* -'I 
 
 r 
 
 m 
 
-■.• 
 
 W vision O ^(^ 
 
 Sccuo. 79 V ' 
 
 m 
 
*« 
 
•# 
 
 :^ 
 
 .^%. 
 
1 
 
OCT 1 7 1930 
 
 VINDICATION 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 Chriftian Religion. 
 
 In Two Parts, 
 
 I. 
 
 A Difcourfe of the Nature and Ufe of 
 Miracles. 
 
 II. 
 
 An Anfwer to a late Book entitled , 
 eA Difcourfe of the Grounds and Rea- 
 fans of the Christian Religion. 
 
 By Samuel Chandler. 
 
 Defendat quod qulfqtte fentlt : funt enim judicla libera. 
 
 Cicer. Tufc. Difp. 1. 4. 
 
 L O ^^ rO O 2^: 
 
 Printed for Samuel Chandler, at the 
 Crofs-Keys in the Poultry, MDCCXXV. 
 
i?^li(^^/\ 
 
 V t^^ 
 
 m 
 
DISCOURSE 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 NATUREandUSE 
 
 O F 
 
 MIRACLES 
 
 ' ~ 
 
 By Samuel Chandler. 
 
 L N 'D N: 
 Printed in the Year, M DCC XXV, 
 
w^^^^ 
 
 «L 
 
 * A 
 
THE 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 T is unnecejfary to acquaint 
 the reader with the occa- 
 fion of writing the follow" 
 ing difcourfe of miracles^ 
 which hath laid ly me 
 finijljed for ahove two y ear s^ and would 
 long fmce have leen offered to the 
 publickj had I not hen drawn into 
 fome farther conftderations^ hy the au- 
 thor whom I have attempted to an^ 
 fwer in the fecond difcourfe. The ex^ 
 peBationsy which the world had raifed 
 A J from 
 
vi The Preface. 
 
 from the ^rent abilities and learning 
 of that reverend Prelate^ who hath jo 
 lately aff eared in hehalfofchvi?d2iU\iyy 
 made it improj^er for advocates of a 
 lower degree to fjew themfelves ; how 
 much foever they anight have the fame 
 good caufe at hearty or he capable^ in 
 their own opnion^ of defendiiig it : And 
 fomeferha^s may think j that all farther 
 apologies for dm^dimiYf after that learn- 
 ed performance^ are entirely needlefs. 
 
 UndoTihtealy all w^bo have read that 
 
 valuable TKorky'voili do his Lordfliip the 
 
 jnfice to oiz'n^ that many of the p V- 
 
 fhecies of the Old Teftainent have 
 
 teen therein carefully examined^ their 
 
 fenfe pij^ly ftatedy and their reference 
 
 to the Meffiah abnndantly vindicated^ 
 
 Nor have any of the aids that learn. 
 
 ing coidd ajford been omitted', jewifli 
 
 rabbies have been made to militate in 
 
 defence of chriftianky -; and even Virgil 
 
 himfelf (hewn to fin^ in the fweet 
 
 ftrains of the gofpcl. 
 
 Tve reader 'will not^ ' / ho^e; ix^eH 
 
 any fiich expence of learning in the 
 
 • enfuiitg treat ife. I have not relied much 
 
 on thr anthority cf iefiimonies ; hut 
 
 ' * have 
 
The Preface, vii 
 
 have endeavoured to vindicate our Sa^ 
 viour and bis apofilesy u^on the ^lai/t 
 foot of reafon. It was indeed uecejja- 
 rjy to fet my argument in a clear 
 light J to conftder thefentimentsofthe an-- 
 tient Jews, as to the Old Teftament fro^ 
 fhecies^ and the reference they ap" 
 l^rehended them to hear the Mefliah ; 
 and accordingly I have allowed one Jhort 
 chapter, ("chap, vii of the fecond dif- 
 courfe,) for that fervice ; harely citing 
 the places, where either Jonathan, or 
 Onkelos, or the Hierufalem Targum, 
 fpeak'of the Meffiah, as intended in the 
 prophecies. And I the rather confined 
 myfelf to thefe, lecanfe J think they 
 frove enoughy and their authority is 
 unquefiionable. 
 
 I cannot apprehend, hovo the Jews 
 can ever anfwer the Bifhop's hook ; it 
 abundantly appearing, that their mo/i 
 ancient expofttors, and celehratedKsbhks 
 expounded many of the Old Teftament 
 prophecies, in the chriftian fenfe of 
 them ; and that, as they had their full 
 and literal accomplishment in Jefus 
 Chrift, fo they can never he Jhewn to 
 have had their accomplijhmcnt in any 
 A \ ane 
 
viii The Preface. 
 
 one clfe. And therefore as far as this 
 controverfy relates to the Jews, his 
 Lordfhip hath left no room for any far- 
 ther additions^ and his work is ]uftly 
 to he efteemedy as' an unanfvoeralle 
 defence of chriftianity againfi their 
 exceptions. 
 
 . Thefecondofthefetreatifesy in anfwer 
 to the Grounds and Reafons, ijc. hath 
 a more extenftve view \ and is de^ 
 pgnedy not larely to obviate the oh- 
 jeBions of our jewilh adverfaries, hut 
 to fet the conduB of otir Saviour 
 and his apoflles in fuch a lightj as 
 may appear rational to every impar- 
 tial and conjiderate mind, I need not 
 acqtiamt the reader ^ that this fart was 
 near finijhed^ before ever the Bifhop'j- 
 booh was fromifed. The different method I 
 have made ufe of the many incidental 
 ohjeffions I have conjidered^ omitted by 
 his Lordfhip, as not necejjary to his 
 argumeiity and the differe?it interpreta- 
 tions I have given of farticrilar pajfa" 
 ges of Scripture^ will abundantly clear 
 me fYom the imputation of having built 
 7ipon his Lordfliip's foundation ; tho"^ 
 jchether my foundation be e'jually firm^ 
 
 is 
 
The Preface. ix 
 
 is left to the judgment of thofe who 
 will he at the •j^ains to examine it. 
 One thing I can^ with all fmcerity affrm^ 
 that my principal motive to this underta- 
 king, was thejuft value I had for chrifti- 
 anity mj felf and a deftre to vindi. 
 cate it from the ohje&ions of others. 
 If my zeal hath exceeded my know- 
 Jedge, I jhall not he the firfi inftance 
 of this hnd'^ andfofiall hope to he 
 as hndly forgotten, as other fmall au- 
 thors, who have gone hefore me. 
 
 The preface to the difcourfe of the 
 Grounds and Reafons is, in my judg- 
 ment, an excellent defetice of that 
 liberty of every one^s judging for him- 
 felf, and of propofmg his opinions to 
 others, and of defending them with the 
 left reafons he can, which every one 
 hath a right to, as a rnan and a chrifti^ 
 an. If we have a right to think at 
 ally we mufi have a right to judge for 
 ourf elves', hecaufe no one, who ufes 
 himfelf to thought and enpiiry^ can 
 judge any otherwife, than as he is 
 convinced of the truth or falfehood of 
 things', and of confequence we have 
 as certainly a natural right to com- 
 municate 
 
X The Preface. 
 
 mimic ate our Ideas to other s^ and fro- 
 f agate what we apprehend to be the 
 truthy hy all the Methods of fair rea- 
 fo7iing and argument -^ as we have to 
 fociety and converfe with others \ which 
 can only he maintained hy a mutual 
 communication of fentimefits^ i. e, hy 
 freaking our own real ofinions^ and 
 and receiving the knowledge of thofe 
 of others. oAnd it is metbinks fo far 
 from heing any fault in the -j^refent 
 adminifiratiou., that all men are fuifer- 
 ed openly to maintain and propagate 
 their opinions, that we muft, in juflice, 
 as well as gratitude to his majefty, 
 publiflh it to the world, that it is againd 
 his majefty's will, that tyranny of ei- 
 ther kind^ civil or ecclefiaflica\ keeps, 
 or gains ground ; and all honefi and 
 impartial minds have this to comfort 
 them, that as his maje/iy is the great 
 ajjertor of the rights of confcience a- 
 broady fo they are fecure of his royal 
 proteOrion and countenance in the en- 
 jo)ment of them at home. 
 
 Matters of fpcculation and praftice 
 are fo vaflly different in themfelves, 
 as that they can7iot well he confoundedy 
 
 hut 
 
The Preface. xi 
 
 hut either by weak or defigning men ; 
 and therefore-^ tW the judges and civil 
 magiftrates have a right, by all proper 
 means and endeavours, fuitable to their 
 refpeftive Itations, to controul the fpirit 
 of Ubertinifm, /. e. to keep men from 
 violating the puhlick peace, and to 
 puniji) thtm if they do ; yet it c/innot 
 he argued from hence, that they have 
 a like power, as magifiratesy and hy 
 the fame methods, to controul the fpi- 
 rit of infidelity too, i. e. to pmiiJI) them 
 for leing unbelievers, or for telling the 
 reafons of their infidelity to others : 
 becaufe infidelity may be where there 
 is no immorality ; and becaufe fome 
 perfons may fofibly think that all who 
 differ from them are infidels, and fo 
 immoral, and therefore liable to the 
 cenfure of the pivil magiftrate\ a?td 
 hecaufe the effects of infidelity and li^ 
 hertinifm^ afid their influence upon fo- 
 cieties, are entirely different ; and the 
 methods proper to prevent the one hath 
 not the leaft tendency in the world to 
 controul, and hinder the fpreadi7tg of 
 the other. And ''till it can be proved, 
 that the fentimoits of m^ns minds are 
 
 as 
 
xii The Preface. 
 
 as properly fuhjeH to the magifirates 
 fowtr^ as fuch^ as their external le* 
 haviour, that immorality and difference 
 in ofinion from others^ are entirely the 
 fam'e^ and that both may he equally cu- 
 red hy the very fame yneans \ it willfol- 
 lowj that thd* the magifirates fword 
 may very fitly he employed' to prevent 
 libertinifm, or the breach if the publick 
 peace by mens vices^ yet that the progrefs 
 of infidelity muf he controuled another 
 vcay^ viz. by convincing mens confcien- 
 ces of the truth of chriftianity, and fair- 
 ly a?tfwering their oljeHions againfi it. 
 
 '^Tis not furprifing that men^ who take 
 their religion upon truBj and who there- 
 fore can know hut little of the intrinfick 
 worth of chriftianity, or of that jirong 
 evidence that there is to fupport itf 
 pould he in pain for it^ when they find 
 it attacked hy any ?ieiv ohjetiionsj or 
 old ones placed in a fomewhat different 
 view from what they were before ; or 
 that they fiould call out aloud to the 
 magiftrate to fr event the snaking of 
 them^ hecaufe they knovo not how other- 
 wife to anfwer them. But that men of 
 learning and great abilitiesy whofe pro- 
 per 
 
The Preface, xiii 
 
 fer office ^tis to defend chriftianity, hy 
 giving the reafons for their faithy and 
 who feem to have loth ability andleifure 
 thus to ftand u^ in the behalf of it^ 
 jbotdd maize their affeal to the civil 
 fozvery and become humble fuiters to the 
 magiftrate to controul the fpirit of i;/- 
 fidelity y is ftrangely furprizing. It 
 looks as if they fufpeBed the ftrength of 
 chriftianity ; otherwife, one would think^ 
 they would not invite fuch ftrange and 
 foreign aids to their affiflance^ whejt 
 they could have more friendly ones near^ 
 er at home^ that ivould much more effec- 
 tually f if fort and froteB it \ or at 
 leaftj as the? they had fome other inte- 
 reB to maintain than the caufe of com- 
 mon chriftianity^ tho^ at the fame time 
 they would willingly be thought to 
 have nothing elfe in view^ but the fer- 
 vice and honour of it. If the fcheme 
 of our modern deifts be founded in truths 
 I cannot helf wijhing it all good fuc- 
 cefs \ and it would be a crime in the 
 civil magiftrate-) by any methods ofvi- 
 olence^ to -prevent the- frogrefs of it : 
 But ify as I believe, chriftianity is the 
 caufe of Gody it will prevail by its own 
 
 native 
 
xiv The Preface 
 
 native excellencej and of confequenae 
 needs not the ajjiftance of the civil '^ow-^ 
 er. Jt once triumphed in its amazing 
 fnccefsj when the fowers of this world 
 were lent ufon its extirpation ; and if 
 they would he hut content to believe for 
 themfelves only^ and fiand neuter le^ 
 tween the contending parties-, only pre- 
 ferving them from offering violence to 
 one another J Iponld not he in theleafl 
 afraid of the moft formidable ob]eHions^ 
 that a?iy of its adverfaries can bring 
 againfi the chriftian revelation^ Tea on 
 the contrary^ I am perfwaded that no-- 
 thing could he of greater fervice to 
 chriftianity, than to fuffer^ a?id eve» 
 invite the enemies of it to fpeak out 
 their difficulties with freedom^ for hy 
 lei7tg thus fairly propofedy they might, 
 he as impartially confideredy a?id folidly 
 anfwered'y whereby thofe who believe 
 already would he more confirmed in the 
 faith they have received^ and others^ 
 who are novo unbelievers^ might he 
 brought to the achiowledgment of the 
 truth as it is in Jefus; things inde-- 
 fenfihle would be given up ; the fpirit 
 (f charity would grQw more Voarm and 
 
 diffujive } 
 
The Preface. x^ 
 
 diffufive\ men would lecome chriftians, 
 not tnerely thrd^ education and cuftom^ 
 iut u^on [olid reasons and firm convic-- 
 tion ; and of confeqtience the influence of 
 chriftianity, would ^roh ally le?nuch more 
 ftrong and effeBual u^on the confciences 
 md lives of its frofejfors. 
 
 On the other handy where in^uifitive 
 men are afraid of freaking out their 
 minds^ leaB they fhould exfofe themfelves 
 to the diffleafure of the civil fower^ they 
 will he incafable of receiving the fa- 
 tisfaBioUy which others^ if they knew 
 their difficult ies, might prohahly give them ; 
 a?^d fo will think thetti Mnanfwer- 
 ^hky hecaufe they dare not pilliJJ) them,. 
 Hence they necejjarily rernain unlelievers-^ 
 f^read privately^ and therefore more effe- 
 dually J dif advantageous reports of chri- 
 ftianity; and hecaufe they are denied the 
 liberty of reafoning freely ^ give them- 
 felves the greater liherty of AnveHive-'^ 
 and^ I am ^erfwaded^ do themfelves a7td 
 ethers much more hurt^ hy fly infmuati- 
 onsy odious comfarifons^ covert yet hit- 
 ter refiettionsy and falfe re^refentations., 
 than they could ^offihly do^ly a fair 
 o^en candid ^ro^ofmg th^ir ohjedionsy 
 
 ta 
 
xvi The Preface. 
 
 to the confideration of wife and m^artial 
 men. The author before us feems to he a 
 froof of the truth of what I have leen 
 ajjerting* I can fcarce ^erfwade my felf 
 to think fo very ill of him^ as that he 
 fell into this way of writing out of 
 choice ; or that he would have made ufe 
 of fo much ridicule and I ant er J and^ un- 
 der the guife of friendjhif^ have at- 
 tached chriftianity with fo much fcorn 
 and cont empty could he have leen af^ 
 fured^ that he might have aBed the -part 
 of a more open aud generous adverfary^ 
 with fafety to himfelf We might then 
 have feen his ftrongeB ohjeBions^ from 
 the application of the Old Teftament 
 prophecies^ ftated in a fairer light -^ 
 he would have written with more tem- 
 per ^ decency y and good manners \ and 
 his anfwerers might have replied imth 
 eq}ial firength and fuccefs^ without the 
 ungrateful task of making fome re^ 
 fletiionsj which now appear unavoid^ 
 able and ?iecejjary. 
 
 I would not be underfiood however^ as 
 tho"* I was pleading for a liberty j pub- 
 lickiy to revile^ and calumniate chrifti- 
 anity ; or indeed any e/tablijl;ed religion 
 
 whatfoi 
 
The PrBF ACE. x\li 
 
 •whatJ^Qev:er.^ This is little kfs than a 
 hreach g/ the ptllick order and .^cace^ 
 and the ferfons who allow themfelves 
 this liherty^ cannot ^lead mcejfity or 
 tonfcience in their defence- if every ^ 
 one hath a right to judge for him/elf, 
 no man can have a right to i?iftdt^ re^ 
 vile^ and reproach another for differing^ 
 fro7n hi?n |- and ^tis fart of the magi- 
 fir ate'^s off ce^ to prevent injuries of cdl 
 forts fr-Qfu being offered to^ the fnbjeH i 
 and to froteB everjf 'one in the fojj'ejfto?^ 
 of his reffeBive frivileges. "But that 
 men jhould 'frofofe their difficulties o-fenly, 
 mid fairly^ in order to a frie'ndly ini^ 
 partial debate^ isy I humbly afprehend^ 
 necejjary to fuffort the caufe of truth 
 in general J and the credit and honour 
 <?/^ chriftianity in f articular. 
 
 I cannot however^ but greatly imn:^ 
 dtr at the mighty zealy that hath 
 lately aff eared in fome gentlemen ts> 
 run down cliriftianity, and to reprefent 
 it as an idle and groundkfs inftituti- 
 on. That men of immoral profligate 
 lives flwuld endeavour to ferfwade them- 
 felves that the religion cf the goffelis a 
 theaty is ?m at all fm^p-i^ing , hecaiife 
 B ^ they 
 
xviii The Preface 
 
 they have nothing to hope fofj hit tilery 
 thing that is lad to fear ^ (Iwuld it hap- 
 fen to be true. But that fuchy who 
 would le thought friends tb the interefts 
 of mankind^ and lovers of virtue and 
 goodnefsy fljould^ with fo much zeal and 
 warmth opfofe^ and endeavour to fuh- 
 vert a religion^ that evidently maintains^ 
 and is huilt upon thefe principles^ 1 
 know not hoWj hy any juft maxims 
 whatfoeverj to account for. Surely it 
 will he ownedy that there are a great 
 many wife preceptSy and ectceJlent prin- 
 ciples in the chriftian fcheme ; and there- 
 fore when they argue againH ity it Jhould 
 le with an exception to thofe things that 
 are confejjedly agreeable to truth and 
 reafon ; they ought only to expofe the 
 imfoftures^ frauds^ falfe principles^ the 
 idle a7id defiruHive maxims^ the falfe 
 reafonings and comparifons that are to 
 le found in ity if any fuch they can 
 produce. And here we are willing to 
 joyn ijjue with them. If they can fairly 
 [prove the principles we maintain to 
 be falfe, we own we muH re]ett thetn ; 
 and if they can prove thefe to be the 
 ^pripcipks of the goffel^we muUie 
 v;^-^-» forced 
 
The Preface. xix 
 
 forced farther to give up its diviue ori^ 
 ginaU 'But doth it therefore foJhWj 
 that fuj^po/in^ the go/pel was no re^ 
 vekithn from God^ it hath nothing in 
 it true or valuable ? And would not a 
 wife and good tnan^ that hath any 
 juft fenfe of honour^ or value for the 
 interefts of virtue^ own and commend 
 what was commendable in chriftianky ; 
 and be content with expofmg the ab- 
 furdities that do attend it^ without 
 condemning in the lumpy without any 
 difference or exceptions^ the excellencies 
 and faults of it ? And will not thofc 
 who read thefe gentlemens writings^ in 
 which there are no footfeps of fuch a, 
 necejjary diflinBion to be found^ con- 
 elude them enemies to the whole of chri- 
 ■ftianity, thQ^ they would be thought fo 
 only to fome particular parts of it ? 
 And if they were not foj would' they 
 employ all their zeal and time in endea* 
 vouring to unsettle mens mindsy with- 
 out fo much as attempting to lay down 
 . any more folid and fubftantial rules to 
 had men ijito, virtue and happinefs f 
 lYhat tho" CicQvo and Seneca, and other 
 men amongft th^ Heathens^ were free? 
 *,,. . B 2 thinkers, 
 
X'i ' The Pr«fa€eI 
 
 diinkcfs, ^tnd had 7M)_ great sfinhn of 
 ' i^}?€ religion of their <iWfi > i opMvy^^^ere 
 they ''^'efiemies to iurhie •.and Morality 
 too ? 'Did they 7wi- endeavour to efiahlifl;^ 
 thofe great ^rincifles of the leiug of a 
 God^ and his providence and s futurt 
 fiaie ^ And did they ?iot recommend the 
 w^yfyi'^- of the fufreme beings and the' 
 f?i/z&i^e of univerfal virtue ? Did they^ 
 Me our modern deifls, confound all 
 goad and eviJ^ and^ argue indifferently 
 ^galnHthem both? Fain^ Iferceive^they 
 'mould -be thought Uk^ theje great men ; 
 hitif ihey muft- be content- l-o be imthout 
 this great honour^ V/7/ they better un-^ 
 'derftand their frincipes^ and karn from 
 them to write with a more fncere re-^ 
 g^%d to- truth and virtue. 
 ^'^.Tf tie enemies to ■ religion ■ andxlxrU 
 ftfeiiity zmu{d do any thing ' t-o the 
 ftj^rfofe^ let them diffrove the bei?ig of 
 n-God^ and his fr^vidence^ and the 
 necejfxiry diffin^ion and dijjerence be- 
 ^wee-n moral good and evil, ff they fro 
 fels to own and believe thefe things^ 
 )et thew fiew that men a-re not ac- 
 oountabh for their'- a^ims^ or' that- if 
 ihey^ art 'act6fintxii4e^ they a^-^ere^^'ar^ 
 
 ' ed 
 
Thfe Fit i F AdfiJ xxi 
 
 ed ani ftmiped in the prefect lifcj 
 and that therefore there is no netd of 
 dfuHre rechming. If they own there is, 
 let tbeni (bjew that the method; l^i 4 
 d&mnin the goffel, of Qod^s fardo7i- 
 mg gmlty finnersj ix alfurd and un 
 fuitdble'to his nature, and ferfe^ious. 
 Let them lay down any more^rohahle 
 and likely fchemej that Jhajt le lidije 
 to lefs difficukies.. Let ' them prove 
 that repentance muft necejjdrily le en- 
 titled to pardon ; that God cannot have 
 dfiy wife and valuable ends to anfi^er 
 ly. the punijhment of finful men in Ano- 
 ther life ; that the refurreSion of the. 
 lody is impojfMe ; that the foul 'tan 
 fuiftfi in a fiate of compleat happi- 
 nefs without any union to lody ; that 
 Jefus ehrift was nq prophet^ that his 
 death and fufferings was not a prp^ 
 per method to fpread the knowledge 
 of God^ and encourage the praBice of 
 true religion. In a word let them prove 
 that religion in general is a groimd-- 
 lefs idle things or that the grand prin° 
 ciples of the chriftian religion are ahfurd^ 
 (ind falfe ^ or their method of writing^ 
 ^gainH chriftianity will appear to every 
 
 ferious 
 
xxii The Preface." 
 
 ferious mind to he indefenfihk ani-^ 
 highly criminal \ 
 
 Not to mention her ^, that they Ja"^ 
 not feem fo much to argue againH' ' 
 chriltianity, as to infult and banter 
 it. The author of the Grounds, 
 when he fiould have leen more 
 ferioufly employed, makes himfelf mer- 
 ry with his Rabbi and his Devil, and:^ 
 reprefents St. Paul as talking divine 
 nonfenfe, /;/ a beautiful allegory he did 
 not underjtand. And when fatyr fails 
 him^ meanly floods to methods of fcan- 
 dal, hy making odious comfarijons^ and 
 evidently falfe ajjertions. His friend the 
 Moderator /p^/^fe J out his mind more free- 
 ly, and openly denies what this other 
 author falfely and treacherously frofejfes to 
 defend. He hath found out that the 
 refurreBion of Chrift is an old woman^s 
 fahle^ and that th^ a^ofJes had fom% 
 intereB to ferve by defending and 
 fropagati?ig the impofiurey and that the 
 
 miracles of ChnU were- fuch ri» 
 
 diculous fories he had not "patience to 
 mention them. Thefe are plain ajjerti- 
 ons indeed^ ayid the true turtiing points 
 of the controverfw But would orie not 
 
 hat^e 
 
The Preface, xxiii 
 
 have exfeBed that thefe ajjertions 
 JJjotdd have leen f roved? Is his ipfe 
 dixit a fufficient conftttatian of the faBs 
 of chriftianity ? And are not ftich af-, 
 fertions as thefe,, without any f roofs 
 to confirm them^ an argument that he 
 wijhes chriftianity ma)' be falfe^ tho* he 
 is not ahJe to frove it fo? I am exceed- 
 ingly furprizedy that in a controverfy of 
 this forty fo much ill nature and ^e- 
 judice flwuld af^ear ; thd* I am at the 
 fame time as truly fleafed to fee chri- 
 ftianity thus thrd'ly canvajj'ed and exami- 
 ned. I wifJ) that both the friends and 
 enemies of it would be content to argue ^ 
 fairly y withont any refleBions on either 
 (idej not well fuf ported afid proved; 
 then we might hofe to fee fo?ne hafpy 
 ijjue of the debate ; and if the foUow^J 
 ing difcourfes fiall have any influence 
 to 'promote the caufe of truth and vir- 
 tue j ^tis all I ex^eti or defire from the 
 piblication of them. 
 
 T H E 
 
XXV 
 
 
 THE 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Of the ^ifcourfe of M i R a gx E s. 
 NTRODUCTION. Page i 
 
 Chap. I. 
 Of the Nature of Miracles, p. 6 
 
 Chap. IT, 
 Of the Ufe of Miracles. p. 44 
 
 Chap. III. 
 
 The Rules of judging by whom Mi- 
 radies are performed. p. 8q 
 
 Chap 
 
xxvi The Contents. 
 
 Chap. IV. 
 
 Thofe Rules applied to the Miracles of 
 Christ. p. 98 
 
 The Contents. 
 
 Of the Anfxver to the Grounds. 
 INTRODUCTION. Page 151 
 
 Chap. L 
 
 Chriftianity fupported by other Proofs 
 than the Old Tefiament Prophecies. 
 
 p. \6\ 
 
 Chap. II. 
 
 Prophecies never urged by Christ and 
 His Apoftles, as the fole Proof of 
 Chriilianity. p. 166 
 
 Chap. HI. 
 
 Of the Dcpcndance that Chriftianity 
 hath pa "^judaifm. p. 19J 
 
 'I'. C H A \\ IV' 
 
The C o N T E n¥ si ^xxvii 
 
 4^ HA p. IV. 
 
 Of the J^ewi^JfamenfCanottlp. 207 
 Chap. V. ^-^nuc-n 
 
 Of the Senfe and Reference of the Old 
 Tejl anient Prophecies. p. S24 
 
 C H A p. VI. 
 
 Of the Jewijh Interpretation of the Otd 
 Teftamewt Scriptures. p. 245 
 
 Chap. VII. 
 
 Of the double Senfe of Prophecies. 
 
 p. 25J 
 
 Chap. VIII. 
 
 -The Old Teftai^tent Prophecies fulfilled 
 in ChrisTj and in Him only. p. 274 
 
 Chap. IX. 
 Of the Corruption of Scripture, p. 291 
 
 Chap. X. 
 
 Of the particular Prophecies appliedj by 
 CaRisT to Himfclf. p. 317 
 
 Chap XI, 
 
Q H A P, XL 
 
 The particular places excepted againft 
 by the Author of the Grounds^ &c. 
 accounted for, P* 3j8 
 
 Chap* XIL 
 
 Of Arguments ad Hominem. p* 364 
 
 The CONCLUSION. p. 394 
 
DISCOURSE 
 
 O F 
 
 MIRACLES 
 
 The INTRODUCTION. 
 
 HERE is no one propofition in na- 
 ture more certainly tobe dcmon- 
 ftrated, than -the exiftence of an 
 eternal, infinitely wife, and powerful caufe, 
 to whom all other beings owe their exi- 
 ftence, and on whom they are entirely de- 
 pendent. And, as it would not have been 
 confiftent with the moft. perfed wifdom, 
 to have given being to creatures without 
 fome valuable end and defign, we may 
 juftly reafon farther, that as he made them 
 originally, he ftill continues to over- rule 
 
 B and 
 
( o 
 
 and govern them , in fuch a manner a$ 
 moft elFcdually tends to anfwer the ori- 
 ginal defign of their creation. And as the 
 natures, capacities and powers of the fe- 
 veral beings, that God hath made, are vaft- 
 ly different, fome having vouchfafed to 
 them faculties and abilities greatly fupe- 
 rior to what others are poQcifed of j it fol- 
 lows, that there muft allb be a fuitable 
 difference in the methods of divine pro- 
 vidence, or in the manner by which God 
 is pleafed to over-rule and govern them. 
 From fuch of his creatures, who are de- 
 ftitute of realon, as they cannot perform, 
 fo he cannot expedl a reafonable fervic€> 
 whilfl: as for thofe who have this excel- 
 lent gift communicated to them, as they . 
 are capable of underftanding the nature 
 and obligation of laws, fo it is reafona- 
 ble to think, that the great Author of their ^ 
 beings intended to govern them by pro- 
 per laws, and to reward or punifh them, 
 according as they fhould obferve, or vio- 
 late them. 
 
 That mankind are capable of govern- 
 ment by proper laws, will not, I believe, 
 be difputcd. The more difficult enquiry 
 IS, What thefc laws are, and by what means 
 
 I we 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 wc attain to the knowledge of them. 
 And, I think, it muft be own'd, either 
 that our natural powers , and rea- 
 fonable faculties arc abfolutely fufficicnt 
 of themfelves, wichout any farther help, 
 to lead us into thofc juft and becoming 
 fentiments of God, and that knowledge of 
 the duties we ftand obliged to the per- 
 formance of, which is neceflary to en- 
 courage and dired our obedience: Or elfe 
 if human reafon fliould, all circumftances 
 confider'd, be found highly infufficient to 
 anfwer this great end, that then fome in- 
 formation from God himfelf is necefTary, 
 in order to inftrud men what the obedi- 
 ence he requires is, and what the rccom- 
 pence they may exped in performing it. 
 
 And that God fhould vouchfafe to make 
 fome revelation of himfelf, and will 
 to his creatures, is a fuppofition much more 
 reafonablc in itfelf, and fuitable to the 
 charafler he bares, of an infinitely perfed 
 being, than that he fhould fend them into 
 the world, and leave them to wander in 
 perpetual uncertainty, both with refpcft to 
 their behaviour in the prefent lite, and 
 their cxpc(3:ations as to another. 
 
 B z If 
 
C4) 
 
 If fuch a revelation is made, it mufl: ci- 
 ther be to every individual, or elfe to fome 
 particular pcrfons, who, receiving full in- 
 ilrudions from God, and coming in his 
 name, and with proper credentials of their 
 divine mi (lion, may have ability and au- 
 thority to inftrud others. To fuppofe it 
 neceflary that God fhould immediately re- 
 veal himfelf to every individual perfon, is 
 to fuppofe it neceflary that God fliould al- 
 ways ad by extraordinary methods, when 
 the more common and ordinary would 
 be abundantly fufficient, and would be an 
 ovcrbaring the reafonable powers and fa- 
 culties of men, without giving them any 
 opportunity for the proper exercife, and 
 improvement of them. As therefore it fcems 
 more reafonable to think, that God would 
 feledl from among the children^^of men fome 
 particular pcrfons, and favour them with 
 fpccial inftruclions, in order to qualify them 
 to be his meflcngers to the reft of the 
 world ; fo nothing is more certain , than 
 that fuch pcrlbns, who are fent by him, 
 muft come with proper evidence and proofs 
 of their miflion from him; otherwifc there 
 could be no obligation upon any to receive 
 and fubmit to them. And as miracles have 
 
 been 
 
( T) 
 been generally looked on to be proper 
 teftimonials of a perfons divine authority, and 
 many have Jaid a very great ftrefs on them? 
 whilft fome few have queftioned their pof- 
 fibility, and denied them to be of any ufe 
 in matters of religion, I the more eafily 
 perfuaded myfelf to examine, with fome 
 care, into the nature of miracles, and how 
 far they are a proof of a divine miffion 
 and authority, in him that w^ould fupport 
 fuch a claim by virtue of them. 
 
 Chap. 
 
( 6) 
 
 Chap. I. 
 
 Of the nature of Miracles. 
 
 T3 Y a miracle is generally underftood 
 Ibmething very extraordinary and fur- 
 prifing 5 Ionic vifible cfFed above, or con- 
 trary to the common courfe, and laws of 
 nature. A definition more popular than 
 cxad; becaule the fame aftion may be 
 contrary to the common laws of namre, 
 when performed by one agent, that is ve- 
 ry rcconcileable with, and agreeable to 
 thofe laws, when done by another i and 
 therefore may be either miraculous, or not> 
 according to the different circumftances, 
 and capacities of the agent : Or the com- 
 mon laws of nature may be, in many in- 
 ftanccs, changed and varied from , and yet 
 there be no miracle in the cafe, viz. when 
 theeffed produced is but anfwerable to the 
 power of him that produces it. 
 
 Mr. Lock 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 Mr. L^r^ * defines a miracle, to be a fen- 
 fible operation^ which, being above the 
 comprehenfion of the fpe^lator, and in his 
 opinion contrary to the eftabltjhed courfe 
 of nature, is taken by him to be divine. 
 But that this account cannot be juft is 
 evident, from what this great man after- 
 wards fays, viz. That ^tis agreed that a 
 miracle muft be that, which fiirpaffes the 
 force of nature, in the efiablifhed fleady 
 laws of caufes and effe6is. Doth it not 
 hence follow. That a miracle muft be fome- 
 what, not which is only judged to exceed, 
 or furpafs, but which adually doth furpafs 
 thefe laws? Indeed Mr. Lock feems to have 
 been aware, that this definition would be 
 liable to fome ftrong objeftions, which, I 
 think, he hath not fufficiently removed. 
 Particularly a miracle is hereby made to de- 
 pend entirely on the opinion of the fpeflator. 
 It receives, according to him, its being, not 
 from the nature of the operation performed, 
 or the power of the agent, but from the 
 judgment paffed on it by the beholder ; 
 which, in fnort, is to define a miracle to 
 be nothing clfe, but the fidion of an idle, 
 
 * Vol. iii. p. 4X1. M, 
 
 or 
 
(8) 
 
 or credulous imagination. According to 
 this notion, that which is really a miracle, 
 or the moft extraordinary, and fupernatural 
 work, may poflibly be none at all, viz. 
 if the fpedator fhould not happen to think 
 it fo : And thus our Saviour's moft won- 
 derful adions were miracles, or not, and 
 fometimes both at once, according to the 
 different judgments pafled on them,by thofe 
 who faw them. And on the other hand, 
 that which hath nothing of the nature of 
 a miracle in it, may yet become a real one 
 *viz, if the performer can find any perfons, 
 weak and fupcrftitious enough to think it 
 fo 5 and thus the impoftures, and craft of 
 the wolft of men, may become divine 
 works, and proper tcftimonials of a divine 
 miillon and authority. This I apprehend 
 is the certain confequcnce of this defini- 
 tion, which is in reality to (define it into 
 quite nothing at all. Whereas a miracle, 
 according to the meaning of the (acred 
 writingSjisfomewhatrcalj fomewhatout of 
 the common and ordinary courfe of nature, 
 whatever be the opinion and judgment of 
 the fpcd:ator concerning it. This makes 
 no alteration in the nature of the adion, 
 
 or 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 or In the power by which it is pcrfornt- 
 cd. 
 
 I thought it the more neceffary, to take 
 notice of this definition, becaufe of the great 
 authority and weight, which Mr. Lock fup- 
 pofes every miracle neceffarily to carry with 
 it, viz. That every miracle is a divine attejia- 
 tion to every perfon that pretends to a di- 
 vine mijjion ; * or that whojoever comes 
 with^ or profeffes to come with a mejfage 
 from God y cannot he refufed belief if 
 he vouches his mijfwn by miracles y becaufe 
 his credentials have a right to it ; and 
 again f that it carries an obligation upon him 
 that believes the miracle^ to believe in 
 and fubmit to every fuch pretender to reve- 
 lation. If indeed any perfon, pretending 
 to a divine miffion, doth an action, which 
 appears fo wonderful, as that any of the 
 fpedators look upon it as divine, or per- 
 formed by the immediate interpofition of 
 God's power, fuch perfons undoubtedly , 
 whilfl: under this perfuafion, muft look up- 
 on him that performs the work, as ad* 
 ing by a divine influence, and upon them- 
 
 * p- 4|-i» t 4f 3- 
 
 felve$ 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 i'clvcs as under obligations to receive him 
 as a divine mellengeri and in tiiis fenfo 
 that will be a miracle to one , which is 
 not fo to another^ * i. e. one perfon may 
 think that to be a miracle, which ano- 
 ther knows to be none at all. But doth 
 it therefore follow that there arc no cer^ 
 tain criteria, by which to diftinguifh real 
 miracles from fuppofed ones > Or that every 
 fuch aftion, fuppofed by fome perfons to be 
 divine, is really a divine atteftation ) If the 
 miracle lies in the opinion of the fpeftator, 
 'tis poflible that the adion, he accounts mi- 
 raculous, may be done without any divine 
 interpofition, and therefore can never be 
 in itfclf any tcftimony or witnefs from 
 God. Weak and credulous perfons may 
 think the furprifing tricks of juglers to be 
 miraculous, as fome thought concerning the 
 works of Simon Magus, and as was really 
 the cafe with many of Mahomefs difciples. 
 But muft it therefore be faid that God 
 bare witnefs to Simon and Mahomet, and 
 fupportcd the pretenfions of thofe two 
 importers by his own teftimony ? No. The 
 fpcctator's perfuafion,whethcr right or wrong, 
 
 • Page 4; I. 
 
 muft 
 
( II ) 
 
 niuft be the rule of his own anions, but 
 can never make that miraculous , which in 
 its own nature is not fo $ nor change 
 the frauds of wicked men into a divine 
 teftimony. 
 
 ' If indeed fuch an account of miracles 
 was true, there feems to be an obligati- 
 on laid upon mankind, at lead, I am a- 
 fraid, upon the generality of men, to fub- 
 mit to every artful deceiver, that hath 
 cunning enough to do things, they may 
 not be able to account fori and wicked- 
 nefs enough to vend them for miracles, 
 in order to eftablifh a falfe charader, and 
 ufurped authority. I hope I have not in 
 this matter mifunderflood, or mifreprefent- 
 cd Mr. Lock, If I can be convinced I 
 have, I fhall be willing to do publick 
 •juftice to fo great a man, by freely own- 
 ing my miftake. 
 
 Others define a miracle to be an ex- 
 traordinary operation, above the power of 
 all created beings y and performable by God 
 alone. But this alfo is liable to juft ex- 
 ceptions. For in the firft place, 'tis not ne- 
 ceiTary, that the thing performed fhould 
 be above the power of every creature to 
 do, in order to its being truly miraculous. 
 
 Nor, 
 
( IX ) 
 
 Nor, fecondly, will it be eafy to prove, 
 that many of thofe tilings, which the fcrip- 
 tures call, and account miracles, are above 
 the power of every creature to do, and 
 performable by God only 5 becaufe it will 
 be difficult to afcertain and fix how far 
 the abilities of created natures, fuperior to 
 us, may reach, and no farther. Befides 
 that the fcriptures do exprefly attribute 
 miracles to created beings, inferior in pow- 
 er and wifdom to God. Thus we read, 
 that the wicked one, fpoken of by the a- 
 poftle, 2 Thejf. ii. 9. fhould come ov TrJia-ri 
 Sutjoi/uLQ^ -^ oyijjAci; >^ T^eptciV wif/j all mi' 
 racks figns and iionders, according as 
 thefe very words are tranflated, Heb, ii. 
 4. where the apoftle tells us, that God 
 bare witnefs to the truth of chriftianity 
 c7)fj.€ioii Ti^di ^ *7rDi>u /\(tjg ^jdfjLsai with 
 Jigns and ixjonderSy and divers ?niracles. 
 And yet 'tis exprefly faid, in the former 
 place, of the man of fin, that his coming 
 with theie miracles, figns and wonders, 
 fhould be jf^r.?' Wt^y^xv tS ^^olvol^ after 
 the ^working of Satany or in the power, 
 and wuh the aiiiftancc of the Devil. And 
 whereas 'tis laid he fnould come with lying 
 \ionders, the meaning is not that his mi- 
 
 racles 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 racks fhould be fham and counterfeit, but 
 that they fhould be wrought in oppofition 
 to chriftianity, and of confequence in con- 
 firmation of a lye i as it cxprefly follows, 
 V, II. For this caufe God Jh all fend them 
 Jirong deluJionSy that they Jhould believe s 
 lie. And our blefled Lord himfclf^toldhis dif- 
 ciples that, after his being taken from them> 
 falfe prophets and falfe chrijis Jhould a- 
 rife, and Jhew great Jigns and wonder s^ 
 infomuch thaty if it were pojjible^ they 
 Jhould deceive the very ele£ty Matth. xxiv. 
 24. or almoft prevail with his very apoftles 
 to believe them. And, in the Old Tefta- 
 ment, God himfelf fuppofes, that a falfe 
 prophet might arife, and give fgns and 
 wonders, in confirmation of his preten- 
 fions to a prophetick million and autho- 
 rity; and warns the Ifraelites not to re- 
 gard or follow their inftruftions, T>eut\ 
 xiii. 1.3. So that the fcriptures fuppofe, 
 that miracles may be done by Satan and his 
 inftruments, in confirmation of falfe pre- 
 tenfions to a prophetick milTion and au- 
 thority j and accordingly caution us againft 
 being deceived thereby. 
 
 In order to think diftindly and /uftly 
 on this fubjeft, I apprehend it will be 
 
 necef- 
 
( 14) 
 
 ncceflary to confider, that as there arc dif- 
 ferent orders and ranks of beings in the 
 creation, fo they are endowed with as dif- 
 ferent powers and faculties : Some fitted for 
 more extraordinary operations than others, 
 capable of exerting themfelvcs with greater 
 force and efficacy, and of performing things 
 whicli, to beings of an inferior ftation and 
 ability, would be abfolutely impoifible. 
 Now whilft any beings adl only in a man- 
 ner fuited to their proper capacities and 
 powers, and perform things for which they 
 really have a natural ability, in fuch anions, 
 tbo' never fo uncommon and extraordina- 
 ry, there can be nothing more of wonder 
 or miracle, than in any other inftance, 
 where the efFed is but adequate, or an- 
 fwerable to its caufc. For inftance, that 
 men fhould reafon, diftinguifh between 
 good and evil, apprehend the relations and 
 differences of things, meafure the diftances, 
 compute the magnitudes, underftand the 
 motions of the heavenly bodies, and fore- 
 tell the confequcnces of fuch particular mo- 
 tions, is nothing ftrange or furprifing,- bc- 
 caufe they have natural powers and facul- 
 ties that do enable them for fuch opera- 
 tions} and there is nothing more necefla- 
 
( ly ) 
 
 ty to fuch attainments, than a juft and 
 careful excrcife and employment of th^ 
 capacities they are pofiefled of. But on 
 the contrary, if (tones fhould reafon well, 
 and brutes come to have the faculty of 
 fpeech, and trees to walk and aft as men> 
 this would juflly be accounted miraculous, 
 and the efFed of fome fupernatural operaj- 
 tion ; becaufc thefe things are certainly 
 known to be above the reach of the 
 powers and faculties of their refpeftive na- 
 tures, and there is nothing in them that 
 can be the proper caufes of fuch cfFeds. 
 Thus alfo for the fame reafon, if a man 
 fhould flop the fun in his courfe, calm the 
 winds and waves, create bread for the hun- 
 gry, reftore limbs to the maimed, fight to 
 the blind, and health and eafe to the de- 
 feafed and pained, by his meer word and 
 command, thefe things being manifeftly and 
 certainly above the reach of all the pow- 
 ers of human nature, muft be allowed to 
 be truly miraculous in the man that doth 
 them: I fay m the man that doth them-, 
 becaufe thefe very inftances would be no 
 matter of jufl wonder or miracle at all, if 
 they were vifibly performed by fuperior be- 
 ings, of powers and faculties capable of fuch 
 
 opera-^ 
 
( I^) 
 
 operations ; no more miraculous, than that 
 the effed fhould be anfwerable to its 
 caufe ; or that God himfelf, to whom all 
 power belongs, fhould be able to bring 
 fuch events to pafs, which are above the 
 power of all created beings whatfoever. 
 
 Hence I think a miracle in general fhould 
 be defined, An aElion done^ or an opera- 
 tion vijibly performed by any beings that is 
 really and truly above the reachy natural 
 power and capacity of that being who doth 
 it, of himfelf and without the afjfifiance 
 of fome fuperior agent, to perform. And 
 therefore a miracle, when fpoken of as done 
 by a man, in confirmation of a divine mif- 
 fion, is fomewhat vifibly performed by him, 
 in order to prove himfelf to be fent of God, 
 that is flriEily and truly above all his na- 
 tural powers and capacities ; and which he 
 could not of himfelf perform, without the 
 influence and afjfifiance of fome fuperior a- 
 gent. Speech is a faculty natural to man i 
 but that a ftone fhould fpeak is as truly a 
 miracle as that a man fhould fly. That a 
 man (hould command the winds and waves 
 into fubraiflion and filence , or flop the 
 courfe of the heavenly bodies , is as real 
 
 a mi- 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 a miracle, as that he fhould, by his word, 
 create the world out of nothing. But fhould 
 an angel vifibly perform thefe things, \vc 
 might indeed be furprizcd at fo unexpedcd 
 an event ; but could not, according to the 
 foregoing account, determine it to be a mi- 
 racle, till we could prove the operation to 
 be beyond the power and ability ot the per- 
 former. 
 
 Hence it follows, that the fame adion 
 may be a miracle, or not, according as it is 
 performed by an agent of inferior, or iu- 
 perior abilities ; as in the already mentioned 
 inftance. Should the fun flop, or change his 
 motion, at the word or command of a mcer 
 man, this would be a proper miracle, be- 
 caufe above the reach of all the powers of 
 human nature : But fhould fome fuperior 
 agent arreft the fun , and hold him fixed 
 and immoveable , or caufe him to run a 
 quite different courfe from what he now 
 doth, it v/ould be no more a miracle, llip- 
 pofing his power equal to fuch a work, than 
 for a man to hold a bowl in his hand, or 
 throw it Ea/l or //^Vy?, juft as it fuitcd his 
 purpofe or inclination. 
 
 Hence alfo it follows, that no beings what- 
 foevcr can ; of themfelves, perform real mi- 
 
 C racles. 
 
( i8 ) 
 
 raclcs. Men may do miracles by the aflift- 
 ancc of angels, and angels by the afliftancc 
 of fome (nperior powers, and thefe again 
 under the fpecial uifluencc of x\lmighty God *• 
 /. e. With fuch afl]fta*ncc they may bring 
 to pafs events, which other wife they could 
 never have done. But that they cannot of 
 them (elves do proper miracles, accorduig to 
 the account I have given of them, is as evi- 
 dent, as that they cannot perform impolli- 
 bilities. Even the adions of God himfelf 
 will not, upon this fcheme, be miraculous; 
 becaufe he can aft by the afliftancc of no 
 being fuperior to himfelf, being the fii ft and 
 grcatcft of all beings, and becaufe nothings 
 that is an objeft of power, can be impofli- 
 ble to him, to whom all po'ji'er belongs. 
 
 So that what is, or what is not a miracle, 
 is to be determined, not by the extraordina- 
 rincfs of the work, or the opinion of the 
 ipcdator 5 but by the agreement and propor- 
 tion between the aftion performed, and 
 the capacities, and powers of the agent. 
 If the adion done be certainly above all 
 the powers of the agent, of himfelf^ and un- 
 afliHcd, to perform, it is a true and pro- 
 per miracle ; and proves all that a miracle 
 can, or need to prove, viz, the co operation 
 
 and 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 and affiftance of fome invifibic and fupe- 
 rior being 5 ds fhall afterwards be more ful- 
 ^y Ihcwn. 
 
 Upon this fchemc we need not fpcnd 
 many words to prove the poffibihty of 
 miracles. 'Tis but to fuppofe, what I ap- 
 prehend few will deny; that there are other 
 beings exifting, fuperior to us, by whofc 
 affiftance and influence we may be enabled 
 to do things, that otherwife we could not do ' 
 At leaft 'tis but fuppofing fuch a power ia 
 God, to ad upon, and influence the crea- 
 tures he hath madej and I believe it will 
 appear, that there remains no farther diffi- 
 culties about miracles, from the impoflibi- 
 lity of them. 
 
 Tis a much more material objedion that 
 may be raifed againft the matter, as I have 
 now dated it, that even this account leaves 
 us at a lofs how to determine, when any thing 
 is a proper miracle, or not ; becaufe we 
 know not all the powers of human nature, 
 and therefore cannot pafs a fafe judgment, 
 as to many things, whether they are within, 
 or beyond its reach. 
 
 But even to this it may be anfwer'd, 
 
 that there is not really fo much difficulty 
 
 in this matter, as fomc may imagine. Moft 
 
 C z pcrfons 
 
C ^o ) 
 perfons fccm to be competent judges in 
 the cafe ; and it requires no tedious fludy, 
 or intricate reaibning; to underftand, gene- 
 rally fpeaking, the powers of human na- 
 ture. 
 
 It feems indeed to be a much eafier matter 
 to judge what things are, or are not within 
 the power of men to cfFed, than to deter- 
 mine how far human knowledge may ex- 
 tend. Our minds are of noble capacities, 
 and able to fearch out many of the moft 
 difficult truths. Tis the proper province of 
 the foul to reafon and judge 5 to confider 
 the relations and differences of things ; and 
 to draw from certain premifes their natural 
 and neccllary confequences. And therefore 
 whatever degrees of knowledge we gain, 
 from obfervation, experience, and reafon; 
 from converfing with books, or fludying 
 the arts and fciences, this is plainly to 
 be accounted for : Our natural powers 
 and faculties render us capable of fuch 
 improvements. And therefore whatever 
 events arc foretold , that depend on cer- 
 tain laws, clearly undcrflood, and plainly to 
 be demonftratcd ; or whatever experiments 
 we can make, in confequcnce of forego- 
 ing principles, }ui\\y ftated, and evidently 
 
 proved, 
 
( ^I ) 
 
 proved , thefe will have nothing of the 
 nature of miracles in them, however un- 
 accountable they may appear to perlbns, 
 who know not thofc certain and regular 
 Jaws, according to which they proceed. 
 And indeed, till we can certainly deter- 
 mine the meafure and capacity of our rca- 
 fonable powers, we cannot bound the ex- 
 tent of human knowledge, nor fix thole 
 limits, beyond which the underftandings of 
 men cannot reach. However, 
 
 Should an ignorant unlearned perfon, 
 bred up from his infancy to the mod fer- 
 vile employments, whofe mind had never 
 once been improved by reading or refle6li- 
 on, in an inftant become able to folve 
 the mod intricate problems, to underftand 
 and demonftrate the moll difficult mathe- 
 matical propofitions, that have been the 
 labour and fearch of many years 5 and in 
 a moment grow wifer than thofe great 
 men, whofe improvements have been the 
 reward of tedious application, and of long 
 and painful ftudy 5 this, as it could not be 
 accounted for, from any of the known fa- 
 culties of our minds, muft neceflarily be 
 efteemed as the effect of feme fupernatu- 
 lal agency and influence. 
 
 C s And 
 
( ^^ ) 
 
 And as to external operations, I am per- 
 fuaded, that, to careful inquifitive perfons, 
 it will be ftill a lefs difficult matter to de- 
 termine, what things arc, and what things 
 are not, within the reach of human power. 
 We find by conftant experience, that we 
 can move the members of our own bo- 
 dies, and put our felves into various fhapcs, 
 pofturcs, and places -, that we can raife new 
 ideas in the minds of others by aftion and 
 converfe , that by cont^Ei we can alter 
 the pofition, retard or quicken the motion, 
 change the fituation of the parts of matter, in 
 proportion, as the power of the agent is 
 fuperior to the refiflance of the body 
 wrought on. Thefe things proceed accord- 
 ing to certain fixed jaws, of nature's cfta. 
 blifliing 5 and therefore have nothing of real 
 miracle or wonder in them. 
 
 But now let any man try if he can fu- 
 pcrcede or change thefe laws of nature 5 if 
 he can give folidity and firmnefs to the wa- 
 ter to (upport him ; if he can fo purify and 
 fpiritualize his body, as that the air ffiall 
 bare him ; if he can raife new ideas in the 
 minds of others by a meer turn of thought i 
 if he can operate on didant bodies by an 
 aft of his Willi and overcome a fuperior 
 
 refinance 
 
( ^3 ) 
 
 rcfiftancc by a Icfler; and the confcqucncc 
 will foon difcover the vanity of the at- 
 tempt, and fhew, at Icaft, to what things 
 human power cannot pollibly extend. 
 
 Tis true, that the capacities of fome men 
 are much nobler than thole of others ; their 
 knowledge vaftly greater, and their powers 
 of ading proportionably more extenfive. 
 And therefore it may be farther (aid, that 
 we are not proper judges of others, 
 and cannot determine how far the powers 
 of human nature may reach, and no far- 
 ther, becaufe we know what we can, and 
 what we cannot do our felves : At leaft, that 
 the generality of men are very incompetent 
 judges in this cafe ; who, having never made 
 any juft enquiries into the extent of their 
 own powers, will be often in danger of 
 taking that, which is furprizing tothem, be- 
 caufe uncommon, for whar is truly mira- 
 culous. 
 
 Thus for inftance : Poffibly there may be 
 fome barbarous nations, who, being alto- 
 gether unacquainted with the laws and mo- 
 tions of the heavenly bodies, might judge 
 it a thing abfolutely impofllble, to deter- 
 mine the exact time of eclipfes; and be 
 ready to account any pcrlba under a pro- 
 C 4 phetick 
 
( 14) 
 
 phetick miraculous inlpiration, that (liould 
 come amongft them, and exa£lly fix the 
 tune o^ fuch appearances. Another perhaps, 
 by flight of hand, by the appHcation of 
 fome unknown medium, or by (bme fccrct 
 art and contrivance, might effed many fur- 
 prizing and unufual things 5 which, by igno- 
 rant and unlearn'd perfonSjthat knew not how 
 better to account for them, might be deem- 
 ed miraculous, and imputed to the opera- 
 tion of fome invifible power. What guard 
 have (uch pcrfons againft the delufion of 
 Inch impoftures: Or what marks whereby 
 to diftinguiih them from real miracles ? 
 
 I anfwer,that whatever is furprizing is not 
 therefore immediately to be accounted a mi- 
 racle 5 nor any man to be cfteemed as under 
 a fupcrnatural information, mecrly for the 
 lake of being wifcr than othcrs,^ Things pre- 
 didcd can never be arguments of any perfon's 
 acling under the influence of a fuperior pow- 
 er , till the events foretold are come to 
 pals; no nor then, if thofe things depend- 
 ed on a train of certain and neceflary caufes 
 which, for ought we know, the rclater might 
 underftand j or which there were many pro- 
 babilities to induce him to believe would, 
 fome time or other, come to pafs : And there- 
 fore 
 
( ^5-) 
 fore there are but few cafes, wherein the 
 meer foretelling things to come ought to 
 be mimediately allowed miraculous, or the 
 perlon predifting them owned, as one ad- 
 ing under fome invifible influence or infpi- 
 ration. 
 
 And as for thofe furprizing things, that 
 may be fometimes performed by cheats and 
 cunning juglers, by chymifts or mathemati- 
 ans, from an extraordinary skill in the pow- 
 ers of nature, there will be kfs reafon for 
 any to account them miraculous, and there- 
 fore lefs danger of their being impofed on 
 by them. For there will be many circum- 
 fiances attending them, to be obferved by a 
 cautious fpedator, that will difcover the flight 
 of hand by which they are performed, and 
 give a ftrong prefumption of the fraud and 
 impofture of him, that,by fuch works, would 
 endeavour to perfuade others, that he ads 
 by a divine power and authority. There will 
 be fuch a manifcft plainnefs and fincerity, 
 fuch a freedom and opennefs of behaviour, 
 in a good man, ading under a divine mflu- 
 cnce, and fure of a divine afliftance, as can 
 never be' found in the tricks of animpoftor; 
 who is obliged to perform his feats as it 
 were in private,and at a diftance from others, 
 
 for 
 
( -^6 ) 
 
 for Tear of adifcoveryj lead the fraud fliould 
 be fcen through, and the falfcnefs and va- 
 nity of his pretcnfions thereby become 
 cxpofed. 
 
 But however, tho' there may be fomc 
 things, which may appear hke miracles, 
 though they really are not fuch > yet it can- 
 not be denied, but that there arc others, which 
 we may as certainly know to be above all 
 the powers of human nature, as we can be 
 furc of any one fingle truth whatfoever> 
 things that, at firft view, will manifeftly dif- 
 covqr themfelvcs to be the efFefts of fome 
 caute more excellent than our felves. That any 
 man fhould foretell events, that depend on 
 certain fixed laws of caufes and efFefts, that he 
 underflandSjis not to be wondered at ; but that 
 he Ihould foretell very diflant things, that de- 
 pend on the arbitrary determination of free 
 agents, or that feem to be "entirely at the 
 plcafure and ordcrance of providence, can, 
 I think, never be accounted for, but from 
 fome intimation given him by a wifcr and 
 more knowing being than himfelf. That 
 men fliould undcrftand, and fpeak different 
 languages, after a long courfe of ftudy and 
 application, is nothing more than may be 
 cxpcclcd 3 but that mean and unlearned per- 
 
 fons. 
 
( ^7 ) 
 
 fons, who were never bred up to the know- 
 ledge of books, and never had the oppor- 
 tunity of convcrfmg with others of foreign 
 countries, fliould, in an inftant, become ac- 
 quainted with all the languages of the moft 
 different nations, fo as to underftand others 
 when fpeaking, and to be able to fpcak 
 to others diftinftly themfelves, fuppofing 
 the fad real, it is abfolutely impoflible, 
 that it can be owing to any lucky turn of 
 the blood and fpirits, to any thing of flight 
 or craft, or in a word, to any thing lefs thaa 
 the influence and information of fome fu- 
 perior intelligence. Once more, proper re- 
 medies, skilfully applied, have a natural ten- 
 dency to cure difeafes, to flrcngthen the con- 
 ftitution, and confirm the bodily vigour and 
 health 5 but to be able, by a fingle word, to 
 make a fick man well, the lame and maim- 
 ed found and whole, the deaf to hear, 
 the blind to fee, and the dead to return to 
 life, is as evidently above all the powers of 
 mankind to do, without the affiftancc of 
 fome fuperior being, as the greateft impbffi- 
 bility in nature. Whoever the perfon be, 
 that can perform fuch wonderful works as 
 thefe, doth real miracles ; and thereby evi- 
 dently proves himfclf tb aft by fome fu- 
 
 pernatural 
 
( i8 ) 
 
 pernatural help ; if not under the immediate 
 influence of the God of nature himfelf. 
 
 But fuppofmg for once,that men fliould be 
 deceived in taking that for a miracle, which 
 realJy is none 5 yet are they not, meerly on 
 this account, obliged to fubmit to any one 
 pretending to a divine commilTion, and pro- 
 ducing liich works as the vouchers of it. I 
 do not apprehend that fuch things as feem 
 niofl to exceed the powers of human na- 
 ture, done by any perfon, are, in themlelves, 
 a fufficient teftimonial that he is fent of 
 Godi unlefsthey can be proved to exceed 
 the power of other beings fuperior to us^ 
 and to be done by the immediate interpo;- 
 fition of God himfelf. This indeed will 
 be an argument of his divine commifllon, 
 and of the truth of every thing he delivers, 
 confirmed by fuch teftimonials. But this 
 we fliall find a very difficult task to prove s 
 bccaufe we know not what different orders 
 of created natures there may be , and how 
 much fuperior the powers and faculties im- 
 parted to fome, are to thofe of others. Till 
 we can alccrtain this, we ought not too po- 
 ll tivcly to ailcrt, even of the moft wonder- 
 ful events that have hitherto happened, that 
 they were produced immediately by the hand 
 
 of 
 
( ^9 ) 
 
 of God, and not by the miniflration or agen- 
 cy of inferior fpirits. 
 
 So that all tliat real miracles fcem dircdiy 
 to prove, is, either that fome llipcrior agent 
 hath furnifhed the perfon that doth them, 
 with a power which other wife he had not j 
 or that there is fuch a confederacy and uni- 
 on between fome invifible power and that 
 perfon, as that, for certain ends, and at par- 
 ticular times, fuch efFeds fhall be produced 
 by his power, and at the others bidding and 
 command. But whether this be done by 
 a good, or a bad fpirit, by God and his 
 minifters, or by his and our enemies> other 
 circumftances muft determine. 
 
