A FOURTH DISCOURSE ON THE MIRACLES OF OUR SAVIOUR, &c.

NOW for a fourth Diſcourſe on Jeſus's Miracles, which, as be⯑fore, I begin with a Repetition of the three general Heads, at firſt propoſed to be treated on; and they are,

I. To ſhow, that the Miracles of heal⯑ing all manner of bodily Diſeaſes, which [2] Jeſus was famed for, are none of the pro⯑per Miracles of the Meſſiah; neither are they ſo much as a good Proof of his di⯑vine Authority to found a Religion.

II. To prove that the literal Hiſtory of many of the Miracles of Jeſus, as record⯑ed by the Evangeliſts, does imply Abſur⯑dities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities; conſequently they, either in the whole or in part, were never wrought, as it is commonly believed now-a-days, but are only related as prophetical and parabolical Narratives, of what would be myſteriouſly, and more wonderfully done by him.

III. To conſider what Jeſus means, when he appeals to his Miracles, as to a Teſtimony and Witneſs of his divine Power; and to ſhow that he could not properly and ultimately refer to thoſe he then wrought in the Fleſh, but to the my⯑ſtical ones, he would do in the Spirit; of which thoſe wrought in the Fleſh are but mere Types and Shadows.

I am upon the ſecond of theſe Heads, and according to it, have, in my former Diſcourſes, taken into examination eight of the Miracles of Jeſus, viz. thoſe:

[3] 1. Of his driving the Buyers and Sel⯑lers out of the Temple.

2. Of his exorciſing the Devils out of the Mad-men, and ſending them into the Herd of Swine.

3. Of his Transfiguration on the Mount.

4. Of his healing a Woman, that had an Iſſue of Blood, twelve Years.

5. Of his curing a Woman that had a Spirit of Infirmity, eighteen Years.

6. Of his telling the Samaritan Woman, her fortune of having had five Husbands, and being then an Adultereſs with another Man.

7. Of his curſing the Fig-tree for not bearing Fruit out of ſeaſon. And,

8. Of his healing a Man of an Infirmity at the Pool of Betheſda.

Whether it be not manifeſt, that the Literal and Evangelical Story of theſe Miracles, from what I have argu'd and rea⯑ſon'd upon them, does not conſiſt of Ab⯑ſurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibi⯑lities, according to the Propoſition before us, let my Readers judge; and ſo I come to the Conſideration of

9. A ninth Miracle of Jeſus, viz. that ¹ of his giving ſight to a Man who was [4] born blind, by the means of Eye-ſalve, made of Dirt and Spittle.

Blindneſs, as far as one may gueſs by the Evangelical Hiſtory, was the Diſtem⯑per that Jeſus frequently exercis'd his Power on: And there is no doubt to be made, but he heal'd many of one Weak⯑neſs, Defect and Imperfection, or other in their Eyes; but whether he wrought any Miracle upon any, he is ſuppoſed to have cured, is uncertain. There are, as it's no⯑torious, many kinds of Blindneſs, that are incurable by Art or Nature; and there are other kinds of it, that Nature and Art will relieve a Man in. But whether Jeſus uſed his healing Power againſt the former, as well as the latter ſort of Blindneſs, is more than can be affirm'd, or at leaſt proved by our Divines. And unleſs we knew of a certainty, that the ſore or blind Eyes, Jeſus cured, were abſolutely out of the reach of Art and Nature; Infidels will imagine, and ſuggeſt, that he was only Maſter of a good Ointment for ſore Eyes, and being ſucceſsful in the uſe of it, igno⯑rant People would needs think, he wrought Miracles.

The World is often bleſs'd with excel⯑lent Oculiſts, who thro' Study and Prac⯑tice have attain'd to wonderful Skill in Eye-Maladies, which, tho they are of va⯑rious [5] ſorts, yet, by Cuſtom of Speech, all paſs under the general Name of Blind⯑neſs. And ſometimes we hear of famous Chance-Doctors, like Jeſus, who by a Gift of God, Nature, or Fortune, without any Skill in the Structure of the Eyes, have been very ſucceſsful in the Cure of one Diſtemper or other incident to them: Such was Sir William Read, who, tho no Scho⯑lar, nor of acquir'd Abilities in Phyſick and Surgery, yet cured his Thouſands of ſore or blind Eyes; and many of them too to the ſurpriſe and aſtoniſhment of profeſs'd Surgeons and Phyſicians. Whether He, or Jeſus, cured the greater number of Blind⯑neſs may be queſtion'd. To pleaſe our Divines, it ſhall be granted that Jeſus cu⯑red the greater Numbers; but that he cu⯑red worſe or more difficult Diſtempers in the Eyes, can't be proved. Sir William indeed met with many Caſes of blind and ſore Eyes, that were out of the reach of his Power; and ſo did Jeſus too, or he had never let great Multitudes of the blind, and otherwiſe diſtemper'd People, go unheal'd by him. Our Divines will here ſay, that it was never want of Power in Jeſus, but want of Faith in the diſeaſed, if he did not heal them; but in other Surgeons and Phyſicians, it is confeſſedly their own In⯑ſufficiency: To which I have only this [6] Anſwer, that our Phyſicians and Surgeons are to be commended for their Ingenuity, to impute it to their own Defect of Power, and not to lay the Blame upon their Pa⯑tients, when they can't cure them: And it is lucky for us Chriſtians, that we have this Salvo for the Credit of Jeſus's mi⯑raculouſly healing Power, that it was not fit, he ſhould exert it againſt Unbelief; otherwiſe, reaſonably ſpeaking, He, with Sir William Read, Greatrex, Veſpaſian, our former Kings of England, and Seventh-Sons, muſt have paſs'd but for a Chance-Doctor.

But to come to the particular Conſidera⯑tion of the Miracle before us. Jeſus re⯑ſtored, it ſeems, a blind Man to his Eye-ſight, by the uſe of a peculiar Ointment, and waſhing of his Eyes, as directed, in the Pool of Siloam. Where lies the Mi⯑racle? I can't ſee it; but hope our Di⯑vines will take their opportunity to point it out to me. Our Surgeons with their Ointments and Waſhings can cure ſore and blind Eyes of one ſort or other; and Jeſus did no more here; and yet he muſt be reckon'd a Worker of Miracles; and they, but artificial Operators: where's the Senſe and Reaſon of this difference between them? If Mr. Moor, the Apothecary, for the notable Cures he performs, by the [7] means of his Medicines, ſhould write him⯑ſelf, and be accounted by his Admirers, a Miracle-worker; he and they would be but laugh'd at for it: And yet Jeſus for his curing the ſore Eyes of a poor Man with an Ointment, muſt be had in ve⯑neration for a divine and miraculous Ope⯑rator, as much as if by the breath of his Mouth, he had removed an huge Moun⯑tain!

