Virtue and excellency of Man, and That, for which he will be rewarded by God, does not lie in being free from Miftakes, or in agreeing in Opinion with any Man, but in the Love of Truth as fuch. And therefore, instead of a hearty Defire; that he may agree with you or me, or any one else, or may be free from Miftakes, my hearty Defire is, that he and all Men would be Lovers of Truth for Truth's Sake, and lay afide Education, and Intereft, and all Prejudices in the taking up and maintaining Opinions; which if they do, they cannot hurt themselves by any mistaken Opinions they can fall into. Miftaken Opinions can hurt none but those, who do not impartially search after Truth.

Having done with Mr. GREEN, I fhall conclude to you.

*

Though the World may excufe you from entering the Lifts against Mr. GREEN, and may think it fufficient for a Friend to, perform that Part for you; yet it is expected, that fomething fhould be faid by you to your other Adversaries, and particularly to the right reverend the Lord Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry. And I am not without Hopes, that you will anfwer the publick Expectation, and take the Occafion offer'd you of fetting in a juft Light the Question of a Meffiah;

*The Author of the Difcourfe of the Grounds and Reasons, fometime after the firft Publication of this Letter, wrote an Answer to the Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry under the Title of the Scheme of Literal Prophefy confider'd, &c.

which,

which, though it be the most important Queftion in Chriftianity, and That, upon which whole Christianity is built, has not, that I know of, had that Justice done to it, whereof it is capable, and which you are particularly qualify'd to do to it, by Virtue of your Reading, Obfervations, Freedom of Mind, Independency of Fortune, and abfolute Contempt of any other Intereft but That of Truth.

I am, Sir,

April 23, 1726.

Your most bumble Servant.

POST

POSTSCRIPT

S

INCE the finishing this Letter. I have received Dr. LOBB's Brief De fence, &c. which I fhall make fome Animadverfions on, as having a View to your Difcourfe of the Grounds, &c. He fays, (r)" there is a modern, fophiftical Objection against Miracles being a Proof of "the Truth of the Chriftian Religion, which, though it has been well anfwer'd by fome, (vix, Mr. Bullock and Mr. Green) he begs Leave to fhew the Vanity and Weak"nefs of. The Objection, he fays, is This.

"That Miracles can never render a Foun"dation valid, which is in itself invalid; can never make a falfe Inference true; can never make a Prophefy fulfill'd, which is . not fulfill'd; can never make thofe Things to be spoken concerning Chrift, which were not spoken concerning Christ; and confequently, that the Miracles faid to have "been work'd by Chrift, could not poffibly "have been work'd by him; but must of Neceffity, together with the whole System, "both of the Old and New Teftament, have been wholly the Effect of Imagination and Enthufiafm, if not of Imposture."

46

1. But where is this Citatiton to be met with, that he calls an Objection, which has been well anfwer'd by Mr. Bullock and Mr. Green. It is not to be found (in their Anfwers, nor) in your Book, which has only the (r) first Words of the Citation; all the latter Part, which I have put in italick Character, being falfly and maliciously added by Dr. LOBB, as if your Words. There is, indeed, a learned () Author, who, after quoting your Words, as above recited, adds the Words I have printed in italick; but That he does as his own Inference from yours, and not as your Words. But how will That justify Dr. LOBB's making the Citation, as he gives it us, your Objection? Is the Reprefentation of your Senfe by an Adversary to be taken for a Citation from you, and for an Objection of yours? Is This a fair Method of proceeding for a Man, either with your Book in his Hand or at least every where to be seen, to go to an Adversary's Book for an Objection of yours; and what is ftill worfe, to an Adver¬ fary, who does not pretend to give those Words above recited in italick Character, which Dr. LOBB attributes to you, as your Words, but only as his own Inference; and whom therefore the Doctor tranfcribes, and mifrepresents, in order to put a falfe Objection

(r) Difc. p. 28.

(S) Clark's Difc. of the Connection, &c. p. 6.

and

Сс

and Citation upon you, and to give a malicious Representation of you? Befides, the learned Author himself was manifeftly miftaken in his Inference. For how does it fol low from these Propofitions of σε yours, that "Miracles can never render a Foundation valid, which is in itself invalid; can never "make a falfe Inference true; can never make a Prophefy fulfill'd, which is not fulfill'd; can never make thofe Things to be spoken "concerning Chrift, which were not spoken concerning Chrift;" how does it follow, I fay, "That the Miracles faid to have been "work'd by Chrift could not poffibly have "been really work'd by him; but must of Neceffity, together with the whole System " of the Old and New Teftament, have been wholy the Effect of Imagination and En"thufiafm, if not of Imposture?" And this Inference, both the learned Author, and Dr. LOBB themselves must judge to be a false Inference, unless they think the whole Syftem both of the Old and New Testament to have been wholly the Effect of Enthufiafm, if not of Impofture; for they both own the Premises to be true, and contend exprefly with you, (t)" That Miracles can never render a Foun"dation valid, which is in itself invalid, &c.

This seems a most dishonest Method of Proceeding in Dr. LOBB; and I make that Charge here upon him for this Matter; who is pleased

(t) Clark, p. 28. Lobb. p. xi, xii.

to