TheBishopofLitchfieldvery remarkably says,[188]that Jesus where-ever he went, healed all that came to him without Distinction, the impotent, halt, withered. He certainly had this Text of St.Johnin his Eye, when he said so, becauseImpotent,Halt,Withered, are only mention'd here, whereJesuscurednoneof them: Whereupon if hisLordshiphad made but a marginal Reference to this Text, it would have been the best Jest and Banter, with a Sneer, that ever was put uponJesusand his Power of Miracles: As it is, it's a very good one, and I desire my Readers to take Notice of it, that his Lordship may not lose the Credit and Praise of it. It's for such Circumspection of Thought, Exactness of Expression, and Acuteness of Wit, that I admire thatPrelate, and must needs say of him, whether he ever be translated toCanterburyorYork, or not, that he's anarchBishop.
But to return and go on. The Conduct ofJesus, to all Appearance, is not only blameable, his Power of healing disputable, and his Mercy indefensible, for that he cured butoneinfirm Man out of a Multitude, atBethesda, but,
Eightly, and lastly, it may reasonably be questioned, whether he wrought any Miracle in the healing of thisoneMan. Miracles (to say nothing of the ridiculous Distinction between divine and diabolical ones) are Works done out of the Course of Nature, and beyond the Imitation of human Art or Power. Now whether the Cure of this infirm Man can be brought under this Definition of a Miracle, may be doubted. What this Man'sInfirmity, which is a general Name for all Distempers, was, we know not. How then can we say he was miraculously cured, unless we knew his Disease to be incurable by Art, which none can affirm? The worst that we know of this Man's Case, is, that it was of a long Continuance, no less than ofeightandthirtyYears: And theBishopofLitchfieldand others in their florid Harangues ofJesus's Works, make the Cure of such Chronical Diseases to be miraculous: But why so? Many Instances may be given of Infirmities of human Nature, of a long Duration,which in Time, and especially in old Age, wear off. If such Infirmities don't occur to the Memory of ourDivines, I could put them in Mind of them. And who knows but this was the Case of this impotent Man, whose InfirmityJesusobserving to be wearing off, bid him to be gone, and take up his Couch, for he would soon be made whole.
The Fathers indeed call this Man's Infirmity thePalsy, which in truth is generally worse than better by Time, and afterthirtyandeightYears, must needs be very deplorable, and incurable without a Miracle. But why do they call it the Palsy? They have no Authority for it from the Text, without which, as our litteralDoctorswill not subscribe to their Opinions in other Cases; so why should I here? In short, the Fathers had never call'd it thePalsy, but for the sake of the Mystery; and I am not bound to ownthatto have been the Distemper, any more than it was want of Legs; for that would be making of Miracles forJesus, without Reason and Authority.
IfJesushere had healed the wholeMultitude of impotent Folk; without Enquiry what Numbers there might be of them, I should have believed that he wrought there many great Miracles, in asmuch as in such a great Multitude, there must needs, in all Probability, be some incurable by Art or Nature: But since he cured only thisoneMan, it affords Matter of Speculation, whether he was themostor theleastdiseased amongst them. OurDivines, for the sake of the Miracle, may possibly suppose him to be the most grievously afflicted of any; butInfidels, on the other hand, will say, not so: but with their Cavils will urge that this infirm Man was either a Dissembler, whomJesusshamed out of his pretended Disease, or that he was only hippish, and fancyfully more than really distemper'd of a long Time, whomJesusby suitable Exhortations and Admonitions, working upon his Imagination, persuaded into a Belief of his Cure, and bid him to walk off. Certain it is, thatInfidelswill say, it was not a Power of Miracles inJesuswhich heal'd him, or he had used it then and there for the Sanation of others also.
And thus have I finish'd my Invective against the Letter of this Story; which, if any are offended at, they enjoy, what is the most reasonable Thing in the World, the same Liberty to write for the Letter, which I have used against it: And so I pass to the Consideration of the Opinionsand Expositions of the Fathers on this strange Story.
The Fathers, upon whose Authority I form'd my preceding Invective against the Letter, so universally betake themselves to the mystical Interpretation of this Story, that it may be question'd, whether any of them, more than myself, believ'd any Thing at all of the Letter of it. St.Chrysostom, who is as much a litteral Interpreter of the Scriptures as any of them, here intirely discards the Letter, saying admirably thus,[189]what a strange Way and Story of healing the Diseased is here? but what is the Mystery of it? that we are to look to. The Matter could not be so simply and unadvisedly transacted litterally, as it is related. There must be somewhat future here, as by a Type and Figure, signify'd; or the Story, it is so incredible in itself, will give Offence to many.St.Chrysostomwas certainly in the right on't; and I wonder, for which no Reason but want of Liberty can begiven, thatInfidelshave not before now, with their Jests and Cavils, ridiculed this Story. St.Augustin, to the same Purpose, says,[190]Can any one believe, that these Waters of Bethesda were wont to be troubled in this Fashion, and that there was not Mystery, and a spiritual Signification in it?Yes, I could tell St.Augustin, that our modernDivinesseem to believe it, tho' he, if he was now alive, would laugh at them for it. But to come to the profound Mystery signified by this Story, which to use the Words of[191]St.Augustin, as God shall enable me, I will now speak to.
OurEnglishVersion says,There is at Jerusalem by the Sheep-Market, a Pool. How ourTranslatorscame by the Notion of aMarkethere, I can't imagine, since there is nothing to favour it in the Original, which stands thus, επι τη προβατικη κολυμβηθρα: By κολυμβηθρα, the Fathers understand[192]Baptism, or the spiritualLaverof Regeneration; and who is that for, but the Flock of Christ, signified by προβατικη? So we have another and clearer Interpretation of these two Words. And as toBethesda, that is a mystical Name of the Church, which according to the Signification ofBethesda, is the House of Grace. And if it is said to be atJerusalem, it is not to be understood of the OldJerusalem, but of theNewand ApocalypticalJerusalem, at the Entrance into which the Flock of Christ will be baptiz'd by the Waters of the Spirit, as in a mystical Laver.
