their peace, were even then hid from their Eyes, as he tells them Luke xix. 42. and he goes on in the following verses to pronounce the Sentence already decreed against Jerufalem.

AND we find farther, that the Execution of this Sentence was put into the hands of Jefus under the title (o) of the Son of man. Where then was the Injuftice, if that Judgment, which he was authoriz'd to execute upon the whole Land and all the Produce thereof, he executed (for a wife and good-natur'd. Reafon, as I will fhew by and by) upon one Tree in his Lifetime? Where all things are juftly confign'd over to Ruin, no Injury is done, if fome part has its Punishment haften'd and brought upon it before the time is come for the reft: as when several men are sentenc'd to Death for the fame Crime, it is no Injustice to call immediately for the Forfeit of one Life among them, and leave the others for fome other Convenient feafon. It is juft the fame with a Nation confider'd as confifting of Parts; the Ruin of fome Cities, Houfes, or Trees may juftly take place of the reft, where all are given over to Deftruction: And therefore Jefus, if he had a Right to execute a Curfe on the whole Land of Judea, muft be allowed a Right to execute a Curse upon fo fmall a Part of it, as this Fig-tree was.

AND lefs Objection ftill is to be made against it, if he defign'd the Punishment of this Tree for an Emblem to the Jews of what their Cafe then was, and what their Punishment would fhortly be for it was not Paffion and Difappointment in not finding Figs on it, when he was Hungry, that fet him to work this Miracle; that is Mr. W's ill-natur'd fuggeftion, for which he has no Authority unless his own Experience of what Lengths of Mischief Paffion and Difappointment may perhaps have carried Him. But this Action of Jefus had a higher and a more worthy End and View in it; for St. Mat. xxi. 19. relates this proceeding of Jefus towards the Fig-tree as well as St. Mark, and joins to the account of it two Parables, which he fpake about the fame time to the Jews, and which he concludes with this rernarkable application, Therefore I fay unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and given to a Nation bringing forth the Fruits thereof, ver. 43. which is a Key to open our Saviour's meaning in his blafting the Fig-tree as well as in his two Parables: for from thence this Moral may be gather'd, that the Figtree is the Jewish Nation, that the Kingdom of God or the Gofpel was preached to them, but they were Barren; they would not repent, and (as St. John the Baptist speaks) bring forth fruits meet for Repentance. They were therefore taught by this Miracle perform'd on the Barren Fig-tree, that the Gospel would be remov'd from them, and that (for their rejecting it) they would be left to their own Unfruitful works of Darkness, and confign'd over to Destruction, to wither away as a Nation, and be dried

(0) Mat. xxiv. 30, 37, 38. Mark xiii. 26. Luke xxi. 27, 36.

up

up from the roots. And the Sentence, Let no man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever, has been hitherto verify'd, that unhappy Nation having continued in the fame barren ftate, and lying to this day under the Moral of the Curfe pronounced upon that Fig-tree.

;

IT was very ufual among the Eafterns to exprefs Things by Actions; variety of Inftances to this purpofe might be given out of the Old and New Teftament; and therefore when the Warning, given by this Action to the whole Nation of the Jews, was fo Charitable and Benevolent an one, it is meer Perverseness to cavil at this Miracle, because it was a Destructive one to the Tree: It was fo, but it meant to prevent the Deftruction of a Nation and that, you will allow, was the 'Reverse of a Malicious and Ill-natur'd Act: But ftrip it of this Moral, and fuppofe the Figtree to have only undergone the Punishment to which the whole Land was doom'd; was it Therefore no Miracle? may not God work a Miracle to Chaftife as well as to Blefs? Who or What prescribes to him a Law to the Contrary? Ananias was ftricken Dead, and Elymas the Sorcerer was fmitten with Blindness; and were there Therefore no Miracles in these two Cafes, because there was Deftruction? This way of arguing would be to rob God of his power of inflicting Extraordinary Punishments on Sinners. Why then does Mr. W. affert, that this Action of Fefus is (p) not to be accounted for, because it was to the Deftruction of another man's harmless and inoffenfive Tree? And why are Archbishop Wake and Mr. Chandler fummon'd fo rudely before him, to reconcile with this and fome other Miracles the general Notion of a Miracle, which the One taught, and the Other (as he fays) approved? For to execute a juftly deserved Punishment upon fome Perfons or Things, especially if with a View to promote fome great and general good, is an Action confiftent with the Perfections of God to intereft himself in, such as anfwers to the Character of God as a Good and Gracious Being, and fhews his Love to Mankind and his Inclination to do them good, which with Mr. Chandler are fome of the Rules of Judging, by whom Miracles are perform'd. The best and moft Gracious of Earthly Monarchs do fometimes Punish particular Perfons when Criminal, in Love and Goodness to their Subjects; and a contrary Behaviour would have more of Cruelty than Benevolence in it. And this I have fhew'd to be the Cafe in the Driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple, in the permitting the Devils to enter into the Herd of Swine to their Deftruction, and in this Miracle (now before us) of blafting the Figtree: All which I have prov'd to have been done by way of Punishment deservedly inflicted, and in fuch Cafes Punishment is no Injury. This therefore is a full Defence of the Archbishop's and Mr. Chandler's Notions of a true Miracle.

