A THIRD DISCOURSE On The MIRACLES OF OUR SAVIOUR, &c.

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

[2] I. To ſhow that the Miracles of heal⯑ing 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 record⯑ed by the Evangeliſts, does imply Abſur⯑dities, 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 meer 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 [3] from Reaſon and Authority, to add to it; but having not here a convenient Place for that Purpoſe, I defer it to a better Op⯑portunity; 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, Im⯑probabilities and Incredibilities; conſe⯑quently 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 Exa⯑mination ſix of the Miracles of Jeſus, viz. thoſe,

1. Of his driving the Buyers and Sel⯑lers 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

[4] 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, Improba⯑bilities, and Incredibilities, according to the Propoſition before us, I leave my Rea⯑ders to judge; and now will take in Hand

7. A Seventh Miracle of Jeſus; viz. that ¹ 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 Ab⯑ſurdity, 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 wittyeſt Infidels can, againſt the Letter of this Story. St. Auguſtin ² very plainly ſays, that this Fact in Jeſus, upon Suppoſition that it was done, was a fooliſh one. If therefore I treat [5] 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 hungary, 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 hard⯑ly 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 Fore⯑caſt [6] and Management amongſt them, or Jeſus had nevet 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 ³ ſenſleſs and faultleſs Tree? Was it, be⯑cauſe 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 adminiſtred 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 Hu⯑mour for want of Food? If he was of Pow⯑er to provide Bread for others on a ſud⯑den, he might ſure have ſupply'd his own Neceſſities, and ſo have kept his Temper, without breaking into a violent Fit of Paſſi⯑on, 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 here [7] or read of any Thing more ⁴ unreaſon⯑able than for a Man to expect Fruit out of Seaſon? Jeſus could not but know this be⯑fore 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 ⁵ 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 Laugh⯑ing-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 can⯑not 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 [8] out of Countenance for reading it gravely, and having Jeſus in Admiration for it.

Again, I would gladly know, whoſe Fig⯑tree 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 Unfruitful⯑neſs? As to the Tree's being Jeſus's Pro⯑perty, 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 itenerant Preacher, and before that Time was no better than a Journey⯑man 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;) conſe⯑quently 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 di⯑ſtance 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 if he had no Right to the Fruit, much leſs to ſmite the Tree with a Curſe; where was [9] his Honour, ⁶ his Juſtice, his Good⯑neſs, and his Honeſty in this Act? The E⯑vangeliſts, if they would have us to think, Jeſus did no wrong to any Man, ſhould have left us ſomewhat upon Record, to Sa⯑tisfaction, 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 Coun⯑try, he would have good Luck, if he e⯑ſcaped 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, whe⯑ther it be at this Diſtance of Time re⯑concileable to Reaſon, Juſtice and Pru⯑dence 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 [10] 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. Au⯑guſtin ⁷ ſays, had, inſtead of curſing the Figtree, made a dry, dead and withered one, immediately to bud, flouriſh and re⯑vive, and in an Inſtant to bring forth ripe Fruits, out of Seaſon, it would have pleaſed them much better. Such an In⯑ſtance of his Power had been an indiſ⯑putable Miracle: Such an Inſtance of his divine Power had carry'd Goodneſs along with it, and none of the foreſaid Excep⯑tions 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 pro⯑duced them out of Seaſon. In ſuch [11] 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 de⯑pend 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 infer [...]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 Bene⯑ficence 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 Al⯑mighty 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 Maho⯑met, and not Jeſus, had been the Author [12] of this Miracle, our Divines would pre⯑ſently 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 ex⯑poſe him for a Wizard and his Muſſel⯑men of all Ages ſince for Fools in be⯑lieving 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 morti⯑ferous North-Eaſt Wind in ſome Seaſons, ſhould proceed from his Mouth, to the Deſtruction of another Man's harmleſs and inoſſenſive Tree, is what none upon Earth can account for.

