the Scriptures call, and I fhew'd to be, Infallible ones. It muft be obferv'd that the Evidence, which They had of Jesus's being Alive again, was Senfible Evidence, Frequently repeated, and made Good to more of their Senfes than One; and that the Gift of Tongues, which was the Divine Power within them, was only a Confirmation of the Goodness of this Evidence : They did not reafon, as the Enthufiaft does; This I teach for Truth of Doctrine, because I am Divinely Infpir'd; but, This I teach for Truth of Fact, because I was Eye-witness to it, and felt and handled it; and, that my Senfes did not Deceive me in that Outward Object, I am fure, because I feel within me the Accomplishment of that Promife, which Jefus made to me After his Refurrection.

:

OR take Enthufiafm in its lefs Proper Senfe, and understand by it no more than a Man's being more ftrongly perfuaded of the Truth of any thing than he has Reafon for and extend it (if you please) to Facts as well as Opinions; nay (rather than not allow it room enough to range in) fuppofe it be an Odd and Extravagant Mixture of being Deceived and Deceiving too; yet the Apostles are Safe, and their Teftimony concerning Jefus's Refurrection can never be charged with any the leaft Sufpicion of Enthufiafm: For my Difcourfe (if it Prov'd any thing) Prov'd that the Foundation, on which they built their Strong Perfuafion, was fuch as could eafily fupport the whole Weight of the Superftructure: it was fhew'd, that the Fact which they afferted for True, was not afferted upon the Force of a Suppos'd or a Real Divine Impulfe only, but upon Senfible Evidence of the Strongest kind; fuch as would have been in all Refpects fufficient, tho' Alone, but yet fuch as was (beyond any other Fact that ever happen'd) ftrengthen'd and confirm'd by a Divine Power within them: And if we allow, that, even as to Facts themselves, Enthufiafm may so far impose upon a man, as to make him believe a Lye, nay to be ftrongly perfuaded of the Truth of it; yet it can never make him work real Miracles (which the Apostles did) in order to persuade others to believe it.

SO that, notwithstanding this Charge of Enthufiafm, it must be allow'd that the Teftimony of the Apoftles is True, when they tell us that Jefus Rofe from the Dead on the Third Day, as he had foretold."

IF this Point therefore be gain'd (and till I can fee fomething Material offer'd against it, I may prefume it to be gain'd), I have laid fo ftrong a Foundation, that no Exceptions to any of the Miracles, which Jefus wrought in his Life-time, can be of Weight and Force enough to make a Reafonable and Unprejudic'd Perfon disbelieve them: For if Jefus wrought the Greatest of all Miracles in Raifing himfelf from the Dead, a thing fa plainly beyond all the Powers of Nature, a thing fo feemingly Impoffible, a thing which not only no Human Art could effect,

but

but no Human Wisdom could forefee, can there be any Shadow of a Reason to doubt, whether He wrought thofe Other Miracles, which have fuch vifibly lefs Difficulties in them, and againft which the very beft Exceptions must be meer Trifles in comparison of the Former? If before his Death he had plaid the part of a Cheat and an Impoftor, is it Conceivable, that God would have permitted him to Rife from the Grave; especially when in Proof of his Miffion from God, and of his working Real Miracles, he appeal'd in his Life-time to this Great future Event, and plac'd his whole Character upon his Resurrection? Or can we imagine, that his Difciples, who had fuch Strong, Senfible, Inward Evidence for the Reality of his having been Alive again, could have any Temptation to forge Other Miracles, and afcribe Actions to him which he never perform'd? Was it not. Probable, was it not at leaft Poffible, that they fhould be Detected in the Falfhood of Things, many of which they report him to have done in the moft Publick manner, and before Numbers not only of his Followers but of his Enemies? And would not the Discovery of any one Miracle falfly afcrib'd to their Mafter have been an Invincible Prejudice against the True Miracle, which they witnefs'd to, and built their whole Scheme upon? The Refurrection, Alone, was a Convincing. Proof that he came from God; and a Hundred True Miracles could not poffibly have Added fo much Weight to the Proof of it, as one Falfe one, Detected, would certainly have taken from it. So that what room was there for Forgery, when the Only Method that the Apoftles could use to gain Credit to the Refurrection which they were fure of, was never to report any thing of Jefus which they Knew to be Falfe, or rather did not Know to be True?

