306] Ad hanc ergo Principis filiam dum properat Dei Verbum, ut salvos faceret filios Isræl, sancta Ecclesia de Gentibus congregata, quæ inferiorum Lapsu Criminium deperibat, paratam aliis fide præripuit Sanitatem. St. Ambros. in Loc. Luc. Quod vero post restitutam immundæ Mulieri Valetudinem, defuncta Puella a mortuis restituitur; ne hoc quidem ab exquisita Allegoria alienum. Nam Reliquiæ salvæ fiant, juxta Apostolum, cum ingressa fuerit Gentium Plenitudo. Theop. Ceram. in Homil. de Jairi filia.

[307] Quarum Rerum Causa multa fuere Jesu Miracula. In Johan. Cap. XI.

[308] Per Lazarum Genus humanum ostenditur. Theop. Antioch. in Loc. Johan. Nostra Resurrectio figuratur per Lazari Resurrectionem.——Spelunca sive Sepulchrum Lazari Litteram Legis umbratilem designat.——Magna Voce clamavit Jesus, id est, Prædicatio Evangelii per quam humana Natura Peccatorum Vinculis & in Sepulchro Infidelitatis jacens vocatur ad Vitam. Theop Ceram. in Homil. de Lazaro.

[309] Revelations, Chap. xviii. 11.

[310] In his Pastoral Letter, P. 35.

[311] Daniel, Chap. vi. 17.

[312] Adducor ut credam Pilati Annulo & hunc Lapidem signatum. In Loc. Matt.

[313] Upon the Place in Matthew.

[314] Si Jesus volebat re vera declarare suam divinam Potentiam, debuerat suis Insultatoribus, ipsique Præsidi qui capitalem sententiam contra se tulerat, denique cæteris omnibus se ostendere. In Orig. Lib. ii. contra Celsum.

[315] In Limborchii Amica Collatione cum Judæo.

[316] Magna sane Res & miranda occurrit hoc loco, quæ non solum aliquem ex vulgo Credentium exercere posset, sed perfectiores etiam; cur non Dominus post Resurrectionem æque ac superioribus temporibus conspiciendum se præbuerit. In Lib. ii. cont. Celsum.

[317] Quamvis Celsus has Jesu post Resurrectionem Apparitiones conferre conetur cum vulgaribus Spectris & Visionibus. In Origen. Lib. ii. contra Celsum.

[318] Comminatus est periculum Accusatoribus Christianorum. Tertul. Apol. Cap. v.

[319] Justin Matyr. In Apol. ii.

[320] Quod autem a Joseph, rogato Pilato ut Corpus redderet, & sindone involvitur, & in Monumento novo in Petra excisa reponitur, & Saxum Ostio Monumenti advolvitur: Quanquam sit Ordo Gestorum, & sepeliri eum erat necesse, qui resurrecturus erat a mortuis, tamen non sine Rerum aliquarum Momento expressa sunt singula. Joseph Apostolorum habet speciem: & idcirco quanquam in duodecem numero Apostolorum non fuerit, Discipulus Domini nuncupatur. Hic munda sindone corpus involvit; & quidem in hoc eodem linteo reperimus de cœlo ad Petrum universorum Animantium genera summissa. Ex quo forte non superflue intelligitur sub lintei hujus nomine consepeliri Christo Ecclesiam: quia tum in eo, ut in Confusione Ecclesiæ mundorum atque immundorum Animalium fuerit congesta diversitas. Domini igitur Corpus tanquam per Apostolorum doctrinam in vacuam & novam requiem Lapidis excisi, viz. in pectus duritiæ Gentilis quodam doctrinæ opere excisum Christus infertur, rude scilicet & novum, & nullo antea ingressu timoris Dei pervium. Et quia nihil præter cum oporteat in pectora nostra penetrare, Lapis Ostio advolvitur: ut quia nullus antea in nos divinæ Cognitionis Auctor fuerat illatus, nullus absque eo postea inferatur. Metus deinde furandi Corporis, & Sepulchri Custodia atque Obsignatio, Stultitiæ atque Infidelitatis Testimonium est; quod signare Sepulchrum ejus voluerint, cujus præcepto conspexissent de Sepulchro mortuum suscitatum. In Loc. Matt.

[321] Ad hoc enim Dominus hodie resurrexit, ut Imaginem nobis futuræ Resurrectionis ostenderet. In Serm. clxviii. Append.

[322] Quid singula significent, quærere sanctæ quidem Deliciæ sunt. In Johan. Evang. C. xx. Tract. 120.

[323] Monumentum Christi est divina Scriptura, in qua Divinitatis & Humanitatis ejus mysteria densitate Litteræ veluti quadam muniuntur Petra. In Diversos Homil. 2.