Our Divines, one or other of them, have publiſh'd ſeveral notable Notions a⯑bout 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 Con⯑ſiſtence of Jeſus's Miracles to their own Rules and Notions. Mr. Chandler,(who as the Archbiſhop ⁸ ſays, has rightly ſtated the Notion of a Miracle) among [13] his Rules of judging by whom Miracles are perform'd, ſays, ⁹ 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 Revela⯑tion 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 he comes, but his Love to Mankind, and his Inclination to do them good. I have no Diſ⯑like to theſe Notions of Mr. Chandler; but as it is not to be queſtioned, that he (and the Archbiſhop too) had this Mira⯑cle 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 [14] 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 Lam⯑mas.

But after all, it may be queſtioned, if Infidels ſhould go about it, whether this Work of Jeſus was miraculous; and whe⯑ther there was not more of the Craft of Man, than of the Power of God in it; or to uſe Mr. Chandler's ¹⁰ Words, Whether it don't look like the little Tricks and cunning Deceits of Impoſtors. St. Mat⯑thew ſays, preſently the Figtree withered away; but this preſently is an indetermi⯑nate 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 ¹¹ 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 [15] 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 Diſ⯑ciples and Followers, took a ſecret Op⯑portunity beforehand to lay his Capen⯑ter'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 Je⯑ſus, 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 Autho⯑rity of the Fathers. St Ambroſe, treating on the Parable of the Figtree in ¹² St. Luke, intimates, that what St. Matthew and St. Mark write of Jeſus's curſing the Figtree, is but ¹³ Part of the ſame Pa⯑rable. [16] And St. John of Jeruſalem ¹⁴ ſays expreſsly enough, that the three E⯑vangeliſts write of one and the ſame Fig⯑tree, 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 con⯑ſidered, whether it be not as reaſonable in itſelf to take what the three Evange⯑liſts 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 caſting the Devils out of the Mad⯑men, and of other Miracles which are but ſeveral Relations of the ſame Story, Para⯑ble or Miracle. Neither is it any Argu⯑ment for a literal Tranſaction of this Mi⯑racle, 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 [17] 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 Ac⯑compliſhment, and then the Reaſon of the Uſe of the praeter, inſtead of the fu⯑ture Tenſe, in Prophecy, will be viſible. But what, in my Opinion, is an abſo⯑lute Demonſtration, that there's no Truth in the Letter of this Story, is, what our Saviour adds, upon the Diſciples wonder⯑ing at the ſudden withering of the Figtree, ſaying, ¹⁵ 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 lit⯑terally 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 Ab⯑ſurdity 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 Ob⯑jection [18] in Paſchaſius Ratbertus ¹⁶ ſpeak; which I ſhall not ſtay here to urge and revive; but only ſay at preſent, that if Jeſus actually curſed a Figtree, his Diſci⯑ples ought to have done ſo too, and to re⯑move 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 ¹⁷ 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 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, ¹⁸ whether, they will or not acknowledge it. But he is miſtaken: Tho' there might be none in his Time [19] who would queſtion, that this ſuppoſed Fact of Jeſus had a myſtical Significati⯑on yet if he had liv'd in our Days, he would have met with Divines, who, for all the foreſaid Abſurdities and their Cogen⯑cy to drive us to Allegory, do adhere to the Letter only, whether the Truth, Cre⯑dibility and Reaſonableneſs of it be defen⯑ſible 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 al⯑legorically interpret and apply other Mi⯑racles 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 Dificulties and Abſurdities of the Let⯑ter, which they can't account for. And are theſe Reaſons good? No, certainly: The Evangeliſts ſhould have made the Diſ⯑tinction 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. [20] 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 quo⯑ted 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 aforſaid Commenta⯑tors 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 An⯑tiochenus, an Apoſtatical Writer of the [21] fifth Century, ¹⁹ that when we read this Paſſage of Scripture concerning the Figtree Jeſus curſed we ought not curiouſly to en⯑quire whether it was wiſely or juſtly done of Jeſus, or not; but we ought to contem⯑plate and admire this Miracle, as well as that of Jeſus's drowning the Swine, not⯑withſtanding ſome think it void of the Face of Juſtice. Ay, ay, our Divines muſt al⯑legoriſe 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 Di⯑vines to be, what they generally are, ſtill Miniſters of the Abſurdity of the Letter, I paſs to the Conſideration of the Autho⯑rity 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 [22] one and the ſame Thing. Some, as ²⁰ Gregory the Great, ſay Human Nature or Mankind is typified by the Figtree. Others, as ²¹ St. Hilary, ſay the Jewiſh Church or State is meant by it. Others, as ²² Origen ſay, it is a Type of the Church of Chriſt. So do the Fa⯑thers ſeem to be divided in their Opinions; but it is without any Difference or Incon⯑ſiſtency 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 ²³ under⯑ſtands 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 Un⯑fruitfulneſs [23] are to be interpreted of the ²⁴ 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 ſigni⯑fied in the Parable, that it is to be let alone to bring forth Fruit in. They that under⯑ſtand the Figtree as a Type of the Jewiſh State, mean by the three Years Jeſus came to it, the three Years of his preaching a⯑mong the Jews; at the End of which, af⯑ter Chriſt's Paſſion and Reſurrection, the Jewiſh State, like the Figtree, withered a⯑way, and, for its Unfruitfulneſs, was root⯑ed up. They that underſtand the Figtree as a Figure of the Church of Chriſt, by the three Years, mean the apocalyptical [24] twelve hundred and ſixty Days (that is, three Years and a half) of the Church's barren and unfruitful State in the Wilder⯑neſs, at the Concluſion of which, the Fa⯑thers 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 ſpi⯑ritual Advent, than that clear Truth, right Reaſon and divine Wiſdom (which are the myſtical Names of Jeſus) will deſcend up⯑on 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 con⯑ceive how otherwiſe ²⁵ the Lord ſhould come, (not with ten thouſand of his Saints, as our Tranſlation has it, but) [...], that is, as Origen interprets, in his holy thouſands of Allegoriſts [...], to criticiſe upon all the Scripture, and to convince Miniſters of the Letter of their [25] abominable Errors, and of their horrid Blaſphemies ſpoken, preach'd, and prin⯑ted againſt the Holy (Ghoſt or) Spirit of the Law and Prophets. As to that litteral and common Pulpit-Story (with all its Appendages) of Jeſus's ſecond Com⯑ing on aetherial Clouds, as on a Wool⯑ſack, in his human, tho' glorious and ma⯑jeſtick Appearance, for the Reſurrection of Mens Bodies, by Sound of a Trumpet, in the Audience of the Dead, &c. it is the moſt abſurd, nonſenſical and unphiloſophi⯑cal, (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 Scrip⯑ture, and againſt other ancient 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 [26] read, Lo, it is three Years and 1 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 Num⯑ber of three Years will terminate about the ſame Time, againſt the Evangelical Sabbath, on which the Unfruitfulneſs of the Church, or of Mandind, according to the Fathers, is to have an End put to it.