HERE then is not only a Reasonable Prefumption, but a Strong Confequence in favour of all the Miracles which are attributed to Jefus in the Gospels: Every Impartial Man muft believe the Literal Account of them to be True, and the Miracles to have been Real ones, unless it can be made out clearly, that there is an Abfolute Impoffibility in any of them. This is the only Cafe, which will allow us to make a Stand: For it is not fufficient to fay, that This or That particular Circumftance feems Abfurd, because the Abfurdity may arife from our want of Materials for Information: the Objection may owe its birth to Ignorance, and he, who makes it, may have his Share of This as well as his Neighbour. Confider, that above 1700 Years have paffed fince these Miracles were wrought; the Climate and the Language, the Customs and the Genius of the People were very different from Ours; the Story is often told in a Short and Uncircumftantial Manner, and Allufions are commonly made to the Hiftory of thofe Times and to the Situation of thofe Places, which We are not fully acquainted with. On all these Accounts and many others, things may feem Strange and even Ab

C

furd

furd to Us, which were the most Obvious and Familiar to the

Natives of Judæa.

BUT, if we had no Helps at all to clear up thefe Matters against Objections, yet we might be faid rather to be Without them than to Want them; for there is no Want, where there is a Direct Proof; and the Confequence drawn from Jefus's Refurrection being a True Fact, in favour of his Other Miracles being Truly wrought, is what no one can reafonably deny to be a Direct Proof.

HOWEVER, fince Objections have been rais'd by Some against the Literal Story of almoft all the Principal Miracles of Jefus, I am not unwilling to enter into a particular Examination of them, to let the Reader fee that the Cavils of these Men are the Weakest and moft Frivolous that can be conceived; fuch as the Meaneft Author, that I ever met with before, would not Stoop to make use of; fuch as in any other Caufe, but that of Religion, a Wife man would not think worth refuting: Nor fhall the Unfair Arts, which They employ to give a Colour to thefe Cavils be forgotten in their proper place. I will venture to fay, that were Thefe open'd and expos'd to their Readers (as they ought to be), fuch Writers could never be able to bring any thing into Difcredit but their own Writings.

AT prefent I fhall confine myfelf to the Literal Accounts of the two firft Miracles, which a late (b) Author has undertaken to Expofe; but in what Manner, and with what Succefs, the Reader will be foon convinc'd.

I. I begin (as He does) with the Miracle of Jefus's driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple. St. Matt. xxi. 12, &c. St. Mark xi. 15, &c. St. Luke xix. 45, &c. St. John ii. 14, &c. ALL the Objections which he has rais'd against it are reduceable to these three heads.

THAT there was no Profanation of the Temple by Buyers and Sellers, as is pretended.

THAT, if there was, yet Jefus could not have executed fuch a Work as driving them out of the Temple.

THAT, if he Could have executed it, yet it was a Needlefs Work, because the Temple was fo foon to be Deftroyed and Polluted.

S. IN Proof of his firft Objection he brings the Teftimony of St. Hilary, p. 25. that there was no fuch Market kept in the Temple And for fear left this fhould not hold, he quotes St. Auftin as faying that there could be no great Sin in Selling and Buy ing Things in the Temple, that were for the Use of it, and offered as Sacrifice in it. But the Reader may remember that I have already convicted Mr. W. of Falfe Evidence in this Quotation from St. Hilary. (See Part I. p. 15.) And yet were This Quo

(b) Mr. Woolfien's Difcourfes on our Saviour's Miracles. Part I. p. 22.

tation

tation an Honeft one, of what Weight could it be? Since the Testimony of the four Evangelifts, who were Contemporaries, and upon the Spot, muft be preferr'd before that of a Writer, who lived fome hundreds of Years afterwards; especially in à Fact of fo Publick a Nature, that, if it was Falfe, the Jews in every part of the World could have Detected it upon their own Knowledge, because they went up yearly from every part of the World to the Temple to celebrate the Paffover; and therefore could not but know, whether at any Paffover, at That particularly, fuch a Traffick was carried on in the Temple or not.

BUT I will give Mr. W. another Teftimony of the Fact, fuch as even (i) his Friend the Jewish Rabbi fhall be forced to allow for a Good one: It is the Testimony of the ancient Jews themselves, who (we may be fure) did not relate the Matter falfly, to ferve the Caufe of the Evangelifts. In the Babylonith Talmud it is declar'd, that (k) forty Years before the Temple was deftroy'd, the Great Council remov'd (from the (1) Place where they us❜d to affemble in the Inner-Court of the Temple), and fat among the Shops. Count back forty Years from the Deftruction of the Temple, and you will find that this Removal was about three or four Years before this Action of our Saviour's, and confequently that there was a Place called the Shops about that time. At the fame time one Jewish Rabbi tells us Where these Shops were (m), They were in the Mountain of the House, by which the Talmud always meant the Outer-Court or Court of the Gentiles: And another tells us What they were, when he says (n), That the Shops were an open fpacious Place, where Goods were fold, and Money exchanged: And frequent Mention is made there of the (0) Tables of the Money-Changers; upon which Maimonides tells us that (p) he who Changed the Money, was called Trapezita in the Mifchna (q). Mr. W. will scarcely (I think) defire a fuller Proof of the Fact than This is.