A Miracle, if I miſtake not the Notion of our Divines about it, is a ſupernatural Event, or a Work out of the Power of Na⯑ture or Art to effect. And when it is ſpo⯑ken of the Cure of a Diſeaſe, as of Blind⯑neſs or Lameneſs, it ought to be ſo repre⯑ſented, as that skilful and experienced Sur⯑geons and Phyſicians, who can do ſtrange and ſurprizing Cures by Art, may give it upon their Judgment, that no Skill of Man could reach that Operation; but that it ought to paſs for the Work of a divine and almighty Hand and Power: But there is no ſuch care taken in the De⯑ſcription of any of the Diſeaſes, which Jeſus cured; much leſs of this before us; againſt the miraculouſneſs of which, con⯑ſequently, there are theſe two Exceptions to be made:

Firſt, That we know nothing of the Nature of this poor Man's Blindneſs; nor [8] what was the defect of his Eyes; nor whe⯑ther it was curable by Art or not: With⯑out which Knowledge, it is impoſſible and unreaſonable to aſſert, that there was a Miracle wrought in the Cure of him. If his blindneſs or weakneſs of Eye-ſight was curable by human means, and Jeſus did uſe thoſe means, there's an end of the Miracle. If the Evangeliſt had given us an accurate Deſcription of the Condition of this Man's Eyes before Cure, we could have judg'd better: But this is their con⯑ſtant neglect in all the Diſtempers Jeſus heal'd, and is enough to induce us to doubt of his miraculous Power. There are, as I have ſaid, ſome ſorts of ſore or blind Eyes curable by Art, as Experience does teſtify; and there are others incurable, as Phyſi⯑cians and Patients do lament. Of which ſort this Man's was, we know not. The worſt that we know of his Caſe, is, that he was blind from his Birth, or Infancy, which might be; and yet Time, Nature and Art, may give relief to him. As a Man advances in Years, the diſeaſes of Childhood and Youth wear off. What we call the King's-Evil, or an Inflamation in the Eyes, in time will abate of its Malig⯑nity. Nature will not only by degrees work the Cure it-ſelf, but the ſeaſonable help of a good Oculiſt will ſoon expedite [9] it, tho in time of Infancy he could be of no uſe. And who knows but this might be the Caſe of this blind Man, whoſe Cure Jeſus by his Art did only haſten and help forward. However, there are Grounds enough to ſuſpect, that it was not divine Power which heal'd this Man, or Jeſus had never prepared and order'd an Ointment and Waſh for him.

Should our Divines ſuppoſe or de⯑ſcribe, for the Evangeliſt, a ſtate of Blindneſs in this Man, incurable by Art; that would be begging the Queſtion, which no Unbeliever will grant. But to pleaſe them, I will yield, without Enquiry into the Nature of this Man's Blindneſs, that, if Jeſus had uſed no Medicines; if with only a word of his Mouth he had cured the Man, and he had inſtantaneouſly recover'd, as the Word was ſpoken; here would have been a real and great Miracle, let the Blindneſs or Imperfection of the Man's Sight be⯑fore, be of what kind or degree ſoever. But Jeſus's uſe of Waſhings and Oint⯑ments abſolutely ſpoils and deſtroys the Credit of the Miracle, and we ought by no means to aſcribe that to the im⯑mediate Hand and Power of God, which Medicines and Balſams are apply'd to the Effect of. And this brings me to the

[10] Second Exception againſt the miracu⯑louſneſs of the Cure of this blind Man, which is, that Jeſus uſed human means for the Cure of him; which means, whether they were at all proper and ef⯑fectual in themſelves, do affect the Credit of the Miracle, and give occaſion of ſuſ⯑picion, that it was Art and not divine Power that heal'd him, or Jeſus, for his Honour, had never had recourſe to the uſe of them. And what were thoſe Means, or that Medicine, which Jeſus made uſe of? Why, "He ſpit upon the Ground, and made a Balſam of Dirt and Spittle, and anointed the poor Man's Eyes with it, and he recover'd." A ſtrange and odd ſort of an Ointment, that I believe was never uſed before, nor ſince, for ſore and blind Eyes! I am not Student enough in Phyſick and Sur⯑gery to account for the natural and ra⯑tional uſe of this Balſam; but wiſh that skilful Profeſſors of thoſe Sciences would help me out at this difficulty. If they could rationally account for the uſe of this Eye-ſalve, tho it was by ſuppoſing, that Jeſus imperceptibly had in his Mouth a proper unctuous and balſamick Sub⯑ſtance, which he diſſolv'd into Spittle, they would do great ſervice to a certain Cauſe; and I wonder none of them, [11] whether well or ill affected to Religion, have as yet bent their Thoughts to it.

In the Practice of Phyſick and Surgery, there are ſometimes very odd and un⯑accountable Medicaments made uſe of; and now-and-then very whimſical and ſeemingly ridiculous ones, by old Women, to good Purpoſe: But none of them are to be compared to Jeſus's Balſam for ſore Eyes. I have heard of a merry Mountebank of Diſtinction, whoſe ca⯑tholick Medicine was Haſty-Pudding, which indeed is a notable Remedy againſt the Eſuriency of the Stomach, that the Poor often labour under. But Jeſus's Eye-Salve, for abſurdity, whim, and in⯑congruity, was never equall'd, either in jeſt or in earneſt, by any Quack-Doctor. Whether Infidels think of this Ointment of the Holy Jeſus with a ſmile; or re⯑flect on it with diſdain, I can't gueſs. As to myſelf, I ſhould think with St. Chryſoſtom ² , that this Eye-Salve of Je⯑ſus would ſooner put a Man's Eyes out, than reſtore a blind one to his Sight. And I believe that our Divines, for the Cre⯑dit of the Miracle, and our Surgeons, for the Honour of their Science, will [12] agree, that it could not be naturally ope⯑rative and effective of the Cure of the blind Man.

What then was the Reaſon of Jeſus's uſing this ſtrange Eye-Salve, when, for the ſake of the Miracle, and for the ho⯑nour of his own Power, he ſhould have cured the Man with a word ſpeaking? This is a Queſtion and Objection in St. Cyril ³ againſt Miniſters of the Letter, who are obliged to give an Anſwer to it, that will conſiſt with the Wiſdom and Power of Jeſus, otherwiſe they muſt give up the Miracle, or make him a vain inſignificant and trifling Agent. St. Cyril, of whoſe mind I am, ſays ⁴ that the Reaſon of the uſe of this Balſam made of Dirt and Spittle is to be fetch'd from the Myſtery. But, in as much as our Divines will never agree to that, which would be of ill Conſequence to their Miniſtry, they muſt give a good Reaſon of their own, which I deſpair of ſeeing, that will comport with the Let⯑ter.

[13] St. Irenaeus too, ſays ⁵ , that the Clay and Spittle was of no ſervice to the Cure of the blind Man; and yet Jeſus did not uſe it in vain. Is not this an In⯑conſiſtency? How will our Divines ad⯑juſt it? With Irenaeus, I am ſure they'll not myſtically ſolve the Difficulty; there⯑fore if they don't provide another So⯑lntion of it to ſatisfaction, either their Miniſtry of the Letter, or the Reputa⯑tion of Jeſus, and this Miracle, muſt ſuffer for it.

I am puzzled to think, how our Divines will extricate themſelves out of this Strait, and account for the uſe of this Eye-Slave, without any Diminution of the Miracle. Surely, they will not ſay that Jeſus uſed this ſenſleſs and in⯑ſignificant Ointment to put a Slur upon the Practice of Phyſick and Surgery, as if other Medicines were of no more avail than his Dirt and Spittle. They have more wit than to ſay ſo; leaſt it in⯑cenſe a noble and moſt uſeful Profeſſion, not ſo much againſt themſelves, as a⯑gainſt Jeſus, and provoke them to a [14] nicer and ſtricter Enquiry than I can make into his Miracles, the Diſeaſes he cured, and his manner of Operation; and to infer from thence, that he could be no miraculous Healer of Diſ⯑eaſes who uſed Medicines; nor his Evan⯑geliſts orthodox at Theology, who were ſo inexpert at Anatomy and the Deſcrip⯑tion of bodily Diſtempers. This might be of bad Conſequence to Religion: And yet I wonder that none of them, who may be ſuppoſed a little diſaffected to Chriſtianity, have taken the Hint from this pretended Miracle before us, and ſome others, to endeavour at a Proof of Jeſus's being little better than a Quack-Doctor.