And Jeſus, when he came to the Fig⯑tree: found nothing thereon but Leaves on⯑ly: 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 ²⁶ St. Hilary, St. John ²⁷ of Jeruſalem, and ²⁸ St. Theo⯑phylact tell us, who by Leaves underſtand a vain and empty Appearance of Wiſ⯑dom and good Works, or the Words and Letter of the Scriptures, which are the Leaves of the Oracle, without any Figs of [27] ſpiritual Interpretations of them. And whe⯑her 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 ²⁹ ſpiritual Interpretations of the Scrip⯑tures, which St. Jerome ³⁰ 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 ³¹ rightly interprets, he will earneſtly deſire, like a Man that is hun⯑gry, 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, ne⯑ceſſarily introductory to ſome noble Tranſ⯑action, [28] it's 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 fi⯑guratively 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 Fig⯑tree at an unſeaſonable Time; For the Time of Figs was not yet; which Expreſ⯑ſion has been the Perplexity of Commen⯑tators, who with all their Wit and Saga⯑city can't get well over it. I ſhall not mention here all or any of their pretend⯑ed Solutions of this Difficulty; but let us ſee whether we can't eaſily and at once unloſe it. St. Mark's Words are [...], 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 Fig⯑tree and look for Fruit, when he could not reaſonably expect any. This my So⯑lution of this Difficulty certainly ſerves the Purpoſe of the myſtical Interpretati⯑on; [29] and if it does not the litteral, I an⯑ſwer, 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 litte⯑ral 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 Dif⯑ficulty don't pleaſe, I muſt ſay with ³² Heinſius, that it muſt be left as a Knot for Elias to untie, who, according to the ³³ 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 e⯑ver; which (with its parallel Place in St. Mark) is in my Opinion a falſe Tranſla⯑tion: The Original is, [...], and ought to be [30] engliſhed, not as yet, or not untill now, (that I came) 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 preceeding unfruitful State, which (in St. Mark) Jeſus is ſaid to curſe, or ra⯑ther 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 un⯑certain as to the Letter, but according to the myſtical Extent of the Three Years, whe⯑ther 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 ³⁴ ſays, with their intellectu⯑al Eyes behold her waſte with Admirati⯑on. And then too, they under Chriſt will do what is done to the Figtree, of the Church, and remove Mountains of Anti⯑chriſtian Power, that exalt themſelves a⯑gainſt [31] 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 a⯑bout it, that is ³⁵ into the Earth of the Letter of the Scriptures, and dunging of it, that is calling ³⁶ 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 Pa⯑rable of the Figtree to be allegorized out of the Fathers. St. Gregory ³⁷ 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 [32] eighteen Years of the Woman's Infirmity and the three Years of the Figtree's Un⯑fruitfulneſs, they will have to be myſti⯑cally ſynchromical. And the Woman's In⯑curvity to the Earth is, they ſay, ſignifi⯑cative of the ſame Thing with the Un⯑fruitfulneſs of the Figtree. And the E⯑rection 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 admi⯑rally agree, as I have interpreted theſe two Parables.