(p) Page 12.

E

I

I think that there is nothing material on this head, which that Author has started, and which I have left unanswer❜d; unless it be his Peculiar reasoning in p. 17, against the Letter of this Miracle, from what Jefus fays to his Difciples on this occafion, in Matt. xxi. 21. that if they had Faith, they should not only do what was done to the Fig-tree; but if they should fay to this. Mountain, Be thou removed und caft into the Sea, it should be done: Because this was never Literally done by the Disciples, that we read of, therefore he concludes that Jefus did not Literally curfe the Fig-tree. But might not the Disciples have a Power given them to do this among other Miracles, without ever having occafion to fhew their Power in this Inftance? There might be neither a Failure in Jefus's Promife, nor a Want of Faith in them for the doing this Miracle, and yet it might never have been perform'd, because no proper Opportunity might have called for this Demonstration of their Power: And with this answer I leave him, which may fatisfy Others, tho' He perhaps may not receive it as fatisfactory..

IN his Criticisms upon the Greek Text, particularly upon St. Matthew's words, which he renders thus, p. 29. (q) Not as yet, or not until now, against the Age has fruit grown on thee, he has follow'd no Commentator, and, I can promife him, will never be followed by any.

BUT Ignorance may be excus'd in one, who has fo much greater Faults to answer for: Before I close the Subject of this Miracle, I fhall give the Reader a Sample or two of his unfair method of quoting the Fathers.

ST. Auftin (according to him, p. 4.) very plainly fays, that this Fact in Jefus, upon fuppofition that it was done, was a foolish one: That Father's Words, as Mr. W. himself has quoted them at the bottom of his page, are thefe, Hoc Factum, nifi Figuratum, ftultum invenitur, i. e. This which Jefus did, was a Foolish Action, unless it bad fome Figurative meaning. Is this faying that it was Foolish, upon fuppofition that it was done? Does not St. Auftin exprefly allow it to have been done, when he fays hoc factum? And does not he directly charge the Folly upon fomething Elfe, upon a fuppofition that it had no other meaning than a Literal one? A Pen and a Spirit like that of St. Austin might put this Forgery in fuch a Light as Mr. W. would not care

for.

AGAIN p. 16. he brings in Origen as faying, that there are fome things fpoken of in the Evangelifts as Facts, which were never tranfacted. But (r) Origen speaks of the Hiftorical parts of the

(2) Μηκέτι ἐκ σε καρπὸς γένηται εἰς ἃ αιώνα.

(r) Hiftoria Scripturæ interdum inferit quædam vel minus gefta, vel quæ omnino geri non poffunt; interdum quæ poffunt geri, nec tamen gefta funt. De Principiis, L. 4.

Scripture

Scripture in general, and fhews what he means, by the Inftances which he gives out of the Old and New Teftament, such as God's walking in the Garden in the cool of the Day; his being fpoken of as having Hands, and Mouth, and Ears; and with regard to the Gospel-precepts he Inftances in the plucking out a right eye, and cutting off a right-hand, as things that might poffibly be done, but never were: And then he fubjoins a request to his Readers not to think that it was his Opinion, that, becaufe fome things were not done according to the Letter of the Hiftory, therefore he would deftroy the Credit of the Scripture-Hiftory.

IF Mr. W. then had read the one Paffage, he fhould have read the other, and not have brought in Origen as giving a Testimony which he exprefly disclaims.