 Such works, indeed, will command our 
 attention and regard, and fcem to be an 
 obligation upon us to confider whatever 
 comes attefted with fuch teftimonials. But 
 that they are not fufficient vouchers, in them- 
 felves, of a divine commifllon, is evident i 
 becaufe real miracles have been wrought, 
 to weaken the credit of an authority actually 
 derived from God 5 and becaufe the fcrip- 
 tures fuppofe that they may be wrought in 
 confirmation of falfc pretences, and in op- 
 pofit?on to the true religion. The producing 
 of ferpents, blood, and frogs, was, at lead, 
 '^ as 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 as to the judgment which the fpedators 
 could form of it, as real a miracle, when 
 done by the c^yEgyptian forcerers, as when 
 done by Mofes, It was a work which ar- 
 gued if in one, of confequcnce in both, 
 the afliftance of fome fuperior power ; nor 
 could any of thofe that faw it believe it to 
 be any other than a real miracle, /• e, they 
 mud attribute it to the operation of fome 
 invifible agent. If therefore every miracle 
 be a proof of the divine million of him, 
 that would confirm fuch an authority by do- 
 ing it, it follows, that xhQ(iyEgyptians would 
 have been bound to have acknowledged the 
 divine miflion both of Mofes, and their 
 own Magicians too ; /. e. to own both 
 parts of a contradiclion to be true. To 
 fay that thefe things, when done by the 
 magicians, were not real, bu^t counterfeit 
 mu'aclcs, is an objcclion, without any proof 
 to fupport it, and I think a plain begging 
 the qucflion. The fcripture doth not call 
 them counterfeit, but fuppofes the transfor- 
 mation as real, when caufed by the Ma- 
 gicians, as when cffcdcd by Mofes. Nor 
 do I fee any rcafon at all to account it 
 incredible, upon the fuppofition that they 
 had the afliflance of evil fpirits, and adled 
 
 in 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 in confederacy wich them, in oppofition to 
 God, and his fervanr Mofes, 
 
 If therefore real miracles are nor, in thcm- 
 felves, fufficient proofs of the divine autho- 
 rity of him that works them, neither can 
 things falfcly fuppofed to be fo. Every 
 pretender to divine revelation, whether his 
 miracles be real or counterfeit, is not to 
 be immediately believed. His charafter and 
 meffagc are firft to be confidercd, before wc 
 can reafonably allow him to be a meflen- 
 ger and prophet from God, Let his works 
 be never fo wonderful, men need not be 
 impofcd on. There are methods within 
 their power, of finding out the falfehood 
 of fuch a one's pretenfions, and of proving the 
 impoftor to be either a cunning jugler>or clfc 
 in league with evil and deftruftive fpirits. 
 If men will but ufe the reafon they have, 
 they may cafily preferve themfelvcs from the 
 moft powerful dclufions, and guard their 
 minds from danger, in the midfl: of the moft 
 artful impoftares ; tho' fupportcd by all the 
 cunning and fubtllty of men, or with the 
 alTiftancc and wonderful works of all the 
 powers of darknefs^ in coiifcdcracy with 
 
 ihcm. 
 
 But 
 
 •J 
 
 Si 
 
( n ) 
 
 But yet this may not be thonght Suffici- 
 ent to folve the difficulty 5 and fome may 
 be apt to imagine, that 'tis not confiftent 
 with the goodnefs of God, to fufFer men, 
 under the influence of evil fpirits, to do 
 miracles in confirmation of a real impofture. 
 But fuppofing it confiftent with the divine 
 goodnefs to give any beings powers and 
 faculties fuperior to us j I do not fee how 
 the lliflxring them to exercife thofe pow- 
 ers can be inconfiftent with it. If God 
 had any where commanded us to look on 
 every miracle as a fufficient proof of a di- 
 vine miffion, in him that pretends to it, 
 undoubtedly he would fufFer none to work 
 miracles but himfelf, or his own meflx:n- 
 gers, in confirmation of his will delivered 
 by them. But if God hath been pleas'd to 
 acquaint us with the power and craft of 
 evil fpirits, and cautioned us againft being 
 deceived by them ; and if there are cer- 
 tain rules to diftinguilh between thofe works, 
 done by the divine power, and thofe per- 
 formed by the ailiftance of the Devil ; rules 
 that Jye open and plain to every fcrious 
 enquirer; the pcrmiflion of evil fpirits to 
 do wonderful works, ought indeed to ren- 
 der us more careful and diligent in our 
 
 ;^ enquiry' 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 enquiry into the proofs of every prctcnfion 
 to a divine million, but carries in it not the 
 leaft imputation upon the divine jufticeand 
 goodnefs j becaufe there will be no other 
 danger of our being impofed on by them, 
 but what arifes from our own negligence, 
 and want of ferious impartial confidcration. 
 Both Simon Magus and Apollonhis Tyana- 
 us are reported to have done many ftrange 
 and furprizing things ; and yet that both 
 thefe were impoftors might be as certainly 
 known, as almoft any truth whatfoever > 
 'viz, becaufe they taught doctrines incon- 
 fiftent with true piety, and did many things 
 contrary to plain morality. Befides, if this 
 argument from the divine goodnefs proves 
 any thing, I think it will prove too much, 
 mz, that 'tis inconfiftcnt with the divine 
 goodnefs to permit any thing to happen, that 
 may prove a powerful temptation to men 
 to forfake the truth, or believe an impo- 
 fture; for I cannot imagine any rea- 
 fon why the pcrmillion of evil fpirirs to af- 
 fift men in doing wonderful works, to fup- 
 port their falfe pretenfions, lliould be incon- 
 fiftcnt with the divine goodnefs, but becaufe 
 it might probably induce others to believe 
 them. If fo, of confequencc whatever 
 D would 
 
would prove an equally ftrong temptation, 
 muft be for the fame reafon inconfiftent with 
 the goodncfs of God to permit; and thus 
 we fhali be fcarce able to vindicate his wif- 
 dom and goodnefs, in luffering perfecutions, 
 becaufc they have a ftronger tendency to pre- 
 vail with many to defert the truth, than real 
 miracles, wrought by bad men, can have to 
 perfuade them to believe an impofture. 
 
 If indeed there fhould happen a competi- 
 tion between any perfon fent of God, and 
 another ading under the influence of evil 
 fpirits , each pretending to confirm their 
 miflion by miracles and wonderful works, 
 it is reafonable to imagine that God would Co 
 far interpofe, as to fhew where the impofture 
 lay s either by reftraining that power by 
 which impoftors aft^ or enabling his own 
 mcITengers to perforrit fuch extraordinary 
 things, in which evil fpirife could not imi- 
 tate and rival them. For, as the end of God 
 In revealing his will to men is, that they 
 may know and praftife it, it feems incon- 
 iiftent with his moft perfed wifdom, to fuf- 
 fer bad men, ading under the power of c- 
 vii fpirits, to exceed his own fcrvants in the 
 proof they give of their miflion from him. 
 For if two contending parties each do the 
 2 fame 
 
(35-) 
 
 fame wonderful works, to eftabliOi quite di- 
 ferent intcrefts, fo long of confcquence they, 
 before whom the works are wrought, mull 
 fufpend their judgments, neither of the parties 
 having as yet any right to be believed j and 
 the power, which at laft appears fuperior, 
 will claim and deferve the greater regard. 
 And therefore if God fhouid fuffer impo- 
 ftors to do works, more wonderful in them 
 felves, and more in number, under the in- 
 fluence of their principals by whom they 
 aft, than his own mefifengers, this would 
 be a weakening of their credit, and rend to 
 overthrow the defign of their milTion from 
 him; which is inconfiftent with the moft 
 perfeft wifdom to permit. 
 
 And agreeable hereto, in the conteft be- 
 tween Mofes and the Egyptian magicians, 
 we find that Mofes gave inconteftable proofs, 
 that he adted by a power vaftly fuperior to 
 what they did, both by reftraining that in- 
 fluence by which they adcd, and doing thofe 
 wonderful works in which they could not 
 imitate him. Whilft the works they each 
 did were the fame, and feemed to require 
 the fame power to do them, fo far the con- 
 teft was undecided, and to which fide the 
 vidory would turn muft have been to the 
 D 2 fpcftators 
 
( 3<J ) 
 
 fpedators doubtful. But when the magici- 
 ans arts became all ineffectual, and the pow- 
 eu by which they aded was entirely reftrain- 
 cd, Mofes triumphed in his continued pow. 
 cr to do miracles 5 and from his works the 
 fpeftators might cafily conclude, that hea- 
 ven itfelf fecmed to decide the vidory in 
 his favour. Thus far 'tis reafonable to think 
 that God may at all times interpofe. But 
 in other cafes, as I do not fee any need 
 of the divine interpofition, fo I think we 
 cannot very fafely argue from the goodneis 
 and wifdom of God, how far he is obliged 
 to rcftrain fuperior powers from afting agree- 
 able to the capacities he hath given them. 
 
 It feems a matter of greater difficulty to 
 reconcile this account of miracles with fome 
 cxpreflions of our blcfled Lord, relating to 
 the proof of his million from his heavenly 
 father by his works. For he tells us, * That 
 if I bare witnefs of my felf my witnefs 
 is not tmCy i. e, if there was no other 
 proof of my million from God, but my 
 own word or teftimony of myfeJf, 1 fliould 
 not defervc to be believed ; and therefore 
 he refers them to his works, as the proper 
 
 * John V. 31. 
 
 tefti-. 
 
(57) 
 
 tcftimonials that God had fent hun. :f: But I 
 have greater witnefs than that of John h 
 for the -Jiorks which the father hath gi- 
 ven me to finijh, the fame works, that I 
 do, bare wttnefs of me, that the father 
 hath fent me s as though the wonderful 
 works he did were, in themfelves, full evi- 
 dence that the father had fent him. Agree- 
 ably hereto he elfewhere t tells the jfews ; 
 If I do not the works of my father, be- 
 lieve me not , but if I do, tho' ye believe 
 not me, believe the works-, that ye may 
 know and believe that the father is in 
 me, and I in him. And hence in another 
 place * he tells them. If I had not done 
 amongfi them the works which none other 
 man did, they had not had'fln ; but now 
 they have both feen, and hated both me 
 and my father. Their rejeding him after 
 they had feen his works, was an evident proof 
 they hated him, and the father that fent 
 him ; fo that he feems to condemn them, 
 upon account of their rejeding the evidence 
 of his works j and thereby declares them 
 to be a fufficient proof of his divine autho- 
 rity and miflion. 
 
 i John V. 31, 36. t John X. 37, 38. * John xv. 24. 
 
 • D 3 In 
 
( 38) 
 
 In anfwcr to which difficuhy, let it be 
 confidered, that where any works carry 
 along with^ them the proofs of their be- 
 ing done by a divine power, either by the 
 immediate interpofition of God himfelf, or 
 by the miniftration of other beings, afting 
 by commiflion from him, fuch works arc 
 a fufficient evidence of that perfon s commif- 
 fion from God, who doth them 5 and what- 
 ever he confirms by fuch proofs, ought un- 
 doubtedly to be received 5 becaufe 'tis not 
 confident with God's wifdom or goodnefs, 
 to be himfelf the inflrument of confirming 
 any falfe pretences to divmc authority and 
 infpiration ; nor with the charafter of any 
 good being whatfoever, to lend his affiftance 
 for the fuppcrrof an impofture. And there- 
 fore, if the works which our bleffed Saviour 
 did, were of fuch a nature, or attended with 
 fuch peculiar circumftances, as was fufficient 
 to prove them to be wrought by the immedi- 
 ate interpofition of God himfelf (and of 
 this kind, in my judgment, feem to be thofe 
 extraordinary works of his, creating limbs 
 for the maimed, and bread for the multi- 
 tude, and raifing the dead) or any other 
 beings commiflioned by him, undoubtedly 
 their not believing him for the works fake, 
 
 wa^ 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 was owing either to a finful inadvertence, oc 
 criminal obftinacy. 
 
 But however if this fliould not be allow- 
 ed, yet I think it no difficult matter to make 
 it appear, that our Saviour's reafoning was 
 juft, if we confider the peculiar circumftan- 
 ces of the Jews to whom he fpoke. There 
 were many in whom they believed as pro- 
 phets, and whom they reverenced as infpi- 
 red perfons, tho' feveral ages were part fince 
 they had lived in the world 5 whole works 
 therefore they had never feen, and which, 
 had they feen them, would have appeared 
 vaftly inferior to thofe done by Chrift. Thus 
 they had a great opinion of and veneration for 
 MofeSy who was, as it were, the founder ot 
 theiu nation, both as to religion and poli-^ 
 ticks. They looked on him as one that had 
 been under a divine influence, and acted 
 by immediate commifllon from God. And 
 as for the fucceeding prophets, they cftcem- 
 cd them as perfons infpired by his fpirit; 
 and fo accounted themfelves as under ob- 
 ligations to believe, and regard whatever they 
 found on record delivered by them, as the 
 meflagc and will of God himfelf. Now 
 'tis evident, that the miraculous works and 
 prediftions of MofeSy and the other prophets, 
 D 4 was 
 
(4o) 
 
 was the principal rcafon of their belief in, 
 and veneration for them. And therefore, 
 if our blcffcd Saviour did as great, or even 
 greater miracles than Mofes, or any of the 
 prophets that hved before his appearance in 
 the world, the evidence of his divine mifli- 
 on was in itfelf greater than theirs, and 
 therefore the Jews^2>x. lead, before whom his 
 miracles were performed, ought to have re- 
 ceived him for the very work's fake. Now 
 this was the cafe, even the Jews themfelves 
 being judges. Thus Nicodemus argued him to 
 have been a teacher fent from God, becaufi 
 no mayi can do the works which thou doft^ 
 except God be with him, ftrongly implying 
 that they were very extraordinary, Johnni, 2. 
 And in another place, they cry out, furprized 
 with his wonderful works. It w^as never 
 fo feen in Jfrael, Mat. ix. 33. And again, 
 'tis faid, Many of the people believed on him, 
 crying out, when Chrtft comes, will he do 
 more miracles than thefe, which this man 
 kath done? Johnvii. 31. when neverthelefs 
 they expcded thatC/?^/// fhould excel, even 
 on this account, all the prophets that were be- 
 fore him. And 'tis on this account, that 
 our Saviour himfclf declares their fin, in re> 
 
 jefting 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 jefting him, to be peculiarly heinous. * If 
 I had not done amongft them the ^juorks 
 which none other man did, they had not 
 had Jin, But now they have both feen^ and 
 hated both me and my father. So that he 
 blarpes them, not meerly for rejeding the 
 evidence he gave of his divine miffion by 
 miracles, but becaufe they rcjeftcd his evi- 
 dence, tho' it was fuperior to that of all the 
 other prophets that were before hinii in 
 whom they neverthelefs believed. 
 
 And to conclude this head, we fhall 
 farther find, that whatever ftrefs our Lord, 
 at fome times, fecms to have laid on his 
 miracles, yet that, elfewhere, he appeals to 
 his word, and the dodrines he taught ; which 
 he reprcfents to be of fuch a nature, as that 
 the miraculous works he did, in confirmati- 
 on of them, could be effefted by no other 
 power but that of God. Thus he urges it 
 as a reafon that men fhould love him, or re- 
 ceive and believe in bim, because the f word 
 which they heard was 7iot his^ hut the fa- 
 ther's which fent him. And in another place 
 ■^ he tells us, that God would judge eve- 
 ry one that fhould rejed him , Becaufe I 
 
 * John xr. 24. t John xiy. 24. ^ John xii. 49. 
 
 have 
 
(4^) 
 
 have not fpken of myfelf, but the father 
 hath fent me ; he gave me a commandment 
 what I Jhould fay^ and what I Jhould 
 fpeak. And to mention no more, his an- 
 Iwer to the JewSy who faid he caft out 
 Devils through Belzebuby the chief of Devils, 
 makes it abundantly plain, that it was not 
 miracles alone, that he infilled on as a fuf- 
 ficient proof of his miffion from God his 
 father ; but on miracles, as wrought in con- 
 firmation of dodrines oppofite to the intc- 
 reft of Devils. * Every kingdom divided a- 
 gainji it felf is brought to defolation i 
 and every city or houfe divided againji 
 it felf fhall not fland, K^nd if Satan 
 caji out Sat any he is divided againji him- 
 felf How then fhall his kingdom fiand ? 
 The bare cafting out of Devils from a 
 poffcffed perfon, was no argument that Sa- 
 tan was divided againft himfelf. This he 
 might have fufFered impoftors to do, to give 
 the greater confirmation and credit to the 
 impofture, and hereby to have ftrengthen- 
 cd his own authority and intereft among 
 mankind. But if any perfon doth mira- 
 cles, who himfclf is an eminently good and 
 
 * Mat, xij. ist 26. 
 
 holy 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 holy man, in confirmation of doclrines tend- 
 ing to godlinefs; if he lays claim to a di- 
 vine mifllon, and the evident tendency of 
 his mifllon is to deflroy the works of the 
 Devil, and to recover men to the know- 
 ledge and worfhip of the one only living and 
 true God, and proves his pretenfions by 
 cafling out devils , and other wonderful 
 works $ 'tis as evident that he cannot do 
 this, under the influence and power of the 
 Devil, as that the Devil cannot be fuppofed 
 willing to weaken, and deflroy his own au- 
 thority and interefl in this world. 
 
 Chap, 
 
( +4 ) 
 
 Chap. IL 
 Of the ufe of Miracles. 
 
 A V I N G in the former chapter 
 ftated my notion of miracles, and 
 cleared it from the principal diffi- 
 culties that might feem to clog it, I now 
 proceed to confider the ufe of miracles, and 
 to fhew for what reafons one might proba- 
 bly exped they fhould be wrought ; or for 
 what ends God may be reafonably thought 
 to interpofe, in order to produce them. 
 
 And 'tis evident, at firft view, that the 
 defign of miracles cannot be to prove, or 
 cftablifh the proofs of the principles of na- 
 tural religion j becaufe the very fuppofition 
 of God*s interpofing by miracles, fuppofes 
 alfo the certainty of his being, perfeftions 
 and providence 5 and becaufe every pretend- 
 ed revelation is to be judged of by the dic- 
 tates 
 
(4^ ) 
 
 ftatcs of rcafon, and its conformity to thofe 
 .natural notions of God and goodnefs that 
 arc implanted in us, and by which all doc- 
 trines, that miracles are pretended to be 
 wrought in confirmation of, muft be exa- 
 mined, before we can be under any obli- 
 gation to receive them. So that the very 
 fuppofition of a miracle implies, that thefe 
 notions are true, and therefore cannot be 
 w^rought to prove them fo. 
 
 Tis indeed reafonable to think, that God 
 may fend a pcrfon into the world, furni/h- 
 ed with a power to work miracles, to reco- 
 ver mankind to a fenfe of thefe important 
 principles and truths, that have been long 
 buried under deep ignorance and vices as well 
 as to reveal to them other matters, of great 
 moment, and confequence to their happi- 
 nefs. This certainly was one view of that 
 revelation God made by Mofes to the JewSy 
 and of his fpeaking to us, in thefe latter 
 days, by his fon. Such was the ftupidity and 
 wickednefs that had almofl: univerfally pre- 
 vailed, as made it neceffary, that a melTen- 
 g^er from God, furnifhed with the nobleft 
 credentials of his divine miflion, fhould ap- 
 pear, and preach up thefe firfland moft ne- 
 ceflary, tho* almofl: forgotten and forfaken 
 
 princi- 
 
(4^) 
 
 principles, of the being of a God, and his 
 providence, and the obligations to virtue and 
 goodnefs. But then 'tis to be confidered, 
 that the miracles wrought by fuch a perfon, 
 are not wrought as proofs of the being of a 
 God, or his providence, or the difference be- 
 tween good and evil 5 but as proofs of his 
 million from God, and hereby to procure 
 the greater authority and credit to his preach- 
 ing. And indeed there is nothing more e- 
 vident, than that the preaching up a mifllon 
 from God, fuppofes the reality of his being, 
 perfedlions, and providence, and that there- 
 fore miracles cannot be wrought, or appealed 
 to, as the proofs of it. 
 
 Nor are miracles necelTary as a farther tefti- 
 mony to the truth of any former revelati- 
 on, which hath already been fufHciently con. 
 firmed of God, and the proofs of which 
 may be found out by every ferious and im- 
 partial enquirer ; agreeable to that anfwcr 
 of Abraham to the rich man in the parable, 
 defiring that Lazarus might be fent to his 
 father's houfc. * Abraham faith unto hm^ 
 they have Mofts and the prophets -, let them 
 hear them. ^And he [aid, nay^ father 
 
 * Luke XV. V9,^c. 
 
 Abraham 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 Abraham 5 but if one went unto them from 
 the dead, they will repent. And he faid 
 tintohim^ if they will not hear Mofcs and 
 the prophets, neither will they beperfiiaded^ 
 the'' one rofe from the dead. The revelation 
 of God by Mofes was fufficiently attefted ; 
 therefore to ask new miracles in proof of it 
 was unreafonable, and had fuch a requeft 
 been granted,it would have proved inefFedlual 
 to anfwer the purpofe intended by it. Tis 
 indeed inconfiftent with the wifdom, juflice 
 and goodnefs of God, to require men to be- 
 lieve, or punifli them for not believing, what 
 they cannot have fufficient evidence to con- 
 vince them of the truth of. But if any for- 
 mer revelation hath been fufficiently attefted, 
 and the arguments for the certainty of fuch a 
 revelation may be known, and underftood 
 by application and enquiry i if men, either by 
 negligence or (loth, thro* pride and obftinatc 
 prejudice, will not fee, or not acknowledge 
 the evidence, as they aft a very unreafonable 
 part, fo I cannot apprehend that the divine 
 being is under any obligation, from any of 
 his perfeftions, to work new miracles to 
 pcrfuade them to believe, what there was 
 fufficient reafon for their believing without 
 them, God hath been plcafed fo to order 
 
 the 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 the circumftances of religion, as that it fliall be 
 a matter of our choice; and to cover it 
 with fome difficulties, that men may ufe 
 care and diligence in fearching, both into its 
 nature and evidence 5 that fo their very be- 
 iieving may be an aft of the greateft reafon, 
 and not owing to an overbaring teftimony 
 and power, but to thofe rational motives 
 and inducements, that are naturally fuited to 
 convince, and perfuade men. But if God 
 muft work new miracles, to fatisfie every 
 one s u nrealonable cavils againft the evidence 
 of religion, there will be no longer room 
 for enquiry, nor ufe of reafon 5 but God will 
 be under a neceffity of continually working 
 miracles, to gratify the pride and vanity of 
 every one that requires them. 
 
 The truth of former fads can only be 
 known by teftimony 5 and the teftimony 
 may be of fuch a nature, and attended with 
 fuch degrees of probability, as that it may be 
 altogether as unreafonable to rejed what is 
 thus confirm'd, as to deny the truth of any 
 demonftration whatfoever. The adverfaries 
 of the chriftian religion do not fcruplc to be. 
 licvc, that there were fuch men as Jefus 
 Chrijly Simon Magus, and LAppollonius Ty- 
 anaits 3 who pretended to be extraordinary 
 
 per- 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 perfons, and do many wonderful works. 
 Nor do 1 find that they make any great dif- 
 ficulty of allowing that the two latter did 
 in fad many fuch things ; fince they have 
 been fet up in competition to Jefiis Chrijl ; 
 tho* 'tis unlverfally confefs'd, that there v/ere 
 no dodlrines worthy of God, nor conducive 
 to the happineftof men, that either of them 
 had to fupport by thefe works 5 and altho' 
 the evidence for the fafts themfelvesis very 
 fmall, and not, by a thoufand degrees, fo 
 ftrong, as what may be produced for the 
 truth of our Saviour's miracles. And yet 
 as to thefe they are incurable unbelievers, 
 and make the moft obftinate refiftance to 
 them, tho' evidently wrought for the noblcft 
 ends, viz. to recover men to a fenfe of God 
 and goodnefs, and lead them into the way 
 of happinefs ; and tho* the evidence for the 
 reality of them is, I verily believe, as great^ 
 as we have for the certainty of any paft fafts 
 whatfoever. And if thus by unreafonable 
 prejudices they prevent themfelves from 
 difcerning that full evidence, on which cha- 
 ftianity is founded, and then rejed it, un- 
 der the pretence of its not having fufficicnt 
 evidence $ I fee no rcafon why they fliould 
 cxpeft any frefh proof, nor to think they 
 
 E would 
 
( so) 
 
 would be convinced by it, if they had it. 
 It' is by many of the more confiderate 
 deifts themfelves confefs'd, that Je/us Chrijl 
 was an excellent moraliftj that his precepts 
 were agreeable to reafon, and our natural 
 notions of God and goodnefs $ and that he 
 was himfelf a very good and virtuous man, 
 excepting his claim to a divine authority and 
 miifion, which they look upon as a meet fic- 
 tion, and upon all his miracles as idle (lories, 
 orthcdeludingtricks of a cunning jugler. But 
 I would ask, have they any other ground to 
 believe that he gave fuch precepts, than they 
 have to believe that he did fuch works ? Is it 
 reafonable to think, that a man who gave 
 fjch excellent defcriptions of God, that, with 
 fuch ftrength and force, preached up the 
 necefllry and obligation of moral duties, and 
 fo often inculcated the belief of future re- 
 wards and punifhments, and died to con- 
 firm thefe things by his blood; could yet 
 carry on an impofture throughout his whole 
 life 5 and, by fuch a notorious affront to God s 
 majefty, and impofition upon mankind, aft 
 in defiance to the belief of a God, the obliga- 
 tions of virtue, and the influence of thofe re- 
 wards and punilhments which he taught ? Or 
 have the evangelifts given us a true account of 
 2 our 
 
( ^I ) 
 
 our Saviour's morality, and yet invented the 
 ftory of his miracles, to do the greater honour 
 to their mafter > Bat if they were fuch ve- 
 ry bad men, as firft to invent, and then 
 fpread the ftory of his miracles, I fliould as 
 little credit the account they have given us 
 of his morals. Or (hall we, to finifh the 
 matter at once, rejeft the whole ftory of 
 Chrift as a fable, and deny that he ever lived 
 in the world, and that the morality of the 
 gofpel is of his teaching, and the works 
 afcribed to him of his performing 5 then mufl: 
 we be reduced to the manifeft abfurdity,of de- 
 nying the ftiongeft evidence for the truth of 
 fads, that ever was, or can be given to the 
 world. No one propofition in nature is 
 more evidently true than thisj that there 
 was fuch a perfon as. Jcfus Chrift, who 
 lived and died in jfudea j and if we allow 
 this, we muft farther acknowledge, that he 
 led an excellent life, and taught admirable 
 leflbns of morality $ and then we muft alfo 
 be forced to believe one ftep farther, viz^ 
 That he did many wonderful works in con- 
 firmation of thenij becaufe we have no 
 other evidence for the truth of one than of 
 the other. So that chriftianity ftands, at leaft, 
 upon the foot of very great probability ; fuch 
 E 2 as 
 
C n) 
 
 as would abundantly pcrfwade in any other 
 cafe. It feems to have all the certainty 
 which can belong to things of fuch a nature ^ 
 and therefore as men's infidelity is their fault, 
 they ought not to exped any new teftimony 
 from God, for the proof of what he hath al- 
 ready abundantly confirmed. 
 
 The polTibility of Miracles, as I have ftated 
 them, I believe none will doubt of 5 and 
 therefore I can fee no obje£tion of any force, 
 that can be brought againft them, but either 
 that they were improper to anfwer the end 
 defigned by them, or that the end might 
 have been more effedually anfwered another 
 way. The end of them undoubtedly was 
 to give a fufficient credit and authority to 
 our Lord's perfon and pretenfions. It was 
 neceflary to give a proper weight to his doc- 
 trines and precepts, that men fhould know 
 he was the meffenger of God, and authorized 
 by him to inftrud and fave them : Other- 
 wife the very attempt to introduce a new re- 
 ligion would have been foolifh, and muft 
 have proved inefFeftual. It would have been 
 impoflible ever to have perfwadedthe^^z^'j 
 to abandon a religion, adually inftituted by 
 God, and for which, on this account, they 
 had the higheft veneration, without the moft 
 
 exprefs 
 
( n) 
 
 cxprefs and clear warrant from God himfelf > 
 or to have prevailed with the Gentiles to aban- 
 don the altars of their deities,without Tome in- 
 contcftible proofs, that thofe peribns acted by 
 a divine commillion, who preached to them 
 to turn from fitch vanities. And what other 
 proof could there be fo ftrong and convincing 
 as miracles? Thefe certainly proved them to 
 ad by a fupernaturai alliflance, and from a 
 thoufand other circumftances it was cafy to 
 prove, that they adcd by commiflion horn 
 God. It was not fufficient that they affirm- 
 ed this of themfelves; nor were their doc- 
 trines alone, tho' agreeable to truth and 
 reafon,an evidence of their divine infpiration. 
 To give them therefore their proper weight, 
 and in order to their being univerlally rcccivM 
 amongft men, it was neceffary that thole who 
 preached them fliould be declared the mef- ' 
 fengers of God ; either by a voice from hea- 
 ven, or clfe by having fuch a power and au- 
 thority communicated to them, that fhould 
 evidently prove^that they aCted under a*fupc> 
 rior agency and influence; of which their 
 doing miracles, things beyond the power of 
 human nature to do, was an abundant dc- 
 monftration. If then it be a defign worthy 
 pf Gpd to recover men to virtue and happi- 
 E 3 nets 5 
 
C ^4) 
 
 ncft ; to authorize perfons for this purpofc, 
 and give them fufficient credentials for the 
 fatisfadion of others j 'tis evident that mira- 
 cles are proper to anfwer this end, and na- 
 turally conduce to fubferve the gracious de- 
 figns of providence, in reference to the per- 
 fcdion and happinefs of men ; and there- 
 fore there can be no argument brought from 
 the perfeftions of God, why he fhould not 
 himfelf interpofe in this matter, or fufFer 
 others to do it in his name, unlefs any one 
 can find out a more proper method to ac- 
 complifh fuch an end i to which I have hi- 
 therto been a ftranger. 
 
 And fince, if God fhould give any perfon 
 this teftimonial of his being fent of him, 
 the proof would be fo far peculiar to the 
 time when fuch a one fhould appear, as that 
 none but thofe, with whom he converfed, 
 cculd be eye witneffes to the fads themfelves, 
 and all others could receive no knowledge 
 of them but by tradition, and the report 
 of thofe that faw them, or to whom they 
 related them 5 if fuch tradition be faithful, 
 if there be concurrent accounts of the 
 fadls themfclves, and if thofe who relate 
 them are men of credit and veracity 5 in a 
 word, if we have the fame certainty of 
 
 them^ 
 
( ST) 
 them, as* we can have of any other paft fads, 
 the reafoii is the fame why we fliould believe 
 the one as the other: And if the chriflian 
 religion ftands upon fach a foundation of 
 probability as this, it muft be owing to an 
 unreafonable criminal prejudice in any to 
 rejed it, or to require new proofs of its di- 
 vine authority and original. 
 
 If it be faid by any, could we but fee one 
 new miracle wrought in confirmation of chri- 
 ftianity,it would be a great fatisfadion* to us, 
 as to the truth of thofe pretended to be 
 wrought by Chrift and his apoftlcs, I anfwcr : 
 If thofe miracles were not in themfclves incre- 
 dible, if the end faid to be anfwered by 
 them is confident with the perfcdions of 
 God, and conducive to the true interefts of 
 men ; and if there be as much proof that 
 they were in fad wrought, as the nature of 
 the thing will bear, to ask a farther proof, of 
 any fort, is an unreafonable requcft ; and 
 therefore as there is no need for any frefh 
 interpofition of providence to confirm what 
 is already fufficiently proved, there can be no 
 room to exped it. 
 
 But fuppofing that God fhould condefcend 
 
 to gratify fuch a defire as this, what would 
 
 be the confequcnce > Would fuchbecom e 
 
 E 4 immediate 
 
( t6) 
 
 immediate converts to the chriftian faith, up- 
 on the evidence of one or a few miracles, 
 who rejed: ittho' innumerable miracles have 
 been wrought to confirm it > I am afraid their 
 infidelity would not be fo foon or eafily o- 
 vercome 5 nor the lefler proof cffed, wh^t 
 the much greater cannot do. Should a real 
 miracle be wrought before them, it would 
 he, either only a proof that they were ppf- 
 ilble 5 but that is already as evident, as that 
 there are beings to us fuperior in power and 
 wifdom, and fo far would be of no fervicc 
 to the proof of chriftianity : Or elfe being 
 wrought in favour of the chriftian religion, 
 might be looked on as an additional tefl:imo- 
 ny to the truth of it , but even this would 
 be no farther teftimony, L e. no other fort 
 of teftimony, than what we have already to 
 depend on ; and there would be much more 
 reafon for a fufpicion of fraud and cheat in 
 one, or a few works of this kind, than in the 
 innumerably many wrought by Chrift and 
 his apoftles. Or fhould fuch pcrfons, who 
 are not fatisfied with the proof,, on which 
 chriftianity already ftands, believe the mira* 
 cle real 5 I cannot be fure, that they would not 
 be of the Amc temper with the Jews in 
 our Saviour's time, who, when they could 
 
 not 
 
in) 
 
 not deny the miracle, prevented the good 
 cfFe£t it ought to have had on their minds, 
 by crying out, This feUow cajteth not out 
 devilSy but by Beelzebub tke prince of devils. 
 Mat. ix. 34. Or that they would not reaibn 
 like the priefts and faducees in the AEis^w, 10. 
 who, upon the wonderful cure wrought on 
 the impotent man by Veter and John^ came 
 to this wije and honeft refolution. What 
 Jhall we do to thefe men ? for that indeed 
 a notable miracle hath been done by them, 
 is manifefl to all, and we cannot deny it. 
 But that it fpread no farther amongji the 
 people^ let us flraitly threaten them, that 
 they fpeak henceforth to no man in this 
 name. And I would farther ask, in what 
 manner they would have this teftimony by 
 miracle given ? A miracle in itfelf would 
 no more prove chriftianity to be true, than 
 any other inftitution whatfoever, unlefs ap- 
 plied to this purpofe. Would they there- 
 fore have God himfelf to (peak to them, 
 and tell them that this miracle Was wrought 
 in confirmation of it? This fuppofes fome- 
 thing elfe neceffary to convince them, than 
 the chriftian dodrines confirmed by mira- 
 cles, and fo fuppofes the very evidence they 
 ^elire infufficient, Or would they have a 
 
 fecond 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 fccond perfon fent into the vvorld,to preach 
 up the divine authority and religion of Chrift, 
 and confirm it by new miracles? Will they 
 therefore believe chriftianity to be true, if 
 they hear a perfon declare it fo, and fee him 
 work a miracle to confirm it > If this be a 
 reafonable ground of belief, they ought to 
 become immediate converts to the chriftian 
 faith, which, they may know, is fupported by 
 this fort of proof already, in its higheft per- 
 feftion. And therefore their disbelieving 
 chriftianity, notwithftanding this evidence 
 for the truth of it, fhews they would not 
 think this kind of proof fufficient. And in- 
 deed how could they reafonably be convinced 
 by a few miracles, wrought by a perfon, 
 who never was a witnefs to the truth of 
 what he affirms, rather than by the innumera- 
 ble miracles wrought by Chrift himfelf, and 
 his apoftles after him > This would be alto- 
 gether as unreafonable, as if any one fhould 
 rejeft the hiftory of jfulius Cafar as a fidi- 
 on, tho' he had the writings of Cafar him- 
 felf, and the concurrent teftimony of all 
 the ancient Roman authors 5 and yet at laft 
 be convinced upon the fingle authority of a 
 modern one. But fuppofing they Ihould be 
 convinced; have not others the fame reafon 
 
 to 
 
( S9 ) 
 
 to expeft the fame fatisfaftion with them- 
 fclves? And is not God under the fame obli- 
 gation to give it to all,as to one? If (o, 'twill 
 follow that there is need of a perpetual cour(e 
 of miracles, to the end of the world, to 
 keep up the credit and authority of chrifti- 
 anity. And even this would effcdually de- 
 ftroy the very defign, pretended to be an- 
 fwered by it. For miracles being thus made 
 cheap and common, would ceafe to be won- 
 derful and furprizing, and fo have no power 
 to convince and perfwade men ; no more 
 efFed on them than the rifing of the fun, or 
 the frefh life and verdure of the fpring,which 
 can be accounted for no other way, that I 
 know of, but from the fole will and power 
 of the creator. 
 
 It is no wonder,if,in fuch a number of ages, 
 fmce the firft appearance of chriftianity in the 
 world, there fhould arife fome matters of diffi- 
 culty and difpute concerning it, of which 
 we may not be able to give an eafy and fa- 
 tisfaftory account. But then it ought to be 
 confidered,that this is not peculiar to chriftia- 
 nity, nor the books of the New Teftament. 
 In all ancient books, as they have been of- 
 ten tranfcribed, there will be of neceflity 
 various readings 5 which muft happen to the 
 
 facred 
 
facrcd writings as well as to any other, un- 
 Icfs we can fuppofe that God was obhged to 
 guide every tranfcribcr s hand, or take care 
 that no errors fhould come out from the 
 prefs. The providence of God is abundantly- 
 vindicated, by taking care that no fuch errors 
 fhall happen, which may lead men into opi- 
 nions and practices contrary to the end and 
 ^efign of the revelation given. As for o- 
 ther things of lefler confequence, where, 
 neither the intereft of the divine govern- 
 ment, nor the happinefs of men are con- 
 cerned, to aflert it neceffary that God fhould 
 interpofe to prevent any differences or dis- 
 putes about them, is to affirm it neceffary, 
 that God fhould interpofe in. a very extraor- 
 dinary manner, tho' there be no extraordi- 
 nary occafion to require it. The great end 
 of a revelation from God undoubtedly can 
 only be, to acquaint men with his will in 
 reference to their duty , and to encourage 
 them by proper motives to perform it j that 
 fo they may obtain his favour, and fecure 
 their own happinefs. And therefore all the 
 objeftions formed againft the facred books, 
 upon account of the differences, that may 
 be found in the feveral copies we have 
 of them> will appear to be of no force to 
 
 provQ 
 
( 6i ) 
 
 prove them not written by a divine authori- 
 ty and influence, till it can be proved that 
 the original defign of them is hereby quite 
 obfcured, and that therefore they are infufH- 
 cient to make men virtuous and happy. And 
 indeed till this be made out, the objedion 
 carries in it this manifeft contradidion. That 
 the fcriptures cannot be from God, becaufe 
 there is in them fuch a number of various 
 readings, as render them infufficientto accom- 
 plifh that great end, for which they are abun- 
 dantly fufficient. 
 
 And as to all hiftories of ancient date, 
 there will alfo arife difficulties, either with 
 refped to the chronology, fads, references 
 and cuftomsjthat, at this diftance of time, wc 
 may not eafily account for 5 whilfl never- 
 thelefs, with the greateft reafbn, we believe 
 the hiftories in general to be true, and the au- 
 thors of them to be perfons of integrity and 
 credit. And if this be no objedlion, with 
 any man of common underftanding and 
 reafon, againft his believing the hiftory of 
 paft times, why (hould the fame difficulties, 
 attending chriftianity, prejudice any perfon 
 from receiving it? Since they require no 
 new proof for the truth of ancient fads in 
 other cafes, but what they have from the 
 
 con- 
 
(6i) 
 
 concurrent tcftimony of antient writers ; and 
 fcruple not to believe particular hiftories, 
 tho' in fome parts very liable to juft excep- 
 tions 5 if the teftimony in favour of chriftia- 
 nity be as ftrong and full, there will be, not- 
 withftanding all the difficulties that attend it, 
 the fame reafon for believing it, and no 
 iiecd of any further proofs to confirm it j 
 and therefore as farther miracles are in them- 
 felves needlefs, 'tis unreafonable to exped 
 them. 
 
 The only end therefore and ufe of mira- 
 cles that I can think of, when wrought by 
 the afliftance of God, or good fpirits in 
 fubjedion to him, feems to be this, *viz. 
 to confirm that perfon's miffion from 
 God, who comes in his name, and by his 
 authority, and hath a revelation of his will 
 to impart to men : Or 'tis reafonable to think 
 that God will interpofe, and give an ex- 
 traordinary afliftance to his, fervants, when 
 'ds neceffary to convince men of their mifll- 
 09 from him , and in order to fecure the 
 greater credit to the meflage they deliver in 
 his name. No confiderate perfon can ima- 
 ginc, that God will fend a fpecial mcffenger 
 from himfelf, but on cafes of very great im- 
 portance and jQeccIfity j and when ever he 
 
 fees 
 
( ^3 ) 
 
 fees fit to do it, we may be aflured he will 
 enable him to fupport the charader, which 
 he hath iionoured him with, by giving him 
 fuch credentials, as Ihall be a fufHcient proof 
 of his divine inftrudion and authority. Now 
 'tis evident that the moft excellent dodrines 
 and precepts, that can be delivered, would 
 not in themfelves be a proper evidence of 
 any perfons m'illion from God 5 becaufe 
 poffibly his own reafonable powers and fa- 
 culties might have been fufficient for the 
 difcovery of thcfe things i and therefore 'tis 
 neceffary he fhould have farther proof to ap- 
 peal to, even fuch works, in which it may 
 evidently appear, to all impartial enquirers, 
 that he ads under a fuperior power and influ- 
 ence ; fuch works in which, either the hand 
 of God himfelf may be difcovered, or at leafl: 
 the miniftration of good beings under him. 
 
 For whatever miracles can be proved to 
 be done, either by the immediate interpofi- 
 tion of God himfelf, or by the agency of 
 good fpirits, this will be a certain proof, that 
 the perfon who doth them, ought to be re- 
 garded as a meflenger from God. For the' 
 falfe prophets may do real miracles, to jut 
 tify falfe pretenfions, by the affiftance of fu- 
 perior evil Ipirits 5 and tho' there doth not 
 
 , appear 
 
( ^+ ) 
 
 appear any fufficient reafon to thinkj that 
 God is always obliged to fufpend thofe po\l^- 
 crs he hath given them, or hinder their do- 
 ing many wonderful works, for the fupport 
 of their own intereft and authority; yet 'tis 
 not reconcileable with any of the divine per- 
 fections, to imagine that God himfelf will 
 adually fupport falfe pretenfions, or exert his 
 own power for the confirmation of a lye. 
 Nor will any wife and good fpirits be inftru- 
 mental to fupport, and propagate a real im- 
 pofture, or concur with a wicked man in 
 perfwading others to believe, that he hath 
 that authority from God, which he adlually 
 hath not ; for this would deftroy the fup- 
 pofition of their bei^g wife or good. 
 
 But it may be asked, what need is there 
 of miracles for this end ? Or why fhould God 
 interpofc in this extraordinary nianner, when 
 the fame end may be anfwered without it? 
 IS not the difference between truth and falfe* 
 hood, good and evil, virtue and vice, eafily 
 difcoverable without a miracle to inform us , 
 or any divine interpofition to difcover thefe 
 things to us? 
 
 1 anfwer,that it muft be acknowledged, that 
 there have been fome,who,by the meer hght of 
 nature, have niade noble difcoveries with re- 
 
 fcrenc^ 
 
(65) 
 
 ference to God, and moral goodnefs. The 
 writings o( Cicero^ Seneca^ Tlutarch, and 
 others abound with the nobleft fentiments 
 and rules, and fliew the vaft reach, 
 and excellent tendency of our reafon- 
 able powers, when they are carefully 
 exercifed and improved. But could there 
 be more of thefe inftances produced than 
 there can, it would not in the leafl; dif- 
 prove the expediency, not to fay the ne- 
 ceffity of revelation. 
 
 'Tis however evident, that the num- 
 ber of fuch perfons hath been always 
 very few. One or two in an age feem 
 to be the moft, that meer nature could 
 ever form, or raife up; and therefore it 
 muft be proved, either that thefe few were 
 capable, and willing to inftruQ: and reform 
 the world ; or elfe that the generality of 
 mankind, throughout all ages of the world, 
 have needed no information and inftrufti- 
 on, before any reafonableobjcQions can be 
 urged againft the neceffity of a revelati- 
 on, fupported by proper proofs. 
 
 To affirm that there never hath been 
 
 a time, when mankind have needed in- 
 
 ftruftion and reformation, and of confe- 
 
 quence when a revelation from God would 
 
 F have 
 
(66) 
 
 have been highly ufeful, and conducive 
 to the general welfare, would be to con- 
 tradia the moft authentick and antient 
 hiftories. If we confider the account 
 given, both of Jews and Gentiles^ by 
 the New Teftament writers, as bare 
 hiflorians only, they appear to have been 
 m the moft deplorable circumftances of 
 ignorance and vice. Thus St. Paul re- 
 prefents the Gentiles in general, as per. 
 fons that knew not God^ neither were 
 thankful^ who changed the glory of the 
 nncorrupihle God, into an image made 
 like to corruftihle vian, and to hirds^ 
 and four footed heafts, and creeping 
 thingsy who changed the truth of God 
 into a lye J and worJJ)i]^^ed and ferved 
 the creature more than the eternally 
 ilejjed Creator^ and who were there- 
 fore given wj) of God to imcleannefs^ a?id 
 to vile Affections^ Rom. i. 21. i^c. And 
 in another place he fpeaks of them, as 
 perfons dead in trefpajjes and finsy 
 wherein^ in times pafiy they walked ac- 
 cording to the courje ofthisworld, ac- 
 cording to the frince of the power of 
 the airy the fpirit that works in the 
 children of di f obedience \ as having their 
 
 con* 
 
(6?) 
 
 cojwerfation in the lufis of the flejh^ and 
 fulfilling the defires of the flejhly mindi 
 and of confequence as children ofwrathy 
 and without bo^e^and God in the world 
 Eph. ii. 2, J. i^c. This is a plain and 
 hiftorical account of the then circum- 
 ftances of the heathen world ; and this 
 account is confirmed by the beft writers 
 amongft themfelves, who are full of the 
 grofs idolatry, and horrid vices that too 
 univerfally prevailed amongft mankind. 
 And as to the Jews-, who boafted of 
 their facred oracles, how ftrangely de. 
 generated were they from the faith 
 and piety of their anceftors ? With what 
 enormous crimes did our Saviour re- 
 proach them? as an hyf^ocritical adul- 
 ter oiis generation^ Mat. xii. 39. as 
 teaching the commandments of men 
 for dottrines of God, Mat. xv. 9. as 
 tranfgrejjing the commandments of God^ 
 and making them of none ejfeB by their 
 tradition^ v. j. 6. yea, as Hind leaders 
 of the Hind J v. 14. as devourers of 
 widows houfesy making long prayers 
 thro^ a pretence of extraordinary pietyy 
 as paying tythe of mint ^ anife and cum- 
 minj hut omitting the weightier mat- 
 F 2 ters 
 
(68) 
 
 ters of the law^ judgment^ mercy, aid 
 fxiith ; as full of extortion and excefs, 
 and of all hyfocrify and iiiiquity, Mat. 
 xxiii. thromhout. This was the character 
 of their priefts and teachers; and how 
 iTu'fcrable therefore mull: the condition 
 oi^ the people be, who were under fuch 
 hypocritical and abandoned guides. And 
 this account is agreeable to that given 
 of them by Jofe^hm, a writer and coun- 
 tryman of their own, who reprefents 
 them as a moft wicked and deteflable 
 generation, who would have been con- 
 fumed by the fpecial vengeance of God, 
 had they not been deftroyed by the Ro- 
 man army. So true was that rcprefen- 
 tation of St. Paidj All, both fe-i^^s and 
 Gentiles, have ji/ined, and come port 
 of the glory of God, Rom. iii. 23. 
 
 Now I would ask any confiderate per- 
 fon, whether or no, in fucb an univerfal 
 degeneracy and deep ignorance, fuppo- 
 fing the being and providence of a God, 
 *t would not have been highly worthy of 
 thefupream wifdomand goodnefs,tohave 
 interpofed to recover men to the know- 
 ledge of thofe truths that had been fo long, 
 and fo entirely loft- and to the praftice 
 
 of 
 
(69) 
 
 of that virtue and goodnefs from which 
 there was fo total an apoftacy? Is it 
 reafonable to think, that the Father of 
 men could view thefe wretched circum. 
 ftances of his own offspring without a 
 tender compallion of their cafe ? Or can 
 we fuppofe that the divine mercy would 
 withhold thenecelTary relief; or that, if 
 there was no other way, that could fo 
 effeftually recover men as a revela- 
 tion from himfelf, it fliould be incon- 
 fiftent with the divine wifdom, and 
 uneceffary on the part of men, for God 
 to grant it? And can we imagine that 
 any meffenger would have been ynore 
 proper to reveal the will of God to men, 
 than a man like themfelves ? Or that any 
 more effe£tual method could have been 
 thought of, to awaken them out of their 
 ftupidicy, than that a man fliould boldly 
 proclaim himfelf the meffenger of God,, 
 and fent by him to reform and fave the 
 world ; leading himfelf the moft exem- 
 plary life, loudly calling men to repen- 
 tance, preaching up the doftrine of one 
 God, and the worChip of him in fpi i" 
 and truth; encouraging the hop s ot 
 thofe that fhould believe in aad obvr 
 F 2 h -i 
 
(70) 
 
 him, and awakning the fears of others 
 by denouncing the wrath of God, againft 
 all unrighteoufnefs and ungodlinefs of 
 men; and as the proof of his divine 
 million, without any controul or hin- 
 drance, raifing the dead, curing the def- 
 eafed, reftoring fight to the blind, and 
 limbs to the maimed ; creating bread for 
 the hungry, calming the winds, ftilling 
 the waves and tumults of the fea, call- 
 ing out devils, prophecying of his own 
 death, and of his glorious refurreftion 
 that fhould immediately enfue ? Would 
 not all that beheld him ftand aftoniflied 
 at fuch a teacher, and fuch mighty 
 works? And would not fuch an infe- 
 rence as this be very juft, This fnan 
 could do nothing unlefs God zk)ere with 
 him. 
 
 That no perfon, but one thus in- 
 ftrufted and furnifhed of God, was ca- 
 pable of reforming the world under the 
 circumflances in which it lay, at our 
 Saviour's appearance, is I think almoft 
 demonftrable ; and if fo, the necefTity 
 of a revelation at this junfture will ap- 
 pear, and of confequence the neceflity 
 of miracles, to give him the greater 
 
 credit 
 
(?■ 3 
 
 credit and authority that was to bring 
 it. 
 
 For inftance, who could, with any 
 hope of fuccefs, have undertaken the 
 work of converting the heathen world 
 from th^ir idolatry and vice? 'Tistrue the 
 wifer of them contemned the gods the 
 generality adored, and faw the abfurdity 
 of the religious worfhip that was paid 
 them. But ftill they knew not how to 
 prevent what, with juftice, they fo often 
 rediculed. They did indeed, now and 
 then, reafon well in their writings. But 
 with what guard and caution, leaftthey 
 fhould become fufpefted by the people, 
 and charged with contempt of the gods 
 their country worfliipped ? And how 
 meanly did they comply with the prevail- 
 ing fuperftitions of the time, and counte- 
 nance the general impiety by their own 
 example. Herein even Cicero^ Senecay 
 Tiutarchj and others of the moft emi- 
 nent heathens were exceeding criminal ; 
 and therefore, with all their excellencies, 
 were every way unfit to become the 
 teachers and reformers of others. 
 
 Befides, where can we find, in all the 
 
 writings of thefe men, any one plain 
 
 E 4 uniform 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 uniform confiftent fcheme of things? 
 When theyvfpeak of the being of a 
 God, the immortality of the foul, and a 
 future world of rewards and punifli- 
 ments, doctrines of the greateft impor- 
 tance, do they fpeak of them with full 
 afTurance themfelves, or give any con- 
 vincing proofs of the truth of them to 
 others ? In one difpute they feem to 
 allow that thefe things are highly pro- 
 bable ; in the next they hefitate, retraft 
 and deny. Had they therefore defigned 
 their writings for the benefit of others, 
 how could they have underftood their 
 real fentiments; how could they have 
 been afTured which was their laft prevail- 
 ing opinion ? They wrote indeed like men 
 at a lofs, and in very great uncertainty. 
 And indeed how fliould they do other- 
 wife, when many of the divine perfecli- 
 ons, the moft acceptable method of wor- 
 ihipping God, and the ftate and circum- 
 ftances of a future world, cannot poflibly 
 be known but by a revelation from 
 God? 
 
 But now fuppofing that there were 
 none of thefe defefts in the writings of 
 thefe great men, but that they contained 
 
 aa 
 
(73) 
 
 an uniform fdieme of truth, and a 
 perfect iyftem of morals, yet ftill they 
 would have been unfit for reforming 
 the world, and incapable of accomplifh- 
 ing the neceflary work. For all, that 
 know any thing of mankind, know, that 
 there are but few capable of abftrafted 
 reafonings, and that bare ledures of mo- 
 rality and virtue are likely to have but 
 little fuccefs, unlefs attended with pro- 
 per motives and encouragements. Now 
 herein all the writings of the pagan phi- 
 lofophers were exceeding deficient. Cotta 
 and Balbus might difpute for ever de na-^ 
 tura deorum^ and yet not make one con- 
 vert from Idolatry ; and Qkero might write 
 hke an Angel de finihm lonorum i§ ma- 
 lorum^ and quote the authorities of the 
 antient Sages of Greece ; and yet, if he 
 had no better motives to urge to a pre- 
 judiced ignorant vitious multitude, re- 
 main without influence or fuccefs. Vices 
 long eftablifhed, univerfally praftifed, 
 encouraged by the examples of fup- 
 pofed deities, and fanftified even by the 
 folemnities of religious worfhip, were 
 not to be reftrained or cured by the 
 authority or writings of one or two pri- 
 vate 
 
(74) 
 
 vate philofophers, who taught better 
 than they lived, and prevented the good 
 effefts their beft precepts might have 
 had, by Ihewing too httle regard to them 
 in their own behaviour. I could wifh 
 one of our modern Deifls would make 
 the experiment; let him draw up a 
 confident fcheme of natural truths, and 
 make the moil perfeft colleftion of mo- 
 ral duties from Cicero and Seneca^ and 
 if he pleafes, from the goffels of Jefus 
 Chrifiy and the Efijiles of P^/J, and tra- 
 vel into the Indies^ or Africa^ and fpread 
 them among the nations inhabiting thofe 
 countries, and try what harveft he can 
 make amongfl: them, upon this founda- 
 tion. The reclaiming of thofe ignorant 
 people from their miferable circum- 
 llances, the inftilling into them better 
 notions of God, and juft fentiments of 
 morality and virtue, would really be a 
 very charitable undertaking, and un- 
 queftionably acceptable to the Deity. 
 If they find any tolerable fuccefs, with- 
 out pretending to a divine miffion, or 
 working any miracles amongft thofe 
 they would reform, I fhould then be- 
 gin to queftion the neceflity of a divine 
 
 revela- 
 
(75) 
 
 revelation ; and of confequence of thofe 
 miracles, that, as yet, feem to me to be 
 neceflary to the proof of it. 
 
 I may be thought poffibly to be in 
 jeft in making fuch a propofal, and I be- 
 lieve I (hall find no one very ready to 
 comply with it. 'Tis however I think ab- 
 folutely neceffary, either that fome one 
 or other of them fliould do this, or that 
 they fhould produce an inftance of fome 
 univerfal alteration made in the religious 
 fentiments and practices of mankind, 
 without any pretence to miracles, or di- 
 vine infpiration, in order to render the 
 fuppoficion pofTible. Nothing certainly 
 appears more incredible or unlikely ; and 
 I am apt to think, that no confiderate 
 perfon will eafily believe it, 'till fome in- 
 ftance or other of the like nature can be 
 produced, or the tempers of men be- 
 come exceedingly altered. It is well 
 known that the ancient lawgiversy a- 
 mongfl: the Greeks and Romans, thought 
 it neceflary, to fecure a due obedience 
 to their laws, to pretend they recei- 
 ved them by i7tfpration from the Gods. 
 The Jewijh re^ullick owed its, rife 
 entirely to, at leaft, the fuppofed an-* 
 
 tboritj 
 
(76) 
 
 thority of God ; and it was this that 
 made"^ the ^fojlles of Chrift fo abun- 
 dantly fuccefsful, becaufe they declared 
 themfelves, and were believed by oth«rs 
 to he the 7ne\j'engers o^ God, Nor was 
 Mahomet wanting in this pretence, who, 
 ftiled himfelf ^^6* afoftle of God-, who 
 becaufe he could perform no miracles, 
 took another method to fupport the cha- 
 rafter he had ufurped, viz. by fheath- 
 ing his fword in the bowels of thofe, 
 who would not receive him as fuch. 
 
 Since therefore all the remarkable 
 changes, as to religion and manners, 
 that have ever been made in the world, 
 have been introduced and managed by 
 the pretence to, and claim of a divine 
 authority, in the great authors of them ; 
 and fince it doth not, in the nature of 
 the thing, feem probable, that mankind 
 fhould, in any age of the world, be reco- 
 vered from a ftate of univerfal degeneracy 
 and ignorance, to a better ftate of know- 
 ledge and virtue, but under the influ- 
 ence of this perfwafion, that the perfons 
 endeavouring to reform them aft in the 
 name of, and by warrant from God; 
 a revelation from God, fupported by 
 
 miracles, 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 miracles, or other proper proofs, will 
 appear highly neceffary, iHt can be fhewn 
 that mankind ever have been in fuch a 
 ftate of univerfal degeneracy and igno- 
 rance. It is an aft worthy the fupreme 
 goodnefs to fave men from fuch deplora- 
 ble circumftances, and becoming the in- 
 finite wifdom of God tointerpofe by his 
 own authority, the more effeflually to 
 accomplifh it. 
 
 I do not fee how this reafoning can be 
 fhewn to be inconclufive, but by urging 
 what I think may be retorted on the 
 objeftors, with great advantage, viz. 
 that God might reveal himfelf to every 
 particular perfon ; and that this would 
 be a more certain means of reforming 
 men, and entirely fuperfede the ufe and 
 neceffity of miracles. 'Tis allowed that 
 God might do fo, if he had pleafed. 
 But then this would have been to 
 have treated men, not as reafonable 
 beings, or free agents; and would 
 have made their knowledge and virtue 
 as neceflary as the fliape of their bodies, 
 or features of their face. ?. e. 'Tis to 
 fuppofe that God muft have afted in a 
 manner, not fuitable to the ftate and 
 
 circum- 
 
(78) 
 
 circumftances of his creatures, but con- 
 trary to the reafon and nature of things. 
 For as mankind are made capable of 
 judging and determining for themfelves, 
 reafon teaches us, that their religion and 
 virtue fhould not be from an overuling 
 necefTity or conftraint, but the refult of 
 an impartial enquiry, and free choice. 
 But befides, this fuppofition, if it may be 
 thought to remove one diiBculty, yet 
 manifeftly fubftitutes a greater in its 
 room. For which is the moft probable 
 fuppofition, either that God fliould, up- 
 on fome very extraordinary occafion, 
 when there was need of his immedi- 
 ate interpofition, go a little out of the 
 common courfe of things, to anfwer a 
 very wife and gracious defign ; or that 
 he fhould continually fuperfecie, and a£t 
 contrary to thofe laws, which are of his 
 own eftablifliing. That God fhould be 
 continually making a new revelation of 
 Jiimfelf to every man, tho** there was no 
 real neceflTity for it, is certainly more ex- 
 traordinary and incredible, than that he 
 Ihould do it upon fpecial occafions, when 
 the general benefit of mankind required 
 it, and might have been eftcflually fe- 
 
 cured 
 
(79) 
 
 cured by it : And therefore an exception 
 againft the neceffity and ufe of miracles, 
 as I have ftated it, that implies the ne- 
 cefllty of a much greater miracle in the 
 room of it, is made contrary to the laws 
 of juft reafoning, and without any advan* 
 tage to the objeftors. 
 
 Chap, 
 
(8o) 
 
 Chap. III. 
 
 Containing the Rules of 
 judging hy whom Miracles 
 are performed. 
 
 Iiimlllf, 
 
 INCE, as hath been alrea- 
 dy fiiewn, all miracles done 
 by men are performed, ei- 
 ther by the afliftance of God 
 or, which is the fame thing, 
 the miniftration of his angels; or by 
 fpirits engaged in an oppofite intereft to 
 God, and for purpofes contrary to his; 
 our next enquiry is, how we may di- 
 ftinguiili one from the other ; or fatisfy 
 our felves when miracles are done by 
 God and good fpirits, or by evil ones 
 in oppofition to him. And here 
 
 I. There 
 
(8.) 
 
 I. There are feveral rules we have to 
 judge by, that refpect the works them- 
 felves pretended to be done. As that the 
 things be in themfelves poffible; fince no 
 power whatfoever can effeft that which 
 is ftridly impolTible. And therefore we 
 may be fure, that an impoffibility, or 
 what implies a real contradiQ:ion, re- 
 prefentcd as a miracle, and for the proof 
 of which recourfe is had to the divine 
 power, never was, or can be effeded; 
 and therefore trafifuhflantiation^ the 
 Handing miracle of the church of Romej 
 is a falfity and impofture; and fo far 
 from being a proof of the infallibility of 
 that churchy that it's alTerting this mon- 
 ftrous doftrine is a demonftration of its 
 being a very erroneous one. 
 
 'Tis alfo neceflary, that the things be 
 probable as well as poffible; that they do 
 not carry along with them the appearance 
 of romance and fable, which would, una* 
 voidably, very much prejudice men a- 
 gainft believing them. For it doth not feeni 
 at all likely, that God would make ufe 
 of means, that fliould feem incredible, 
 to confirm the truth; or that he would 
 G go 
 
(82) 
 
 go too far out of the courfe of nature to 
 iupport a eharafler, that might be more 
 efleftually fupported another way. And 
 therefore, fome of the few miracles^ 
 pretended to be wrought by Mahomet^ 
 viz, his fflittiftg of the moo?i^ and his 
 1^'ondetf id journey to heave?i ; and others 
 which Philo/iratm relates of J^olloni- 
 m Tyanam^ in his life, viz. that vefjels 
 of wine and water ^ talles^ cuj>s, and 
 dipesi placed thetnfelves in order^ for 
 his entertainment among the Indians; 
 that he underfiood the langtme of lirdsj 
 that he converfed with the ghoft of 
 Achilles, and the Jike^ look at firft view 
 like dreams and fables ; and have no pre- 
 tence to be believed. Indeed the very 
 telling fuch ftories is enough to confute 
 the truth of them. 
 