Before I diſmiſs this Story of the Fig⯑tree, 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 ſud⯑den; this would have been ſuch a mani⯑feſtly ſupernatural Work, and ſo agreea⯑ble 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 Mar⯑vellouſneſs of ſuch a Miracle, as that there would be no bearing of it. But [33] But as the Evangeliſts have in a good Meaſure ſuppreſs'd all mention of the af⯑ter Fruitfulneſs of the Tree; and the Sto⯑ry, 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, marvelous and ſtupendous; and not only a Proof of Chriſt's Power and Preſence in his Church, but a Demonſtration of his Meſſi⯑ahſhip, in as much as an infinite Num⯑ber of Prophecys upon Prophecys, will thereupon be diſcern'd to be accom⯑pliſh'd, or the Church can't bring forth the Fruits of the Spirit, that is Spiritu⯑al Interpretations of the Scriptures, like ripe Figs. And ſo I paſs to an

8. Eighth Miracle of Jeſus, and that is, ³⁸ "of his healing a Man of an Infirmity, of thirty eight Years Dura⯑tion, at the Pool of Betheſda, that had five Porches, in which lay a great Mul⯑titude of impotent Folk, blind, halt, withered, waiting the troubling of the [34] Waters, upon the Deſcent of an An⯑gel, who gave a Sanative Virtue to them, to the curing of any one, be his Diſtem⯑per 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 Incredi⯑bilities, which our Divines, and their im⯑plicit 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 Conſe⯑quence.

As to Jeſus's Miracle in this Story, which conſiſted in his healing a Man, of no body knows what Infirmity, there nei⯑ther is nor can be proved any Thing ſu⯑pernatural in it, or there had been an expreſs Deſcription of the Diſeaſe, with⯑out which it is impoſſible to ſay, there was a miraculous Cure wrought. As far as one may reaſonably gueſs, this Man's In⯑firmity was more Lazyneſs than Lameneſs, and Jeſus only ſhamed him out of his pretended Illneſs, by bidding him to take up his Stool and walk off, and not lie a⯑ny longer, like a lazy Lubbard and Diſ⯑ſembler, among the Diſeaſed, who were real Objects of Pity and Compaſſion: Or, [35] if he was no Deſſembler, 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 In⯑quiry 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 Sama⯑ritan 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 La⯑zarus from the Dead, are enough to tempt us to think, that he wilfully deſign'd, ei⯑ther to blaſt the Reputation of his Maſter, [36] or to try how far the Credulity of Men, who through blind Love were running a⯑pace 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 Ho⯑nour, which they had omitted; and to con⯑firm the Truths which they had before re⯑ported of him. But St. John is ſo far from doing this, that the Stories, he has parti⯑cularly 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 [37] Healer of Diſeaſes, as he is commonly believed to have been, and that he wrought not near the Number of Cures, he is ſup⯑poſed to have done, much leſs any great ones. The beſt Conception that an impartial Rea⯑der 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 Phi⯑loſophy 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 Fan⯑cies and Imaginations of many, who mag⯑nified his divine Power for it. And the Apoſtles afterwards, to help forward the Credulity and Deluſion of the People, amplified his Fame with extravagant Aſ⯑ſertions 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 Goſ⯑pels, 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 ob⯑ſerv'd.

