[Sidenote: London, _May_ 14. 1728.]
My LORD, The Admirer of your Difficultys and Discouragements, _Thomas Woolston._
[Ill.u.s.tration]
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 Repet.i.tion 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 _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:
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 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 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[205] of his giving sight to a Man who was born 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 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 sorts, yet, by Custom of Speech all pa.s.s under the general Name of _Blindness_. And sometimes we hear of famous _Chance-Doctors_, like _Jesus_, who by a Gift of G.o.d, 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 Mult.i.tudes 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 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 luckly 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 pa.s.s"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 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 pa.s.s 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 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 a.s.sert, 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 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 good _Oculist_ will soon expedite 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 G.o.d, which _Medicines_ and _Balsams_ are apply"d to the Effect of. And this brings me to the
_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, 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_[206], 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 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_[207] 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[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 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.
St. _Irenaeus_ too, says[209], 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 Solution 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-Salve, 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 n.o.ble and most useful Profession, not so much against themselves, as against _Jesus_, and provoke them to a 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 pa.s.s 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 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 Stories, and _this_ in particular, are clog"d with; it is inc.u.mbent 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 of his divine Power? There Questions are not ludicrous, but _calm and sedate Reasoning_, which _Bishop 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 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 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 Gallica.n.u.s_, 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 there 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[212]; "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 n.o.body 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 Gallica.n.u.s_[215], St. _Theophilus_ of _Antioch_[216], _Origen_[217], St. _Cyril_ of _Alexandria_[218], and St.
_Theophylact_[219], (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[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 of G.o.d and his Providence. _Origen_[224], St. _John_ of _Jerusalem_[225], and St. _Theophylact_[226], (Still _Bishop 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 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_[227], 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[228], that the anointing of the blind Man"s Eyes with _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[229] _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 G.o.d of all Ages; which Knowledge, Light, Sight, or Illumination, Mankind has. .h.i.therto wanted.
St. _Irenaeus_[230], gives an excellent and mystical Reason, by himself, for the use of this Ointment of _Clay_ and _Spittle_, to the Cure of this blind Man, which I shall not stay to ill.u.s.trate, 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 pa.s.s to a
10. Tenth Miracle of Jesus, _viz._[231] _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 pa.s.s 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, I am still a Christian (for all what the _Bishop_ of 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 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 Mysteries; this Miracle should have been pa.s.s"d by in silence.