 But what is principally to be regarded 
 on this head is, that the things pretended 
 to be done be (iich, as that 'tis confiftent 
 with the perfeftions of God to intereft him- 
 felf in ; and with his charafter, as gover- 
 nour of the word, to do. As that they be 
 fuch, as plainly difcover fomewhat of that 
 mighty power, which ncceflarily belongs 
 to the eternal biing , not fuch as look 
 
 like 
 
like the little tricks and cunning deceits 
 of artful impoftors. Of this fort are 
 many of the pretended miracles of the 
 church of Rome; the JiquefaBion of 
 St. Januarius's hlood; the fweating and 
 bowing of the image of the Virgin 
 Mary, and the like ; things too mean to 
 require the interpofition of the Al- 
 mighty's power, and which look like 
 nothing but the tricks and rogueries of 
 wicked and decitful priefts* Again, they 
 muft be fuch as are agreeable to the 
 notions we have of the perfcftion 
 of the divine wifdom ; things that do 
 not carry with them an air of ambigui- 
 ty, and that are not liable to juft fufpi- 
 cion and exception. For, as God can do 
 whatever he pleafeth, fo we have rea- 
 fon to think, that he, who is infinite in 
 iinderftandijtg^ will give his meffengers 
 fuch credentials, as (hall be certain and 
 valid. And therefore we may be afTured, 
 that the heathen oracles, which were ge- 
 nerally delivered in very ambiguous 
 terms, in words that had a double mean- 
 ing, or no certain determinate fenfe, and 
 which would anfwer the event which 
 way ever it lliould happen, were not 
 
 ^ ^ from 
 
( 84 ) 
 
 from him, to who7n all things are na'ked 
 and o^en ; but proceeded, either from the 
 priefts, who could not forefee the event, 
 or from evil and deluding fpirits, who 
 could not fecure it. Again, they muft 
 be fuch things as anfwer to the characler 
 of God, as a good and gracious being. 
 For tho\ fometimes, he may fee proper 
 to punifli an obftinate rebellious people, 
 hyterrihle thhigsin right eotifnefiy whom 
 the mofl: miraculous inftances of good- 
 nefs will not foften into obedience ; yet 
 it feems reafonable to believe, that when- 
 ever the firft and beft of beings is plea* 
 fed to fend an extraordinary meflenger, 
 with a revelation of his will, he will fur- 
 nifli him with fuch proofs of his milTi- 
 on as may argue, not only the .power of 
 him in whofe name he comes, but his 
 love to men, and his inclination to do 
 them good. And therefore we may be 
 affured, that fuch, who would fanftify 
 methods of cruelty and perfecution, by 
 pretences to a divine warrant and com- 
 mand, aA not by commiffion from him 
 who is the father of mercies^ but by 
 the inftigation of that wifdom which is 
 earthlj^ Jenftial^ and deviUJIu 
 
 And 
 
C85) 
 
 And in order that the proof may be 
 yet more convincing, 'tis neceffary that 
 tlie things pretended to be miracles be 
 done openly, in the eye of the world, and 
 before many and proper witnelTes; 
 with that manifeft fincerity, open- 
 nefs, and freedom which becomes a good 
 man, and one ading by authority fronx 
 God. As fuch a one can have no im- 
 polture to fupport, he can have no dif- 
 covery to fear. The very reafon of his 
 doing miracles is, that others may be wit- 
 nefles to them ; and he is therefore wilr 
 h'ng that his works may be tried, and 
 that the ftricleft fcrutiny may be made; 
 into them ; that others being convinced 
 there is no fraud, may fubmit to tliQ 
 evidence of them. It is a bad fign, when 
 perfons fo aft as if they were fufpiciou^ 
 of themfelves, and afraid of a difcovery; 
 when they choofe to do their wonders^ 
 either with as much fecrecy as thy can, 
 or in the prefence of but few witneffes, 
 or thofe that are ignorant and unlearned 
 perfons ; and not fo very able and likely 
 to difcover and find out the impofture. 
 
 And as they ought to be performed 
 
 m the moll open and publick raanner, 
 
 ^ G 3 fo 
 
(-8(5) 
 
 fo the more they are in number, of the 
 greater force and evidence they will ap« 
 pear. One fingle aftion, tho' never fo 
 wonderful, would have but very little 
 influence. Thofe that were witnefTes 
 to it, tho' they might at Hrft be fur pri- 
 zed at the unufual event, yet when the 
 furprize was gone off, would give but 
 little credit to fuch pretenfions to a 
 divine authority, that had no ftron- 
 ger proofs to fupport them. And 
 as for others, they would either queftion 
 the truth of the faft, or afcribe it to 
 chance or fraud, or, indeed, any thing 
 rather than a fupernatural Afliftance. In 
 order to make any revelation of gene- 
 ral ufe, and procure it univerfal recep- 
 tion, 'tis necellary that the iirft proofs of 
 its being from God fhould be ftrong and 
 evident, fuch as may be natorious and 
 generally known; and that therefore the 
 melTengers of God, upon all important 
 occafions, fiiould have an abiding power 
 with them of doing fuch wonderful 
 works, as may argue the continuance of 
 a divine influence, that none may be 
 without fufiicient evidence, or want 
 proper proofs to convince them, that 
 
 their 
 
(87 ) 
 
 their miflion and authority is from 
 God. 
 
 And the proof from hence will be 
 yet more convincing, if fuch perfons have 
 not only themfelves a continued power 
 of doing wonderful works, but alfo of 
 enabling others to do the fame, in con- 
 firmation of the fame end. This v/ill be 
 a means of fpreading the revelation 
 itfelf farther, and making the proof of 
 its divine original, more convincing and 
 extenfive. By this it will appear plain, 
 that they are not done by collufion, pr 
 flight of hand, but by the interpofition 
 of fome fuperiour power, that continues 
 to affift and fupport thofe that do 
 them. And if fuch works are performed, 
 not only for a few years, but for a great 
 number fuccelTively, by different perfons 
 engaged in the fame intereft, and in 
 fupport of the fame fcheme of principles ; 
 this will be the ftrongeil pofllble proof 
 of its truth to thofe, that are witneffes 
 to the fads themfelves, and a fufficient 
 reafon for all others to believe it, in fuc- 
 ceeding ages. Provided 
 
 In the laft place, that there is fuch a 
 
 teftimony to thefe fads, as is fufficient 
 
 G 4 to 
 
(88) 
 
 to prove the truth of them, or to render 
 it very probable that they were aftually 
 performed. That paft fafts are capable 
 of folid proof, I may take for granted, 
 will not be denied; and therefore that 
 the miracles wrought in favour of 
 chriftianity, if they were aftually per- 
 formed, are capable of this proof as 
 well as other things. And of confe- 
 quence, if they are attended with an equal 
 certainty, or probability, as other paft 
 fafts, which the moft cautious per fons do 
 firmly believe, the hiftory of them will 
 ftand upon the fame foot of evidence, 
 and equally defer ve our credit. If, indeed, 
 there be not fufficient proof, that the 
 miracles, we chriftians affirm to have 
 been wrought in confirmation of the 
 divine miffion of Jefus Chrift, ever 
 were performed, I muft confefs my felf 
 ready prepared to fall in with the next 
 fcheme, that any of our modern deifts 
 can offer, that fhall appear more worthy 
 my belief, and to be fupported with 
 better proofs than the religion of the 
 gofpel. But 
 
 IL There 
 
(8?) 
 
 IT. There are fome marks that re- 
 fpeft the perfons themfelvcs, pretending 
 to a divine authority and rniflion. It 
 feems a neceflary part of their charafter, 
 that they fhould be in the full exercife 
 of their reafon and fenfes, fincc no man 
 will think himfelf obliged to pay much 
 regard to the dreams and vifions of per- 
 fons difordered in their brains, or who ap- 
 pear to be under the power of enthufiafm 
 and melancholly ; and there is no reafon 
 to perfwade us to believe, that God fhould 
 make choice of madmen to deliver to the 
 world the words of fobriety and truth. 
 'Tis neceflary alfo, that they fhould ge- 
 nerally appear to be honeft and good 
 perfons, fuch who fear God, and have a 
 good report for their unblameable and 
 virtuous converfation. For, as the end 
 of every revelation that comes from 
 God, muft be to eftablifh the practice of 
 virtue and true goodnefs, one cannot 
 think, that in order to bring about fuch 
 a defign, he would make choice of 
 perfons that themfelves contradifted it 
 in their own behaviour. Others would ar- 
 gue from fuch perfons practice, that they 
 
 did 
 
(9o; 
 
 did not believe the inftruftions they gave, 
 and that therefore they were not worthy 
 any ones regard. I may add, under this 
 head, that whoever would fupport the 
 character of a prophet, muft be con- 
 ftant and uniform to himfclF, not per- 
 petually varying his meiTages, or alter- 
 ing his doftrines ; nov/ forbidding what 
 he once allowed, then allowing what he 
 once forbad ; but that there muft be an 
 cxaft harmony and agreement in every 
 thing that he delivers^j let it be at never fo 
 great a diftance of time, or upon ever fo 
 extraordinary an emergence : For as the 
 fupreme being cannot but be confcious 
 to his own perfections and will, and un- 
 derftands the true intereft and happinefs 
 of his creatures, 'tis as evident, that no 
 perfon inftrufted of God can deliver op- 
 pofite and contradiQiory melTages, as that 
 <jod cannot contradict himfelf, or be ig- 
 norant of his own purpofes andj refoluti- 
 ons. Hence we may learn what to 
 judge of the pretenfions of Mahomet to 
 divine infpiration, whofe melTages to 
 his followers were fhaped and varied 
 according to the different circumftances 
 of his affairs, or the oppofite ends he 
 
 had 
 
(91 ) 
 
 had to anfwer ; an evident proof tha^ 
 he afted not under his influence, who is 
 infinite in underftanding^ but was a 
 real impoftor, pretending to an infpira- 
 tion he had not ; as not being able either 
 to forefee, or provide againft future 
 events. I proceed 
 
 III. Next, to enquire what are thofc 
 particular ends, for which miracles muft 
 be wrought, in order to prove the inter - 
 pofition of the divine power, or the mini- 
 flration of good fpirits under God. That 
 real wonders may be done by evil fpirits, 
 of natures fuperiour to us, in oppofition 
 to the divine authority and government, 
 I think I have already proved both from 
 reafon and fcripture ; and therefore, the 
 the moft proper and fure way to judge 
 of, and to difcover to whofe power and 
 influence to afcribe any miracles that ar« 
 performed, is to examine what purpo- 
 ses are intended to be anfwered by them, 
 or what doctrines and precepts they are 
 wrought in confirmation of. Becaufe no 
 reafonable being can be fuppofed jfteadily 
 to purfue an intereft oppofite to hisown, 
 or willingly to lend his afUftance to fup- 
 
 port 
 
(92 ) 
 
 port an authority, that muft prove the 
 deftrudion of his own influence and 
 power. 
 
 It is therefore certain, that no mira- 
 cles whatfoever, wrought in oppofition to 
 the principles of true reafon, and natural 
 religion, can be from God. There can 
 be no greater impolTibility in nature, 
 than for the fupreme being to commiffion 
 any perfon to teach and perfwade others 
 that he doth not exift, or that there is 
 no providence, or future ftate ; that there 
 is no obligation to piety, juftice, charity, 
 and the government of our own paffi- 
 ons. That God is, is as demonftrable 
 as that we are. AndTince we have exi- 
 ftence, there are certain duties that do 
 naturally and neceflarily refult from our 
 condition as creatures, and fellow crea- 
 tures, the obligation of wliich doth not 
 depend on the arbitrary will of God, but is 
 founded in the reafon and nature of things, 
 and which therefore can never ceafe 
 'till we ourfelves ceafe to be ; or at leaft 
 become other creatures than what we 
 now are. And therefore we cannot be 
 more fure of any thing than this, that no 
 perfon, whofe rea,i disfign is to wqakoi 
 
 the 
 
(93) 
 
 the belief of thefe truths, or deftroy the 
 obhgation of thefe duties, let his coming 
 be with never fo many figns and won- 
 ders, and miracles, can be the meffenger 
 of God. 
 
 Nor are his pretenfions to a divine 
 miffion to be allowed, that would intro- 
 duce a falfe objeft, or method of wor- 
 Ihip ; the worfhip of more Gods than 
 one, or fuch a method of worfhip, as is 
 unfuitable to the nature and perfeflions 
 of the one true God. For fince 'tis demon- 
 ftrable that the fupreme being is but 
 one, fo that worfliip, which is due to 
 him, is founded on reafons that are pe- 
 culiar, and can belong to none but him- 
 felf ; his being the eternal, underived, 
 independent one, the all-wife Creator, 
 and preferver of all things, and therefore 
 the greateft, and beft, of all beings; 
 and therefore he cannot aft by warrant 
 from God, that would perfwade men to 
 transfer this worfliip to any other beings 
 whatfoevcr. Suppofing then, that all 
 the miracles, that Damis and Philofira- 
 tus afcribe to Jfollonm^ were actually 
 performed, yet will not all this fecurc 
 him from the charge of impofture, be- 
 
 caufe 
 
(94) 
 
 caufe he every where taught the wor- 
 fliip of many Gods, and therefore could 
 not be fent by the one only living and 
 true God. 
 
 Nor can he be a meffenger from hea- 
 ven, that contradifts the proper defign 
 of any former revelation from God ; 
 who either affirms of any preceeding 
 divine revelation that God did not make 
 it, or who oppofes the plain doftrines, 
 and real intention of fuch a revelation. 
 God may indeed, at one feafon, appoint 
 one particular method or form of exter- 
 nal worfhip, as it may be proper to an- 
 fwer fome fpecial ends, or as may be 
 peculiarly agreeable to a particular age 
 or people ; and at another feafon, as the 
 circumftances of time and nations may 
 alter, command the ufe of religious 
 rites, that fhall bare no refemblance to 
 the former. This is agreeable to the 
 wifdom of the fupreme governour, and 
 doth not argue any defeft or imperfefti- 
 on in him ; and therefore 'tis no reafon- 
 able objedion againft the charafter of 
 any perfon, pretending to be fent of God, 
 if other things anfwer, that he intro- 
 duces a new method of external wor- 
 
 ftip, 
 
C 95 ) 
 
 fliip, that he abrogates many rites that 
 may have been long in ufe, when the 
 reafon and defign of them ceafes, and 
 commands the ufe of others never pra- 
 ftifed before, that are very fignificant 
 and inftruftive. But (hould he attempt 
 to difprove the truth, or doftrines of 
 any former revelation, that was really 
 from God, the very attempt would prove 
 him a lyar, tho' he fliould perform ne- 
 ver fo many wonderful works, for his 
 own fupport and vindication. 
 
 The proper defign then, of every re- 
 velation that is really from God, muft 
 be, in Ihort, this : To lead men into 
 juft and becoming fentiments of the divine 
 being and perfeftions ; to dircfl: and ap- 
 point that method of worfliip that will 
 be acceptable to himfelf; to recover men 
 from their ignorance, to reform them 
 from their vices, and to lead them into 
 the praftice of virtue and true goodnefs, 
 by proper motives and arguments ; for 
 the general welfare of focieties, every 
 one's particular happinefs in this life^ 
 and their preparation for a better world 
 hereafter. Such a defign as this fecms 
 to be worthy of the alUwife and merciful 
 
 gover- 
 
(96) 
 
 governour of the world, and what wc 
 may expefl: from him who knows our 
 infirmities, and wifhes our happinefs. 
 And therefore, whenever the circum- 
 ftances of mankind fhall be fuch, as to 
 need a particular interpofition of his 
 providence, for this end, there is nothing 
 in reafon that forbids us to expeSt it ; nor 
 any thing in the nature of the cafe itfelf 
 that may hinder him from doing it. But 
 unlefs miracles are calculated to ferve 
 this end, they ought never to be- ac- 
 knowledged as any proof of a divine 
 miflion ; becaufe wc may certainly con- 
 clude, that God never will interpofe in 
 any cafes where there is no need ; or 
 to bring about a defign unworthy of 
 himfelf. 
 
 It may here pofllbly be asked, Is this 
 good reafoning, to prove the miracles to 
 be wrought by God, by appealing to 
 the doctrines, or end for which they 
 are wrought; and then to prove the 
 doftrines, or juftify the end, by an ap- 
 peal to the miracles ? I anfwer, That 
 the very doing of a miracle argues 
 the interpofition, or afliftance of fome 
 fuperiour agent j and that the end, for 
 
 which 
 
(97 3 
 
 which fuch a miracle is done, evidently 
 difcovers the nature and difpofition of 
 that being, by whofe influence it is per- 
 formed. The doftrines prove, not the 
 afliftance of a fuperiour power, but whe- 
 ther the afliftance be given by a 
 good or bad one : The miracles prove, 
 not the goodnefs of the doftrine, but that 
 he who preaches the good doftrine fo 
 confirmed, afts by an authority fuperi- 
 our to his own. They neither of them, 
 feparateiy, prove the divine miflion; 
 but where they both concur, they cer- 
 tainly prove this propofition, That fuch 
 a perfon afts by the authority of fome 
 fuperiour, good, and powerful being; 
 or in other words, that his miflion is 
 agreeable to the will of the Supreme. 
 
 H Chap, 
 
(98) 
 
 Chap. IV. 
 
 The foregoing Marks ap^ 
 plied to the Miracles of 
 Christ. 
 
 p{ T now remains, that we confider 
 
 mm 
 
 :^^ how thefe charafters and marks 
 may be applied to the chriftian revela- 
 tion, to prove it to be from God. And 
 inalmuch as all other circumftances will 
 figiiily nothing, 'till we have firft evinced 
 the truth of the fa£ts, we affirm to have 
 been done, I (hall begin with fhewing, 
 that we have fufficient evidence of the 
 truth of the gofpel hiftory, and to believe 
 all the fafts there reprefented to be done 
 by our Saviour and his apoftles ; that , 
 as an hiftory, 'tis equally credible with 
 any other, and ftands upon the fame 
 
 foot 
 
(99) 
 
 foot of evidence as all other pafl: ac- 
 counts do. And I muft obferve, that it 
 feems very reafonable to think, that 
 there would be but little oppofition made 
 to the truth of our Saviour's hiftory, as 
 delivered by the writers of the Nezfo 
 Teftamenty was it not that "^efws Chrift 
 pretends to a divine miffion, and is de- 
 clared to have proved it by many mi- 
 racles. I do not find, that any of our 
 m.odern deifts fcruple to believe, that 
 the writings afcribed to that great In- 
 dian philofopher Confncm^ were really 
 his; or that the Alcoran was, in a great 
 meafure, diftated by Mahomet. As the 
 former claims no infpiration, fa the en- 
 tire charaflier of the latter abundantly 
 proves him to have been an im^poftor ; 
 and therefore the writings, faid to be 
 theirs, are received as fuch, without cavil 
 or difpute : Not that there is any better 
 evidence for this, than there is to believe 
 the writings of the New Teflament to 
 be theirs, whofe names they bare ; 
 which have the very fame concurrence 
 of proof, as all antient books have, and 
 againft the genuinenefs of which no ob- 
 )efl:ions can be brought, but fuch as 
 H 2 will 
 
(loo) 
 
 will be of equal force againft all others 
 written in ancient times whatfoever. 
 
 For inftance, fhould any one undertake 
 to deny that the Commentaries^ attribu- 
 ted to Cafary were his, and ajffirm that 
 the accounts given of his victories and 
 conquefts is all fiftion and romance, by 
 what arguments is fuch a one to be con- 
 vinced ? To prove the truth by certain 
 demonftration none will, I fuppofe, at- 
 tempt ; becaufe paft matters of faCt are 
 noty in their nature, capable of fuch a 
 proof. Cafar himfelf is not now alive 
 to atteft the books to be of his own 
 penning ; nor are there any, wTio lived 
 in CaJWs time, that give that fatis- 
 faftory account of him, or his writings, 
 which is requifite. Some few there are 
 that fpeak of him, and them, but in ve- 
 ry general terms; not mentioning many 
 of the moft confiderable aftions faid to 
 be done by him, nor reciting many of 
 the books faid to written by him. And 
 as for thofc that do, poffibly they might 
 be his friends, and, from fome perfonal 
 intcrefl: and view, be compilers of the 
 books, too creduloufly afcribed to him. 
 Or if Ci^jar wrote them himfelf, I will 
 
 take 
 
C.o. ) 
 
 iake upon me to deny the fafls, and af- 
 firm, that his battles were fought no 
 where but in his own brain, and that 
 that they were meer inventions to ag- 
 grandife himfelf ; and to fecure a lafting 
 memory and glory. Perhaps I fliall be 
 told, that there are maoy authors, of 
 undoubted credit, who confirm thefe 
 fafts. I may however reply, that I 
 have not the fame opinion of them, and 
 think them to be incompetent witnefTes, 
 Some of them lived near thirty or forty 
 years after Cafarh time, and fo could 
 not fee the victories they afcribe to his 
 valour and conduQ: ; and they might all 
 of them write, for any thing that can be 
 proved to the contrary, not out of re- 
 gard to truth, but for the fake of ferv- 
 ing a particular intereft and defign. Be- 
 fides, there are fome errours in thefe 
 books, as to matters of fad, fome nar- 
 ratives that are evidently falfe, others 
 that appear to be fiftitious, and about 
 which learned men, all of them pre- 
 tending to believe in, and admire C^far^ 
 cannot poflibly agree. And indeed, fup- 
 pofing it could be fully proved, that 
 Cafar did write, heretofore, a book 
 H J called 
 
(I02) 
 
 called his Commentaries^ here are fo , 
 many things interpolated, other paffages 
 omitted, and fo many various readings 
 in thofe copies that now go under his 
 name, that 'tis impoffible to diftinguifh 
 what is really his, from that which is 
 not genuine. 'Till thefc difficulties are 
 cleared up, I muft be allowed to give 
 but little credit to the ftory of C^far^ 
 or the Commentaries that go under his 
 name. I muft confefs thefe, and the 
 like, are very large fuppofitions ; but it 
 will be a very hard matter for a deift, 
 upon his own principles, to convince a 
 man of fuch a temper, or indeed, to 
 prove the truth of any paft fafls 
 whatfoever. 
 
 For this is really the cafe, as far as 
 I can judge, of thofe who rejefl: the 
 chriftian revelation ; theic objeftions 
 againft the gofpel hiftory are founded 
 upon fucli fort of fuppofitions, as I have 
 now mentioned. Take the books of 
 the New Teflamenty as a plain narra. 
 tive of paft events, and in this view 
 I now only confider them, and they are 
 fupported by the very fame fort of 
 proofs, that any other ancient writings 
 
 are^ 
 
( I05 ) 
 
 are, or can be. That there was fuch a 
 man as Jefus Chrift, living in the JewijJ? 
 nation, born when Auguft^ C^far was 
 emperor, and crucified under the reign 
 of Tiheritis^ is unanimoufly agreed on, 
 by Pagan ^ Jewifh^ and Chriftiati wri- 
 ters. ' Tis a faft never called into que- 
 ftion by any ancient author whatfoever. 
 The great queftion is, what fort of per- 
 fon this Jtjm was. The accounts that 
 are given of him by the writers of the 
 Ne-w Tejlamentj tho' they wrote in fe- 
 veral places, and at the diiiance of many 
 years, are entirely uniform. They all 
 give the fame plain narrative of his cha- 
 rader, pretenfions, doftrines, precepts, 
 works, reception and end. They were 
 almoft all of them his contemporaries, 
 and not only fo, but fome of them very 
 intimately converfant with him, wit- 
 nelfes to the works they report he did, 
 and who heard themfelves the doftrines 
 he delivered, and who declare that in 
 their writings they fpoke of nothing but 
 what their eyes faw, and their ears 
 heard; and to fay all, who believed 
 themfelves under an abfolute neceflity, 
 as they valued the favour of almighty 
 H 4 God 
 
(104-) 
 
 God, and their own eternal happineft, 
 to deliver nothing but the truth. That 
 they did write fuch books none have 
 attempted to difprove. We have, in 
 confirmation of it, the teftimony of thofe 
 who lived with them, who either quote 
 from them pafTagcs, no where to be 
 found but in their writings, or elfe cite 
 them exprefly by name. Their tefti- 
 mony others, that came after them, have 
 received ; and thus, from one to another, 
 it hath been conveyed down to us, by an 
 uninterrupted tradition, which is the 
 very fame reafon, on which we beheve 
 that any other ancient writings are theirs, 
 to whom they are attributed. 
 
 There have been indeed feveral things, 
 gofpels and epiftles, that have been falfly 
 afcribed to Chrijiy and his apoftles ; 
 which either have no fufficient proof for 
 their fupport, or which evidently prove 
 themfelves to be of a fpurious and much 
 later original. And poffibly there may be 
 fome grounds for doubt, as to the authors, 
 and time of writing, of one or two of 
 the books of our prefcnt canon. But is 
 this peculiar to the books of the New 
 Tefiamentf Or if this be a reafon 
 
 againft 
 
againfl: others of them being genuine, 
 will it not prove the fame, in the cafe 
 of every book, where the like objeftion 
 can be fairly made ? What then will be- 
 come of fome of the moft celebrated 
 and favourite authors, Jofefhm^ Virgil^ 
 and many others that might be menti- 
 oned; fome parts of whofe writings 
 lye under the very fame uncertainty, 
 
 Befides, 'i is well worth confider in g, that 
 none of the New Tefiament writers have 
 ever been convicted of forgery and im- 
 pofture. General charges have been laid, 
 and hard names given, but nothing fairly 
 made out. The moft inveterate ad verfaries, 
 of chriftianity have never pretended to 
 give us a truer, and more confiftent hiftory 
 of Chriflj than what we have in the New 
 Tefiament \ nor upon any fcheme to 
 account for his miracles, fuppofing him 
 an impoftor, as confiftent with the na- 
 ture of that religion he came to efta- 
 blifli. Immediately after his death, his 
 difciples and followers proclaimed, wherc- 
 ever they went, the wonders and mi- 
 racles that were wrought by him, whilft 
 living ; and gave fuch an account of the 
 reafons of his ignominious fufferings, and 
 
 death, 
 
. (.0(5) 
 
 death, which, if true, was not only fuf- 
 ficient to wipe oflp the fcandal of his 
 crofs, but to fecure him an unperiflia- 
 ble glory. If the accounts of the one 
 and other were falfe, why did not the 
 Jews give a publick authentick account 
 of the impofture of Jefus and his dif- 
 ciples ; fuch a juft defcription of the 
 life and charaSer, of the frauds and 
 vices of him whom they crucified, and 
 his followers whom they perfecuted, as 
 might have been a fufficient vindication 
 of the juftice and honour of their own 
 nation, and have cleared them from the 
 charge, of having fbed righteous and 
 innocent blood? And this they ought 
 to have done, not only in juftice to 
 themfclves, but for the fake of others ; 
 to preferve them from being deceived by 
 the impofture : And the more fo, be- 
 caufe the followers of Chrift, not only 
 fpoke of thefe things, but delivered them 
 in writing to thewor Id, as the moft certain 
 truths, and fent thefe written accounts 
 to tlic feveral churches they had ga- 
 thered ; and that even whilft many were 
 living, who undoubtedly could have 
 confronted their account, had it been 
 
 falfe^ 
 
falfe ; and who had both craft and ma- 
 lice enough to have given us a truer one, 
 if they had been able. Their not doing 
 this, when the chriftians had neither 
 power nor numbers to have deftroyed 
 the writings of their adverfaries, give 
 juft reafon to fufpeft, that they chofe, 
 rather to fuffer the writings of the New 
 Teftament to pafs without oppofition, 
 than to give a quite different account 
 of things, which they were not able 
 to fupport. 
 
 If there be any thing in thefe books, 
 ^s to cuftoms, chronology, perfons, cha- 
 racters, or the Uke; that evidence them 
 to be of a later writing than we chrifti- 
 ans affirm, let it be fairly made out. 
 This will be an obje£l;ion not eafily got 
 over. Or if there be any proof, that 
 they were not written by thofe, whofe 
 names they bare, or any juft exceptions 
 againft their honefty, integrity, and ca- 
 pacity ; or if there was no concurrent 
 teftimony to the truth of what is affert. 
 ed by the New Teftament writers, fuch 
 objeftions would weigh with all con- 
 fiderate perfons, and be fome juft ground 
 of exception. 
 
 But, 
 
(los; 
 
 But, I do not find any material diffi^ 
 culties upon this head. The Jewijh 
 writers themfelves give us the fame ac- 
 count of the ftate of their nation, as we 
 find in our facred books. The Thari- 
 fees and Sadduces, with their particu- 
 lar tenets, and fuperftitious cuftoms, 
 are reprefented by Jofefbmy much in 
 the fame manner, as they are by Chrift 
 and his apoftles. As to their fubjeftion 
 to the Ronidn power, their feveral go- 
 vernours, the time of their being fent, 
 and the like, all authors, that fpeak of 
 thefe things, confirm the truth of 
 what the fcriptures dchver concerning 
 them. So that there is no charge, ei- 
 ther of fafts mifplaced, or of perfons 
 and cuftoms mifreprefented, that can be 
 brought againft the fcripture hiftory, 
 to render any part of it fufpefted, much 
 lefs incredible. 
 
 As to the character of Chrifi and his a- 
 poftles, there is nothing to be found to ren- 
 -, > der it a thing improbable, that they fhould 
 ■ be fent of God; no oppofition between 
 their doftrines and lives, no tokens of 
 fraud or juggle, that can give the leaft 
 ground for any to imagine them wicked 
 
 and 
 
(lop) 
 
 and defigning men. That they did many 
 wonderful works, in order to prove them- 
 felves to be the meffengers of God, their 
 very adverfaries have been forced to ac- 
 knowledge; tho\ out of their hatred to 
 their perfons and doftrines, they mahci- 
 oufly afcribed them to the affiftance of evil 
 fpirits, as the New Teftament writers 
 inform us ; which account we have the 
 more reafon to beheve, becaufe the fame 
 charge hath been brought againft them 
 by other authors. Celfuii quoted by Or/- 
 ge7ij when prefTed with the argument 
 of our Saviour's miracles, doth not un- 
 dertake to deny the fafts, but accounts 
 for them, by pretending, that he 
 went into iligypt, and there learnt 
 the art of . doing wonderful works. 
 
 ^m^l y^ eWTOV ffHOTlOV T ec^.QiVT O. , jJ.l^O.^Vi'itretVTcti tiV 
 
 yo^ivovJA. Cciius apud Orig. p. 30. And agree- 
 able to this, he elfewhere faith, that 
 fome of his followers underftood magi- 
 cal arts, and had a power of doing 
 wonders by the invocation of certain 
 fpirits. Several alfo of the Talmudick 
 writers affirm, that Chrift was well 
 
 verfed 
 
(no) 
 
 vcrfed in magick. Others afcribe his 
 wonderful works to the art he had in 
 pronouncing the name Jehovah^ which 
 he learnt in the temple, having once, 
 fecretly, conveyed himfelf into the fandu- 
 ary, for this purpofe. In a word, our 
 Saviour's miracles were fo well attefted, 
 that the ancient Jews themfelves could 
 not deny the fads ; but who, rather than 
 acknowledge him as a prophet, on the 
 account of them, imputed them to 
 the moft unlikely and ridiculous caufes. 
 Perliaps I fhould be thought over credu- 
 lous, fhould I mention Jofej)hm\ ac- 
 count of Chrift ', and I therefore forbear 
 to infift on it, not that I think the paf- 
 fage can be proved fpurious, but be- 
 caufe I would not lay any ftrefs on mat- 
 ters, that have beea the fubjea of doubt 
 and queftion. 
 
 But we have not only the teftimony 
 of the Jeivsj but of many other unex- 
 ceptionable witneffes ; who, tho' born of 
 Gentile Parents, and educated in the re- 
 ligion of the heathens, yet, were fo 
 fully convinced of the truth ot the mira- 
 cles wrought by Chrift, and his apoftles, 
 as that, upon the evidence of their being 
 
 done. 
 
(1.1) 
 
 done, and the confideration of the de« 
 fign they were intended to fupport, 
 they embraced the religion he came to 
 eftablifh. I am aware that their evi- 
 dence will be objefted againft, upon ac- 
 count of their being chriftians ; but with, 
 out reafon. For I would ask, were they 
 chriftians without conviflion ? Did they 
 forfake the religious cuftoms they had 
 been bred up in, and embrace chriftiani- 
 ty, without having, what they at leafl: 
 apprehended to be, a folid proof of the 
 truth of it? And was there any argu- 
 ment that could have convinced them of 
 the truth of Jefus Chrift's prctenfions, 
 but a faithful, well attefted account of 
 his doftrines, life, and miracles ? And is 
 the teftimony of perfons convinced byfuch 
 an account any thing the worfe, merely 
 becaufe they apprehended the evidence 
 to be irrefiftible, and therefore yielded to 
 conviction ? This is to rejeftcheir t^iki^ 
 mony, for that which is the beft reafon 
 in the world to receive it, viz. their be 
 ing fully convinced that his miracles were 
 real, and then afting agreeable to fuch a 
 belief. We muft not be put of here 
 with this eafy obje£lion;i that thev were 
 
 all 
 
(112) 
 
 all weak and credulous perfons ; as tho' 
 every fagan and infidel muft be a very 
 wife and difcertiing perfon, merely on 
 account of his infidelity ; and every chri* 
 fiian an idiot and fooj^ bccaufe con- 
 vinced of the truth of chriftianity. Tho' in 
 the early ages of the church, there were 
 many weak and imprudent chriftians, 
 as there are now many empty conceited 
 infidels, yet there were others who, be- 
 fides the advantage of good natural 
 parts, had been educated under the mofl: 
 celebrated philofophers, and brought up 
 in all the literature of thofe times; and 
 who were every way capable of difcern- 
 ing the frauds and impoftures of the firft 
 preachers of the gofpel, had there been 
 any ; who yet faw the evidence for the 
 truth of chriftianity to be fo ftrong, as 
 that they could not reiift it • but rather 
 chofe to facrifice all that was valuable to 
 them in this world, and even fife itfelf, 
 than renounce a religion that was attend- 
 ed with fo many wonderful proofs of its 
 divine original. Had any one amongft 
 the heathens itood up in oppofition to 
 chriftianity, and openly proiclTed him- 
 felf fo fully convinced of its being an 
 
 impofture, 
 
(lis) 
 
 impofture, as that he would rather 
 choole to dye than embrace it, and at 
 laft, feal this confeflion of his infidelity 
 with his blood, how would they have 
 extolled his honefty, judgment, courage, 
 and refolution ; and what mighty mo- 
 numents of praife would they have 
 erefted to his memory ? But, fuch is 
 their great impartiality, that tho' thou- 
 fands have given their teftimony in fa- 
 vour of Chrift and his religion, and ra- 
 ther yielded to death, than to renounce 
 him ; men bred up in all the fuperftiti- 
 ous rites of idolatrous worfhip, and, 
 who living when firft: chriftianity began 
 to fpread, had all the opportunities in the 
 world of difcovering the weaknefs and 
 defefts of it ; yet this cloud of witnejj'es 
 deferves no credit, and weighs nothing 
 with thofe mighty mafters of, and pre- 
 tenders to reafon. 
 
 But however, if the teftimony of the 
 profelTed friends of chriftianity figni- 
 fies nothing, we have fome farther con- 
 current proof, from the acknowledg- 
 ment of its avowed adverfaries. Por- 
 fhyry^ Hierocles^ and JttUafi^ by call- 
 ing our Saviour a magician, plainly 
 I own 
 
own the wonderful works we afcribe 
 to him. Julian faith of him, 'E?f<*<rct/xV©- 
 
 isS'iv AKorfi u^iov el y.ii m oi{\iu Ta? avKhii ^ rv 
 yUuy ifycov Zveti, Apud Cyril, p. 191. That he 
 
 did nothi7ig worthy any regard^ milefs 
 you will account his healing the lame 
 and hlind^ and cafiing out devils^ to he 
 very extraordinary works, Hierocles 
 alfo, another inveterate adverfary to 
 chriftianity, not pretending to deny the 
 fads of our Saviour's miracles, oppofes 
 the wonders of A^ollonim Tyanaus, as 
 equal, and even fuperiour to thofe of 
 Chrifts. Thus he blames the chriftians 
 for their levity, in rejefting Jpollo- 
 nim^ whillt at the fame time, ufon 
 account of fome few wonderful things 
 that Chrift did, they ownedy and wor- 
 fiippedhim as God. ^/ uaj^^? TSfitT««? r/mV 
 
 'Tov''\Y\c'iv '^ilv Avciyo^ivHat. ApudEufeb.p. 511. i!\nd 
 
 again, 0-5/XP«Vt6? t)v 'Imh U^ 7V(t>Koli dvA^Kl^df 
 Tg 'TTA^CLff'XOVTa.^ }^ TIVCL TOltf^VTA i'^tLtTctfTA ^AV(J.cL(rt(tL, 
 
 Ibid. i. e. worfiiffing Jef^, lecaufe 
 he made the blind to fee, and did fo?ne 
 ether fuch wonders. In the fame 
 ftrain they alfo fpcak of the apoftles- 
 
 Julian faith of Tauly tov '^dyTUf 'TrayTctyJ 
 
 74f 
 
("5) 
 
 UcLu\QV. Apud Cyril. 1. 3. p. 100. That he did 
 
 exceed all the other juj^lers and cheats 
 that ever were \ and the fame charge 
 they endeavour to faften upon others 
 of them. In a word, friends and ad- 
 verfaries agree in the fa£ts, tho' they im- 
 pute them to different caufes; nor is 
 there any one fingle teftimony, from any 
 approved ancient author, that can be 
 produced by thofe, who deny the ac- 
 count we have in fcripture of our Savi- 
 our's miracles, in fupport of their infi- 
 delity in this matter ; or that fo much 
 as tends to convifl the New Teftament 
 writers of faKhood and forgery. So that 
 thus far they ad a part inconfiftent with 
 themfelves, as well as with common 
 fenfe, who rejefl: the hiftory of the gof- 
 pel, and yet believe the truth of other 
 hiftories, that are fupported by ng other 
 or better proofs. 
 
 To this it may beobjefted by fome, that 
 they do believe the hiftory of the New 
 Tefiame?it writers, as far as his credible, 
 equally, and upon the fame foot of evidence, 
 as they believe the hiftories written by o- 
 ther perfons, as far as they are credible, or 
 I 2 worthy 
 
(ii<5) 
 
 worthy of belief; but that there maybe 
 particular things recorded by hiftorians, 
 which, tho' they do not weaken the credit 
 of the hiftory in general, yet may be liable 
 to vei-y great exception, and unworthy 
 the belief of any reafonable and inqui- 
 fitive perfon. Thus there is great rea- 
 fon to believe the hiftory of Livy in ge- 
 neral to be true, becaufe of the concur- 
 rent teftimony of other Roman au- 
 thors. But that, as Livj reports, J cow 
 flwuld fpeaky 1. j. c. lo. that it fioidd 
 rahi flefij and that the birds fionld im- 
 mediately devour it. Ibid. Tioat an in- 
 fant^ in its mother'^s womb Jbotdd cry 
 outy lo triumphe, and that a woman 
 (hoidd be turned i?ito a man at Spole- 
 tum, I. 24, c. 10. arc things incredible 
 in themfelves, and not to be regarded by 
 any but weak and fuperftitious perfons. 
 And thus, that there was fuch a man as 
 Jefus Chrift, who lived in Anguflus C^- 
 far\ time, and did, and faid a great 
 many good things, they are very ready 
 to own. But that he did the miracles 
 recorded of him, they think very un- 
 likely ; and therefore disbelieve them, for 
 the fame reafonthat they do thofe mi- 
 racles 
 
("7) 
 
 racles recorded by other authors, becaufe 
 in themfelves incredible. 
 
 But in anfwer to this, let it be confider- 
 ed, that a thing is then only incredible, 
 either when the thing, faid to be done, is 
 in itfelf inipoiTible, or when there can be no 
 juft reafon afllgned for the doing it. That 
 the miracles of Chrilt are not impoflible^ 
 is very evident, upon the fuppofition of 
 their being done by God, or beings fu- 
 periour to us, under him. And that they 
 were done for a very wife and valuable 
 end, is evident from the nature and 
 tendency of the gofpel revelation, which 
 they were wrought to eftabhfli ; which 
 could not have been fo well known to 
 have proceeded from God without them; 
 and which would not have been efTeftual 
 to reform and fave men, unlefs attended 
 with fufficient proofs of its divine ori- 
 ginal, I allow therefore, that our Sa- 
 viour's miracles would be perfeftly in- 
 credible, was there no great and valuable 
 end to be anfwered by them. But as 
 they were wrought in confirmation of 
 the moft excellent religion, it appears 
 worthy of God to permit, and even 
 affifl in the performance of them ^ -^ivd 
 I J arc 
 
(u8) 
 
 are therefore fo far from being incredi- 
 ble, that they are highly worthy our 
 belief. The fafls that are reported by 
 LivVy are liable to very juft exception, 
 becaufe there doth not appear any folid 
 reafon, why fuch extraordinary events 
 fliould come to pafs. But fince the fafts 
 recorded in the A'ew Teffament are 
 not hable to the fame objeftion, there is 
 not the fame reafon for fufpefting the 
 truth of them. Befides, as to the ex- 
 traordinary iafts related by L/xy, there 
 doth not appear that concurrent telli- 
 mony which is neceifary to render them 
 credible, nor was he himfelf a witnefs to 
 the things he reports. Whereas the per- 
 fons who relate the miracles of our 
 blcffed Saviour, fpeak of nothing but 
 what they faw and heard : And the 
 fame number of witnelles, that give us 
 an account of the doftrines taught by 
 Chriftj unanimoufly concur in baring 
 teftimony to his works. So that there 
 is, in reality, the fame reafon for belie- 
 ving that he did the works, as that he 
 tanght the doclrincs afcribed to him. 
 Whether thefe miracles were done by 
 the power of magick, or by the finger 
 
 of 
 
of God, remains now to be enquired in- 
 to; or, which is the more probable ac- 
 count, that given us by Julia/iy Hie- 
 rocks, and others; or that which we 
 have from the authors of the books of 
 the New Teftament. 
 
 And here are two things, which at 
 firft view, render the account given in 
 our facred writings, the more pro^ 
 bable. 
 
 I. That the penmen of them were 
 more proper, and competent judges, than 
 thofe who gave the contrary account ; 
 becaufe they fpake of things they were 
 witneflcs to, and therefore underftood 
 the manner, circumftances, and defign 
 of the fads they relate. It is true, that 
 many of the Jews^ who Uved in our 
 Saviour's time, and faw his miracles, 
 yet faid, that he caft out devils by the 
 prince of devils; and imputed his won- 
 derful works to a confederacy with 
 evil fpirits. But nothing is more evi- 
 dent, than that they had entertained the 
 ftrongeft pofTible prejudices againft him, 
 becaufe he anfwered not their expefta- 
 tions of a temporal deliverance, which 
 I 4 they 
 
fl20) 
 
 they imagined the MefTiah would have 
 wrought out for them; and reproved, 
 with a great deal of freedom, the hy- 
 pocrify, ignorance, pride, avarice, and 
 otlier vices, of the principal men of that 
 nation, who had gained a mighty repu- 
 tation for wifdom and fanOiity. Tho' 
 he had all the charafters and marks of 
 a prophet, according to the defcription 
 of their own facred writings; tho' 
 they admired, and were forced to ac- 
 knowledge the excellency and truth of 
 his doftrines ; tho' there was the fame 
 reafons for believing in him, as in any of 
 the preceeding prophets, whom they 
 received ; tho' he gave them the very 
 proofs of his miffion from God, which 
 they demanded, yet rather than own 
 him in his proper charafter, they afcribe 
 thefe proofs to the power of devils, 
 and traduce him as an im-poitor and 
 feducer of the people. Had he been a 
 flagitious impious man, they could eafily 
 have made it appear, and this would 
 have rendered the account of his confe_ 
 dcracy with devils the more likely. 
 Or had they imputed the miracles of the 
 preceeding prophets to the fume influ- 
 ence 
 
(121) 
 
 ence, and equally rejefted them, they 
 would have afled a confiftent part. But 
 to receive them as the meffengers of God, 
 upon the evidence of miracles they never 
 faw,^ and yet to impute the much greater 
 and more numerous miracles of Chrift, 
 to which they v^ere witneffes, to the 
 power of evil fpirits, difcovers a mind 
 very ftrongly prepoffejQfcd, and the great 
 force and influence of prejudice. Befides, 
 the teftimony of thefe perfons is con- 
 fronted by that of others, who appear 
 to be altogether as credible witnelTes. 
 Thus we find, that the generality of 
 thofe, who faw with what power Chrift: 
 call: out devils, at the fame time that • 
 the Pharifees imputed it to the affiftance 
 of the prince of devils, wondering, and 
 frankly acknowledging, ^ It; was never 
 jo feen in Ifraelj /. e. no prophet ever 
 arofe, that had fo abfolute a power over 
 evil fpiritsas this man. And in another 
 place, after he had reftored the blind and 
 dumb to his fight and fpeech, when 
 the Pharifees laid the fame blaf- 
 phemous charge, the people were ama- 
 zed, 
 
 ^ Mat ix. 33. 
 
(122) 
 
 zed, and io far from thinking as 
 the Pharifees did, that they immedi- 
 ately own him for their Mefliah, faying, 
 ^ Is not this the [on of David ? A hke 
 acknowledgment was made him, upon 
 his wonderful calming the raging wind 
 and fea, || Of a truth thou art the fon 
 of God. Thus alfo 'tis reported of great 
 multitudes, that when they faw the 
 dumb fpake, the maimed made whole, 
 the lame walking, and the blind re- 
 ceiving fight, f They glorified the God 
 of Ifrael, which furely they would not 
 have done, had they thought that Chrift 
 was an impoftor, or his cures performed 
 by the power of devils. And even, as 
 to the Tharifees and rulers themfelves, 
 the fame records inform us, that many 
 of them believed in Chrift^ but had not 
 courage to acknowledge it, *|i for fear 
 they fiould he pit out of the Syna* 
 gogue. Some of them indeed, made a 
 publick profefllon of their faith in 
 him, as Nicodemusj Jairm^ \\'\' and 
 others. So that their cenfures of the 
 
 Scribes 
 
 * Mat. xii. 23. I] Ibid. xiv. 33. t Ibid. XV. 31. 
 I jr^u y;;, ^2, lit Joh. ill. 2. 
 
(I25) 
 
 Scrihes and Pharifees are of no credit 
 in this cafe, becaulb others of them, and 
 indeed the generality of the Jewiih na- 
 tion believed him to be a prophet, on the 
 account of his miracles ; and would even 
 have received him as the Mcfliah, had 
 they not been prevented by the power 
 and craft of their teachers and rulers. 
 
 But with much lefs reafon ftill, can 
 Celfiisj Juliauy and others, bring this 
 charge againft Chrifi^ that he performed 
 his miracles by the help of magick. If 
 thofe, who were his contemporaries- 
 were not, with all their malice, able to 
 fupport it, 'tis not to be imagined, that 
 thofe, who came fo long after him, 
 fliould be furnifhed with better proofs of 
 it. They themfelves acknowledge many 
 of the fafts, and did they difcern any 
 thing of fraud, or any one circumftance, 
 that might give juft fufpicion of im- 
 pofture and magick art ? If they allow 
 the interpofition of a fuperiour power, 
 as Julian doth, the beft way to know, 
 whether he be a good or bad one, is, not 
 to rely on the bare teftimony of friend 
 or foe, but to confider the circumftances 
 of the works themfelves, the charader 
 
 of 
 
of him that doth them, and the end they 
 are wrought in favour of. Here then we 
 joyn ilTue with our adverlaries, that 
 Chrift, and his apoftlcs, in his name, 
 did heal the lame, and bhnd, and call 
 out devils, by their word ; and farther, 
 that they could not have done this, 
 without the afliftance of fome fuperiour 
 good or evil being. But then, what 
 one fingle circumilance is there, that 
 fhould induce us to credit Celfm^ and 
 J till an ^ and others of that fort, whofe 
 ftrong averfion to chriftianity, and the 
 author of it, is abundantly evident, ra- 
 ther than Matthew and Jolm^ and the 
 other New Tefiame?it writers, whofe 
 hiftory of Chrifi appears to be a plain 
 artlefs narrative of things, they them- 
 felves both faw and heard. Have they, 
 after all their cavils, proved "our Saviour 
 in any part of his char ad er, a bad man^ 
 a friend to vice, or an enemy to truth ? If 
 to recover men from the worfhip of many 
 Gods, to the worfhip of the one only 
 Jiving and true God ; if to fecure the pra- 
 ctice of moral duties, by the ftrongeft mo- 
 tives ; if to eftablifli the belief ol a provi- 
 dencC;, and the certainty of rcvf^irds and 
 
 punifb- 
 
punifhments, in another life, hath any 
 tendency to promote an evil defign, or can 
 any poffible way be fubfervient to the 
 intereft of evil fpirits, I will then rea- 
 dily confefs, that Chrifl might be an 
 impoftor, and his works performed by 
 the influence of devils. And therefore, 
 'till the adverfaries of chriftianity can 
 produce fome better witneffes, or circum- 
 ftances, than they have yet done, to fup- 
 port fuch a charge, or can prove that 
 the chriftian rehgion hath not fuch a ten- 
 dency, or can reconcile this manifeft con- 
 tradiaion, of an evil fpirit's conftantly 
 purfuing a good end ; for any to afcribe 
 all the wonderful works of Chrift, to the 
 powers of magick, or confederacy with 
 devils, is, I cannot help thinking, an ar- 
 gument of great credulity, or obftinate 
 wickednefs. But then, 
 
 2. If the New Teftament account of 
 Chrifi be true, his entire charader will 
 appear confiftent, and of a piece ; if 
 not, full of the greateft poffible con- 
 tradiaions in nature. That a righteous 
 and good manfliould be fentof God to re- 
 form the world, that he ihould do many 
 
 wonder- 
 
(126) 
 
 wonderful works of goodnefs, to confirm 
 his divine authority and miflion ; that a 
 perfon iTiould lead a fober, righteous, 
 and godly life, and teach others the pra- 
 ftice of rightcoufnefs and virtue, by his 
 own example and precepts, upon the 
 principles of rewards and punifhments 
 in another life ; that he fliould be re- 
 proached and perfecuted by bad men, 
 and die in confirmation of his charafter 
 and doftrines, with great confidence and 
 truft in God ; and that a great deal of 
 good jChould, by a wife and gracious pro- 
 vidence, be brought out of this inftance 
 of wickednefs and cruelty, thefe are all 
 confiftcnt fuppofitions, and very far from 
 being incredible or unaccountable. But 
 that a perfon fhould pretend to a miflion 
 from God, himfelf confcious, at the fame 
 time, that hereally had none; that in order 
 to confirm fuch falfe pretenfions, he fhould 
 impofe on the world tricksand juggles, 
 known to be fuch, as genuine miracles, 
 or perform them by awilling confederacy 
 with devils ; that in fuch circumftances 
 he fliould lead himfelf an exadly re- 
 gular life, and fl:eadily profecute this one 
 great defign, the good of men, and the 
 
 honour 
 
(127) 
 
 honour of the fupreme being ; that he 
 fhould inculcate the neceffity of univerfal 
 goodnefs on others, and in particular the 
 obligations of juftice, honefty, and of 
 every man's fpeaking the truth to his 
 neighbour; that he fliould teach the do- 
 ftrines of God's providence, of a future 
 ftate, and of eternal rewards and punifh- 
 ments, as the confequence of mens afti- 
 ons, according as they have been good 
 or evil ; that he fliould deny himfelf all 
 thofe worldly advantages, which one 
 would think it muft be the great defign 
 of an impofture to fecure, and willingly 
 expofe himfelf to death for the fupport 
 of it, and at the fame inftant, when he 
 was expiring upon fuch an account, called 
 God his father, and with the greateft 
 affurance and eafe, commend his depart- 
 ing fpirit into his hands ; that a known, 
 obftinate, hardened impoftor, fhould 
 thus live, and thus die, is one of the 
 moft monftrous and improbable fuppofi- 
 tions in the world ; and to believe thefe 
 things, as all muft do, who rejeQ: the 
 chriftian religion, argues much greater 
 weaknefs and forwardnefs of faith, than 
 can be charged on any for their believing 
 the doQrines of the gofpel. But 
 
(128) 
 
 But not to infifl: on arguments of fuch 
 a general nature, if we confider the 
 whole behaviour of our bleffed Lord, we 
 fliall not find one fingle mark of an im- 
 pofture, or the leaft fufpicion of a confe- 
 deracy with devils. 
 
 I. As to the miracles affirmed to be done 
 by him, none of them can be accounted at 
 all impoffible, upon the fuppofition of the 
 real afliftance of a fuperiour being. Whe- 
 ther or no angels, by their own natural 
 powers, can effeQ: the wonderful works 
 afcribed to Jefus Chrifi, I know not, 
 and will not pretend to determine. 
 What degrees of power the great and 
 wife Creator hath furnifhed them with 
 is to us a fecret, and therefore what ef- 
 fefts they can, or cannot produce, we 
 fhould not be over hafty to^ pronounce. 
 In the fcriptures of the Old Tefiamenty 
 there are many inftances that may natu- 
 rally induce us to believe, that tlieir 
 power is very extraordinary, and that 
 they can produce many effeQs, which 
 would be as furprizing to us, and as much 
 out of the common courfe of things, as 
 moft, if not any of our Saviour's mira- 
 cles. 
 
(I29) 
 
 cles. But however, 'tis not material to 
 our prefent argument, to determine in 
 this cafe. Nothing is more certain, than 
 that thefe things are not above the power 
 of the foft caiife, and fupreme being. 
 The fame God, that firft formed the eye, 
 can reftore the blind his fight ; he, that 
 wrought the whole frame of out bodies, 
 could as eafily cure the maimed, and heal 
 the difeafed ; he, that caufes the rain to 
 defcend, and to water the earth, thaC 
 it may produce the various kinds of 
 herbs and fruits, and minifter bread to 
 the eater, and feed to the fower, could 
 not be at a lofs to change water into 
 wine, or to multiply the loaves and 
 fiflies, for the relief of a fainting hungry- 
 multitude. That the former eftefts are 
 owing to the wifdom, power, and pro- 
 vidence of God, no foberand confiderate 
 Theift will deny ; and therefore I think 
 they muft allow the poffibility of his 
 effecting the latter. 
 
 Nor are thefe things only poflible in 
 themfelves, but alfo very probable ; or 
 fuch as are fit for, and worthy of him, 
 who is the greateft and beft of beings, 
 to do. If indeed we fuppofe that the 
 K miracles 
 
(igo) 
 
 miracles of Jeftis Chrift were perform- 
 ed by the interpofition and influence of 
 evilfpirits, they will appear extreamly 
 improbable ; nothing being more un- 
 fuitable to fuch a charafter, than that 
 they fliould do, for fo long a while, fuch 
 numerous ads of beneficence, kindnefs, 
 and charity to men. But that God fhould 
 have compaffion on his creatures, and 
 exercife his tender mercies over the 
 works of his hands, is no more furprizing^ 
 than that he fhould be infinitely good and 
 wife. Indeed all the miracles recorded 
 of our bleffed Lord, and which he 
 afcribes to the power and influence of 
 his Father, are entirely agreeable to all 
 his known perfeftions. The raifing the 
 dead, and creating bread for the hungry, 
 and limbs for the maimed, are works both 
 of power and of mercy ; and therefore 
 agreeable to the wifdom of the fupreme 
 governour ; fince they naturally tended 
 both to beget reverence in the minds of 
 men towards his meflenger, and recon- 
 cile them to the belief, and obedience 
 his of will. 
 
 Thefe works were done in the moft 
 open and publick manner. Thoufands 
 
 were 
 
(13.) 
 
 were witneffes to the fafls themfelves ; 
 even many of thofe, that could have dif- 
 covered the impofture, had there been 
 any, and that would have rejoiced at the 
 opportunity. I might mention many 
 inftances of this kind. Thus ^ he clean-, 
 fed the leper in the view of the multi- 
 tude. He healed the centurion's fervant, 
 and Peters wives mother, and calmed 
 the tempeft, before many f witneffes. 
 He raifed the ruler's daughter to life be- 
 fore the whole company, that were pre- 
 fent to attend her funeral |1. He miracu- 
 loufly fed four thoufand men, befide wo- 
 men and children ^|| ; and at another time 
 he as wonderfully entertained five thou- 
 fand at his table ||t. In a word, fo far 
 was our bleffed Lord, or his apoftles^ 
 from fecming to have a defire of pri- 
 vacy, that they chofe the moft publick 
 places, in which to perform their won* 
 derful works ; that fo the greater num- 
 ber might be witneffes to the truth and 
 reality of them. 
 
 Add to this, that they were as extra- 
 ordinary for their number, as they were 
 K 2 in 
 
 * Mat. vili. I, &c, t Ibid. II Chap. ix. 
 
 *j) Chap. 15. *t Mar. vi. 34. &c. 
 
(132) 
 
 in their own nature ; and therefore ma- 
 nifefted an abiding power in him that 
 did them. One of his apoftles tells us, 
 that 7na?iy other things JeJ}^ didj be- 
 fides thofe he had recorded of him, 
 the which iftheyjhouid he written eve- 
 ry o?ie^ even the ^ voorld it f elf z^oiild 
 7iot co?itain the books which JJw//ld he 
 written^ /. e, they were fo very nume- 
 rous, as that they would appear almoft in- 
 credible ; and hence 'tis accounted by ano- 
 ther, as that which renders the negleft of 
 the gofpel falvation exceeding dangerous, 
 in that it was \ confirmed with divers 
 figns and wonders^ and miracles^ and 
 gifts of the Holy Ghoft. Had he done but 
 very few extraordinary aftions, there 
 might have been fome fufpicion for fraud. 
 But when almoft every day and hour 
 produced fome frefli inftances of his 
 power and goodnefs ; in works fo pub- 
 licity wrought, and fo frequently done, 
 if they had been all cheat and juggle 
 fomething of it muft one time or other 
 have appeared, and difcovered itfelf; 
 for all times, and places, and company 
 
 were 
 
 * Joh. xxi. 25. t Heb. ii. 7. 
 
were alike to him, and wherever he came 
 he caufed the multitude to marvel, and 
 to glorify God, for that fuch things 
 were done i7i Ifrael ; and to acknowledge 
 and believe in him, asthe promifed Mef- 
 ffiah, becaufe, ^ when ever he fliould 
 come, it was impoffible he could do more 
 miracles than Jefi^^sdid. 
 
 And as for his difciples, they alfo had 
 many of them the fame power imparted 
 to them, of cafting out devils, and to 
 heal all manner of ficknefs, and all man- 
 ner of difeafe, in the time of our Savi- 
 our's miniftration upon earth ; men who, 
 upon account of their education, em- 
 ployments, and natural parts, were the 
 moft unlikely perfons in the world, ei- 
 ther to be taught, or to praftice magick 
 arcs; and who were of fuch different 
 tempers and paffions, as that they could 
 not have kept an impofture fecret, nor 
 united fo firmly together, as was ne- 
 ceffary to their carrying it on with any 
 toUerable fuccefs. One of them we 
 find deferted the caufe, and treache- 
 roufly delivered up his malter to ths 
 Jews. Now, as he had been wici ^ ■; 
 K J £0 
 
 * Joh. vli. 3!. 
 
to our Saviour's works, why did he not 
 pubh'ckly expofe him, had he known 
 them to have been no better than tricks 
 and juggles, or to have been performed 
 by the invocation and affiftance of evil 
 fpirits. This would have fully juftified 
 his conduct in delivering him up to the 
 juft refentments of an abufed and inju- 
 red people. But fo far was it from this, 
 that upon our Saviour's condemnation, 
 he returns the price of his treachery, 
 with this confeffion, ^ I have betrayed 
 innocent Hood. And notwithftanding 
 the vehement accufations of the Jenvs^ 
 of his being an impoftor, and feducer of 
 the people, Pilatey the Roman gover- 
 nour, declares publickly, that after ha- 
 ving examined him, f h^ finds no fault 
 in himy as touching the things whereof 
 he was accufed. Surely had he been fuch 
 a notorious vile perverter of the people, 
 as they reprefented him, they might ea- 
 fily have fattened fome probable circum- 
 ftances of guilt on him, or his difciples, 
 to have given fome tolerable face at leaft 
 to their profecution and condemnation of 
 
 him. 
 
 ' Mat. xxvli. 3, 4. tLuke xxili 14. 
 
him. But as they could not prove the 
 charge of impofture on Chrift^ and his 
 difciples, whilft he was with them, fo 
 neither could they on them, after he was 
 departed from them ; who, foon after his 
 refurrefl:ion,fpoke,with the greateft free- 
 dom, languages they had never heard or 
 ftudied ; and, in the name of Jefi^^ cured 
 the lame, and healed the fick, and raifed 
 the dead, and caft out devils ; which power, 
 ingreater or kfler.degrees, continued many 
 years in the Church. Origen againfl: Celfi^y 
 fpeaking of the fpirit of God, tells us, 
 
 "Er/ p^j/M Tz dyiy. i)teiv^ 'Trviv uii''i%*——"7rdLP^. Xf^^' 
 
 iTiTihZa'lj J^ OfWtf-' TIVA KtX.Ta. TO '^tMlXft Tb Ao^tf 
 
 cT-g?/ [MhKovrcov, Cont. Celf. p. 34. /. e. 
 Some footfteps of this holy fpirit remain 
 even to this day amongft chriftians, who 
 caft out devils, and perform many cures^ 
 and forefee fome future events, accord- 
 ing to the will of Chri/L We have alfo 
 the teftimony of Tertullian to this pur- 
 pofe, who fpeaks of the cafting out of 
 devils, and the heahng of difeafes by 
 chriftians, as a thing notorious and com- 
 mon ; Quanti honejU viri (de vulgaris 
 Im enim no?i dicimm) ant a dcemo7iils 
 K 4 ciii^ 
 
aut valetudinibm re^nediati ftmt- Ad 
 Scap. in init. Vid. etiam Apologet. & 
 alibi, and that not only as to the more 
 common and ordinary fort of people, 
 but thofe alfo of the higher and more 
 honourable ftations of hfe ; the provi- 
 dence of God being pleafed to continue 
 this wonderful power, 'till chriftianity 
 was fo fully eftabliflied, as to need no 
 farther proof to confirm it. Had thefe 
 publick teftimonies been falfe, they could 
 eafily have been confronted and difpro- 
 ved. So that as to the works themfelves 
 afcribed to Chrifi^ there is no one cir- 
 cumftance that can reafonably induce us 
 to think them performed by an impoftor 
 or magician. 
 