Bethesdais said to have fivePorches, that is, as the Fathers[193]agree, the five Books ofMoses, which are as so many Doors of Entrance into the House of Wisdom, or of the Grace ofChrist.
At thesefive Porchesof the five Books of Moses laya great Multitude of impotent Folk, blind, halt, withered. And who are these mystically? The ignorant, erroneous, and unstable in Faith and Principle, as the Fathers often understand them spiritually. And what is the Reason of these their mystical Diseases? Because, asSt.Augustin[194]and other Fathers say, they rest on the Letter of the Law, which throws them into various Errors, like Diseases, of different Kinds, of which they can't be cured without the Descent of the Spirit, like an Angel, to instruct them mystically to interpret.
With these impotent Folk laya certain Man who had an Infirmity. And who is this infirm Man? Mankind in general, say St.Cyril[195]and[196]St.Augustin, And what is his Infirmity? The Fathers call it the[197]Palsy, because of his Instability, and Unsteadiness in Faith and Principles, which is now the Case of Mankind. St.Johncalls it ασθενειανa Weakness, which being a general Nameof all Distempers, we can't guess what might be here the specifical one. But reasonably speaking, according to the Rule of Interpretation, this Man'sInfirmityis the same with the Woman'sSpirit of Infirmity, and that is a Weakness at the Spirit of Prophecy, which Mankind, as well as the Woman of the Church, is to be cured of in the Perfection of Time.
And how long did this Man with his Infirmity lay in these Porches ofBethesda?Thirty eight Years: So has Mankind with his Weakness at the Spirit of Prophecy lay eight and thirty (hundred)[198]Years, reckoning two thousand under the Law, and eighteen hundred since under the Gospel. St.Augustin[199]has an ingenious and more mystical way of Computation of thesethirty and eight Years, which pleases me too, but possibly some Readers may not so easily apprehend it, unless they are well acquainted with the Mystery of Prophetical Numbers.
And how is Mankind to be cured of his Infirmity at the Spirit of Prophecy? By being instructed, by the Spirit of Truth, who is to come at the Conclusion of the said thirty and eight mystical Years,to arise and take up his bed and walk, that is, to raise his Thoughts to the Contemplation of the divine Mysteries of the Law, and to lift up his Bed of the Letter, on which he has hithertorested, into a sublime Sense, and then he will walk uprightly and steadily in the Faith, without wavering like a Paralytick.
And at what Season didJesuscome to this infirm Man? It was at a Feast of theJews.Irenæus,Chrysostom,Theophylact, andCyrilcall it the Feast of Penticost. And the grand Feast of Penticost is, as St.Cyril[200]says upon the Place at the Perfection of Time, the Time of the Evangelical Sabbath, and ofJesus's spiritual Advent, which will be a Time of feasting on intellectual and divine Mysteries, of seeing Visions and of dreaming Dreams; consequently at that Time, as the ancientJewsand Fathers assert, Mankind will be cured of this Infirmity at the Spirit of Prophecy.And this too is thecertain Season, that the Angel will descend and trouble the Waters. By Angel is here meant[201]the Spirit of Christ. And by Waters the Fathers understand,[202]the People of all Nations. But how will the Descent of the Spirit of Truth, like an Angel, trouble these Waters, that is, give any Molestations and Disturbance to the People? Is there not a Mistake in the Oracle? If theClergywill be but greater Lovers of Truth than of their Interests; if they, who should be Teachers of Forbearance of one another in Love, will but keep their Temper, there would be found a mistake in it. But alas!
Lastly, TheJews, as is intimated, seem to have been mov'd with Indignation at the Cure of the infirm Man, saying to him, ver. 10.it is the Sabbath, it is not lawful for thee to carry thy Bed; which litterally could not be true. TheJewswere not such precise Observers of the Sabbath; norso stupid and foolish, as St.Cyril,[203]says, as tothink the taking up and carrying a Stool to be a Breach of it. But mystically, it is to be fear'd, this will be most true, and that theClergy, who would beJewsinwardly, and the Circumcision in Spirit, will be bitter Enemies to Man's Exaltation of his Couch of the Letter of the Scriptures on or against the Evangelical Sabbath, and will make it, if possible, anunlawfulWork; because it will bring to them Shame, Dishonour and Loss of Interests along with it.
After this Manner is every other Circumstance of this Story to be allegorically apply'd out of the Fathers. The Moral or Mystery of the whole, in short, is this, that at the Perfection of Time, signified by theSabbath, thePentecost, the End ofthirty eight Years, the Spirit of Truth will descend on Mankind, to their Illumination in Prophecy, and to the healing of theirErrors, call'dDiseases; which is admirably represented by the Parable before us, that according to the Letter, has neither Reason nor common Sense in it.
And thus have I spoken toeightof the Miracles ofJesus; and whether I have not shew'd them, in whole or Part, according to the Proposition before us, toconsist of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities; and whether they are not prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what will be mysteriously, and more wonderfully done byJesus, I appeal to myReaders.