[38] 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 Au⯑thority may be good, and better than an⯑other 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 Hiſto⯑rian, who, if he palm upon his Readers an improbable Tale of ſenſleſs 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 Be⯑lief 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 Jeru⯑ſalem, would have ſpoken of it: But I don't find they have; or our modern Commen⯑tators would have refer'd to them, as to a Teſtimony of the Credibility of the [39] Goſpel-Hiſtory. Joſephus has profeſſed⯑ly written the Hiſtory of the Jewiſh Nation, in which he ſeems to omit no⯑thing 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 Hi⯑ſtory 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 di⯑ſtinguiſhing 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 po⯑litical Events of ancient 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 [40] us, muſt have had the Fortune to be told by others; yet St. John's ſingle Authori⯑ty ſhall paſs ſooner than another Man's, if the Matter be in itſelf credible and well circumſtanc'd. But were it is blindly Im⯑perfectly 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 Angels 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 Per⯑ſon? The Reaſon, that I ask the firſt of theſe two Queſtions, is, becauſe ſome ancient Readings of v. 4. ſay ³⁹ the Angel [...] was waſhed, which ſuppoſes ſome bodily Defilement or Heat contract⯑ed in the Caeleſtial Regions, that want⯑ed Refrigeration or Purgation in theſe Waters: But how abſurd ſuch a Thought is, needs no Proof. To impart then com⯑paſſionately an healing Power to the Wa⯑ters for the Benefit of the Diſeaſed was the ſole Deſign of the Angel's Deſcent in⯑to 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 [41] 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 Num⯑ber of impotent Folks were not at once healed? I have a notable Anſwer pre⯑ſently 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 is im⯑poſſible, a ſatisfactory Anſwer to the ſaid Queſtions; I wiſh, that, for the ſake of Orthodoxy, they would determine, whe⯑ther 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 ⁴⁰ [42] now, was this Gracious and Angelical Fa⯑vour granted? St. John ſhould have been particular as to theſe Points, which he could not but know Philoſophers would be cu⯑rious to enquire about. If it was but once in the Year, as St. Chryſoſtom ⁴¹ hints, little Thanks are due to him for his Cour⯑teſy. One would think ſometimes, that his Deſcent was frequent; or ſuch a Mul⯑titude of impotent Folk, variouſly diſ⯑order'd had never attended on it. And again at other Times, one would think that his Deſcent was ſeldom, or the Diſ⯑eaſed as faſt as they came, which could not be faſter than the Angel could dabble himſelf in the Waters, had been charita⯑bly diſmiſſed with reſtor'd Health. Here then is a Defect in St. John's Story, and a Block, at which wiſe and conſiderate Free-Thinkers 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 [43] 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 Mo⯑ney 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 An⯑gels 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 bet⯑ters, or in Compaſſion to make way for the moſt miſerable; but upon the Sight [44] 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 Diſ⯑eaſe, the reſt came forth like drown'd Rats, to the Laughter of the foreſaid Specta⯑tors; and it was well if there was not ſome⯑times more Miſchief done, than the heal⯑ing of one could be of Advantage, to thoſe People. Believe then this Part of the Story, let him that can. If any Angel was con⯑cern'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 it's being a bad Angel; ſo I leave them to conſider upon our Rea⯑ſonings, whether it was credible that ei⯑ther a good or a bad Angel was concern⯑ed, and deſire them to remember to give me a better Reaſon, why but one at a Time was healed.