 2. Nor [econdly^ if we confider the 
 charafter of Chrifi and ^'his apoftles, 
 fliall we have reafon to think any other- 
 wife, than that their works were real mi- 
 racles, performed according to the will 
 and power of God. That they were 
 in full pofleffion of their reafon and {^w^ 
 fcs, the nature of their doftrincs, the 
 excellency of their precepts, their fpcech- 
 cs, their apologies, in a word, their 
 
 whole 
 
('37) 
 
 whole conduct is an abundant proof. 
 That they were good and holy men ap- 
 pears from every part of their hiftory. 
 They not only reproved others for their 
 vices, but carefully avoided the fame 
 themfelves, and were examples to all 
 men of the virtues they recommended 
 to their praftice. The manifeft defign 
 of their difcourfes and epiftles is to re- 
 commend the fear of the fupreme being, 
 the love of juftice and charity, and fo- 
 briety, and temperance in reference to 
 our felves. And of thefe things they were 
 patterns as well as preachers; and had 
 no fecret vices, that were ever faftened on 
 them, that could caufe men tofufpect, ei- 
 ther their miffion from God, or their own 
 belief of the doftrines they taught. 
 
 Add to this, that there is an entire 
 harmony and agreement between all 
 the firft publifliers of chriftianity, in 
 every part of their fcheme. Chrift him- 
 felf, during his miniftration on earth, 
 was in every thing confiftent with him- 
 felf; never varying his dodrines, nor 
 fliaping his religion according to unfore- 
 feen particular circumftances ; allowing 
 no criminal liberties, nor gratifying any 
 
 of 
 
(138) 
 
 of the finful paflions of men, either to 
 gain himfelf friends, or to profelyte 
 them ; but taught one fcheme of do. 
 clrine, virtue and goodnefs, from the 
 beginning to the end of his publick mi- 
 niftration, without regard to mens cha- 
 racters or perfons, or confulting his own 
 fafety or eafe. And after his death, his 
 apoftlcs, tho' fcattered in feveral nations, 
 taught unanimoufly the fame truths, and 
 eftabhfhed the fame method and form of 
 religion, wherever they came. What- 
 ever oppofition and difficulties they met 
 with, they ft ill continued firm to the 
 principles of their great Mafter, and con- 
 fiftent with each other. Their argu- 
 ments, their defences, their exhortations, 
 their principles of aftion, their motives 
 to virtue, their rewards and punifliments 
 they fet before men, their behaviour to 
 their enemies, and, in a word, their en- 
 tire condufl:, was always, and every 
 where the fame. They none of them 
 fet up for themfelves, nor divided into 
 parties, nor wrought counter miracles, 
 in oppofition to each other ; but had all 
 the fame end in view, and every where 
 profecuted it by the fame means. Shall 
 
 it 
 
it be faid, that this was done by concert 
 with each other ? This will appear high- 
 ly incredible, becaufe they travelled in- 
 to the moft diftant countries, where they 
 could not confult with each other upon 
 any prefent emergence. Or fhall it be 
 faid, that they received their inftrufti- 
 ons from Chrijt before his death, and fo 
 fixed their fcheme before they parted 
 from Jertifalenij and bound themfelves 
 to follow it wherever they came ? But is 
 it not the moft unlikely thing in nature, 
 that they could fix any one fcheme, up- 
 on the fuppofition that they knew chrifti- 
 anity to be an impofture, that could 
 poflibly fuit all the circumftances of time 
 and place, where they might happen to 
 come ? Or, if they were wicked enough 
 willingly to fupport a known impofture, 
 what could fo zealoufly attach them to 
 the intereft of Chrifi^ after his crucifixion? 
 Why fliould they not rather ajQTume the 
 charafter of the Meffiah, every one for 
 himfelf? Efpecially, lince the name of 
 Chrifi was every where hated, and evil 
 fpoken of; and they were fure to have 
 no other advantage in tliis world by their 
 adherence tp hiiii, but contempt, ^e- 
 
 proachesj, 
 
(140) 
 
 proaches, perfecutions, and cruel death; 
 and becaufe there was fome pofTibility 
 they might have a more favourable re- 
 ception than he had ; at leaft, they were 
 certain they could not have a worfe \ no, 
 nor worfe than they had all the realbn 
 in the world to expeft, by continuing to 
 preach in his name. 
 
 But however, fuppofing there was fucli 
 a fcheme laid, and fuch afirm combination 
 between fome of the apoftles, yet I would 
 ask, how is St. Taul's conduQ:, his uni- 
 formity of principle and praftice with 
 theirs, to be accounted for? He was once 
 zealoufly attached to the Jevcijl) Religion, 
 and in great reputation with their leading 
 principal men. What were the motives 
 of fo wonderful a change ? Did he ex- 
 change the religion of his forefathers, 
 and all the circumftances of honour and 
 plenty that attended the profeffion of it, 
 for a known impofture, merely for the 
 iliame and fcandal, and perfecurions that 
 attended it? Or was the change from fome 
 fupernatural effefl:, or the fruit of real 
 conviction ? How then came he inftrufl:- 
 ed in magick arts, in common with the 
 reft of the apoftles ? Or was he an ho- 
 
 neft 
 
neft man when he became a convert to 
 chriftiany, and afterwards fell into all 
 the vile meafures of tricks and forgeries 
 to fupport it ? How came he fo foon after 
 this change, to have fuch a perfect un- 
 derftanding of the nature of chriftianity, 
 as to be able to dired, fettle, and efta- 
 blifh churches, wherever he came ? As 
 for Chrifi himfelf, he never received any 
 inftruQiions from him in perfon, whilft he 
 was on earth, having never ktn him here. 
 And as for his apoftles, he protefts, in the 
 prefence of God, tha: he did not receive 
 the gofpel from them, nor w^as taught it 
 by them; that he did not go to the apoftles 
 at Jerufalewj 'till three years after his 
 converfion, and that then he faw but one 
 of them, which was Pf f^r, Gd. i. 12, 
 17, 18, 19. If this be fo, how fliall 
 we account for it, that m fo many 
 epiftles, wrote at fuch different times, 
 to fuch different people, and upon que- 
 ftions of fo great difficulty and im- 
 portance, not one fingle expreffion fliould 
 appear contrary to the dodrines taught 
 by Chrifi^ or the nature of the religion 
 he intended to eftablifh ; and this before 
 the hiftory of our Saviour's life was pub- 
 lifted 
 
lifted by any of the evangelifts, or at leaft 
 probably fallen into his hands; and 
 when he could not confult any of the 
 apoftles how to behave himfelt, or what 
 inftruftions were moft proper to be 
 given to others ? How could there, in 
 fuch circumftances, have been fo exaft 
 and univerfal an agreement in doftrines, 
 precepts, motives, and the like, between 
 Taul and the reft of the apoftles, unlefs 
 they all aSed under the influence of one, 
 and the fame infallible guide ? 
 
 Such was the real character of the 
 perfans employed to propagate the re- 
 ligion of Jefus Chrifi ; a religion that 
 deferved all their regards and cares, 
 and that 'twas worth their while to fuf- 
 fer fhame and perfecution for the fake 
 of; a religion worthy the firft publication 
 of the Son of God, and of that extra- 
 ordinary confirmation by figns and 
 wonders, and miracles of the Holy Ghoft. 
 The great defign of chriftianity is to 
 cftablifti the belief of a God, and his 
 providence ; and a future ftate of re- 
 wards and punifhments : To teach us 
 the fpiritual nature of God, and that 
 the worHiip of the heart and fpirit is 
 
 moft 
 
( H3 ) 
 
 moft acceptable to him: To recover 
 men from their idolatry, and bring them 
 back to the worfliip of the one only liv- 
 ing and true God : To teach men their duty 
 to each other, and oblige them, by the 
 ftrongeft motives, to obferve and praQiice 
 whatfoever things arc true, and honeft, 
 and juft, and pure, and lovely, and of 
 good report, and virtuous, and praife- 
 worthy; and to perfwade them to mor- 
 tify every inordinate affedion, and evil 
 habit within themfelves, and to attain 
 to thofe excellent difpofitions of mind, 
 by which they may refemble God, be- 
 come moft uieful in hfe, and be beft 
 prepared for future happinefs. In a 
 word, to eftablifh the pradice of thefe 
 two great duties, the love of God, and 
 the love of our neighbour, upon thefe 
 two excellent principles ; that of faith 
 in God, as a rewarder of thofe that feek 
 him ; and faith in Jefm Chrifi^ as the 
 Saviour and judge of men. This is the 
 evident tendency of the gofpel oi Chrifi-^ 
 the doftrines it requires us to believe are 
 reafonable in themfelves, and asfar as I 
 can find, generally plain and eafy enough 
 to be underftood ; its precepts founded 
 
 in 
 
( H4- ) 
 
 in the reafon and nature of things, and 
 anfwerable to the feveral relations we 
 ftand in towards God and one another ; 
 and its promifes fuitable to his character, 
 who is the greateft and bed: of beings, 
 and able to infpire with hope and courage 
 in the moft difficult part of duty ; and 
 all of thefe having this one main tenden- 
 cy, to make, men better in themfelves, 
 more ufeful to others, and more accept- 
 able to God. 
 
 In its main principles it agrees with 
 that former revelation, which God made 
 of himfelf by Mofes^ and the fucceeding 
 prophets. It indeed fupplies the defers, 
 and aboliflieth all that was ceremonial, 
 and typical in that imperfefl; difpenfation. 
 It carries the duties of men to a much 
 nobler heighth, and eftabliflies the pra- 
 8: ice of them by more fohd and excellent 
 motives. But as for its main doQrines, 
 relating to the nature and perfeQiions of 
 God, the cliarafter and undertakings of 
 the Mefliah, the preferablenefs of moral 
 duties to ceremonial obfervances, virtue's 
 being acceptable to God, and fin the ob- 
 jecl of his hatred and difpleafure, in thefe 
 things, and the like, both teftaments 
 
 unani- 
 
(H53 
 
 unanimoufly concur. So that as the ex- 
 ternal evidence for chriftianity is very 
 ftrong, fo neither can there be any in- 
 ternal marks produced from its own na- 
 ture and contexture, to prove it the in- 
 vention of crafty and evil men, and not 
 a real revelation from God. 
 
 I will not pretend to anfwer for all 
 the doftrines of chriftianity, as they 
 have been reprefented and laid down in 
 particular fchemes and fyftems of faith. 
 Let the compilers of them, and the 
 believers in them defend, if they can, 
 their truth, and their confiftency with 
 reafon and fcripture. When I fpeak of 
 chriftianity, I mean that venerable an- 
 cient chriftianity, that is fo evidently 
 contained in the writings of Jep^ 
 Chrifi and his apoftles ; chriftianity iii 
 its plain native fimplicity ; not as it hath 
 been dreffed, and adulterated by the jar- 
 gon and cant language of fathers, fchool- 
 men, fyftematick and polemical divines, 
 and ftretched or fqueezed, in order to 
 make it tally with a fliorter or longer 
 confeflion and creed. In this plight It 
 doth not appear fo lovely and amicable a 
 L thing, 
 
('46) 
 
 thing, as in 'its own native plainefs, un- 
 adorned, and in thofe eafy and familiar 
 words, in which the facred writers, un- 
 der the influence of the blefled fpirit, 
 have reprefented it. As for many of 
 thofe myfterious things, wherein fome 
 feem to place the whole effence of the 
 chriftian religion, I flhall not attempt 
 to defend what I underftand not. As 
 for the plainer matters of the gofpel, its 
 principal precepts, and main doftrines to 
 fupport the pradice of them, I think it 
 may be demonftrated, that they are found- 
 ed in the reafon and nature of things, con- 
 fiftent with the known perfeftions of God, 
 and evidently conducive to promote 
 the welfare of nations, and the prefent 
 and future happinefs of every particular 
 perfon. So that I conclude, that as there 
 is nothing in the nature of the chriftian 
 religion, that hath the leaft tendency to 
 prove its being an impofture, but, on 
 the contrary, is calculated to ferve 
 the nobleft ends and purpofes ; fo its 
 being confirmed by fuch wonderful 
 works, by miracles fo numerous and 
 great, fuiBciently argues its divine ori- 
 ginal ; 
 
(H7) 
 
 ginal; and that therefore it carries 
 with it an indifpenfible obligation on 
 all men, who are capable of under- 
 ftanding the nature of that evidence on 
 which it is founded, both to believe 
 and obey it. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 L.2 
 
 JN 
 
A N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 T O A 
 
 LATE BOOK 
 
 Entituled, 
 
 A Difcourfe of the Grounds 
 and Reafons, &c. 
 
 By Samuel Chandler. 
 
 L l^ 1> l^. 
 
 Printed in the Year, M DCC XXIV. 
 
.^.. 
 
('5') 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 F T E R I had finifhed the 
 preceeding difcourfe on mi- 
 racles, I thought it could 
 be no ways improper to an- 
 nex to it, fome confiderations, in anfwer 
 to a late book, entitled A difcourfe of 
 the grounds and reafons of the chri-* 
 ftian religion \ and the rather, becaufe 
 the author of it hath been pleafed to 
 affert, that miracles are of no ufe to 
 prove the truth of chriftianity ; which 
 I hope, I fhall make appear, that he is not 
 able to maintain. As the author of this 
 performance hath not thought fit to own 
 L 4 his 
 
his name, I fliall not pretend to guefs 
 who he is ; but cannot help iaying, that 
 in controverfies ot' fuch a nature, as no 
 wife man fliould write without having 
 impartially confidcred matters, fo no ho- 
 neft man fhould be afliamed, or afraid to 
 own his fentiments, as publickly as he 
 endeavours to propagate them. 'Tis our 
 pecuhar happinefs under the prefent go- 
 vernment, that no pcrfon hath any rea- 
 fon to apprehend any moleftation, upon 
 account of his particular opinions and 
 fpeculations in matters of religion ; and 
 I am firmly perfwadcd, that every one 
 hath both a natural right to judge for 
 himfelf^ and to own and defend his prin- 
 ciples as openly as he pleafes, provided it 
 be done with temper and good manners ; 
 inafmuch as the caufe of God and truth 
 can never fuffer by fair debate, and the 
 moft il:ricl and impartial enquiry. 
 
 The adverfaries of the chriftian Faith 
 have made frequent infinuations, that 
 they have unanfwerable objections againll 
 our religion, had they but the liberty of 
 publickly ttating and defending them. 
 I cannot but think that this liberty 
 fhould be freely allowed them ; and 
 
 heartily 
 
(«53) 
 
 heartily wifli, for their farther affiftance, 
 we could recover the ancient writings 
 of Celfm^ Julian J Porphyry ^ and others 
 the great oppofers of the chriftian reli- 
 gion, that we might know how ftrong 
 their cavils and objedions were; be- 
 caufe no confiderate chriftian hath, I 
 believe, any farther regard to Jefm 
 Chriflj than as he thinks him the mef- 
 fenger of God, or for the religion he 
 taught, than as he apprehends it agree- 
 able to truth. For my own part, I 
 fhould be fincerely pleafed to fee all 
 their objeftions ftated in their ftrongeft 
 light, that I might the better under- 
 ftand, whether or no my profeflion and 
 hopes, as a chriftian, are built on any 
 folid and reafonable foundation. If our 
 modern deifts can fairly make chrifti- 
 anity appear to be an impofture, I fhall 
 readily part with it; if they cannot, 
 all their objeftions againft it will but 
 the more firmly eftablilli its divine 
 Authority. 
 
 Tis however highly requifite, that 
 controverfies of this nature fbould be 
 managed with great moderation, and 
 regard to decency and truth. Paffion 
 
 and 
 
and prejudice, unfair mifreprefentations 
 and injurious charges, banter and ridi- 
 cule, how much ibevei' abounding in 
 other controverfies, are certainly very 
 improper in this ; where the great de- 
 bate is, which is the mod: certain way 
 to virtue and happinefs in this life, and 
 to the more fubftantial and durable 
 bleflednefs of another. I am forry I 
 am forced to fay this of the author I am 
 now confiderlng, that he feems to have 
 thought himfelf under no obligations 
 to obferve any of the rules of decency 
 whatfoever, or of paying that ftrifl re- 
 gard to truth, which becomes a rea- 
 fonable and an honeft mind. His whole 
 performance, tho' pretended as a poof 
 of chrifiianityj hath no other view than 
 to expofe it as a weak and gronndlefs 
 thingj and feems to be defrgned as an 
 infult on the author and firft publifliers 
 of it. His fneer at St. Taul^ for that 
 paflage, Gd. iv. 21, ijc. p. 11. his 
 putting the miffion of Mahomet^ Zoro* 
 ajter^ the incarnate deities of the Si- 
 amefe and "Brachmansy and Jefu6 Chrifi 
 upon the fame foundation, f. 2j. his 
 making the pockets of the Old Te/ia- 
 
 menty 
 
ment to get their livelihood hy difca" 
 vering lojt goods and telling fortunes^ 
 p. 29. his afcribing the efiahlipment of 
 chrifiianity to a rahhiy and the prote^ 
 jtant religion to the devil, p. 61. are fe- 
 veral inftances of his regard to decency 
 and good manners. His making the Old 
 Tefi anient the fole f roof of chrifiianity^ 
 and the Old Tefi- anient zmitings the only 
 canon of fcripture to chrifiians 5 his 
 witty affertion, that chrifiaanity is not 
 flain Christianity^ hut myfiical 'Juda^ 
 ifm ; that many of the Jews helieved 
 in the go/pel before "^tikjas piUifJ^edj 
 and were as much chrifiians as thofe 
 converted hy the afofiles, p. 15. his ci- 
 ting texts of fcripture, which evidently 
 prove the contrary of what they are ci- 
 ted to prove, p. 29. 80. are, out of ma- 
 ny, fome few fpecimens of his great in- 
 tegrity, and love to truth. Such difho- 
 neft and unfair praftices as thefe fhew, 
 not the weaknefs of chriftianity, but the 
 fpite and ill nature of its adverfaries ; 
 and inclines me the more to think, that 
 the caufe of infidelity is not founded on 
 truth, becaufe of the mean arts that 
 are made ufe of to fupport it. 
 
 I 
 
I tliink my felf Iiowever obliged, on 
 this occafion, to acknowledge what I be- 
 lieve to be true, that there are, amongft 
 thofe gentlemen, who, as I think, are 
 fo unhappy as to disbelieve chriftia- 
 nity, fome, who would fcorn the little 
 methods the author I am confidering 
 hath taken, to expofe a religion he plainly 
 appears not to underftand, or wilfully to 
 have mifreprefented ; and that have ho- 
 nour enough to delpife the man that 
 makes ufe of them ; and that tho' I 
 charge tliis writer with feveral grols 
 immoralities, upon account of his man- 
 ner of writings yet that I am far from 
 fixing the like charge of immorality 
 upon others, merely becaufe they have 
 not the fame honourable fentiments of 
 chriilianity with thofe, who fee reafon 
 to believe it ; as hath been too often, 
 and, I think, unfairly done. Nothing 
 is more unjuil:, than that the vices of 
 particular men, in any body or fociety, 
 ihould be charged on the whole. Chri- 
 llians would not like fuch a treatment 
 from others, and they fhould therefore 
 be as fparing in giving it, as they would 
 be unwilling to receive it. 
 
 Sure 
 
(157) 
 
 Sure I am, that as chriftianity needs no 
 fuch methods to fupport it ; fo that it 
 hath but little to fear from fuch per- 
 formances as I am now to confider ; 
 whatever opinion the author of it may 
 have, or whatfoever fuccefs he may be 
 vain enough to expefl from it. 
 
 For tho' there may be fome difficul- 
 ties in the application of feveral of the 
 Old Teftament prophecies, cited by Chrift 
 and his apoftles, yet I think it may evi- 
 dently be made appear, that no objeftion 
 from hence is of that force, as to weaken 
 the credit of the chriftian religion, and 
 to prove "Jefm Chrift^ and his apoitles 
 impoftors. 
 
 The great article, which this gentle- 
 man would endeavour to perfwade his 
 readers into the belief of, is, That chri- 
 ftianity hath no other fotmdation^ than 
 the prophecies of the Old Tejlament to 
 fupport it ; and thofe prophecies not 
 tmderftood in their literal and olvions 
 fenfe^ hut typically and myfiically ; that 
 is, in a fefffe different from the obvi- 
 om and literal jenfe^ which they I are 
 hi the Old Teftament ; and that there- 
 fore they are no proofs^ according to 
 
 fcho- 
 
(.58) 
 
 fcholaftick rules^ L e. they are really 
 no proofs at all, and that therefore the 
 chriftian religion hath no reafon or ar- 
 gument to defend it felf, p. J9. 40. 
 Thus he tells us, that chriftianity is 
 nothing but Judaifm explained^ and 
 fet 171 a due light, as tar/ghty or pre- 
 diHed i?i the OldTefiament, p. 14. 15. 
 nnd again, jp. 24. for which he vouches 
 our Saviour's authority ; Mofes and the 
 -prophets are, not only without far- 
 ther fniracles, but tho" miracles Jbould 
 he wrought in oppofdion to them, a 
 fufjcient foundation of faith ; and a- 
 gain, p. J I. That if the proofs for 
 chrifianity, from the Old Teftament, 
 he not valid y if the arguments, found- 
 ed on thofe looks, he not conclufive, 
 and the prophecies, cited from thence 
 he 7tot fulfilled, then has chriftianity 
 no ]ufi foundation \ for the foundation 
 on which Jefus, and his apoftles, huik 
 it, is then ifivalid and falfe ; as 
 tho' the only foundation on w^hich Je- 
 fm, and his apoftles, built chriftianity, 
 was the prophecies of the Old Tefia- 
 ment ; which he farther confirms, by 
 telling us, That the miracles f aid to he 
 
 wrought 
 
voYomht hy Jefus, a?id his a^oflUs^ in 
 lehalf of chrifiia72ity, cannot avail a- 
 7iy thing in the cafe^ or be of any ufe 
 to provre the divine authority and 
 miffion of Jeftis Chri/L Hence he tells 
 us, that the miracles of Chrift, tho^ 
 equal to what the ]q^s exfeBed from 
 the Mejftah, were no proof to them 
 that he ivas the Mejfiah^ p. ^4. and 
 that they did ^is juftly rejea Jefus, and 
 crucify him^ tho' ajjerting his mijfion 
 and doHrine^ with miracles^ as any 
 other ferfon that would have lead 
 them into idolatry^ p. ^4. ^^^ 
 compared. Thus doth he acquit the 
 'Jews from all the guilt of our Sa- 
 viour's blood; and even juftify them 
 ivi crucifying the Lord of life and glory. 
 In oppofition to this low cavil againft 
 chriftianity, I fhall endeavour, 
 
 1. To fhew that chriftianity hath 
 other foundations to fupport it, than 
 the prophecies of the Old Teftament. 
 And, 
 
 2. That the prophecies of the Old 
 Teftament^ are fo far from being the 
 
 fole 
 
( J-So ) 
 
 fole foundation of chriftianity, as that 
 they are never once urged by the New 
 Tefiament writers, as the proper, much 
 lefs the only proofs of Chriji\ divine 
 miflion and authority, upon which 
 the truth of chriftianity depends. 
 
 C H A p. 
 
(Idl) 
 
 Chap I. 
 
 Christianity f up- 
 ported hy other proofs 
 than the Old Teftament 
 Prophecies. 
 
 iH AT chriftianity hath other foun- 
 1^1 dations to fiipport it than the pro- 
 """ phecies of the Old Tefiament^ is 
 plain from the A^ew Tefiatnent^ and from 
 the apologies of all that have written in 
 defence of it. The frame and contexture 
 of the chriftian religion it felf ; its ex- 
 cellent doftrines, its admirable precepts, 
 its powerful motives, and the end it was 
 at firft calculated, and hath a manifeft 
 tendency to promote, viz. the honour of 
 the fupreme being, and the prefent 
 M and 
 
( 1(52 ) 
 
 and future happinefs of mankind, have 
 always been accounted, and urged, as 
 very ftrong arguments of its divine 
 authority. The miracles that were 
 wrought by Jefus and his apoftles, in 
 confirmation of it, the mean circum- 
 ftances and education, the integrity, dif- 
 intereftednefs, and piety, and princi- 
 ples of its firft publifhers ; and above all, 
 the Refurreftion of Jefus Chrifij after 
 his crucifixion and death, JBs i. j. 
 who jhewed hmfelf alive^ after his 
 faffton^ hy many infalUhk froofs^ being 
 feen of above five hundred brethren 
 at once^ and remaining with them 
 forty days^ and freaking of the things 
 fertai7iing to the kingdom of God^ 
 I Cor. XV. 6. the confequent effufion of 
 the Holy Ghofi on his apoflles, ac- 
 cording to his promife, whereby they 
 were qualified to preach the gofpel to 
 every nation thro^ the gift of tongues; 
 the amazing fuccefs, and vaft progrefs 
 of the gofpel, in oppofition to the pre- 
 judices of all mankind, the malice of 
 the Jezfi^Sj and the power of the Ge/i- 
 tilesy whereby were verified the moft 
 exprefs prediftions of Jefus Chrift-^ 
 
 the 
 
the deftruftion of t he Jezmfh city, and 
 temple, and nation, according as our 
 Saviour foretold it fhould be ; the num- 
 ber, conftancy, and extraordinary fup- 
 ports of thofe that died for the pro- 
 feffion, and thereby gave their tefti- 
 mony to the truth of it ; thefe, and 
 other fuch like confiderations, are fuch 
 reafons for our belief of chriftianity, 
 as have never yet been overthrown 
 by its profeffed, and moft inveterate 
 adverfaries. Our faith therefore, as chri- 
 ftians, Hands not on the fingle founda- 
 tion of Jewifl^ prophecies ; much lefs 
 on prophecies typically and allegori- 
 cally explained, i. e. fuch, as accord- 
 ing to our author, p. 39. are, either 
 not to le fomid in the Old Tefta- 
 ment ; or not urged in the New, ac- 
 cording to the literal and olvious 
 fenfe^ which they feem to hare in 
 their fuflwfed flaces in the Old, and 
 therefore not proofs at all of the 
 things they are cited to prove. Can 
 this author be ignorant, that fuch a 
 reprefentation of the grounds of the 
 chriftian religion, is falfe and injuri- 
 ous, and can any one that reads it help 
 M 2 fufpeQing 
 
fufpeaing very great diftionefty and iii- 
 fincerity in him that makes it ? This 
 is not that fair ftating and urging 
 obje£i:ions againft chriftianity, which, 
 in his preface, he fo ftrenuoufly ar- 
 gues for ; and which, I wifli was 
 granted to every one without excep- 
 tion, that knows how to v/rite with 
 temper and decency. But for any one 
 to lay down an evident falfliood, as his 
 firft principle, and on that falfe foun- 
 dation, to feoff at, and ridicule the 
 chriftian revelation, this looks not like 
 the reafoning of an honeft impartial 
 enquirer, but hke the eifeft of pre- 
 judice and malice, and is, I cannot 
 help faying, a conduQ: unworthy either 
 a well bred, or a virtuous man. I 
 doubt not, but our author efteems 
 Cicero^ Seneca^ and other'^ writers of 
 that age, much greater men than 
 our Saviour and his apoftles. If he 
 can read them, and will be at the 
 pains to confult them, he will find, 
 that tho^ they were no more belie- 
 vers in the religion of their country 
 than he himfelf is, yet that they wrote 
 with more good manners, and with 
 
 much 
 
(1(55) 
 
 much greater regard and love to truth, 
 than he hath fhewn in the performance 
 under confideration ; and herein they 
 deferve his intimation. The application 
 of the prophecies of the Old Tefiatnent 
 to our Saviour, hath always been efteem- 
 ed as a matter very difficult and un- 
 certain; and various methods have 
 been made ufe of, by chriftian expofi- 
 tors, to explain and defend them : An 
 evident proof, that they did not build 
 their faith on this foundation, either 
 principally or wholly; but that they 
 had other very ftrong reafons to fup- 
 port their belief in Jefus Chrifty and 
 that more than ballanccd the difficulty 
 of their not being able to account for 
 many of the prophecies of the OU 
 Teftamenty which they faw were afitu^ 
 ally applied to him by the writers of 
 the New. 
 
 M J C H A ?. 
 
(i66) 
 
 H A P. 
 
 11. 
 
 Prophecies never urged by 
 Christ^ and his A- 
 poflles^ as the file proof 
 of Chriflianity. 
 
 AVING fliewn in the 
 foregoing chapter, that 
 chtiftianity is fupported by 
 many other arguments, than 
 the Old Teftament prophe- 
 cies, I proceed to fliew farther, that 
 the prophecies of the Old Tejia7ne?it 
 are fo far from being the fole founda- 
 tion of chriflianity, as that they are 
 never once urged by the New Tefia* 
 fia'hient writers, as tfte proper, much 
 kfs the only proofs of the divine 
 
 authority 
 
( «57 ) 
 
 authority and mifTion of Chrift^ on 
 which depends the truth of chriftianity. 
 Our Saviour himfelf doth not place the 
 truth of his miflion on this, as the fole 
 foundation, nor any of his apoftles after 
 him. 
 
 In order to kt this matter in a 
 clearer light, 'twill be necejQTary to 
 confider Jefus Chrifi under a twofold 
 charaftsr,. and as fupporting each part 
 of it with proper proofs. He is to be 
 confidered as a f rochet ^ or a mejjenger 
 fe?it f)07n God to man\iind\ and as 
 the Meffiah^ or that particular pro^hety 
 that was anciently fromifed tOj and 
 had leen long expected hy the Jewifh 
 nation. It is evident that thefe are 
 very different confiderations, whether 
 Chrijt was a real prophet, and whe- 
 ther he was that particular prophet, 
 and deliverer, ipoken of in the facred 
 writings of the Jews^ and who, as 
 they believed, was to be the Saviour 
 of their nation. The charafter of a 
 prophet doth not infer that of the Mef- 
 fiah ; and the fame arguments that will 
 vabundantly prove the one, will be far 
 from being a fufficient proof of the other, 
 M 4 Dodrines 
 
(.68) 
 
 Doctrines taught by any perfon, claim- 
 ing a divine miflion, agreeable to the 
 nature of God, and conducive to the 
 real happinefs of men, fupported by 
 real miracles; or fuch works, as do 
 plainly manifeft, and neceffarily infer 
 the afliftancc of fome fuperiour being, 
 are certain proofs that fuch a one's pre- 
 tenfions are agreeable to the will and 
 pleafure of God: But this will not 
 prove him to be the Jewijh Meffiah 
 and Saviour, without the concurrence 
 of other circumftantial evidence ; viz. 
 unlefs the ancient prophecies, defcripti- 
 ons, and charafters, relating to the 
 Meffiah in the Old Teftafuent fcriptures, 
 be referred by fuch a perfon to himfelf ; 
 and actually receive their proper ac- 
 compiilhment in him. 
 
 If then we examine by what argu- 
 ments our Saviour endeavoured to fup- 
 port his charafter, as a prophet, or to 
 prove that he was a perfon that afl:ed 
 by authority from God, we fliall find 
 they were fuch, as were not at all pe- 
 culiar to the Jewijh ftate or circum- 
 ftances ; but proper for the conviftion 
 of all perfons, wherever his gofpel 
 
 •ftiould 
 
(i<S9) 
 
 fhould be preached, or to whom the 
 evidence of its truth Ihould be fairly 
 propounded. The grand charaders of 
 his divine miffion, and on which he laid 
 the principal ftrefs, were his teaching 
 the moft excellent doftrines, and then 
 confirming them by the moft wonder- 
 ful works. At his firft appearance in the 
 world, he mentions nothing of the pro- 
 phecies of the Old Teftamenty nor makes 
 any the leaft appeal to them for the 
 truth of his pretenfions; having no 
 riglit to apply them to himfelf, nor hope 
 of fuccefs, fhould he attempt it, 'till he 
 had fome way or other manifefted that 
 he had authority and power fo to do ; 
 but refers men to the words he f^oke^ 
 which were not his own, hit the 
 father'^ s which fent him; and to the 
 works he wrought, which zfvere the 
 things that witnejjed of him. It was 
 anciently a part of the prophetick 
 office, to deliver to the people the 
 meflages of God, and to inftruft them 
 in, and exhort them to their duty. 
 Accordingly, our Saviour begins his 
 miniftry with delivering the beft and 
 moft ufeful inftruftions to his follow 
 
 ers; 
 
(i7o) 
 
 ers, and carrying the great duties of 
 morality to fo noble an height, and 
 enforcing them by fuch weighty mo- 
 tives, as that the people were aftoniHi- 
 ed, both at the doQirines themfelves^ 
 and at his manner of teaching them. 
 Mat. vii. 28, 29. and cried out, Did ever 
 man /peak Ithe him ? John vii. 46. 
 Such a method of inftruCtion plainly 
 evidenced, that he was a teacher much 
 fuperiour to the Scribes and Tharifeesy 
 and was a noble preparative to his re- 
 ception, as a prophet, or a perfon fent 
 from God. 
 
 And his pretenfions to fuch a cha- 
 rafter, were abundantly confirmed by 
 thofe wonderful works which he per- 
 formed ; which Chrift himfelf declares 
 to be wrought by the finger or power 
 of God ; and which were fuch, as were 
 certain and abfolute proofs, that lie 
 aded under the agency and influence 
 of fome fuperiour being. Some of the 
 miracles he wrought were of fuch a 
 nature, as that they feem to have been 
 done by the immediate interpofition of 
 God himfelf; fuch as raifing the dead, 
 creating bread for the multitude, 
 
 and 
 
(171) 
 
 and reftoring limbs to the maimed. I 
 canoot indeed deny, but there may 
 poflibly be fome created beings of fo 
 fuperiour a nature, as to be capable of 
 doing thefe things : But however, he 
 who charges himfelf with the affirma- 
 tive, will have a difficiilt task to prove. 
 The creating fomething out of nothing, 
 and raifing the dead, appear, as yet, 
 to me, to be inftances of the greateft: 
 poffible exertion of power, and there- 
 fore applicable only to him, to whom 
 all ^ower belongs. But whether this 
 be fo or not, it matters but httle to 
 the argument. All the circumftances 
 of our Saviour's life make it very evi- 
 dent, that if his miracles were not per- 
 formed by the immediate influence of 
 God himfelf, yet that they were done 
 by the aififtance of fome good and pow- 
 erful being in fubordination to him. 
 For as a good being can never aft but 
 in a manner agreeable to the divine 
 will, and for very good and valuable 
 ends, fo neither can an evil being 
 ftatedly purfue any other defign, bwt 
 fuch as is fuited to his proper nature,, 
 and ferviccable to his particular inte- 
 
 reft 
 
(172) 
 
 reft and inclination. The very fuppo- 
 fition therefore, that our Saviour 
 wrought his miracles by the affiftance 
 of evil fpirits implies, either that he 
 was himfelf a very bad man, or that 
 the end to be anfwered by them was 
 evil, diflionourable to the fupreme be- 
 ing, or prejudicial to the real happinefs 
 of men; or that being himfelf a 
 wicked perfon, and in confederacy 
 with fpirits as wicked as himfelf, 
 they could both unite to carry on a 
 defign, than which nothing could be 
 more worthy of God, and of the beft 
 of angels, and of men to promote. 
 That the genuine defign of chriftianity 
 is good, many of the more fober and 
 unprejudiced Deifts themfelves have 
 acknowledged ; and it muft be owned 
 fo by all, who place the worfhip of 
 the only living and true God in fpirit 
 and truth, and the engaging men to 
 the praftice of all moral duties, by the 
 moft weighty motives, and fo prepa- 
 ring them for the higheft happinefs, 
 among great and good defigns. And 
 therefore our Saviour's prctenfions to 
 be a prophet of God, were abundantly 
 
 juftificci 
 
('73) 
 
 juftified by his do£trines and miracles, 
 tho' there had been no ftanding re- 
 velation from God, at that time, in 
 the world, nor any one fingle pro- 
 phecy relating to him. 
 
 So that what this author affirms, 
 f. J 7. that the miracles of Jefus 
 Chrift, are no othervcife -proofs of 
 his divine miffion, and the truth of 
 chriftianity, than as they fulfill the 
 fajings of the Old Teftament, like 
 other gofpel matters and events^ is 
 without any foundation of truth. Be- 
 caufe all real miracles are certain 
 proofs in themfelves, that the perfon 
 who doth them, acts by a fuperiour 
 commiffion and power ; and they may 
 be fo circumftanced, without having 
 recourfe to prediftion, as to be full 
 proof of his miffion from God. Had 
 Jefus Chri/l been the firft prophet that 
 ever appeared in the world, before 
 there had been any manner of fuper- 
 natural revelation from God, I appre- 
 hend he might have given fuch proof 
 of his divine miffion, tho' there had 
 been no preceeding prophecies to bare 
 witnefs to him, as would have been 
 
 very 
 
(i74) 
 
 very fatisfadory and convincing ; and 
 therefore whoever can fupport the 
 claim of a divine million by fuch evi- 
 dence, will have a juft right to be 
 believed and received as a prophet. 
 And thus it was in faft with JefiM 
 Chrifi. The miracles he publickly 
 wrought were fuch, as did certainly 
 argue the interpofition of fome fupe- 
 riour being ; and they were wrought 
 in confirmation of fuch an end, as none 
 but a good being can be fuppofed to 
 promote ; and it therefore follows, 
 that his miflion was agreeable to the 
 will and pleafure of God, abftrafted from 
 the confideration of all former prophecies 
 and revelations whatfoever : His miracles 
 thus circumftanced were, contrary to 
 what the author of The Grounds^ &:c. 
 affirms, good proofs in themselves that 
 he was fent of God ; and not merely 
 on account of their being confonant to 
 the prophecies concerning th^ Mefliah. 
 The great difficulty was to prove his 
 being fent of God ; which was to be 
 done in fuch a manner, as might be 
 fufficient to convince thofe who never 
 had any revelation at all, nor knew 
 
 any 
 
(«75) 
 
 any thing of the Jewijl) prophecies 
 concerning him. Without this they 
 would have had no reafon to receive 
 him, and believe in him. The cha- 
 rafters, whereby the Meiliah was to be 
 known, were but incidental, and pecu- 
 liar to the JewiJI) nation ; and there- 
 fore could not, with any advantage to 
 the chriftran religion, be urged to any 
 other perfons but Jez^os^ 'till after they 
 had been eftabliOied in the belief of tlie 
 divine authority of the Jewi;}) fcriptures ; 
 and therefore were not at all eflential to 
 the charafter of a prophet. As this 
 doth not in the leaft fuppofe the neceffity 
 of a former revelation, as that of the 
 Meffiah did (the prophecies of which re- 
 velation were to be accomplilhed in the 
 perfon affuming that title, before they, 
 to whom the promifcs of the Meffiah 
 were made, could be obliged to acknow- 
 ledge and fubmit to him as fuch) fo it 
 is to be fupported by fuch proofs, as 
 may be fufficient to fatisfy all without 
 exception, who are commanded to be- 
 lieve in him, whether ever they had 
 the benefit of a former revelation or 
 not. So that there is a vaft deal of 
 
 differnece 
 
('76) 
 
 difference between the proofs from mi- 
 racles, and other matters recorded in 
 the OJd Teftament^ tho' equally pro- 
 phecied of with refpeft to the Mefliah : 
 The former being a proof to be de- 
 manded from every one that lays claim 
 to a divine miffion, and, as circum- 
 ftanced in Chrift^ being demonftrative 
 proofs that God had fent him : The 
 latter being only proofs, that he was 
 that particular prophet fpoken of, 
 and defcribed in the Jewijh fcrip- 
 tures. 
 
 It doth not therefore follow, as this 
 writer, with great modefty and de- 
 ference to the religion of his country, 
 pofitively afferts, p. 36. That the Jews 
 ^id as juftly rejeH Jefus, ajjertmg 
 his mijjion and doBrines with mi- 
 racks, as any other ferfd'ny who^ in 
 virtue of miracle Sy would lead them 
 Into idolatry^ or any other breach 
 of the Mofaick Law. For real mi- 
 racles, wrought in favour of doftrines 
 contrary to truth, and that are repug- 
 nant to the nature and perfections of 
 God, which is the cafe, when wrought 
 in fupport of idolatry, carry with them 
 
 their 
 
(«77) 
 
 their own proof, that the perfon who 
 doth them is not fent of God, and 
 that therefore he is an impoftor, if 
 he pretends to aft in his name. For 
 God can no more be the cncourager 
 of vice and idolatry, than he can op- 
 pofe and contradift himfelf ; and there- 
 fore he that doth ever fo many won- 
 derful works with fuch a defign, and 
 for fuch an end, tho' he may pretend 
 to be a meffenger from heaven, yet is 
 immediately to be reje£ted as a falfe 
 teacher, and feducer of the people ; 
 becaufe no argument can poffibly be 
 fo ftrong to prove him fent from God, 
 as this is to prove the direO: contrary. 
 Whereas the miracles of Chrift were 
 performed in confirmation of no do- 
 ftrincs contrary to the principles of 
 natural reafon and religion; but for 
 an end, which, from all the notions 
 we have of God's wifdom and good- 
 nefs, we have reafon to think worthy 
 of him to encourage and promote. 
 
 Nor did he, as this author feems 
 
 to intimate, p. j6. ever pretend to op- 
 
 pofe, or fet afide, the real intention 
 
 of the Mofaick Law, or lead his fol- 
 
 N lowers 
 
(•78) 
 
 lowers into the breach of it. But to 
 pbviate fuch an objeQion, plainly tells 
 the Jewsy in one of his difcourfes, 
 Think not that I am come to deftroy the 
 lazv or the j^rophets: I am not come 
 to deftroyy hit to fid/ilL For verily I 
 fay unto you^ ^till heaven and earth 
 fafsy one jot or tittle Jhall in no 
 wife f^ajs from the lan\ ^till all he 
 fulfiliedy Mat. v; 17, 18. So that as 
 the miracles of Chrifi^ were not 
 wrought in confirmation of any do- 
 ftrines contrary to truth, or in oppo- 
 fition to the genuine intention and de- 
 Cgn of the Mofaick law, the Jexvs 
 acted very unjuftly in rejefting Jefu^y 
 whofe miflion, from his heavenly fa- 
 ther, was fupported by the nobleft 
 teftimonials. 
 
 If they miiunderftood theii* own fcrip- 
 tures, and expc6icd that the Meffiah 
 Jhould be, and do what it was never 
 intended of God he fhould be or per- 
 form, tho' this might prejudice them 
 againft his perfon, and be an objeftion 
 to their receiving him, yet it cannot in 
 the leaft invalidate the real proofs of his 
 divine mifiion, and therefore not wholly 
 
 juftify 
 
( t79 ) 
 
 juftify the Jews in rcje£ling him; tho^ 
 poflibly it may be fome alleviation 
 of their fin and guilt. That the Mef- 
 fiah was to be a king and a tri- 
 umphant prince, was fully evident 
 from the Scriptures. Hence the Jews 
 always expefted, that he fhould 
 bring with him falvation and delive- 
 rance. But the nature of his king- 
 dom, fubjefts, enemieS; triumph and 
 viftories, was no where particularly 
 defcribed ; the manifeftation of which 
 was referved for the iime of his ap- 
 pearance. Much lefs was it any where 
 exprefly predifted, that he fliould de- 
 liver them from the Roman power, 
 and make Jerufakm the capital city 
 of the whole earth. Of confequence 
 his laying no claim to a temporal - 
 kingdoin^ nor proving to the Jewsy 
 what our author calls, a realj i. c. 
 a temporal deliverer^ was fo far from 
 being an argument that he could 
 not be a frofhetj that it did not 
 prove he could not be their Mefliah, 
 if fo be thoie great defcriptions of 
 the Mefliah's kingdom and glory could 
 fairly be interpreted, and have their 
 N 2 accom- 
 
(•So) 
 
 accomplilliment another way. Had he 
 indeed difclaimed any kingdom at all, 
 and never pretended to account for his 
 fufferings, or to expeO: any glorious 
 reward of them, this would undoubt- 
 edly have juftified the Jews^ in not re- 
 ceiving him as the MefTiah ; fince no- 
 thing was more plainly predifted of 
 him, than that the government (Iwuld be 
 upon his Jhouldersy and that he mvfl 
 reign "^till all his enemies were fut 
 under his feet. Since therefore, in 
 their own confeffion, Jefus ffahe as ne- 
 ver man fpake^ and did the works 
 that none ever did\ fince he laid claim 
 to the honours of a kingdom, and 
 affured all his followers, that he would 
 obtain falvation and deliverance for 
 them; inftead of not being difpofed 
 to take him for their Melliah, upon 
 the account of his miracles and divine 
 doftrines, becaufe he appeared, in fome 
 refpefts, different from what they ex- 
 pefted him, they ought rather to have 
 fearched the fcripture with greater free- 
 dom from prejudice; and to have con- 
 fidered whether they were not mifta- 
 ken ia the fenfe of the prophecies, 
 
 and 
 
(i8ij 
 
 {^nd of confequence, as to their ex- 
 ' peftations concerning the MelTiah : And 
 the rather, becaufe he gave, not^ only 
 all the fame proofs of his divine niiflion, 
 2is any of their former prophets did, 
 but equal to what they expefted even 
 from the MefTiah himfelf. Such a 
 perfon's differing from them, as to the 
 interpretation of fcripture prophecies, 
 was rather a reafon why they fhould 
 fufpeft their own judgment, than re- 
 jea him upon the account of it : Ef- 
 pecially if it could be made appear, 
 that his account of them was more 
 glorious and beneficial; that the fame 
 prophecies, that foretold the MeJJiaF^ 
 hngdomy fpake alfo of his fujferings ; 
 that it was perfedly reconcileable that 
 the fame ^erfon fhould be crucified, 
 and yet a triumphant prince^ and 
 that as it was part of the office of 
 a prophet to give nevo revelations of 
 God's will, fo alfo it was to explaui 
 the 7nore dijjicult farts of former 
 
 ones 
 
 And fuppofing what our author 
 
 adds, f . 35. was true) tho' 'tis not 
 
 altogether fo, for fome of his kindred 
 
 N J believed 
 
Cl82) 
 
 believed in him) that his miracles bad 
 no effeH on his brethren and family y 
 what will he gain or prove by it ? 
 That he did no miracles at all? This 
 his unbeUeving brethren allowed, John 
 vii. J, 4. Or that he did not per- 
 form them in confirmation of excel- 
 lent doSrines ? He had even the tefti- 
 monies of his enemies in this refped, 
 John vii. 4, 6. Or that his confirm- 
 ing the moll excellent doftrines by 
 real miracles was no proof of his di-; 
 vine miflion? The evidence of truth 
 depends not on the judgment of pre- 
 judiced men concerning it ; but is the 
 fame, whether it be fubmitted to or' 
 not. And this, in fliort, is the point 
 our author fhould have fixed on, and 
 proved, in order to fupport his fchcme 
 of infidelity •, not wliat the opinion 
 of the Jews was, concerning Jefus 
 and his works, and interpretations of 
 fcripture, which is but of little v/eight 
 or ufe ; but, either that he did not do 
 thofe works, nor teach thofe doftrines 
 that are afcribed to him ; or that if 
 he did, they are no proper proof X)f 
 his miflion and authority from God. 
 
 For 
 
(i83) 
 
 For it was to this united evidence 
 we find our Lord appealing, as to the 
 grand arguments that his father 
 had fent him. When he firft entred 
 on his publick miniftration, the bet- 
 ter to prepare the way for his re- 
 ception, he went about healing all 
 manner of difeafes and Jlcknejfes among 
 the feo^kj Mat. iv. 2^, 24. And 
 when John fent his two difciples to 
 enquire of him, whether he was that 
 perfon that fhould come, or whether 
 they were to look for another, he 
 gives them for anfwer; not that his 
 mother was a virgin^ or that he was 
 horn in Bethlehem, or of the family of 
 David, or called out of ^gypt, which 
 would have been the moft improper 
 return to their queftion ; but that by 
 him the Hind received their fight, the 
 lame walked^ the lexers were cleanfed^ 
 the deafmdiAQ to hear^ the dead raifed^ 
 and the gof^el preached to the j^oor^ 
 Mat. xi. v. Hereby putting the proof 
 of his prophetick charafter and milfion 
 from God upon the miracles he wrought, 
 and the gofpel he preached. Thus al- 
 fo we find him appealing to the fame 
 N 4 undoubt^j 
 
(.84) 
 
 ., undoubted teftimonials: As in his an- 
 fwer to Phili^y Believeft thou not that 
 I am in the father^ and the father 
 in me? i. e. that the father hath fent 
 me, and that I aft by authority from 
 him? The words that I fpeak unto 
 
 ' youy I /peak not of my felf and the 
 father that dwelleth in me he doth 
 the worhsy John. iv. lo. And from 
 
 "^^this he draws the proper inference, 
 'Believe me that I am in the father^ 
 and the father in me^ believe my divine 
 miflion from him, on account of the 
 truths you have heard me deliver: 
 Jf noty at leaff^ believe me for the very 
 works fakey i. e. on account of the 
 miracles you have feen me do, in con- 
 firmation of the doftrines I have taught, 
 in my father's name. Can any thing be 
 more evident from hence,- than that 
 our Lord here lays down his zfijords 
 a?id worisy his doBrines and miracles^ 
 as the proper grounds and reafons of 
 mens receiving and believing in him ? 
 It is true that "^efus doth now and 
 then refer the "^ews to the fcriptures 
 of the Old Teftamenty Search the fcrip- 
 tnr^sy for in them je think ye have 
 
 eternal 
 
eternal life^ and thefe are they which 
 teftify ofme^ John v. J9. But not as 
 tho' the only, or proper proof of his 
 prophetick charader, and miflion from 
 God, was to be fetched from the ancient 
 prophecies therein contained ; but either, 
 that he gave the very fame proofs of his 
 prophetick miflion, that their own fcrip- 
 tures had laid down ; or that, as on the 
 one hand, he had abundantly eftablifli- 
 ed his charafter as a prophet, by his do- 
 ctrines and miracles; fo they might learn 
 on the other, by confidering thofe ancient 
 prophecies, and their accomplifhment in 
 him, not only to own him as a meer pro- 
 phct, but to acknowledge and fubmit to 
 him as their promifed Mefliah. 
 
 This alfo was the way of arguing 
 ufed by his apoftles after him. Thus 
 St. Petery in order the more efFe£lually 
 to bring over his countrymen, the 
 yjewsy to the faith of Chrifi, tells them, 
 '•'that Jefus of Nazareth was a man 
 ^ af^roved of God amongft them ; or 
 one whom God owned to be his fer- 
 - vant c#nd meflenger to them, hy mi- 
 racles and figns and wonder s^ which 
 God did by him in the mid/i of them^ as 
 they themfelves well hiew^ Afts ii. 22. 
 
 And 
 
Ci8<5) 
 
 And the author to the Helrewsy in 
 like manner declares, that the grand 
 confirmation of the chriftian religion 
 were the ^gnsy wonders and miracle Sj, 
 that were wrought by Chrifty and his 
 apoftles, thrcP the fower of the Holy. 
 Ghoft, Heb. ii. 4. And clfewhere we 
 are told, that this was the peculiar 
 recommendation of the gofpel, and 
 that which rendered it worthy of all 
 acceftationj that Chrift came into the 
 world to fave finners^ and to bring 
 life and immortality to light hy his 
 gofpely 1 Tim. i. 15. So that this is 
 the great foundation, which the firft 
 preachers of chriftianity lay down, on 
 which we are to build our faith in Chrift ^^ 
 viz. the certainty oiChrifPs miracles, the 
 nature of his doftrines, and that ex* 
 cellent defign which he came, into the 
 world to accomplifli. 
 
 ;And accordingly thefe were the things 
 that gained him his firft difciples atpongft 
 men. Thus, at the feaft of paffdver, 
 Ma?uy lelieved in him^ when they' f aw 
 the miracles which he did^ John ii. 2j. 
 Thefe, as wrought in confirmation of 
 his doQ:rines, were, in the judgment 
 oi NicodemtiSj ^n unanfwerable argu 
 
 ment 
 
(■87) 
 
 ment that he was a teacher fent from 
 God. No man can do thofe miracles 
 that thou dofly except God he with 
 himy John iii. 2. Or as the blind man,' 
 reftored to fight by Jefusj publickly 
 confelTed before the Tharifeesy If this 
 man was not of Gody he could do nh^ 
 thingy John ix. jj. At other times 
 they were aftoniflied at his doflrines, 
 and could not think that fuch a teacher 
 could receive his inftrudions from any 
 one but God. Thus, when he was at 
 Samariay Many believed hecaufe of his 
 own word : And faid unto the wo^ 
 many now we helievey not hecaufe of thy 
 fa^ingjfor we have heard him oiirfelve^^ 
 and hiow that this is indeed the 
 Chrift, the Saviour of the worlds John 
 iv. 41, 42. See alfo to this purpofe, 
 Mark i. 22. Luke xxiv. 19. It is evident 
 abundantly from what hath been faid, 
 that our author hath been a little too 
 hafty in his afferting, that Jefus, and 
 his apofilesy ground chrifiianity entirely 
 on the allegorical Jenfe of the Old 
 T^GiSLxncat prophecies y when it doth not, 
 as I apprehend, appear from one fingle 
 inftance, that they ever appeal to the 
 
 prophets, 
 
(.88) 
 
 prophets, as the proper evidence of 
 Chrifth prophetick character, and divine 
 miflion ; the proof of which, was ante- 
 cedently neceffary to his being ac- 
 knowledged as the Meffiah: On the 
 contrary, they always refer men to his 
 miracles and doftrines, as the moft 
 convincing arguments that God had 
 fcnt him. And was it not that I have 
 learnt from the New Teftament to ex- 
 ercife that charity, which hopeth all 
 things, I Ihould think the contrary af- 
 fertion of our author, in oppofition to 
 the plaineft declarations of Chrifi and 
 his apoftles, owing, not to his want of 
 care and enquiry, but integrity and 
 'love of truth. 
 
 The Old Teflafuent doth indeed fup- 
 pofe the atteftation of miracles necef- 
 fary to fupport the charaQ:er of the 
 Meffiah; and therefore his working 
 miracles was fo far an accomplifli- 
 ment of the fcripture prophecies. 
 But then 'tis be confidered, that mi- 
 racles are nothing peculiar to the cha- 
 Yafter of the Meffiah; but declared, 
 in the Old Teft anient writings, as a 
 proof always to be expeCled, and de. 
 
 manded 
 
manded from every one pretending to 
 ad by commifTion from God. Such 
 a one can have no claim to be belie- 
 ved, unlefs his pretenfions be fupported 
 by proper credentials; and 'tis reafon- 
 able to expect, either that God fhould 
 bare him witnefs, by an immediate 
 teflimony, or voice from heaven, or 
 by fomc very extraordinary and won- 
 derful works, which he enables him to 
 do : Without fome fuch divine inter- 
 pofition, to fupport his claim of a mif- 
 fion from God, it could not be known 
 that God had fent him ; and fo long no 
 one could be under any obligation to 
 acknowledge and fubmit to him as 
 fuch. And 'tis evident from the fcrip- 
 tures, that figns, and wonders, or mi- 
 racles, are things which all prophets 
 were enabled more or lefs to do, and 
 that they were expefted as proofs of 
 this high charafter from every one 
 that affumed it. Thus the Jews are 
 reprefented, as feeking after a fign 
 from Jefus ; not as a proof of his being 
 the Meffiah, but of his being, what he 
 declared himfelf to be, fent from God 
 his heavenly Father. And the fame 
 
 they 
 
they would have expefted from every 
 one pretending to come in his name. 
 And hence, both chriftians and Jewsy 
 look on the pretcnfions of Mahomet 
 to be a prophet of God, as all im- 
 pofturc and ch^at ; becaufe by declaring 
 he was not fent to work miracles, in 
 anfwer to thofe who demanded mi- 
 racles from him, he refufed to give that 
 demonftration of his divine miffion, 
 which they, amongfl: whom he came, 
 had a certain right to demand from 
 him. So that the miracles prophccied 
 of in the Old Teftament^ to be done 
 by the Mefliah, were not fpoken of 
 as fomewhat peculiar to his charafter, 
 and whereby he might be known, 
 and diftinguifhed from all other pro- 
 phets ; but as proofs to be expefted 
 in common from all, who pretended 
 to a prophetick infpiration and autho- 
 rity. And tho' the Jezfos were in- 
 clined, many of them, to believe m 
 Chrifi^ 2istht Meffiah, when they heard 
 of his extraordinary works^ yet were 
 not thefe, in thcmfelves, the fole in- 
 ducement to their owning him as fuch. 
 But, as he manifeftly proved himfelf to 
 ^e an extraordinary prophet of God, 
 
 by 
 
(■9«) 
 
 by the numerous miracles he wrought, 
 his excellent doftrines, and method of 
 teaching, fo they were ready to conclude 
 farther, that he muft be the Meffiah^ 
 bccaufe they faw many circumftances, 
 relating to the Mefliah, concur in 
 him ; and efpecially, as thefe miracles 
 were wrought at that particular time 
 and feafon, when they univerfally ex- 
 pefted the Mefliah's appearance. And 
 therefore the miracles of Chrijl are not 
 to be urged as abfolute proofs of his 
 being the Meffiah, /. e. of the ac- 
 complifhment of the Old Teftament 
 prophecies relating to the Meffiah; 
 nor are they produced, that I know 
 of, by any one, thus to render a foun- 
 dation valid^ which is in itfelf in^ 
 valid 'y or to make a falfe inference 
 true \ or a prophecy fidfilled^ that is 
 not fulfilled. This is the meer fig- 
 ment and imagination of our author, 
 who feems to think, that every body 
 writes with as little confiftency, and 
 regard to truth, as he doth himfelf. 
 But doth it therefore follow, as he 
 would feign perfwadc us, that the 
 miracles faid to be wrought by Chrifi 
 and his apoftles, for.. 4^ feems to que- 
 
 ftion 
 
(192) 
 
 ftion the truth of them, are of no 
 avail ?p. J I. Or that bccaufe they do not 
 prove what they were never intend- 
 ed to prove, that therefore they prove 
 nothing at all? Or that becaufe they 
 were not in themfelvcs fuiiicient to di- 
 ftinguilh and point out the Mefliah, 
 that therefore they are of no ufe to 
 eftablifh his charafter as a prophet? 
 The charafters of a prophet and Mef- 
 fiah carry very different ideas, and are 
 to befupported by as different proofs. 
 Many particular circumftances, no ways 
 implied in the notion of a prophet, 
 fuch as the place, and manner of birth 
 and life, ijc. muft concur to point out the 
 Meffiah; whilft the confirming good 
 doStrines, and holy precepts, by real 
 miracles, are certain and fufficient proofs 
 of a prophetick milTion, in him, who 
 thus confirms his pretenfions to it. 
 Thefe things concurred in Jefti^ Chri/i; 
 who never applied to himfelf any of the 
 Old Tefiament prophecies, to prove him- 
 felf the MefTiah, 'till he had abundantly 
 manifefted his miflion from God; and 
 hereby his power and right to explain the 
 writings, and apply the prophecies of the 
 
 prophets that were before him. 
 
 Chap. 
 
(i93) 
 
 Chap. III. 
 
 Of the Dependance that 
 Christianity hath 
 on Judaifm^ 
 
 T muft be acknowledged 
 that the truth of chrittianity 
 doth now depend, not only 
 on Chri/rs being a real 
 prophet, but on his being 
 the true Meffiah ; becaufe he himfelf 
 claimed this double honour, and hii 
 apoftles, after him, applied to him th^ 
 ancient prophecies relating to the Mef« 
 fiah. And therefore I think our au- 
 thor would have talked much more 
 to the purpofe, if he had endeavoured 
 to prove, that fome of the jewifi 
 prophecies, which referred to the 
 MeiHah, were not accompliflied in our 
 O • ■ Jefus. 
 
