duced, as literally fulfilled in the Meffiah. But any one that will take the pains to compare what he hath here offered with the book he pretends to anfwer, will find how little he has been able to fay, that is really to the purpofe, and how far he has been from invalidating the proofs which had been brought. He often flips over the most material things that had been urged, and, as the bishop afterwards complained, takes no more notice of them than if he had not read them. If he can but find a fingle paffage in any Jewish or Chriftian writer, though but a modern one, and contrary to the general confent of interpreters, this is laid hold on to fet afide the bishop's interpretation, and to fhew that the Jews did not generally understand a prophecy of the Meffiah, or apply it to him, though clear evidence had been produced that they fo applied it.

But there is no part of the Literal Scheme, &c. which the author has fo much laboured, as that where he hath collected together all that he could meet with against the antiquity and authority of the book of Daniel, and the prophecies contained there. This occafioned a second answer from the learned bishop, intitled, A Vindication of the Defence of Chriflianity from the Prophecies of the Old Teftament, published in 1728, in which he hath largely and very folidly vindicated the antiquity and authority of the book of Daniel, and the application of the prophecies there contained to the Meffiah, against the author's objections: and hath alfo fully obviated whatsoever he had farther advanced against the antiquity and univerfality of the tradition and expectation among the Jews concerning the Meffiah. The learned Dr. Rogers had before this publifhed his very valuable fermons, on the Neceffity of divine Revelation, and the Truth of the Chriftian Religion. “To which is prefixed a preface, with fome remarks on a late book, intitled, The Scheme of Literal Prophecy confidered," London, 1727, 8vo. Soon after which, there came out an ingenious pamphlet, intitled, The true Grounds of the Expectation of the Meffiak, in two letters by Philalethes, London, 1727, faid to be written by Dr. Sykes. Dr. Bullock also appeared again to great advantage in this controverfy, in a treatife intitled, The Reafoning of Chrift and his Apoftles vindicated, in two parts. Defence of the Argument from Miracles, proving the Argument from Prophecy not neceffary to a rational Defence of our Reli

66

66

1. A

gion. 2. A Defence of the Argument from Prophecy, proving the Chriftian Scheme to have a rational Foundation upon the Prophecies of the Old Teftament, in answer to a book intitled The Scheme of Literal Prophecy confidered, London, 1728, 8vo. In this book, Dr. Bullock finds great fault with our author's way of managing the argument: he obferves, that he has not only "raked together the unguarded expreffions of ingenious men, "but by altering, adding to, and curtailing paffages referred to, "and by other difingenuous methods unbecoming a man of hon66 our and fincerity, wrefteth them to purpofes apparently contrary "to their true import." And yet no man had raised a louder outcry against the clergy, for abufing, corrupting, and mangling of authors to ferve their own purposes, than this gentleman had done in his Difcourfe of Free-thinking. The bifhop, in his Vindication, makes the fame complaint against him; fo does Dr. Samuel Chandler, who published, on this occafion, a judicious Vindication of the Antiquity and Authority of Daniel's Prophecies, and their Application to Jefus Chrift: in answer to the objections of the author of the Scheme of Literal Prophecy confidered, London, 1728, 8vo. About the fame time was publifhed, Chrifianity the Perfection of all Religion, natural and revealed; wherein fome of the principal Prophecies relating to the Meffiah in the Old Teftament are fhewn to belong to him in the literal Senfe, in Oppofition to the Attempts of the Literal Scheme, &c. by Thomas Jeffreys, London, 1728. I fhall conclude this letter with obferving, that this attack against Christianity, though carried on with great art as well as malice, produced this advantage, that it gave occafion to a full and accurate examination into the nature, defign, and extent of many of the Old Teftament prophecies, and to the placing fome difficult paffages in a clearer light.

LET.

Mr. Woolfon's Difcourfes on the Miracles of our SaviourUnder pretence of standing up for the allegorical Senfe of Scripture, he endeavours abfolutely to deftroy the Truth of the Facts recorded in the Gofpels-His difingenuous Reprefentation of the Senfe of the Fathers on this Head, and his falfe Quotations-He charges the Accounts given of Chrift's Miracles as abfurd, falfe, and incredible-His grofs and profane Buffoonry, and bafe Reflections on the Charader of our Saviour; and yet he pretends a Zeal for his Honour and Meffiahfhip-A Specimen of his way of Reafoning with regard to feveral of Chrift's Miracles, and his Refurrection-Many good Anfwers publifhed against him.