[45] 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 pru⯑dent 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 diſtri⯑buted among other Poor and diſtreſs'd Peo⯑ple, would it not be wiſely done of them? To ſuppoſe they would leave the Ange⯑lick Favour to the Struggle of a Multitude, is abſurd and incredible. And why then ſhould we think otherwiſe of the Magi⯑ſtrates 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 ⁴² have it, Paralyticks. 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, be⯑fore [46] 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 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 ſlay'd at Home, as re⯑ſorted 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 Diſtem⯑pered 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 for⯑got 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 [47] be neither blind, halt nor withered, with⯑out ſuch an Abſurdity, as abſolutely diſ⯑parages 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 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 effect⯑tually, 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 prae⯑dicated of this Man's Infirmity, yet more truely, 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 [...] Weakneſs or Infirmity is a general Name of all Diſtermpers, and may be equally apply'd to one as well as to another: Whereupon, tho' we can't certain⯑ly 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 [48] before me, does imply his Folly ſufficient⯑ly, 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 Sanarion? 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 In⯑firmity 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, [49] 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 imagined, an Opportunity, with⯑out 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 ſup⯑poſe St. John could litterally ſo ro⯑mance, 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 impo⯑tent 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 [50] 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 Diſho⯑nour 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 ⁴⁴ 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 [51] Aſſertions imply, that Jeſus's healing Pow⯑er 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, in the Places where he came: And our Divines have ſo harangued on Jeſus's Mi⯑racles, 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 Diſ⯑eaſed; which, if it be not like a Contra⯑diction to the other Evangeliſts, is ſome Di⯑minution 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 Contradicti⯑on to them, and Jeſus is not to be ſup⯑poſed 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 Pow⯑er and Pity on them. Some good Rea⯑ſon then muſt be given for Jeſus's Con⯑duct here, and ſuch a one as will adjuſt it to the Reports of the other Evange⯑liſts; or Infidels will think, that either [52] 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 Mat⯑ter according to the Letter.

The Biſhop of Lichfield very remark⯑ably ſays, ⁴⁵ that Jeſus where-ever he went, healed all that came to home with⯑out Diſtinction, the important, halt, wither⯑ed. He certainly had this Text of St. John in his Eye, when he ſaid ſo, becauſe Impotent, Halt, Withered, are only men⯑tion'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 ſor ſuch Cir⯑cumſpection 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. [53] But to return and go on. The Con⯑duct of Jeſus, to all Appearance, is not only blameable, his Power of healing diſ⯑putable, 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 Mi⯑racle in the healing of this one Man. Miracles (to ſay nothing of the ridicu⯑lous Diſtinction between divine and dia⯑bolical ones) are Works done out of the Courſe of Nature, and beyond the Imi⯑tation of human Art of Power. Now whether the Cure of this infirm Man can be brought under this Definition of a Mi⯑racle, 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 Conti⯑nuance, no leſs than of eight and thirty Years: And the Biſhop of Lichfield and others in their florid Harangues of Jeſus's Works, make the Cure of ſuch Chroni⯑cal Diſeaſes to be miraculous: But why ſo? Many Inſtances may be given of In⯑firmities of human Nature, of a long Du⯑ration, [54] which in Time, and eſpecially in old Age, wear off. If ſuch Infirmites 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 ge⯑nerally worſe than better by Time, and after thirty and eight Years, muſt needs be very deplorable, and incurable with⯑out 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 En⯑quiry what Numbers there might be of them, I ſhould have believed that he wrought there many great Miracles, in as [55] 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 Mat⯑ter 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 grieviouſly 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 Diſ⯑eaſe, or that he was only hippiſh, and fan⯑cyfully more than really diſtemper'd of a long Time, whom Jeſus by ſuitable Ex⯑hortations and Admonitions, working up⯑on 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 Opini⯑ons [56] and Expoſitions of the Fathers on this ſtrange Story.