(194) 
 
 ^efii^^ than he hath done in finding 
 fault becaufe his apoftles have applied 
 fo many to him. For in reality, fup- 
 pofing that fome of the paffages they 
 refer to him did not originally refpeft 
 the Mefliah, this will not in the leaft 
 fhake the foundations of our Saviour's 
 divine miflion, which depends on the 
 truth of the gofpel hiftory : And the truth 
 of this depends, not on the infpiration and 
 infallibility of his apoftles, but on their 
 knowledge of the fafits therein afcri- 
 bed to him, and their integrity and 
 honefty in relating them. So that if he 
 can fhew, that they have impertinently 
 applied any paffages out of the jewijh 
 writings to Cbrift, the confequence to 
 be allowed is, not that jf^///^ was an 
 impoftor, which is the great point he 
 weakly attempts to eftablifli ; but either 
 th^t they were miftaken in the fenfe 
 of fuch paffages themfelves ; or rather, 
 that they applied them in that fenfe, 
 in which they were then generally un- 
 derftood by the Jews themfelves. But 
 if he can fairly make it appear, that 
 any of the prophetick paffages, applied 
 by the Jezivs to their Meffiah, were 
 
 never 
 
(195) 
 
 never accomplifhed in our Jefus^ this 
 I will allow to be of great dillervice 
 to chriftianity ; the truth of which de- 
 pends on his being the Meffiah, as well 
 as on his being a real prophet; he 
 having affirmed it of himfelf, that he 
 was fo. But then 'tis to be confidered, 
 that chriftianity hath not any natural 
 intrinfick dependance even on this, and 
 had not our bleffed Lord took on him 
 the charafter of the Meffiah, never 
 would have had any at all. Had he 
 been born in the moft diftant parts of 
 the earth from Judea^ and done the 
 fame works, and taught the fame do- 
 £trines, and propagated his religion 
 by the fame means, and never either 
 heard or fpoke of the jewijh fcriptures, 
 he would have been a prophet of God, 
 and his religion, as it ought to have 
 been received, fo would have been fuf- 
 ficient to have guided men into all 
 virrue and happinefs. So that the true, 
 and, I think, only reafon, why chrifti- 
 anity hath any dependance on jewifb 
 prophecies, or Chrifi\ being the Mef- 
 fiah, is not becaufe it would have been 
 an imperfeQ: inftitution without this ; 
 O 2 but 
 
r 1 9<5 ) 
 
 but becaufe Chrift afTumed this cha- 
 rafter, and applied the prophecies, ori- 
 ginally relating to the MelTiah, to 
 himfelf. And the great queftion will 
 be, whether the fame perfon can be 
 fuppofed, at the fame time, to prove 
 himfelf both a real prophet, and a real 
 impoftor? Chriftianity, as a revelation 
 from God, flood upon folid and fub- 
 ftantial proofs, antecedent to his appeal 
 to the ancient prophets, and would 
 have carried its obligations upon all, to 
 whom the evidence of it fliould have 
 been propofed, to have owned and fub- 
 mitted to it as fuch, tho' he. had never 
 cited or applied any one of thefe pro- 
 phecies at all. And yet if, at the fame 
 time, he declared himxfelf to be the 
 Mefliah, when in reality he was not, 
 fo far his teftimony would ' have been 
 falfe ; or in other words he would have 
 been an impoilor, or feducer : A fup- 
 pofition fo very abfurd, that no one 
 but a peribn, at all hazards, refolved 
 never to be a chriflian, can pofli- 
 bly admit the truth of. So that chri- 
 ftianity's depending on the truth of 
 C/:/r///'s. being the Me/Tiah, is fomewhat 
 
 foreign 
 
(i97) 
 
 foreign to its nature, and meerly acci- 
 dental; And therefore upon Chrifi^s 
 claiming this double charafter, both of 
 a prophet and the Meffiah, the firft 
 enquiry, in order of nature, flhould be; 
 not whether he was the MelTiah, be- 
 caufe that involves with it the charafter 
 of a prophet ; but whether or no he 
 was a true prophet. If he was not, his 
 pretenfions to be the Meffiah ought to 
 have been immediately rejected ; if 
 he was a real prophet, he had a right 
 to be believed on his affuming the 
 farther charafter of the Meffiah; /. e. 
 It was highly reafonable, that thofe 
 who were convinced that he was the 
 former, fhould believe him, upon his 
 aflSrming himfelf to be the latter; or, 
 that the Old Teftament prophecies 
 were, or would be alfo verified in him, 
 even tho', according to the then received 
 interpretation of them, they might not 
 be able to underftand how. Not be- 
 caufe hereby a falfe interpretation or 
 application of fcriprure could be made 
 a true one ; but becaufe 'tis highly in- 
 credible, that God would permit the 
 fame perfon to be a true prophet, and 
 O J a real 
 
(.98) 
 
 a real impoftor ; or that any fuperior 
 good beii gs fhould help a perfon to 
 work miracles, to confirm both truth 
 and falfhood; or that a true prophet 
 could be fo prefumptuous and wicked, 
 as to claim fo great an honour, if it 
 did not in reality belong to him. And 
 therefore, tho' the proof of Chri/Fs be- 
 ing a prophet had, originally, no de- 
 pendance on his being the Meffiah, 
 yet, on his declaring himfelf to be 
 that perfon whom the Jezn^s expefted, 
 the one could not be believed with- 
 out the other: And his teftimony, in 
 this refpea, was worthy of belief, both 
 becaufe he fufficiently proved his mif- 
 fion from God, and as fliall be fliewn, 
 the OldTefiament prophecies were ac- 
 comphfhed in him. 
 
 So that the apology which this au- 
 thor makes for the Jewsy for their 
 rejeHmg and crucifying the Lord of 
 life and glory ^ when he tells us, f. 5^,. 
 that the 7iumerous and wonderful mi- 
 racles i.k.ronght hy Jefus, tho'^ erptal to 
 what the Jews ex^etted from their 
 Mejftahy were no -[roofs to them that 
 he was the Mejfiah^ is very far from 
 
 being 
 
being fufficient to vindicate their condufl:. 
 For ifChri/lj by his miracles and doftrines^ 
 gave fufficient evidence of his being 
 fent from God, they were bound to re- 
 ceive him as fuch, upon this evidence: 
 And their crucifying a prophet of God, 
 in oppofition to fuch a demonftration 
 of his divine miflion, was an argument 
 of great obftinacy and wickednefs. 
 And if 'having thus eftablillied his cha- 
 rafter, as a prophet, he farther claimed 
 to be that particular prophet whom 
 they expefted, and in confirmation here- 
 of, continued to teach more excellent 
 doctrines than all the preceeding pro- 
 phets had ever taught, and to perform 
 as many, and as wonderful works, as, 
 according to their own confeffion, 
 the Meffiah himfelf was to do^;* when 
 he came ; their not being difpofed to 
 receive him as the Meffiah, doth not 
 argue a deficiency of proof in him, 
 but the want of an honcft and un- 
 prejudiced difpofition of mind in them. 
 
 Nor can it be argued, h*om this 
 
 connexion of chriftia?iity with juda- 
 
 ifm^ what our author, with his ufual 
 
 candor y alTertS; p. 15. that chrifiianity 
 
 O 4 and 
 
( 200) 
 
 ^nd J^daifm is the fame thing; or 
 
 iiat the gofjpej is not a new laxv, but 
 
 S '''i^''"''^^ and fet in a due 
 
 f ^ Old Teftament is y,t the fole 
 true canon offiripture, as it xms in 
 rne beginning of chriftianity. 'Tis true, 
 ^^lat the firft and -grand principles of 
 yeiigion are the fame, under both the 
 •^^^f and chrifiian difpenfations ; fuch 
 as the unity of God, the worlhiping 
 nm only, and th& worfliipping him in 
 "ncenty and truth, as the neceffary and 
 certain way to fecure his bleffing and 
 acceptance. So far all true religions 
 mull agree; and of confequence the 
 J^«# and chrifiian, which, as they 
 were the only religions in the world, 
 that fufficiently guarded againft foly- 
 theifm and idolatry^ fo eae-h of them 
 appeals to God for its author. And 
 it muft alfo be farther owned, that the 
 prophets, amongft the "jews, did pre- 
 dia many things that fhould happen 
 to the Mefliah, and many things which 
 Ihould come to pais, after the go- 
 vernment fljould he upon his fionlders ; 
 which predidions have been exadly 
 
 verified. 
 
(201) 
 
 verified. What will follow from lience? 
 Why that God, who is an intelligent; 
 felf-confcious being, tho' for wife rea- 
 fpns he was pleafed to fettle the jew^^ 
 ijh form of worfhip, for a feafon, yet 
 had determined to introduce a more 
 perfect difpenfation, by a greater and 
 more excellent perfon than Mofesy by 
 whom he made himfelf known to the 
 Jem^s; and accordingly foretold, by 
 infpired men amongrt them, many 
 things relating to this future great 
 perfon, and the end of his coming. 
 But doth it follow, that becaufe ju-- 
 daifm (which was defigned only for a 
 particular Nation, and was therefore to 
 laft but for a particAilar feafon) was 
 to be fucceeded by a more excellent and 
 perfect religion, it was therefore the 
 fame with that religion that was to 
 fucceed it : Or that becaufe the jew- 
 ijlj prophets did plainly foretell many 
 things, that were afterwards to hap- 
 pen under the Meffiah, that there- 
 fore thefe things were the fecret my- 
 filed meaiiutg of their prophecies? 
 Excellent reafoning this of our au- 
 thor's ! "^v.daifm foretold a better in- 
 
 ftitutioa 
 
(202) 
 
 ftitution in future times : Ergo^ that in- 
 ftitution is the fame with judaifm. 
 The jezvifi prophets 'plainly foretold 
 many things that were to come to 
 pafs in the Mefliah's time, which pre- 
 diftions have accordingly been verified : 
 Therefore the aftual accomplilhment 
 of thefe predictions, is the fpritual 
 fecret fenfe of them. Who can with- 
 ftand the force of fuch an argument, 
 and how terribly is chriftianity in 
 danger, that hath fo fair^ yet power- 
 ful an adverfary to oppofe it? And 
 was there ever a more clear, ufefu), 
 and convincing propofition advanced 
 than this, That the plain prophecies 
 of the Jewifh prophets have leen ful- 
 filled ly the fecret fpiritual fenfe of 
 them. 
 
 But however, chrifiianity^muA ftill 
 be myfiical judaifm : For according 
 to our author, p. 15. St. Taul faith, 
 Gal. iii. 8. Heb. 11. That many of 
 the Jews ucere^ long lefore the coining 
 of ChrilT:,* deemed real chrifians^ and 
 equally to lelieve the gofpel or chrifti* 
 anity^ with thofe who were converted 
 hy the apoftles. I frankly own, I Ihould 
 
 have 
 
(203) 
 
 have had as mean an opinion of St. Paul^ 
 had he aflerted this, as I have of our 
 author, for aflferting this of St. Taul 
 The apoftles words are. They which 
 are of faith^ the fame are the chiU 
 dren of Abraham. And the fcripure^ 
 forefeeing that God would piftify the 
 heathen thro* faith^ Te^liDyyiKiffAro 
 f reached lefore the goffel unto Abra- 
 ham, In thee Jhall all nations be blejjed. 
 Now the fJain meaning of this paffage 
 is this, that fuch who imitate the faith 
 of Abraham^ are properly his children ; 
 and that that gracious promife, which 
 God was pleafed to make to Abra^ 
 ham in ancient times, In thee Jhall 
 all nations be blejfedj was to be ac- 
 complifhed, even as the fcriptures fore- 
 told it fliould, by their being juftified 
 by faith, even as Abraham was jufti- 
 fied by faith. But 7nofi divine is our 
 author'scomment here; and fo well verfed 
 is he in myftical meanings, as that 
 he can draw a fecret ffiritual fenfe 
 out of this flain fajjage. As thus, 
 the fcripture did '7reJ<^i]yy^hi^^^aA^ or 
 God, as the fcripture relates, brought 
 this good meflage to Abraham^ In tbee 
 
 (l:^U 
 
(204) 
 
 Jl^all ally &c. Therefore many, in* Ahra^ 
 ha7n\ time, did equally believe the 
 gofpel with thofe that were afterwards, 
 converted by the apoftles. Or thus, 
 the fcriptures did plainly prediO: that 
 the Gentiles were to be juftified by 
 faith; therefore many, in Alraham\ 
 time, were deemed real chriftians ; or 
 therefore chrijtta/iity is nothing but 
 judaifm explained, and fet in a due 
 light; i. e. my(\ic2iljudaifm. Can fnch 
 a fecret jpritual meanings and ac- 
 count of jo -^lain a pajjage, have any 
 other than divine difcer?mientl p. 9J* 
 Or could any one, but a perfon of 
 our a^fthor^s great intelligencey have 
 imagined this to have been St. Paulas 
 intention ? Haffy man^ whofe ima- 
 gination is iruitful with fuch conje- 
 £turts, and who employs -,his pen ia 
 giving us fuch nezv^ yet faithful com-- 
 ments on our fcriptures! But in the 
 fame divine jirain^ he farther argues. 
 It is to he olfervedj faith he, p. 15, 
 that our Saviour^ who ajji^res m that 
 Joe came to fulfill the law and the 
 fro^hetsj and not to deflroy the religion 
 of the Jews, left nothing in smiting 
 
(205) 
 
 to ■efiallijh hisnezv law^ if it may he fo 
 called^ which was not fro^erly a nevo law^ 
 hut judaifm ex^lained^ and fet in a 
 due light. Let us attend now to our 
 author's admirable manner of drawing 
 confequences. Chrift declares that he came 
 to fulfill the law and the profhetSy i. e. 
 to anfwer all the prediftions relating 
 to the MefTiah ; therefore he came 
 not to fet afide the ]ewifh facrifices, 
 to alter or deftroy the ]ewifh reli- 
 gion : Or thus, Chrift declared, he came 
 to fulfill the law and the prophets, 
 i. e, to bring in that new difpenfati- 
 on fpoken of in the law and the pro>^ 
 phets; therefore he hath not eftablifli- 
 ed a new law : Or thus, Chrifi came 
 to fulfill the prophecies of the Old 
 Tefi(iment\ therefore the religion of 
 Chrifiy is judaifm explained, and fet in 
 a due light. How natural do thefe 
 confequences, from their premifes, ap- 
 pear at firft view ? And how great an 
 opinion muft we form of fo exaft and 
 critical a reafoner ! 
 
 The truth is, that chriftianity and 
 pidaifm are fo far from being the 
 fame, that they differ \xi every thing, 
 
 in 
 
(2o6) 
 
 in which true religions can be fuppo- 
 fed to differ ; the latter being appoint- 
 ed for a particular feafon, and end, 
 and confined to one people only ; de- 
 figned as an introduftion to, and pro- 
 phecying of a future better ftate ; 
 abounding with ceremonies, and rites 
 of no intrinfick worth, and fupported 
 by promifes, and threatnings, moftly, 
 if not altogether temporal: Whereas 
 chriftianity is that more excellent ftate 
 prophecied of in the other, defigned 
 for perpetual ufe, and to be of uni- 
 verfal obligation ; as it recommends the 
 worfliip of God in fpirit and in truth 
 only, and is fupported by the nobleft 
 motives, viz. arguments drawn from 
 the interceffion of an all powerful Me- 
 diator, and the rewards and punifli- 
 oients of an eternal ftate. - 
 
 Chap, 
 
(207) 
 
 Chap IV. 
 
 Of the New Teftament 
 Canon. 
 
 S our author hath been ve- 
 ry unhappy, in his attempt 
 to prove chriflianity and 
 judaifm to be the fame, fo 
 I hope it may be made appear, that 
 'tis with as httle reafon that he aflerts 
 farther, p. ij, 14. that the Old Tefta-^ 
 7nent is the fole true canon of fcri^^ 
 ture to chrifiians (fneaning thereby a 
 canon eftalUJhed hy thofe^ who had a 
 divine authority to eftahliJI) a canon, 
 and in virtue thereof did efiahlifb a 
 canon) as it was in the beginning of 
 chriflianity : Of which paflage, I think 
 this is the plain meaning, viz. That 
 becaufe the Aeza; teftament writers 
 
 had 
 
( io8 ) 
 
 had no power to eftablifh a canorij 
 and did not aflually, in virtue of that 
 power, eftabliflb any canon, that there- 
 fore, if the canon of the Old Teftameni 
 is a canon thus eftablifhed, 'tis the 
 fole canon now to chriftians. I muft 
 obferve here, that our author feems 
 to have as mean an opinion of the 
 jewifh^ as the chrifiian canon ; antJ 
 readily confefTes, f. 155. i§c. That the 
 looks of the Old Teftament are greatly 
 corruftedy i. e. changed from zfohat 
 they werey when they proceeded from 
 the authors of them ; that as to the 
 Pentateuch particularly^ it muft have 
 heen^ above all the other hooks ^ Halle 
 to great alterations^ hecaufe there was 
 iut one co^y of it left for a confide- 
 rable while. And that as. to all the 
 others^ they were Halle to great cor^ 
 Yupions during the capivity ; and 
 that they were confiderally altered ly 
 Efdras, or fome lody elfe^ he knows 
 not who, after the captivity. It feems 
 from hence, that he would feign have 
 us, good fnan^ believe, that neither 
 jews nor cbrijtians have any proper 
 canon at all. I corifefs, I have other 
 
 thoughts^ 
 
(209) 
 
 thoughts. As to the corruptions of the 
 jevvijl) writings, I fhall confider that 
 matter elfewhere ; and only fhew here, 
 that, as chrifiiansy we have a canon^ 
 and that entirely diftifiB from the 
 jewifh 07i€. 
 
 Let it then be confidered, that if 
 our bleffed Lord was a real prophet, 
 and fent by God to inftruft the world, 
 then, whatever he delivered in the 
 name of God, became a proper canon 
 or rule of aftion. If the doftrines 
 he taught, and the precepts he gave, 
 proceeded from God, thofe who heard 
 him were obliged to believe the one, 
 and fubmit to the other, in obedience 
 to God ; /. e. they would have been 
 the ca7io7i or nde of their faith and 
 •^raHice. Of confequence, if thefe do- 
 £l:rines and precepts were defigned for 
 the general ufe of mankind, and they 
 were faithfully taken down in wri- 
 ting, by perfons who heard them, or 
 who had them brought to their re- 
 membrance, in an extraordinary fuper- 
 natural manner ; they would carry with 
 them the fame obligation upon all, 
 to whom they llaould be manifefted, 
 P with 
 
(210) 
 
 with their proper evidence, in the moft 
 diftant ages and nations. Again, if the 
 apoftles of our bleffed Lord had an 
 unerring fpirit, to lead them into all 
 thofe truths that were neceflary to 
 form, eftabUfh, and preferve the chrifti- 
 an church, then whatever they taught, 
 under the influence of that fpirit, was 
 a canon, or rule, to thofe churches, 
 amongft whom they miniftred. If they 
 taught any things of general concern, 
 fuch things would have been of gene- 
 ral obligation : If any of their diredi- 
 ons were fuited only to particular cir- 
 cumftances, thofe dircflions would have 
 obliged only in Uke circumftances ; or 
 have been a canon or rule of action, 
 when the fame, or like things fbould 
 have occurred, that firft occafioned 
 them. If thefe direftions^^ were deli- 
 vered at feveral times, or not known 
 to be tlie direftions of fuch perfons, 
 'till many years, or ages, after they 
 were firit given, yet they will ftill car. 
 ry their obligation, whenever they are 
 known or believed to be fuch; becaufe 
 the diredions of thofe, who were 
 themfelves direded by an unerring fpi- 
 
 rit 
 
lit in giving them. If this reafoiiing 
 be good, then, as chriflians^ v/e have 
 a fufficient canon^ or rule of faith and 
 pradice^ entirely diftinfl: from the 
 jewijj). For if the gofpels cQntain a 
 true account of Chri/Fs life, and do- 
 ftrines, and of the will of God deli- 
 vered, for the general ufe, by Chrifi; 
 then they are a proper canon or rule 
 from God to us. The queftion is not^ 
 whether Chrift wrote the gofpels^ or 
 whether he declared them canonical? 
 We own he did not. But whether 
 what they contain be a juft account 
 of that revelation he brought from 
 God ? If it be, I will take upon me 
 to anfwer our author's queftion, If 
 Jefus, and his afofiles, have declared 
 no hooks canonical^ I would askj Who 
 didy or cotdd^ afterwards declare^ or 
 make any hooks canonical ? Why every 
 man, who believes that thcfe books do 
 contain a genuine account of the gofpel 
 of Chrift^ and that his gofpel is a revela- 
 tion from God ; the canonicalnefs of 
 any book, or our being obliged to re- 
 ceive any book as a rule, depending 
 folely on its containing the will of, 
 P 2 or 
 
f2I2) 
 
 or a revelation from God. In like 
 manner, if the epiftles, faid to be writ- 
 ten by the apoftles, are really theirs; 
 if they were fo inftruGed by the di- 
 vine fpirit, in the nature of Chriffs 
 gofpel and kingdom, as to qualify them 
 to gather churches by their preaching, 
 and to direft them in cafes of im- 
 portance, by epiftles, when abfent from 
 them; why then thefc epiftles are pro- 
 perly canonical, /. e. they are a pro- 
 per rule to all chriftian churches, as 
 far as they contain inftrudions of ge- 
 neral ufe, • or as far as they fuit the 
 particular circumftances of any church. 
 What then, if it were true, what 
 our author afferts, f. 14. tho' 'tis far 
 from being fo, That the looks of the 
 New Teftament are all occafional looks^ 
 this will not hinder their being canoni- 
 cal. Were they written by thofe whofe ' 
 names they bare ? And did they con- 
 tain proper direftions for thofe, for 
 whofe ufe they were originally writ- 
 ten ? If fo, they were then canonical; 
 L e. they were defigned, and ought 
 to have beta received as a rule by 
 
 thofe, 
 
(213) 
 
 thofe, who were the occafions of their 
 being firft written •, and they are fo far 
 a rule to us, and will be to the church 
 in all fucceeding ages, as there is any 
 thing in them fuitable to our circum- 
 ftances or theirs. 
 
 'Tis to as little purpofe to objeft, 
 f. 14. that the books of the New 
 T'eftament were not joyned together in 
 one body or colleftion, nor declared to 
 be canonical 'till the feventh century, 
 when the controverfy about the canon 
 was, as our author tells us, determined by 
 human authority. For would our author 
 have had the books of the Neik) Tefta- 
 ment collefted into one volume before 
 fome of them were written ? Or would 
 he have had the laft living apoftle colled- 
 ed all the writings of the other apoftles 
 into one book, when, 'tis probable, 
 he had never feen many of them? 
 The canonicalnefs of any books doth 
 not depend on any one apoftle's col- 
 leSing them into a volume. If Taul 
 and John wrote this and the other 
 epiftle, and if it appears that they wrote 
 them as apoftles, /. e. for the directi- 
 on and obedience of the church, they 
 P J will 
 
(214) 
 
 will be canonical, or rules to all churches 
 in like circumftances, whether ever 
 Peter and James declared them fo 
 or not. If any book be not written 
 by an infpired perfon, neither Peter 
 nor Taul could make it an infpired 
 book ; and if it was written by fuch a 
 one, it needed not Peter or TauPs ap- 
 probation. What then tho' this, or the 
 other book was not received, as ca^ 
 nonical, 'till feveral hundred years af- 
 ter Chrifi ? This proves nothing but that 
 the evidence for its being written by 
 the apoftle, whofe name it bares, was 
 not clear 'till this time ; and its being 
 received as canonical, at fuch a diftancc 
 after it was written, proves that there 
 was new evidence of its being an apo- 
 ftolick writing; or at leajft, that that 
 evidence appeared fatisfadory to fome, 
 which was not deemed fufficient by 
 others. And therefore all that can be 
 inferred hence is, that to whom the evi* 
 dence is lefs convincing, there will be 
 a proportionably leffer degree of ailent 
 ia them, and authority in the book. 
 
 The collection of all the books into 
 one volume, by any one apoftle, feems 
 
 almoft 
 
almoft impoffible; the epiftles being 
 written at different times, to different 
 churches, and at very remote diftances 
 from each other. ^ It was neceffary 
 that the feveral epiftles fliould be com- 
 municated by thole churches, to whom 
 they were firft written, to others, that 
 the proofs of their being apoftolical 
 writings, and the occafions of their be- 
 ing firft penned might be carefully 
 examined. And when once there was 
 fufficient proof, that they were the 
 epiftles of the apoftles of Jefus Chrifty 
 and written for the ufe of the church ; 
 any man might have gathered them 
 into a volume, and that volume would 
 inftantly have become a canon, or rule 
 of faith and practice to chrifiians'^ not 
 becaufe eftabUflbed as fucli by any 
 human authority, but becaufe the wri- 
 tings of thofe, that were authorized 
 and qualified to be the teachers of the 
 church of Chrifi. And if there could, 
 at this diftance of time, be found ou^ 
 one, or more epiftles of any of the apo- 
 ftles, written with the fame view ; they 
 would alfo, for the fame reafon, be 
 canonical^ notwithftanding it v/culd be 
 P 4 now 
 
(2.6) 
 
 now almoft feventeen hundred years 
 before their difcovery. 
 
 So that the enemies of chriftianity 
 feem hitherto to have quite miftaken 
 the controverfy, or at leaft to have 
 kept clear of the main turning point 
 of it. 'Tis ridiculous to be nibbling 
 at the authority of this, or the other 
 book, or to be continually dinning us 
 about the time of the eftablifhment 
 of our canon. This is manifeftly quite 
 befide the purpofc. The controverfy 
 lies here, and here let our enemies 
 fpeak all they know. Had our apo- 
 ftles the Holy Ghoft r Had they the care 
 of the churches ? Did they write any 
 epiftles to them tor their diredion and go- 
 vernment? Are the books we now 
 have, any, or moft of them, their 
 writings, leffer errors excepted ? Let 
 them frove the negativ^y and 'twill be 
 then time enough to think of farti?ig 
 with our chriftianity : 'Till they can 
 do this, all their attempts to undermine 
 the religion of Jefm Chrifiy will be 
 vain and ineffeftual. 
 
 I fliall only add here, that when 
 we fjpeak of this, or the other book, 
 
 or 
 
(217) 
 
 or all the books of the New Teftament, 
 as being a canon, we do not mean that 
 every individual word, or fentence, in 
 thofe books is, or ever was defigned 
 to be a rule ; but that they are a rule 
 as far as they contain the goffel of 
 Chrifi, i. e, in every thing wherein 
 they can be, or ought to be a rule. 
 When St. Utle, in the 'preface to his 
 gofpel, declares the reafons that induced 
 him to write it, and when St. Vaul^ 
 in the clofe of his epiftle to Timothy^ 
 orders him to Wirig to him the cloak 
 he left at Troas, and the books and 
 parchments, 2 Tim. iv. 15. I do not 
 apprehend the gofpel hath any thing 
 to do with thefe, and the like things; 
 and therefore cannot thirji fuch parts 
 of our epiftles and gofpels rules ; be- 
 caufe occafionally given, and not at all 
 relating to faith and praftice. But 
 whenever the apoftles write about the 
 gofpel of Chrifi, either ftating or de- 
 fending its principles, or giving and en- 
 forcing the precepts of it, in which the 
 whole of their writings, fome few ex- 
 preffions excepted, are taken up; thus 
 far they are canonic^al, /. e. a proper 
 
 rule 
 
(218) 
 
 rule to us ; becaufe, as the apoftles cer- 
 tainly had the gofpel by revelation 
 from the fpirit of Chrifty fo 'tis rea- 
 fonable to think, that the fame fpirit 
 fhould dire£t them to proper argu- 
 ments and motives to fupport it : Nor 
 doth any fuppofition appear more in- 
 credible, than that God fhould, in fo 
 extraordinary a manner, reveal the gof- 
 pel to the apoftles, and yet leave them 
 at an entire lofs how to fupport it, or 
 fuffer them to fupport it by falfe ar- 
 guments. Not to add that it was the 
 cxprefs promife of our Lord, that he 
 would lead them into all truth; /. e. 
 enable them fully to underftand his 
 gofpel, and dire£t them to the moft 
 proper methods to propagate and de- 
 fend it. But it will be time enough 
 to ftate this part of the controverfy, 
 when our adverfaries have any thing 
 material to offer upon it. I therefore 
 return to our author. 
 
 And that I may agree with him as far 
 as I can, I am very free to own, that 
 miracles^ as he odly enough expreffes 
 it, under the circumfiance of attefting 
 fomething contrary to an antecedent 
 
 revela^ 
 
(219) 
 
 revelatiofiy really fnch^ will not prove 
 the perfon who doth them fent of 
 God, nor the truth of what he de- 
 livers in the name of God. Yea, I 
 will go farther, and affirm that fuch 
 a one, notwithftanding his miracles, 
 cannot be fent of God. And therefore, 
 if any perfon teaches contrary doctrines, 
 or oppofes the true and proper de- . 
 fign of that former revelation, he is 
 not to be received as God's meffenger, 
 (becaufe God cannot reveal contradi- 
 ctions as truths) tho' he fhould work 
 never fo many miracles to confirm it. 
 After this obfervation, one would have 
 expefted, he fhould have fairly fliewn, 
 how Chriffs doftrines were contrary 
 to thofe delivered by former prophets, 
 or that he plainly contradifted the de- 
 fign of the jewi(lj revelation. But 
 here again he flies off, and his ftrength 
 fails him ; and inftead of proof, he tells 
 us of allegorical reafonings, and myfti- 
 cal fenfes, and the interpretations of 
 Rabbies ; and when he fhould argue, 
 puts in the room of it groundlefs fup- 
 pofitions, and, in a multitude of words, 
 fays nothing at all to the purpofe. 
 
 But 
 
( 220 ) 
 
 But now on the contrary, if a perfon, 
 pretending to a miffion from God, owns 
 the truth and authority of fuch a former 
 revelation, fupplies what was defcftive 
 in it, clears up what was obfcure, or 
 but darkly intimated, eftablifties and 
 confirms it's nobleft maxims and prin- 
 ciples, and is fo far from overthrowing 
 its proper defign, as that he openly 
 declares he came into the world on 
 purpofe, and by the moft proper me- 
 thods labours, to fulfill and anfwer it; 
 and in confirmation of fuch a preten- 
 fion, befides the moft excellent doftrines 
 taught, doth numerous wonders and 
 miracles, this is the ftrongeft argument 
 that his pretenfions are true, and that 
 he ought to be received in the cha- 
 rafter he afTumes. This was, as our 
 author well knows, what at leaft Jefm 
 Chrift pretended to; and 'till the con- 
 trary can be fairly proved, banter and 
 ridicule, hard names, groundlefs infinu- 
 ations, and the like, will, with wife 
 men, be no differvice to chriflianitj, 
 nor give any reputation to the caufe 
 of fcepticifm and infidelity. 
 
 In 
 
(221 ) 
 
 In fine, the miracles wrought by our 
 bleffed Lord, as they were performed 
 in confirmation of a rchgion worthy 
 of God, and conducive to the prefent 
 and future happinefs of men, tho' they 
 did not, becaufe of themfelves they 
 could not, prove him to be the Met 
 fiah ; yet they did evidence him to be a 
 prophet fent from'God, and are there- 
 fore a fubftantial proof of the truth 
 of chrifiianity. And therefore I add 
 once more, if this gentleman, and his 
 friends would do any thing to the 
 purpofe, to weaken the credit of chri^ 
 ftianity^ they mufl: either prove, that 
 the fa£bs afcribed to Jejm Chrifl are 
 falfe, or that they were not performed 
 by the afliftance of fome fuperiour 
 power; or that the end they were 
 wrought in favour of was not good; 
 or that bad men, in confederacy with 
 evil fpirits, can fl:atedly purfue a de- 
 fign contrary to their nature and .inte- 
 reft ; or that good fpirits can lend their 
 afliftance, to enable a perfon to work 
 miracles, in confirmation of his pre^ 
 tenfions to a miflion from God, that 
 really had none. 'Till thefe things, or 
 
 fome 
 
(222) 
 
 fome of them, be plainly made outj 
 their ftarting difficulties about ancient 
 prophecies, and other matters of leffer 
 moment, may difcover their inclination 
 to prove chYtftianity a falfhood, but 
 can never fubvert that firm founda* 
 tion, on which the truth of it is cfta- 
 blifhed. 
 
 Not that I think there is fuch a vaft 
 deal of difficulty in the application of 
 the prophecies of the Old Tefiament to 
 our bleiTed Saviour, as hath been ima- 
 gined. Our author afferts indeed, that 
 they are impertinently alledged^ p. 52. 
 That they are not fome of them to he 
 found at all in the Old Teftament^ 
 and when they 'are, not urged hy the 
 New Teftament writers^ accordinP' to 
 their literal and ohvious fenfe^ p. 59. 
 And that therefore all commentators 
 on the Bille^ and advoca:tes for the 
 chriftian religion^ both ancient and mo- 
 dern^ have judged them to he applied 
 in a fecondary^ typical, myfticaly alle- 
 goricaly e?iigmatical fenfe\ i. e. in a 
 fenfe different from the ohvious and 
 literal fenfe, vohich they hare in the 
 Old Teftament, i. e. impertinently and 
 
 falfly. 
 
(223) 
 
 falfly. I fhall forbare all cenfures, which 
 fome would judge fuch an untrue re- 
 prefentation deferves; and inftead of 
 reproaching fo unfair an adverfary, fhall 
 endeavour to give fome fatisfaflory ac- 
 count of the Old Tefiament prophecies, 
 as they are applied by the writers of 
 the New. 
 
 Chap, 
 
(224) 
 
 HAP. 
 
 V^. 
 
 Concerning the Senfe and 
 Reference of the Old 
 Teftamcnt Prophecies. 
 
 OTHING Ithinkismore 
 evident, than that many 
 palTages of the Old Te/ia- 
 ment writings have a farther 
 reference, than .to the times 
 wherein they were firft penned, and the 
 perfons to whom, in part, they might 
 more immediately belong. I am not 
 now to enquire to what diftant times, 
 or perfons they were intended to refer; 
 but to fliew from the certain^ literal^ 
 natural fenfe of the wordsy that they 
 did not wholly relate to, and were not 
 fully accomplifhed at the time when 
 
 they 
 
(225) 
 
 they were firft delivered. Out of many 
 palTages, that have this view, I (hall 
 feled fome few of the principal ones- 
 And her€ 'twill be difficult to account, 
 in any tolerable manner, for that paf- 
 fage, Gen. iii. 15. / will pit enmity 
 between thee and the wovian^ and be- 
 tween thy feed and her feed: It pall 
 iriiife thy head, and thou jhalt hruife 
 his heel, unlefs it refers to fome future 
 perfon, who was to gain a compleat 
 vidory over him, by whofe temptation 
 our firft parents fell. The feed of the 
 woman here fpoken of, the antipathy 
 that was to reign between them, and 
 the dijferent ijfiies of this antipathy 
 make it evident, that he who fpake 
 thefe words had fome very remote 
 feafon and event in view ; Eve, as yet, 
 having no children, and it being there- 
 fore impoflible that the words couM 
 be then accompliftied. The whole ftory 
 indeed would be incredible, if we fuppofe 
 the ferpent, literally underftood, to be 
 the tempter. But 'tis not at all improb- 
 able, that an evil fpirit, in the form 
 of this once beautiful creature, ffiould 
 perfwade them to a revolt, la his own 
 Q^ proper 
 
(226) 
 
 proper charafler he 'durft not appear : It 
 muft be in fome fliape familiar to Eve^ 
 that he might the better infinuate himfelf 
 into her good opinion, and fo the more 
 eafily deceive her : And if fo, 'twas 
 very improbable that the ferfe7tt^ 
 literally underftoodj fhould be punifhed, 
 whilft the great feducer himfelf ftiould 
 be fuffered to efcape without it. His 
 punifhment was to be the Iniifmg of 
 his head^ or the deftru£tion of his 
 power ly the womans feed\ an infig- 
 nificant curfe, if it refpefted only the 
 ferment, the hea/l of the field; but 
 worthy the fupreme governour, if de- 
 noting his punifhment, by whofe craft 
 the woman was perfwaded into the 
 firft tranfgreflion. And this expofition 
 is fome what confirmed hy God's ^pro* 
 mife to Jbr ah am^ Gen. xii. j. In thee 
 Jhall all the families of the earth le 
 blejjed ; which promife, that Jhraham 
 might not underftand it of his own 
 time or perfon, is afterwards more 
 clearly explained, Gen, xxii. i8. Jn 
 thy feed fiall all the nations of the 
 earth he hlejjed. Could Abraham lin- 
 derftand this of any prefent blefling 
 
 that 
 
(227) 
 
 that the world was to receive from 
 him ? Or rather, was it not an encou- 
 ragement to him to look forward, and 
 to exped fome one or other of his 
 pofterity, who fhould prove a common 
 bleffing to mankind ? And is there not 
 manifeftly the like view to futurity, 
 in that prophetick blelling of Jacob 
 to his fon Judah ? Gen. xlix. i o. The 
 feeder Jhall not dej^art fiom Judah, 
 nor the law-giver from hetitoeen his 
 feet^ until Shilow co7ne : And unto him 
 fiall the gathering of the people he. 
 Here is manifeftly a diftanc twtnt fore- 
 told : That the fcepter [hould he given 
 to Judah : That Shilow f)ould come : 
 That the fcepter fiould not depart 
 from Judah Vi/i ShilowV appeara?ice : 
 And that then to him f)ould he the 
 gathering of the people. I cannot help 
 here taking notice alfo of the words 
 of Mofesj mentioned by the author of 
 thiQGroundsji3c. p. 28. Deut.xvni. 15. 
 A prophet will the Lord your God raife 
 np unto theey like unto me. To him 
 Jhall ye hearken. The glofs he puts on 
 the paffage is, That God would efia- 
 llijh an order and fuccejfton of pro- 
 fhets amongB them^ in analogy to the 
 Q^ 2 beathefi 
 
(228) 
 
 Ijeathen diviners^ whoy for viBndsj aiti 
 frefents^ and money ^ were to Jbew their 
 divine iufpratioji^ by difcovering loB 
 'Goodsy and telling of fortunes. And fo'r 
 this he cites feveral pafTages of the 
 Old Teftamentj which, not one of them, 
 carry fo low and ludicrous a meaning 
 as he infinuates ; nor mention any thing 
 below the charafler and dignity of a pro- 
 phet of God to difcover and foretell. I 
 will not deny, but that this may be part 
 of the meaning of this paflage, that God 
 would, from time to time, raifethem up 
 prophets, to inftrufl: them in his will, to 
 fupport them in time of danger, to direft 
 them in cafes doubtful and uncertain, to 
 encourage them to obedience, to recall 
 them from idolatry, to help thediftrelTed, 
 and to predift fome fpeciaLgreat events, 
 as there fliotild be occafion for fuch an 
 'extraordinary interpofition. But, this I 
 affirm, is not the firff^ the natural and 
 literal meaning of thefe words ; which 
 Evidently refer to fome one particular 
 prophet that, in procefs of time, was 
 to be raifed up, who was to be lil<:c 
 unto Mofes ; and v/ho therefore was 
 to be highly iA God's Eivour, and to 
 bring a new revdation mc the world 
 
 as 
 
(229) 
 
 ^s Mofes did, as well as ta be tha 
 author of a very great deliverance as 
 he was. It was neceflary all thefe Gir- 
 cumftances fliould concur in this pro- 
 phet, to the literal accompliiliment of 
 thefe words ; and therefore they had 
 a much farther view, than to the 
 prefent time, in which they were 
 firft fpoken. And 'tis here remarkable, 
 that he, who added the laft chapter to 
 the book of "DeuteYonomy^ tells us, That 
 there rofe not a prophet Jince^ in Ifraef, 
 like unto Mofes : A plain confeflion, that 
 in his time this prophecy was not ac^ 
 counted to have been fulfilled. 
 
 In the book of Tfalms we fhall alfo 
 find many paffages that fpeak of things, 
 not to have their accomplifliment until 
 after times ; either defcribing fome great 
 and glorious perfon, that was to fit on 
 the throne of Ifrael j or that was to 
 be fubjeft to the mod grievous an^ 
 cruel reproaches and fufferings. Thus 
 the iioth Ffahi fpeaks of one, who 
 was to have an everlafiing kingdom 
 and piefthood\ to reign over wil- 
 ling fuhjecis^ and to triumph over all 
 his enemies. The fame perfon is de- 
 Q^ J fcribed 
 
(230) 
 
 fcribed Tfal xlv. in terms more ex* 
 preffive of majefty and glory : As gird^ 
 ing his [word on his thigh j ridi?tg prof" 
 feroufly hecaufe of truth, meeknefsy and 
 right eoufnefs ; as a God having a throne 
 for ever and ever, as being anointed of 
 God with the ojl of gladnefs above his 
 fellows. The Ixxii Tfalm is alio a far- 
 ther inftance of this nature, which, tho' 
 the title fhews it was in part penned 
 with a view to Solomo7t, yet con- 
 tains fuch ftrong defcriptions, as I 
 am apt to think few will allow to be 
 literally true of him. As particularly 
 thofe which relate to the glory, prof- 
 perity, perpetuity, and extent of his 
 kingdom, ver. 5, 8, 9, 10, n, 17. They 
 (hall fear thee, as Jong as the fun 
 and fuoon endure, throughout all gene- 
 rations. He f)all have dominion from 
 fea to fea, and from the river nnto 
 the e?ids of the earth. They that dwell 
 in the wildernefs fljall how before him. 
 
 The kingiofT2iY[hi{h, and of the 
 
 IJles fluill bring prefents : The kings 
 of Sheba and Seba fl)all offer gifts. 
 Tea all kings pall fall down before 
 him : All nations pall ferve him. His 
 ^ame ft) all endure for ever : His name 
 
 fjaU 
 
(231) 
 
 pall he continued as long as the furtl 
 Other paffages feem to be direftly 
 contrary to fome parts of his known 
 charader ; fuch as relate to the continu- 
 ed righteoufnefs of his reign^ and the 
 equity, juftice, and raildnefs of his ad-» 
 miniftration, ver. 2, j, 4^ 6, 7, 12^ 
 I J, 14. He pall judge thy '[eo^le 
 ivith righteou/hefsy and thy 'poor with 
 judgment. The mountains pall bring 
 -peace to the people^ and the little hills 
 by righteoufnefs. He pall judge the 
 poor of the people^ he pall fave the 
 children of the needy^ and pall break 
 in pieces the opprejjor. In his days f^^ll 
 the righteous flourid^^ and ahmdance 
 of peace fo long as the moon endureth, 
 Thefe, and the like defcriptions, feem 
 not very applicable to Solomon ; it plain- 
 ly appearing from his hiftory, that he 
 was a lover of women, degenerated 
 into idolatry^ and laid fuch burthens 
 on his people to maintain his grandure^, 
 and fupport him in his pleafures, as 
 laid the foundation for the revolt of 
 the ten tribes, from his fon and fuc- 
 ceflbur Rehohoam ; and to whom God 
 ^vas pleafed^ even in his life time, to 
 (^ 4 raife 
 
(232) 
 
 raife up many powerful enemies, le- 
 caufe his heart was not ^erfeH with 
 the Lord his God, as was the heart 
 of David his father. See i Kings, 
 xi. throughout. 
 
 In the prophetick writings, the re- 
 ference of the prophecies to fome fu- 
 ture times is yet more manifeft and 
 clear, and as plain as the moft exprefs 
 words can make it. How full are 
 they of lofty defcriptions of the hap- 
 pinefs and glory of fome diftant fea- 
 fon, that was to fall out under the 
 reign of a wife and good, a mighty and 
 victorious prince, that was to proceed 
 from David^s family* Ifaiah abounds 
 with fuch prophetick defcriptions. There 
 Jhall come forth a rod out of the ft em of 
 JelTe, a?id a branch Jhall grow out of 
 his rootsy Ifaiah xi. i. And in the 
 following part of the chapter, the 
 equity and righteoufnefs of his govern- 
 ment, and the fecurity and happi- 
 nefs of his fubjefts under him, is ele- 
 gantly fet forth. See alfo cha^. ix. 2, 
 3, 4. The fame is farther declared, 
 Jfaiah xxxii. i. Behold a king Jhall reign 
 in righteoufnefs: And in cha^, xxxv 
 
 he 
 
(233) 
 
 he affures the fearful Jews^ that there 
 
 was an happy time coming, when the 
 
 moft beneficial miracles Ihould be 
 
 wrought, and when holinefs and purity 
 
 fiiould more univerfally obtain. In 
 
 chap. xlii. God is introduced as fpeak- 
 
 ing of fome particular perfon, in whom 
 
 he delighted^ and whom he would ^p- 
 
 'hold^ and who was to be a covenant 
 
 to the people^ and for a light to the 
 
 Gentiles. The fame perfon is evidently 
 
 fpoken of, Ifai. xlix. where God is re- 
 
 prefented as declaring, that he fhould 
 
 raife up the tribes of Jacob, and re^ 
 
 (tore the preserved of Ifrael ; and that 
 
 he fhould be given for a light to the 
 
 Gentiles, and to he his falvation to the 
 
 ends of the earth. In chap. 52, 53. he 
 
 is fpoken of, but under very different 
 
 circumftances. As that his vifage Jfhould 
 
 be extreamly marred^ that he fliould 
 
 appear without form and comlinefsy 
 
 that he fhould be Ye]eBed of men^ that 
 
 he fhould be cut off out of the land of 
 
 the livings and be ftricken for the tranf 
 
 grejjion of the people. But that never- 
 
 thelefs he fhould live to fee his feed^ 
 
 mnl prolong his days \ that he f)ould 
 
 fee 
 
(234) 
 
 fee of his travel of his foul and li 
 fatisfied^ and that he fhould have a 
 faction with the great^ and divide the 
 fpoil with the firoug; even for this 
 reafon, lecaufe he poured out his foul 
 unto deathy was numbred with the 
 tranfgrejjorsy lore the fins of many^ and 
 made interceffion for the tranfgrejfors. 
 And to mention no more, he is fpoken 
 of chap. 6i, 6j. as one anointed ly 
 the fpirit of God^ to proclaim falva^ 
 tion and deliverance to perfons of a 
 iroken and contrite hearty as one tra- 
 velling in the greatnefs of his ftrength^ 
 and mighty to fave ; as one that had 
 obtained the moft glorious viBory by 
 his own arm^ and as returning from 
 battle in triumph, wearing garments 
 ftained with the hlood of his fiain and 
 conquered enemies. I am not now en- 
 quiring to whom thefe defcriptions 
 are to be referred. But from the paf- 
 fages I have mentioned, and others that 
 might have been produced out of the 
 fame book, there is nothing more evi- 
 dent, than that the grand argument, 
 which Ifaiah infifts on, to comfort the 
 pious "Jews ia thofe calamitous times 
 
 and 
 
(«35) 
 
 and which is interwoven in almoft 
 every prophecy he delivered, was the 
 promife of more peaceable and happy 
 times, under the reign of fome great 
 and good prince, that was to defcend 
 from Davtd\ family, and of whofe go- 
 vernment and throne there Jhould be no 
 end, 
 
 Jeremiah alfo, who prophecied after 
 Ifaiahy fpake plainly of the fame hap. 
 py fcafon. Behold the days come faith 
 the Lord J that I imll raife unto David 
 a righteous branch^ and a king fjaJl 
 reign and froffer^ and Jhall execute 
 judgment and jufiice in the earth. Jn 
 his days Judah foaM he faved^ and 
 Ifrael f^all dwell fafely^ and this is his 
 name^ whereby he fiall called^ The 
 Lord OUR RiGHTEousNE ss, Jer* 
 xxiii. 5, 6. And he elfewhere declares, 
 that the days Jhall come, and when fo 
 likely as under this viftorious and righ, 
 teous prince, when God zmuld make a 
 new covenant with the houfe of Ifrael, 
 and with the houfe of Judah : A cove- 
 nant more excellent than that he made 
 with their fathers, when he brought 
 them out of the land of iEgypt, viz. 
 
 That 
 
(236) 
 
 That he would fut his law in theit 
 invoard Parts, and write it in their 
 hearts ; and when they fiould all know 
 the Lord, from the leaft to the greateft 
 of them, and have their iniquities for- 
 given, and their fins rememlered no 
 more, chap, xxxi, 51. And that this 
 happy feafon was to be under the go- 
 vernment of that righteous branch, that 
 was to proceed from David, feems evi- 
 dent from chaf. xxxiii. where the pro- 
 phet, fpeaking of the joyful ftate, and 
 fetled government of God's people to come^ 
 declares. That in thofe days, and at that 
 time, God would caufe the branch of 
 righteoufnefs to grow up u7ito David, and 
 that he Jhould execute judgment and 
 righteojifnefs : That in his days Judah 
 fhould be faved, and Jerufalem JI)ould 
 dwell fafely, and that the name, he 
 was to be called by, Jhould be T h^ 
 Lord our Righteousness. 
 
 Ezehiel alfo, who fucceeded Jeremiah^ 
 fpeaks in the fame ftrain, of one that 
 was to come from David^s family, and 
 under whom the people of God were 
 to enjoy the greateft fecurity and hap- 
 pinefs. Thus he introduces God, as de- 
 claring, 
 
(237) 
 
 daring, / will fet w^ one fiej^herd over 
 them, and he jhall feed them, even my 
 fervant David ; he fiajl feed them and 
 he flail le their flepherd. And 1 the 
 Lord will le their God, and my fervant 
 David a Trince amon^ft them : I the 
 Lord have ffohen it. And I will make 
 VJith them a covenant of '^eace, Ezek. 
 xxxiv. 2 J, ijc. And this covenant he 
 elfewhere defcribes in the very fame 
 manner, as Jeremiah did that cove- 
 nant of vi^hich he prophecied, viz. Then 
 will I f^riftUe clean water ti^on yoii^ 
 and ye flail le clean : from all your 
 filthinefs, and from all your Idols will 
 I cleanfe you. A new he^rt alfo will 
 I give youy and a new fprit will I 
 
 fut within you Arid I will put my 
 
 fprit within you, and caufe you to 
 walk in my fiatutes, and ye jimll keep 
 ^ly 'judgments and do them, chap, xxxvi. 
 25, ^c. Compare jfr/m. xxxi. 31, £jfa 
 And to conclude, in another place he 
 exprefly declares the fame things fhould 
 come to pafs, under the fame reign that 
 he had fpoken of l^fore^ viz. chap, 
 jcxxvii. 2^5 tffc. 
 
 Dajiiel 
 
(258) 
 
 Daniel alfo fpeaks of a certain nunu 
 ler of years^ that was to intervene be- 
 tween the reftoration of the Jewsy and 
 the coming of MeJJiah the Trince^ and 
 concerning whom he declares, that he 
 Jhould le cut offy hut not for himfelf, 
 Dan. ix. 25, 26. 
 
 Joel in like manner declares, that 
 there was an happy feafon coming, when 
 it fhould be known^ more than ever, 
 that God was in the midfi of Ifrael, 
 and when his feofle fhould never le 
 ajhamed ; when his fpirit Jhould he fouYr 
 ed out n^on all flefhy and their fons 
 and daughters jhould pro^hecjy and 
 when the fpirit was to he foured out 
 upon the very fervants and hand- 
 maidsy and all without exception to 
 he favedy that Jhould call upon the 
 name of the Lordy Joel ii. 27-, (sc 
 
 In Micah we find alfo defcriptions of 
 the fame flourifhing ftate of things. Jn 
 the lafi days it Jl)aU come to pafsy that 
 the mountain of the houfe of the Lord 
 Jhall he efiahlijl^edy in the top of the 
 mountain — - and people Jhall flow un- 
 to it y atid many nations fiall come and 
 faj^ com and lei ^^ Z^ ^2 ^'^ ^^^ moun- 
 tain 
 
(239) 
 
 tain of the Lord, and to the houfe of 
 the God of Jacob, for he will teach m 
 of his ways, and we will walk in his 
 paths J ch. iv. i, 2. And in the next chap- 
 ter he farther declares, under whom this 
 happy feafon flaould commence. Thou 
 Bethlehem Ephrata, though thou he little 
 amongB the thoufands of Judah, yet out 
 of thee (hall he come forth unto me^ 
 that is to he ruler in Ifrael, whofe go- 
 ings have leen from of old^ from ever^ 
 lafting. And he Jhall ft and and feed in 
 the ftrength of the Lord^ in the majefty 
 of the Lord his Gody and they Jhall 
 ahide. For now Jhall he he great unto 
 the ends of the earth. And this man 
 Jhall he the feace^ chap. v. 2, 4, 5. 
 
 Haggai not only fpeaks of this illu- 
 ftrious perfon, but fixes the time be- 
 yond which his appearance fhould not 
 be delayed. Thus faith the Lord of 
 floftsy J will Jhake all nations, and the 
 dejlre of nations Jhall come^ and J will 
 fill this houfe with glory faith the Lord 
 of Hofts. The glory of this latter houfe 
 jhall be greater than of th^ former^ and 
 jn this flace will I give feaQ^ faith 
 the Lord^ Hag, ii. 7> ». 
 
 la 
 
( 240 ) 
 
 In Zjchariah we find repeated men- 
 tion of fome illuftrious fervant of God, 
 that was to appear, under the chara- 
 Q:er of the Branch, in whofe time God 
 would remove the iniquity of his peo- 
 ple in one day^ chap. iii. 8, 9. In the 
 next chapter he is reprefented in very 
 extraordinary charaders : Thus fpeak- 
 eth the Lord of Hofisy fajingy behold 
 the man whofe name is the Branch, 
 and he fiaJl grow up out of his place 
 and he fiall build the temple of the 
 Lord. Even he fhall build the temple 
 of the Lord, and he fhall bare the glory ^ 
 and fiaJl Jit and rule upon his throne^ 
 and he fiall be a prieft upo7i his throne^ 
 a7id the counfel of peace fiall be between 
 them both. And they that are far off 
 (hall come and build in the temple ^ 
 the Lordj chap. vi. 12, ij, -15. There 
 are alfo many other remarkable pafTa- 
 ges in the fame prophet, ' that have a re- 
 ference to, ^nd were to have their ac- 
 complifliment in fome future time. But 
 •.I fhall take notice of no other paflages 
 
 But that of Malachyy who exprefly 
 declares, / will fend mj meJJ'engery and 
 he flwll prepare the vcaj before mc\ 
 
 '' and 
 
and the Lord whom ye feek (J) all fudi 
 dainly come to his temple ; even the 
 niejj'tnger of the covenant whom ye de^ 
 UgtJt in : Behold he Jhall come faith 
 the Lord of Hofis. Mai. iii. i. 
 
 From thefe pajlTages, and others of the 
 like nature that might be mentioned, 
 i think nothing appears more certain^ 
 than that the writings of the Old Tefta- 
 me?it are fiill of defcriptions of fome 
 very great and good prince, that was 
 one time or other, to proceed frorh D^- 
 vid\ houfe, and to reign over God's 
 people; who notwithftanding fome fuf- 
 ferings he was to undergo, was yet tp 
 triuniph over all his enemies ; and under 
 whofe reign the knowledge of God, and 
 the praftice of righteoufiiefs, and tKe 
 happinefs of good men, was to become 
 more extenlive and flourilhing thart 
 €vcr. — This is the literal and natural 
 fenfe of the places I have cited, and 
 not drawn from a myfiical or aUegoricat 
 interpretation of them. 
 
 It is alfo worth while to obferve, how 
 
 cxad an agreement there is between the 
 
 feveral defcriptions that are given Hy 
 
 rhefe different authors. h% they all 
 
 ^ concur 
 
( 242 ) 
 
 concur in predicting and expe&ing an 
 
 "happier flate of things, than ever had 
 
 'been in Ifrael before, fo they do alfo 
 
 as to all the circuniftances of that time. 
 
 As that it fhould be under the reign of a 
 
 'righteous King of DavicCs honje^ who 
 
 'was to be a covenant to the ^eo^le^ and 
 
 a light to the Gentiles ; whofe reign was 
 
 to be remarkable for an extraordinary 
 
 knowledge of God, the moil: plentiful 
 
 effufion of God's fpirit, a fmcere and 
 
 hearty obedience to the xlivine will, ancl 
 
 that falvation that fhould be granted to 
 
 'the humble and contrite. This is evi- 
 
 'dently the happinefs fpoken of m the 
 
 prophetick writings, and the agreement 
 
 between them is fo very exaft, that one 
 
 may be well affured that they either 
 
 copied from one another, or rather that 
 
 " the feveral writers were dlrefted by one 
 
 and the fame infallible fpirit. 
 
 But 'tis alfo to our purpofe to obfer\'^c 
 farther, that thefe prophecies relate prin- 
 cipally tOR Jprittialfalvation3.nd dehVer- 
 ance, and not to a temporal: Or predict a 
 "real deliverance from ignorance and vice, 
 >nd that knowledge and virtue ihould 
 'univerfally obtain, inftead of viftory 
 ' over 
 
( 243 ) 
 
 oVer external enemies, and wordiy grari- 
 dure and profperity. It is but of little 
 weight, what fort of falvation the Jews 
 expeded: The queftion is, what fort of 
 deliverance God intended, and the fcrif^- 
 ture predided ? Why, that a Branch 
 Jhotdd come out of JelTe, 07t whom the 
 fprit of wiftlom •— knowledge — ■ and 
 of the fear of the Lord JImuJd refi\ who 
 was to reprove with erjiiity for th'j tneek 
 of the earthy and to flay the wicked 
 with the breath of his mouth, Ifai; x'u 
 !• &c. yl king fljall reign in righteofif^ 
 nefs, chapi xxxii. i. And it fljall Come 
 to pafs m his time, that the mountain 
 of the Lord'^s houfe — fl)a]l he exalted 
 ahove the hills, and all nations pal! 
 flow unto it. And many people flmllgo 
 and fay, come ye, and let us go up 
 to the momitain of the Lord^ to the 
 houfe of the God of Jacob, a7id he 
 will teach us of his ways, and we 
 will walk in his faths, Ifai. ii. 2, ^. 
 in this day the Lord fl^all wajh away 
 the filth of the dauyhters of Zion^ and 
 every one that is left in Zion fl)all he 
 called holy, chap. 4. Thenfljall the ffirit 
 
 he -poured from on high judgfnent 
 
 R 2 (l^all 
 
(2H) 
 
 Jh^ll dwell m the wildernefs^ and righ* 
 teoufnefs remain in the frmtful field^ 
 and the work of righteoufnefs pall he 
 feaccy and the effeti of righteoufnefsy 
 qiiietnefs and ajjiirance for ever^ chap* 
 xxxii. J^^hen God*s ffirit fl)ould he four- 
 ed out ufon all fltjh^ and all that Jlwuld 
 call on the name of the Lord JJwuld he 
 favedy Joel ii. 27. When people fiould 
 floiv to the hotife of the Lordj and he 
 taught of his ways^ and walk in his 
 fathsy Micah iv* i, 2. In this ftrain 
 the prophetick defcriptions generally 
 run ; and I think 'tis fo far from being 
 true, that the main thing predifted, in 
 the MeJftaFs time, was a temporal de- 
 liverance and external worldly grandure, 
 that to me there is nothing more evident, 
 than that the prophecies refer moltly to 
 a falvation of quite another nature. 
 
 C H A F. 
 
Ch5) 
 
 Chap VI. 
 
 Of the Jewifli Interpreta- 
 tion of the Old Tefta- 
 ment Scripture. 
 
 S the Old Te/}ame?^ticripturQs 
 do plainly contain prediCti^ 
 0ns of future events, fo 'tis 
 obfervable that the Jewsj in 
 our Saviour's time, werefo well apprifed 
 of this reference of the prophecies tofomc 
 diftant feafon, as that they unanimoudy 
 applied many of them to the Mejftah^ 
 and the time of his coming. There is 
 nothing more certain, than that they were 
 in continual expectation of the MeJJlaFs 
 appearance, at the time when Jeff^s Chrift 
 was in the world; which expectation 
 yas owing to what they found Ipokea 
 R 5 and 
 
(•24<5) 
 
 and intimated in the prophecies of the 
 Old Tefiament ; and becaufe they ima- 
 gined the time fixed for his appearance 
 was at hand. Thus they gathered from 
 leveral paffages, That Mejjtah was to be 
 the fon of 'Vavidy Mat. xxii. 4, That 
 he was to be born in Bethlehem^ 
 Mat. ii. 5. to which purpofe they ap- 
 pHed Micah v. 2. That he was to be 
 Davids Lord, Mat. xxii. 45. for which 
 •they cited FfaL ex. i. That he was 
 to be a very great prophet, Joh. iv. 25, 
 That he was to be the king of Ifrael^ 
 "Job. i. 49. That he was to abide for 
 everj "Job. xii. ^4. Befides thefe in- 
 ilances, and more that might be brought 
 from the Neno Tefiammt^ we alfo find 
 that the ChaUee paraphrafts, '^Jonathan 
 and Onkehsj refer many paffages of the 
 Old Te/lame/it to the Meffiah. Thus, 
 that prophecy, Gen. iii. 15. was to be 
 accompUilied in the days of KJng Mef- 
 Jiahj according to Jo?iathais and the 
 Hierufalem Targam. And thus alfo 
 they interpret Ge*;/. xh'x. 10, ii, 12. 
 T/'jere pall not he 'Uiianting kings and 
 governonrs of the hotife of Judah, .and 
 fcribes from his feed to teach the law 
 
 nntil 
 
( 247 ) 
 
 until hug M^ffmh pall mne ; of whom 
 they expound the whole remaining part 
 of the prophecy, tho' evidently relating 
 to Judah. And in this expofition On- 
 kelos agrees with them. The Pfalms 
 2,21,45, 6i, 72, 81, 132. areinpart^ 
 or whole, applied by the Chaldee Para. 
 fhrafi to the fame perfon. Thus alfo in 
 Jfaiah, Jeremiahj Micah, and Zjcha- 
 riah, ^- there are many paffages applied 
 by Jonathan, to the like purpofe; 
 which fliews that in his Judgment, and 
 according to the then opinion of the 
 Jezm, the Melftah was concerned in 
 thofe prophecies, and that their accom^ 
 pliDhment was to be in him. 
 
 Of thefe prophecies it may not be 
 improper to obferve, that fome of them 
 are the very fame which the New. 
 Teftament writers apply to our Jefns. 
 Thus Pjal. 2. and 45. are applied by 
 the author to the Hebrews, chaf.^ u 
 5? 8, 9. The prophecy of Ifaiah, which 
 Matthew refers to Chrifi, Mat. i. 22, 
 R 4 35^ 
 
 xvl. 1—5. xxviii. 5- >^l^i- ^' ^^^^^' i°- \\V *^* 
 lili. 10. Jerem.xxill. 5. xxx. 9- xxxin. i5- 
 Hofea iii. 5. Miwh iS. S. V. r /eglur. 
 