[324] Ne putes, tunc solummodo traditus est Christus Principibus Sacerdotibus & Scribis.——Quando enim vides Scripturas Prophetarum & Evangelii & Apostolorum traditas esse in Manus falsorum Sacerdotum & Scribarum; num intelliges quia Verbum Veritatis traditum est Principibus iniquis & Scribis? In Mat. C. xx.

[325] Interpretario autem Nominis Barabbæ est Patris Filius: Jam itaque Arcanum Infidelitatis futuræ ostenditur, Christo Patris Filium præferendo, Antichristum scilicet hominem Peccari & Diaboli filium, potiusque adhortantibus principibus suis eligunt, Damnationi reservatum, quam Salutis Authorem. In Loc. Matt.

[326] Velum Templi scissum est, & omnia Legis Sacramenta, quæ prius tegebantur, prodita sunt atque ad Gentium Populum transierunt. In Loc. Matt.

[327] Petræ scissæ, id est, universa Vaticinia Prophetarum. In Epist. ad Hedibriam.

[328] Sed mihi videtur Terræ Motus & reliqua typum ferre credentium, quod pristinis Errorum vitiis derelictis, & Cordis emollita duritia, postea agnoverint Creatorem. In Loc. Matt.

[329] Ipsum autem triduum, non totum & plenum fuisse Scriptura Testis est. In Libro 4to de Trinitate, Sect. 10.

[330] De tribus diebus, multi sancti multa hinc senserint atque dixerint——Sed nos neutram eorum vacantes sententiam; melius tamen, si placet in his spiritualem requiramus Intellectum, tres Dies tria Tempora Sæculi ponentes. In Serm. de Symbolo.

[331] Cum disputamus adversus eos, & cum conquirimus advicem, tunc quærimus locum Dogmatis illius in litera Legis Historiæ, & ostenditur secundum Historiam stare non posse. In Psal. xxxvi.

[332] Pastoral Letter, P. 25.

[333] Adventus quidem Christi unus in Humilitate completus est, alius vero speratur in Gloria. Et hic primus Adventus in Carne, mystico quodam Sermone in Scripturis Sanctis Umbra ejus appellatur. In Jesu Novo Homil. viii.

[334] Vera Christi Miracula & Sanatio Infirmorum est spiritualis. In Matt. C. xxv.

[335] Hæc licet in præsens gesta sunt, quid tamen in futurum significent contuendum est. In Matt. C. x. S. 1. Christi Gesta aliud portendunt. C. xii. S. 1. Peragunt formam futuri gesta præsentia. C. xxi.

[336] Pastoral Letter, P. 3.

[337] Pastoral Letter, P. 35.

[338] His Sermon before the Societies for Reformation; and his Charge to the Clergy.

[339] In his Dedication.

[340] Page 35.

[341] Vindication of three Miracles, p. 76, 77.

[342] Cum venerit ergo Elias exponendo Legem Spiritaliter, convertit Corda Patrum ad filios. De Civit. Dei. Lib. XX. c. 29.

[343] Litteram Legis sequentes in Infidelitatem & vanas Superstitiones incurrunt. In Matt. Tract. 26.

[344] In Dedication of Third Discourse.

[345] Page 177.

[346] Discourse the Fifth, p. 69.

[347] Inveniatur enim in Christianismo non minor (nequid dicam arrogantius) fide Ratio & Enarratio Propheticorum ænigmatum, parabolarumque evangelicarum, aliarumque innumerarum figurarum, quæ vel in Gestis continentur vel Legibus. Cont. Celsum. Lib. I.

[348] Quidam corporalia ejus Miracula stupentes, majora intueri non norunt. Quidam vero ea, quæ gesta audiunt in Corporibus, nunc amplius in animis admirantur,——Tales nos esse debemus in Schola Christi. In Serm. xcviii.

[349] In Discourse the Sixth.

[350] Mystery of Godliness, B. x. c. 2.

[351] 1 Tim. v. 8.

[352] Defence of Christianity, p. 347.

[353] Ibid. p. 353.

[354] Est adhuc alia Pugna his omnibus violentior; quod ii, quod Legem secundum Carnem intelligunt, adversantur his, qui secundum spiritum sentiunt, & persequuntur eos. In Genesiæ Hom. vii.

[355] In Fifth Discourse, p. 67.

[356] In his Preface, p. 17, 18.

[357] Vindication in Preface, p. ix. x.

[358] Fair State of the Controversy, p. 293, 294.

[359] In his Preface, p. xi.

[360] Vindication, p. 2.

[361] Defence of Christianity, p. 295, 310.

[362] Some Observations of a Layman. 2. Tom of Bedlam's Letter to his Cousin T. Woolston. 3. For God or the Devil: Or, Just Chastisement no Persecution. 4. A Defence of the Scripture-History, &c.