If I was, what I am not, an Infidel, I ſhould think, from the Letter of this Story, that Jeſus was a juggling Impoſ⯑tor, who would paſs for a miraculous Healer of Diſeaſes, tho he uſed under⯑hand, proper Medicines. The Clay and the Spittle he made an open ſhew of, as what, to Admiration, he would cure the blind Man with; but in reſerve he had a more ſanative Balſam, that he ſubtilly ſlip't in the room of the Clay, and re⯑peatedly to good purpoſe anointed the Man's Eyes with it. But as the Autho⯑rity of the Fathers, and their myſtical Interpretation of this Story, is alone my [15] ſafe-guard againſt ſuch an ill opinion of Jeſus; ſo I would now gladly know upon what Bottom the Faith of our Divines can ſtand, as to this Miracle, and Jeſus's divine Power in it.

I have peruſed ſome of our Commen⯑tators on the Place, and don't perceive that they heſitate at this ſtrange Eye-Salve; nor make any Queſtions about the pertinent or impertinent Uſe of it. Whether it is, that they ſleep over the Story, or are aware of greater Difficultys in it, than can be eaſily ſurmounted, and therefore dare not touch on't, I know not. But now that we enjoy Liberty of Debate, which will make us Philo⯑ſophers, and I have taken the Freedom to make a ſtricter Scrutiny than ordinary into Jeſus's Miracles, and to conſider what abſurditys, their Storys, and this in par⯑ticular, are clog'd with; it is incumbent on our Divines to anſwer ſolidly theſe Queſtions, viz. What was the Reaſon of Jeſus's Uſe of this Eye-Salve made of Clay and Spittle? Whether, if it was of ſervice to the Cure of the 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, making uſe of inſignificant and impertinent Medicines to the Diminution [16] of his divine Power? Theſe Queſtions are not ludicrous, but calm and ſedate Reaſoning, which Biſhop Smalbroke ⁶ does not diſapprove of. Therefore a grave, rational, and ſubſtantial Anſwer is expec⯑ted to them, ſuch as will be a Vindi⯑cation of the Wiſdom and Power of Jeſus, without any Diminution of the Miracle.

Should our Divines ſay, that this Matter was an Act of unſearchable Wiſdom, and muſt be left to the Will of our Saviour, and not curiouſly pry'd into, any more than ſome other Diſ⯑penſations of Providence, that are paſt finding out: This Anſwer, which I be⯑lieve to be the beſt, that can be given, will not do here. The Miracles of Jeſus are, as our Divines own, Appeals to our Reaſon and Senſes for his Autho⯑rity; and by our Reaſon and Senſes they are to be try'd, condemn'd or approved of. If they will not abide the teſt of Reaſon and Senſe, they are to be rejec⯑ted, and Jeſus's Authority along with them. Therefore a more cloſe, pertinent and ſerious Anſwer is to be given to the ſaid Queſtions; which as I believe to [17] be impoſſible, conſiſtently with the Let⯑ter; ſo our Divines muſt of neceſſity go along with me to the Fathers for a myſ⯑tical and allegorical Interpretation of the Story of this Eye-Salve; or the Miracle will fall to the Ground, and Jeſus's divine Power be in great danger with it.

St. Cyril, (who is one of Biſhop Smal⯑broke's Greek Commentators, that ſhould ſtrictly adhere to the Letter) ſignifies, as I before obſerv'd, that Jeſus's Uſe of this Clay and Spittle would be an Ab⯑ſurdity, if it was not to be accounted for, from the Myſtery.

Euſebius Gallicanus, treating on this Miracle, ſays ⁷ ; "that our Saviour apparently manifeſts that his Miracles are of a ſpiritual and myſtical Signifi⯑cation, becauſe in the Work of them, he does ſomewhat or other, that lite⯑rally has no Senſe nor Reaſon in it. As for Inſtance, in the Cure of this blind Man, what occaſſion was there [18] for Clay and Spittle to anoint his Eyes, if it was not of a myſtical meaning, when with a Word of his Mouth, Jeſus could have cured him? Let us then ſet aſide the Letter of the Story, and ſearch for the Myſtery, and con⯑ſider who is meant by this blind Man, &c."

Origen too, upon occaſion of this Miracle, and its Abſurdity according to the Letter, ſays ⁸ ; "that whatever Jeſus did in the Fleſh was but a Type and Figure of what he would do in Spirit, as is apparent from the Miracle of his curing a blind Man, which no⯑body knows why it was ſo done, if it be not to be underſtood of a myſ⯑tical Ointment to open the Eyes of the blind in Underſtanding."

And who then is this blind Man myſ⯑tically? St. Auguſtin ⁹ , St. Jerome ¹⁰ , [19] Euſebius Gallicanus, ¹¹ St. Theophilus of Antioch ¹² , Origen ¹³ , St. Cyril of Alexandria ¹⁴ , and St. Theophylact ¹⁵ , Four of them, Biſhop Smalbroke's Greek and literal Commentators!) ſay, this blind Man is a Type of Mankind of all Nations, who in the Perfection of Time ſignified by the Sabbath ¹⁶ in the Story, is to be cured of this Blindneſs in Underſtand⯑ing.

And what is Mankind's Blindneſs here ſignified? St. Auguſtin ¹⁷ , St. Cyril ¹⁸ and St. Thyophylact ¹⁹ , ſay, it is Igno⯑rance, Error and Infidelity, or the want of the intellectual Sight and Knowledge of [20] God and his Providence. Origen ²⁰ , St. John of Jeruſalem ²¹ , and St. Theo⯑phylact ²² , (Still Biſhop Smalbroke's li⯑teral and Greek Commentators!) tell us the Reaſon of this ſpiritual Blindneſs of Mankind, and that is, becauſe they adhere to the Letter of the Scriptures.

And how will Jeſus, or right Rea⯑ſon and Truth, which are his myſtical Names, cure Mankind of this his ſpiritual Blindneſs? By his myſtical Spittle tem⯑per'd with myſtical Dirt. And how ſhall we do to underſtand this myſtical Oint⯑ment, ſo as to make it a proper Medi⯑cine for Mankind's ſpiritual Blindneſs? St. Theophilus of Antioch ²³ , has an allegorical Interpretation of this Clay and Spittle of our Lord; but as it is hard to apprehend his meaning, I ſhall not here inſiſt on it. Origen ſays ²⁴ , that the anointing of the blind Man's Eyes with [21] Spittle, is to be underſtood of the Unc⯑tion of the Spirit of Chriſt. But this does not give us rightly to underſtand the Metaphor and Figure. St. John of Jeruſalem ſays, that by the Clay and Spit⯑tle is meant ²⁵ perfect Doctrine, which in Truth may open the Eyes of Mens Underſtanding: But what is perfect Doc⯑trine? Why, to help the Fathers out here, without departing from their Opinions, by the Spittle of Jeſus muſt be under⯑ſtood the Water of the Spirit inſtill'd into the Earth of the Letter of the Scriptures, which temper'd together, does, in the Judgment of them all, make perfect Doc⯑trine to the opening of the Eyes of our Underſtanding in the Knowledge of the Providence of God of all Ages; which Knowledge, Light, Sight, or Illumination, Mankind has hitherto wanted.

St. Irenaeus ²⁶ , gives an excellent and myſtical Reaſon, by himſelf, for the uſe [22] of this Ointment of Clay and Spittle, to the Cure of this blind Man, which I ſhall not ſtay to illuſtrate, but only have cited it for the Meditation of the Lear⯑ned and Curious.