(248) 
 
 2^. is alfo in part applied to the Mt/i 
 Jiah^ by Jonathan. Sec Jo/iath, Taraph^ 
 on lj}i7ah ix. 6. Compare alfo .^f^^. xii. 
 1 8. with the farne piraphrafe on 
 Jfaiah xhi. i, 2, 3. jf^te xii. 38, 
 with Ifai. hii. i. M^t. ii. 5, 6. with 
 iV//c. V. ii. And as for thofe others that 
 are to be found in the New Tefiament^ 
 ^hey are not fo far diftant from the plain 
 fenfe of t\\Q prophecies, as they lye ia 
 the Old Tefiament^ as many of thofq 
 pafTages are, which ^onathf.71 applies 
 to the Mejftah. See his paraphrafe on 
 
 Vfal xxi. I ^8. Ixi. 7, 8. Ixxii. i. 
 
 ifauxi 1-6. xiv, 29. xvi. i- 5.xxviii. 5. 
 Jer. XXX. 9. Mic. iv. 8. Zsch. iii. 8 iv. 7- 
 From which places I am apt to think, 
 that there was no remarkable prophecy, 
 but the Jews apprehended it, fome way 
 or other, to belong to thdv'' MeJfiaK 
 
 I would ask our author, upon what 
 fclieme he will account for theappli. 
 cation of thefe prophecies of the Old 
 Tefimnenty by the Jews^ to the perfon 
 and times of the MeJJlah^ unlefs he al- 
 lows tiiat they really have a diflant view; 
 and that m the apprehenfion of the Jews 
 they belonged to him ? He is pleafed in- 
 deed 
 
C H9 ) 
 
 deed to deny, ^.55. That any of the 
 Jezk;sy before the captivity, looked for 
 a deliverer. I know not for what rea- 
 fons. There are fome very ancient 
 teftimonies againfl: this affertion, and, I 
 think, at leaft of equal credit with his. 
 The Caldee farafhrafi^ on Ifai. hi. 
 1 3, 14. thus comments, p'i r^h imDi kod 
 Xmo I'Dv Sn-il:*'. Behold my fervant the 
 MelTiah JI)aU frof^er^ he fiall he ex- 
 alted — — even as the houfe of Ifrael 
 have hofed for him many days. And 
 Chrifi told his difciplesj Mat^ xiii. 7, 
 That many f rochets and righteous men 
 have defred to fee thofe things which 
 ye fee^ and have not feen them ; and 
 to hear thofe thi?igs which ye hear 
 and have not heard them. And in a- 
 nother place in particular, John viii. 56. 
 That Abraham rejoyced to fee his day. 
 That he faw it^ and was glad. And 
 one of his apoftles tells us, Joh. xi. 41, 
 that Ifaiah faw his glory j and fpake 
 of him. And one ancienter than thefe, 
 by calling the Melliah the defire of all 
 nations^ Hag. ii. 7. very ftrongly inti- 
 mates that he was the defire of their 
 Qwn : Which is alfo poflitively avert- 
 ed 
 
(2^0) 
 
 ed by another ancient author, who 
 fpeaks of bin), as the Lord vohom they 
 foughtj and that mejjhiger of the co- 
 venant^ in Zfvhomthey delighted. Mai. 
 iii. I. The former paflages iTiew the 
 ^xpeftations of the 'Jews before the 
 captivity : The latter, their defires and 
 expeQations, juft after they were re* 
 turned from it. 
 
 But whether any before the captivity 
 ^xpefted a deliverer or not, how came 
 the "Jews to form fuch expectations af- 
 ter it ; and evqn to be fo poffelTed with 
 this hope, as to be ready to fall in 
 with every perlbn, that made pretcnfi- 
 ons to fuch a charafter? Was it not 
 owing to the tlien generally received 
 interpretations of the fcriptures by their 
 teacluers, and of confequence to the plain 
 intimations of the facred writings them, 
 felves, and becaufe the current of the 
 Old Tefiament, fcriptures naturally in- 
 duced them to fuch a perfwafion ? If 
 qur author will deny that the Old Tefta- 
 " ment fcriptures, as they were read and' 
 underftood after the capdvity, had any 
 raanifeft reference to a future ddiverer, 
 tliis univerfal ftrong e>:pe(^amon of the 
 
 jeLiL'iJb 
 
jewi/Jj nation is perfectly unaccountable 
 upon any ofher fuppofition, than that 
 of a fpecial influence of divine prOvi^ 
 dence, leading them to fucli a belief, as 
 the time of his appearance drew nearer 
 on : Or if he allows that the Old Tefta* 
 mtnt writings, as they then appeared, 
 did carry plain intimations of the com^ 
 ing of this extraordinary perfon ; and ob- 
 jects that Efdras^ and the '^riejis with 
 him, altered and added to the ancient 
 prophecies, and gave them that reference 
 which they now feem to carry to the 
 times of tht Mefftahy I would ask him. 
 Were thofe additions and alterations of 
 Efdras^ made by the direction of God 
 to him ? Then, as they now ftand, they 
 are prophecies of the Mejftah^ and were 
 to have their full completion in him : 
 If Efdras did it without any fuch fu- 
 pernatural Affiilance, then our author 
 rnufl accouut for one very great diffi- 
 culty , viz. How Efdras could, at fuch 
 a diftance of time, pretend to foretel 
 the coming of a deliverer to the Jews, 
 that God had given him no reafon to ex- 
 pea, and almoft fix the very time of his 
 appearance, and give the moft particular 
 
 4efcriptions 
 
( 252 ) 
 
 defcriptions of his perfon, doGrincs^ 
 works, difgrace and glory, and entire 
 undertakings ; and how the event Jliould 
 fo exaOily correfpond with fuch random 
 guelTes and conjeftures. Certainly to 
 prophecy, in fo very extraordinary a 
 manner, about fuch a variety of im^,. 
 portant events, without the gift of 
 prophecy, is a much more unaccount- 
 able fuppofition, than that of the gife 
 of prophecy itfelf 
 
 .:■*! 
 
 C n A >»? 
 
 IV 
 
(2$3) 
 
 C H A P. VIL 
 
 Of the douhk Senfe of 
 Prophecies. 
 
 A M ready to allow the au- 
 thor of the Groundsj kc. 
 That the prophecies appli- 
 ed by the New Tefiament 
 writers to Chrift might, in 
 part, relate alfo to the times wherein 
 they were firft delivered. This I think is 
 evidently true of that paiTage in Ifaiah; 
 the firft part of which, c. 7. belongs more 
 immediately to the deliverance, that was 
 to come to pais within two years after 
 the birth ot IfaiaFs child ; the latter 
 part, caf. 9. to the more diftant times 
 of the Mejjiahy who was to be the glory 
 and fupport of David's throne and fa- 
 iDily, And therefore I add, 
 
 That 
 
(2S4) 
 
 That there is no abfurdity in the 
 fuppofition, that as fome prophecies may 
 relate wholly to the times of the MeJJiahy 
 fb others may relate partly to his times, 
 and partly to the times wherein they 
 were delivered . God may order his pro- 
 phets to fpeak in fuch words, as may de- 
 note a double event, and require a double 
 accompliftiment : Or a meffage may be 
 fo expreffed, as that the different parts 
 of it not the fame words, may relate 
 to very different feafons. Thefe are two 
 diftina Confiderations. 
 
 As to the firft, God's ordering a pro- 
 phet to deliver himfelf in fuch \,vords, as 
 that they may literally denote a double 
 event let it be confidered, That the 
 literal fenfe is^ either that fenfe, which 
 the words naturally bare ia connexion ; 
 or which, tho' it may not be the moft 
 obvious, and natural, yet the words will 
 bare, -and the fpeaker of them really in- 
 tends. That words may bare a double 
 fenfe, and be as properly expreffive of one 
 as another, is undeniably certain. Inftances 
 enough of this may be produced out of 
 the Old Tefia?nent. Thus a virgin Jl^aU 
 concave and bri?ig forth a fony as natu- 
 rally 
 
(255) 
 
 rally fignifies, That an untouched maid 
 iliould, by an extraordinary providence, 
 become the mother of a child, as that a 
 young woman fliould be married, and 
 prove vi^ith child by her husband. OttI; 
 of jEgypt have I called 7ny fon^ thefb 
 is nothing in the expreffion itfelf, to con- 
 fine it rather to the jewifi 7iation^ than 
 to Jefus Chrift. The one is as much th'e 
 literal fenfe as the other ; and which fenfe 
 !s intended, whether one or both can on- 
 ly be known, either by its conneftion 
 withpther things, or by the plain and 
 cxprefs declaration of the fpeaker. And 
 this latter way is the moft certain and 
 infallible. And this is the authority we 
 pretend to have as chrifiians^ for inter- 
 preting many of the Old Tefiame?tt pro- 
 phecies of Chrift ; thofe efpecially which 
 he applies to himfelf, and thofe referred 
 to him by his apoftles, as proper proofs 
 of his being the Meffiah \ whatever refe- 
 rence they originally had, or may now 
 be fuppofed to have to the times when 
 they were firll uttered. For as there is 
 reafon to think that the perfons, who 
 anciently delivered thefe prophecies, 
 J^Pake m they 'licere movedly fhefprit of 
 
 God, 
 
( 256 ) 
 
 God; fo there is equal, if not ftronger 
 evidence, that thofe who apply them to 
 Chrifi, as the proper proofs of his being 
 the Mefjiahy were under the fame divine 
 influence ; and that therefore tJiey would 
 never have urged them as real proofe 
 of events, they were never intended to 
 predid : Tho' I think there are but few 
 inftances of this nature to be found. 
 
 As to the latter, that the diiferent 
 parts of the fame prophecy may denote 
 different events, this is a much more 
 eafy and probable fuppofition than the 
 former : Efpecially if there be an agree- 
 ment between the events themfelves, and 
 the more important event of the two, 
 tho^ at a diftance, was neceffary to be 
 preferved in the minds of thofe to whom 
 the prophecy is delivered, the tranfitioa 
 from the one to the other is yery natural 
 and proper. That mankind fliould be 
 faved from the power of vice, and the 
 dominion of evil fpirits, and recovered 
 "by a Saviour to peace with God, and 
 the hopes of ah eternal inheritance, is a 
 much more glorious work, than the fal- 
 vation of a particular nation froiii tend- 
 poral evils, or their having conferred Qtk 
 
 mm 
 
them any temporal profperity. And 
 therefore what could be more worthy 
 of God, or agreeable to his wifdom, than 
 to put his people in mind, when he rai- 
 fed them up any temporal Saviours, that 
 the time iliould come, when he would 
 fend into the world one, that fhould be 
 the author of a more glorious redempti- 
 on, by caufing righteoufnefs, peace, and 
 knowledge, more univerfally to flou- 
 rifh, and procuring for them everlaft^ 
 ing falvation. 
 
 It doth indeed fecm neceflary, that 
 when two events are referred to in the 
 fame prophecies, the double intention 
 of fuch prophecies fhould be generally 
 underftood; otherwife the prophecies, 
 as to one fenfe of them at leaft, would 
 be of no ufe ; it being almoft the fame 
 thing, not to foretel a future event at 
 all, as to foretel it in fuch a manner, as 
 that no one is capable of underftanding it. 
 But this is not the cafe of the jewijh pro« 
 phccies, which, as they had a plain re- 
 ference to the Mejfiahy in part, as well 
 as in part to events nearer at hand, fo 
 were ^//i underftood by the Jews^ as 
 refpeding him j as I have proved, chap. 
 S v. vi. 
 
V, VI. And therefore *tis only needful, 
 upon this head, to add, that as many 
 of them evidently had a double figni- 
 ' fication, fo they had alfo a double ufe 
 and defign : The one, to affure the Jews 
 of God's prefent proteftion, notwith- 
 ftanding the calamitous circumftances 
 they were under : The other, to pre. 
 ferve alive in their minds the hopes of 
 the MeJJiah^ and of better times to fuc- 
 ceed under him. Indeed every pro- 
 mife of the Meffiah, how far diftant 
 foever the time of his coming might be, 
 was, neverthelefs, a mighty encourage- 
 ment to the faithful Jews. For this was 
 giving them the ftrongeft alTurance, that, 
 tho'for the.prefent they might be reduced 
 very low, yet they Ihould npt be ut- 
 terly deftroycd, becaufe of the MeJJiah 
 that was to proceed from tiiem :, And 
 of confequence thofe prophecies had a 
 noble ule, and could not be wholly 
 fulfilled, accordi?tg to the literal fenfe 
 of them, or in the fenfe the words 
 will harfy and the author of thetri in^ 
 tended^ in any other perfon than the 
 Meffiahy and the application of fuch 
 paffages to him, will not be in a my^ 
 
 fiicaly 
 
(259) 
 
 ftical^ allegorical fe?tfe^ but in their na- 
 tural and '^rofer meanings as they ft and 
 in the Old Teftament writings. 
 
 To fuppofe, that thofe prophecies 
 were not intended of God to refer at 
 all to the times of the Mejfiahy and tliat, 
 according to the literal fenje^ they are 
 in no wife applicable to him ; and yet 
 that they are neverthelefs applied by 
 Jefm^ and his apoftles, to himfelf, ar- 
 gues either that the Jewsy in the time 
 of Chriji'j were very ftrangely mifta- 
 ken in their interpretation of their own 
 fcriptures ; or that Jefus^ and his apo- 
 ftlcs, put a falfe fenfe on them, and 
 contrary to what they were generally 
 underftood to mean ; or that they never 
 quoted them as real proofs of Chrift^s 
 being the Mejftah, but only hy voay 
 of accomnodatio7ty and as one would 
 cite the words of any other author 
 w.hatfoever. As to the firft, I think no- 
 thing is more evident, than that the 
 Old Teftament writings were fo framed, 
 as muft neceflarily have lead any one, 
 acquainted with them, to interpret ma- 
 ny paflages of fome other time, and 
 perfon, than any they might, in parr^ 
 S 2 refer 
 
( 26o ) 
 
 refer to, juft when they were delivered; 
 and therefore, having never feen the 
 things fpoken of fully accomplillied, the 
 ^ews might reafonably refer them to, 
 and exped the intire completion of them 
 in the perfon of the Meffiah. And this 
 in fafl: was, as I have Ihewn, the judg- 
 ment and pradice both of the ancient 
 and modern Jews. That our Saviour 
 and his apoftles put a falfe fenfc on the 
 fcriptures, and contrary to the generally 
 received interpretation, cannot be allow- 
 ed, confiftent with their charafters, as 
 infpircd pcrfons, or their condufl: as 
 wife men; it being impoflible that this 
 could have done them any fervice 
 amongft the Jews^ who had the high- 
 eft veneration for their facred writings, 
 and for the interpretation given of them, 
 by the Scribes and Pharijeesi^ our Sa- 
 viour's time. And as to theV never 
 quoting of them, as real proofs of things 
 to happen to the MeJJiah, I think the 
 contrary is moft evidently certain ; our 
 Saviour himfelf, and his apoftles after 
 him, often appealing to the fcriptures, 
 that the things they preached ought 
 to have been fo. It therefore follows, 
 
 that 
 
C2<Sl) 
 
 that thefe paflages, they cited as real 
 proofs, were properly and pertinently 
 applied, and did belong to the Mejftak, 
 in their natural literal fenfe, as thty 
 ftand in the Old Teftament, notwith- 
 ftanding any reference they might have 
 to 'any perfon then in being, or fhortly 
 to come, after the prophecies were firft 
 delivered. 
 
 I might inftance here in the fre- 
 quent appeals made to the OU Tefta- 
 7nenty to fliew how the death and re- 
 furreftion of Chrift, and the calling of 
 the Gentiles^ were agreeable to the 
 moft plain declarations of the fcriptures. 
 But I rather choofe to infift on a paffage, 
 which the author of the Grounds^ (Jc. 
 tells us, cannot be applied to Jefus 
 Chrift, without very great ahfurdit/^ 
 and contrary to the very defign and in- 
 tenfoftt)e ^rofhet, p. 42- and fliall I 
 think denionftrate, that tho' it might, 
 in part, belong to IfaiaVs childy yet 
 that it muft alfo be fuppofed to refer to 
 the Mejftah, in order to its full, literal 
 accomplifhment, and to anfwer the de- 
 fign of the prophecy itfclf. And this 
 ^will ihew, that fome prophecies at Icaft 
 ^y' S 3 have 
 
( 262 ) 
 
 have a double meaning, and that 'tis 
 fometimes neceflary it fliould be fo. 
 It is tliat famous prophecy of Ifaiahy 
 chaf. vii. 14. which St. Matthew i. 22, 
 23. refers to the birth of Chri/l; tho' 
 it doth not appear, that he cites it as a 
 real prediction, or proper proof. Be- 
 hold a virgin fiall he with childy and 
 fiall bring forth a fon, and they pall 
 call his name Immanuel. The occafion 
 of this prophecy was the confederacy of 
 Refin, king of Sjriaj with Pekah, king^ 
 of Jfrael, againft Jhaz king of Judah, 
 and their defign to deftroy the royal 
 family of Davidj and to fettle the crown 
 of Judab on Taheal, and his family. 
 See verfes i, 5, 6. Now had this de- 
 fign taken effeO:, befides all the miferies 
 that had been brought on the kingdom 
 of Judahy all the particular 'promifes 
 made to the family of David^ and of 
 confequence that of the Mejjiahj had 
 been entirely loft. And therefore God 
 was pleafed, in order to fupport the 
 houfe of Davidy fee verfes 2, i j. under 
 the fear^ of this invafion, and againft 
 all fuch like attempts for the future, to 
 give them a fign, both of a prefent de- 
 liverance 
 
(2(53) 
 
 liVcrance, and of the perpetual efta- 
 blilhment of David's throne and king, 
 dom. See Ifaiah k. 7. The fign of both 
 was to be the birth of a child. See 
 chup. vii. 14, 15, i6. and chap. ix. 6. 
 And therefore, as a virgin's conceiving, 
 and baring a fon, feven hundred years 
 after the prophecy was given, could be 
 no poffible fign to Ahaz of a prefent 
 deliverance ; fo neither could the birth 
 of a male child, to be born within a 
 year or two, be tooked on as a fuffici- 
 ent fecurity, for the perpetual eftablifh- 
 ment of Davids throne and kingdom. 
 That the words, as they ftand in Ifaiah^ 
 do, in their obvious literal fenfe, partly 
 relate to a young woman, in the days 
 of Jhazj our author needed not have ta- 
 ken fo much pains to prove. This, I 
 believe, po one ever fo much as doubt- 
 ed. But what I farther infift on is, 
 that this prophecy muft alfo, in part, 
 refer to fome other child, to be born 
 long after the time of Jhazy and that 
 therefore it muft neceflarily have a dou- 
 ble fenfe, in order to anfwer the defign 
 of it, and to have its full and proper ac- 
 complifhment. And that it hath fo is 
 S 4 evident 
 
(264) 
 
 evident from the words themfelvcs, fome 
 of which can in no fenfe be applicable 
 to Ifaiah\ child. For this prophecy 
 reaches to the end of chap* ix. as is 
 evident from the whole context. In 
 chap, viii 3. we find one part of the 
 prophecy fulfilled, in the fon born to 
 Ifaiah by the prophetefs; and God af- 
 fures him, ver. 4. that before the child 
 Jhould he ahle to fpeak^ loth Damafcus 
 and Samaria (hould le plundered hy the^ 
 hng 0/ Affyria ; upon which, ver. li. 
 the prophet cries out, Behold I and the 
 children^ whom the Lord hath given 
 mef are for figns and for wonders in 
 Ifrael. However, in the remaining part 
 of the chapter, he goes on to declare 
 the miferies that fhould fall on the "Jews 
 for their fins, notwithftanding this pre- 
 fent deliverance of Ahaz \ and'thereforc 
 to prefer ve them from being? Jquite de- 
 jeded, God was pleafed to ^give them 
 fome foundation for hope, by afTuring 
 them of a great deliverance that fhould 
 hereafter be vouchfafed them; and then 
 appeals to a fign of the fame nature, 
 with that fpoken of before, chap. vii. 
 14. and dcfcribes it in fuch a manner, 
 
 as 
 
as that one would certainly conclude it 
 to be the individual child, mentioned in 
 the former place, were it not for fome 
 particular defcriptions, that neceflarily^ 
 imply a nobler birth than that. U^to 
 tis a child is horn : Unto m a fan is 
 given, i. e. As certainly as Ifaiah\ 
 child, by the prophetefs, fhall be born, 
 whofe birth is to be the fign of their 
 deliverance from this invafion, fo alfo a 
 child fhall hereafter be born, of the en^ 
 creafe of whofe government and peace 
 upon the throne of David and his king^ 
 dom^ to order and ejtahlijh it with judg- 
 ment and with jrifiice^ there jhall he no 
 end. After which affurance the pro- 
 phet returns to the particular occafion 
 that introduced this prophecy, viz. the 
 deliverance of Judahy and the houfe of 
 Davidy from the power of Pekah^ and 
 of Re/in, Sgc chap. ix. 9, 11, 12. Now 
 as the birth of IfaiaVs child was cer- 
 tainly miraculous, as ordered and pre- 
 difted by God, fo there is no abfurdity 
 in fuppofing, that the fame words, chap. 
 vii. 14. which predicted in fo extra- 
 ordinary a manner this birth, might al- 
 fo be a prediftion of the much more 
 
 wonderful 
 
(2(56) 
 
 wonderful birth of him, who was not 
 only to be the fign of the eftablifb merit 
 of David's houfe, but the great author 
 of its continuance and glory ; even up- 
 on the fuppofition that this fenfe of this 
 part of the prophecy could not be un- 
 derftood, 'till the accompiifhment of it. 
 And what inclines me the rather to 
 think thus is, that then this prophecy 
 will be an explication of that original 
 promife given to our firft parents, 
 The feed of womauy &c. One can fcarcc 
 imagine any other reafon of fuch an ex- 
 traordinary charafter, as this of the WO'^ 
 mans feed, but that the perfon de- 
 noted by this expreflion jfhould come 
 from a woman, without the concur- 
 rence and help of a man. 
 
 From hence I hope it will appear, that 
 even this part of the prophecy^ If a. vii, 
 14. may be underftood oli thi Mejfah 
 and therefore of Chrifi, confiftent with 
 its main defign and intention. Sure I 
 am that the other part of it contained, 
 C. ix. 6, 7. cannot, without a manifeft 
 violence to the words, be applied to 
 JfaiaVs child ; nor to Hezekiahy as Gro- 
 tins and White expound chcm ; nor in- 
 deed 
 
deed to any other child, but "jefm Chrifi^ 
 to whom the Jir/i fart of the prophecy 
 is truly applicable ; and m whom alone 
 the lafi fart of it is verified and accom- 
 pliflied. And as the birth of Ifaiah^s 
 Ion, and the confequent deliverance of 
 Judah from the threatned invafion, 
 both happened according to God's pre- 
 diSion ; fo they had reafon to believe, 
 from this experience of his faithfulnefs 
 and power, that notwithftanding the 
 prefent low circumftances of Davi£^ 
 family, yet that fome time or other, 
 a child fhould be born, that fliould 
 reftore the glory of his houfe, and in 
 whom the kingdom fhould be for 
 ever eftablilhed. So that as the child 
 fpoken of was to be a fign of a pre- 
 fent deliverance, and of the perpetual 
 eftablifhmCnt of David^s houfe and 
 throne, it was fo far from being ufe- 
 Ie(s to Jhazj and abfurd in itfelf, 
 that the prophecy fhould refer to the 
 times of the Meffiah, that it would 
 indeed be abfurd to fuppofe that it 
 fhould riot ; and therefore it is with 
 juftice applied by St. Matthew to Chrifi. 
 
 And 
 
( 268 ) 
 
 And I Willi this author, for his 
 own fake, would more impartially ftu- 
 dy, and honeftly reprefent fcripture 
 pafTages, before he ventures to charge 
 them with ahfurdities. I cannot* help 
 faying, tho I wifh him a better fpi- 
 rit, that his general method of quo- 
 ting authors fhews, either that he 
 hath never read them, or that he 
 doth not underftand them, or which ' 
 I am loath to believe of any man, 
 does willfully mif reprefent them. When 
 he fpeaks of fcripture at leaft, inftead 
 of afting the part of a fair objeflior, 
 he dreffes it up in the moft ridicu- 
 lous manner he is able, and then de- 
 claims againft it, as fomcthing very 
 abfurd and unreafonable ; and when 
 one expeOis to find fome authority for 
 his affertions from his quotations, the 
 paflages prove direftly the 'contrary; 
 as win afterwards more evidently ap- 
 pear. 
 
 From what hath been faid on this 
 head, I hope it doth not feem fo 
 great an abfurdity, to fuppofe that 
 prophecies may have a double refe- 
 rence, and infer a double accomplifli- 
 
 ment; 
 
(s(Ss>) 
 
 ment. For as, in both fenfes, they had 
 a tendency to confirm the faithful Jews 
 in the belief of God's providence, and" 
 the hopes of his mercy, and the happy 
 ftate of his people, under the righteous 
 reign and government of the Mejjiahy 
 it was therefore confiftent with the di- 
 vine wifdom they fhould have this dou- 
 ble reference, and accomplifhment. And 
 this will appear yet ftill more evident, 
 to any one that confiders the depend- 
 ance which the moft antient promifes 
 and prophecies of the Old Teftament 
 have upon each other. God promifes 
 a deliverance to our firft parents from 
 the ferments power. He afterwards aC» 
 fures Abraham, that in him all the fami^ 
 lies of the earth Jhotdd he hleffed. Ja-* 
 cob prophecies that Shilow Jhould come^ 
 to ivhom Jhprdd be the gathering of the 
 people. Mofes foretels the coming of a 
 great and tnightj prophet that Jhould 
 arife to the Jews from amongfi them- 
 felves. Was it not reafonable to fup- 
 pofe, that as God had thus limited the 
 promife . of this great blefling, made 
 from the foundation of the world, to 
 this nation; fo that he would take 
 
 care 
 
(27o) 
 
 care that they fhould not forget this 
 promife to them ; and that upon all 
 occafions he would put them in mind 
 of that great and univerfal bleffing he 
 intended them ; and improve every tem- 
 poral deliverance he vouchfated them, 
 to the raifing their expedation of a 
 nobler deliverance yet to come. Upon 
 this fcheme, tis no wonder, that fome 
 prophecies (hould be of a mixed na- 
 ture, and that Ifaiahj and the reft of 
 facred writers, fhould be direfted to 
 fpeak in fuch a manner, as to predict 
 events near at hand, and alfo at a far- 
 ther diftance ; efpecially as the former 
 were pledges and alTurances of the lat- 
 ter and greater, f r^t 
 
 t A late ingenious Author )| thinks this double fenfe 
 of prophecies not fo eafily defenfible. He tells us, 
 ThiTt prophecies fo interpreted [as having' H double fenfej 
 do a ford 710 argument for any caufcj fina roe cannot cer-* 
 t»inly difiover them to have fuch a doSle fenfe^ till this 
 be [hewn by other infplred Men, xehofe mthority is there fupm 
 fofedj whereas tis the very thing in queftion. This is 
 plaufibly argued, if he means a double fenfe in- 
 tended by the very fame words of the fame pro- 
 phecy ; of which fenfes one only is plain and ob- 
 vious, and the other fuch as would never have 
 been thought o£, had it not been declared by 1 
 
 perfon 
 
 WUcTrui Cmnds and Rfafitif, Scc. p. 117- ^^^* 
 
(ayi ) 
 
 The reader will forgive me, if I 
 have been a little tedious on this head, 
 a great deal of the prefent contro^ 
 
 verfy 
 
 perfon pretending to mfpiratlon ; tho i tklnk not 
 altogether juftly. For fliould any perfon, preten4- 
 ing to infpiration, give any new explication of pro- 
 phecies, which, tho not fo very obvious, yet was 
 not contrary to the fenfe of the words of tbo 
 prophecy, I think the firft enquiry in order of na- 
 ture would be, concerning the proofs of his infpi- 
 ration ; and if thefe appear to be fufficient, we 
 muft allow his interpretations of fcripture to b« 
 good : Tho I freely own, it doth not appear probable, 
 that prophecies in general fliould be intended to 
 carry a double fenfe, and yet that there fliould b« 
 need of a new revelation to lead us into the know- 
 ledge of one of them ; efpecially the principal one, 
 as in the prefent cafe, faid to be intended. But tis 
 a quite different thing, when the feveral parts of the 
 prophecies relate to different events, and are fo ex- 
 preffed, as to lead into this double fenfe ; as in the 
 paflagel have been confidering, and indeed moft of 
 the prophecies of the Old Te(iameTii; which fecm ge- 
 nerally to be of a mixed nature, and to refer part- 
 ly to the then prefent, and partly to fome futur« 
 time; which neverthelefs were delivered in fuch t 
 manner, as that both the views of providence were 
 cafy to be underftood, and feem to have been ge- 
 nerally apprehended by thofe, to whom they were 
 firft delivered, as well as by thofo that came after 
 them : And therefore we may iuftly argue, that 
 they were well applied by Chriji and his apojfles^ 
 not becaufe they, as infpired peifons, did aftuaHy 
 apply them, but becaufe they were originally dc- 
 figned as real prediftions of thofe events, they are 
 urged as proofs of, and did very plainly foretel 
 
(272) 
 
 verfy depending on the right ftating and 
 underftanding of this matter. I Ihall 
 only beg his farther patience to obferve^ 
 with what juftice and honefty this 
 writer compares the prophecies of the 
 Old Tefiament with the divinations and 
 dreams of the pagans ; infmuating 
 that chrifiianity as fupported by thefe 
 prophecies, hath no better founda- 
 tion than the worft religions of the hea- 
 thens. The heathen oracles were de- 
 livered in the name of thofe, whom I 
 believe our author will readily confefs 
 to be idols and not gods. Their di- 
 vinations and prophecies were built on 
 the flight of birds, the entrails of beafts, 
 and fuch like fuperftitions ; and there- 
 fore no wonder their predictions were 
 obfcure and uncertain ; and uncapa- 
 ble of pointing out any -qjie fingle 
 particular event, fince they were not di- 
 refted by an infallible fpirit. Where- 
 as the prophecies of the Old Tefiament 
 were delivered in the name of the 
 one God, the creator of heaven and 
 earth, and were plain abfolute predidi- 
 ons of future events; many of which 
 aftually came to pafs, exaftly in the 
 
 time 
 
(273) 
 
 time fixed ; and of the accomplifliment 
 of which, thofe to whom the prophecies 
 were delivered were witneffes : From 
 whence they had reafon to conclude, that 
 others, tho' relating to more diftant 
 times, fhould, in like manner, be veri- 
 fied in their proper feafon. And as they 
 were literally fulfilled in JefiM Chrifi^ 
 who was approved by figjts and wonders 
 and miracles of the Holy Ghoft to be 
 a real prophet, it was a demonftrative 
 proof of his being the true Mejfiah^ and 
 is a fuiEcient reafon for our believing in 
 him, and fubmitting to him as fuch ; as 
 will be more largely fhewn in the en«« 
 fuing chapter. 
 
 C H A !^. 
 
(274) 
 
 HAP. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 The Old Teftamcnt Pro- 
 phecies fulfilled in Christ, 
 and in Him only. 
 
 m'^m$^ 
 
 '^Mm 
 
 S M^ny onhQ Old Tefiamem 
 prophecies have manifeftly a 
 double reference, and were, by 
 the Jews themfelves, applied 
 in part to the Mejjiah^ fo feyeral of them 
 were never, according to the letter^ and 
 as they fiand in the fro^hetick writings^ 
 verified in any perfon then in being, 
 when they were firft delivered ; nor in 
 any one fmce, as far as we can learn from 
 hiftory, but Jefi0 Chrifiy who applied 
 them to himfelf, and in whom they are 
 accomplilhed in their true extent, ac- 
 cording to the Ncik^ Te/lament account 
 
 of 
 
(27$) 
 
 of liim. And therefore thus far at leaft 
 the Old and New Tefiament are not in 
 an irreconcileable ftate, but have an en- 
 tire agreement and connexion with each 
 other ; and therefore in this refpeft the 
 prophecies are a confirmation of chrifiu 
 anity. Thus the firft and leading pro- 
 mife of all, and to confirm and illuftrate 
 which, the enfuing ones feem to have 
 been given, Gen. iii. 15. 1 will ^ut 
 enmity between thy feed and her feed^ 
 it fiall hruife thy head^ and thou Jhalt 
 hruife his heely feems to have a real 
 .accomplifhment in Jefi^ Chrift. The ac. 
 count the evangehfts give of his birth 
 anfwers to the charafter of the womati^s 
 feed. The hruiftng of his heely whatfo- 
 ever may be the full meaning of it, yet 
 plainly denotes fome lelTer hurt that was 
 to come to this feed of the woman 
 by the ferj^ent ; which was verified in 
 the fufl^erings and death of Chrift ; ac- 
 cording to his words, Luke xx\u 5j. 
 This is your hour^ and the fower of 
 darhtefs. But notwithftanding this, he 
 was at lafl: to hruife the ferpent'^s head; 
 i. e. utterly to abolifh and deflroy his 
 power. And what lefs than this was 
 T 2 the 
 
(2j6) 
 
 the declared effcQ: of Jefm's death and 
 refurreftion ? Now^ faith Chrifi^ is the 
 judgment of thts worldy now fiaJl the 
 frince of this world he cafi ont^ Luke xii. 
 51. And one;of his apoftles, after him, tells 
 us, That he took part of flejh and Mood, 
 that thro^ death he might deftroy him 
 that had the -power of deaths that is 
 the devily Heb. ii. 14. And as to the 
 enmity fpoken of, 'tis fo very plain, by 
 every days experience, that I need give 
 no particular inftances of it. The fame al* 
 fomay be demonftratedof thatpromife of 
 God to Air ah amy That in his feed all the 
 families of the earth Jhould he hlejjedy 
 which was never verified in any one per- 
 fon 'till the times of Jefm. The Jews had 
 kings and priefts, and prophets, that 
 were very great blefling^, to their own 
 particular nation: But none of them 
 could, in any true, or literal iLGnky be 
 faid to be univerfal bleflings, 'till the 
 appearance of CAri/?; who^ according to 
 the A'^ew Teftament fcheme, is the Savi- 
 our of all men^ and under whom there 
 is no more difference of Jew and Greek^ 
 hut one Lord over ally who is rich in 
 mercy to all that call on him. Nor can 
 
 thofe 
 
^277) 
 
 thofe words 'of Mofes^ Deut. xviii. i8. 
 be, with any juftice, applied to Ifaiah, 
 Jeremiah^ or any of the fucceeding pro- 
 phets, who in no refpefts could be faid 
 to be like unto Mofcs, either as to the 
 miracles they wrouglit, or the end and 
 defign of their miffion from God. But 
 they were literally accomplifhed in "^efm 
 Chrift^ who did the works that never 
 man did^ and who was the author of a 
 new difpenfation, as Mofes was, tho' of 
 a much more excellent and perfe£i one ; 
 and who wrought out a deliverance for 
 his people, as ^ Mo[es did, tho' a much 
 more beneficial and glorious one. 
 
 In the ?fa]ms there are many paffages 
 of this nature, which cannot be interpre- 
 ted, with any fenfe, or appearance of 
 truth, unlefs they are fuppofed to refer 
 to fome future feafon, and to have their 
 proper accomplifhment in fome other 
 perfon, than any living at the time when 
 they were penned, and which do all of 
 them exaftly agree with the New Tefia- 
 ment account of Chrift. The 2^ Vfalm 
 is an inftance of this, which, tho' in ma- 
 ny things it may relate to David's or 
 Solomon's eftablifliment on the throne, 
 T 3 yet 
 
(278) 
 
 yet in others cannot be applied to either 
 of them, without the greateft hyperbole 
 and violence. The whole of it is pen- 
 ned in fuch terms, as manifeftly defcribe 
 fome greater perfon than David^ or any 
 other of the petty kings of the little 
 territory of Judea ; and the inheritance 
 to be given him was fuch, as no king, 
 that ever arofe in Judea^ was poffeffed 
 of, except Jefm of Nazareth^ the fon 
 of David, and the ki/ig of Ifrael, to 
 whom all things are put in fuljeHiony he 
 only excepted who did put all things under 
 him. Of him alfo, and of him only, 
 thofe words, Pfal xiv. are literally 
 true : Thy throne God is for ever and 
 ever^ the fcepter of thy kingdom is a 
 
 right fcepter* God thy God^ hath 
 
 anointed thee with the oyl of gladnefs 
 alove thy fellows. Of what mortal man, 
 of whatj^wi^/^ prince much fefs, can thefe 
 words in any tolerable fenfe be true? 
 Which of them poffeiTed an everlafting 
 throne, or fuch vaft dominions as to be 
 worthy the name of God? Or had fo 
 profperous a ftate, as to be fuperiour 
 to all his fellows ? But how exaftly 
 agreeable are thefe to the New 
 
 Tef anient 
 
(279) 
 
 Tefiament defcriptions of Chrijl^ who h 
 made both Lord and KJng^ zivhofe throne 
 is exalted above angels^ and of whofe 
 rule and government there fliall be no 
 end. And to mention no more out of 
 the Tfalmsj Jet this writer explain, if he 
 can, who was that Lord of David, to 
 whom the Lord faidy fet thou at my 
 right handy until I make thine enemies 
 thy footfiooL Thou jhalt rule in the 
 midfi of thy enemies. The Lord hath 
 fworn and will not re^enty thou are a 
 p'iefl for ever after the order of Mel- 
 chifedeck, Pfal ex. Let him fhew, if 
 he is able, one inftance, in whom, by 
 God's fpecial appointment, the regal and 
 facerdotal dignities were united, and ftill 
 continue to be united. If not, he mull 
 acknowledge that the chrifdan fcheo^e 
 furnilhes us with an entire accomplifh- 
 ment of this prophecy, in the perfon of 
 'Jefusy who is the great high pieft of 
 our ^rofeffiony and who muft reign as 
 king, V/i! all his enemies are fut under 
 his feet. 
 
 To mention all the paffages out of 
 
 Ifaiahy and the other prophets, to this 
 
 purpofe, would be to taanfcribe their 
 
 T 4 books, 
 
C28o) 
 
 books. I have already given an inftancc 
 of this, inthatpaffage of Jfaiah vii. 13. 
 apphed by Matthew to Chrifi^ cha^. 
 i. 22, 23. and I think fhewn, that 
 in the literal and obvious fenfe, the 
 whole of it may juftly be referred to 
 the MeJJiahy and that part of it can 
 be applied to no one elfe. And there- 
 fore all the authorities which the au- 
 thor of the Grounds^ i^c. quotes to 
 prove the contrary, and to fhew his great 
 reading and learning, might as well have 
 been fpared. The moft exalted cha- 
 racters of that prophecy, fuch as the 
 wonderful councellour^ the prince of^eacej 
 the mighty God^ the father of the fu- 
 ture age^ are anfwered by thofe de- 
 fcriptions oiChrifi^ under the New Tefia^ 
 ment\ as that in him are hid all the 
 treasures of wifdom and knowledgey 
 Coloff. ii, J. that he hath reconciled m 
 unto God^ and "preached feace to them 
 that were afar offy Eph. ii. 16, 17^ 
 that he was God manifejied in the flefl)\ 
 I Tim. iii. 16. and that of him the 
 whole family itt heaven and earth is 
 namedy Eph. iii. 15. and therefore ^tis 
 no wonder that other parts of this fa- 
 mous 
 
(281) 
 
 mous prophecy, that do agree to him, 
 fliould be applied to him by his a- 
 poftles. See the defcription given of the 
 Branch, that was to come out of the 
 roots of Jeffe, u-^o^i whom the ffirit 
 of the Lord was to reft^ the fpirit of 
 wifdom and underftanding^ voho with 
 righteoiif?iefs was to judge the poor 
 under whofe reign the fierceft natures 
 were to be foftned, and the moft favagc 
 and cruel difpofitions were to be rendred 
 innocent and harmlefs ; who was to be 
 an enfign to the feope^ and to ivhom 
 the Gentiles were to feek^ and hy whom 
 the remnant of God'*s feoj?le from the 
 moft diftant nations^ were to be reco* 
 veredy If a. xi. Was there any one of 
 the houfe of Davidy in IfaiaFs time 
 or that can be named fince, of whom 
 thefe things can be, with any fhewof 
 truth, aflSrmed? events fo very remarka- 
 ble, that whenever they were to hap- 
 pen could not be concealed. Let our 
 author then acknowledge, that this pro- 
 phecy hath a farther reference, than to 
 the time when it was firft delivered y 
 and if he can fix on any one perfon, 
 from the hour Jfarah fpoke thefe words 
 
 to 
 
(282) 
 
 to the time of "Jefusy in whom they 
 were, either as to the general ktik^ 
 or literal meaning of them, proper- 
 ly accomplifhed, and I could almoft 
 promife to become a convert to his 
 principles, how much foever at prefent 
 I diflike them. But how exaftly doth 
 every part of the defcription anfwer to 
 thecharader ofjefus and his religion ^ 
 who was himfelf of the houfe oiDavid^ 
 who had the fpirit of God in the moft 
 excellent manner, who hath taught us 
 to govern our paflions, to look on e- 
 very man as our brother, to forgive 
 our enemies, by whom the Gentiles 
 obtain falvation, and in whom both 
 "Jews and Gentiles have believed, in 
 the moft diftant parts of the earth. 
 The 35, 42, 49. Chapters of the fame 
 prophecy, and many other -paffages of 
 the like nature, are inftances to the 
 fame purpofe ; where the working of 
 miracles, the gathering of the Gentiles^ 
 and the exaltation of one to he kifig 
 and ruler y whom man dejpfedy and the 
 nation abhorred j are fpoken of: And 
 in as much as thefe things were not 
 then verified in any one living, they 
 
 mult 
 
C283) 
 
 muft be allowed to be prophetick de* 
 fcriptions of fome future times, and 
 even to be accompliflied in Jefus Chrift 
 "^according to the :new teftament ac- 
 count ; and that n.ot in a myftical and 
 allegorical fence, but in their natural and 
 literal meaning, as they ftandintheold 
 tefl:ament writings. 
 
 Thefe paflages which I have now 
 quoted, have their principal reference 
 to the profperity and glory of the 
 MeJftaFs kingdom. In the laft cited 
 chapter indeed mention is plainly made 
 of his being rejeHed and defpfed^ of 
 his labouring in vain^ and [fending 
 his firength for nought ; of his being 
 ahhorred hy the nation^ and leeotning 
 a fervant of rulers ; even of the fame 
 perfon are thefe things fpoken, who 
 was neverthelefs to raife up the tribes of 
 Jacob, to reftore the freferved of If- 
 rael, that was to be a light to the 
 Gentiles, and G o d's falvation to the 
 ends of the earth ; whom kings were 
 to fee^ and -princes to worjhip ; who 
 "was to be for a covenant to the peo- 
 fle^ and to eftablijh the earth, and 
 to caufe to inherit the defolate heritages. 
 
 A 
 
(284) 
 
 A ftrange mixture this in the charaSer 
 and circumftances of the fame perfon ! 
 That he fhould be a man ahhorred 
 cf the nation^ and yet for a falvation 
 to the ends of the earth ; that he 
 fhould be a fervant of rulers^ and yet 
 a viBorious prince ; that he fliould 
 fpend his firength for nought^ and yet 
 reftore the preferved of Ifrael, and be- 
 come a light to the Gentiles! In like 
 manner doth the fame prophet elfe- 
 where defcribe him; as one defpfed 
 and re]eBed of men^ a man offorrows 
 and acquainted with grief as one 
 firichen and fmitten of God and af- 
 fliBedj as one brought like a lamb to 
 the flaughterj taken from prifon and 
 judgment^ and cut off out of the land 
 of the living. And yet this fame 
 perfon was to prolong his days^ and the 
 fleafureofthe Lord was to proffer inhis 
 hands ; he was to fee of the travel 
 of his foul and be fatisfied^ and to 
 have a portion divided him with the 
 great, and to divide the fpoil with 
 the firong ; and that for this very 
 reafon, becaufe he poured out his foul 
 nnto deathy and made intercejfion for 
 
 the 
 
(285) 
 
 the tranfgrejjors. Surely if thefe words 
 have a plain literal meaning, they muft 
 fignify, that the fame perfon was to 
 fuffer and dye^ and yet to reign and 
 frofper ; to be a triumphant conquer^- 
 er^ an Intercejjbr and Saviour. And 
 where among the Jews will this 
 author find a perfon, in whom all 
 thefe different difcriptions meet. Strain 
 them ever fo far, they can never be 
 applied to Ifaiah^ or any other per, 
 fon, but Jesus of Nazareth^ but in 
 fuch a ftrange figurative manner, as 
 our author, who Teems to be mighty 
 zealous for the literal fenfe, muft think 
 contrary to common fenfe and reafon. 
 But in our bleffed faviour, how ex- 
 aftly and literally are they accomplifh- 
 cd ; who tho' defpifed by his nation, 
 yet became an univerfal blefling to 
 mankind ; tho' abhorred of men was 
 adored by princes; tho' crucified and 
 flain, yet prolonged his days; and for 
 his once fuffering of death) was de- 
 clared to be the author of eternal faU 
 vation. And that thefe things where 
 to happen to the Mejfiah^ Daniel more 
 exprefsly declares, Cha^, ix. 25, 26, 27. 
 
 After 
 
(286) 
 
 After threefcore and two Weeks fhall 
 Mefliah he cut ojf\ hut not for him- 
 felfj and the ^eo^le of the prince that 
 fhall comey Jhall defiroy the city and 
 the janHuary^ and the end thereof jhall 
 he with a floods and unto the end of 
 the war defolations are determined. 
 A prophecy fo plain, and fo exaCtly 
 made good in Chrift, that the Jews^ 
 to evade the force of it, are under 
 the neceflity of having recourfe to a 
 double Mejftahy one of vi^hich was to 
 fuffer, and the other to reign and live 
 for ever : A fuppofition that hath not 
 one fingle text of fcripture to fupport 
 it. And as for our author, inftead of 
 attempting to ihew how this pafTage 
 anfwers to any other event, but the 
 death of Chrift, he flightly pafTes it 
 over, by telling us, that 'Vodwellj and 
 Sir John Marjham refer even this fa- 
 mous prophecy about the weeks to the 
 times of Antiochus Efi^hanes. p. 49. 
 But have they produced any probable ia* 
 fiance to which this paffage will entirely 
 agree ; or can our author fhe w any one that 
 pretended to be the Meffiahj in the 
 time o( Antiochus Ep^hanes^ that was 
 
 cut 
 
(287) 
 
 cut off, but not for himfelf, and the 
 confequence of which was the deftrufti- 
 on of the Jewifh city and fanftuary, 
 and an univerfal defolation. The au- 
 thority of "Vodwell B,nd Siv John Mar- 
 Jham will fignify little without proof; 
 nor have they fhewn any perfon, to 
 whom this entire paflage is literally 
 applicable. But all things exaftly agree 
 to Jeftis of Nazarethj who took on 
 him the charaQier of the Mejfiah ; 
 who was flain^ but not for himfelf''^ 
 who prophecied of the deftruftion of 
 Jerufalem^ which came to pafs under 
 Titus Vef^aftauy who burnt the city and 
 fan£i:uary, and who was the inftrument of 
 the divine vengeance upon that impi- 
 ous nation, for crucifying the Lord of 
 life -and glory, 
 
 Thefe prophecies that I have men- 
 tioned relate to the charafter of the 
 Mejftahj and dcfcribe the principal 
 events that were to befall him. There 
 are others that point out the parti- 
 cular time, or feafon of his appear- 
 ance, which exaQly anfwer to the time 
 of our Saviours appearance in the world, 
 and agree to no one elfe but him. 
 
 Thus 
 
(288) 
 
 Thus that famous prophecy of Jacah^ 
 concerning his fon Judah, in whate- 
 ver fenfe it be taken, exaftly agrees 
 with the feafbn in which Jefus of Na- 
 zereth dwelt oa in earth. The 
 /center Jhall not depart from Judah, 
 nor a lawgiver from between his feet^ 
 //;^^/7 Shiloh come^ andimtohim Jhall the 
 gathering of the people he J Gen. ix. lOe 
 The literal and moft obvious meaning 
 of the words is this, that the tribe 
 of Judah fhould never loofe its au- 
 thority, power and government, after 
 its having once received it, till the 
 coming of a certain perfon called Shi- 
 lohj and that he fhould fome way or 
 other gather the people, or nations to 
 himfelf. The principal thing predi£led 
 isj the coming of Shiloh, and that the 
 time of it fhould be before Judah 
 fhould ceafe to be a diftind govern- 
 ment ; but however, at the decline of 
 its authority and power, and that he 
 Ihould gather the people to himfelf. So 
 that if ever Shiloh came, it mufl be 
 before, but not long before, the jew^ 
 ijh power was deftroyed. But what 
 perfon was there, that pretended to any 
 
 extraordinary 
 
(289) 
 
 extraordinary charafterjand gathered the 
 people to himfelf, at this feafon, but 
 Jefus Chrifi'y after whofe refurreftion, 
 the fcepter did foon depart entirely 
 from Judahy and who gathered both 
 Jews and Gentiles into one church, 
 under himfelf, their proper head and 
 governour ? DamePs prophecy about the 
 weeks is alfo fliewn by Dr. Prideaux 
 to accord exactly to the time of Chrifi. 
 And as for Haggai and Malachy they 
 do expresfly declare, that the dejire of 
 all nations, the fuefenger of the cove- 
 nant fhould come during the (landing 
 of the fecond temple ; prophecies that 
 have not had the Ihadow of an ac- 
 complilliment, but in Jefus Chri/L And 
 the Jews themfelves are fo fenfibleof 
 theftrength of this argument, that they 
 are forced to alledge the fins of the 
 people, as a reafon, why God hath de- 
 ferred the coming of the Mefjiah be- 
 yond the time expresfly fixed by the 
 prophets. Thus the Chaldee paraphraft 
 on Micahy v. 8. thus comments. Oh 
 thou the Meffiah of Ifrael '-^n cny ^^ n-^ui 
 iri'i Nn-j'iD r^,]jo art hid lecanfe of the 
 fins of the congregation of Zion, to thee 
 
(2po) 
 
 jhall come the kiagdom : Hereby ra- 
 ther charging God, and their own pro- 
 phets, with falfehood, than own the ac- 
 complifhment of the prophecies in Jefus- 
 Chrift ; and fubmit to his authority and 
 government. 
 
 CHAP, 
 
(291) 
 
 C H A 
 
 IX. 
 
 Of the Corruption of 
 Scripture. 
 
 HE argument drawn from 
 the feveral paflages cited 
 in the foregoing chapter 
 when put together, and 
 giving light to each other, 
 1% this : That the facred books of the 
 "Jews^ tho' penned by different perfons, 
 and at diftances of time very remote 
 from each other, yet contain plain pre- 
 dictions of things that were not to 
 come to pafs till after ages ; that they 
 all unanimoufly agree in defcribing a, cer- 
 tain perfon, that was to come from 
 JudaFs tribe, and from David's fa- 
 mily ; who, tho' he was, for a while, to 
 be fubjed to great difgrace and grie- 
 U z vous 
 
(292) 
 
 vous fiifferings, yet was to reign in 
 righceouinefs, to overcome all his ene- 
 mies, to bring redemption to his peo- 
 ple, to be a hght to the Gentiles^ and 
 God's falvation to the end of the earth ; 
 that he was to come before, tho' but 
 a little before the defolation ofthejeT£;i/7; 
 government and polity ; and during the 
 Handing of the fecond temple; that 
 about this time the Jezz's were in great 
 expectation of fuch a Saviour ; and that 
 at this very feafon there did actually 
 arife a perfon, who, by the fanQity of 
 his life, the excellency of his doftrines, 
 and the greatnefs of his miracles, 
 did prove himfelf to be fent of God; 
 that he did declare himfelf alfo to be the 
 perfon intended in thefe prophetick de- 
 fcriptions; that thefe delcriptions, tho^ 
 in fome things feemingly "repugnant to 
 each other, yet were exaftly accomplifh- 
 ed in him, as far as they related to 
 his perfon, and -the particular time of 
 his app'^arance ; or as far as they then 
 could be, or were intended to be ac- 
 compliflied, and which therefore appear 
 plainly reconcileable to each other ; that 
 there is not one fingle curcumfta:nce that 
 
 renders 
 
(293) 
 
 renders the accomplifliment of more 
 diftant prophecies^ ia him, impoffible 
 or unlikely ; and that thefe prophetick 
 defcriptions, were interfperfed and mixed 
 \vith other plain predictions, that were 
 aftually verified and accomplilhed ia 
 their proper feafons. This I fay is the 
 argument ; And what is the thing to 
 be proved by it ? Not the divi^ie mijjion 
 of Jefus Chrifi^ which doth not ftand 
 on the foundation of prophecy ; but the 
 MeJJiabflyip of Jefusy or that he was 
 this particular perfon fpoken off^ in the 
 jewijb writings ; which muft be proved 
 by prophecy, and which cannot be fo 
 well proved by any other arguments 
 whatfoevxr. And I think the argument 
 in this light is fo ftrong and conclufive, 
 as that it cannot be evaded but by fup- 
 pofing, as our author frankly confelles 
 he doth, that the writings of the Old 
 Teftament have been corrupted ; and 
 that there have been fo many interpolati^ 
 ons, as that onecanfcarce know any thing 
 of the original books, by what we have 
 remaining now. Suppofmg it then for true, 
 that there are fome very great cor* 
 ruptions m the Old Teftament writings, 
 U 3 ^hit 
 
(294) 
 
 this will do our author's caufe nofer- 
 vice, unlefs he can prove that they 
 were made by chrifiians^ and that the 
 predictions relating to Chrifi^ were 
 made after the event; for the manifeft 
 agreement and correipondence of the 
 events recorded in the New Teftament 
 writings, to the things predifted in the 
 Old^ will give fuch a credit to chrifti-' 
 anity^ as the enemies of it will never 
 be able to weaken, unlefs they can 
 prove that the predidions were forged, 
 andinferted into the jezmjlj writings, after 
 the event. And this feems to be our 
 author's fuppofition, tho' he elfewhere 
 contradifts himfelf, _f. 112. (Jc. For 
 he tells us plainly,^. 45. That the great 
 clearnefs of -prophecies hath ever been 
 deetned a mark among intelligent feo- 
 ^hj whether believers or unbelievers in 
 frophecjf that they have been made 
 after the event. I doubt not but our 
 author is one of thefe very intelligent 
 perfons, and a thro' unbeliever in pro- 
 phecies; and firmly determined to ac- 
 count all the prophetick palTages of the 
 Old Teftament forged and interpolated, 
 that have a plain and manifeft reference 
 
 to, 
 
(295) 
 
 to, and accomplifliment in '^jefus Chrifl ; 
 tho' I confefs, T do not underftand (our 
 ;iuthour, in his great intelligejice^ may 
 inform us) how a perfon can be a be- 
 liever in prophecy, and yet believe every 
 plain prophecy made after the event* 
 However, he hath taken care to pre- 
 clude all poffibility of being convinced 
 himfelf of the truth of prophecies, and 
 is fo extraordinary intelligent^ as to re- 
 folve to perfevere, at all hazards, in 
 his infidelity. If there be any diffi- 
 culty or obfcurity in prophecies, and 
 their application to their particular 
 events doth not feem fo very natural 
 and eafy, then he is fo intelligent as 
 to think them only allegorical^ myfticaly 
 typcal froofsj i. e. that they prove juft 
 nothing at all : But if they are plain 
 and eafy to be underftood, and do 
 clearly prefignify the coming of any 
 future event, why then alfo it feems 
 that intelligent prfons think them/orge'^j 
 and made after the event. 
 
 Tantamne rem tarn negligent^r ? 
 Do intelligent ferfons ufe to judge thus 
 without fufficient reafon, or contrary to 
 the plain appearance of evidence ? Will 
 
 U 4 our 
 
(296) 
 
 our author himfelf affirm, that all the 
 paflages of the Old Tefiamentj that now 
 leem to have a reference to, and their ac- 
 complifhment in '^efus Chrifij are meer 
 interpolations ? Let him then give fome 
 probable reafons when, and by whom 
 thcfe interpolations were made ^ and 
 particularly that they were made after 
 the event. 'Tis allowed that plain pro- 
 phecies, with their exaQ: completions, 
 are not matters very credible, without 
 very good atteftation, ^ . 137; tho'this 
 is no very extraordinay difcovery of 
 our author's, fince perlons of common 
 i7itelligence know, that as the belief of 
 all pail fads depends on teftimony, fo 
 thole fafts will be more or lefs credi- 
 ble, according to the nature and weight 
 of fuch tellimony. But I cannot 
 agree with him when he tells us Ihid : 
 That it feems moft natural^ upon the 
 firft view of a fro^hecv plainly fuU 
 filledy to fufpofe the prophecy made for 
 the fahe of the evefitj or loth prophecy 
 and event invented. This it feems 
 KS his unprejudiced unbyafTed way of 
 thkkmg and aftrng, to pafs his judg- 
 meac before enquiry, and to condemn 
 
 all 
 
(297) 
 
 all prophecies as cheats, without ex- 
 amining whether or no they are real. 
 Other perfons, of lefs intelligence than 
 our author^ would poffibly think them- 
 felves obh'ged, before they made any 
 determination at all, to enquire, when the 
 things, faid to be prophecies, were de- 
 livered, and when their accomplilliment 
 is faid to have happened, and to con- 
 lider the agreement between the pre- 
 diiSlion and its completion. If they find 
 the fame proof and evidence that the 
 predidion was prior to the acccmplifli- 
 ment, that they do for the difference of 
 time between any other two ancient 
 facts, I think that they will be under 
 the fame obligation to believe one as 
 well as the other, or elfe teftimony muft 
 never be allowed to be a fufficient rea. 
 fon for belief, and fo paft fads obtain 
 no credit amongft men. 
 
 But however, our author will have 
 it, f. i?5. That the bcoh of the Old 
 Tellament are greatly corrupted, i. e. 
 greatly changed from what they were^ 
 when they proceeded from the Authors 
 of them. I own many literal errors 
 may have happened thro' fi-equency of 
 
 tranfcribing, 
 
(298) 
 
 tranfcribing, as happens alfo to all other 
 ancient books. But the queftion is not 
 as to this, but whether the Old Tefiament 
 hath been wilfully corrupted, by wicked 
 and defigning men; either by erafing 
 particular paflages out of it, or interpo- 
 lating others into it. As to the Tenia- 
 teuchy or book of the law, he tells us, 
 f. 138. that it muft^ in a f articular 
 ma?i7ter^ have heen Halle to great 
 alterations^ and to fuch as hinder us 
 from discerning now^ what truly helongs 
 to Mofes, from that which hath leen 
 added hy thofe who fucceeded him. And 
 for this ajQTertion he affigns two reafons ; 
 the one a reafon that feems to deftroy 
 itfelf ; and the other, if not a falfliood, 
 yet what he will never be able to prove. 
 The firft is, that the books of the law 
 were much neglefited by the Jews^ be- 
 caufe very much prone to idolatry. But 
 may we not argue, that if the law was 
 very much neglected by the idolatrous 
 Jews^ it muft have been, by parity of 
 reafon, as much valued by thofe of them, 
 who worfhipped the Lord God of Ifrael 
 only ; and that therefore they would be 
 particularly careful to preferve thofe fa- 
 
 cred 
 
(299) 
 
 cred books, which contained the whole 
 ritual of divine worfhip, free from all 
 remarkable alterations and corruptions? 
 Befides, the negieSing thefe books cau 
 never be the reafon of their being cor- 
 rupted, as to thofe that adually cor- 
 rupted them. They knew their con- 
 tents too well ; and therefore if any de- 
 figning idolatrous priefts took occafion^ 
 from the general negleft, to corrupt the 
 Tentateuchy it muft have been with a de- 
 fign to render it favourable to the caufe 
 of idolatry, to which the Jews were fo 
 ftrongly inclined. And if our author can, 
 in one inftance, prove, that the Tentateuchy 
 as it now ftands, hath any fuch tendency, 
 ril give him up the entire controverfy. 
 