[363] In his First Pastoral Letter, p. 5.

[364] In his Preface, p. ix.

[365] In his Dedication to the Queen.

[366] Siquidem Symbola quædam erant, quæ tunc gerebantur, eorum quæ Jesu virtute semper perficiuntur. In Matt. C. xv.

[367] Peragunt Formam futuri Gesta præsentia. In Matt. C. xxi.

[368] Quæ a Jesu facta alicujus significantia erant. In Serm. lxxvii.

[369] Ipse Salvator noster apertissimè ostendit, quòd ejus miracula aliquid significent, dum ea faciendo aliquid agit, quod ratione carere videatur. In Hom. quarta post Dominic. quartam.

[370] In his Preface, p. xi.

[371] Ibid. p. x.

[372] Similitudo erat & Typus futurorum unumquodque, quod Jesus faciebat in Corpore. In Isai. C. vi.

[373] Adventus Christi unus quidem in Humilitate completus est, alius verò speratur in Gloria: Et hic primus Adventus in Carne, mystico quodam Sermone, in Scripturis sanctis umbra ejus appellatur. In Jesu Nave, C. viii.

[374] Pertingit ad usque secundum & diviniorem Christi Adventum Johannis Testimonium. Origen. in Lucam. Tom. V.

[375] Appropinquat enim Regnum Cœlorum, ut Scribæ qui in simplici Littera acquiescunt, resipiscentes ab ejusmodi Intellectu, erudiantur spirituali Doctrina, quæ est per Jesum Christum, vivum Verbum, quæ vocatur Regnum Cœlorum. In Matt. C. xiii.

[376] P. 123, 124.

[377] P. 124.

[378] P. 108.

[379] P. 93.

[380] P. 94.

[381] Ibid.

[382] Nam idem Moses quamvis Veteris Testamenti verba in literis condidisset, tamen separatim quædam ex occultis Legis secretiora mysteria septuaginta senioribus, qui Doctores deinceps manerent, intimaverat. In Psal. ii. Sect. 2.

[383] P. 96.

[384] Origenes decem scripsit Stromateas, omnia nostræ religionis dogmata de Platone, Aristotele, Numenio, Cornutoque confirmans. In Epist. ad Magnum.

[385] Defence of Christianity, p. 345.

[386] P. 347, 353, 358.

[387] P. 341.

[388] P. 344.

[389] Perspicuum est Mosem mentis acie Legis Veritatem Historiarumque apud Scripturam Allegorias juxta Anagogen vidisse. In Johan. Tom. VI.

[390] Asseverant Judæi, deum Mosi primùm Legem scriptam tradidisse, arque hanc postea in longo illo Dierum 40 spatio, quo in monte apud se agebat Moses, exposuisse, ita ut singulorum præceptorum genuinum Sensum, Causas, & Fines tum Rationem quoque eadem adimplendi illi accurate declararet. Apud Wagens. Tel. ignea. p. 580.

[391] See Basnage's History of the Jews, p. 189.

[392] Doctioribus inter Judæos notissimum est, quod Moses qui primus fuit Salvator Israelis, etiam in omni Vita & Operibus suis fuerit Typus & Figura ultimi Redemptoris. Christiani Meyer de Gen. Christi, p. 145.

[393] Judæi veteres expectabant similem Ægyptiacæ Liberationem, ut scilicet Pharoah & omnis ejus Exercitus qui per 430 Annos Populum Dei captivum tenuit, in mari rubro submersus est; sic etiam Romani qui eodem Annorum numero Judæos possessuri, ultione Domini deleantur. In Joelis C. iii.

[394] 1 Cor. C. x, 1, 2, 6.

[395] Eloquar Propositiones sive Ænigmata ab Initio, id est, ex quo Populi Congregatio adducta est ex Ægypto. In Ps. lxxvii. Sect. 4.

[396] See Basnage's History of the Jews, p. 189.

[397] P. 108.

[398] 2 Cor. iii. 6.

[399] Et non Litera Legis, sed ejus Spiritus, hoc est, Novitas Testamenti. Tertull. contra Marcion, Lib. V. C. 11.

[400] Veteris Testamenti ad Novum tanta Congruentia, ut Apex nullus, qui non consonet, relinquetur. Sti. Augustini de Utilit. Credendi, Sect. 9.

[401] Jucundum est istum Consensum intelligere circa convenientia duorum Testamentorum. In Matt. Tract. 6.

[402] In his Expostulatory Letter to Mr. Woolston.

[403] In his Lent Sermon at St. Saviour's, Anno 1729.

[404] In his Preface, p. xvii.

Transcriber's Notes:

- Inconsistent hyphenation has been left as in the original text.

- Inconsistent use of contractions are left as in the original text.

- The long s has been replaced with the modern s in order to improve readability.