The Fathers, upon whoſe Authority I form'd my preceding Invective a⯑gainſt 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, ⁴⁶ 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 Mat⯑ter 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 [57] given, that Infidels have not before now, with their Jeſts and Cavils, ridiculed this Story. St. Auguſtin, to the ſame Purpoſe, ſays, ⁴⁷ 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 Significa⯑tion in it? Yes, I could tell St. Augu⯑ſtin, 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 ⁴⁸ 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 Ori⯑ginal, which ſtands thus, [...]: By [...], the Fathers un⯑derſtand ⁴⁹ Baptiſm, or the ſpiritual La⯑ver [58] of Regeneration; and who is that for, but the Flock of Chriſt, ſignified by [...]? 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 Je⯑ruſalem, it is not to be underſtood of the Old Jeruſalem, but of the New and Apo⯑ſtolical Jeruſalem, at the Entrance into which the Flock of Chriſt will be baptiz'd by the Waters of the Spirit, as in myſti⯑cal Laver.

Betheſda is ſaid to have five Porches, that is, as the Fathers ⁵⁰ 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 impo⯑tent Folk, blind, halt, withered. And who are theſe myſtically? The ignorant, er⯑roneous, and unſtable in Faith and Prin⯑ciple, as the Fathers often understand them ſpiritually. And what is the Reaſon of theſe their myſtical Diſeaſes? Becauſe, as [59] St. Auguſtin ⁵¹ 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 ⁵² and ⁵³ St. Auguſtin. And what is his Infirmity? The Fathers call it the ⁵⁴ Palſy, becauſe of his In⯑ſtability, and Unſteadineſs in Faith and Principles, which is now the Caſe of of Mankind. St. John calls it [...] a Weakneſs, which being a general Name [60] of all Diſtempers, we can't gueſs what might be here the ſpecifical one. But rea⯑ſonably ſpeaking, according to the Rule of Interpretation, this Man's Infirmity is the ſame with the Woman's Spirit of In⯑firmity, 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) ⁵⁵ Years, reckoning two thouſand under the Law, and eighteen hundred ſince under the Goſpel. St. Auguſtin ⁵⁶ has an ingeni⯑ous and more myſtical way of Compu⯑tation 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.

[61] 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 Contem⯑plation of the divine Myſteries of the Law, and to lift up his Bed of the Letter, on which he has hitherto reſted, into a ſub⯑lime Senſe, and then he will walk up⯑rightly and ſteadily in the Faith, with⯑out wavering like a Paralytick.

And at what Seaſon did Jeſus come to this infirm Man? It was at a Feaſt of the Jews. Irenaeus, Chryſoſtom, Theophylact, and Cyril call it the Feaſt of Penticoſt. And the grand Feaſt of Penticoſt is, as St. Cyril ⁵⁷ ſays upon the Place, at the Perfection of Time, the Time of the E⯑vangelical Sabbath, and of Jeſus's ſpiritual Advent, which will be a Time of feaſting on intellectual and divine Myſteries, of ſee⯑ing Viſions and of dreaming Dreams; con⯑ſequently at that Time, as the ancient Jews and Fathers aſſert, Mankind will be cured of this Infirmity at the Spirit of Prophecy.

[62] And this too is the certain Seaſon, that the Angel will deſcend and trouble the Waters. By Angel is here meant ⁵⁸ the Spirit of Chriſt. And by Wa⯑ters the Fathers underſtand, ⁵⁹ the Peo⯑ple of all Nations. But how will the De⯑ſcent of the Spirit of Truth, like an An⯑gel, 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 In⯑tereſts; 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 Indignati⯑on at the Cure of the infirm Man, ſay⯑ing to him, v. 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 Obſer⯑vers of the Sabbath; nor ſo ſtupid and fooliſh, as St. Cyril, ⁶⁰ ſays, as to [63] 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 Spi⯑rit, will be bitter Enemies to Man's Exaltation of his Couch of the Letter of the Scriptures on or againſt the Evangeli⯑cal 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 Cir⯑cumſtance of this Story to be allegori⯑cally 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, ac⯑cording to the Propoſition before us, to [64] 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 Examinati⯑on 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 Ex⯑cellency 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 Pur⯑poſe 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 Conſi⯑deration ſome of the Hiſtorical Parts of his Life; and ſhew them to be no leſs ſenſe⯑leſs, abſurd and ridiculous than his Mi⯑racles.

[65] 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, a 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 Inſtructi⯑on 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 ſay⯑ing, that any of the Philoſophers of the Gen⯑tiles, or any rational Man (meaning accord⯑ing to modern Expoſitions) would make a better Teacher, than Jeſus was.

