reprefentation. But, I believe, it will not seem fo to any Body elfe. For, tho' Interpolations of the Bible, whereof no Notice (≈) is given, may be deem'd by you Corruptions, yet you no where charge thofe, who allow of Interpolations, with allowing Corruptions. You know very well, that fome of them contend; that thofe (a) Interpolations were made for compleating the Scriptures; and that the Authors of them were no lefs infpired by the Holy Ghoft, (to make the faid Interpolations) than the original Authors of thofe Books, who wrote them in an incompleat Manner. And you exprefly distinguish between (b) Mr. WHISTON, who speaks of the Bible as greatly corrupted, and Dr. PRIDEAUX and others, who speak of it as only interpolated, without the leaft Infinuation that the latter take an Interpolation to be a Corruption. Nor does your Perfuafion, that an Interpolation under the forefaid Circumftance is a Corruption, in the leaft imply that Dr. PRIDEAUX and those others must think fo too.

3. His next Inftance is a Charge of Mifreprefentation in Refpect of STILLINGFLEET. You cite this Paffage, (c) that Miracles, as Splendid Gifts as they are, are no Demonftrations of the Truth; and for this Citation you refer to Dr. HICKS, whose express Words they are, and to Dr. STILLINGFLEET. But as to Dr. STILLINGFLEET, he is perfuaded, upon the Perufal of his Book, (d) that there is nothing

(z) Dife, p. 121. . 120, 121,

(a) Letters, p. 24. (b) Disc(d) Letters, p. 25. like

(c) lb. p. 29.

like in all bis Book. I do not pretend to help his Eyes or his Understanding; but for others, I refer them to the (e) Section you cite, which is wholly grounded on the Supposition, that Miracles are no Demonstrations.

4. You (f) fay of FESTUS, mention'd in the Acts, that he was expert in all Customs and Queftions among the Jews. This Mr. Green obferves (g) is the Character, in the Acts, not of FESTUS, but of AGRIPPA. This is very true, and the Miftake was foon corrected in the fecond Edition of your Book, long before Mr. Green publifh'd his Letters. By which it will appear to be a mere Error of the Printer or Tranfcriber entering wrong a marginal Paffage.

5. His next Inftance is a Charge of miftaking (b) Dean STANHOPE in Relation to what he fays of Miracles. He denies not the Words to be rightly cited by you. And, as to the Sense of them, he acknowledges, that the Dean Speaking against thofe, who look on Miracles as the adequate and fole Foundation of Faith, Jeems in the Paffage to advance the Argument for Chriftianity from Prophely to the Prejudice of the Argument for it from Miracles; and that the Dean was not fufficiently cautious in expreffing himself. And he urges another Paffage out of the Dean to prove the Dean's Want of Caution, and that you have mistaken his Meaning. But that Paffage has

(e) Orig. Sacra l. 11. c. 6. f. 16 (g) Letters, p. 5. (b) Ib. p. 52. Ꮓ

(ƒ) Difc. p. 150.

no

no Oppofition to the former, as it is understood by you; and as it is meant by the Dean, for there is no Colour for Mr. Green to attack the Dean for incautiously expreffing himself. It is very odd for Mr. Green to charge you with Mifreprefentations of a Perfon, whom he corrects, as expreffing himself incautiously, or a greeably to your Senfe, and then to make your Mifreprefentation of him to lie in not understanding him, according to his unjuft (or even juft) Correction of him.

6. His fixth and last Instance is a Charge of mistaking again Dean STANHOPE, whom you (i) cite for faying, 'tis poffible in the Confideration of fingle Prophefies to find fome other Event (befides JESUS and the Matters, relating to him) to which thefe might be adapted without great Violence to the Text, and whom you understand as fpeaking therein of every individual Prophefy. And can any Thing be plainer, or more univerfally exprefs'd and to your Purpose, than his Affertion? And the Paffage immediately fubjoin'd by the Dean, and cited by Mr. Green, as inconfiftent with the Dean's affirming, what you fuppofe he does of every individual Prophefy, is so far from being really inconfiftent with fuch Affirmation, that it proceeds on that very Suppofition, as the intelligent Reader may fee.

I might, in Return to Mr. GREEN, attack him for his perpetual Mifreprefentations of Perfons and Things; for I do not recollect, that

he has made one Obfervation that affects you, (except in Relation to the Word Difficulties) but is founded on fome Mistake or Mifrepresentation, and setting Things in a falfe Light. This has in great Measure appear'd by my Answer to him; and that I may not be tirefome, I fubmit the reft to the Reader. I will only observe, that he neither understands his Adverfary, nor even his own Scheme. Indeed, he seems not to know what he is about, but when he is abufive. That Part of vulgar Theology he may be allow'd to understand well, as well as truly to practise.

That he does not understand his own Scheme, appears by his talking of Miracles (k) really and feemingly done, in the Cafe of AARON and the Magicians. Which not only deftroys the very Suppofition or Being of any Miracles, (for if the (1) Miracles of the Magicians are fuppofed only to be feemingly done, the Authority of the Senfes is deny'd, and no Proof can be given that AARON or any Body elfe ever did Miracles) but is particularly irconfiftent with the Scheme he himself builds on, which fuppofes and afferts, that the Miracles of the Magicians were really done.

And that he does not understand your Scheme, appears from his faying, (m) your Business here, if you would do any Thing against Christianity, is to fhew that This you cal the mystical Senfe is unnatural and abfurd.

(k) Letters, p 32. (m) Letters, p. 88.

(1) See Fleetwood, ib. p. 23.

Z 2

Your

Your Bufinefs was, as I think, to prove that the mystical Scheme was the Chriftian Scheme of Things (which myftical Scheme you have endeavour'd to unfold by Explications taken from the moft profound and learned Chriftian rabbinical Theologers) without the leaft Defign or Thought, as it feems, of labouring to prove that mystical Scheme to be unnatural and abfurd. Nay, I am fincerely perfuaded, that you must think fuch an Attempt to be a needlefs, and moft impertinent Work, as well as inconfiftent with your Plan. To have the myftical Scheme deem'd unnatural and abfurd, feems the Defign of your Adverfaries; who generally think it fo manifeftly abfurd and unnatural, as to conclude you an Unbeliever, for advancing that Scheme; which they think needs no Confutation. In a Word, Mr. Green has plainly no Ears to hear; and till he has got Ears, it is impoffible for him to judge of Sounds.

Laftly, there is a miftaken Way of arguing (to fay nothing worse of it) that runs thro his whole Difputation. Therein he ought as a Difputant to have attack'd Propofitions in themselves, and not you as an Enemy to Christianity, who propofe thofe Propofitions, not in the Way of Oppofition to Chriftianity. but as Chriftian Propofitions, and as the Senfe of the Bible, which you fupport by the Authority of the moft eminent Divines. Views and Designs are invifible Things, and, not being the Matters afferted, are not the Subjects of Difputation, or Matters in Question,

how