tibly had in his mouth a proper unctious and balsamic substance, which he dissolved into spittle, they would do great service to a certain cause: and I wonder that none of them, whether well or ill affected to religion, have not yet bent their thoughts towards framing a reason for his so doing.

"In the practice of physic and surgery, there are, sometimes very odd and unaccountable medicaments made use of; and now and then, very whimsical and seemingly ridiculous ones, by old women, to good purpose though none of them are to be compared to Jesus's balsam for sore eyes! I have heard of a merry mountebank of distinction, whose catholic medicine was hasty-pudding, which, indeed, is a notable remedy againt the esuriency of the stomach, under which the poor often labour. But the eye-salve of Jesus, for absurdity, whim, and incongruity, was never equalled, either in jest or in earnest, by any mountebank or quack-doctor in existence! Whether infidels think of this ointment of the holy Jesus with a smile, or reflect on it with disdain, I cannot guess. As to myself, I should think that this eye-salve of Jesus would sooner put out a man's eyes than restore a blind man to sight. And I believe that our divines, for the credit of the miracle, and our surgeons, for the honour of their science, will agree that it could not be naturally operative and effective of the cure of this blind man.

"What then could be the reason for Jesus using this strange eye-salve, when for the sake of the miracle, and for the honour of his own power, he should have cured the man with a word speaking? I am puzzled to think how our divines will extricate themselves from this strait, and account for the use of this eye-salve. Surely they will not say that Jesus used this senseless and insignificant ointment, merely to put a slur upon the practice of physic and surgery, as if other medicines were of no more avail than his dirt and spittle. They have more wit than to say so, lest it should incense a noble and most useful profession, not so much against themselves, as against Jesus, and provoke them to a nicer and stricter inquiry, than I can make into his

miracles, the diseases he cured, and his manner of operation; whence they might infer, that he could be no miraculous healer of diseases, by his using medicines and ointments; nor his Evangelists orthodox at theology, who are so inexpert at anatomy and the description of bodily distempers. This might be of bad consequence to religion; and yet I wonder that none of those who are supposed to be a little disaffected with Christianity, have not taken the hint from this pretended miracle, and some others of a similar nature, to endeavour to prove that Jesus was but little better than a quackdoctor.

"For my own part, I should think that Jesus was some juggling impostor, who wished to pass for a miraculous healer of diseases, though he used underhand proper medicines. The clay and the spittle he made an open show of, as what, to appearance, he would cure the blind man with; but in reserve he had a more sanative balṣam which he subtilely slipped in the stead of the clay, with which by repeatedly annointing the eyes of the man, and afterwards thoroughly washing and cleansing them effected his cure. If our divines will not admit this to have been the case, it certainly is incumbent on them to answer seriously these questions, viz. what reason had Jesus for making use of this eyesalve, made of clay and spittle? Whether, if it were of service towards accomplishing the cure of this blind man, it does not destroy the miracle? And if it had no effect in the cure of him, whether Jesus was not a vain and trifling operator, in making use of such insignificant and impotent medicines, to the dimunition of his divine power? These questions are not ridiculous but calm and sedate reasoning, which our divines require. Therefore, a grave, rational, and substantial answer is expected to them, without any dimunition of the miracle."

As I have a particular desire to close this work with the present year, I shall be under the necessity of passing by the parables, which for the most part, are both ridiculous and unintelligible; such as no man wishing to instruct the ignorant, would attempt to put forth.

That they are unintelligible is evident, from the many different interpretations which are given to them. And as such is the case, would it not have been better for him, as Paul says, to have spoke only five words with the understanding, so that others might receive instructions therefrom, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, which none can understand? Moreover, of what use are these parables? When they were spoken, they who it is said heard them, even his own disciples, 10 could not comprehend their signification. How then can we be expected to understand their meaning or purpose? It is written, that he spake nothing but parables; that without a parable spake he not unto them. 11 How then, can any doctrine be formed upon anything which he is supposed to have said? Solomon, the wisest of all men seems to insinuate that none but fools make use of parables. 12 And surely, no wise man would assert, that he and his father were one;13 or, that while eating and drinking a little bread and wine, 14 he was eating and drinking his own flesh and blood! But who would not think that the man was deserving a place in Bedlam, who should assert that all men should be damned, who would not believe in such ridiculous nonsense? Yet there are many, even in this enlightened ninteenth century, who do, I really believe, actually and sincerely credit such absurdities, yet are suffered to go at large! But shall you and I, who are so well acquainted with the tricks and artifices which are made use of, to enslave the minds of the credulous, by men of all ages, and in every nation, give credit to such tales? You, Sir, well know, that the means made use of, are nothing but incomprehensible mysteries, secret decrees, and oracles holding forth unintelligible enigmas, which are hid from the wise and prudent 15 because they have too much sense to credit, or attempt to interpret them; but are always revealed to babes and sucklings, the emblems of ignorance. Then why, Sir, suffer yourself to be damned out of your reason? The man who will permit that, will easily be damned into any opinion. As Peter Annett says "nothing can be too monstrous to his pliable timidity; or too shock

ing to his easy credulity, if it be well pointed with damnation." Let us then, Sir, be always careful to preserve this intellectual light of reason, by supplying our lamps with sufficient oil, lest we should be likened to the foolish Virgins, 16 of whom Jesus speaks, that suffered their lamps of reason to go out, through carelessness; when, being involved in the darkness of mysteries, they were shut out of the kingdom of truth, and exposed to every minister of falsehood and iniquity.

I am, Sir,

Your humble Servant,

LETTER XIII.

то DR. ADAM CLARKE.

SIR,

According to promise, I intend now to take into consideration those three most extraordinary miracles as performed, it is said, by Jesus, viz, his first raising the daughter of Jairus; then the son of a widow at Naim;2 and lastly, his restoring Lazarus to life, after he had lain in the grave four days.3

In this examination, I shall not attempt to deny the possibility of restoring persons to life who to all appearance have become defunct, we having so many proofs of its practicability in our own days: but I will prove, from the circumstances connected with the means employed, in restoring those supposed aforesaid dead bodies to life, that nothing miraculous transpired, in their resuscitation, admitting the truth of the relation, above the power and abilities of an ordinary juggler to accomplish. Likewise, that the stories themselves, by the absurdities, improbabilities, and incredibilities contained therein, evince nothing more than fiction.

We are not informed that he raised any more persons from the dead besides those three already named. If he did, we may rest assured that none of them were attended with more extraordinary circumstances than those three, which are so particularly recorded; which I will grant, are quite sufficient to convince all those who read them, that Jesus must have possessed more than human power and abilities to have accomplished in that surprising and unnatural manner, provided the accounts given of them are well circumstanced and credibly reported. It must, therefore, be presumed, that those three miracles were reputed to have been the greatest, if not the only ones of the kind, that Jesus