What a great deal of Work have I up⯑on 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 pre⯑vent the Proſecution of this great Un⯑dertaking, 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 Mi⯑racles already diſcuſs'd, as may effectually [66] ſtop my Mouth, and prevent my giv⯑ing 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 com⯑mon Subject of Declamation among the the Clergy than the Reaſonableneſs of Chri⯑ſtianity, which muſt be underſtood of the Hiſtory of Chriſt's Life and Doctrine, or the Application of the Word Reaſona⯑bleneſs to the Chriſtian Religion is im⯑pertinent. But if I proceed, as I have begun in this Work, I ſhall ſhew Chiſtiani⯑ty, 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 al⯑moſt every Part of them. Mahometaniſm, without Offence be it ſpoken, is a more reaſonable Religion than the Chriſtian, up⯑on 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 un⯑to God and our moſt excellent Civil Go⯑vernment for ſuch a Liberty of the Preſs: A Liberty that will lead and conduct us to the Fountain of Wiſdom and Philoſo⯑phy, which Reſtraint is a down-right Enemy [67] to. And that this Bleſſing of Liber⯑ty may be continued, for all Biſhop Smal⯑brook and Dr. Rogers'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, declaming on the Reaſonableneſs, Excellency and Per⯑fection of the Chriſtian Religion, without an Adverſary; and telling their Congre⯑gations, that all, their bittereſt and acuteſt Enemies can object, is clearly anſwered!

The Preſs, of late Years, has been pro⯑ductive of ſo many cogent and perſuaſive Arguments for Liberty of debate, and the Advocates for this Liberty, in the Judg⯑ment 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 ſhoud think it a Diſgrace to my Station and E⯑ducation to ask the Aſſiſtance of the Ci⯑vil 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 a⯑ny one, that ask'd a Reaſon of my Faith: Or if I was ſo Shallow-pated, as to [68] think Hereſie and Infidelity puniſhable by the Civil Magiſtrate, I ſhould think my⯑ſelf 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 Dan⯑ger in the Attempts of our Adverſaries, whether Jews, Turks or Domeſtick In⯑fidels, 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 lnfi⯑dels, 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 [69] 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 Argu⯑ment.

The two great Pleaders for Perſecu⯑tion, to the Diſgrace of themſelves and Diſhonour of our Religion, that have lately aroſe are Dr. Rogers and the Bi⯑ſhop of St. David's. Dr. Rogers's chief Reaſon againſt Liberty of Debate, is be⯑cauſe, 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 Con⯑ſequence, 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 Paſſi⯑ons of our Eccleſiaſticks are not raiſed up⯑on it, to the doing of Violence to theſe Gentlemen, the Peace of the Publick will never de diſturb'd. As to myſelf, tho' I have a vaſt and numerous Party on [70] 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 Empe⯑rors of Rome; ſo we will continue to the Civil Authority of this Nation. We on⯑ly take the Liberty to awaken the Cler⯑gy out of a Lethargy of Dulneſs and Ig⯑norance; 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 ⁶¹ ſays, "It is abſurd to aſſert, that the Liberties of any Nation will allow, with Impu⯑nity, a Set of diſtinguiſh'd Infidels to inſult and treat with the greateſt Con⯑tempt and Scorn the moſt ſacred and important Truths, that are openly pro⯑feſſed, by the whole Body of the Peo⯑ple, 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 im⯑portant 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 [71] 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 Superſtitions? Don't he know, that our Reformers banter'd and ridicul'd Pope⯑ry 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 Jeſts on the Papiſts? why then ſhould the Biſtop be a⯑gainſt that way of writing, which was of good Uſe to the Reformers, and firſt Chri⯑ſtians? 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 Chriſti⯑anity, has but a ſmall Share of Wit. The Chriſtian Religion according to the Biſhop, will abide the Teſt of calm and ſedate Rea⯑ſoning 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 Li⯑berty is not through any Fears of Danger to myſelf, but for the Love of Truth and Advancement of Chriſtianity, which, with⯑out it, can't be defended, propagated and [72] 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 Diſſi⯑pation 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 a⯑gainſt the Intereſts than Reaſon of the Clergy to believe me, would again ſolemn⯑ly 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.