The Story of the blind Man, as St. John has related it, is long, and would take up more time, than I have to ſpare at preſent, to go thro' all the Parts of it. What I have done at preſent is e⯑nough to awaken others to the Conſi⯑deration, not only of the Abſurdities of the Letter, but of the myſtical Inter⯑pretation of the reſt.

The Miracle, which conſiſted literally in the Cure of a blind Man by the uſe of an Ointment made of Dirt and Spit⯑tle, is abſurd, ſenſleſs and unaccountable; but in the Myſtery, there is Wiſdom and Reaſon. And the Cure of Mankind of the Blindneſs of his Underſtanding, by the Spirit's being temper'd with the Letter of the Scriptures, which is the myſtical Eye-Salve, will not only be a moſt ſtupendous Miracle, but a Proof of Jeſus's Meſſiahſhip beyond all contradiction, in as much as by ſuch an opening of the Eyes of our Underſtandings, which have been hitherto dark, we ſhall ſee, how he is the Accompliſhment of the Law and the Prophets. And ſo I paſs to a [23] 10. Tenth Miracle of Jeſus, viz. ²⁷ That of his turning Water into Wine, at a Marriage in Cana of Galilee. This is call'd the beginning of Jeſus's Mira⯑cles; but whether it is to be underſtood of the Firſt of his whole Life, or of the Firſt that he wrought in Cana of Galilee, is not agreed amongſt Divines. I ſhall not enter into the Diſpute, which as it is of no Conſequence to my Cauſe in hand; ſo I ſhall paſs it by, and not urge any Arguments for or againſt either ſide of it.

Tho I would not for the World be ſo impious and profane as to believe, what is contain'd and imply'd in the Letter of this Story; yet I am ſtill too grave to handle it as ludicrouſly as I ought; and it is now againſt the grain, that I write ſo freely as I ſhall againſt it, being unwilling, not only to put the Clergy out of all Temper, but, to give Scoffers and Infidels ſo great an Advan⯑tage againſt their Miniſtry of the Letter. Some may wonder that I, who have gone ſo far in the ludicrous diſplay of the groſs Abſurdities of ſome other Mi⯑racles, ſhould boggle at this. But to be ingenuous, and ſpeak the Truth ſincerely, [24] I am ſtill a Chriſtian (for all what the Biſhop of St. David's, ²⁸ Arch⯑deacon Stubbs, and others would make of me) upon the Principles of the Fathers, and have a greater Veneration for the Perſon of the Holy Jeſus, than to be for⯑ward to make ſuch ſport with him, his Mo⯑ther, and his Diſciples, as this Story affords Scope for. And if it was not for the neceſſi⯑ty of turning the Clergy's Heads to the Con⯑ſideration of Myſterys, this Miracle ſhould have been paſs'd by in ſilence.

There were ſome antiently, whom St. Chryſoſtom ²⁹ writes of, whether Jews, Gentiles, or Hereticks, I know not, who took great offence at the Story of this Wedding, accounting it, from what is re⯑lated in St. John, as a riotous Feaſt, and that Jeſus and his Mother, and his Diſciples, not only bore a part in the Revellings, but were moſt to blame for them; or he ſhould not have countenanced them with his Preſence, much leſs pro⯑moted them, by the Change of a large quantity of Water into Wine for the uſe of a Company, who were already drunk [25] with it. But I, with St. Chryſoſtom, am inclined to believe, that, if Jeſus did grace this Wedding with his Preſence, there was no Exceſs encouraged, or ſo much as ſuffer'd at it. If he did accept of the Invitation of the Bridegroom, it was for an opportunity, not ſo much to turn Water into Wine, as to make a pro⯑per Diſcourſe to the People of conjugal Duties; and, as he was a ſearcher of the Hearts, ſecretly to admoniſh the Married of the Sin and Miſchief of Adultery; tho we read not of a ſeaſonable and good Word ſpoken at it.

And the Empreſs Eudocia, a nurſing Mother of the Church, has given us a Poetical, and I hope a fictitious Deſcrip⯑tion of this Wedding. She makes a ſumptuous and voluptuous Feaſt of it; and writes ³⁰ of Muſick and Dancing in abundance, enough to make us think of ſuch Mirth and Paſtime here, as was unbecoming of a Company of Saints to be preſent at. Whether it was, that this [26] Empreſs, being only accuſtom'd to the Exceſſes of a Court, could form no mea⯑ner Conceptions of a Country Wedding; or whether ſhe had any extra-ſcriptural Authority for what ſhe writ, I know not: But I believe, that, if Jeſus was at all at a Marriage-Feaſt, the whole was conducted with Decency, Order, and So⯑briety; and if he there wrought any Miracle, it was to manifeſt his Glory, to the Converſion of ſome, and Confir⯑mation of the Faith of others.

And our Tranſlators of the Bible too have given occaſion to ſuſpect ſome⯑what of Exceſs at this Wedding; or they need not have made the Waterpots to hold two or three Firkins apiece. If I had been the Tranſlator, they ſhould not have held above two or three Pints apiece, which Meaſure is as agreeable to the Original as Firkin; neither can I imagine, that Jeſus, if he did convert Water into Wine, would do it in ſo large a Meaſure, for fear of an intempe⯑rate abuſe of it, but only gave the Com⯑pany a caſt of his miraculous Power, and a little taſte of his Love and Good⯑will to them.

Such are the Conceptions, that, to the Honour of Jeſus, I am willing to form of this Wedding; and wiſh that the [27] Letter of the Story did ſuggeſt no worſe Thoughts of it to us. I ſhould be pleas'd, if no Infidel really could, what I, but for the ſake of the Myſtery moſt un⯑willingly ſhould, write any ludicrous Deſcants on it. But if this Story had been related of Apollonius Tyanaeus, as it is of our Jeſus, I would have ridi⯑cul'd and ſatiriz'd it to the utmoſt of my Power, and have render'd him and his Diſciples of all Nations, as contemp⯑tible as I could, for the Belief of it; and I don't doubt, but our Chriſtian Prieſts would have given me ample Prai⯑ſes and Commendations for ſo doing. It is ſaid of Apollonius, that for the Enter⯑tainment of his Friends, he commanded variety of nice Diſhes of Meat, together with Bowls of choiceſt Wine, all on a ſudden to deſcend upon his Table and range themſelves in good Order. Whe⯑ther there was any Truth in this Mira⯑cle of Apollonius, is not the Queſtion; but Mr. Chandler ³¹ could ſee a Fault in it, (tho none in Jeſus's Wine at this Wedding) as if it was done for the Plea⯑ſure of luxurious Appetites, tho we read of no Intemperance at it, which can't be ſaid of the Wedding-Feaſt before us. Our [28] Divines I ſuppoſe, no more than myſelf, believe any thing of the ſaid Miracle in Apollonius; but, if it was really wrought, I fancy, I could have lampoon'd him for it, and would have made it a diabolical Work, like that, as Fables go, of the Feaſtings of Wizards and Witches; and our Divines (paſſing by Jeſus's Wine here) would readily, as they are Be⯑lievers of the Storys of Witchcraft, have ſtruck in with me.

But ſetting aſide that miraculous Story of Apollonius, which has but one Voucher; the Caſe before us is Jeſus's turning Wa⯑ter into Wine for the uſe of Men, who had before well drank. How ſhall I force Nature and Faith to ridicule this Story? How ſhall I lay aſide that pro⯑found Veneration for the Holy Jeſus, which Converſation with the Fathers, more than the Prejudice of Education has begotten in me, and ludicrouſly here treat him and his Miracle too, as is in⯑cumbent upon me, to make way for the Myſtery? In ſhort, I can't do it, in my own Name; but having met with a ſati⯑rical Invective of a ſuppoſed Jewiſh Rabbi to this purpoſe, I here publiſh it, that our Clergy, as well as myſelf, may think of an Anſwer to it, and ſo pre⯑vent that Miſchief it may do by being [29] handed about among Jews and Infidels, in Manuſcript. It is as follows;

So ends the Invective of a ſuppos'd Jewiſh Rabbi againſt this Miracle; which our Divines, as well as myſelf, are to conſider of an Anſwer to. Whether they ſhall think themſelves able to an⯑ſwer the rational Parts of it, conſiſtently with the Letter, I know not; but I own myſelf unable, and believe it impoſ⯑ſible for them, to do it: And therefore they muſt of neceſſity go along with me to the myſtical Interpretation of the Fa⯑thers; or this Miracle will turn to the diſhonour of Jeſus, and diſadvantage of his Religion.

[44] Juſtin Martyr ³⁹ ſays, it is abſurd to take the Stories of the Marriages and Concubinages of the Patriarchs of the Old Teſtament in a literal Senſe. And indeed, literally conſider'd, they are ſome of them too luſcious Tales to be related by divine and inſpired Penmen: where⯑upon he, as well as St. Paul and Philo-Judaeus ⁴⁰ , turn theſe Stories, for the Honour of God and Edification of his Church, into an Allegory. Conſequently, if Juſtin had had an occaſion to ſpeak of this Marriage before us, there's no doubt on't, but he would have made My⯑ſtery of all and every Part of it.

To the ſame purpoſe Origen ⁴¹ ſays, "That ſince the Law is a ſhadow of good Things to come, and writes ſome⯑times of Marriages and of Huſbands and Wives; we are not to underſtand it of Marriages according to the Fleſh, but of the ſpiritual Marriage between Chriſt and his Church. As for Inſtance, Abraham had two Sons, &c. here we ought not to confine our Thoughts to carnal Marriages, and their Offsprings; but to extend them to the Myſteries [45] here ſignified. And there are almoſt a thouſand other places in Scripture about Marriages; but in every place (unuſquiſque Locus caſtum & divinum de Nuptiis continet Intellectum ſecun⯑dum Expoſitionem moralem) is to have a divine, moral, and myſtical Con⯑ſtruction put on't. Whoever therefore reads the Scriptures about Marriages, and underſtands no more by them, than carnal Marriages; he errs, not knowing the Scriptures nor the Power of God." From hence may be eaſily concluded, what was Origen's opinion a⯑bout this Marriage in Cana of Galilee, if there were no other Paſſages in him for a Confirmation of it. But to come cloſer to the Purpoſe.

St. Auguſtin ⁴² ſays, there is Myſ⯑tery ſignified in the Story of this Marriage, as in all Jeſus's Miracles, which it be⯑comes us to open and ſearch for; till, if poſſible, we are inebriated with the ſpiri⯑tual and inviſible Wine, that Jeſus made [46] at this Feaſt. And again ⁴³ ſays, Let us then conſider the ſeveral Particulars of the Story, and what is meant by the ſix Waterpots; and the Water that is turn'd into Wine; and the Governor of the Feaſt; and who are the Bridegroom and the Bride; and who is the Mother of Jeſus in a Myſtery; and what is to be under⯑ſtood by the Marriage.

And again, ſays St. Auguſtin ⁴⁴ , there is Myſtery in this Marriage, or Jeſus up⯑on no invitation had gone to it. The Bridegroom is our Lord himſelf, to whom it is ſaid thou haſt reſerv'd the good Wine of the Goſpel until now, that is, until the typified Time of the Celebration of this myſtical Marriage, which according to St. Auguſtin ⁴⁵ is to be on the ſixth Age of the World, ſignified by the ſix Water-Pots, holding two or three Firkins apiece, [47] that is, all Mankind, as they are divided into the two ſorts of Jews and Gentiles, or into three, as they are deſcended of the three Sons of Noah.

And in another Place, the ſame St. Auguſtin interpreting this Story, ſays ⁴⁶ thus; "Our Saviour is invited to a Mar⯑riage; what can that mean but that the Holy Spirit is courted and invocated by the Church, wiſhing to be eſpouſed to him? Jeſus comes with his Diſciples, that is, into a holy Place of a Company of Saints. Mary the Mother of our Lord ſignifies to him, that they have no Wine; ſo the Church makes known to him, the Deficiency of the Spirit, which ſhe waits for the Power of. And if Jeſus calls Mary, a Woman; he means the Church, who by Transfiguration may be a Virgin, the Mother, the Spouſe of Chriſt, and a Whore too."

[48] And again St. Auguſtin explaining ⁴⁷ what is meant by the Water, and the Wine that it wou'd be turn'd into, at the Time of the ſpiritual Celebration of this Marriage of Chriſt with his Spouſe of the Church, ſays plainly enough, that by Water is meant the Letter of the Scrip⯑tures; and by the beſt Wine is to be un⯑derſtood ſpiritual Interpretations, which would tranſport the underſtandings of Men with divine knowledge; and warm their Hearts and Affections into a ſpiritual In⯑ebriation; after the ſimilitude of Wine natural.

St. Theophilus of Antioch, a moſt antient Greek Commentator (who according to Biſhop Smalbroke ſhould ſtrictly adhere to the Letter) ſays ⁴⁸ , that by this Mar⯑riage [49] is meant the Conjunction of Chriſt and his Church, as it is the Tradition of the Old and New Teſtament. And that Jeſus himſelf is the Bridegroom; and Moſes the Governor of the Feaſt.

Other Fathers, ſuch as St. Cyril, St. Theophylact and St. Jerome are of the ſame mind about the myſtical Interpretation of this Marriage, as might be prov'd by Paſ⯑ſages out of them, if I had room here to cite them. But I muſt obſerve here, that according to the Fathers, the Story of this Marriage is but another Emblem of the Marriage of the Lamb with the Bride of the New Jeruſalem, ſpoken of in the Re⯑velations, to which all the Fowls of the Air will be invited, that is, ſpiritual and heavenly minded Chriſtians, who ⁴⁹ ſoar and fly aloft in their divine and ſublime Contemplations on the anagogical Senſe of the Scriptures, which will exhibit thoſe intellectual Dainties, they are there to be entertain'd with.

What I have here ſaid out of the Fa⯑thers to the Story of this Marriage, is enough to quicken our Divines to ſearch for the like myſtical Interpretation of the whole. The Part of it that's moſt [50] difficult to be ſpiritually expounded, is that ſaying of Jeſus to his Mother, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine Hour is not yet come. For the clear Interpretation of which, I own, I meet with little in the Fathers. But St. Au⯑guſtin ⁵⁰ aſſures us, there's latent My⯑ſtery in the words. How then ſhall we come at it? Why, if we caſt away the Interrogation, and look upon the Sen⯑tence, as ellyptical, like an infinite num⯑ber of prophetical ones, the Senſe para⯑phraſtically, and agreeably to the reſt of the Myſtery, ariſes thus: In anſwer to the Woman of the Church's Expectation of the Wine of the Spirit; Jeſus will tell her or make her to underſtand of what importance it is to her (and him⯑ſelf) to be ſupply'd with that myſtical Wine to her Edification, which it was not his time to pour forth upon the Church, till the Celebration of his Nup⯑tials with her.

And thus have I done with the Mi⯑racle of Jeſus's turning Water into Wine at a Marriage of Cana of Galilee. Whe⯑ther it be not an abſurd and offenſive Story according to the Letter, let any [51] one judge. If the ſuppoſed Jewiſh Rabbi has forced a worſe Senſe upon it, than it will naturally bear, our Clergy may expoſtulate with him for it, which they hardly will any otherwiſe than by Ex⯑clamations againſt him, without Reaſon and Authority. But in the myſtical Ope⯑ration of this Miracle at the Marriage of Chriſt with his Church, there will be the Wiſdom and Power and Goodneſs of God viſible. And it will be a demon⯑ſtration of Jeſus's Meſſiahſhip, in as much as the Water of the Letter of the Law and the Prophets can't be turn'd into the Wine of ſpiritual Interpretations, but we muſt diſcern how he is the Accompliſher and Fulfiller of them. And ſo I paſs to an

11. Eleventh Miracle of Jeſus, viz. ⁵¹ That of his healing a Paralytick, for whom the Roof of the Houſe was broken up to let him down into the Room where Jeſus was.

And this Story (without excepting that of the Pool of Betheſda) is the moſt monſtrouſly abſurd, improbable and in⯑credible of any according to the Letter. There is not one Miracle of Jeſus ſpe⯑cifically related, that does not labour un⯑der [52] more or leſs Abſurdities, either in Subſtance or Circumſtance: But this, for number and greatneſs of Abſurdities, I think ſurpaſſes them all: And the Ab⯑ſurdities of it too are ſo obvious and ſtare a Man in the Face, that I wonder they are hitherto overlook'd, and that conſi⯑derate and intelligent Perſons have not before now heſitated and boggled at them. If Intereſt had not blinded the Eyes of our learned Clergy, they would eaſily have deſcry'd the Incredibilities and Ab⯑ſurdities of this Story; and in another Impoſtor's Caſe preſently have pointed them out to the ridicule of his Admirers and Adorers.

If a Man was to torture his Brains for the Invention of a romantick Tale of im⯑probable and ſurprizing Circumſtances, that he might, withal, hope to palm for a Truth, if it was but for a Week or a Day, upon the Faith and Underſtanding of the Credulous; he could never have preſumed, I think, ſo far upon the weak⯑neſs of their Intellects, as to imagine any thing ſo groſly and notoriouſly contradic⯑tory to Senſe and Reaſon, would have gone down with them, as is this before us, which has paſs'd currently thro' ma⯑ny Ages of the Church, has been read with attention by the Learned, and re⯑vered [53] by the reſt of Chriſtians, without any exception, heſitation, or doubt of the Truth of it. In ſhort, ſo palpable is the falſity of the Story of this Miracle, that it requires no Sagacity to detect it; and was it not for the ſake of the My⯑ſtery more than to expoſe the Folly of the Clergy in believing of it, I had never beſtow'd the following Pains on it.

The People, it ſeems, ſo preſs'd and throng'd about the Door of the Houſe, where Jeſus was, that the Paralytick and his Bearers could not get near it. What did they ſo throng and preſs for? Was it to ſee Jeſus, who was without Form and Comelineſs, according to the Prophet Iſaiah; or, who was one of the moſt graceful of the Sons of Men, as Painters and Publius Lentulus do deſcribe him? This could not be the Reaſon of the Croud. Tho a Perſon extraordinary, ei⯑ther for Beauty or Deformity may at⯑tract the Eyes of the People, and oc⯑caſion too a Throng about him; yet this could be no Reaſon for a Preſs about Jeſus, at Capernaum, where he dwelt, and was commonly ſeen and well known.

Was it then to hear him preach? Nor this neither. Tho an excellent Preacher does ſometimes, and a very in⯑different one does oftener draw multi⯑tudes [54] after him; yet Jeſus, as a Pro⯑phet, was without Honour at Capernaum, his own Country; conſequently, it is not to be ſuppoſed that, for his Doc⯑trine, he was ſo much follow'd here, tho we read, that he preach'd the Word unto them.

Was it then to behold him working of Miracles and curing of the diſeaſed? This is the likelieſt Reaſon of the Crouds and Throng about him. And perhaps it was a Day appointed beforehand for his healing of the diſeaſed, which might occaſion a more than ordinary Concourſe of the People. But then this Reaſon would have induced the People to make way for the Lame, Blind, and Paraly⯑ticks to come to Jeſus; or they fruſtra⯑ted their own Hopes and Expectations of ſeeing Miracles wrought; and acted more unreaſonably than ever Mob did, or can be ſuppoſed to do.

But whatever was the Reaſon of this tumultuous Crouding, which is hard to be accounted for; it's ſaid, the poor Paralytick with his Bearers could not get to the Door of the Houſe for the Preſs, and therefore in all haſte is he haul'd to the Top of the Houſe, and let down, thro' a breach of the Roof, into the Room where Jeſus was. What need [55] was there of ſuch haſte and pains to get to Jeſus for a Cure? It was but wait⯑ing a while, not many Hours, and in all probability the Tumult would be ap⯑peas'd, and acceſs eaſily had to him. But that the Bearers of the poor Man ſhould enterpriſe a trouble and difficulty that could not require leſs Time, than the Tumult could be ſuppoſed to laſt, is a little ſtrange and ſomewhat incre⯑dible.

St. Chryſoſtom ſays ⁵² , that the Pa⯑ralytick ſaw that the Market-place or Street was throng'd with People, who had obſtructed all Paſſage to the Houſe, where Jeſus was; and yet he did not ſo much as ſay to his Friends and Bea⯑rers, "What's the Reaſon of this Tu⯑mult? Let's ſtay till it is appeas'd, and the Houſe clear'd of the People, who ere long will depart; and then we ſhall privately and quietly get ad⯑mittance to Jeſus." But why did he not ſay ſo? Any one beſide himſelf and his Bearers, if they had any Reaſon and [56] Senſes about them, would have ſo ar⯑gued. St. Chryſoſtom ſays, it was their Faith that made them in ſuch haſte to get to Jeſus: But I ſhould have thought, their Faith might have work'd Patience, and diſpoſed them to ſtay till Jeſus could come out to them, or they get in to him: And it is an Addition to the ſtrangeneſs and incredibility of the Story, that it did not.

But ſuppoſing this Paralytick in ſuch haſte and danger of Life, that he could not wait the diſperſion of the Tumult, but, for want of a free entrance at the Door, is, coſt what it will, to be rais'd to the top of the Houſe, and a breach muſt be there made for him. The Queſ⯑tion is, whether ſuch an Enterprize was or could be feiſable and practicable? I have no Conception of the poſſibility of it. If they could not get to the Door of the Houſe for the Preſs; of conſe⯑quence they could not come at the Sides of it. How ſhould they? over the Heads of the People? That's not to be ima⯑gined; conſequently here's another dif⯑ficulty in the Story, that renders it yet more ſtrange and incredible.

But, without queſtioning the poſſibi⯑lity and eaſineſs of getting the Parly⯑tick and his Couch over the Heads of [57] the Mob, to the ſides of the Houſe; thi⯑ther he is brought, where we now behold him and his Bearers with their Pullies, Ropes, and Ladders (that were not at hand, nor could ſuddenly be procured) hauling and heaving him to the top of the Houſe. Of what height the Houſe was, is not of much Conſequence. Some for the Credit of the Story may ſay ⁵³ , it was a very low one; tho antient and modern Commentators are pretty well agreed, that it was an upper-Room, where Jeſus was; conſequently the Houſe was at leaſt two Stories high: But if it was much higher, I'll allow that Art and Pullies (which they wanted for the pre⯑ſent) would raiſe the Man and his Bed to the top of it: So we will not diſ⯑pute nor differ upon that matter. On the top of the Houſe then, we are now to behold the Paralytick and his Bearers with their Hatchets and Hammers, &c. (which they forgot to bring with them, for they could not think of any uſe they ſhould have of them) uncovering the Roof of the Houſe; breaking up Tiles, Spars, and Rafters, and making a Hole, capacious enough for the Man and [58] his Bed to be let through. An odd, ſtrange, and unaccountable Work this, which, if they had not been cunning Fellows, would hardly have enter'd into their Heads to project. But at work they are, when it was well, if Jeſus and his Diſciples e⯑ſcaped with a only broken Pate, by the fal⯑ling of Tiles, &c. and if the reſt were not almoſt ſmother'd with the Duſt; for it was over their Heads that the breach was made. Where was the good Man of the Houſe all this while? Would he ſuffer his Houſe to be thus broken up, and not command them to deſiſt from their fooliſh and needleſs Attempt, till the Mob was quell'd, and there was a free entrance at the Door of his Houſe, which could not be long firſt? Is there nothing in all this, of difficulty and obſtruction in the way of the belief of this Story?

Some modern Commentators, being a⯑ware of theſe difficulties in this Story, and willing to reconcile Men to the ea⯑ſier belief of it, ſay, as Druſius ⁵⁴ did, that the Houſes of Judaea were flat⯑roof'd, and not ridg'd: And Doctors, Lightfoot and Whitby ⁵⁵ ſay, there was [59] a Door on their flat Roofs, by which the Jews uſed to aſcend to the top of their Houſes, where they diſcours'd on the Law and religious Matters; and that it was thro' ſuch a Door, by a little wide⯑ning of the ſides of it, that the Para⯑lytick was let down in the preſence of Jeſus. To which Opinion I would yield, if it was not liable to theſe Objections, viz. that it is not reconcilable to what St. Luke ſays, of their letting the Para⯑lytick down thro' the Tiling with his Couch, in the midſt, where Jeſus was; nor hardly conſiſtent with what St. Mark ſays, of their uncovering and breaking up the Roof of the Houſe: which Ex⯑preſſions the Evangeliſts had never uſed, if there had been a Door for him to de⯑ſcend by. But to indulge Lightfoot and Whitby in their Notion; I may ask them, what occaſion was there then of wide⯑ning the door-way, and breaking down the ſides of it? They'll ſay, becauſe the Paſſage otherwiſe was too narrow, for the Man's Couch to get thro'. Why then did not they take him out of his Couch, and let him down in a Blanket, a Chair, or a Basket? Or rather, why did not Jeſus, to prevent this Trouble and Damage to the Houſe, aſcend thro' this Door, to the Top of it, and there ſpeak the healing [60] Word to this poor Man? To ſay, that Jeſus could not or would not go up to the Paralytick, I would not, for Fear of an Imputation of Blaſphemy againſt me. Our Divines therefore are to look for, what they'll hardly find, an Anſwer to the ſaid Queſtion, which will conſiſt with the Wiſdom, the Goodneſs and Honour of Jeſus; or here will be another and in⯑ſuperable Bar to the Credibility of this Story.

In ſhort, there are more and greater Dif⯑ficultys affecting the Credit of this Mira⯑cle, on the ſide of Jeſus, than any before urg'd. Could not he, as it was antiently ⁵⁶ objected, have made the Acceſs to himſelf more eaſy? Could not he, to pre⯑vent all this Trouble and Pains of getting to the Top of the Houſe; and of breaking up the Roof of it, have deſired or even forc'd the People to make way for this poor Man and his Bearers? This was not impoſſible for him to do. If it was hard for another; it was not for him, who was omnipotent. He that could drive his Thouſands before him out of the Temple; and draw as many after him into the Wil⯑derneſs, might ſurely, by Force or Per⯑ſuaſion [61] have made the People, how unrea⯑tonably mobbiſh ſoever, to retreat. And ſhy did he not? Without a good and ſa⯑tisfactory Anſwer, which I can't conceive, to this Queſtion, here is the moſt unac⯑countable and incredible part of the whole Story, that reflects on the Wiſdom, the Power and Goodneſs of Jeſus. If there had been no other abſurd Circumſtances of it, this is enough to ſpoil its Credit, ſo far as that I believe it impoſſible for Miniſters of the Letter, with all their Wit, Penetration and Sagacity to get o⯑ver it.

Believe then the Story of this Miracle, thus taken to Pieces, who can? It is ſuch an Accumulation of Abſurdities, Improba⯑bilities, and Incredibilities, that a Man of the moſt eaſy Faith, if he at all think, can't digeſt. It's not credible, I ſaid, to ſuppoſe, the People of Capernaum, where Jeſus dwelt, and was well known and little admired, would at all preſs to ſee or hear him: And if the occaſion of their Concourſe was to behold his Miracles; it is leſs reaſonable to think they would tumultuate to their own diſappointment; but rather make way for the diſeaſed, for the ſatisfaction of their own Curioſity, to come to him: And if they did mob it to their own diſappointment, about the [62] Door of the Houſe; it was next to im⯑poſſible for the poor Man and his Couch to be heav'd over their Heads, and rais'd to the top of it: More unreaſonable yet to think, the Maſter of the Houſe would ſuffer the Roof of it to be ſo broken up: But moſt of all againſt Reaſon to ſup⯑poſe, Jeſus would not give forth the heal⯑ing word, and prevent all this Labour, or by his divine Power diſperſe the Peo⯑ple, that the Paralytick might have preſent and eaſy acceſs to him.

Whether all this be not abſolutely ſhocking of the Credit of this Story, let my Readers judge. In my Opinion, no Tale more monſtrouſly romantick can be told. I don't here queſtion Jeſus's Power to heal this Paralytick, nor the miracu⯑louſneſs of the Cure of him: The trou⯑ble of that Queſtion is ſaved me, by the many other incredible Circumſtances of the Story, which are ſuch a Contra⯑diction to Senſe and Reaſon, as is not to be equall'd, in any thing, that's com⯑monly receiv'd and believ'd by Mankind. Cicero ſays, that there is nothing ſo ab⯑ſurd, which ſome of the Philoſophers have not held. And they might and did, ſome of them, hold groſs Abſurdities. But the Letter of the Story of this Miracle be⯑fore us, which is the Object of the Faith [63] of our learned Prieſthood at this Day, a is match for the worſt of them.

But as abſurd, as this Story is, I ex⯑pect that our Clergy will be diſguſted at my ludicrous diſplay of it; and that Arch-Deacon Stubbs in particular will a⯑gain be ready to exclaim againſt me, and ſay, that this is turning a miraculous Fact, and a divine Teſtimony of our Re⯑ligion into Ridicule. Whereupon it is to be wiſh'd, that Arch-Deacon would write, what would be a Pleaſure to ſee, a Vindication of this Story. If he can account for the poſſibility and credibi⯑lity of the Letter of it, he ſhall have my leave to make another dull Speech in Convocation againſt me. And it is not unlikely, but he may ſay as much for it, as another Man: For as the Story is ſenſeleſs, ſo it is the better ſuited to his Head and Brains. But if he don't, I much queſtion, whether any other Cler⯑gyman of more Wit will, appear in De⯑fence of it.

So abſurd is the Letter of this Story, that for the Honour of Jeſus, and Cre⯑dibility of his Goſpel, it is abſolutely neceſſary to turn it into Allegory. To the Fathers then, let us go for their help in this Caſe. If they did not read me a better Lecture upon this Miracle, than do our [64] modern Commentators, I ſhould be almoſt tempted to renounce my Religion upon it: But as they have rationally and rightly inſtructed me in its true meaning, ſo I retain my Chriſtian Faith, and ad⯑mire the Sublimity of the Myſtery, which I am now to give an account of.