After another Discourse of some other Miracles, I intend to take into Examination the several Stories ofJesus's raising of the Dead as ofLazarus,Jairus's Daughter, and the Widow's Son ofNaim; which reputedly areJesus's grand Miracles; but, for all the seeming Greatness and Excellency of them, I don't doubt but to give the Letter of these Stories a Toss out of the Creed of a considerate and wise Man; at least show their Insufficiency for the Purpose for which they have been hitherto apply'd. And if I should afterwards, by the Leave and Patience of theBishopofLondon, give my Objection againstChrist's Resurrection a Review, and some more Force, then what will become of the Argument ofChrist's Power, Authority, andMessiahshipfrom his Miracles?
But, besidesJesus's Miracles, I am, as Opportunity serves, to take into Consideration some of the Historical Parts of his Life; and shew them to be no less sensless, absurd and ridiculous than his Miracles.
And why may I not sometimes treat on the Parables ofJesus, and show what nonsensical and absurd Things they are, according to the Expositions of our most famous Commentators of these last Ages.Jesuswas certainly the absolute, and most consummate Perfection of aCabalist,Mystist,ParabolistandEnigmatist; but according to modern Commentaries and Paraphrases, he was the merest Ideot and Blockhead that ever open'd his Mouth, in that sort of Learning, to the Instruction of Mankind. And I am oblig'd a little to speak to the Absurdities ofChrist's Doctrine and Parables, because one Article of the Prosecution against me was for saying,that any of the Philosophers of the Gentiles, orany rational Man(meaning according to modern Expositions)would make a better Teacher, than Jesus was.
What a great deal of Work have I upon my Hands, which, if God spare my Life and Health, I intend to go on with: If what I have already done in it be not acceptable to theClergy, their Way to prevent the Prosecution of this great Undertaking, is to battle me upon what's past. Who knows but they may write, if they would try their Strength, so acutely in Defence of the Letter ofJesus's Miracles already discuss'd, as may effectuallystop my Mouth, and prevent my giving them any more Trouble of this Kind? And I suppose I have now gotten an Adversary in theBishopof St.David's, who has already discharg'd one Fool's Bolt at me.
There has nothing been a more common Subject of Declamation among theClergythan theReasonablenessof Christianity, which must be understood of the History ofChrist's Life and Doctrine, or the Application of the WordReasonablenessto the Christian Religion is impertinent. But if I proceed, as I have begun in this Work, I shall shew Christianity, as it is understood, to be the most unreasonable and absurd Story, that ever was told; and our modern Systems of Theology groundless and sensless in almost every Part of them.Mahometanism, without Offence be it spoken, is a morereasonableReligion than the Christian, upon modernSchemesandSystems.
If what I here say is offensive to ourDivines, thePressis open for them as well as for myself, and they may, if they can, shew their Resentment of it. Thanks unto God and our most excellent Civil Government for such a Liberty of thePress: A Liberty that will lead and conduct us to the Fountain of Wisdom and Philosophy,which Restraint is a down-right Enemy to. And that this Blessing of Liberty may be continued, for allBishop Smallbrookand Dr.Roger'sHobbism, is, I dare say, the Desire of the curious, inquisitive, and philosophical Part of Mankind. If this Liberty should be taken away, what a notable Figure will ourDivinesmake from thePressandPulpit, declaiming on the Reasonableness, Excellency and Perfection of the Christian Religion, without an Adversary; and telling their Congregations, that all, their bitterest and acutest Enemies can object, is clearly answered!
ThePress, of late Years, has been productive of so many cogent and persuasive Arguments for Liberty of debate, and the Advocates for this Liberty, in the Judgment of the impartial and considerate, have so far gotten the better of their Adversaries, that I wonder any one can appear in behalf of Persecution. If I was aBishoporDoctorinDivinity, I shou'd think it a Disgrace to my Station and Education to ask the Assistance of the Civil Authority to protect my Religion: I should judge my self unworthy of the Wages and Emoluments I enjoy'd, for the Preaching and Propagation of the Gospel, if I was unable to give an Answer to any one, that ask'd a Reason of my Faith; Or if I wasso Shallow-pated, as to think Heresy and Infidelity punishable by the Civil Magistrate, I should think myself as much oblig'd to confute byReason, as he is to punish by theSword. If theBishopofLondonhad taken this Course with me; if he had publish'd a Refutation of my supposed Errors, as well as endeavour'd at a Prosecution of me for them, I had forgiven him the Wrongs and Injuries done me, and made no repeated Demands of Satisfaction for them.
Christianity is, as I believe, founded on a Rock of Wisdom; and what's more, has an omnipotent and omniscient God on its Side, who can incline the Hearts of Men to believe, and open the Eyes of their Understanding to discern the Truth of it; consequently there can be no Danger in the Attempts of our Adversaries, whether,Jews,Turksor DomestickInfidels, against it. But Persecution implys Weakness and Impotency in God to defend his own Cause; or his Priests would not move for the Help of the Arm of Flesh in Vindication of it. And if, at this Time of Day, after so many Treatises ofInfidels, and some of them as yet unanswered, against our Religion, this good Cause should be taken out of the Hands of God, and committed to the Care of theCivil Magistrate; if instead of Reason the Clergy should have Recourse to Force, what will By-standers, and even Well-wishers to Christianity say? Nothing less than thatInfidelshad gotten the better ofChrist's Ministers, and beaten them at their own Weapons of Reason and Argument.