 As to the other reafon he men- 
 tions, that the Jews were reduced^ 
 for a confiderahle tinie^ to one cofy., 
 which was alfo loft fo longy that the 
 contents of it were become Mnknown'y 
 this I take to be an affertion without any 
 foundation to fupport it. The place he 
 cites, 2 Kings xxii. proves nothing hke 
 it ; but only that as they were repairing 
 the temple, Hilkiahy the high prieft, 
 found that copy of the book of the law, 
 ^- ' which 
 
(goo) 
 
 ivliich had been repofited (fee 2Chm> 
 xxxiv. 1 4.) by Mofes's command (fee De7it. 
 xxxi. 26.) in the fide of the ark of the 
 covenant. It feems probable indeed 
 that Jofiahy beginning his reign very 
 young, when he was but eight years 
 old, had not, at this time, read over the 
 book of the law ; but hearing that the 
 original copy, which was depofited ia 
 the temple, was found, commanded it 
 to be read ; and when he underftood 
 how dreadful the threatnings of God were 
 towards the Jews^ if they turned afide 
 to idolatry, was exceedingly furprized, 
 and willing to avert the threatned judg* 
 ment from himfelf and people* But that 
 they had the law in ufe before this, is 
 evident from that reformation that was 
 made throughout the whole kingdom, 
 by the means of the king and high prieft, 
 before this accident ; which could not 
 have been brought to any perfection, 
 or fettled on any good foundation, with- 
 out the law of the Lord to direO: them: 
 Befides that 'tis exprefly faid of JoJiaFs 
 goodnefs, that it was according to that 
 which was imitten in the law of thf 
 Lordf 2 Chron. xxxv. 26. And indeed 
 
 the 
 
(3oi) 
 
 the whole hiftory of the Jews^ in the 
 Old Tefiament writings, is a proof that 
 the law was never loft, tho' under the 
 reign of idolatrous kings, it was, by 
 fome, very much neglefted. Thus Da-- 
 vid prays for Solomon^ 07ily the Lord give 
 thee imfdo7n — that thou mayft 
 
 keep the law of the Lord thy God. Then 
 Jhalt thou profpery if thou takeft heed to 
 fulfill the fiatutes and judgments which 
 the Lord charged Mofes with^ i Chron. 
 xxii. 12, 13. or as 'tis elfewhere ex- 
 prefled, and keep the charge of the Lord 
 
 thy God • as it is written in the lazv 
 
 of Mofes, I Kings ii. 5. la the reign 
 of Jfa^ 'tis exprefty faid, that the priefis 
 taught in Judah, and had the look of 
 the law of the Lord with them^ 2 Chron. 
 xvii. 9. In the reigns of Joajl) and Ama- 
 ziahj we alfo find that Mofes\ law was 
 in being, 2 Chron. xxiii; 18. xxiv. 6. 
 and XXV. 4. Under Hezekiah alfo, the 
 grandfather of Jo/iahj 'tis faid, that the 
 priefis flood in their place after their 
 maimer ^ according to the law of Mofes, 
 themanofGod^ 2Chron. xxx. 16. And 
 again, that he ciave to the Lord^ and 
 departed not from following himy lut 
 
 kept 
 
( 302 ) 
 
 hft hif comma^idmentsy which the Lord 
 commanded Mofes. And again, that he 
 a^fointed the \ings fortmi of his fub^ 
 fiance^ for the htrnt offerings^ viz. for 
 the morning and evening hcrnt offerings^ 
 and the lurnt offerings for the jahhatbs^ 
 and for the nevo moons^ and for the fet 
 feafis^ as it is written in the Jaw of the 
 Lord^ viz. Numb, xxviii. And the 
 reafon affigned for the captivity of the 
 Ifraelites by the king of Ajjyria^ in the 
 fourth year of Hezekiah king of Judah, 
 is, hecaufe they obeyed not the voice (f 
 the Lord their God^ but tranfgreffed his 
 covenant y and all that Mofes the fervarit 
 of the Lord commanded^ 2 Kings xviii. 
 6, 12. Ifaiah alfo, who prophecied in 
 the days of Uzziah^ Jotham^ Jhaz and 
 Hezekiah, fpeaksof the law, not only as 
 a thing in being, but to which the peo- 
 ple might have conftant recourfe. To 
 the L A w, and to the teftimony ; // they 
 fpeak not according to this word, 
 it is becaufe there is no light in them^ 
 Ilai. viii. 20. and other places that might 
 be mentioned. So that the loofing of 
 the law is a fidion of our author's, and 
 therefore cannot be urged as a reafon of 
 
 its 
 
( 3°3 ) 
 
 Its corruption. Befides, as it was the 
 bufinefs of the prophets to preferve 
 the worfhip of God amongft the Jewsj 
 2LS Mofes^s law direfted, there is a abun- 
 dant reafon to believe they kept this 
 book uncorrupt and entire. 
 
 And as to any alterations made ei- 
 ther in thefe, or any other books of the 
 Old Te/iamenty by Efdras^ to me there 
 feems but little reafon for fuch a fuppo- 
 fition. That he might collet the fevc- 
 ral difperfed writings of the prophets, 
 collate the feveral manufcripts of them 
 then extant, purge them from any er- 
 rors that might have crept into them, 
 thro' the negligence of tranfcribers, and 
 fo fix the text and true reading, for 
 the ufe of future ages, feems probable 
 enough; A work he was every way 
 fit for, whether we confider him as a 
 ready fcribe in the law of Mofes, Efr« 
 vii. 6. or as a prophet under the infpi- 
 ration and direflion of the fpirit of 
 God. But that he altered the facred 
 books, from what they were before, 
 feems a little incredible, becaufe 'twill 
 be hard to affign any probable reafon 
 that could induce him to do it. That 
 
 die 
 
C304) 
 
 the Tentateuchj or the books of the 
 law, were the fame as they were be- 
 fore, fcems probable enough from ma- 
 ny places. Thus JcJImay and others^ 
 built the altar of God, as it is zmit- 
 ten i7i the lavo of Mofes, the man of 
 God^ Ezra iii. 2. and fixed the bafes 
 of the altar, and offered the daily fa- 
 crifices, and kept the feafts of taber- 
 nacles and new moons, as it is z^ritten^ 
 and according to cuftom^ ver. 5, 4, 5, 
 And in Neheniiah^ cha^. viii. 4. 'tis 
 faid, that the ^eo^le ordered Ezra, the 
 fcrihe, to bring this look of the lazvj 
 which the Lord had commanded to If- 
 rael, zz^hich Ezra. Iroright, and fuhlickly 
 o^enedy and read out of it, in the fight 
 and hearing of all the peoj^le. There 
 was not the leaft fufpicion of a corrupted, 
 altered, mangled book in-- the people. 
 They called for that ancient law which 
 God delivered to Mofes, and had it read 
 to them : And undoubtedly there were 
 fome amongft that numerous affembly, 
 that would have known and difcovered 
 the matter, had Ezra made any coa- 
 fiderable alterations in it. And we alfa 
 read farther, that when the foundations 
 
 of 
 
( 3^5 ) 
 
 of the temple were laid, the p'ief^s were 
 Jet in their afparel with trum^^ets^ and 
 the Levites, the [ons of Afaph with 
 Cymbals^ to ^raij'e the Lord after the 
 ordinajtce of David hng of Ifrael. Now 
 this order we have no where recorded, 
 but in the book of Chronicles^ where 
 we have a particular account of this 
 matter, and 'tis therefore probable they 
 had this book to have recourfe to. 
 
 And as for the books of the prophets, 
 in which are the moft exprefs predifti- 
 ons of future times, there is much lefs 
 reafon ftill to fufpeO: them of being al- 
 tered by Ezra. For as thefe prophecies 
 were dehvered publickly, fo they were 
 committed to writing, by God's exprefs 
 command, by the prophets themfelves, 
 in order that they might be preferved ; 
 according to that direction of God to 
 Ifaiahy xxx. 8. Go ^^rite it lefore them 
 in a tahle^ and note it in a look^ that 
 it may he for the time to come^ for ever 
 and ever. See alfo chaf. viii. i. Thus 
 alfo did Jeremiah by God's order. See 
 chap. XXV. I J. and xxxvi. i, i^c. 27, 
 28. Ezekiel xliii. 11. Hahhahktik ii. 2. 
 And undoubtedly this was practiced by 
 X them 
 
(30(5) 
 
 them all, that their prophecies might be 
 of more general and lafting ufe amongft 
 the people. Now the prophets, at leaft 
 all but a very few, lived either but a 
 little before the captivity, or during 
 the time of it, or after it. If at ah, whole 
 prophecies of the Mejfiah are moft 
 frequent and exprefs, lived under the 
 reigns of Hezekiah and Manajjeh^ which 
 was about fifty years before tine cap- 
 tivity. Jeremiah fucceeded him in the 
 prophetick office, and prophecied from 
 the reign of Jofiab, which was but two 
 years after the death of Manajj'eh^ 
 throughout the days of Jehoiakiuy to 
 the end of ZjdekiaFs government, and 
 the carrying away Jerufakm captive ; 
 and even during many years of the cap- 
 tivity itfclf Ezekiel prophecied from 
 the middle of the captivity and onwards. 
 Daniel under Nehuchadnezar, Belfbaz- 
 zar his fon, Darius his fucceffor, until 
 the days of Cjri^y under whom com- 
 menced the reftoration of the Jews, 
 from their long captivity. After their 
 return prophecied Haggai, Zechariah 
 and Malachy^ encouraging them to re- 
 b.uild tlieir city and temple ; and with, 
 
 and 
 
( 3^7 ) 
 
 and after them, probably Ezra^ and 
 fome few others, to fettle them in their 
 lands^ to model their government, and 
 to eftablifli the worfhip of God amongft 
 them, according to the law of Mofesy 
 and the direflion of former prophets. 
 Now it is not probable, that in fuch a 
 fmall number of years, as intervened 
 between Ifaiah^ and the time of the 
 laft prophets, the writings of Ifaiah and 
 Jeremiahj and the reft, fhould be en- 
 tirely loft ; and the lefs fo, becaufe in 
 their writings there were the moft ex- 
 prefs promifes, to the faithful Jews, of 
 their reftoration from their wretched 
 captivity, and of glorious times to fuc- 
 ceed, when they fhould be brought 
 back to their own land and country. 
 Thefe prophecies muft have been the 
 great comfort and fupport of the pious 
 Jews^ during the continuance of their 
 captivity; and I doubt not but that 
 they read them themfelves, and re- 
 hearfed them to their children, to in- 
 fpire them with hopes of a glorious re- 
 turn to their long forfaken and defo- 
 late country. Or if the generality of 
 the Jews difregarded thefe prophecies, 
 .''^-'' X 2 in 
 
(3o8) 
 
 in which they were fo much concerned; 
 yet 'tis reafonable to think, that the fuc- 
 ceeding prophets took fpecial care to 
 preferve them from being loft, or, in 
 any confiderable inftances, altered or 
 corrupted. So that there is no ground 
 to think that Efra^ either could, or 
 would alter any of the writings of the 
 Old Tefiament. For as he had not any 
 opportunity to do it, fo neither can I 
 imagine there could be any probable 
 reafon to induce him to it. Poflibly he 
 reviewed them, mended the faults of 
 copies already taken, ordered more to 
 be tranfcribed, for the ufe and benefit 
 of the people ; divided them into fefti- 
 ons, and ordered the ftated regular 
 reading of them on the fabbath day ; 
 that the people being continually in. 
 ftruded in the law of God, might be 
 more effeftually reftrained from idola- 
 try and vice. 
 
 As for that other reafon our author 
 mentions, /\ 139. 'tis a thing that 
 carries fuch a face of prodigious im- 
 probability, that I cannot think he 
 would have urged it, had he not, at all 
 hazards, refolved to reproach chrifii- 
 
( 3^9 ) 
 
 ajiity^ even when he fufpefled the 
 ftrength of his own arguments to dif- 
 prove the truth of it. His argument 
 Jn ihort is this, that thj Jev/s were 
 departed from the wiity of one Gody 
 and went idolaters into Chaldea; That 
 the Chaldeans wwrpipped one Gody and 
 iuftruHed the jewilli youths of quality 
 in this docirine \ and that lecaufe the 
 Chaldean kings ordained fuch a lelief 
 and worflnp amongft thetn^ the Jews 
 changed their own notions for thofe of 
 their mafiersy and corrupted their own 
 writings to make thefn agree with thofe 
 of the Chaldeans, tis to worflnfy hiflory, 
 and antiquity. Thefe are aflertions 
 that he hath not one teftimony or rea- 
 fon to fupport, and v/hich contradict 
 the entire defign, both of the jewifi 
 religion and writings ; which every 
 where fuppofe, and inculcate the doftrine 
 of one God ; a doftrine as ancient as 
 the firft founder of the jewifi na- 
 tion, and from which the beft and 
 wifeft of the Jews never departed, even 
 during the time of the grofleft idolatry : 
 A do£trine inculcated by all the pro^ 
 phets, thro' the fuccelEve reigns of theii- 
 X J feveral 
 
feveral kings, and becanfe of their de- 
 parture from which they were carried 
 captive into Chaldea^ where they 
 learned, not the unity of God, but, 
 from their fufferings, the neceffity of 
 worlhipping Him, and Him only. The 
 review of the great calamities they 
 had brought upon themfelves and coun- 
 try, by their idolatrous apoftacy from 
 God, was that which gave that tho- 
 rough turn to their minds, and kept them 
 from relapfing into their ancient fuper- 
 ftitions ; not their dwelling in Chaldea, 
 where the unity of God was not fo 
 firmly believed, but that they worfliip- 
 ped idols, Ifaiah xlvi. i. xjvii, 13. 
 Jer. ]. 2. D^;/. iii. i, 2. and even their 
 very kings, Dan. vi. 7. who were fo far 
 from ordaining the belief and worfliip 
 of one God only, a* that they inflided 
 the feverefl: punilliment on thofe, who 
 would not comply w^ith their idolatrous 
 decrees. Inftances of which we have in 
 Daniely and the Three Childre7i. 
 
 I am glad to find however, that, our 
 author acknowledges, p. 140. That the 
 books of the Chaldeans give a relation 
 of matters, from the creation to the 
 
 time 
 
time of Jhrahamy very little different 
 from that contained in the Pentateuch^ 
 which is to me little lefs than a de- 
 monftration of the antiquity, authority, 
 and purity of thofe books, but no proof 
 at all that one of thofe accounts was 
 borrowed from the other. Criticks ge- 
 nerally allow, that when ancient copies 
 agree, 'tis a very good fign of the pu- 
 rity and genuinenefs of any book : And 
 'tis alfo of the genuinenefs and truth of 
 an hiftorical account, when the moft 
 ancient records of different nations give 
 exaftly the fame. 'Tis thus with re- 
 fpe£t to the Chaldeans and Jews^ both 
 originally of the fame country and fa- 
 mily. Abraham^ undoubtedly, delivered 
 down to his pofterity a genealogical 
 account of thofe, from whom he de- 
 fcended. But 'tis ridiculous to fuppofe, 
 that Abraham was the only man in all 
 Chaldeay who kept fuch an account ; 
 'tis rational rather to think, that he 
 took a copy from the original record, 
 which he left behind him ; and therefore 
 i[ this original account, or any faithful 
 extraO: from it, was preferved amongft 
 the Chaldeans^ 'tis impoilible but that 
 X 4 the 
 
(312) 
 
 the jewijfl) and chaldean hiftory to 
 Jlraham muft agree ; and their agree- 
 ment may be looked on as a very ftrong 
 argument of their being authentick and 
 genuine. So tliat there is no need of 
 fuppofing, as our author doth, p. 140. 
 either that the conquerors muft receive 
 their hiflory from the flaves, or the 
 flaves from the conquerors, becaufe the 
 hiftories of^ both the nations were ori- 
 ginally the fame, and therefore, as far 
 as they were both true, muft both ne- 
 cefTarily agree ; tho^ one can fcarce ima- 
 gine, fuppofing the chaldean or jewijh 
 hiftory to have been altered, that the 
 Jews fliould alter theirs in compliance 
 to thtChahieam^ who had burnt their 
 city, deftroyed their temple, made their 
 country defolate, and detained their na- 
 tion in a long captivity. Thefe calami- 
 ties made theni entertain refentments too 
 deep, ever to comply with their cruel 
 mailers in any thing, but what they 
 were abfolutely conllrained to; much 
 lefs would they confent to corrupt and 
 alter thofe writings, which they held 
 facred, and delivered to their nation by 
 God himfelf. And . thus cur author, 
 
 hath, 
 
( 313 ) 
 
 hath, contrary to his own defign, ren- 
 derd it probable, that the Pentateuch 
 was a genuine and uncorrupted book 
 at the time of the captivity. 
 
 And after the reading of the law 
 and prophets in the fyna^ogues^ which 
 began foon after the ^ews return out 
 of Chaldea into their own land, grew 
 into ufe and conftant cuftom, the al- 
 teration and corruption of facred wri- 
 tings became ftill more imprafticable. 
 For the "Jews^ who had the higheft 
 veneration for them, and were conftant 
 auditors, would foon have perceived it 
 had there been any material paflages 
 left out, or any other confiderabie ones 
 inferted, and would never have fub- 
 mitted to fuch known and wilful cor- 
 ruptions of them. Befides as the Syna- 
 gogues grew numerous, fo alfo did 
 the copies of the /t?w, and confe- 
 quently the difficulty of corrupting 
 them was the greater. And tho' our 
 author thinks that numerous chansres 
 were introduced into the Old Teftament 
 writings, by the Maforetesy I tliink 
 the contrary feems rather probable • 
 becaufe of the fuperftitious care they 
 
 took 
 
(3^4) 
 
 took about the facred books ; num-' 
 bering not only the verfes, but the 
 words, letters, confonanfs, and points, 
 and marking the various readings, and 
 every thing that was peculiar either in 
 the words or fenfe. Had thefe criticks 
 lived after Chrifi^ they would have had 
 fome temptation to have corrupted their 
 books, that they might not have ap- 
 peared too plain in favour of Chrifiia- 
 ntty ; but as they wrote long before 
 this^ and fo could have no induce- 
 ment to alter them, 'tis reafonabk 
 to think, that their fcrupulous care a^ 
 bout the facried books was the effe8; 
 of the deepeft veneration for them, and a 
 defire to preferve them free from the leaft 
 corruption. Since therefore it appears 
 probable, that there was no confidera- 
 ble alterations happened ta- the books 
 of the Old Teftanmit before Chrift^ and 
 our author himfelf will not allow Mr. 
 Whifion that they were corrupted after, 
 in order that he may fix on the A f of ties 
 the charge of citing and applying them 
 allegorically and impertinently, I think 
 I may reafonably conclude, That the 
 many prophecies contain d in them, re- 
 lating 
 
(3>S) 
 
 lating to the Meffiah^ having fo exaft 
 an agreement with the charadler of our 
 blefled Lord, and being htterally acconv 
 phlhed in him, do fuificiently prove all 
 that they are ever cited to prove, viz* 
 That he was the MeJJiah whom the Jewsy 
 expefted, and therefoiie abundantly julii- 
 fies us 'm acknowledging him. as fucb, 
 and in believing and obeying his 
 Gofpel. 
 
 Poflibly fome may think I have been 
 two long on this head, and that our 
 author ought to have afligned the rea- 
 fons for his fuppofition, that the fcrip- 
 tures are corrupted, and tell us when 
 and where, and by whom, and with 
 what view this was done, before he 
 deferves any reply. I confefs that ge- 
 neral charges and unfupported fuppofi- 
 tions ought to have no weight or re- 
 gard with any confiderate perfons. But 
 as he feems to think that he hath gi- 
 ven fome fhrewd hints upon this oc- 
 cafion, and fpeaks with the greateft af- 
 forance of the corruption of fcripture 
 as a thing certain and undeniable, I wa^i 
 willing to examine into this matter with 
 the greater carefulnefs j and I owa that 
 
the more I think of it, I am the more 
 fully convinced, that the books of the Old 
 Tefiament are, as to the main and ma- 
 terial parts, genuine and uncorrupted, 
 tho' in ieffer matters poflibly fome er- 
 rors may have happened to them. 
 
 C H aP. 
 
(31?) 
 
 Chap. X. 
 
 Concerning the particular pro- 
 phecies applied iry Christ 
 to himfelf. 
 
 H E reader will obferve 
 that the particular pro- 
 phecies I have infifted on, 
 in the foregoing chapter^ 
 as relating to the Mef- 
 fiah in the Old Tefiamentj 
 and applied to and verified in Chrift^ 
 and in him only, are fuch as refpeft 
 principally thofe great events of his 
 fufferings, death, refurreftion, and uni- 
 verfal kingdom over Jews and Geu^ 
 tiles. That thefe things ftiould fome time 
 or other come to pafs, is foretold in 
 the moft plain and exprefs manner 5 and 
 
 they 
 
• (3«8) 
 
 they are fpoken of as circumftances to 
 diftinguilL, from all other, fome one 
 particular perfon and feafon. And of 
 confequence when they all of thera 
 agree to, and are verified in any one 
 particular perfon, and fuch a one de- 
 clares himfelf to be the very perfo/i 
 intended by fuch prophecies, thofe pro- 
 phecies then become proper and certain 
 proofs that he was the perfon fpoken 
 of, and are therefore juftly urged and 
 applied as fuch. I therefore add, and 
 I think 
 
 'Tis an obfervation of fome weight 
 in this controverfy, that the prophecies 
 of the Old Tefiame?ity which Chrifi ap- 
 plies to himfelf, as proper and demon- 
 ftrative proofs of his being the Mejjiahy 
 are fuch only as relate to -thofe great 
 events of his fufferings, refurreSion, and 
 univcrfal kingdom* 'Tis evident indeed 
 tliat he doth upon other occafions make 
 ufe of fcripturc pafTages ; but we fliall 
 then find, that he cites them in a more 
 lax and general manner, laying but lit- 
 tle ftrefs upon them, and not urging 
 them as certain and convincing proofs 
 ofhis being the Mejfiahy but with fome 
 
 very 
 
very different intention and view. Thus 
 fometimes he quotes paffages out of 
 the Old Teftament for the proof of fome 
 difputed or denied truth ; as when he 
 argued with the Sadducces for the truth 
 of a future ftate, from thofe words of 
 God, Exod. iii. 6. / am the God of 
 Ahrahatyij and the God of Ifaack^ and 
 the God of Jacob. Sometimes he quotes 
 tliem as defcriptive of, and applicable to 
 the circumftances of his own time, and 
 the temper of the people amonft whom 
 he converfed ; as when he applies to 
 the Jews that paffage in the book of 
 Ejaias 29. ij. Te hypocrites well did 
 Efaias prophecy of jou, or how juftly 
 may I apply to you what Efaias pro- 
 phecied, or declared of the Jews in 
 his time, ' This feofle draws nigh to me 
 with their mouthy &C. And in that 
 other pl?ce Maty ij, 14. In them is 
 fulfilled the p'ophecj of Efaias, which 
 faith^ by hearing ye JImU hear and 
 not under jland &"c. which is no more 
 than to fay, that that prophetick de- 
 fcription of the Jews in Efaias time, 
 was true of the Jews in our Saviour's 
 time \ and they are eited as a prophe- 
 cy, 
 
( 320 ) 
 
 cy, not becaufe thofe words predi(S- 
 ed this particular event, but becaufe 
 they were originally delivered by a 
 prophet, and were part of a meffage 
 he had received by infpiration from 
 God. Sometimes he quotes fcripture, by 
 way of fimilitude and illuftration. Thus 
 he tells the "^ews that he would give 
 them no fign but that of Jonas the 
 prophet. For as Jonas zfoas three days 
 and three nights in the whaWs helly^ 
 Jo fiall the fon of man le three days 
 md three nights^ in the heart of the 
 earth. No man of ingenuity can ima- 
 gine that our Saviour urges the for- 
 mer event, as a proof of the latter ; but 
 that he only intends to teach us thus much, 
 that the deliverance of the fon of man 
 from the grave fhould be z% wonder- 
 ful, as the deliverance of Jonas from 
 the whale's belly ; and as true a de- 
 claration of his being the Mejfiahy as 
 the other event was of Jonas\ being 
 a prophet, and under the fpecial care 
 and protection of Heaven. And thus, 
 with the fame view, he elfewhere de- 
 clares. That as Mofes lifted u^ the fer- 
 pnt in the wildernefsy even fo mufi 
 
 the 
 
(321) 
 
 the [on of man he lifted upj John. in. 
 14. Sometime he makes ufe of the 
 words of fcripture to exprefs his own 
 fenfe and meaning; and we fliall find 
 that they were the moft proper, that 
 could be ufed on fuch occafions. Thus 
 he orders John's difciples to carry back 
 this meffage to their mafter, The blind 
 receive their fight^ the lame walk, the 
 lej)ers are deanfed, the deaf hear^ the 
 dead are raifed /.f , and the por have 
 the gofpel f reached to them ; or as the 
 words, ^>%o' ivctvfiKi^oy'iou, may be tendered 
 ^ood tidings are f reached to the meek. 
 ^Mat. xi. 5. plainly referring to thefe 
 two prophecies If a. xxxv. 6. and Ixi. 
 I. And what could be a more pro- 
 per anfwer than this, fince at the fame 
 time he gave them the moft fubftan- 
 tial proofs of his mifllon from God, 
 and put them in mind of the predifti- 
 ons of their own prophets, who fore- 
 told that thefe things flaould come to 
 pafs, in the days of the Mejfiah. Upon 
 thefe, and other fuch like occafions, 
 our bleffed Saviour oftentimes cites the 
 Old teftament writings, and every one 
 that reads thefe quotations with any 
 X care 
 
( 322 ) 
 
 care will find, that they are brought 
 in as things meerly incidental, and by 
 way rather of illuftration, than argu- 
 ment or proof; at leaft that they are 
 not urged as the only proofs of the 
 truth of his pretentions to be a piophet 
 from God, or the Jews Mefjiah. But 
 whenever he properly appeals to the 
 Old Teftament^ and applies any parti- 
 cular paffages from thence to himfelf, 
 to prove himfelf to be the Chriftj we 
 fliall find they are fuch as relate to 
 his fufferings, refurre£l:ion, pouring forth 
 the fpirit, and univerfal kingdom ; be- 
 caufe thefe things were in the. moll 
 , plain and exprefs terms predifted of 
 him, and becaufe their being under- 
 ftood by the Jezvs was necelTary to 
 ^.^^emove the prejudices they had con- 
 ceived againft him. And as to fuch 
 paffages we fhall find they are cited 
 in the ftrongeft terms. Thus a little 
 before our Saviour's laft journey to 
 Jerufalem^ he began to fhew his Dif- 
 ciples, oji cTw djjTov Tct'^Hyy that it was 7ie^ 
 cejjarj the fon of man Jhould fuffer^ a?id 
 he killed^ and be raifed again the third 
 dajy Mat. xvi. 21. w«. in order to 
 
 the 
 
(523) 
 
 the accomplifhment of the fcripture pro 
 pliecfes; as he himfelfexprefsly told his 
 difciples, after his refurreftion, and but 
 juil before his afcenfion into heaven, 
 L^ike xxiv. 44, 45, 46, 47, And he 
 faid unto them^ theje are the words 
 which I /pake unto you^ while I zvas 
 jet with yoif^ that all things mufi he 
 fulfilled^ which were w,itten in the 
 law of Mofes, and in the froPhets, 
 and in the ffalms concerning me. TheM 
 opened he their under/landings that 
 they might nnderflatid the fcripture* 
 i. e. gave them the true exph'cation of 
 many of the ancient prophecies, rela-» 
 ting to the MeJJiah ; and in the con- 
 clufion added, Thus it is written^ and 
 thus it hehoveth Chvid to fufer; "ej^et 
 T^^^tTy rh xet<^h. It was necclTary that 
 Chriji fiwuld fuffer, viz. becaufe it wa^ 
 thus written that Cbrifi fhould fufFer, 
 and rife again from the dead the third 
 day ; and that re'^entance and remiffu 
 on of fins f)ould he pleached in his name 
 amongft all nations^ leginning at Je^ 
 rufalem. Where it is to be obfervecj 
 that Chrifi appeals to fome things, npf 
 as allegorically fet forth, but as exprefsly 
 Y 2 written 
 
(324) 
 
 written in the Old Teflament ; that it 
 was neceflary thefe things fliould be 
 fulfilled ; and that thefe things were, 
 that the fon of man Ihould fuffer, and 
 rife again from the dead, and that the 
 gofpel fhould be preached to all nati- 
 ons. And when he urges, not only the 
 general fenfe, and import of the fcrip- 
 tures, but applies any particular paf- 
 fages, as foretelling what fliould hap- 
 pen to the Mejjiahi and which he now 
 declares necefTary to be fulfilled, they 
 are fuch as have a manifeft reference 
 to the fame things. See Mat. xxvi. 
 51. 54. Mark ix. 12. andxii. 10, John 
 vii. 38. ij. 18. XV. 25. xvii. 12. which 
 I think are all the places where our 
 Saviour applies any of the Old Tefia- 
 ment prophecies exprefsly to himfelf. 
 So that as thefe things were litterally 
 prediSled of the Mejftah, they were 
 litterally accomplifhed in Jefus Chrifi, 
 and were therefore juftly applied by 
 Chrifi to himfelf, and were folid proofs 
 of his being the Mejjiah. The meannefs 
 of his outward condition, his being re- 
 jeded by the rulers and teachers of 
 the Jeim^ and condemned and crucifi- 
 ed 
 
cd as an impofture and fcducer of the 
 people, were the great objeftions to 
 the belief of his being the Mefjiah ; of 
 whom it was prophefied, that he fhould 
 be a viftorious prince, and rule and 
 reign for ever ; which objeftions againft 
 him could be no otherwife removed, 
 but by fliewing from their own fcrip- 
 tures that thefe things were to happen 
 to the Mejftah. 
 
 And this alfo we fliall find was the 
 method the apoftles took, when they 
 preached in the jewijl? fynagogues, 
 and proved from fcripture that Jefus 
 was the Chrifi ; what ever other paf- 
 fagesthey might, either in their Epiftles 
 to mixed churches, or in difcourfe with 
 the Jewsj who acknowledged their 
 reference to the Mejftah, apply to jefta^ 
 yet thofe prophecies they laid the main 
 ftrength on, were thofe that related to 
 the death and refurreftion of the Mef 
 ftahy and the preaching of the gofpel 
 to the Gentiles. Nor Ihall we find 
 one fingle inftance to the contrary, in 
 any one of their publick difcourfes, 
 where they cite the Old Tefiament, at 
 all, throughout the whole ads of the 
 
 Y J A^oftks. 
 
(326) 
 
 s^ Thus Peter in his firil: ier-^. 
 n^on to the Jews fpeaks of the de-V; 
 jcent of the holy fpirit, and the refur- 
 redion of Chrifii asexpreisly predifted- 
 by the prophets ; and fpcaking of his. 
 fufFerings fays, Tbcfe things wtkh God 
 lefore had Jbezfoed^ ky the mouth of {ill 
 his prophets, that Chrift jl)ould fufjer^ 
 he hattJ fo fulfilled. Ads ii. i6. £5c. 
 iii. 1 8. Thus alfo P^/// went unto the 
 jewiJI) fynagogue at Jerufakm, and 
 reafoned with them out of the fcrip- 
 tlire, Opening and alledging that Chrift 
 mtift needs have f tiff ere d^ and rifen a- 
 gain jYcni the dead. Afts xvii. j. 
 And ill his defence before king Jgrip-- 
 pa, 2i jew by profeffion, he openly de- 
 clares, having oltained help of Gctd^^ 
 J continue tmto this day^witnejftng loth. ' 
 to fmall and great^ faying 'hone other 
 things luan thofe^imich the prophets and 
 Mofcs did fay fDonld come: T/j^/" Chrift 
 fllouU fnffer^ and that hefl)ould he the 
 fir ft that jl)ould rife from the dead^ and 
 (hotild fl)evo light unto the feo^le^ and 
 to the Gentilesj A?J xxvi. 22, 23. What 
 can be more evident to any imparti^ 
 al perfon, than that the apoftle appeals to . 
 
 plaiii 
 
(3^7) 
 
 plain literal prediaions that the Mejjiah^ 
 Ibould fuffer and dye, and rife agaiif 
 from the dead, and' bring falvation to 
 the Gentiles, and that thefe were the 
 great things he witneiTai thro' the help 
 of God to fmall and great. See alfo 
 AHs X. 43. xiii. 27, 47. XV. 15. 16. 
 and xxviii. 28. which are all the places 
 cited in the Acts as proofs of Jefus 
 being the MeJJiah, and which all re- 
 fer to thofe grand fubjefts I have in- 
 fifted on. How Jcherefore our author 
 will make out that pofitive affertion, 
 which he lays down, f. 79, So. I un- 
 derftand not, viz. Toat the authors of 
 the hooks of the New Teftament always 
 argue ahfolutely from the [allegorical] 
 quotations they make out of the looks 
 of the Old Teftament, a?id that Mofes 
 and the fro[^hets are every wher^ re^ 
 prefented to be a jufi foundation for 
 chriftianity. That he means the alle- 
 gorical fenfe of the quotations is evi- 
 dent from what he farther adds, that 
 the preachers of the goffel gave the 
 fecret fpritual fenfe of the fcri^tures. 
 Whereas nothing is more evident, thaa 
 that the apoftl^s never argue abfolutely, 
 Y 4 either 
 
028) 
 
 either from the allegorical or literal fenfc 
 bf prophecies, i. e. never put the truth 
 of chrifiimiHy upon this as its fole foun- 
 dation ; but refer men to thofe unde- 
 niable fafts that evince the truth of 
 chrijttanity^ viz. the miracles, and doc- 
 trines, and refurreftion of Chrifi^ and 
 the eifufion of his fpirit; and then in 
 order to remove the prejudices of the 
 ^ews againft Jefu^ Chrifi^ upon account 
 ^f his fufferings, fliev/ how exact an ac- 
 complifhment thefe things were of thofe 
 ancient prophecies concerning the Mejfi- 
 ah J which, according to the letter, and 
 moft obvious knk^ did prefignify thefe 
 great events. And thus far the argu- 
 ment is certainly conclufive. If Jefus 
 Chrifiy by his doctrines and miracles, 
 did prove himfelf a real prophet, or per- 
 fon fent from God, and if he applied 
 thofe predictions of the jewifi writings, 
 relating to the Meljiahy to himfelf, and 
 if there was an exadl correfpondence 
 between thofe prophecies, and the cir- 
 curtiftances of his life and death, and 
 entire charafter, it will follow that he 
 was, not only a real prophet, but that 
 particular . propJiet defcribed by thofe 
 
 prophecies ; 
 
( 329 ) 
 
 prophecies ; and as the proper and con- 
 clufive proofs of his milTion fi'om God 
 will be the excellency of his doftrines, 
 and the extraordinary nature of his 
 works, fo the only arguments that 
 could folidly prove him to be that par- 
 ticular prophet of the Jewsy muft be 
 fetched from the agreement of thofe 
 prophetick defcriptions to him, and their 
 accomplilliment in him. Thus far the 
 New Tefl anient writers argue abfb- 
 lutely from the law and prophets, /. e- 
 they do argue from the defcriptions of 
 the Mejftahy in the Old Tefiament^ and 
 their accomplifliment in Jefm, that he 
 was the MeJJlahy becaufe as this was 
 the only proof that could be urged 
 in the cafe, fo it was a fubftantial 
 and conclufive one; becaufe the argu- 
 ment is founded on literal exfrefs pre- 
 di^ionsy and as exprefs and literal an 
 accomplifhment ; and not upon any fe- 
 cret fpYitual meaning and fenfe of 
 propheciesj as our author fo often and fo 
 falfly infinuates. And therefore his inter, 
 preting that palfage of St. P^/J, i Cor. 
 i. and ii. cha^- in fupport of his own 
 fcheme, p. 92, 9J. argues him very ig^ 
 
 norant 
 
(39o) 
 
 jiorant of Su Taul\ meaning, (which 
 I Iiope is the cafe) ©r wilfuUy to have 
 raifreprefented him. 'Tis allowed that 
 he doth argue agaii>ft the Gr^-^i^j and 
 philofophers. But what is tlie fubjed 
 of his argument? What, that weak 
 and inconclufive proofs ought to be 
 made ufe of to fupport Lhriftianity ? 
 Or that the prophecies, cited by "Jefm 
 and his apoftles, have no other refe- 
 rence to him, or the MeJJiahy but in an 
 izTlegoncaly fmjacal fi^nfef There is 
 not one fingle word, to tliis purpofe, in 
 either of the two chapters. St. Paul\ 
 meaning is evidently this, that he did 
 l>ot. infill: upon philofophical fpecuiations, 
 or ftudy, as the cuftom then was, to re- 
 commend himfelf and doftrines by elo- 
 quence or oratory ; but preached in 
 a very plain manner, that plain doc- 
 trine of falvation by a crucified Savi- 
 our, that ^0 the fuccefs of chriftianity 
 might appear to be from God, and 
 jpot owing to the art and fubtlety of 
 men. And tho' this doftrine was a 
 fimnlling hlock to the Jews, aud fool- 
 ijbnefs to the Greeks, who were either 
 fiaves to vice, or under the influence 
 
 of 
 
(330 
 
 of ftrong prejudice and pride, yet to thofe 
 that were f fr/^rr, TiKdot^ is the thorough- 
 ly initiated, perfons who tlioroughly 
 underftood the excellent nature and ten- 
 dency of chrifiiamty^ to fuch it was 
 wifdofu ; to them it appeared a dif- 
 penfation worthy of an all-wife God. 
 It was indeed zioifdom in myftery^ i. e, 
 this wife and glorious method of bring- 
 ing men to happinefs, tho' intended of 
 God trom before the foundation of the 
 world, was yet long kept a fecret from 
 them, and not underftood by thofe that 
 crucified the Lord of glory : For had 
 they known it, they would not have 
 crucified him ; whereas God was plea- 
 fed^ in his abundant goodnefs, to reveal 
 it to the apoftles by his fpirit, without 
 which it could never have been under- 
 ftood. For the 7iatural man receiveth 
 not the things of the fpirit of God. i. e. 
 A man, by the meer ufe of his natu- 
 ral reafon, without a divine and fuper- 
 natural revelation, would never have 
 thought of this method of falvatioa; 
 yea, on the contrary, it would have ap* 
 peared a very unlikely and improper 
 method to fave men, had not God, by 
 
 his 
 
( 932 ) 
 
 his fpirit, been pleafed to ajQTure us, 
 that this was the way he had fixed on. 
 This was a matter to be only fpiri- 
 tually difcernedy i. e. that could never 
 have been known without revelation, 
 and the fpecial illumination of the fpirit, 
 who fearches the deep things of Gody 
 7. e. underftands his fecret counfels, and 
 is able to reveal them to us. But he 
 that is ffiritual judgeth all things ; i. e. 
 He that hath a revelation from the fpi- 
 rit, is a proper jndge in thefe matters, 
 tho'* he himfelf is judged of no man^ viz. 
 that is not under the influence of the 
 fame fpirit of God. This is the plain 
 meaning of St. Vaul in this paffage, 
 who never thought of oppofing the man, 
 who judges by the common rules of wif- 
 dom or fhilofophy^ to him who finds 
 out fecretf myftical meanings of things^ 
 hy f fecial rules im farted to him of God\ 
 but fpeaks of do&rines difcovered by 
 revelation, which could never have 
 been known without it. So that the 
 allegorical way of reafoning was fo far 
 from being fet up by Fauly and the 
 reft of the apoftles, as the true and 
 qnlj reafoning frofer to bring all men 
 
 to 
 
(333) 
 
 to the faith of Chrift, p 94. that 
 they never laid any ftrefs on allegories, 
 nor argue the truth of any one fingle 
 doftrine, or faft from them ; nor en- 
 deavour to ieat the Gentiles ont of the 
 literal way of arguing^ i. e. of belie- 
 ving chrifiianitj upon folid foundati- 
 ons ; but recommended the miracles, 
 dodrines, and refurreftion of Jefm^ as 
 the proper evidence of his divine mif- 
 fion ; with this difference only to the 
 Jezii;sy that they fhewed from the plain- 
 eft prediftions of their own prophets, 
 that thefe things, which were great ob- 
 jections to them, againft their believing 
 in him, ought to have been fo. And 
 tho^ the apoftle doth tell us, that not 
 many wife men were called^ yet that 
 he doth not mean perfons who rea- 
 foned juftly and pertinently, he himfelf 
 tells us, when he calls them wife men 
 after the flejl^j i. e. perfons under the 
 power of vicious habits, or under the 
 prepoffeflion of ftrong and incurable 
 prejudices ; who oppoled the doftrines 
 of chriftianityy either becaufe not fa- 
 vourable to their crimes, or contrary to 
 thofe miftaken principles they had im- 
 bibed ; 
 
(384-) 
 
 bibed ; not becaufe they ufed maxims 
 ofreafoning^f. 94. and difputing whoUf 
 o^pojite to, i. e. m our author's fenfe, 
 more juft, and proper, and pertinent 
 than the chrifiians, who needed not ar- 
 guments, from allegories, to fupport 
 chrifiianitjy when they might have ar- 
 gued the truth of it from faflis, which 
 all its adverfaries hitherto have never 
 been able to difprove. 
 
 However, tho' nothing is more evi* 
 dent, from what hath been already faid, 
 than that the apoftles laid their principal 
 ftrefs on this, That the fufferings and 
 refurreSion of Cbrisl., and the preaching 
 the gofpel to the Gentiles^ were con- 
 formable to the ancient prophecies rela- 
 ting to the Mejjiahy and therefore that 
 our Lord's fufferings were no real objec- 
 tion againft the truth of his pretenfions, 
 nor his refurreclion a thing incredible, 
 nor the preaching the gofpel to the Geu- 
 tiles a thing criminal, but even necef* 
 fary to fulfill the fayings of the pro- 
 phets ; yet 'tis certain that they cited 
 other paffages of fcripture, befides fuch 
 as relate to thofe great events, and ap- 
 plied them to Jefus ChriB : And the 
 
 queftion 
 
queftion here is, Whether fome of thefe 
 
 ^ipaffages have a real original reference-to 
 
 cjthe MeJJiah) and if not, how 'tis con- 
 
 ^jf^ftent with the apoftles charaders, as 
 
 .-infpired perfons, to make fuch a falfc 
 
 t application of them to him? I anfwer, 
 
 .-fhatof the feveral quotations mentioned 
 
 Hi>y our author, fome of them have a 
 
 certain reference to the Meffiah, and 
 
 were literally accomplifhed m ChriH; 
 
 and no other but him. This I have 
 
 ; already fliewn of Ifaiah vii. 14. ap- 
 
 fplied by Matthnv i. 2j. the fame is 
 
 r^true of Mkah v. 2. applied not by 
 
 ; Matthew^ as Our author, thro' miftake, 
 
 aflerts, but by the chief priefts and 
 
 fcribes of the people, to the Meffiab, 
 
 Mat. ii. 4. of Ifaiah xl. j. applied 
 
 Mat. iii. 3. with orhers that might be 
 
 •mentioned. The application of fuch 
 
 ^ texts as thefe, which have a manifeft re- 
 
 ^:.fcrence to the MeJJiahj to Jefus Chri§I, 
 
 Jtis with the greateft reafon and juftice, 
 
 •f and therefore can be no exception againft 
 
 frthe charaQer of the apoftles, as perfbns 
 
 ' infpired of the Hol^- Ghoft 
 
 And as for other places, whofe refe- 
 rence to the ilf^y/z^Z? is not fo plain, I 
 
 think 
 
think 'tis fufficient to obviate every ob- 
 je£tion that can be brought againft the 
 apoftles for applying them to Jefm to 
 confider, that it doth not appear that 
 they always cite fuch places, as real 
 prediftions of events to. happen in the 
 MefiaFs time, nor apply them to Jefus^ 
 as the proofs of his being the MeJJiah ; 
 but make ufe of the Old Teftatnent 
 fcriptures, in their writings and con- 
 troverfies, with fuch views and fuch 
 purpofes, as was moft fuitable to the 
 circumftances of the perfons to whom 
 they wrote. The firft perfons who 
 had the gofpel preached to them were 
 Jewsy and the feveral churches the 
 Apoftles at firft gathered were either 
 moftly of that nation, or elfe a 
 mixture of Jews and Gentiles. The 
 Apoftles alfo of our bleffed Saviour 
 were all of them Jews^ who boafted 
 of their facred writings, as the great 
 privilege and glory of their nation, and 
 who had beeen bred up with the higheft 
 efteem and veneration for them. And 
 therefore 'tis no wonder that Jews 
 writing to Jews fhould make frequent 
 ufe of thofe fcriptures, allowed, on each 
 
 fide^ 
 
(337) 
 
 fide, to be of divine original, and intro- 
 duce them on every occafion, to adorn, 
 illuftrate, and confirm their arguments : 
 And tho' we, at this diibnce of time, 
 may not be able to fix any rules, by 
 which to diftinguifli when they quoted 
 them for one or the other purpofe, yet 
 undoubtedly thofe to whom they wrote, 
 who knew the method of writing at 
 that time, underllood the reafon and 
 propriety of ihe quotations tiiey made; 
 and there is no reafon to think, that the 
 apoftlcs would ever have gone to have 
 expofed themfelves, and the caufe they 
 efpoufed, by an unnatural and unufual 
 application, or explication of any paf- 
 fages out of the Old Teflament. The 
 prejudices of the "^ei^s againft our Sa- 
 viour, and his religion, were already 
 ftrong enough, and needed not to be 
 highthened by a method of quoting 
 fcripture, that would have been gcne« 
 rally thought a perverting and abu- 
 fing it. 
 
 HAP, 
 
(338) 
 
 Chap XL . 
 
 The particular places ex-^ 
 cepted againji by the Au- 
 thor of the Grounds, &e, 
 accounted far. y 
 
 UT poffibly it 'rtfi}r"n6t 
 be fo very difficult a mat- 
 ter to account for all, at 
 leaft moft of thofe citati- 
 ons that are 'excepted a- 
 gainft, and to give fome probable rea- 
 fons why the writers of the New Tefia- 
 me7it made fuch ufe of them. And 
 here 'tis evident that they quote fome 
 pafTages of the Old Teft anient^ by way 
 of illuftration and fimile, and to repre- 
 fent their own fenfe and meaning by 
 inftances, familiar to, and well under- 
 
 ftood 
 
(539) 
 
 flood by thofe to whom they wrote. 
 Thus St. Ta7fl to tlie GalatiaftSy iv- 
 2Ji. Cifc. which our author alfo menti- 
 ons with an air of contempt and fcorn, 
 p. II. (tho' he falfly reprelents it, as de- 
 figned to be a proof to the "Jews of 
 cbriftianity fi'om the Old Tejlatnent^ 
 illuftrates the ditferent ftates of men un- 
 der the mofakk and chrijnan difpenfa- 
 tions, by the different ftates of the 
 children born to Abraham by the bond- 
 woman, and Sarah his wife. Tell me 
 ye that dejire to he under the law. i. e. 
 You that prefs the obfervance of jei^ifl) 
 rites and ceremonies on ckrifliansj as 
 neceffary to falvation, Do ye not hear 
 the law ^ Shall I put you in mind of 
 a paJlage in the law, that fitly repre- 
 fents your cafe ? Abraham had tzz;o 
 fons^ the one hy a lond-tnaid^ the other 
 by a free-woman. 'But he who was 
 of the hond-woman was lorn after th 
 flejhy hut he of the free-woman zvas 
 by 'promife. And that it might appear 
 what ufe he intended to make of this 
 paffage, he adds, Which things are an 
 alienor V. "\Ttv<t ic/V ctAAM^^e^V-f'*- Which 
 things may be allegorized, or made ufe 
 Z 2 of. 
 
( 940 ) 
 
 of, as a figurative reprefentation of the 
 different ftates of jews and chriftians. 
 For thefe are the two covenaats. avtoz 
 
 yoL^ t^<riv cu /Jo J'tcL^mau. Thefe tWO WO- 
 
 mcn denote, in the allegory, the two 
 covenants: Or I may fitly compare the 
 two different difpenfations, under Mojes 
 and ChriBj to the different ftates and 
 circumftances of thefe two women. 
 uict [jLiv d'TTo ofw? -ztvtiL. The one covenant, 
 which was delivered from the mount 
 Sin^i, gendereth to bondage. "Ht;? i^h^'Ayct^. 
 Which is Agar, or which covenant is 
 jigar the bond-woman in the allegory, 
 who being a bond-woman herfelf, could, 
 quia fartm fequitur ventrem^ bring 
 forth none but children fubje£t to bon- 
 dage. And this covenant from Sinai is 
 more properly denoted by her. rhyc^^ 
 
 "'Ayct^ 2/^cfc o^of ir/V \f tm 'Afrt|3i«. Becaufe 
 
 Agar is the name of a mountain alfo, 
 even part of the tra£t of hills ia Ara- 
 l?iaj called by the general name of Sinai^ 
 from whence this very covenant was 
 delivered. "Zv^oix^ ^» '^n vvv 'hfH(ra.\ii^, j4nd 
 unfwerethy (viz. J'tct-yfiKii the covenant, 
 not the woman, nor Agar the moun- 
 tain) to th^ frefent Jerufalem. akac^'h cT^ 
 
(34-0 
 
 fiiTA Tuv rUvofv cti/TH^. Wllicll City is /« 
 
 londag^ asith its childre?i or inhabi- 
 
 jtantS. 'H J'^ a.if6)y 'l6f«craA«/y- iK<iyi^ct Wtv. But 
 
 the other covenant ^ from above is the 
 free JeYufalem\ not as in our tranfla- 
 lation, the Jerufakm^ which is above, 
 is free: For the apollle plainly oppofes 
 the covenant from ^i?iaij to that from 
 iabove ; and as the covenant from Sinar 
 doth trvroix^v t» vvv 'Iff «(rcfcA«^- anfwcr to the 
 prefent Jerufalem ; fo the other, which is 
 tliQ j'tct^iiKi)^ a.vco muft anfwer to, or be the 
 fvQtJerufakm'y and as the « v^v 'i^^<TctKhi/. 
 the prefent Jerufalem is in bondage with 
 her children, fo the fi'ee Jerufalem is 
 the mother of all chriftiansj as the 
 apoftle tells us^ v. 26. who are the chiU 
 dren of the promifey as SaraFs child 
 was, and not of the flefi, as Jgar^s 
 was; and of confequence in a ftate, 
 not of fervitude, but perfeft freedom ; 
 as the apoftle himfelf tells us, ^'. 31. 
 So the^y brethren, fellow chriftiansy we 
 are not children of the hond-womany but 
 of the free. 
 
 Z J 'Tis 
 
 * The apoftle elfewhere ufes etvu In this fenfe with- 
 out the prepofition. See Phil. iii. 14, where the to 
 B^aC&Iov -f ^vco KKncTiWi is the prize of our call from 
 above, or of our heavenly calling. SeeO/o/^iii, i, 2. 
 
( 342 ) 
 
 'Tis plain from hence, to every one 
 that confiders this paffage, that there 
 are two things the apoftle had in view 
 in it. The one to reprefent the diffe- 
 rent nature of the two covenants, that 
 God made, firft with the Jews by Mo- 
 fesj and afterwards with chrifiians by 
 JefiM Chri/L The one, which was de- 
 livered from mount 5/;/^/, denoted by 
 Jgar the bond-woman, was a covenant 
 that gendered to hondage-, i. e. brought 
 the Jews under an heavy yoak of bur- 
 thenfome rites and ceremonies ; under 
 which yoak and burthen Jerufakm^ 
 with its inhabitants, the apoftle tells 
 them, continued to that day. The na- 
 ture of the other covenant is as juftly 
 reprefented by the condition of Sarah^ 
 who was htvkli 2i free-woman^ and who 
 therefore may be looked upon as the 
 mother of all true chriftia?is ; who by 
 the gofpel are brought into a ftate of 
 the moft perfeft liberty and freedom. 
 The other thing that the apoftle intend- 
 ed to reprefent by this allegory, was 
 the diHerent condition of Jezius and 
 chrifiians y according as they were un- 
 der thefe diflerent difpenlations j which 
 
 he 
 
( 343 ) 
 
 he doth under the different circum- 
 ftances of the two children, born of 
 Sarah and Apar. Ifaac was born, not 
 properly after the flejh (^Abraham and 
 Sarah being both paft age) but after 
 the promife-, m virtue of a fpecial pro- 
 mife made of God to his parents, and 
 became Abraham\ heir, by God's ap- 
 pointment, preferable to Iftnael his el- 
 der brother. And thus alfo chriftiafis^ 
 tho' not the children oi Abraham j ac- 
 cording to the flejh ^ yet as Jfaac was, 
 are children of the proniife. For it is 
 written^ rejoice thou barren that bareH 
 not J break forth and cry out thou that 
 travelled not\ for the defolate hath 
 mam more children than fl^e which hath 
 an husband ; and being thus Abra- 
 ham\ feed, i^re become his heirs ac- 
 cording to the proiTiife. The other fon 
 Ifmaelj was lorn after the flelh, i. e. 
 when both Abraham and Agar were 
 capable of having children; but not- 
 withllanding this, was caft out with his 
 mother the bond- woman, and not fuf- 
 fered to be heir with Sarah's fon, be- 
 caufe he ^erfecuted him that was lorn 
 after the fpirity i. e. Ifaac, either born 
 Z 4 ^^ 
 
(344) 
 
 to inherit his father's fpiritual protnifeSy 
 or as I rather think, whofe birth was 
 owing to the immediate influence of 
 the fpirit. And thus the Jews, tho' 
 Abraham's children according to the 
 flejhj yet, for perfecuting the Lord Jefm 
 ChriBj the true promifed feed of Abra- 
 ham, and born after the fpirit, were to 
 be rejected from being God's peculiar 
 people and inheritance, even as Jfmael 
 was from being heir to the houfe of 
 Abraham his Father. This is the plain 
 ^^^{q and view of this whole paflage* 
 And what is there fo very ridiculous in 
 this way of talking ? What unbecoming 
 the character of a wife man, or an in-* 
 fpired apoftle? Every writer hath the 
 h'berty of illuftrating his own fenfe 
 ty.what reprefentation and fimiles he 
 pleafes. And in the cafe before us no- 
 tliing could be more proper than that 
 which the apoftle ufes, confidering he 
 IS fpeaking, either to bigotted Jews^ 
 or to thofe, who were fo far leavened 
 with jevci^i principles, as to be for 
 bringing chriftians under bondage to 
 jewiJI) rites and ceremonies. How could 
 the apoftles better reprefent two cove- 
 ,..j nants^ 
 
(34S) 
 
 nant, each having their refpeftlve fub- 
 jeds under it, than by the fimile of a 
 mother and her children ? How could 
 he better illuftrate this to Jews, than 
 by putting them in mind of Sarah and 
 Jgar, the two wives of Abraham their 
 father? How could he better prove 
 that perfons, not Jbrahamh children 
 according to the flefh, yet might be- 
 come his children, and inherit by vir- 
 tue of a promife; znd th^t Abraham's 
 children, according to the flefh, might 
 be rejefted from the inheritance and 
 bleffing, than by proving it was fo 
 originally, with refpecl to Abraham^ 
 own children, by Sarah and Hagar 
 his wives. So that as this allegory 
 partly illuftrates, and partly proves, 
 all that it was defigned to illuftrate or 
 prove, it is, with a great deal of ele- 
 gance made ufe of in this place by 
 the apoftle ; who never defigned it as 
 an argument to prove chri/Hanitj, but 
 only as an illuflration of the different 
 natures of chrifiianity and pidaifm ; 
 and to fliew them from their own 
 fcriptures, that not all that are born 
 of Abraham according tQ the flefli, 
 
 but 
 
but thofe only that are born according 
 to the fpirit, are Ahraham\ proper chil- 
 dren, and heirs of the promifes. 
 
 I hope our author did not wilfully 
 mifreprefent this plain paffage : And I 
 choofe, even againil appearance, toper- 
 fwade my felf to think, (I willi, for 
 his fake, I may guefs riglu) that 'twas 
 the effed of hafty prejudice ; and beg 
 him for the future to be fure of the 
 abfurdity in St. Tauh writings, before 
 he gives himfelf the hberty of ridicu- 
 ling them. 
 
 Sometimes the writers of the Neiv 
 Teftament quote the fcriptures of the 
 Old^ to fhew a correfpondence of events 
 between the Old Teftament and the 
 New\ or reprefent fuch particular events 
 as properly defcribed by fuch particular 
 expreflions, becaufe they nearly refeni- 
 ble the events thefe expreflions were 
 originally defcriptive of Thus out of 
 iEgypt have I called my fon^ is not ap- 
 pealed to as a proof, that ChriB was tq' 
 go into Mgyp^ and then to return out 
 of it; but only as an obfervation of the 
 agreement of circumftances between^ 
 the infant ftate of the hehrew common-r 
 
 wealthy 
 
( 347 ) 
 
 wealth, and that of the child Jefusthc 
 fon of God, the king of I/rael; both 
 being carried into JEz)ft by a fpecial 
 providence, for their prefervatjon, and 
 by as fpecial a providence called out 
 of it ; and becaufe the bringing of God's 
 only fon out of Mgyft^ was an event 
 as truely worthy of notice, as the bring- 
 ing the children of Ifrael from thence 
 into the land ofpromife: And his co- 
 ming from thence was a fulfilling of 
 that which was fpoken by the Lord, 
 or it was agreeable to the true fenfe 
 of thofe words, and in a peculiar man- 
 ner made them good. And this is a thing 
 familiar with the New Teftament writ- 
 ers, to reprefent events happening in their 
 own time, by palTages of fcripture de- 
 noting former events like them. Thus 
 the lame evangelift in another place, 
 Mat. ii. 1 8. tells us was fulfilled, that 
 which was fpoken by Jeremy the pro- 
 phet, xxxi. 15. Or his words, upon 
 an occafion of great diftrefs, might be 
 more efpecially applied to the greater 
 diftrefs of the weeping bereaved Mo- 
 thers, upon the flaughter of their chil- 
 dren by cruel Herod. In Ramah vcas 
 
 there 
 
(348) 
 
 there a voice heard^ lamentation^ and 
 weefingj and great mourning] Rachel, 
 weeding for her children, a7id ivould not 
 le comforted hecaufe they were not. And 
 here 'tis Vo^^hy of our obfervation, that 
 this very i^^S^geoi Jeremiah is plainly an 
 ^Uufion to Rachersgrki hQcmk fhe had 
 nocliildren. Give me children or Idie^ faid 
 Rachel to her husband. Gen.xxx. i. K^- 
 chei^s'gvkf was exceeding bitter becaufe 
 fhe had nocliildren ; and the mother's grief, 
 prophetickly defcribed by Jeremiah^ 
 was to be as bitter, becaufe bereaft 
 of the children they had. And therefore 
 if it was proper in Jeremiah^ to point 
 out the grief he prophecied of by Ra- 
 chelj it was as proper in Matthew to 
 apply the fame inftance to defcribe an oc- 
 cafion of greater diftrefs in his own time. 
 In the fame fenfe, were fulfilled thofe 
 words of Jfaiah vi. 9. which St. Paul 
 applies to the Jews^ who believed not, 
 Atis xxviii. 26, 27. Go unto this feo- 
 -pie, and fajj hearing je fiall hear^ and 
 f}aU 7iot underftand^ and feeing ye Jl) all 
 fee^ and not ferceive^ Sec. And in ano- 
 ther place, and at a different time, tho' 
 for the fame reafon. Rom. xi. 8. and with 
 
 another 
 
(34-9) 
 
 another form of quotation. Jccordin^ 
 as is written^ God hath given them e\es 
 that they jJwuld not fee. And 'tis far- 
 ther to be obferved that thcfc very- 
 words are the fame, which our Savi- 
 our apphes to the Jeik)s^ upon another 
 occafion. Mat. xiii. 14. and from their 
 being thus quoted by Chrift and St. 
 "Paul at different times, tho' apphed to 
 perfons in hke circumltances, we may 
 reafonably infer to our prefent purpofe, 
 that 'twas very ufual to apply the paf- 
 fages of the Old Teftamenty to defcribe 
 any particular events, which were cor- 
 refpondent to thofe, that were origi- 
 nally denoted by fuch paffages. This 
 paffage oilfaiah was certainly a defcrip- 
 tion of the bad temper of the Jews 
 in his time ; but yet becaufe the Jewsy 
 to whom our Saviour preached, and 
 thofe afterwards to whom St. Paul 
 preached, were of the like perverfe and 
 wicked difpofition, this paifage was juil- 
 ly applied to them both ; and none, but 
 perfons of our authors great intell^ence^ 
 would have been in danger of looking 
 upon fuch quotations as defigned to be 
 allegorical and myftical proofs. I add 
 
 that 
 
(3^o) 
 
 that St. Paul's method of quoting this 
 pajflfage leads us to the true meaning 
 of the difterent form our Saviour makes 
 ufe of. Chrifi introduces it with, I?i 
 them is fulfilled the frophecy of Efaias^ 
 /. e. what the words of that prophe- 
 cy defcribed there, they do as truly de- 
 fcribe now. They may be as juftly ap- 
 plied to the Jews of this time, as 
 they were to the Jews then. For to 
 this purpofe they are evidently quoted 
 by St. Paul^ who thus introduces them, 
 Well fpake the Holy Ghofi hy Efaiah 
 the prophet unto our Fathers. In which 
 words he owns the prophecy was ori 
 ginally meant of their fathers, tho' at 
 the fame time, becaufe of the great 
 agreement of circumftances, he applies 
 them to their obftinate and unbelieving 
 children. And laftly, the different manner, 
 in which Mark brings in our Saviour as 
 quoting this paflage, fuiBciently explains 
 the meaning of the form of quotation our 
 Saviour ufed, according to Matthew. In 
 M^r^*iv. II, 12. our Lord, in a con- 
 tinual difcourfe, brings in the words of 
 this prophecy, without any form of 
 quotation at all j from which it appears^ 
 
 that 
 
(351) 
 
 that he cited them only to exprcfs his 
 own fenle of the Jews perverle tem- 
 per, that the impreflion made on them 
 might be greater, by putting them in 
 mind, that it was the temper of tlieir 
 fathers as defcribed by the prophet. A 
 method often ufed by the preceeding 
 prophets. See Ifa. Ixv. 7. Jerem. xvi. 
 II. Ezek. XX. 8, i^c\ And by our Sa- 
 viour himfelfelfe where. Mat. xxiii. 31. 
 ^LadStephen^ Jirts vil 51, 52. And if 
 this appears to be the reafon of our 
 Saviours quoting this paffage according 
 to Mark, 'tis reafonable to tliink, tliat 
 the form of quotation in Matthew means 
 no more, fince the paffage quoted and 
 the occafion were both the fame. 
 