IN p. 9. he quotes St. John of Jerufalem as faying, Arbor non eft juftè ficcata, the Fig-tree was not justly dried up. But these words are only a piece of the Sentence which runs thus, Dicat aliquis, Si tempus non erat Ficorum, non peccavit Ficus, que fructum non habebat: fi autem non peccavit, non eft juftè ficcata, i. e. It may be objected, that if it was not the time of Figs, then the tree was not in fault for having none; and if it was not in fault, then it was not fuftly dried up. Where the Reader fees, that what Mr. W. quotes as that Father's Sentiment, is only an Objection which he puts into the mouth of fome Adverfary to Chriftianity: To which Objection he immediately fubjoins an Answer (fuch as it is), which he thought a fufficient one, but which Mr. W. has Unfairly taken no notice of.

THESE three Inftances may fuffice to fhew what Credit fhould be given to an Author, who advances Falfhoods so easy to be detected.

IV. THE fourth Miracle which I shall endeavour to set free from fuch Objections as Mr. W. has rais'd against it, is that of (s) Fefus's turning Water into Wine at the Marriage Feaft in Cana of Galilee, John ii. I, &c. The Literal Story of which he has attack'd under the Character of a Jewish Rabbi, with all the Spite to Chriftianity that the Ancient Jewish Rabbins fhew'd to its Founder, and with fuch ill Manners as no Modern Jews among Us (I am perfuaded) would offer to a Church and State fo Indulgent to them as Ours is. But, whether the Invective come from Jew or Gentile, from the fuppos'd Rabbi or Mr. W. himfelf, it is as much Wanting in Proof, as it is Abounding in Malice.

AN Outcry he has rais'd, and there feems at firft Sight to be fome Difficulty in the Story, as he has manag'd it; and therefore I will examine to the Bottom all that He has advanc'd in his Own or the Rabbi's name. And in doing it I shall take the fame

(s) Mr. W's Difcourse 4. p. 23.

E a

Course

Part III. Course as I have hitherto done, tho' I now find more Difficulty than formerly; for his Objections against this Miracle lie in fuch Confufion, that this part of his Difcourfe more particularly requires fome Skill and Pains to bring it into any Order.

HOWEVER the Chief Objections are contain'd (or at least will be anfwer'd) under these three Heads.

HOW came Jefus to vouchsafe his Prefence at a Wedding?

p. 30.

WHY did he fupply the Guefts with fo large a Quantity of Wine, when it is faid, that they had well drunk already? P. 24, 31.

HOW came he to give fuch an answer to his Mother, as, Woman, what have I to do with thee? p. 32.

IS. TO the firft Queftion, How came Jefus to vouchsafe his Prefence at a Wedding? I may answer with another Queftion, Why fhould he not have gone thither, when he was invited? Tradition fays, that the Perfons, whofe Wedding was then celebrating, were Alpheus or Cleopas, and fhe who in the Sacred Scripture is called Mary the Sifter of Jefus's Mother; but, without depending upon Tradition, it seems not unlikely from fome Circumstances of the Story, that they were either Relations to the Virgin Mary, or her Intimate Acquaintance; for we find Her interesting herself, that the Guests might be supply'd when the Wine was wanting, and taking upon her to give the Servants Directions to do whatever her Son fhould bid them do, ver. 9. Now if Jefus and his Difciples were invited to come, and if the New-married Couple were of his Kindred or Acquaintance, what reafon can be affign'd, why he ought to have declin'd the Invitation? Is it Certain, that fuch Indecencies, as Wife and Good men fhould not be Witneffes to, are practifed at all Weddings? or might not the Company have been reftrained by the Prefence of Jefus from any thing of Levity and Unbecom ing Joy? How does this Author know, how foon Jefus retir'd after the Meal was over? or why may not he suspect, that Jefus introduc'd fuch a Religious Difcourfe, while he was there, as was Suitable to the folemn occafion! If he had read what the best Authors fay of the Jewish Weddings, he would have found, that fuch Liberties were not taken in Them as we see too often practis'd among us. But it seems, that (according to Mr. W.) fuch Exceffes in drinking were there indulged, as it was not fit for Jefus to fee and countenance: This is the Material part, and therefore I proceed to

2. THE fecond Objection which this Author has made, viz. How came. Jefus to fupply the Guests with fo large a quantity of Wine, when it is faid, that they had well drunk already? And to clear up this matter the better, I fhall prove these two things, That there is no foundation in the Text to conclude, that there was any Excefs of that fort committed there; and that the Quantity