The two great Pleaders for Persecution, to the Disgrace of themselves and Dishonour of our Religion, that have lately arose are Dr.Rogersand theBishopof St.David's. Dr.Rogers's chief Reason against Liberty of Debate, is because, as he says it is pernicious to the Peace and Welfare of the Community, by unsettling the Minds of the People about the Religion established: But here's no consequence, unless it could be proved, that such as the great Mr.Groundsand Mr.Scheme, have it in their Hearts to raise Mobbs upon the Government, and to beat out the Brains of theClergy. All the Harm, or rather Good, they aim at, is to exercise the Wits of theClergywith their Doubts and Objections; and if the Passions of ourEcclesiasticksare not raised upon it, to the doing of Violence to theseGentlemen, the Peace of the Publick will never be disturb'd. As to myself, tho' I have a vast and numerous Party onmy Side, no less than all the Fathers and primitive Christians for some Ages; yet as we were peaceable and quiet Subjects of old and passively obedient to theEmperorsofRome; so we will continue to the Civil Authority of this Nation. We only take the Liberty to awaken the Clergy out of a Lethargy of Dulness and Ignorance; and hope the Civil Magistrate will consider the Goodness and Charity of our Intentions, and guard us against their Insults for it.
TheBishopof St.David's[204]says, "It is absurd to assert, that the Liberties of any Nation will allow, with Impunity, a Set of distinguish'd Infidels to insult and treat with the greatest Contempt and Scorn the most sacred and important Truths, that are openly professed, by the whole Body of the People, of whatever Denomination." By a Set of Infidels, I suppose, he means me and the Fathers: And bytreating with Contempt and Scorn the most sacred and important Truths, he means, our burlesquing, bantering and ridiculing theClergyfor their Ministry of the Letter: And forthishe would, I conceive, have incensed theSocietiesfor Reformation of Manners to a Prosecution of me. And if they had notbeen wiser, and more merciful than their Preacher, I must have gone to Pot. But why should theBishopdislike this way of Writing? Don't he know, that the Fathers of the Church used to jest and scoff at theGentilesand their Priests for their foolish Superititions? Don't he know, that ourReformersbanter'd and ridicul'd Popery out of Doors, and almost within the Memory of Man, it was reckon'd but a dull Sermon, that was not well humm'd for its Puns and Jest on the Papists? why then should theBishopbe against that way of writing, which was of good Use to theReformers, and firstChristians? The grand Subject forBurlesqueandBanter, in my Opinion, isInfidelity; and thatBishop, who can't break two Jests uponInfidelsfor their one upon Christianity, has but a small Share of Wit. The Christian Religion according to theBishop, will abide the Test of calm and sedate Reasoning against it, but can't bear a Jest; O strange!
But to leave these two Contenders for Persecution to the Chastisement of acuter Pens. What I have here pleaded for Liberty is not thro' any Fears of Danger to myself, but for the Love of Truth and Advancement of Christianity, which, without it, can't be defended, propagated andsincerely embraced. And therefore hope, that the Controversy before us, betweenInfidelsandApostateswill be continued by the Indulgence of the Government, till Truth arises and shines bright to the Dissipation of the Mists of Error and Ignorance; like the Light of the Sun to the Dispersion of the Darkness of the Night. I will by God's Leave, go on to bear my part in the Controversy; And, if it was not more against the Interests than Reason of theClergyto believe me, would again solemnly declare that what I do in it is with a View to the Honour ofJesus, our spiritualMessiah, to whom be Glory for ever.Amen.
Chapter End Bar.
Canes qui oblatrant contra Inquisitionem Veritatis.Clem. Alex.
Printed for the Author, and Sold by him next door to theStar, inAldermanbury, and by the Booksellers ofLondon, andWestminster, 1728.
[Price One Shilling.]
Chapter Bar.
My Lord,
Capital I.
f theConvocationhad 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 myDiscoursesonMiraclesto theClergy:But being unhappily disappointed of a Session of thatReverendandLearnedBody, 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 turn'd my Thoughts on yourLordship,to whom aDedicationis 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 yourLordshipfor, is, yourDiscoursecall'dDifficulties 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 onChurch Power,like a Retraction, to reingratiate your self with some EcclesiasticalNoodles,whom you no more, than, I need to care for.
I have sometimes wondered, My Lord,where and when the Great Mr.Groundsimbibed 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 thePupilof Mr.HareatCambridge,my wonder ceas'd. Under yourLordship'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 hisTutorin Principles! I can't say, he surpasses you, since there is such a Freedom of Thought and Expression in yourDifficulties,&c. so strongly savouring of Infid—ty, that he has not as yet equall'd.
Upon yourLordship's Advancement to a Bishoprick, Difficultys and Discouragementsof the Government in the choice ofnot withstanding, I wish'd, without prescribing to the Wisdom a learned Prelate, that the great Mr.Grounds,for the good of the Church too, might be soon consecrated: And I should not have despair'd of it, but that he is aGentlemanof real Probity and Conscience, and might possibly boggle at Subscriptions, unless you and BishopHoadlycould help him to some of yourReservesandDistinctions,wherewith you must be both well Stock'd, to overcome thatDifficulty.And why should notDean Swiftfor his Writings, as well as some others, be made a Bishop? I should like to see him one; if thethenRight Reverend BishopGroundswould not think him, for hisTale 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 myDiscoursesonMiraclesare of very great Merit, as well as your Lordship'sDifficulties,&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 aModeratorin this Controversy, sets me above all Ecclesiastical Preferment, excepting theArch-BishoprickofCanterbury,which I'm afraid will be void, before the King is apprised of my singular Worth and Qualifications for it.
But however, if such excellentPrelates,asGrounds, Hoadly, Swift, Hareandmy selfwere 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 theDiscouragements,yourLordshiphints at, in the Study of the Scriptures: And if we made a Push for an Act of P——t to turn theClergyto Grass, after KingHenryVIIIth'sMonks and Fryars; where would be the Harm of it? Nay, the Advantage to the Publick, as well as to Religion, 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 BishopHoadly,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,
London,May14. 1728.
My LORD,The Admirer of yourDifficultys andDiscouragements,Thomas Woolston.
Chapter Bar.