- In some cases the footnotes refer to the text prior to the footnote anchor and in some cases they refer to the text after. All anchors have been attached to the word before the anchor.

- Bishop Smalbroke and Smallbroke are used interchangeably throughout as are Lichfield and Litchfield, left as in the original text.

- Inconsistent italicising appears throughout, left as in the original text.

- There are several words that are consistently misspelled and also correctly spelled in the text (i.e. litteral, sensless, antient, ideot), these were left as in the original text.

- There are several places where closing quotes are not present, left as in the original text.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SIX DISCOURSES ON THE MIRACLES OF OUR SAVIOUR, AND DEFENCES OF HIS DISCOURSES ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

Thomas Woolston SIX DISCOURSES ON THE MIRACLES OF OUR SAVIOUR

DEFENCES OF HIS DISCOURSES 1727-1730

- Garland Publishing, Inc., New York & London
- 1979
- A

DISCOURSE

- ON THE

MIRACLES

- OF OUR

- SAVIOUR, In View of the Present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates.

- The Fifth Edition.

- LONDON:

- TO THE

- Right Reverend Father in God

- EDMUND,

- Lord Bishop of London.

- A

- DISCOURSE

- ON THE

MIRACLES

- OF OUR

- SAVIOUR, &c.

- FINIS.

- A SECOND

DISCOURSE

- ON THE

MIRACLES

- OF OUR

- SAVIOUR, In View of the present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates.

- LONDON:

- TO THE

- Right Reverend Father in God

- EDWARD,

- Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

- A Second

- DISCOURSE

- ON THE

MIRACLES

- OF OUR

- SAVIOUR, &c.

- FINIS.

- A THIRD

DISCOURSE

- ON THE

MIRACLES

- OF OUR

- SAVIOUR, In View of the Present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates.

- The Third Edition.

- LONDON:

- TO THE

- Right Reverend Father in GOD

- RICHARD,

- Lord Bishop of St. David's.

- A THIRD

- DISCOURSE

- ON THE

MIRACLES

- OF OUR

- SAVIOUR, &c.

- FINIS.

- A FOURTH

DISCOURSE

- ON THE

MIRACLES

- OF OUR

- SAVIOUR, In View of the Present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates.

- The Third Edition.

- LONDON:

- TO THE

- Right Reverend Father in God

- FRANCIS,

- Lord Bishop of St. Asaph.

- A FOURTH

- DISCOURSE

- ON THE

MIRACLES

- OF OUR

- SAVIOUR, &c.

- FINIS.

- A FIFTH

DISCOURSE

- ON THE

MIRACLES

- OF OUR

- SAVIOUR, In View of the Present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates.

- The Second Edition.

- LONDON:

- TO THE

- Right Reverend Father in God

- THOMAS,

- Lord Bishop of Bangor.

- A FIFTH

- DISCOURSE

- ON THE

MIRACLES

- OF OUR

- SAVIOUR, &c.

- FINIS.

- BOOKS written by Mr. Woolston, and Sold by him next Door below the, Star in Aldermanbury, and by the Booksellers of London and Westminster.

- A SIXTH

DISCOURSE

- ON THE

MIRACLES

- OF OUR

- SAVIOUR, In View of the Present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates.

- The Second Edition.

- LONDON:

- MDCCXXIX.

- TO THE

- Right Reverend Father in God,

- JOHN,

- Lord Bishop of Oxford.

- A SIXTH

- DISCOURSE

- ON THE

MIRACLES

- OF OUR

- SAVIOUR, &c.

- FINIS.

- BOOKS written by Mr. Woolston, and Sold by him next Door below the Star in Aldermanbury, and by the Booksellers of London and Westminster.

- Mr. WOOLSTON'S

DEFENCE

- OF HIS DISCOURSES, &c.

- Mr. Woolston's Defence

- OF HIS

- DISCOURSES

- ON THE

- MIRACLES

- OF OUR

- SAVIOUR,

- Against the Bishops of St. David's and London, and his other Adversaries.

- Part I.

- TO THE

QUEEN.

- A

DEFENCE

- OF THE

- Discourses on Miracles.

- FINIS.

- Mr. WOOLSTON's

DEFENCE

- OF HIS

- DISCOURSES

- ON THE

- Miracles of our Saviour.

- Against the Bishops of St. David's and London, and his other Adversaries.

- PART II.

- LONDON:

- MDCCXXX.

- TO THE Right Honourable

- Sir Robert Raymond, Kt.

- Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench.

- A

- SECOND PART

- OF THE

DEFENCE, &c.

- FINIS.

- BOOKS written by Mr. Woolston, and sold by him next Door to the Star in Aldermanbury, and by the Booksellers of London and Westminster.

- FOOTNOTES:

- Transcriber's Notes:

- THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE