[]

A FOURTH DISCOURSE ON THE MIRACLES OF OUR SAVIOUR,

In VIEW of the Preſent Controverſy between INFIDELS and APOSTATES.

Canes qui [...]oblatrant contra Inquiſitionem Veritatis. Clem. Alex.

By THOMAS WOOLSTON, ſometime Fellow of Sidney-College in Cambridge.

LONDON: Printed for the Author, and Sold by him next Door below the Star in Aldermanbury, and by the Bookſellers of London and Weſtminſter. 1728. [Price One Shilling.]

TO THE Right Reverend Father in GOD FRANCIS, Lord Biſhop of St. ASAPH.

[]
MY LORD,

IF the Convocation had been ſitting, I would have made this Dedication to them, and humbly implored of them, what, for their Love to the Fathers, they would readily have granted, a Recommendation of theſe my Diſcourſes on Miracles to the Clergy: But being unhappily diſappointed of a Seſſion of that Reverend and Learned Body, for whoſe wiſe Debates and orthodox Votes I have ſuch a Veneration, as is not to be expreſs'd in a few Words, I preſently [iv] turn'd my Thoughts on your Lordſhip, to whom a Dedication is due, becauſe of your Reſpect, often declared, for the Authority of the Fathers, which induces me to think, you now approve of the Uſe I have made of them.

But what I am here to applaud your Lordſhip for, is, your Diſcourſe call'd Difficulties and Diſcouragements, &c. That admirable Satire againſt modern Orthodoxy and Perſecution! How was I tickled in the Peruſal of it! It is plainly the Senſe of your Soul, or you had ſet your Name to it: And if the Temptation of Praiſe for it, had not been too great to be reſiſted, I could have wiſh'd you had always conceal'd your ſelf; and then you had not written againſt the Grain, an aukward Piece on Church Power, like a Retractation, to reingratiate your ſelf with ſome Eccleſiaſtical Noodles, whom you no more, than I, need to care for.

I have ſometimes wondered, My Lord, where and when the Great Mr. [v] Grounds imbibed his notable Notions about Religion and Liberty; for he ſuck'd them not in with his Mothers Milk, who, I ſuppoſe, train'd him up in the Belief of Chriſtianity: But when I conſider'd, that he was once the Pupil of Mr. Hare at Cambridge, my wonder ceas'd. Under your Lordſhip's Tuition, it ſeems he laid the Foundation of his diſtinguiſh'd Learning and Opinions! His Pupillage will be your immortal Honour! I wonder, none of the Writers againſt him have as yet celebrated your Praiſe for it! How does he imitate and reſemble his Tutor in Principles! I can't ſay, he ſurpaſſes you, ſince there is ſuch a Freedom of Thought and Expreſſion in your Difficulties, &c. ſo ſtrongly ſavouring of Infid [...]ty, that he has not as yet equall'd.

Upon your Lordſhip's Advancement to a Biſhoprick, Difficultys and Diſcouragements not withſtanding, I wiſh'd, without preſcribing to the Wiſdom of the Government in the choice of a learned Prelate, that the great Mr. [vi] Grounds, for the good of the Church too, might be ſoon conſecrated: And I ſhould not have deſpair'd of it, but that he's a Gentleman of real Probity and Conſcience, and might poſſibly boggle at Subſcriptions, unleſs you and Biſhop Hoadly could help him to ſome of your Reſerves and Diſtinctions, wherewith you muſt be both well Stock'd, to overcome that Difficulty. And why ſhould not Dean Swift for his Writings, as well as ſome others, be made a Biſhop? I ſhould like to ſee him one; if the then Right Reverend Biſhop Grounds would not think him, for his Tale of a Tub, too looſe in the Faith, for his Company.

Don't imagine, My Lord, that I am forming of Schemes for my ſelf to be a Biſhop. Tho theſe my Diſcourſes on Miracles are of very great Merit, as well as your Lordſhip's Difficulties, &c. yet you may be aſſured, I have no ſuch View, when I tell you, that the Honour, the Fathers have exalted me to, of a Moderator in this Controverſy, [vii] ſets me above all Eccleſiaſtical Preferment, excepting the Arch-Biſhoprick of Canterbury, which I'm afraid will be void, before the King is appriſed of my ſingular Worth and Qualifications for it.

But however, if ſuch excellent Prelates, as Grounds, Hoadly, Swift, Hare and my ſelf were at the Head of Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, what would we do? What ſhould we not do? What would not this free-thinking Age expect from us? Nothing leſs, than that, according to our Principles, we ſhould endeavour to ſet Mankind at perfect Liberty, and to lay open the dirty Fences of the Church, call'd Subſcriptions, which are not only the Stain of a good Conſcience, but the Diſcouragements, your Lordſhip hints at, in the Study of the Scriptures: And if we made a Puſh for an Act of P [...]t to turn the Clergy to Graſs, after King Henry VIIIth's Monks and Fryars; where would be the Harm of it? Nay, the Advantage to the Publick, as well as to Religion, [viii] would be great, if their Revenues were apply'd to the Payment of National Debts; with a Reſerve to our ſelves (remember, My Lord) of large Emoluments out of them, according to our great Merits; otherwiſe worldly-wiſe Men will repute us impolitick Fools, which you and Biſhop Hoadly, I humbly preſume, will never endure the Reproach of.

So, hoping your Lordſhip will accept of this Dedication to your Praiſe, in as much Sincerity as it is written, I ſubſcribe myſelf,

My LORD,
The Admirer of your Difficultys and Diſcouragements, Tho. Woolſton.

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

[]

NOW for a fourth Diſcourſe on Jeſus's Miracles, which, as before, 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 healing all manner of bodily Diſeaſes, which [2] Jeſus was famed for, are none of the proper Miracles of the Meſſiah; neither are they ſo much as a good Proof of his divine Authority to found a Religion.

II. To prove that the literal Hiſtory of many of the Miracles of Jeſus, as recorded by the Evangeliſts, does imply Abſurdities, 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 myſtical 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 Sellers 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 reaſon'd upon them, does not conſiſt of Abſurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities, 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 Diſtemper that Jeſus frequently exercis'd his Power on: And there is no doubt to be made, but he heal'd many of one Weakneſs, 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 notorious, 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, ignorant People would needs think, he wrought Miracles.

The World is often bleſs'd with excellent Oculiſts, who thro' Study and Practice have attain'd to wonderful Skill in Eye-Maladies, which, tho they are of various [5] ſorts, yet, by Cuſtom of Speech, all paſs under the general Name of Blindneſs. 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 Scholar, 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 Blindneſs may be queſtion'd. To pleaſe our Divines, it ſhall be granted that Jeſus cured the greater Numbers; but that he cured 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 Inſufficiency: 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 Patients, when they can't cure them: And it is lucky for us Chriſtians, that we have this Salvo for the Credit of Jeſus's miraculouſly 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 Conſideration of the Miracle before us. Jeſus reſtored, 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 Miracle? I can't ſee it; but hope our Divines 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 himſelf, 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 veneration for a divine and miraculous Operator, as much as if by the breath of his Mouth, he had removed an huge Mountain!

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 Nature or Art to effect. And when it is ſpoken of the Cure of a Diſeaſe, as of Blindneſs or Lameneſs, it ought to be ſo repreſented, as that skilful and experienced Surgeons 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 Deſcription of any of the Diſeaſes, which Jeſus cured; much leſs of this before us; againſt the miraculouſneſs of which, conſequently, 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 whether it was curable by Art or not: Without 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 conſtant 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 Phyſicians 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 Malignity. 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 deſcribe, 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 before, be of what kind or degree ſoever. But Jeſus's uſe of Waſhings and Ointments abſolutely ſpoils and deſtroys the Credit of the Miracle, and we ought by no means to aſcribe that to the immediate 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 miraculouſneſs 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 effectual in themſelves, do affect the Credit of the Miracle, and give occaſion of ſuſpicion, 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 Surgery to account for the natural and rational 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 Subſtance, 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 unaccountable 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 catholick 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 incongruity, 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 reflect on it with diſdain, I can't gueſs. As to myſelf, I ſhould think with St. Chryſoſtom 2 , that this Eye-Salve of Jeſus would ſooner put a Man's Eyes out, than reſtore a blind one to his Sight. And I believe that our Divines, for the Credit of the Miracle, and our Surgeons, for the Honour of their Science, will [12] agree, that it could not be naturally operative 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 honour 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 Letter.

[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 Inconſiſtency? How will our Divines adjuſt it? With Irenaeus, I am ſure they'll not myſtically ſolve the Difficulty; therefore if they don't provide another Solntion of it to ſatisfaction, either their Miniſtry of the Letter, or the Reputation 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 inſignificant 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 incenſe a noble and moſt uſeful Profeſſion, not ſo much againſt themſelves, as againſt 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 Diſeaſes who uſed Medicines; nor his Evangeliſts orthodox at Theology, who were 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 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 Impoſtor, who would paſs for a miraculous Healer of Diſeaſes, tho he uſed underhand, 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 repeatedly to good purpoſe anointed the Man's Eyes with it. But as the Authority 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 Commentators 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 Philoſophers, 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 particular, 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 expected to them, ſuch as will be a Vindication 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 Diſpenſations of Providence, that are paſt finding out: This Anſwer, which I believe 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 Authority; 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 rejected, 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 Letter; ſo our Divines muſt of neceſſity go along with me to the Fathers for a myſtical 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 Smalbroke'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 Abſurdity, 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 Signification, becauſe in the Work of them, he does ſomewhat or other, that literally 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 conſider 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 nobody knows why it was ſo done, if it be not to be underſtood of a myſtical Ointment to open the Eyes of the blind in Underſtanding."

And who then is this blind Man myſtically? 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 Underſtanding.

And what is Mankind's Blindneſs here ſignified? St. Auguſtin 17 , St. Cyril 18 and St. Thyophylact 19 , ſay, it is Ignorance, 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. Theophylact 22 , (Still Biſhop Smalbroke's literal 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 Reaſon and Truth, which are his myſtical Names, cure Mankind of this his ſpiritual Blindneſs? By his myſtical Spittle temper'd with myſtical Dirt. And how ſhall we do to underſtand this myſtical Ointment, ſo as to make it a proper Medicine 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 Unction 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 Spittle is meant 25 perfect Doctrine, which in Truth may open the Eyes of Mens Underſtanding: But what is perfect Doctrine? Why, to help the Fathers out here, without departing from their Opinions, by the Spittle of Jeſus muſt be underſtood 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 Doctrine 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 Learned 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 enough to awaken others to the Conſideration, not only of the Abſurdities of the Letter, but of the myſtical Interpretation 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 Spittle, 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 Miracles; 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 Advantage 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 Miracles, 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 Archdeacon 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 forward to make ſuch ſport with him, his Mother, and his Diſciples, as this Story affords Scope for. And if it was not for the neceſſity of turning the Clergy's Heads to the Conſideration 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 related 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 promoted 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 proper 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 Deſcription 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 meaner 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 Sobriety; and if he there wrought any Miracle, it was to manifeſt his Glory, to the Converſion of ſome, and Confirmation of the Faith of others.

And our Tranſlators of the Bible too have given occaſion to ſuſpect ſomewhat 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 intemperate abuſe of it, but only gave the Company a caſt of his miraculous Power, and a little taſte of his Love and Goodwill 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 unwillingly 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 ridicul'd and ſatiriz'd it to the utmoſt of my Power, and have render'd him and his Diſciples of all Nations, as contemptible as I could, for the Belief of it; and I don't doubt, but our Chriſtian Prieſts would have given me ample Praiſes and Commendations for ſo doing. It is ſaid of Apollonius, that for the Entertainment 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. Whether there was any Truth in this Miracle 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 Pleaſure 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 Believers 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 Water 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 profound 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 incumbent upon me, to make way for the Myſtery? In ſhort, I can't do it, in my own Name; but having met with a ſatirical 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 prevent that Miſchief it may do by being [29] handed about among Jews and Infidels, in Manuſcript. It is as follows;

You Chriſtians pay Adoration to Jeſus, whom you believe to be a divine Author of Religion, ſent of God for the Inſtruction, Reformation and Salvation of Mankind; and what induces you to this Belief of him, is, (beſides ſome obſcure Prophecies, which you can't agree upon, and which neither your ſelves, nor any body elſe underſtands the Application of) the Hiſtory of his Miracles: But I wonder, you ſhould have a good opinion of him for his Miracles, which, if he wrought no better than what are recorded of him, by your Evangeliſts, are, if duly conſider'd, enough to alienate your Hearts from him. I can't ſpare time now to examine into all of them, but according to the curſory Obſervation I have made on them, there is not one ſo well circumſtanced, as to merit a conſiderate Man's belief, that it was the Work of an omnipotent, all-wiſe, juſt and good Agent. Some of them are abſurd Tales, others fooliſh Facts, others unjuſt Actions, others ludicrous Pranks, others jugling Tricks, others magical Enchantments; and if [30] many of them had been better and greater Operations than they are, and of a more uſeful and ſtupendous nature than they ſeem to be; yet the firſt Miracle that he wrought, viz. that of his turning Water into Wine at an extravagant and voluptuous Wedding at Cana of Galilee, is enough to turn our Stomachs againſt all the reſt. It is in itſelf enough to beget in us an ill opinion of Jeſus, and to prepoſſeſs us with an averſion to his Religion, without farther Examination into it. It is enough to make us ſuſpect his other Miracles, of what name ſoever, to be of a baſe, magical, and diabolical Extraction; or he had never ſet up for a divine worker of Miracles with ſo ill a grace. Would any ſober, grave, ſerious and divine Perſon, as you Chriſtians ſuppoſe Jeſus to have been, have vouchſaf'd his Preſence at a Wedding, where ſuch Levities, Diverſions and Exceſſes (in our Nation of the Jews, as well as in all others) were indulg'd on ſuch Occaſions, as were not fit to be ſeen, much leſs countenanc'd by the Saint, you would make of him. If your Jeſus, his Mother, and his Diſciples had not been merry Folks in themſelves, they would [31] have declined the Invitation of the Bridegroom; nay, if they had been at all graver and more ſerious People than ordinary, no Invitation had been given to ſuch Spoil-Sports: But boon Companions they were, and of comimical Converſation, or there had been at a Wedding no room for them. You Chriſtians may fancy, what you pleaſe, of Jeſus and his Mother's Saintſhip; but the very Text of the Story implies, they were Lovers of good Fellowſhip and Exceſs too, upon occaſion; or he had never, upon her Intimation, turn'd ſo large a quantity of Water into Wine, after all or moſt of the Company were far gone with it. You may ſuppoſe, if you pleaſe, that all were ſober, and none intoxicated, and that the want of Wine proceeded from the abundance of Company, rather than exceſs in drinking; but why then did John the Evangeliſt uſe the word [...], which implies, they were more than half ſeas over? And if Jeſus and his Mother had not both a mind to top them up; the one would not have requeſted, nor the other have granted a Miracle to that purpoſe. Whether Jeſus and his Mother themſelves were at all cut, as [32] were others of the Company, is not ſo certain. She might be an abſtemious Dame for ought we know; tho if old Stories are true of her familiarity with a Soldier, of whom came her chara Deûm Soboles, in all probability ſhe would take a Dram and a Bottle too. But it looks as if Jeſus himſelf was a little in for't, or he had never ſpoke ſo waſpiſhly and ſnappiſhly to his Mother, ſaying, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine Hour is not yet come: which was very unbecoming of a dutiful Son, who, excepting when he ran away from his Parents, and put them to 32 Sorrow and Trouble to look him up, was, and is ſtill in Heaven, ſay the Roman Catholicks, a moſt obedient Child. You modern Chriſtians may put what Conſtruction you can upon the words above of Jeſus to his Mother, to ſalve his Credit; but the Fathers of your Church 33 confeſs them to be a ſharp and ſurly Reply to her, which, if it did not proceed from the natural badneſs0 [33] of his Temper, derived, ex traduce, from his ſuppoſed Father yet, was certainly the effect of Drinking; and that's the more likely, becauſe it is a broken and witleſs Sentence, ſuch as Fuddlecaps utter by halves, when the Wine's in, and the Wit's out. Your modern Commentators are ſadly puzzled to make good Senſe of this broken and abrupt Sentence of Jeſus, and a pertinent Reply of it, to what his Mother ſaid to him, they have no Wine: If you will bear with me, I'll help you out at this dead lift, and give you the true meaning of it thus. Jeſus's Mother being appriſed of a deficiency of Wine, and willing, as well as the Bridegroom, that the Company ſhould be thorowly merry before they parted, intimates to her Son, (whom ſhe knew to be initiated in the Myſterys of Bacchus) that they had no Wine: But before ſhe could finiſh her Requeſt to him, He, miſtaking her meaning, imagines, ſhe was cautioning againſt drinking more Wine, and exhorting him to go home, whereupon he takes her up ſhort and quick, ſaying, Woman, what have you to do with me? (for that too is the Engliſh of the Greek) I'll not be interrupted [34] in my Cups, nor break Company for mine Hour is not yet come to depart: But after he rightly apprehended her, he goes to work, and rather than the Company ſhould want their fill, by trick of Art, like a Punchmaker, meliorates Water into what they call'd Wine. That this is the obvious Interpretation, and natural Paraphraſe of the Words before us, ſhall be try'd by the abſurd Comments now-a-days put upon them, that are enough to make a conſiderate Man laugh, if not hiſs at them.

Some antient Hereticks 34 , very gravely infer'd from this Expreſſion, Woman, what have I to do with thee, that Mary was neither a Virgin, nor Jeſus her Son; or he had never accoſted her with ſuch blunt Language, that implys, they could not be ſo akin to each other. This was a perplexity to St. Auguſtin, and gave him ſome trouble to explain the Expreſſion, conſiſtently with her Virginity (for all ſhe cohabited with the old Carpenter) and his Filiation. But this being a quibble, that has been long ſince dropt, I ſhall not revive, nor inſiſt [35] on it. But that the Expreſſion above do's ſuppoſe a little Inebriation in Jeſus, I may averr, neither is there a better Solution to be made of it.

The Fathers of your Church, being ſenſible of the abſurdity, abruptneſs, impertinence, pertneſs, and ſenſleſneſs of the Paſſage before us according to the Letter, had recourſe to a myſtical and allegorical Interpretation, as the only way to make it conſiſtent with the Wiſdom, Sobriety and Duty of the Holy Jeſus. But you Moderns, abandoning Allegories and Myſteries in Miracles, have endeavour'd, I ſay, to put other Conſtructions upon it, as may comport with the Letter and Credit of Jeſus: But how inſipid and ſenſleſs they are, I appeal to a reaſonable Man, who will give himſelf the trouble to conſult them, upon the Place, and ſave me the pains of a tedious and nauſeous Work to recount them for him.

But to humour the Chriſtian Prieſthood at this Day, I will ſuppoſe that Jeſus, and his Mother, and Diſciples, tho Fiſhermen, to have been all ſober, grave, and ſerious at this Wedding, ſuitably to the Opinion that their Followers [36] now would have us to entertain of them. But then it is hard to conceive them, leſs than Spectators and even Encouragers of Exceſs and Intemperance in others; or Jeſus, after their more than ſufficient drinking for the ſatisfaction of Nature, had never turn'd Water into Wine, nor would his Mother have requeſted him to do it, if, I ſay, they had not a mind, and took Pleaſure in it too, to ſee the Company quite ſtitch'd up.

A ſober, prudent and wiſe Philoſopher or Magician, in the place of Jeſus, if he had an Art or Power to turn Water into Wine, would never have exercis'd it upon ſuch an occaſion; no, not to pleaſe his beſt Friends, nor in obedience to the moſt indulgent Parent. What would he have ſaid in ſuch a Caſe? That the Company had drank ſufficiently already, and there was no need of more Wine: The Bridegroom had kindly and plentifully entertain'd his Gueſts, and he would not for the Honour of God, who had endow'd him with a divine Power, be at the Expence of a Miracle to promote the leaſt Intemperance. Whether ſuch a Speech and Reſolution in Jeſus, upon this occaſion, [37] would not have been more commendable, than what he did, let any one judge.

If I was a Chriſtian, I would, for the Honour of Jeſus, renounce this Miracle, and not magnify and extol it as a divine and good Act, as many now-a-days do. I would give into, and contend for the Truth of that Gloſs, which the Gentiles of old 35 by way of Objection put upon it, viz. That the Company having exhauſted the Bridegroom's Stock of Wine, and being in Expectation of more; Jeſus, rather than the Bridegroom ſhould be put to the Bluſh for deficiency, palm'd a falſe Miracle, by the help of the Governour of the Feaſt, upon a drunken Crew; that is, having ſome ſpirituous Liquors at hand, mingled them with a quantity of Water, which the Governour of the Feaſt vouch'd to be incomparable good Wine, miraculouſly made by Jeſus: and the Company being, thro' a vitiated Palate, uncapable of diſtinguiſhing better from worſe, and of diſcovering the Fraud, admired the Wine and the Miracle; and applauded Jeſus for it, and perhaps [38] became his Diſciples upon it. If I, I ſay, was a Diſciple of Jeſus, I would give this Story ſuch an old turn for his Credit. And I appeal to indifferent Judges, whether ſuch a daubing of the Miracle, to remove the Offence of Infidels at this Day, would not be politically and wiſely done of me. Whether modern Chriſtians may be brought into ſuch a Notion of this ſuppoſed Miracle, I know not; but really there is room enough to ſuſpect ſuch a Fraud in it.

But ſuppoſing Jeſus's Change of Water into Wine to have been a real Miracle; none commiſſion'd of God for the Reformation and Inſtruction of Mankind would ever have done it here. Miracles (as Mr. Chandler 36 ſays excellently well) muſt be ſuch things, as that it is conſiſtent with the Perfections of God, to intereſt himſelf in; and again, they muſt argue not only the Power of God, but his Love to Mankind, and his Inclination to do them good; which this of Jeſus is ſo far from, that it has an an evil Aſpect and Tendency, as is above repreſented; conſequently it is [39] to be rejected, and no longer eſteem'd a divine Miracle; neither is Jeſus to be received as a Revealer of God's Will for it, as Mr. Chandler will bear me witneſs.

No doubt on't, but you Chriſtian Prieſts would have us Jews and Infidels, to believe the whole Company at this Wedding, for all what is intimated by St. John to the contrary, to conſiſt of ſober and demure Saints. I will ſuppoſe ſo; but then, what occaſion had they at all for Wine? What reaſon could there be for God's Power to interpoſe and make it, eſpecially in ſo large a quantity, for them? I can conceive none. If any of the Company had been taken with fainting Fits; and Jeſus for want of a Cordial Bottle, had created a chearing Dram or two, I could not have found fault with it; tho even here, if he had reſtored the Patient with a word of his Mouth, it had been a better Miracle, than making of Wine for him: But that he ſhould make for a Company of Sots, a large quantity of Wine, of no leſs than twelve or eighteen Firkins of Engliſh Meaſure, enough to intoxicate the whole Town of Cana of Galilee, is [40] what can never be accounted for by a Chriſtian, who ſhould, one would think, wiſh this Story, for the Reputation of Jeſus expunged out of the New Teſtament.

Beſides, if Jeſus had really and miraculouſly made Wine, which no Power or Art of Man could do, he ſhould, to prevent all ſuſpicion of deceit in the Miracle, have done it without the uſe of Water. You Chriſtians ſay, he is the original Cauſe of all Things out of Nothing; why then did he not 37 create this Wine out of nothing? why did he not order the Pots to be emptied of their Water, if there was any in them, and then with a word of his Mouth command the filling them with Wine inſtead of it? Here had been an unexceptionable Miracle, which no Infidels could have cavil'd at, for any thing, but the needleſſneſs of it. But this ſubject Matter of Water ſpoils the Credit of the Miracle. The Water-Pots, it ſeems, are to be fill'd, before Jeſus could do [41] the notable Feat; is not this enough to make us think, that Jeſus was but an artificial Punch-maker? Could not he create Wine without Water for a Tranſmutation? Yes, you'll ſay he could: what was the Reaſon then, that he did not? This is a reaſonable Queſtion to a learned Prieſthood; and a rational Anſwer ſhould be given to it. And a Queſtion too it is that heretofore has been under debate. Some ſaid that the Water might be uſed to abate of the 38 immenſity of the Miracle, which otherwiſe for its greatneſs might have ſurpaſs'd all belief. But this Reaſon will not do. A Miracle can't be too great in itſelf, if well atteſted, to tranſcend Credit: but it may eaſily be too little to conciliate the Faith of a Free-Thinker. The Fathers of your Church fetch'd a Reaſon, for the uſe of Water here, from the Myſtery; but ſince Myſterys on Miracles are ſet aſide by the Prieſthood of this Age, they are to aſſign another and good Reaſon of their own; or this Miracle is to be rejected, as a piece of Art and Craft in the Operator, [42] if for no other Reaſon than this, that Jeſus uſed Water to make Wine.

All that I have to ſay more to this Miracle, is, that it is to be wiſh'd, if Jeſus could turn Water into Wine, that he had imparted the Secret and Power to his Diſciples of the Prieſthood of all Ages ſince, which would have been of greateſt Advantage to them in this World. He has empower'd them, they ſay, to remit Sins, which few old Sinners think themſelves the leſs in danger for: And he has enabled them, ſome ſay, to tranſubſtantiate Bread into Fleſh, and Wine into Blood, which none but fooliſh and ſuperſtitious Folks believe they ever did: And he promiſed to inveſt them with a Power to do greater Miracles than himſelf, even to remove Mountains, and to curſe Trees; but I thank God, they never were of ſo ſtrong a Faith, as to put it in Practice, or we might have heard of the natural ſtate, as well as we do now of the civil ſtate of ſome Countrys, ruin'd and overturn'd by them. But this Power to tranſmute Water into Wine, without Labour and Expence, would have been of better worth to them, than all their other Prieſtly Offices. Not, that our Conduits [43] would thereupon run with Wine, inſtead of Water; or that Wine would be cheaper and more plentiful than it is now, excepting among themſelves, if they could withal curſe Vineyards. They would make the beſt Penny they could of their divine Power. And as ſurely as they can now ſell the Water-drops of their Fingers at a Chriſtening, at a good Rate, they would ſet a better Price on their miraculouſly made Wine, and give a notable Reaſon for its dearneſs, viz. that Miracles ſhould not be cheap, which would bring them into Contempt, and leſſen the Wonder and Admiration of them.

32.
Luke ii. 48.
33.
Chriſtus aſperius reſpondit, quid tibi & mihi, Mulier? St. Chryſoſt. in Loc. Johan. Vide & Theophylact. in Loc.
34.
Vide Sanctum Auguſtinum. In Loc. Johan.
35.
Apud St. Chryſoſtomum in Loc. Johan.
36.
Vindication of the Chriſtian Religion, p. 82.
37.
Sed quanam gratia, antequam implerentur, non fecit Miraculum, quod longè fuiſſet admirabilius? Siquidem aliud eſt ſubjectae Materiae qualitatem mutare, aliud ipſam ſubſtantiam ex nihilo facere. Chryſoſ. in Loc.
38.
Saepe obeſt Magnitudo, ne Miracula creditu ſint facilia. Theophylaect. in Loc.

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 anſwer the rational Parts of it, conſiſtently with the Letter, I know not; but I own myſelf unable, and believe it impoſſible for them, to do it: And therefore they muſt of neceſſity go along with me to the myſtical Interpretation of the Fathers; 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: whereupon 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 Myſtery 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 ſometimes 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 ſecundum Expoſitionem moralem) is to have a divine, moral, and myſtical Conſtruction 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 about 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 Myſtery ſignified in the Story of this Marriage, as in all Jeſus's Miracles, which it becomes us to open and ſearch for; till, if poſſible, we are inebriated with the ſpiritual 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 underſtood by the Marriage.

And again, ſays St. Auguſtin 44 , there is Myſtery in this Marriage, or Jeſus upon 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 Marriage; 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 Scriptures; and by the beſt Wine is to be underſtood ſpiritual Interpretations, which would tranſport the underſtandings of Men with divine knowledge; and warm their Hearts and Affections into a ſpiritual Inebriation; 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 Marriage [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 Paſſages 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 Revelations, 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 Fathers 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. Auguſtin 50 aſſures us, there's latent Myſtery in the words. How then ſhall we come at it? Why, if we caſt away the Interrogation, and look upon the Sentence, as ellyptical, like an infinite number of prophetical ones, the Senſe paraphraſtically, 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 himſelf) 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 Nuptials with her.

And thus have I done with the Miracle of Jeſus's turning Water into Wine at a Marriage of Cana of Galilee. Whether 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 Exclamations againſt him, without Reaſon and Authority. But in the myſtical Operation 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 demonſtration 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 incredible of any according to the Letter. There is not one Miracle of Jeſus ſpecifically related, that does not labour under [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 Abſurdities of it too are ſo obvious and ſtare a Man in the Face, that I wonder they are hitherto overlook'd, and that conſiderate 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 Abſurdities 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 improbable 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 weakneſs of their Intellects, as to imagine any thing ſo groſly and notoriouſly contradictory to Senſe and Reaſon, would have gone down with them, as is this before us, which has paſs'd currently thro' many Ages of the Church, has been read with attention by the Learned, and revered [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 Myſtery 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, either for Beauty or Deformity may attract the Eyes of the People, and occaſion 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 indifferent one does oftener draw multitudes [54] after him; yet Jeſus, as a Prophet, was without Honour at Capernaum, his own Country; conſequently, it is not to be ſuppoſed that, for his Doctrine, 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 Paralyticks to come to Jeſus; or they fruſtrated 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 waiting a while, not many Hours, and in all probability the Tumult would be appeas'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 incredible.

St. Chryſoſtom ſays 52 , that the Paralytick 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 Bearers, "What's the Reaſon of this Tumult? 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 admittance 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 argued. 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 Queſtion 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 conſequence they could not come at the Sides of it. How ſhould they? over the Heads of the People? That's not to be imagined; conſequently here's another difficulty in the Story, that renders it yet more ſtrange and incredible.

But, without queſtioning the poſſibility and eaſineſs of getting the Parlytick and his Couch over the Heads of [57] the Mob, to the ſides of the Houſe; thither 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 preſent) would raiſe the Man and his Bed to the top of it: So we will not diſpute 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 eſcaped with a only broken Pate, by the falling 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 aware of theſe difficulties in this Story, and willing to reconcile Men to the eaſier belief of it, ſay, as Druſius 54 did, that the Houſes of Judaea were flatroof'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 widening of the ſides of it, that the Paralytick 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 Paralytick 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 Expreſſions the Evangeliſts had never uſed, if there had been a Door for him to deſcend by. But to indulge Lightfoot and Whitby in their Notion; I may ask them, what occaſion was there then of widening 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 inſuperable Bar to the Credibility of this Story.

In ſhort, there are more and greater Difficultys affecting the Credit of this Miracle, 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 prevent 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 Wilderneſs, might ſurely, by Force or Perſuaſion [61] have made the People, how unreatonably mobbiſh ſoever, to retreat. And ſhy did he not? Without a good and ſatisfactory Anſwer, which I can't conceive, to this Queſtion, here is the moſt unaccountable 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 over it.

Believe then the Story of this Miracle, thus taken to Pieces, who can? It is ſuch an Accumulation of Abſurdities, Improbabilities, 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 impoſſible 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 ſuppoſe, Jeſus would not give forth the healing word, and prevent all this Labour, or by his divine Power diſperſe the People, 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 miraculouſneſs of the Cure of him: The trouble of that Queſtion is ſaved me, by the many other incredible Circumſtances of the Story, which are ſuch a Contradiction to Senſe and Reaſon, as is not to be equall'd, in any thing, that's commonly receiv'd and believ'd by Mankind. Cicero ſays, that there is nothing ſo abſurd, 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 before 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 expect that our Clergy will be diſguſted at my ludicrous diſplay of it; and that Arch-Deacon Stubbs in particular will again be ready to exclaim againſt me, and ſay, that this is turning a miraculous Fact, and a divine Teſtimony of our Religion 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 credibility 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 Clergyman of more Wit will, appear in Defence of it.

So abſurd is the Letter of this Story, that for the Honour of Jeſus, and Credibility 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 admire 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 Principles, 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 Buildings 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 Scriptures 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 Letter 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 unſteadineſs and diſſoluteneſs of his Morals and Principles.

So much, in ſhort, then to the myſtical Interpretation of the Story of this Miracle. The literal Senſe of it is ſo encumber'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 Argument 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 Mankind 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 Incredibilites according to the Propoſition before us; and whether there is not a neceſſity, for the Honour of Jeſus, to [68] turn them into prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what will be myſteriouſly 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 Miracles, 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 ludicrous 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 rather more liable to Ridicule and Exception. But if any are of a contrary Opinion, and will let me know, which in their Judgment are more unexceptionable 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 Letter of Jeſus's Miracles, as well as of the Prophecies of him, than any of my former: 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 Publication 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, Defamations, and attempts for Proſecution; [70] which have been ſo far from terrifying me, that they give me a ſecret Pleaſure, and animate me to proceed in the Undertaking in hand.

I did not much queſtion but the Biſhop of St. Davids, whom I look'd upon 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 ſlanderous Sermon, I appeal now to the worſhipful Societys for Reformation of Manners; to whom, and to other Civil Magiſtrates, 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 judging 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. Davids, 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 Offender.

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

FINIS.

Appendix A BOOKS written by Mr. WOOLSTON, and ſold by him next Door below the Star in Aldermanbury, and by the Bookſellers of London and Weſtminſter.

[]
  • I. THE old Apology reviv'd, &c.
  • II. Diſſertatio de Pontii Pilati Epiſtola ad Tiberium cirea Res Jeſu Chriſti geſtas.
  • III. Origenis Adamantii Epiſtolae duae circa Fidom vere orthodoxam & ſcripturarum Interpretationem.
  • IV. The exact Fitneſs of the Time of Chriſt's Advent, demonſtrated by Reaſon, againſt the Objections of the old Gentiles, and modern Unbelievers.
  • V. Four Free-Gifts to the Clergy, or Challenges to a Diſputation on this Queſtion, Whether the Hireling Prieſts of this Age, who are all Miniſters of the Letter, be not Worſhippers of the Apolalyptical Beaſt, and Miniſters of Anti-Chriſt.
  • VI. An Anſwer to the ſaid Four Free-Gifts.
  • VII. Two Letters to Dr. Bennet, on this queſtion, Whether the People call'd Quakers, do not the neareſt of any other Sect in Religion, reſemble the primitive Chriſtians in Principle and Practice.
  • VIII. An Anſwer to the ſaid two Letters.
  • IX. The Moderator between an Infidel and an Apoſtate: or the Controverſy between the Grounds and his eccleſiaſtical Opponents, ſet in a clear Light, &c.
  • X. Two Supplements to the Moderator, &c.
  • XI. A Defence of the Miracle of the Thundering-Legion, againſt a Diſſertation of Walter Moyle Eſq
  • XII. Four Diſcourſes on the Miracles of our Saviour.
Notes
1.
John ix.
2.
Quid Lutum illinere oportet? hoc potius caecum reddere, quis unquam hoc pacto curatus eſt? In Loc. Johan.
3.
Quam ob cauſam dicet aliquis, cum omnia ſolo Verbo praeſtare poſſit, nulloque negotio, Lutum quidem ſputo macerat? In Loc. Johan.
4.
Sed Rationem quandam myſticam habet Vis Rei iſtius de ſputo. Ibid.
5.
Ei autem qui caecus fuerat a Nativitate, jam non per ſermonem ſed per operationem praeſtitit viſum; non vanè, neque prout evenit, hoc faciens, ſed ut oſteneret manum Dei, eam quae ab initio plaſmavit Hominem, &c. Contra Haereſ. L. v. c. 15.
6.
See his Sermon before the Societys for Reformation, p. 12.
7.
Ipſe Salvator noſter apertiſſime oſtendit, quod ejus Miracula aliquid ſignificent; dum ea faciendo, alivuid agit, quod Ratione carere videatur. Niſi enim aliquid ſignificaret, quid neceſſarium fuit, in hujus caeci Illuminatione, ut Lutum faceret, quo oculos ejus liniret, cui ſolum dicere ſufficiens erat. Quaeramus igitur ſignificationem, & videams quid caecus iſte ſignificet. In Homil. quarta poſt quart [...] Dominicam.
8.
Similitudo erat & Typus futurorum unumquodque quod fiebat in Corpore. Veluti neſcio quis à Nativitate caecus Viſum recuperavit. Vere autem caecus iſte erat à Nativitate Gentilium Populus, cui Salvator reddidit Vi [...], Saliva ſua ungens oculos ejus & mittens ad Siloam, quod interpretatur miſſus, mittebat quippe illos quos ſpiritu unxit ad Apoſtolos. In Iſai. c. vi.
9.
Genus humanum eſt iſte caecus. In Loc. Johan.
10.
Caecus humanum Genus ſignificatur. In Com. Johan.
11.
Caecus iſte a Nativitate, Genus humanum eſſe videtur à primo homine.—Haec enim caecitas non Corporis ſed Animae eſt. In Loc. ſupra laudat.
12.
Per caecum naturaliter non videntem & illuminaeeum ſignificat Genus humanum. In Loc. Johan.
13.
Vere autem caecus iſte erat à Nativitate Gentilium Populus. In Iſai. c. vi.
14.
Caeci hujus Curationem in figuram & typum vocationis Gentium accepimus. In Loc. Johan.
15.
Intellige hoc Miraculum ſpiritualiter. Nam caecus quidem erat omnis homo à Nativitate, id eſt, ab Initio Mundi. In Loc. Johan.
16.
In Sabbato eſt figura ultimi Temporis. St. Cyril in Loc. Johan.
17.
Caecitas eſt Infidelitas. In Loc.
18.
Caecus qui deſtituitur divino Lumine. De Adorat. p. 414.
19.
Caecus qui ſedet in tenebris omnis Ignoranti [...], & non potuit videre Conditorem Mundi. In Loc. Johan.
20.
Literam Legis ſequentes, in Errores, Superſtitiones & Infidelitatem incurrunt. In Matt. Tract. xxvi.
21.
Caecus iſte eſt caecus in Litera, & hoc ſtatu Sa [...]ari non poteſt. In Marc. c. viii.
22.
Caeci qui imperiti Scripturarum. In Loc. Johan.
23.
Lutum vero factum de Saliva oris Domini, ac poſitum ſuper oculos caeci, ſignificat hic, quod naturae [...]rat, opere ſuo implere Figulum. In Loc. Johan.
24.
Saliva ſua ungens Oculos caeci & mittens ad [...]am quod interpretatur Miſſus, mittebat quippe illos, quos ſpiritu unxit, &c. In Iſai. c. vi.
25.
Saliva eſt perfecta Doctrina. In Marc. c. viii.
26.
Ei autem qui caecus fuerat à Nativitate, jam non per ſermonem ſed per operationem praeſtitit Viſum; non vanè neque prout evenit hoc faciens, ſed ut oſtenderet manum Dei, eam que ab Initio plaſmavit hominem. Quapropter expuit in Terram, & fecit Lutum, & ſuperlinivit illud Oculis, oſtendens antiquam Plaſmationem, quemadmodum facta eſt, & manum Dei manifeſtans his qui intelligere poſſunt, per quam è Limo plaſmatus eſt homo. Cont. Hareſes. L. v. c. 15.
27.
John ii.
28.
See his Speech in Convocation, printed in the Poſt-Boy of March the 30th.
29.
Rurſus hoc in loco calumniantur nonnulli hunc ebrioſorum fuiſſe Conventum, &c. In Loc. Johan.
30.
Pueri aut Saltatores volutabantur, in his autem Tibiae, Lyraeque Vocem habebant. Mulieres autem Cantum accipientes, volvebantur per medias Quaecunque optimatum erant uxores atque filiae. Ill vero ad Saltationem & deſiderabilem Cantum Converſi delectabantur, &c. In Homero-Centon. Empreſs
31.
Vindication of the Chriſtian Religion. p. 82.
39.
In Dialog. cum Tryphone, p. 364.
40.
In Lib. de Abrahamo.
41.
In Matt. Tract. xxii.
42.
Aliquid enim & in ipſis factis innuit nobis, puto, quia non ſine cauſa venit ad Nuptias. Excepto Miraculo, aliquid in ipſo facto Myſterii & Sacramenti latet. Pulſemus ut aperiet & de Vino inviſibili inebriet nos. In Loc. Johan.
43.
Nihil dicemus, quid ſibi velint Hydriae, quid Aqua in Vinum converſa, quid Architriclinius, quid Sponſus, quid Mater Jeſu in Myſterio, quid ipſae Nuptiae? Ibid.
44.
Per hoc invitatus Dominus venit ad Nuptias, ut oſtenderetur Sacramentam Nuptiarum,—Illarum Nuptiarum Sponſus Perſonam Domini figurabat, cui dictum eſt, ſervaſti bonum Vinum uſque adhuc, Bonum Vinum id eſt Evangelium ſervaſti uſque adhuc. Ibid.
45.
Sex Hydriae ſunt ſex Aetates Temporum capientes Prophetiam pertinentem ad omnes gentes ſive in duobus generibus hominum, id eſt, Judaeis & Graecis, ſive in tribus propter Noe tres Filios. Ibid.
46.
Vocatur Salvator ad Nuptias, hoc eſt, Eccleſiae voto ſpiritus ſanctus invocatur.—Venit cum Diſcipulis ſuis, id eſt, in Loco ſancto, Turba ſanctorum. Mirabilia Dei Maria Mater expectat, hoc eſt, Virtutem Chriſti expectat Eccleſia.—Maria ait, ecce Vina deficiant, hoc eſt, Vinum Spiritus Eccleſia optat excipere.—Numquid Mulierem dicit Jeſu Mariam, quae Virgo poſt Pactum inventa eſt? Sed Eccleſiam alloquitur, quae non ſolum Mulier, ſed meretrix nuncupatur. In Sermon xcii. Append.
47.
Vinum multis Locis accipimus Scripturas Sanctas meraciſſimum Vigorem coeleſtis ſapientiae continentes, quibus incaleſcant ſenſus & inebrientur Affectus. Operante Chriſto in Cana Galileae Vinum defecit & Vinum fit, id eſt, Umbra removetur & Veritas praeſentatur. Recedit Lex, Gratia ſuccedit. Carnalia ſpiritualibus commutantur. Bonum quidem Vinum eſt vetu. Teſtamentum, ſed ſine ſpirituali Intellectu vaneſcit in Litera. In Sermon xc. Append. Sed illud quod in Litera Legis aquam ſapiebat, dum ſpiritualiter intelligi fecit, aquam in Vinum convertit. In Sermon xci. Append.
48.
Per Nuptias, Conjunctionem Chriſti & Eccleſiae, hoc eſt Veteris & Novi Teſtamenti Traditionem debemus accipere. Sponſus eſt Chriſtus. Architriclinius eſt Moſes. In Loc. Johan.
49.
Volucres Coeli ſunt verè puri & ad caeleſtis ſapientiae Cognitionem evolare parati. Clem. Alex. Strom. L. iv.
50.
Quid mihi & tibi eſt, Mulier? Procul dubio, Fratres, latet ibi aliquid Myſterii. In Loc. Johan.
51.
Matt. ix. Mark ii. Luke v.
52.
Paralyticus repletum videret Theatrum, Aditus intercluſos, Portum obſeptum,—Non tamen dixit Propinquis ſuis, quid hoc Rei eſt? Expectemus, quouſvue Domus evacuetur, Theatrum dimittatur, recedent, vui congregati ſunt, poterimus privatim ad illum accevere. In Homil. de hoc Paralyt.
53.
Dicet aliquis valde dimiſſum fuiſſe Locum, à quo per Tegulas depoſuerunt Paralytici Lectum. Johan. Nepot. Hieroſ. in Loc. Luc.
54.
Judaeorum Tecta plana erant, & non in Coni formam faſtigiata. In Loc. Luc.
55.
In Loc. Marci.
56.
Numquid enim facilem illi potuit Acceſſum reddere? Apud Chryſoſtom. de hoc Paralyt.
57.
In Paralytico Gentium univerſitas offertur medenda. In Loc. Matt.
58.
Paralyticus poteſt intelligi Anima diſſoluta Membris, id eſt, bonis operibus. Inter. Quaeſt. Evang.
59.
Paralyſis Typus eſt Torporis, quo piger jacet in Malitia Carnis, habens deſiderium Salutis, & Torporis Ignavia & duplis Cogitationibus, ac ſi enervatus Membris oſtendit. In Loc. Marci.
60.
In hoc enim quod ait, remittuntur tibi Peccata, interiorem hominem, id eſt, ſpiritum paryliticum eſſe demonſtrat. Hoc enim non dixiſſet, ſi ad Corporis Infirmitatem reſpexiſſet. Non ideo Corpus ſanatur, quia Anima à peccatis liberatur. In Homil. in Dominic. xix. poſt Pentecoſt.
61.
Sed qui ſun [...] iſti quatuor, qui hunc Paralyticum portant & Domino offerunt. Per hos enim neſcio, qui melius quam quatuor Evangeliſtae intelligi poſſunt. Nulla enim Anima niſi per iſtos Domino offertur, nulla Anima niſi per iſtorum fidem ſanatur. Euſeb Gallican. ibid. Sum Paralyticus, quia non operantur & immobiles ſunt Vires Animae meae ad bonum, ſed ſi a quatuor Evangeliſtis geſtatus & adductus fuero ad Dominum, tunc audiam, remittuntur Peecata. Theophylact. in Loc. Marci.
62.
Tectum Domus qua Chriſtus docet, aſcendendum, id eſt, Sacrae Scripturae Sublimitas eſt appetenda. Bedae in Loc. Lucae.
63.
Non utique in Infimis exterius, qua turbae tumultuantur remanendum, ſed Tectum Domus, &c. Ibid.
64.
Patefacto Tecto, aeger ad Jeſum ſummittitur, quia reſeratis Scripturarum Myſteriis, ad Notitiam Chriſti pervenitur. Bedae in Loc. Marci Eſt Paralyſis interior, ut pervenias ad Chriſtum (forte enim latet Medicus & intus eſt, hoc eſt, iſte verus Intellectus in Scripturis occultus eſt) exponendo quod occultum eſt aperi Tectum, & depone Paryliticum. Auguſtin. in Serm. XLVI. Sect. 13. Impediri turbis niſi Tecta id eſt operta Scripturarum aperiat, ut per haec ad Notitiam Chriſti perveniat. Ejuſdam in Quaeſt. 4ta in Evangel. Lucae.
65.
Et bene Domus Jeſu juxta alterius Evangeliſtae Narrationem tegulis eſſe contecta reperitur, quia ſub contemptibili Literarum Velamine, ſi adſit, qui reſeret, divina ſpiritualis Gratiae Virtus invenietur. Denudatio etenim Tegularum in Domo Jeſu, Apertio eſt, in utilitate Literae, ſenſus ſpiritualis & arcanorum coeleſtium. In Loc. Marci.
Distributed by the University of Oxford under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Citation Suggestion for this Object
TextGrid Repository (2020). TEI. 4627 A fourth discourse on the miracles of our Saviour in view of the present controversy between infidels and apostates By Thomas Woolston. University of Oxford Text Archive. . https://hdl.handle.net/21.T11991/0000-001A-5F85-4