Capital N.
ow for afourthDiscourse onJesus'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, whichJesuswas famed for, are none of the proper Miracles of theMessiah; 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 ofJesus, as recorded by theEvangelists, 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 whatJesusmeans, 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 theFlesh, 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 myformer Discourses, taken into examinationeightof the Miracles ofJesus,viz.those:
1. Of his driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple.
2. Of his exorcising theDevilsout 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 theSamaritanWoman, her fortune of having had five Husbands, and being than 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 ofBethesda.
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 ofJesus,viz.that[205]of his giving sight to a Man who wasborn blind, by the means of Eve-salve, made of Dirt and Spittle.
Blindness, as far as one may guess by the Evangelical History, was the Distemper thatJesusfrequently 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 whetherJesusused 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 ourDivines. And unless we knew of a certainty, that the sore or blind Eyes,Jesuscured, were absolutely out of the reach of Art and Nature;Infidelswill 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 excellentOculists, who thro' Study and Practice have attain'd to wonderful Skill in Eye-Maladies, which, tho' they are of varioussorts, yet, by Custom of Speech all pass under the general Name ofBlindness. And sometimes we hear of famousChance-Doctors, likeJesus, 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 SirWilliam Read, who, tho' no Scholar, nor of acquir'd Abilities inPhysickandSurgery, yet cured his Thousands of sore or blind Eyes; and many of them too to the surprise and astonishment of profess'dSurgeonsandPhysicians. Whether He, orJesus, cured the greater number of Blindness may be question'd. To please ourDivines, it shall be granted thatJesuscured the greater Numbers; but that he cured worse or more difficult Distempers in the Eyes, can't be proved. SirWilliamindeed met with many Cases of blind and sore Eyes, that were out of the reach of his Power; and so didJesustoo, or he had never let great Multitudes of the blind, and otherwise distemper'd People, go unheal'd by him. OurDivineswill here say, that it was never want of Power inJesus, but want of Faith in the diseased, if he did not heal them; but in otherSurgeonsandPhysicians, it is confessedly their own Insufficiency: To which I have only thisAnswer, that ourPhysiciansandSurgeonsare 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 luckly for us Christians, that we havethis Salvofor the Credit ofJesus's miraculously healing Power, that it was not fit, he should exert it against Unbelief; otherwise reasonably speaking, He with SirWilliam Read,Greatrex,Vespasian, our formerKingsofEngland, andSeventh-Sons, must have pass'd but for aChance-Doctor.
But to come to the particular Consideration of the Miracle before us.Jesusrestored, 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 ofSiloam. Where lies the Miracle? I can't see it; but hope ourDivineswill take their opportunity to point it out to me. OurSurgeons, with their Ointments and Washings can cure sore and blind Eyes of one sort or other; andJesusdid 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, theApothecary, for the notable Cures he performs, by themeans of his Medicines, should write himself, and be accounted by his Admirers, aMiracle-worker; he and they would be but laugh'd at for it: And yetJesusfor 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 ourDivinesabout 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 experiencedSurgeonsandPhysicians, 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, whichJesuscured; 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; norwhat 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 theEvangelisthad 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 DistempersJesusheal'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, asPhysiciansandPatientsdo 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 theKing's-Evil, or an Inflammation 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 goodOculistwill soon expediteit, 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 CureJesusby 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, orJesushad never prepared and order'd anOintmentandWashfor him.
Should ourDivinessuppose or describe, for theEvangelist, 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, ifJesushad 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. ButJesus's use of Washings and Ointments absolutely spoils and destroys the Credit of the Miracle, and we ought by no means to ascribethatto the immediate Hand and Power of God, whichMedicinesandBalsamsare apply'd to the Effect of. And this brings me to the
SecondException against the miraculousness of the Cure of this blind Man, which is, thatJesusused 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, orJesus, for his Honour, had never had recourse to the use of them. And what were those Means, or that Medicine, whichJesusmade 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 inPhysickandSurgeryto 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,whether well or ill affected to Religion, have as yet bent their Thoughts to it.
In the Practice ofPhysickandSurgery, 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 toJesus's Balsam for sore Eyes. I have heard of a merryMountebankof Distinction, whose catholick Medicine wasHasty-Pudding, which indeed is a notable Remedy against theEsuriencyof the Stomach, that the Poor often labour under. ButJesus's Eye-Salve, for absurdity, whim, and incongruity, was never equall'd, either in jest or in earnest, by anyQuack-Doctor. WhetherInfidelsthink of this Ointment of the HolyJesuswith a smile; or reflect on it with disdain, I can't guess. As to myself, I should think with St.Chrysostom[206], that this Eye-Salve ofJesuswould sooner put a Man's Eyes out, than restore a blind one to his Sight. And I believe that ourDivines, for the Credit of the Miracle, and ourSurgeons, for the Honour of their Science, willagree, that it could not be naturally operative and effective of the Cure of the blind Man.
What then was the Reason ofJesus'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[207]against Ministers of the Letter, who are obliged to give an Answer to it, that will consist with the Wisdom and Power ofJesus, otherwise they must give up the Miracle or make him a vain, insignificant and trifling Agent. St.Cyril, of whose mind I am, says[208]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 ourDivineswill 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.
St.Irenæustoo, says[209], that theClay and Spittlewas of no service to the Cure of the blind Man; and yetJesusdid not use itin vain. Is not this an Inconsistency? How will ourDivinesadjust it? WithIrenæus, I am sure they'll not mystically solve the Difficulty; therefore if they don't provide another Solution of it to satisfaction; either their Ministry of the Letter, or the Reputation ofJesus, and this Miracle must suffer for it.