(i) Difc. V. p. 42.

(k) Quadraginta annis ante Excidium Domus migravit Synedrium majus, feditque in Taberna: (fec. aliam le&t. in Tabernis Montis Sandi): Aveda Sacra. Edit. Edzard. p. 61.

(1) Migravit Senatus ab exedrá lapidum caforum (loco, ubi olim habebatur Senatus) ad Tabernas, & à Tabernis ad Ferufalem. See L'Empereur upon the Codex Middoth. p. 48, 49.

(m) Ita enim R. Nathan, Locus erat extra exedram lapidis cæfi in monte edis, cui nomen Taberna. Ib.

(n) Nos autem folemus (dicit Elias) vocare locum apertum ad libera Patia, ubi vendunt merces, Tabernam ; fic domus ubi mutant pecuniam sum fœnore, dicitur Taberna. Ib.

(o) Vicefimo quinto die ad menfas fedebant in Templo. Ib.

(p) Menfa, i. e. ad menfam, quæ eft ante Nummularium five Trapezitam, qui fuper eá accipit (pecuniam), & fic vocant eum, qui permutat pecuniam, Trapezitam in Mifchna. Ib.

(9) Mifchna. Edis. Syrenbufii. Tom. 4. p. 338.

C 3

BUT

"

BUT he feems aware, that the Fact would be proved against him, and therefore brings in St. Auftin as denying that This was a Profanation of the Temple: that Father's Words are, Non ergo magnum peccatum, fi hoc vendebant in Templo, quod emebatur, ut offerretur in Templo, and then he goes on, tamen inde ejecit illos: Quid Ebriofos inveniret? &c. Now can any one think, that St. Auftin meant to contradict Christ, and fay, that there was properly no great Sin in their doing that, by which Jefus faid that they had made the Temple a Den of Thieves? If he had, it would have been one of the Things which he should have put into his Confeffions. But he meant only, that the Sin was not fo great an one as fome Others are, that it would be worse to be found there a Drunkard than a Seller of Goods: and what he feems thus to Excufe, is only the Buying and Selling in the Temple Things for the Service of the Temple, not (what our Saviour charges them with) the carrying on an Unjuft and Unrighteous Trade there; fo that his Apology for them as Merchants, does not vindicate them as Thieves.

BY the Temple here is meant the Outer-Court of it, or the Court of the Gentiles; which (r) Jofephus (in his Defcription of the Temple) calls the first Temple, as he calls the Inner Court, where the Jews enter'd, the fecond Temple: and he intimates to us at the fame time, that the Jews did not look on this Court of the Gentiles as a Holy place: no wonder then, that they allow'd This Ufe to be made of it, which our Saviour found fault with. But yet this Opinion of the Jews concerning this Court was an Unworthy and Miftaken one; for it was a Part of the Temple in general, it bore the very Name of the Temple, and (what is more) it was the only Place that the Profelytes of the Gate, who came up to the Temple, had to worship the God of Ifrael in: for this purpose it was built very Large and Spacious, that it might receive the great Numbers, which the Jews had reafon to expect to fee there; because Ifaiah's Prophecy (chap. lvi. 7.) runs thus, Mine House shall be a Houfe of Prayer for all People: which Prophecy our Saviour exprefly (5) quoted against the Buyers when he drove them out, to fhew them that their Practice was wholly Inconfiftent with the View and Intent of it, which was that Profelytes from every Country under Heaven fhould come and worship There. It was a

1

(r) De Bello Jud. L. 5. c. z. p. 1226. Edit. Hudf To StÚTE ἱερὸν ἅγιον ἐκαλεῖτε, καὶ τεωαρακαίδεκα βαθμοῖς ἦν ἀναβατὸν ἀπὸ τὸ πρωτο

(s) St. Matt. xxi. 13. has, My Houfe shall be called the House of Prayer. St. Luke xix. 46. My House is the House of Prayer. But St. Mark's Words, chap. xi. 17. are the very fame with the LXX. Tranflation of Ifai. lvi. 7. and may be better render'd thus, My House fhall be called (or shall be) a House of Prayer for all Nations.

great