By this Paralytick, St. Hilary ⁵⁷ ſays, is to be underſtood Mankind of all Nations, which opinion too the Fathers held of the Paralytick, who was heal'd at the Pool of Betheſda. And by his Palſy is not meant any bodily Diſtemper, but the ſpiritual Palſy of the Soul, that is, as St. Auguſtin ⁵⁸ and St. Jerome ⁵⁹ interpret, a diſſoluteneſs of Morals, and an unſteadineſs of Faith and Princi⯑ples, which is the Condition of Mankind at preſent, who want Jeſus's help for the Cure of it. Euſebius Gallicanus ⁶⁰ ſays, our Saviour's words ſignify, [65] that it is not a bodily but a ſpiritual Diſeaſe here meant; or he had never ſaid to the Paralytick, Son, thy Sins are forgiven thee, which words reſpect the inward Man, and demonſtrate the Palſy here to be a diſeaſe of the Soul.

The Man ſick of the Palſy had four Bearers. And who are they myſtically in this Caſe? Why, the Fathers ⁶¹ underſtand by them the four Evangeliſts, on whoſe Faith and Doctrine Mankind is to be carry'd unto Chriſt; for no Soul can be brought unto him, for the Sanation of his Sins and Errors, but by theſe four.

But to the top of the Houſe is Mankind, thus paralytically diſeaſed, to be carry'd by the four Evangeliſts, his Bearers. And what then is this Houſe and its Top? The Houſe of Jeſus is the intellectual Edifice of the World, otherwiſe call'd Wiſdom's Houſe, of the beautiful Build⯑ings of which the Scriptures prophetically [66] treat: therefore to the ſublime Senſe of the Scriptures, call'd the Top ⁶² of the Houſe, is Man to be taken: He is not to abide in the low and literal Senſe ⁶³ of them, where People preſs and ſtrive in vain to come to Jeſus. But if he is taken to the Sublimity of the Scrip⯑tures and there open ⁶⁴ the Houſe of Wiſdom, he will preſently be admitted to the Preſence and Knowledge of Jeſus.

Venerable Bede, who is altogether a a Tranſcriber of the Fathers, for which Reaſon I cite him among the Fathers, ſays ⁶⁵ , that by the Tiles of the Houſe [67] ſpoken of in St. Luke, is meant the Let⯑ter of the Scriptures, which is to be laid open for the manifeſtation of Chriſt and of divine Myſteries to the healing of Man's ſpiritual Palſy, the unſteadi⯑neſs and diſſoluteneſs of his Morals and Principles.

So much, in ſhort, then to the myſtical Interpretation of the Story of this Mi⯑racle. The literal Senſe of it is ſo en⯑cumber'd with romantick Circumſtances, as are enough to turn a Man's Heart againſt Chriſtianity it ſelf: But in the Myſtery there will be a moſt ſtupendous Miracle, which will be not only an Ar⯑gument of Jeſus's divine Power, but of his Meſſiahſhip, as certainly as his Houſe of Wiſdom, of which the Scriptures write, is open'd to the Manifeſtation of his Preſence, and to the Cure of Man⯑kind of his paralytical Diſeaſe, call'd an inſtability of Faith and Principles.

And thus have I, in this Diſcourſe, taken into Examination three more of Jeſus's Miracles; which I ſubmit to the Judgment of my Readers, whether the literal Story of them does not conſiſt of Abſurdities, Improbabilities and Incredi⯑bilites according to the Propoſition be⯑fore us; and whether there is not a neceſſity, for the Honour of Jeſus, to [68] turn them into prophetical and parabo⯑lical Narratives of what will be myſte⯑riouſly and more wonderfully done by him.

My next Diſcourſe, if my mind hold, ſhall treat on the three Stories of Jeſus's raiſing of the dead, viz. of the Widow of Naim's Son, of Jairus's Daughter, and of Lazarus; after which I will give the literal Hiſtory of Chriſt's Reſurrection, that ſandy Foundation of the Church, a Review; and ſo conclude my Diſcourſes on the Miracles of our Saviour.

To run thro' all the Miracles of Jeſus, and handle them in the manner I have done the foregoing, would be a long and tedious Work. But if our Divines ſhall think, I have ſelected only thoſe Mira⯑cles, which are obnoxious to Cavil and Ridicule; and have omitted others, that literally are a more unexceptionable Teſtimony of Jeſus's divine Power, and Authority; I will, for their Satisfaction, take more of them to Task, and give the Letter of their Stories, the like ludi⯑crous treatment. If I miſtake not, the Miracles already ſpoken to, together with thoſe of Jeſus's raiſing of the dead, and of his own Reſurrection, are the moſt famous and remarkable of any others: And according to the Obſervation I have [69] made on the reſt, they are no leſs but ra⯑ther more liable to Ridicule and Excep⯑tion. But if any are of a contrary Opi⯑nion, and will let me know, which in their Judgment are more unexceptio⯑nable Miracles, I will vouchſafe them an Examination. I am ſure there is not one Miracle, which the Fathers of the Church did not turn into Allegory; and if we don't at this Day make myſtical Operations of them, they will none of them, according to the Letter, ſtand their Ground, nor abide the Teſt of a critical Inquiry into them.

I don't expect, that this Diſcourſe will be any more pleaſing and acceptable to the Clergy, who are Miniſters of the Let⯑ter of Jeſus's Miracles, as well as of the Prophecies of him, than any of my for⯑mer: But their Diſpleaſure in the Caſe will give me no Diſturbance, nor am I concern'd about any Reſentment, they can make of it. If they are offended at theſe Diſcourſes, they ſhould as they came forth, have written ſolid Confutations of them, and ſo have prevented my Pub⯑lication of any more of this kind: But inſtead of ſerious and potent Reaſonings againſt me, I have met with little elſe but oral Railings, Exclamations, Defa⯑mations, and attempts for Proſecution; [70] which have been ſo far from terrifying me, that they give me a ſecret Plea⯑ſure, and animate me to proceed in the Undertaking in hand.

I did not much queſtion but the Bi⯑ſhop of St. Davids, whom I look'd up⯑on as a Perſon of Ingenuity and Learning would, before this Time, have publiſh'd ſomewhat in Confutation of one or other of my former Diſcourſes. Whether he was not obliged to it, or to make me ſome publick Reparation of the Injury done to my Reputation, by his ſlande⯑rous Sermon, I appeal now to the wor⯑ſhipful Societys for Reformation of Man⯑ners; to whom, and to other Civil Ma⯑giſtrates, I hope his Sermon, without Reaſon, will be a Caution, that no Pulpit-Invective move them to proſecute or think the worſe of any Author.

Liberty of thinking, writing and judg⯑ing for our ſelves in Religion is a natural, a Chriſtian, and a proteſtant Right. It is a Right that the Magiſtrate as well as the Subject are intereſted in, and are to ſee to the Conſervation of, or their Under-ſtandings as well as their Purſes will be ridden and oppreſs'd by an ignorant and tyrannical Prieſthood. I urge not this for my own ſecurity againſt Proſecution for Infidelity and Blaſphemy, declaring [71] that if the Biſhops of London, St. Da⯑vids, or Arch-Deacon Stubbs, who are zealous for Perſecution, will but engage me on the Stage of Controverſy, and make good their Accuſations againſt me, I will ſubmit to the worſt Puniſhment, that can be inflicted on the worſt Offen⯑der.

In the mean time I will go on with my Undertaking, to the advancement of Truth, and demonſtration of the Meſſiah⯑ſhip of the Holy Jeſus, to whom be Glory for ever. Amen.