 Sometimes they quote the Old Tefta- 
 ment fcriptures by way of accommo- 
 dation, and as emphatically expreffive of 
 their own fenfe and meaning. Of this 
 there are many inftances to be produ- 
 ced. See Rom, iii. 4, 10. i3'c. and in 
 Other places. And wlicn they are cited 
 for this purpofe, fometimes the author 
 from whence they are taken is not made 
 any mention of. See Rom, x. ij. and! 
 xi* J4. But generally they are intro^ 
 :^" ' duced 
 
(350 
 
 duced with an, as it written^ or thus 
 jaith Efaias, or the fcri^ture. i. e. to 
 which purpofe I may apply this or 
 the other paffage of the fcripture ; 
 to fhew that the words are cited, not 
 as real and proper "proofs, but as juftly 
 defcribing the writers fenfe, or fitly 
 applicable to the argument he is treat- 
 ing of. And this method of citing 
 fcripture is very common with St. 
 Pauly which I am inclined to think 
 he rather did, that he might jTiew, 
 that notwithftanding the fcriptue was 
 grown fo much into contempt amongft 
 many of the Jews^ they having learnt 
 to efteem the tradition of the elders 
 before them, yet that they were wor- 
 thy the ferious reading and confiderati- 
 on of all chriftians, as being frofitalle 
 for do^rine^ for reproof for correBion^ 
 and infiruBion in righteoufnefs. 
 
 Sometimes they apply the general 
 fenfe of the prophecies of the Old Tefia- 
 menty to particular events under the 
 New : Or fliew that thefe events are 
 agreeable to the plain fenfe and mean- 
 ing of thofe prophecies ; and that there- 
 fore they are fo far a proper accom- 
 
 plilhment 
 
(353) 
 
 plifliment of them. Thus it was plain-r 
 foretold, that the Meffiah fliould be 
 without form and comlynefs^ and that 
 lie fhould le def^ifed and reje^ed of 
 men ; that ^nen Jlwuld hide their faces 
 from him ; that he fiould he defpifed 
 and not efteemed. And therefore all the 
 reproachful names that were given him, 
 and every circumftance that had a ten- 
 dency to make him little and contemp- 
 tible in the opinion of others, was a 
 literal and proper accomplifhment of 
 fuch prophecies. And therefore with 
 juflice it might be faid on every fuch 
 occafion, this or that hapfetiedthat the 
 fcri-ptures might he fulfilled ; not as pre- 
 difting that particular event, but as fore- 
 telling what that event verified viz, that 
 his appearance fliould be mean, and his 
 perfon contemptible. Thus 'Jeftis went 
 and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, 
 that it might he fulfilled which wasfpO" 
 ken hy the prophets^ not that he fhould 
 dwell at* Nazarethy as our author, f^ 
 5. too haftily ailerts, hut that he Jlwuld ^ 
 he called a Nazarene ; i. e. counted a 
 worthlefs infignificant fellow. Galilee 
 was looked on to be the moft contemp- 
 tible place in all Judea, and Nazareth 
 
 A a the 
 
the moft defpicable town in Galilee. 
 And therefore to be called a Nazarene^ 
 is the fame thing as to be accounted 
 a mean and infignificant perfon, and 
 one very unlikely to be a prophet. 
 And that this is the true fenfe oiNa- 
 -zareeri'^ appears from feveral inftances* 
 Thus when fome faid that 'Jefus was 
 the Chrifij others objeftedj Shall Chrift 
 come otit (9/GaHIee ? "John vii. 14. and 
 thus the Pharifees anfwered Nicodemus^ 
 Se arch and look^ for out of Galilee ari- 
 feth no f rochet. John vii. 52. And 
 Nathaniel faid to Philify declaring Je^ 
 fus to be the Mejjiahy Can there any 
 good thi?ig come out (^/Nazareth ? John 
 i. 46. And thus St. Paul tells Jgrip^a, 
 I verily thought with my f elf y that I ought 
 to do many things contrary to the name^ 
 that contemptible name, o/Jefus <?/ Na- 
 zareth. Atis xxvi. 9. And thus the chrifti- 
 ans themfelves were called by the re- 
 proachful name oi Nazareens. Thus 'twas 
 one part of St. P^»/'j accufation, that he 
 was a feftilent fellowj a7id a ring- 
 leader of the fett of the Nazareens. 
 ABs xxiv. 5. Galilean alfo was a name 
 of like contempt and fcorn. Thus fome 
 of them that flood by Peter ^ faid, Thou 
 
 art 
 
art a Galilean, and thy fpeech agreeth 
 thereto; intimating that there was fome- 
 thing very mean in his fpeech that 
 betrayed his country. Mark xiv. 17. 
 And the reafon why the inhabitants of 
 Jeruf^lem wondered to hear the apo- 
 liles fpeaking all languages, was, be- 
 caufe they were Galileans. jHs ii. 7. 
 This was a name by which the primi- 
 tive chriftians were called by their 
 enemies in derifion ; and Julian is faid 
 thus to have called our Saviour, in that 
 known expreffion, Vicifii Galilee ; which, 
 if never fpoken by Jtdian^ yet clear- 
 ly proves that Galilean was a name of 
 reproach and contempt : And this furely 
 the fcriptures did plainly foretel, that 
 Chrift iliould be a contemptible perfon. 
 So that we have no need of lYetzer or 
 Tfemah^ or any fuch forced and far-fetch- 
 ed reconciliations to juftify St. Matthew 
 in this place, becaufe the fcriptures did 
 plainly foretell what this name Naza- 
 reen^ as fixed on Chrift^ did certainly 
 accomplifli. And the different me- 
 thod of citing this place, from what 
 is elfe where made ufe of, is a cir- 
 cumftance to be here regarded. St. 
 Matthew doth not cite this as a pre- 
 A a 2 di£lion 
 
( 3S^ ) . 
 
 diaion of any particular prophet, but 
 introduces it with, That it anight he 
 fulfilled which wasf^oken </^/«' -^ rr^o^incov 
 by the prophets ; to fliew that his be- 
 ing called a Nazareen did accomplifh 
 that, which the prophets did foretel 
 Ihould happen to the Mejftah, viz^ that he 
 ihould be defpifed and rejefted of men. 
 And in order to make this, yet 
 clearer, if there be any need, let it be 
 confidered, that prophecies of a general 
 nature, or defcribing a general chara- 
 fter, and fuch are all the prophecies that 
 predid the mean and humble conditi- 
 on of the Mejfiahy can only be fulfilled 
 by particular events, or a train andfe- 
 ries of fuch particular events, as toge- 
 ther make up fuch a charafter ; where- 
 as prophecies, defcribing one particular 
 circumftance only, can be fulfilled no 
 other way, but by fuch a circumftance 
 happening to the perfon of whom 'tis 
 predifted. Thus that prophecy of Mc/?/?, 
 V. 2. But thou Bethlehem of Ephra- 
 tah, though thou he little among the 
 ihoufands of ]\id2i\ yet out of thee he 
 fhall come forth unto me^ that is to he 
 ruler in Ifrael, could be no otherwifc 
 accompliflied, but by that perfons co- 
 ming 
 
(357) 
 
 ming forth from, or being born ia 
 Bethlehem^ of whom the prophecy is 
 intended. But now if it be prophe- 
 cied of the fame perfon, that he fhould 
 be as one, that hath no form or com^ 
 hnefs in hiniy that heflwuld he defpfed 
 and rejetied of men ^ a man of for rows ^ 
 and acquainted with grief and that 
 men fhould hide their faces from him^ 
 that he fl)ould he defpfed and lightly 
 efteemed^ how is this prophecy to be 
 accomphlhed ? What by any one par- 
 ticular occurrence ? No, but by fuch 
 a feries of events as was neceflary to 
 make up this character, or to (hew 
 ;that Jie was a pcrfon both afflifted and 
 defpifed. And therefore every particu" 
 lar circumftance of his difgrace and fuf- 
 ferings, tho' not particularly foretold, 
 was anaccompliflament ofthe true fenfe 
 and meaning of thefe general prophecies; 
 and as upon every fuch occafion thefe 
 I cr inures were fulfilled^ it was juftly faid, 
 That this or that was was done that 
 the fcripures might he fulfilled ; and 
 more efpecially when the more remarka- 
 ble circumftances happened, that tended 
 to render him contemptible and afRifl:- 
 ed. Thus when the Pharifees charged, 
 A a J him 
 
C358) 
 
 him with cafting out devils by BeeJze- 
 buhy Mat. xii. 24. when many of his 
 countrymen and kindsfolk believed not in 
 him, Mat. xiii. 57. when he was fct 
 at nought, and mocked of Herod 2inA 
 his men of war, L^^^e* xxiii. 11. when 
 Barahhas the thief and murtherer was 
 preferred before him, Luke xxiii 18. 
 as thefe things accomplifhed the pro- 
 phecies concerning him, fo I think, that 
 with the higheft reafon it might be faid 
 upon every one of thefe occafions. It 
 came to pafs that the fcriftures might 
 le fulfilled. And in this fenfe we find 
 the very fame form of quotation, elfc- 
 where made ufe of by Chrift himfelf, 
 and the Evangelifi Matthew^ Thus 
 upon our Lords being betrayed, by 
 Judasy and apprehended by the offi- 
 cers of the chief priefts, 2j\&'Chy2fts heal- 
 ing the ear of the high prieft^s fervant, 
 which Peter had cut otf, and telling 
 him, Thinkefi thou that I camot now 
 fray to my Fatherj afid he fiall pre- 
 fently give me more than ten legions of 
 Jngelsy he adds, But how then Jl)all 
 thefcriptureshefidfilled, that thus it muH 
 ie^ I do not find that any one of thefe 
 things were particularly foretold ; and 
 
 yet 
 
(3593 
 
 yet I apprehend that thefe fev^eral cir- 
 cumftances of difgrace and contempt 
 did fulfil all thofe prophecies, chat fpake 
 of the mean and afflicted liate of the 
 Mejfiahy Mat xxvi. 54. And thus the 
 Evangelifi in the verfes after, adding 
 another circumftance or two of our 
 Lords apprehenfion, viz. his words to 
 the multitude, Are ye come out as againfl 
 a thief with fvoords and with ftaves to 
 take me ? J fat daily zvith you teach- 
 ing i?i the temfle-, and ye laid not hold 
 on mej concludes, But all this was done 
 that the fcriftures of the frofhets might 
 be fulfilled J ver. 56. not furely becaufe 
 they prediSed all thefe particular events, 
 but only the general charafter of a defpi* 
 fed afflicted perfon, which thefe particu- 
 lar circumftances made good. And thus I 
 think I have cleared the fenfe of this paf- 
 fage, andfhewnthat the prophetsdid pre- 
 dict, what the name Nazareen^ as given 
 to our Saviour, did import ; and that 
 therefore St. Matthew juftly fays upon 
 this occafion, Ihe fcriftures were fulfilled. 
 Under this head it may be alfo 
 proper to vindicate the application of 
 another prophecy made by Chrift viz^ 
 A a 4 that 
 
that "^ohns coming into the world ful. 
 filled that prophecy, which declared that 
 Elijah Jbotild come before the day of the 
 Lcri. Our author p. 76. affirms that this 
 prophecy is not literally, but myjftically 
 fulfilled. I on the contrary affirm, that in 
 the proper fenfe of it, it is truly and not 
 myftically fulfilled. And in order to {hew 
 this 'tis neceffary to make but this one 
 obfervation. viz. That fometimes the Old 
 Teftament writings call one perlbn by the 
 name of another, that lived before him, 
 if in any remarkable circumftances he 
 be found to refemble him. There are 
 many inftances of this. ThcMelJiah him- 
 felf, according to the fenfe of the beft jew- 
 ilh interpreters, and the plain meaning of 
 feveral places, is called by the name 
 of David. Thus Ezekiel^ fpeaking of 
 the happy time, that God Vould bring 
 to pafs, introduces him as thus fpeak- 
 ing, I will make one nation in the land u^- 
 on the motmtains of Jfrael^ and one king 
 (ball ie king to themall. And David my 
 fervant pall he king over them ; and 
 my f€rvantV>2N\^ fmll he their 'prince 
 for ever. Ezek. xxxvii. 24, 25... i. e. 
 Some prince fhall come and build up 
 
 David^s 
 
Davidh houfe, and reftore the glory of 
 his throne ; be called to the government 
 in as extraordinary a manner, and be as 
 triumphant and viftorious, as David 
 was. See alfo Ezek. xxxiv. 2j. And 
 therefore if there ever hath appeared 
 fuch a perfon as this, the prophecy hath 
 been certainly accompliflied, tho' David 
 himfelf hath never afcended the throne, 
 in perfon, fince his death. And as the 
 MeJJiah himfelf was thus fpoken of, un- 
 der David's name, is it any thing ftrange 
 that his forerunner fhould be defcribed 
 by the name of a prophet, with whofe 
 fpirit and power he v/as to come. The 
 ^evos expeding Elijah to appear in per- 
 fon proves nothing, tho' 'tis plain fome 
 of them did not. The queftion is, whe- 
 ther that prophecy, Mai iv. 5. may not^ 
 according to the genius and frequent 
 ufe of the jewijl: language, mean 
 one that was to be very hke to 
 Elijah. This I have fhewn in qne 
 inftance. Another is in i Chron. vi. 49. 
 where the high prieft and his children, 
 in David^s time, are mentioned by the 
 name of Jaron and his fons, becaufe 
 they fucceeded them in their prieftly 
 
 oiBc? 
 
(362) 
 
 oSicQ and dignity. See alio i Kjngs 
 xii. 1 6. Jer. xxx. 9. if^?/. iii. 5. and 
 other places that might be mentioned. 
 And if this may hkely be Malachfs 
 meaning, that one, in many refpefts rc- 
 fembling Elijah, fhould be the Mejfiah\ 
 forerunner, the confequence then is, 
 that this prophecy was properly accom- 
 pliihed in John BaftiU. o 
 
 Sometimes they cite pafTages of the 
 Old Teftamenty as allowed, and certain 
 principles, in order to argue from them 
 the truth of chriftian doftrines, as their, 
 natural and neceffary confequences. Of 
 this we fhall find many inftances in 
 St. TauPs epiftles. Thus in his epiftle 
 to the Romans, chaf. i. 17. he tells 
 us, That in the gofpel the righteouf- 
 nefs of Gody or the divine method of 
 accepting and pardoning men, is reveaU 
 ed to he 'ac TiTiu^ «; tItiv, hj faith, in or- 
 der to bring men to the faith, «'? v^rAKoh 
 T«V6«f, for the ohedience of faith, i. e. 
 to bring men to believe the gofpel ; 
 as it is^ written, or agreeable to that 
 avowed principle of the Old Teflament^ 
 The juB fi all live, liCTrWiu? hy faith. And 
 the argument of the apoftle is very 
 
 ftrong 
 
ftrong and conclufive, That fince God 
 had declared, in the Old Tefiament, by 
 his prophets, that the jus'i fiould live 
 hy faithy the Jenos ought the more 
 readily to believe the golpel, becaufe 
 therein the fame principle of mens julli- 
 fication U Trig-icoi by faith, is laid down 
 ei\ T/V/r, in order to bring men to the 
 obedience of it. And thus in chap, xi, 
 xii, xiii. we find him abounding in his 
 quotations out of fcriptures, and that 
 with the greateft elegance and propri- 
 ety. For as in thefe, and other places, 
 he argues about jewifi topicks, or mat- 
 ters peculiar to the Jews^ it was neu 
 cefTary to confider the fenfe of the jeW'- 
 ijh fcriptures, in order to fhew, that 
 chrifiianity was fo far from contra- 
 difting them, that all its main princi- 
 ples were agreeable to them, and fup- 
 ported by the moll exprefs teftimony 
 from them. 
 
 C H A F, 
 
(3^4) 
 
 Chap. XII 
 
 Of Arguments 
 Hominem. 
 
 ad 
 
 to 
 
 U T If thefe particulars 
 Ihould not be thought fuf^ 
 ficient to account for the 
 citations out of the Old 
 Teftament in the New^ 
 there is yet another method of vindi- 
 cating the apoftles ftill remaining^ viz^ 
 That they argued ad hominem^ or fronn 
 the allowed interpretation of fcripture 
 amongft the 'Jews^ in order to convince 
 them, upon their own principles, that 
 Chri^i was the true Mejfiah. Our au'* 
 thor hath fpent a whole chapter, chap. 
 II. to prove the contrary, but hath 
 failed in the attempt. If indeed falfe 
 
 alTertions, 
 
aflertions, and malicious infinuations and 
 comparifons would have done, he hath 
 not been wanting in this part of the ar- 
 gument ; but otherwife I may venture to 
 affirm, that he hath not advanced one 
 probable reafon in fupport of his afler- 
 tion. I have ah'eady proved, that the 
 Jewsy long before the time of Chriffy 
 were in expeftation of the Meffiah, L e. 
 of a certain prince and deliverer, whofe 
 coming, as they apprehended, was fore- 
 told by the writings of their prophets. 
 Of confequence no arguments could be 
 fufficient to convince them oi Chrifi'*s 
 being the Mejfiahy or that particular 
 prince they expcfted, unlefs they faw 
 the prophecies, which they apprehended 
 had a relation to him, verified in the 
 perfon who affumcd that charafter ; and 
 therefore 'twas as neceflary that the 
 apoftles fliould fhew, chat thofe palTa- 
 ges, which had a real reference to the 
 Mejfiahy were accomphllied in Jejus 
 Chrifij as it was that they flaould prove 
 him to be the Mejfiah : And as to others, 
 where their reference to the Mejjiab 
 was not fo natural and clear, yet, if it 
 had been the conftant method of the 
 
Jezvs to apply them to the future times 
 of the MeJJiahy nothing could be more 
 proper in the apoftles, when reafoning 
 with the Jews, than to apply them to 
 Jefm ChriBy as far as they did agree to 
 his perfon and charafter. 
 
 But is this agreeable to the character 
 of infpired perfons, to make ufe of ar- 
 guments not conclufive, or to argue 
 with others from what they know to 
 be a falfe fenfe of fcripture ? I anfwer, 
 that fo many and ftrong were the pre- 
 judices that the Jews laboured under, 
 as made their converfion to chriflianity 
 exceeding difficult, and therefore ren- 
 dered it the more neceflary that they 
 fhould be dealt with in a very tender 
 manner. Particular truths were to be 
 told them as they were able to bear, 
 and their prejudices were to be gradu- 
 ally removed by a prudent forbearance. 
 The apoftles of our blefled Saviour 
 could not but remember his conduft to- 
 wards themfelves, and acknowledge 
 both the wifdom and goodnefs of ic; 
 and had therefore reafon to believe, that 
 the fame method of afting towards 
 others might have a good influence over 
 
 them. 
 
them. They did not indeed conceal the 
 main and effential doftrines of chri/lL 
 amtjy how much Ibever thofe to whom 
 they preached might be offended with 
 them. But as for other matters of lefler 
 importance, the interpretation of a fingle 
 paflage of fcripture for inftance, fup- 
 pofing them miftaken, was it neceflary 
 they fliould be immediately contra- 
 dicted ? Or rather, was it not prudent 
 to leave it to time and better knowledge 
 to corred it ? Or ought the apofHes to 
 have neglefted to fhew them, how fuch 
 and fuch a paffage was accompliflied 
 in Jefi0 ChriBj if they fairly could 
 do it, and thofe, to whom they preach- 
 ed, expefted it ? 
 
 If thefe indeed were the only topicks 
 they argued from, I fhould fufpeft their 
 infpiration, and their teftimony would 
 deferve but little credit. But fince there 
 are but few inftances of this kind, and 
 the apoftles lay but Httle ftrefs upon 
 fuch citations ; and at the fame time they 
 make ufe of them, lay down other fo- 
 lid. and fubftantial proofs of the truth 
 of chYiftianitj^ fuch as the certainty of 
 Chrifi's miracles and refurreciion, the 
 
 excellency 
 
(3<S8) 
 
 excellency of his doQ:rines, and the cer- 
 tain accomplifliments of real prophe- 
 cies, as this was a rational method of 
 converting them to the chrifiian faith, 
 fo the other was but a prudent means 
 of preventing the ill effefts of their pre- 
 judices; and all that will follow from this 
 way of arguing in the apoftles is, not 
 that they endeavoured to build chri/ii^ 
 anity on a falfe foundation, but that as 
 they eftablifhed the truth of it by un- 
 deniable proofs, fo they took all the 
 beft care they could to fecure to them 
 their proper influence and force. In- 
 deed fuch a method of arguing as this 
 is not to be looked upon as any pro- 
 per proof, nor is it ever defigned as fuch 
 by thofe who make a jufl: ufc of it. It 
 is rather an appeal to a perfons prefent 
 fentiments, and taking the advantage of 
 his own concejCons. This, 'tis true, would 
 be unworthy a wife or a good man, 
 if there were no arguments of iH'- 
 trinfick worth made ufe of ; but where 
 the thing to be proved is fupported by 
 folid reafons, I fee nothing to forbid our 
 appealing to a perfons avowed fenti- 
 ments, where a fair advantage can be 
 
 made 
 
( 3^9 ) 
 
 of it ; efpecially, as by thus complying 
 for a while with an innocent prejudice^ 
 we take the moft effeflual way hcreat- 
 ter to remove it. For he who ufes this 
 method of arguing with another, doth 
 not hereby avow the truth of the princi- 
 ples he argues from; and therefore cannot 
 be faid to confirm him in his prejudice 
 or miftake; tho' at the fame time it 
 muft be allowed, he doth not endeavour 
 to undeceive him. But is it neceffary 
 that, when we argue with any perfoa 
 to convince him of any particular truth 
 we muft immediately alfo endeavour to 
 undeceive him of every miftake ? Is it 
 not the more rational and juft way, firfl: 
 to eftablifli him in the behef of the 
 things that are of greater importance; and 
 when by the force of evidence he is 
 gained thus far, lelfcr miftakes will be 
 more eafily removed, and truth of 
 every fort will have the more free 
 accefs to his underftanding and belief! 
 Suppofing then that paflage of Hofea^ 
 Out of ^gypt have I called my fon^ 
 had not any original reference to the 
 Mejftahy but was only interpreted fo 
 to have by the Jews at that time; 
 B b how 
 
( 37o) 
 
 how were they to be treated under 
 fuch a perfwafion ? Had the apoftles of 
 ^efus ChriH immediately denied the re- 
 ference of this prophecy to the MeJJiahj 
 the y^wj- pofTibly would have anfwered, 
 thereafon was, becaufe there was nothing 
 in his charafter to anfwer to it; and 
 fo would have continued unbelievers, un- 
 der the pretence that fcripture prophecies 
 were not fufficiently accomplillied in 
 him. Was it not therefore expedient, 
 that if there was any remarkable event 
 in our Saviour's life, that did properly 
 correfpond with the fenfe of that paffage, 
 it fhould be pointed out to the Jews^ 
 Or was there any thing of untruth in 
 faying, if that was a prophecy of the 
 MeJJiahy then thus is the fcripture ful- 
 filled ; or this event is the accomplifli- 
 ment of that prophecy ? 
 
 Indeed the very application of 
 thefe paffages to Jefi^^ CbriB by his 
 apoftles, is proof enough that the ^ewsj 
 in the apoftles time, underftood them 
 of the MeJJiahy as our author allows 
 f. 8 1, where he tells us, That the Pha- 
 rifees, who made np the hodj of the 
 Jews^ as well as the Effeens, itfed the 
 
 alk^Mtcal 
 
(370 
 
 allegorical method in the time of Jefus 
 and the apftles. i. e. did jaterpret ma- 
 ny paflages of the Old TejUiment of the 
 MelJiah, and the times of his coming- 
 Befides, had this been the pure inven- 
 tion of the apoftles, fuch a novel me- 
 thod of interpreting fcripture would 
 have been fo far from being of fervice 
 to their caufe, that it muft have expo^ 
 fed them to univerfal contempt; and 
 prejudiced more againft a religion, that 
 put fuch a forced interpretation on the 
 facred v^ritings, than all their pretended 
 miracles could have prevailed with to 
 embrace it. And it is reafonable to 
 think, that the antient Jews would have 
 attacked chrifiianity with as great info- 
 lence, as our author, f . 8 j. tells us the 
 modern ones do, if in fo many inftan- 
 ces the apoftles had either given a new 
 interpretation of fcripture, or contrary 
 to the received fenfe of fcripture at tliat 
 time. And if this was then the gene- 
 ral method, I think no reafon can be 
 alledged, why die apoftles might not 
 fometimes comply with it. 
 
 Wliat renders it probable that they did 
 
 is, that St. Matthew's gofpel, which con- 
 
 B b 2 ^ains 
 
(372) 
 
 tains the moft exceptionable paflageS," 
 was written originally in helrevo^ for 
 the ufe of the Jews ; and 'tis therefore 
 reafonable to think, that as he under- 
 ftood the Jews fenfe of their own pro- 
 phecies, being himfelf a Jew^ fo he 
 would not negled to ihew how the 
 principal events of Jefmh life corref- 
 ponded with them. And tho' this way 
 of arguing would have been very im- 
 proper with any perfons but ^ews^ 
 whofe were the fromifesy yet to them it 
 was necejQTary, becaufe there was no 
 other way of convincing them, but 
 this, that Jefm was the Mejfiah. 
 
 But what is more confiderable is, that 
 the apoftles never once make ufe of 
 this method of arguing, but with jews 
 and ^rofelytesy or perfons leavened with 
 jewijh principles ; nor to prove any thing 
 elfe but that Jefm was the MeJJiah. 
 Our author indeed, with his ufual mo- 
 defty, pofitively afferts the contrary; 
 and tells us, That particular apoftles 
 reasoned allegoric allj. i. e. from the 
 falfe fenfe of fcripture in their iermons, 
 ^'ith greater jiiccefs on GQntiWs than 
 ©«. Jews; as Paul did before Felix, 
 
 when 
 
(373) 
 
 wheu he [aid he took his herefy or chri* 
 fiianityy from the lazv and the prophetsj 
 as well as before Jgrippa-y to whieh 
 purpofe he alfo cites other places, viz, 
 
 JBs xiii. 15 48. X. 37 4?. 
 
 /?. 80. Now every one of thefe inftan- 
 ces are fo far from proving his point, 
 that they prove the direft contrary to 
 what he produces them for. As to the 
 firft inftance, St. FauW defence before 
 Felix^ our author did not feem to have 
 over much regard to truth, when he 
 tells us, that Paid calls chriftianity his 
 herefy; whereas he only fays, that after 
 the manner which the Jei^'s called he* 
 refy^ fo ferved he the God of his fathers ; 
 nor when he fays that he took his chrir 
 fiianity from the law and the -prophets^ 
 of which there is not the Icaft intimation, 
 and the contrary to which is true, he ha- 
 ving received the gofpel by immediate re- 
 velation from Chrid, Indeed the whcle 
 of his defence, before Feftwsy is fuch, as 
 makes it very evident, that his great 
 defign was to remove the prejudices the 
 Jews his countrymen had conceived 
 againft him. In order to this he affur^ 
 them, that he believed all things which 
 were wrHten in the law and f^f pro-* 
 ^^ ' B b J th^f^^i 
 
(374) 
 
 fhets^ and that he taught nothing con- 
 trary to them^ and that he was only 
 called in qtiefUon touching the refurrec- 
 tion of the dead. Such a declaration 
 as this would have been very imper- 
 tinent before a gentile auditory. But 
 when the "^ews were his accufers, and 
 his charge was, That he was the ring-^ 
 leader of the feci of the Nazarenes, 
 and a frofaner of the temple) the pub- 
 lick avowing his lelief of all things 
 written in the law and the proj^hetsj 
 and his entertaining the fame hofe 
 with them of a refurreHion from the 
 deady was. the moft proper vindication 
 of himfelf from his jevi'ifh accufers, 
 that could poffibly be urged. But when 
 he addreifes himfelf more immediately 
 to Felixj who knew nothing of the 
 jewifh fcriptures, he reafons of righteop.fr 
 nefsj tem'j^eraitce and judgment to come^ 
 principles of natural religion : And 'twas 
 this that awed the Roman governor, 
 and made him tremble, AHs xxiv. 
 
 15 25. 
 
 Nor is our author more happy m the 
 other inftances he hath quoted : VanV^ 
 reafoning from the fcriptures, ABs xiii. 
 xiv. i§c. was evidently defigned for 
 
 the 
 
(375) 
 
 the convi£lionof tlie ^^wjand religious 
 profelytes. For the text exprefly tells 
 us, that on a fahlath day^ and in a 
 jewilh f'snagogue^ and at the deftre of 
 the rulers of the fynagogties-^ he reafoJied 
 with the jewifh congregation ; urging 
 this grand argument to convince them 
 of the truth of Christ's being the Mejfi- 
 ahy that both his death and refurreftion 
 from the dead were agreeable to the 
 fcripture. At v. 45. 'tis exprefly decla- 
 red that the congregation, in a great 
 meafure, confifted of Jews and profe- 
 lytes, i. e. profelytes of the gate, who, 
 tho' they worfhipped and feared the 
 one true God, yet fubmitted not to the 
 ceremonial part of the ]ewHh religion. 
 And 'tis therefore probable that, by the 
 Gentiles mentioned v, 42. is meant, 
 not idolatrous Gentiles^ but thefe pro- 
 felytes of the gate, to whom the Jt-ws 
 were as unwilling the gofpel fhould be 
 preached, as to the idolatrous Gentiles 
 themfelves. And therefore when Vaid 
 and "Barn ah as faid, It was necejjary that 
 the word of God fiould firft have leen 
 fpoken to you ; hut feeing ye^ i. e. the 
 Jews, pit it from youy and judge your 
 B b 4 felves 
 
C37<5) 
 
 f elves unworthy of everlafling life, we 
 turn to the Gentiles, I doubt not but 
 they mean thefe prqfelytes of the gate \ 
 who, being looked on by the 'Jews as 
 aliens from the common-wealth of Ifrael, 
 might well rejoyce to have the word of 
 life preached unto them. Or fuppofmg 
 that by Gentiles is meant idolatrous 
 Gentiles^ yet it is certain that Paul rea- 
 foned from the fcripture for the con- 
 viftion of his jezfc^ifi hearers, v. 46. 
 and that the Gentiles rejoiced to hear 
 the doQrine of falvation preached to 
 them, v, 47, 48. 
 
 In jHs xxvi. Pafd reafons much af- 
 ter the fame manner, when apologizing 
 for himfelf before king Jgriffay who 
 was himfelf of the jewijt) religion. He 
 declares his miraculous converfion, and 
 endeavours to prove from the fcripture^^ 
 T^. 23, i^c. that Chrift f:ould fuffer^ 
 and that he fwuld he thefirfi thatpould 
 rife from the dead, and fiould f;ew 
 ight to the feoj^hy and to the Gentiles. 
 Fe/ius the Roman governour, who knew 
 nothing of the jewijh fcripture, when 
 he heard St. Tatd talking of lights and 
 br/fj^htnelles, and voices from heaven, 
 
 of 
 
(377) 
 
 of preaching to the Gentiles^ and the 
 refurreftion from the dead, concludes 
 him a vifionary and enthufiaft, and 
 rafhly pron®unces him a madman. But 
 the apoftle clears himfelf of the charge 
 by an immedi^ate appeal to king Agrif- 
 fa. lam not 7nad^ mo[l 7iohk Feftus, 
 but /peak forth the words of truth 
 and fohernefs. For the king hiowetb 
 of thefe thingsy before whom alfo Iffeak 
 freely. KJng Agrippa lelieveft thou 
 the f rochets ? 1 hiow that thou le- 
 lieveji. This examination of the apo- 
 ftle was at Agvifpd's defire ; and there 
 was no other method fo proper to de- 
 fend himfelf, or chriftianitj^ before tliis 
 jewifh prince, as by fhewing that the 
 things he [Tau'Q taught were agreea- 
 ble to thofe fcriptures, which they both 
 equally profefled to beleive. 
 
 And as for Cornelius y who is the 
 laft inftance our author takes notice 
 of, this is as little to the purpofe as 
 the reft. For Cornelius was a profcr 
 lyte of the gate, a juft man^ o?ie that 
 feared Gody and of good report a?nongfi 
 all the nation of the Jews ; and there 
 is no doubt but fuch perfons had fome 
 
 venera- 
 
(378) 
 
 veneration for the jewifh fcriptures, 
 in which the true God was defcribed. 
 But this is not material. The great 
 arguments Peter makes ufe of, were 
 not derived from fcriptcre^ but fatts : 
 Such as the miracles oiChrzJf^ his death, 
 and i-efurreftion the third day, and the 
 apofiles being commanded of him, af- 
 ter his refurreftion, to declare to all 
 men, that God had ordained him to le 
 the judge of quick and dead. Of thefe 
 things he declares God had chojhi him 
 for a xmtnefs^ and therefore he relates 
 them to Cornelius as the proper foun- 
 dation of his faith. And when he 
 adds, T(9 him gave all the prophets 
 voitnefs^ he did it, not for the fake of 
 Cornelius^ who needed not the tefti- 
 moqy of the prophets to know that 
 he was accepted of God ; but for the 
 fake of thofe of the circumcifion who 
 came with Peter^ and who were fur- 
 prifed that the gofpel Ihould be preach- 
 ed to the Gentiles^ and even aftonilh- 
 ed when they faw the gifts of the 
 Holy Ghofi poured out on them. See 
 v^rfes 4J5 ^c. 
 
 SO 
 
(379) 
 
 So that thefe pafTages, which our 
 author cites to prove that the apoftles 
 reafoned out of the Old Tejlament 
 "With. Gentiles^ in order to convert them, 
 ^re very falfely alljdged ; and I believe 
 I may fafely affirm, that no one fin- 
 gle inftance of this nature can be prcN 
 duced out of the whole New Teftament^ 
 notwithftanding his confident affertion 
 to the contrary. The different circum- 
 ftances of Jeivs and Gefitiles made it 
 neceffary, that very different methods 
 fhould be taken in order to convince 
 them of the truth oichrifiianity. Jews 
 were to be argued with as Jews^ ;. e. 
 as perfons enjoying a former revelati- 
 on from God ; and it was neceffary 
 to convince them, that the charafter 
 oiChrifij and the whole fcheme oUhn/li- 
 anity^ were agreeable to the plain defign, 
 and predi&ions of that revelation. But 
 what would it have fignified, if St. Patd 
 at Athens y in a congregation of heathen 
 Philofophers, had reafoned out of 
 Jeremiah and Hahakkuckj and other 
 jewifh writers ? Such names would have 
 procured him contempt, inftead of ha- 
 ying gained him converts; And there- 
 fore 
 
CsSo) 
 
 fore we fiad him arguing from quite dif- 
 ferent topicks; (hewing the folly and un- 
 reafonablenefs of Idolatry, from the na- 
 ture and perfections of God, and ex- 
 horting men to righteoufnefs and vir- 
 tue, from the confideration of a future 
 judgment by Jefus Chrift^ of which God 
 hath given ajjurance tinto all men ^ i^ 
 that he hath raifed him from the 
 dead. See ^^j* xvii. 31, andalfo^ffj 
 xiv. 15. i3c. with many other inftancqs 
 that might be mentioned. 
 
 Indeed the whole argumeat from pro- 
 phecies hath been intirely miftaken, or 
 mifreprefented by our author. He ban- 
 ters and infults the apoftles, for pretend- 
 ing to prove particular events by pre- 
 ceeding prophecies, which he thinks di4 
 not belong to them; for inftance, that 
 Chrift was lorn of a virgin^ becaufe 
 Ifai ah {zys J Behold a virgin fi) all conceive 
 &c. And that he went into vEgjfi^y 
 becaufe Hofea fays, Out of JEgyft have 
 I called my fon. Whereas the ridicule 
 falls entirely on himfelf, becaufe the apo- 
 ftles never pretend to prove events by 
 prophecies ; but after having folidly pro- 
 ved the fads they fpe^k of^ which as 
 ' • - '■ to 
 
(38i) 
 
 to their evidence are intirely indepen- 
 dent of prophecies, Ihew their agree- 
 ment with thofe prophecies. So that 
 if thefe prophecies did not originally 
 refer to thefe fafts, yet ftill the fads 
 remain, and are proved by undeniable 
 evidence. The writings of the jewifli 
 prophets could never prove the truth 
 of events that never happened ; and if 
 thefe things did aftually come to pafs, 
 they will prove all that we want to 
 be proved, whither ever the jewifh 
 fcriptures fpoke of them or not. And 
 what if fome of thofe prophecies did 
 not originally refer to the things, to 
 which they are applied by the New 
 ' Teftament writers, will it follow that 
 there are no other events agreeable to 
 plain and literal predidions ? Or that 
 if all the grand charaders of the Mef- 
 fiah are to be found in Chyifiy that 
 therefore he cannot be the Mejfiah, be- 
 caufe fome paffages are applied to him, 
 that we cannot prove did originally be- 
 long to him? Thefe are inferences no one 
 would ever have thought of, but per- 
 fons of our authors great intelligence 
 
 and fagacity. 
 
 Upon 
 
( 382 ) 
 
 Upon the whole then as the apoftles did 
 certainly prove, that the fufferingsand 
 refurreftion of C*ri/?, and the preaching 
 the gofpel to the Gentiles^ were agree- 
 able to the ancient prophecies of the 
 Old Tejiamenty taken in their literal 
 fenfe ; fo 'tis reafonablc to think, that 
 when ever they applied other paffages 
 to him, they were fuch as by the Jews 
 themfelves were ufually applied to the 
 MeJJiah And therefore tho' no abfolute 
 proof can be drawn from fuch paffa- 
 ges for the truth of chrifiianity^ To 
 neither will the citing them yield any 
 juft ground of exception againft it ; 
 and tho' fuch fort of proofs would have 
 been of no avail with Gentiks, with 
 whom they were never made ufe of, 
 yet were they neceifary "to fatisfy the 
 Jews^ and were therefore juftly ialifted 
 on by the apoftles. To take the ad- 
 vantage of an adverfaries coaceffion 
 hath never yet been thought an un- 
 fair way of diiputing ; and it feems 
 to me to have been particularly nccef- 
 fary in the cafe of die apoftles, be- 
 caufe 'tis very probable, tliat if they 
 had omitted to take notice of the a- 
 
 greement 
 
(389) 
 
 greement between fuch pafTages and onr 
 . iSaviours charafter, the Jexvs would 
 have objefted againft his being the 
 Mejftahy upon account of his not having 
 fuch predidions fulfilled in him. And 
 even upon the fuppofition that many 
 of thefe paflages were not originally in« 
 tended to refer to the Mefjiaky yet as 
 they had been applied to him in our 
 Saviours time, it feems an inftance of 
 the wifdom and care of providence, fo 
 to order the circumftances of our Sa- 
 viour's life, as that even thefe fuppofed 
 prophecies fhould appear to have been 
 verified in him ; agreeably to the con- 
 ftant method of Gods dealing with men, 
 to have pity on their infirmities, and 
 to accommodate the difpenfations of his 
 providences to their weakneffes and pre- 
 judices, as far as is confiftent with his 
 perfections. If the modern Jews have 
 other notions of fome of thefe palTages 
 than their forefathers had, this will 
 prove indeed, that the application of 
 them to Chrifi is not the proper me- 
 thod to convince them of the truth 
 of chriftianity ; but it will not: prove 
 that they were improperly urged by 
 
 the 
 
(384-) 
 
 the apoftles to the Jews 'of their own 
 time, who had different apprehenfions 
 of them, and can therefore be no juft 
 ground for the treating chrifiianity with 
 infolence and contempt. Unlefs the mo- 
 dern Jews facrifice all their hopes of 
 the Mejfiah to their prejudices, they 
 muft neceffarily allow that fome paffa- 
 ges of the Old Tefiament fpeak of him, 
 and relate to the times of his coming ; 
 becaufe they can have no other rea- 
 fonable foundation for fuch hopes, but 
 what they have in the writings of their 
 prophets. Now probably even thefe 
 paffages may not be without their dif- 
 ficulties ; and the Jews fome years 
 hence may think there is as little rea- 
 fon for applying them to the Mejftah^ 
 as the modern Jews think there was 
 for applying fome of thofe to Jeftis 
 Chri/iy which were interpreted of him 
 by the apoftles ; and therefore as they 
 would not think it unfair in a chriftian 
 to difpute with them for the truth of 
 chriftianity^ from prophecies acknow- 
 ledged by themfelves to refer to the 
 Mejfiah^ fo neither are the apoftles to 
 be blamed for arguing on the fame foun- 
 dation 
 
dation wirh the jews of their own 
 time. But what is there in all this to 
 prove that chriflianity is founded on the 
 allegorical^ i. e. the falfe feufe of fcrip- 
 ture? Becaufe the apoltlcs fometimes 
 prudently endeavoured to prevent the 
 ill efFefts of particular prejudices, doth 
 it therefore follow that they never ufed 
 any folid arguments at all ? Or becaufe 
 the Jewsj in our Saviours time, appli- 
 ed fome things to the Mejftahi which 
 might not originally refer to him, is 
 it a certain confequence that therefore 
 there are no prophecies in the Old Te/la- 
 ment relating to him ? Or that becaufe 
 fome palTages being only fuppofed pro- 
 phecies, are proofs only to them who 
 believe them prophecies, that therefore 
 the literal accompli iliment of real prophe- 
 cies is not to be efteemed a proper 
 proof? It may fafcly be allowed, with^ 
 Out prejudice to chrijlianity^ that the 
 apoftles did fometimes quote fcripture 
 according to the general interpretation 
 of thofe they wrote to ; not indeed as 
 real proofs in themfelves ; but becaufe 
 it would be a fatisfaftion to thofe they 
 were concerned with^ to fee fome cir- 
 C c cumftance 
 
(386) 
 
 cumftance In the life of Chrift.^ anfwer- 
 ing to fuch a fuppofed prophecy of the 
 Meffiah. But it doth not therefore fol- 
 low that they either thought fuch quo- 
 tations real f roofs themfelves ; much 
 lefs that they ufed them as the o?dy 
 ^rooj% or with thofe who did not know 
 any thing of them, or did not believe 
 them real proofs. Since therefore f . 83. 
 chriftianity is not founded on alkgO" 
 rical interpretations of fcripture, gi- 
 ven by Cbrift and his apoftles, this 
 ought not to be any obftacle or ftum- 
 bhng block in the way of the con- 
 verfion of the Jews to chrifiianity ; 
 and our author hath fliewn himfelf, ei- 
 ther a very ignorant or diflioneft man, 
 in reprefenting the religion of the gof- 
 pei as founded folely on allegory, when 
 he cannot produce one fiiigle allegory 
 alledged as a proper and conclufive 
 proof by Chrifi^ or any of his apo- 
 ftles. 
 
 What he mentions p. 8j. in oppo- 
 fition to what I have been afferting, 
 viz. how much allegory was in ufe 
 amongH the Pagans, being cultivated by 
 many of the fhilofo^hers themfelves^ 
 
 as 
 
(387) 
 
 as zvell as theologers; ly fonie as the 
 method of delivering doHrines ; but hy 
 mofi as the method of exflaining ain^ay 
 ahfurdities ; is indeed a very difingenu- 
 ous and unmannerly comparilon of fa- 
 ^anifm and chrijUaJiity^ but hath not 
 the leaft fliadow or appearance of ar* 
 gument in it. If chrijlianity can be 
 proved to be clogged with any ahfur- 
 dities, or to have no better reafonsto 
 fupport it, than xh^fagan religion had, I 
 will readily own we have need enougli 
 of allegories to defend it; tho' I fliould 
 have but a mean opinion of a religi- 
 on that needed fo weak and wretched 
 a defence. But till this be done, to 
 infinuate that chrifiiamty hath no other 
 fupport than allegory, and that both the 
 religion of the gofpel, and the proof 
 of it are upon a level with the fuper- 
 ftitions of faganifm, that covered oyer 
 the moft monftrous impieties and ahfur- 
 dities with allegory •, is fuch an inftance 
 of immorality in this author, as he 
 muft I think upon refleaion greatly con- 
 demn himfelf for. If he can find out 
 any chriftians that take their chYiJli- 
 anity from Origeny AujHny or any other 
 C c 2 of 
 
OSS) 
 
 of the fathers he quotes ; or that reck- 
 on them proper judges of the fenfe of 
 fcripture, and in matters of faith, Heave 
 them to his corredion ; and do not be- 
 grudge them the honour of reconciling 
 the paffages he cites, and others he might 
 have quoted, with reafon and fcripture : 
 Tho' methinks he ought to be merciful! 
 in his cenfures, when he remembers the 
 many blunders, wilful! mifreprefentations, 
 falfe conftruings of plain latine, and the 
 like, which the author of a late difcourfe 
 of freethinkingy who cannot I fuppofe 
 be unknown to him, was proved to be 
 guilty o£ And as for the author I 
 have been arguing with, he hath made 
 fo many unjuft applications, falfe quo 
 tations, and the like, as I fear ar- 
 gue, not fo much weakneft of under- 
 ftanding, as a wicked and perverfc dif- 
 pofition of mind. And from the many 
 bafe methods made ufe of to under- 
 mine the chriftian religion by fome, 
 and the many impertinences and falfe- 
 methods of reafoning made ufe of to 
 fupport it by others, I cannot help ob- 
 ferving, that as chriftianity^ owed 
 its firlt fpreading, not to humane art 
 
 and 
 
(38?) 
 
 and wifdom ; fo the after fupport of it 
 muft beattributed, not to the conduft and 
 skill of its profeflbrs and advocates, 
 but to the power and providence of 
 almighty God. 
 
 I have only one thing more to men- 
 tion on this head, which is what our 
 author afferts f. 19. i^Cj viz. That 
 chriftianicy is wholly revealed in the Old 
 Teftament, not liter allj \ hut nn/iically, 
 and that therefore chriftianity is myfti- 
 cal Judaifm ; and that therefore the 
 afoftles ufed allegories^ not as argu- 
 ments ad hominem, hut as fro^er and 
 the only f roofs of their allegorical reli- 
 gion. This put into plain cnglifli is, 
 that chriftianity is nothing but an heap 
 of abfurdities, contradidions, and falie 
 and idle interpretations of the jeiL^- 
 7/7; writings ; and that Chri^ and his 
 apoftles made ufe of forced idle ri- 
 diculous interpretations of fcripture to 
 fupport it. Every one that confiders 
 this author's plain meaning in the words 
 allegoricaUndmyfical, muft aUow that 
 I have not mifreprefented him. Sure 
 I am for his own fake, he fliould not 
 . have made fo bitter and fo unjufl 
 
 C c } a 
 
(39o) 
 
 a refledion as this. If he hath the 
 the cavife he writes for at heart, this 
 way can never be thought by any wife 
 man a proper method to fupport it ; 
 and therefore, with all his pomp of 
 citations, he ought hereafter evermore 
 to be looked on as a wretched advo- 
 cate for infidelity, who hath no better 
 methods to defend it than by llander- 
 ing and reviling chrifiianity. To ca- 
 lumniate and feoff at is not to argue ; 
 but certainly proves that he, who makes 
 ufe of this method, hath either a very bad 
 caufe to defend, or hath neither fenfe nor 
 honefty to defend a good one. Which 
 part of the character fuits our author 
 beft, I leave his own confcience and 
 the world to judge of. That there 
 were many prediftions in the Old Tefla- 
 went of things to happen undei' the times 
 of the Meffiahy I have already fhewn ; I 
 mean things literally^ not ^VegoricaUy 
 fpokenof; and therefore it will follow, not 
 that chrifiianity is the dkgorkal fenfe of 
 the Old Tcftament, but that there are ma^ 
 ny things in Chrifaanity agreeable to the 
 plain prediftionsof the OU Teftmne?it\ and 
 that the fhewing the correfpondenc^ be- 
 tween the propheciesof the OJdTefiamenty 
 
 and 
 
(990 
 
 and their completion under the NeWy i% 
 a very proper method of arguing with 
 thofe who allow the authority of the 
 OldTejt anient \ and that fuch arguments 
 and proofs will be to them convincing, 
 and a proper foundation for their 
 faith. But what have Gentiles^ men 
 that knew nothing of the jewip re- 
 ligion, or writings, to do with jew^ 
 ijl) prophecies ; efpecially with the myf- 
 tical, i. e» the falfe fenfe of thefe pro- 
 phecies? And where will this wife 
 many this diffuter bring any one inftance 
 to prove, that the apoltles ever preached 
 up judaifniy in order to convert a 
 Ge?itile to chriftia7iity ? Or doth he 
 fo little underftand the writings of the 
 Old and Neiv lefia7ne?ity as not to 
 know the vaft difference between the 
 two religions they contain. Chrijiiafii* 
 ty in all its main principles and du- 
 ties hath no manner of relation to, or 
 connexion with the jewijJ) religion ; and 
 thofe who have never feen the wr/, 
 tings of the prophets may form as 
 juft a fcheme of the religion of tlie 
 gofpel, as thole that are ever fo through- 
 ly acquainted with them ; and of con- 
 jfequence a perfon may be a finceer be- 
 ^ • C c 4 Uever 
 
(392) 
 
 liever in "^efus Chri/l^ that hath never 
 heard ofAJofes and the prophets. And 
 this feems to have been the cafe with 
 the firft Gentiles that were converted 
 to chriftianity. The apoftles ftaid but 
 for a very httle while in many places 
 where they preached the gofpel, and 
 therefore inculcated only the more ne- 
 ceffary truths that were to be be- 
 lieved ; fuch as that Jeftis was the 
 fon of God, that he died for the fins 
 of men, and rofe again for their jufti- 
 fication ; and all who profelTed their be- 
 lief of thefe things were baptifed with- 
 out exception, without any the leaft inti- 
 mation of the neceffity of their un- 
 derftanding pidaifm^ or attempt to 
 convert them by jeivijl) allegories^ as 
 may be fecn in the acts of the afo- 
 pies. Yea farther it feems to have been 
 one principal end of St. FauVs writing 
 hisepiftles, to keep the ^^;^/^i/^ converts 
 from too high an cftcem and venera- 
 tion for jiidaijhy and to perfwadethem 
 not to meddle with jewifl) difputes 
 and queftions, nor to conform to any 
 of their rites and ceremonies ; from the 
 typical, myftical fenfe of which he was 
 
 fQ 
 
( 393 ) 
 
 fo far from pretending to argue, as 
 that he condemns them as weak and 
 beggerly elements, and calls them fha- 
 dows only in comparifon of the more 
 excellent duties of chriftianity. And 
 indeed as there is not one fingle in- 
 ftance to be produced, where any of 
 the apoftles lay any ftrefs on, or pre- 
 tend to argue from allegory, or to 
 convince men of the truth of chrifHa- 
 nity by perfwading them, firft, to turn 
 myftical 'Jews ; I leave this gentleman 
 to his own confcience, to examine whi- 
 ther he can juftify fo apparently falfe 
 and fcandalous a charge on chriftia7ii- 
 tjy by any of the principles of juftice 
 or honour ; and heartily pray God that 
 he may be at laft prevailed with to 
 examine the evidence for the truth of 
 it, with a mind free from partiality 
 and prejudice, that the thiugs of his 
 peace may not le fi?ia]ly hid from him. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
(394-) 
 
 Chap, XIlI. 
 TheCONCLUSION. 
 
 N D thus have I endeavour- 
 ed to give fome account of 
 the nature of the Old Tefia- 
 ment prophecies, and the rea- 
 fons of their citation in the New. But 
 before I quite difmifs our author, 'tis 
 neceffary I fhould add, that fuppofing 
 the difficulties which attend the quotati- 
 ons out of the Old Tefiament^ by the 
 apoftles, were much greater than they 
 really are, yet even this would not af- 
 fe£t the credit, or the truth of chrifli" 
 anitj. Had this been the only fort of 
 proof that the firft preachers of the 
 gofpel infifted on, he would have written 
 much more to the purpofe than I ap- 
 prehend he now hath done ; and then 
 
 the 
 
(39S) . 
 
 the proper way of converting men to 
 the faith of the gofpel would have 
 been, firft to have convinced them of 
 the truth and authority of the 
 jewijh revelation. But this is a fuppo- 
 fition contrary to the certain practice 
 of the apoftles, as far as we have any 
 account of them in the JHs ; they 
 never pretending to argue with Ge7itiles 
 from jewijh prophecies, but plain fafts- 
 no nor with the Jews thcmfelves from 
 prophecies alone, but from prophecies 
 and fafts together ; becaufe 'twas necef- 
 fary, with refpe£t to them, that Jefus 
 ChriB Ihould be proved both a real 
 fro^hetj and that particular frofhet^ 
 or MeJJtah, whom they expefted. As 
 indeed, after the converfion of tlie Gen- 
 tiles to the faith of ChriB y the churches 
 were a mixed fociety of Jews and 
 Gentiles^ it is no wonder that in epiftles 
 written for the general benefit, there 
 ihould be a mixture of each kind of 
 argument; efpecially fince one main 
 fubjeO; of almoft all the epiflles, that 
 are jaow extant, was a je^fcijb quefti- 
 on, viz, how long, and over whom 
 the jewijh ceremonial law was to be 
 
(396) 
 
 in force. The application of jevrifh 
 fcripture, on fuch an occafion, to Jews 
 was exceeding proper, and was fure 
 to have its influence and weight. But 
 that on other occafions, when the a- 
 poflles were preaching the gofpel to 
 Gentiles only, they mentioned the jewiJI? 
 fcriptures or religion, there is not one 
 paiTage in the whole New Teftawent 
 to render it probable. 
 
 Suppofe then that there are fome paf- 
 ages cited by the Neiv Teftament writers, 
 that we cannot well account for, or 
 others that we certainly know are 
 applied to occafions they did not ori- 
 ginally refer to, what will follow? 
 The fubverfion of chriftianity^ and the 
 impofture of ChriH and his apoftles? 
 This our author hath been endeavour- 
 ing to prove, in his way ; but, thanks 
 be to God, without effeO:. The con- 
 fequence will be this, that as to fuch, 
 which we cannot demonfl:rate to be ap. 
 plied contrary to their original intenti- 
 on, and yet which we know not well 
 how to account foi', they mufi: remain 
 in their prefent uncertainty ; and as no 
 argument can be drawn from theai, 
 
( 397 ) 
 
 to fupport the religion of the gofpel, 
 fo neither will they furnifh any rea- 
 fonable obje£tion againft it. And as to 
 thofe paflages which do evidently ap- 
 pear to be applied to different occafions 
 than what they originally refer to, if 
 any fuch there be, it will be fufficient 
 to fay of them, that the apoftles, who 
 did thus apply them, had fufficient rea- 
 fon to do it ; that there were particular 
 circumftances that made fuch quotati- 
 ons neceffary, and that thofe, for whofe 
 ufe they were made, underftood the 
 juftnefs and propriety of them : Or that 
 we underftand not the precife meaning 
 of the forms of the citations, nor the 
 purpofes for which fcripture was then 
 ufually cited, nor the interpretation that 
 was ufually put upon the paiTages that 
 are mod liable to exception. Now I ap- 
 prehend that, before our author and his 
 friends will be able to do chriftianity 
 any great differvice, they muft make 
 it out, that there could be no circum- 
 ftances relating to perfons, times, or 
 places, that could make fuch an ap- 
 plication of fcripture proper ; and they 
 muft fix the cxad meaning of thofe ex- 
 
 preffions 
 
(398) 
 
 preflions, This was done that it might 
 le fulfilkd^ Then was the fcrifture fuU 
 filled^ Src. as they were then in ufe 
 amongft the ^ews ; and when it can 
 be proved that the apoftles ufed thefe 
 forms of quotation in a different fenfe 
 from what others did, or put another 
 interpretation on the Old Teftament prc)- 
 phecies than the true, or generally re- 
 ceived one ; I known not but we may 
 then have fome reafon to be in pain 
 for them, tho' even this will not un« 
 dermine the truth of chrifiianity. For 
 the truth and certainty of this depends, 
 not folely upon the fuppofition of their 
 being infpired, much lefs under the 
 influence of a continual infpiration; but 
 upon the truth of the gofpel hiftory^ 
 viz. the life and death, arid refurrec- 
 tion of our bleffed Lord. If there be 
 any folid proof of this, chrifiianity 
 will maintain its ground, and (land 
 firm againft all the attacks of infide* 
 lity ; even tho' it could be proved, that 
 the writings of the apoftles, which arc 
 now extant, were not all penned un- 
 der divine infpiration. If it can be pro- 
 ved that thei'e was fuch a perfon as 
 
(399) 
 
 Jefiis ChriBy and that the doflrines 
 and precepts, delivered in the golpels^ 
 were taught by him, and the miracles 
 there recorded aftually performed by 
 him ; that neverthelefs he was malici- 
 oufly put to death by the "Jews^ but 
 raifed again from the dead the third day^ 
 according to what he himfelf fore- 
 told ; and that after a wonderful afcenfi- 
 on into heaven, he fent down his holy 
 fpirit on his apoftles, according to his 
 promife; it will then undcniaby follow, 
 that he was a prophet fent of God, and 
 that the religion he taught is of divine 
 obligation. Now tho' the being under 
 the peculiar direction of the fpirit of 
 God would be a very great advantage 
 to perfons giving this teftimony, and 
 is what I apprehend to be the real 
 cafe of the apoftles, yet is not this ne- 
 celTary, in the nature of the thing, 
 to render their teftimony credible. 
 For upon the fuppofition that they were 
 perfons of probity and honour, and 
 adually faw and heard the tilings of 
 which they fpeak, they were then pro- 
 per witneffes, and their teftimony 
 ought to be received. And this is 
 
 what 
 
(400) 
 
 what the New Teftament writers theiti- 
 felves appeal to. Thus Liihe^ in thd 
 beginning of his gofpel, tells us, that 
 he had a ferfeB underftanding of the 
 things lelieved amongft chrifiians^ a^ 
 being delivered unto him hy thofe^ who^ 
 from the beginnings were eye witneffes 
 and minifiers of the wordj Luke i. 
 2, J. And St. John declares, That 
 which we have feen and heard de- 
 clare we U7ito you^ John i. j. And 
 the apoftles, Teter and John^ anfwering 
 before the counfel of Jerufalem^ tell 
 them, We cannot hit ffeak the things 
 which we have feen and heardj Afts 
 iv. 20. So that the apoftles do not 
 found their claim of being believed, 
 upon the foot of infpiration only, but 
 upon their having been witneffes to the 
 things of which they write. As they 
 delivered nothing but what they faw 
 and heard, fo far their teftimony was 
 to be received and fubmitted to. And 
 'till our author, and his friends, can 
 difprove the accounts they have given, 
 they will never be able to difprove the 
 truth of chrifia/iitj. 
 
 There 
 
(401) 
 
 There is not indeed, as I apprehend, 
 any caufe to make fo large an allowance 
 as this to the objeftors againft chriftiani- 
 t)\ Let thofe, who deny the infpiration 
 of the apoftles, prove the falfity of that 
 account we have in the AHs^ of the 
 defcent of the Holy Gho'd upon their 
 heads, and of the wonderful works 
 they declared they wrouglit by the 
 power of the fame fpirir. Let them 
 fliew us for what I'eafons they imme- 
 diately changed their notions of the 
 nature of the MeJ]iah\ kingdom, and 
 what could reafonably be iuppofed to 
 induce them to rejoyce in being counted 
 worthy to fufter for the fake of Chriil^ 
 who had hitherto entertained very 
 ftrong expectations of high adv^ancement 
 in worldly honour and dignity. Let 
 them farther tell us how the apoIUes 
 were fupported, and by what they were 
 governed at their firlt preaching chri- 
 jtianitj' What was it that infpircd 
 thefe poor fifhermen with fuch mighty 
 courage before the face of the rulers, 
 and chiefs of the people ? Whence did 
 they learn the arts of apologizing in 
 D d fo 
 
( 4^2 ) 
 
 fo juft a manner, and upon every emer- 
 gence, before their enemies ? How 
 came their dilcourfes fo coherent, their 
 entire fcheme fo confiftent, and all their 
 remaining epiftles fo very agreeing with 
 each other, if they were either weak 
 or difhoneft men, or were not under 
 the influence of fome good fpirit to di- 
 refl: them ? Thefe are fuch difficulties 
 in the deiftical fcheme, as feem to me 
 vaftly to exceed any that can be pre- 
 tended to follow the chnftian. And 
 I profefs I can as eafily believe the 
 groffeft contradiction in nature, as to 
 perfwade mylelf to think, that eleven 
 or twelve poor mean illiterate Jewsy 
 £fhermen and pubhcans by occupation, 
 hated by their own nation, and perfe- 
 cuted by others, could ever invent fo 
 artful a ftory as that of tlie Hfe, and 
 death, and refurreftion ofChrifiy and then 
 propagate the cheat in fpite of all perfecu- 
 tions, and difperfe themfelves into fo ma- 
 ny nations, and teach one uniform confi- 
 ftent fcheme, and write fo many epiftlqs 
 at fuch different times and places, agree- 
 ing in all the main dotlrines, precepts, 
 
 cidvices, 
 
advices, motives, and the like, and at 
 laft bring the whole world into their 
 fcheme. Thefe are luch romancick fup- 
 pofitions as will not eafily gain credit 
 with any reafonable confiderate men. 
 The conduft of the apoftles is indeed 
 eafily accountable for, upon the fup- 
 pofition of the truth of their doctrine, 
 and their being under a divine afli- 
 ftanceand influence. But he who denies 
 this, muft, if he would afl: the part of 
 a reafonable man, difprove the truth 
 of the gofpel hiftory, and tell us upon 
 what other views and principles the 
 apoftles afted, that could be fuppofed, 
 either to infpire them with courage 
 fufficient to profecute. their defign, or 
 with wifdom to render, them fuccefs- 
 full in it. Till this be done, it will 
 fignify but little to flart particular diffi- 
 culties in the fa red writings, or to 
 intimate the uncertainty of our canon, 
 or the differences' of learned men in 
 explaining it. Thefe things may caufe 
 men of weak and unliable minds to 
 defert the truth ; but I am perfwa- 
 ded can never be fuiBcient to out- 
 weigh 
 
f 404-) 
 
 weigh the many arguments that 
 prove, That Jesus Christ is 
 the K I N G of Ifrael^ and S a v i o u r 
 of the world. 
 
 FIN I S. 
 

A 
 
f 
 
 m