I

SIR,

HAVE already taken notice of several attempts, which were manifeftly intended to fubvert the truth and divine authority of our holy religion. The laft that was mentioned was, that of the author of the Difcourfe of the Grounds and Reafons of the Chriftian Religion, who, under pretence of fetting Christianity on a fure and folid foundation, had endeavoured to fhew that it hath no foundation at all; that it is founded wholly on the Old Teftament prophecies, taken not in a literal, but merely in an allegorical, i. e. as he plainly defigned it, in a false sense, contrary to the original intention of the prophecies themselves. In opposition to him it was clearly fhewn, that many of the Old Teflament prophecies are juftly applied to our Saviour in their proper and literal fenfe. Befides which it was urged, that there were other folid proofs of Chriflianity, particularly that of our Saviour's miracles, and his refurrection from the dead; and the illuftrious atteftations given to him from heaven were evident proofs of his divine million. And now, under pretence of acting the part of a moderator in this controverfy, a new antagonist arofe, Mr. Woolfton, who endeavoured to allegorize away the miracles of our Saviour, as Mr. Collins had done the prophecies. This he firft attempted in a pamphlet, intitled, A Moderator between an

Infidel

Infidel and an Apoftate; and in two Supplements to it: and afterwards more largely in fix Discourses on the miracles of our Saviour, which were fucceffively published at different times, in the years 1727, 1728, and 1729: the defign of all which is to fhew, that the accounts of the great facts recorded in the gospels are to be understood wholly in a myftical and allegorical fenfe; and that, taken in the literal and historical fenfe, they are false, abfurd, and fictitious. This attempt he hath carried on with greater rudeness and infolence than any of those that appeared before him. The Earl of Shaftesbury, even where he unhappily fets up ridicule as the teft and criterion of truth, expreffeth his difapprobation of fcurrilous buffoonry, grofs raillery, and an illiberal kind of wit. And if there ever was any performance to which these characters might be justly applied, it is this of Mr. Woolfton. The fame noble writer obferves, that to manage a debate fo as to offend the public ear, is to be wanting in that refpect that is due to the fociety and that what is contrary to good breeding is, in this refpect, as contrary to liberty. If we are to judge of Mr. Woolfton's writings by this rule, they are as inconfiftent with a juft liberty, as they certainly are with good breeding and decency.

There are two ways by which he endeavours to answer the defign he hath in view. The one is, by fhewing that the literal fense of our Saviour's miracles is denied by the most ancient and venerable writers of the Chriftian church: the other is, by fhewing the abfurdity of the accounts given in the gospels, taken in the literal fenfe. With regard to the firft of thefe, he hath with great pomp produced many teftimonies of the fathers, for whom he profeffeth the profoundest veneration; and, by a strange disingenuity, endeavoureth to represent them as abfolutely denying the facts themfelves related in the gofpel; becaufe, according to a custom which then obtained, they added to the literal, a spiritual and allegorical fenfe, and took occafion from thence to make pious allufions. He pretendeth, that if we will adhere to the fathers, the gospel is in no fort a literal story; and that the hif tory of Fefus's life is only an emblematical reprefentation of his Spiritual life in the fouls of men. But it is certain, and was evi dently proved by his learned answerers, that in giving the allegorical and mystical fenfe, the fathers firft fuppofed the literal

VOL. I.

I

fenfe,

fense, and the hiftorical truth of the facts, and upon them built their allegorical interpretations. It is acknowledged, 'that in thefe they often exceeded just bounds, and too much indulged the vagaries of a pious fancy: but to pretend, that they intended to deny that the facts recorded by the evangelifts were really done, is one of the moft confident impofitions that were ever put upon mankind; and it is not to be doubted, but the author himself was fenfible of this. Many glaring inftances of unfairness and difingenuity in his quotations from the fathers were plainly proved upon him. It was fhewn, that he hath quoted books generally allowed to be spurious, as the genuine works of the fathers; and hath, by falfe translations and injurious interpolations, and foifting in of words, done all that was in his power to pervert the true fenfe of the authors he quotes; and that fometimes he interprets them in a manner directly contrary to their own declared fenfe, in the very passages he appeals to, as would have appeared, if he had fairly produced the whole paffage.

It is not to be wondered at, that an author who was capable of fuch a conduct should stick at no methods to expofe and mifrepresent the accounts given by the evangelifts of our Saviour's miracles. Under pretence of fhewing the abfurdity of the literal and historical sense of the facts recorded in the gospels, he hath given himself an unreftrained licence in invective and abuse. The books of the evangelifts, and the facts there related, he hath treated in a strain of low and coarse buffoonry, and with an infolence and fcurrility that is hardly to be paralleled. He afferts, that they are full of improbabilities, incredibilities, and grofs abfurdities: that they are like Gulliverian tales of perfons and things, that out of the romance never had a being: that neither the fathers, nor the apofiles, nor Jefus himself, meant that his miracles fhould be taken in the literal, but in the myftical and parabolical fenfe. And he exprefsly declares, that if Jefus's miracles, literally taken, will not abide the test of fenfe and reason, they must be rejected, and Jefus's authority along with them*. He cafteth feveral reflections on our bleffed Lord, so base and scur. rilous, that they cannot but be extremely offenfive to a Christian ear; and which even fober heathens, many of whom regarded

*Difcourfe IV. p. 16.