I am puzzled to think, how ourDivineswill extricate themselves out of this Strait, and account for the use of this Eye-Salve, without any Diminution of the Miracle. Surely, they will not say thatJesusused this sensless and insignificant Ointment to put aSlurupon the Practice ofPhysickandSurgery, as if other Medicines were of no more avail than hisDirtandSpittle. They have more wit than to say so; least it incense a noble and most useful Profession, not so much against themselves, as againstJesus, and provoke them to anicer 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 hisEvangelistsorthodox 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 ofJesus's being little better than aQuack-Doctor.
If I was, what I am not, anInfidel, I should think, from the Letter of this Story, thatJesuswas ajuggling Impostor, who would pass for a miraculous Healer of Diseases, tho' he used underhand, proper Medicines. TheClay and the Spittlehe 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 mysafe-guard against such an ill opinion ofJesus; so I would now gladly know upon what Bottom the Faith of ourDivinescan stand, as to this Miracle, andJesus's divine Power in it.
I have perused some of ourCommentatorson 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 intoJesus's Miracles, and to consider what Absurditys, their Stories, andthisin particular, are clog'd with; it is incumbent on ourDivinesto answer solidly these Questions,viz.What was the Reason ofJesus'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, whetherJesuswas not avainandtriflingOperator, making use of insignificant and impertinent Medicines to the Diminutionof his divine Power? There Questions are not ludicrous, butcalm and sedate Reasoning, whichBishop Smalbroke[210]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 ofJesus, without any Diminution of the Miracle.
Should ourDivinessay, 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 ofJesusare, as ourDivinesown, 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, andJesus'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 tobe impossible, consistently with the Letter; so ourDivinesmust 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, andJesus's divine Power be in great danger with it.
St.Cyril, (who is one ofBishop Smalbroke's Greek Commentators, that should strictly adhere to the Letter) signifies, as I before observ'd, thatJesus'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[211]; "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 occasion was thereforClay and Spittleto anoint his Eyes, if it was not of a mystical meaning, when with a Word of his Mouth,Jesuscould 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."
Origentoo, upon occasion of this Miracle, and its Absurdity according to the Letter, says[212]; "that whateverJesusdid 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[213], St.Jerome[214],Eusebius Gallicanus[215], St.TheophilusofAntioch[216],Origen[217], St.CyrilofAlexandria[218], and St.Theophylact[219], (Four of them,Bishop Smalbroke's Greek and literal Commentators!) say, thisblind Manis a Type of Mankind of all Nations, who in the Perfection of Time signified by the Sabbath[220]in the Story, is to be cured of this Blindness in Understanding.
And what is Mankind's Blindness here signified? St.Augustin[221], St.Cyril[222]and St.Theophylact[223], say, it is Ignorance, Error and Infidelity, or the want of the intellectual Sight and Knowledge ofGod and his Providence.Origen[224], St.JohnofJerusalem[225], and St.Theophylact[226], (StillBishop Smalbroke's literal and Greek Commentators!) tell us the Reason of this spiritual Blindness of Mankind, that is, because they adhere to the Letter of the Scriptures.
And how willJesus, or rightReasonandTruth, which are his mystical Names, cure Mankind of this his spiritual Blindness? By his mysticalSpittletemper'd with mysticalDirt. And how shall we do to understand this mystical Ointment, so as to make it a proper Medicine for Mankind's spiritual Blindness? St.TheophilusofAntioch[227], has an allegorical Interpretation of thisClayandSpittleof our Lord; but as it is hard to apprehend his meaning, I shall not here insist on it.Origensays[228], that the anointing of the blind Man's Eyes withSpittle, is to be understood of the Unction of theSpiritof Christ. But this does not give us rightly to understand the Metaphor and Figure. St.JohnofJerusalemsays, that by theClayandSpittleis meant[229]perfect Doctrine, which in Truth may open the Eyes of Mens Understanding: But what isperfect Doctrine? Why, to help the Fathers out here, without departing from their Opinions, by theSpittleof Jesus must be understood theWaterof the Spirit instill'd into theEarthof the Letter of the Scriptures, which temper'd together, does, in the Judgment of them all, makeperfect Doctrineto 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.Irenæus[230], gives an excellent and mystical Reason, by himself, for the useof this Ointment ofClayandSpittle, 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.Johnhas 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 ofDirtandSpittle, 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 theSpirit's being temper'd with theLetterof the Scriptures, which is the mysticalEye-Salve, will not only be a most stupendous Miracle, but a Proof ofJesus'sMessiahshipbeyond 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
10. Tenth Miracle of Jesus,viz.[231]That of his turning Water into Wine, at a Marriage inCanaofGalilee. This is call'd the beginning ofJesus's Miracles; but whether it is to be understood of theFirstof his whole Life, or of theFirstthat he wrought inCanaofGalilee, is not agreed amongstDivines. 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 theClergyout of all Temper, but, to giveScoffersandInfidelsso 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,I am still a Christian (for all what theBishopof St.David's,[232]Archdeacon Stubbs, and others would make of me) upon the Principles of the Fathers, and have a greater Veneration for the Person of the HolyJesus, 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 theClergy's Heads to the Consideration of Mysteries; this Miracle should have been pass'd by in silence.
There were some antiently, whom St.Chrysostom[233]writes of, whetherJews,Gentiles, orHereticks, 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 thatJesusand 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 alreadydrunkwith it. But I, with St.Chrysostom, am inclined to believe, that, ifJesusdid 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 turnWaterintoWine, 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 EmpressEudocia, 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[234]ofMusickandDancingin 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 thisEmpress, 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, ifJesuswas 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 ourTranslatorsof theBibletoo 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 threePintsapiece, which Measure is as agreeable to the Original asFirkin; neither can I imagine, thatJesus, 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 Good-will to them.
Such are the Conceptions, that, to the Honour ofJesus, I am willing to form of thisWedding; and wish that theLetter of the Story did suggest no worse Thoughts of it to us. I should be pleas'd, if noInfidelreally 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 ofApollonius Tyranæus, as it is of ourJesus, 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 ChristianPriestswould have given me ample Praises and Commendations for so doing. It is said ofApollonius, that for the Entertainment of his Friends, he commanded variety of nice Dishes of Meat, together with Bowls of choicest Wines, all on a sudden to descend upon his Table and range themselves in good Order. Whether there was any Truth in this Miracle ofApollonius, is not the Question; but Mr.Chandler[235]could see a Fault in it, (tho' none inJesus'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 theWedding-Feastbefore us. OurDivinesI suppose, no more than myself, believe any thing of the said Miracle inApollonius; 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 ofWizardsandWitches; and ourDivines(passing byJesus'sWinehere) would readily, as they are Believers of the Storys of Witchcraft, have struck in with me.
But setting aside that miraculous Story ofApollonius, which has butoneVoucher; the Case before us isJesus'sturning Water into Winefor the use of Men, who had beforewell drank. How shall I force Nature and Faith to ridicule this Story? How shall I lay aside that profound Veneration for the HolyJesus, 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 JewishRabbito this purpose, I here publish it, that ourClergy, as well as myself, may think of an Answer to it, and so prevent that Mischief it may do by beinghanded about amongJewsandInfidels, in Manuscript. It is as follows;
"You Christians pay Adoration toJesus, 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 yourEvangelists, 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 ifmany 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 histurning Water into Wineat an extravagant and voluptuous Wedding atCanaofGalilee, is enough to turn our Stomachs against all the rest. It is in itself enough to beget in us an ill opinion ofJesus, 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 supposeJesusto have been, have vouchsafed his Presence at a Wedding; where such Levities, Diversions and Excesses (in our Nation of theJews, as well as in all others) were indulg'd on such Occasions, as were not fit to be seen, much less countenanc'd by theSaint, you would make of him. If yourJesus, his Mother, and his Disciples had not been merry Folks in themselves, they wouldhave declined the Invitation of theBridegroom; nay, it they had been at all graver and more serious People than ordinary, no Invitation had been given to suchSpoil-Sports: But boon Companions they were, and of comical Conversation, or there had been at a Wedding no Room for them. You Christians may fancy, what you please, ofJesusand 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 didJohntheEvangelistuse the word μεθυσθασι, which implies, they were more than half Seas over? And ifJesusand his Mother had not both a mind totopthem up; the one would not have requested, nor the other have granted a Miracle to that purpose. WhetherJesusand his Mother themselves were at allcut, aswere 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 aSoldier, of whom came herchara Deûm Soboles, in all probability she would take aDramand aBottletoo. But it looks as ifJesushimself was a littleinfor'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[236]SorrowandTroubleto look him up, was, and is still in Heaven, say theRoman Catholicksa most obedient Child. You modern Christians may put what Construction you can upon the words above ofJesusto his Mother, to salve his Credit; but the Fathers of your Church[237]confess them to be a sharp and surly Reply to her, which, if it did not proceed from the natural badnessof 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 abrokenandwitlessSentence, such asFuddlecapsutter by halves, when theWine's in, and theWit's out. Your modernCommentatorsare sadly puzzled to make good Sense of this broken and abrupt Sentence ofJesus, 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 itthus.Jesus's Mother being apprised of a deficiency of Wine, and willing, as well as theBridegroom, that the Company should be thorowly merry before they parted, intimates to her Son, (whom she knew to be initiated in the Mysterys ofBacchus)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 theEnglishof theGreek) I'll not be interruptedin my Cups, nor break Company;for mine Hour is not yet cometo 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 aPunch-maker, 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[238], very gravely inferr'd from this Expression,Woman, what have I to do with thee, thatMarywas neither a Virgin, norJesusher 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 insiston it. But that the Expression above do's suppose a little Inebriation, inJesus, I may avert, 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 HolyJesus. But youModerns, abandoning Allegories and Mysteries on 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 thatJesus, and his Mother, and Disciples, tho' Fishermen, to have been all sober, grave and serious at this Wedding, suitably to the Opinion that their Followersnow 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; orJesus, 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 quitestitch'd up."A sober, prudent and wise Philosopher orMagician, in the place ofJesus, if he had an Art or Power to turn Water into Wine, would never have exercised 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 inJesus, upon this occasion,would not have been more commendable, than what he did, let any one judge."If I was a Christian, I would, for the Honour ofJesus, 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 ofthat Gloss, which theGentilesof old[239]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 byJesus: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 applaudedJesusfor it, and perhapsbecame his Disciples upon it. If I, I say, was a Disciple ofJesus, 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 ofInfidelsat 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 supposingJesus'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[240]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 ofJesusis so far from, that it has an evil Aspect and Tendency, as is above represented; consequently it isto be rejected, and no longer esteem'd a divine Miracle; neither isJesusto be received as a Revealer of God's Will for it, as Mr.Chandlerwill bear me witness."No doubt on't, but you Christian Priests would have usJewsandInfidels, to believe the whole Company at this Wedding, for all what is intimated by St.Johnto 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; andJesusfor want of a Cordial Bottle, had created a chearing Drain or two, I could not have found fault with it; tho' even here, if he had restored thePatientwith 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 ofEnglishMeasure, enough to intoxicate the whole Town ofCanaofGalilee, iswhat can never be accounted for by a Christian, who should, one would think, wish this Story, for the Reputation ofJesusexpunged out of the New Testament."Besides, ifJesushad 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[241]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 noInfidelscould have cavil'd at, for any thing, but theneedlessnessof it. But this subject Matter of Water spoils the Credit of the Miracle. The Water-Pots, it seems, are to be fill'd, beforeJesuscould dothe notable Feat; is not this enough to make us think, that Jesus was but an artificialPunch-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[242]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,if for no other Reason than this, thatJesusused 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 thePriesthoodof 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 thenaturalstate, as well as we do now of thecivilstate of some Countrys, ruin'd and overturn'd by them. But this Power to transmuteWater into Wine, without Labour and Expence, would have been of better worth to them, than all their other Priestly Offices. Not, that our Conduitswould 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 a could of their divine Power. And as surely as they can now fell the Waterdrops 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 becheap, which would bring them into Contempt, and lessen the Wonder and Admiration of them."
"You Christians pay Adoration toJesus, 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 yourEvangelists, 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 ifmany 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 histurning Water into Wineat an extravagant and voluptuous Wedding atCanaofGalilee, is enough to turn our Stomachs against all the rest. It is in itself enough to beget in us an ill opinion ofJesus, 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 supposeJesusto have been, have vouchsafed his Presence at a Wedding; where such Levities, Diversions and Excesses (in our Nation of theJews, as well as in all others) were indulg'd on such Occasions, as were not fit to be seen, much less countenanc'd by theSaint, you would make of him. If yourJesus, his Mother, and his Disciples had not been merry Folks in themselves, they wouldhave declined the Invitation of theBridegroom; nay, it they had been at all graver and more serious People than ordinary, no Invitation had been given to suchSpoil-Sports: But boon Companions they were, and of comical Conversation, or there had been at a Wedding no Room for them. You Christians may fancy, what you please, ofJesusand 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 didJohntheEvangelistuse the word μεθυσθασι, which implies, they were more than half Seas over? And ifJesusand his Mother had not both a mind totopthem up; the one would not have requested, nor the other have granted a Miracle to that purpose. WhetherJesusand his Mother themselves were at allcut, aswere 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 aSoldier, of whom came herchara Deûm Soboles, in all probability she would take aDramand aBottletoo. But it looks as ifJesushimself was a littleinfor'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[236]SorrowandTroubleto look him up, was, and is still in Heaven, say theRoman Catholicksa most obedient Child. You modern Christians may put what Construction you can upon the words above ofJesusto his Mother, to salve his Credit; but the Fathers of your Church[237]confess them to be a sharp and surly Reply to her, which, if it did not proceed from the natural badnessof 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 abrokenandwitlessSentence, such asFuddlecapsutter by halves, when theWine's in, and theWit's out. Your modernCommentatorsare sadly puzzled to make good Sense of this broken and abrupt Sentence ofJesus, 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 itthus.Jesus's Mother being apprised of a deficiency of Wine, and willing, as well as theBridegroom, that the Company should be thorowly merry before they parted, intimates to her Son, (whom she knew to be initiated in the Mysterys ofBacchus)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 theEnglishof theGreek) I'll not be interruptedin my Cups, nor break Company;for mine Hour is not yet cometo 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 aPunch-maker, 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[238], very gravely inferr'd from this Expression,Woman, what have I to do with thee, thatMarywas neither a Virgin, norJesusher 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 insiston it. But that the Expression above do's suppose a little Inebriation, inJesus, I may avert, 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 HolyJesus. But youModerns, abandoning Allegories and Mysteries on 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 thatJesus, and his Mother, and Disciples, tho' Fishermen, to have been all sober, grave and serious at this Wedding, suitably to the Opinion that their Followersnow 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; orJesus, 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 quitestitch'd up.
"A sober, prudent and wise Philosopher orMagician, in the place ofJesus, if he had an Art or Power to turn Water into Wine, would never have exercised 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 inJesus, upon this occasion,would not have been more commendable, than what he did, let any one judge.
"If I was a Christian, I would, for the Honour ofJesus, 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 ofthat Gloss, which theGentilesof old[239]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 byJesus: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 applaudedJesusfor it, and perhapsbecame his Disciples upon it. If I, I say, was a Disciple ofJesus, 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 ofInfidelsat 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 supposingJesus'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[240]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 ofJesusis so far from, that it has an evil Aspect and Tendency, as is above represented; consequently it isto be rejected, and no longer esteem'd a divine Miracle; neither isJesusto be received as a Revealer of God's Will for it, as Mr.Chandlerwill bear me witness.
"No doubt on't, but you Christian Priests would have usJewsandInfidels, to believe the whole Company at this Wedding, for all what is intimated by St.Johnto 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; andJesusfor want of a Cordial Bottle, had created a chearing Drain or two, I could not have found fault with it; tho' even here, if he had restored thePatientwith 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 ofEnglishMeasure, enough to intoxicate the whole Town ofCanaofGalilee, iswhat can never be accounted for by a Christian, who should, one would think, wish this Story, for the Reputation ofJesusexpunged out of the New Testament.
"Besides, ifJesushad 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[241]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 noInfidelscould have cavil'd at, for any thing, but theneedlessnessof it. But this subject Matter of Water spoils the Credit of the Miracle. The Water-Pots, it seems, are to be fill'd, beforeJesuscould dothe notable Feat; is not this enough to make us think, that Jesus was but an artificialPunch-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[242]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,if for no other Reason than this, thatJesusused 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 thePriesthoodof 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 thenaturalstate, as well as we do now of thecivilstate of some Countrys, ruin'd and overturn'd by them. But this Power to transmuteWater into Wine, without Labour and Expence, would have been of better worth to them, than all their other Priestly Offices. Not, that our Conduitswould 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 a could of their divine Power. And as surely as they can now fell the Waterdrops 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 becheap, which would bring them into Contempt, and lessen the Wonder and Admiration of them."