state of Blindness in this Man, incurable by Art; that would be
begging the Question, which no Unbeliever will grant. But to please
them, I will yield, without Enquiry into the Nature of this Man's
Blindness, that, if _Jesus_ had used no Medicines; if with only a word
of his Mouth he had cured the Man, and he had instantaneously
recover'd, as the Word was spoken; here would have been a real and
great Miracle, let the Blindness or Imperfection of the Man's Sight
before, be of what kind or degree soever. But _Jesus_'s use of
Washings and Ointments absolutely spoils and destroys the Credit of
the Miracle, and we ought by no means to ascribe _that_ to the
immediate Hand and Power of God, which _Medicines_ and _Balsams_ are
apply'd to the Effect of. And this brings me to the
_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. _Irenæus_ 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 _Irenæus_, 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 noble 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 pass
for a miraculous Healer of Diseases, tho' he used underhand, proper
Medicines. The _Clay and the Spittle_ he made an open shew of, as
what, to Admiration, he would cure the blind Man with; but in reserve
he had a more sanative Balsam, that he subtilly slip't in the room of
the Clay, and repeatedly to good purpose anointed the Man's Eyes with
it. But as the Authority of the Fathers, and their mystical
Interpretation of this Story is alone my 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 incumbent on our _Divines_ to answer solidly these Questions,
_viz._ What was the Reason of _Jesus_'s Use of this Eye-Salve made of
Clay and Spittle? Whether, if it was of service to the Cure of the
blind Man, it does not destroy the Miracle? And if it had no effect in
the Cure of him, whether _Jesus_ was not a _vain_ and _trifling_
Operator, making use of insignificant and impertinent Medicines to the
Diminution 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 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 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 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. _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 God 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 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 use of this Ointment of _Clay_ and _Spittle_, to the
Cure of this blind Man, which I shall not stay to illustrate, but only
have cited it for the Meditation of the Learned and Curious.
The Story of the blind Man, as St. _John_ has related it, is long, and
would take up more time, than I have to spare at present, to go thro'
all the Parts of it. What I have done at present is enough to awaken
others to the Consideration, not only of the Absurdities of the
Letter, but of the mystical Interpretation of the rest.
The Miracle, which consisted literally in the Cure of a blind Man by
the use of an Ointment made of _Dirt_ and _Spittle_, is absurd,
sensless and unaccountable; but in the Mystery, there is Wisdom and
Reason. And the Cure of Mankind of the Blindness of his Understanding,
by the _Spirit_'s being temper'd with the _Letter_ of the Scriptures,
which is the mystical _Eye-Salve_, will not only be a most stupendous
Miracle, but a Proof of _Jesus_'s _Messiahship_ beyond all
contradiction, in as much as by such an opening of the Eyes of our
Understandings, which have been hitherto dark, we shall see, how he is
the Accomplishment of the Law and the Prophets. And so I pass to a
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 pass it by, and not urge any Arguments for or
against either side of it.
Tho' I would not for the World be so impious and profane as to
believe, what is contain'd and imply'd in the Letter of this Story;
yet I am still too grave to handle it as ludicrously as I ought; and
it is now against the grain, that I write so freely, as I shall
against it, being unwilling, not only to put the _Clergy_ out of all
Temper, but, to give _Scoffers_ and _Infidels_ so great an Advantage
against their Ministry of the Letter. Some may wonder that I, who have
gone so far in the ludicrous display of the gross Absurdities of some
other Miracles, should boggle at this. But to be ingenuous, and speak
the Truth sincerely, 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 pass'd by in silence.
There were some antiently, whom St. _Chrysostom_[233] writes of,
whether _Jews_, _Gentiles_, or _Hereticks_, I know not, who took great
offence at the Story of this Wedding, accounting it, from what is
related in St. _John_, as a riotous Feast, and that _Jesus_ and his
Mother, and his Disciples, not only bore a part in the Revellings, but
were most to blame for them, or he should not have countenanced them
with his Presence, much less promoted them, by the Change of a large
quantity of Water into Wine for the use of a Company, who were already
_drunk_ with it. But I, with St. _Chrysostom_, am inclined to
believe, that, if _Jesus_ did grace this Wedding with his Presence,
there was no Excess encouraged, or so much as suffer'd at it. If he
did accept of the Invitation of the Bridegroom, it was for an
Opportunity, not so much to turn _Water_ into _Wine_, as to make a
proper Discourse to the People of conjugal Duties; and, as he was a
Searcher of the Hearts, secretly to admonish the Married of the Sin
and Mischief of Adultery; tho' we read not of a seasonable and good
Word spoken at it.
And the Empress _Eudocia_, a nursing Mother of the Church, has given
us a Poetical, and I hope a fictitious Description of this Wedding.
She makes a sumptuous and voluptuous Feast of it; and writes[234] of
_Musick_ and _Dancing_ in abundance, enough to make us think of such
Mirth and Pastime here, as was unbecoming of a Company of Saints to be
present at. Whether it was, that this _Empress_, being only
accustom'd to the Excesses of a Court, could form no meaner
Conceptions of a Country Wedding; or whether she had any
extra-scriptural Authority for what she writ, I know not: But I
believe, that, if _Jesus_ was at all at a Marriage-Feast, the whole
was conducted with Decency, Order, and Sobriety; and if he there
wrought any Miracle, it was to manifest his Glory, to the Conversion
of some, and Confirmation of the Faith of others.
And our _Translators_ of the _Bible_ too have given occasion to
suspect somewhat of Excess at this Wedding; or they need not have made
the Waterpots to hold two or three Firkins apiece. If I had been the
Translator, they should not have held above two or three _Pints_
apiece, which Measure is as agreeable to the Original as _Firkin_;
neither can I imagine, that _Jesus_, if he did convert Water into
Wine, would do it in so large a Measure, for fear of an intemperate
abuse of it, but only gave the Company a cast of his miraculous Power,
and a little Taste of his Love and Good-will to them.
Such are the Conceptions, that, to the Honour of _Jesus_, I am willing
to form of this _Wedding_; and wish that the Letter of the Story did
suggest no worse Thoughts of it to us. I should be pleas'd, if no
_Infidel_ really could, what I, but for the sake of the Mystery most
unwillingly should, write any ludicrous Descants on it. But if this
Story had been related of _Apollonius Tyranæus_, as it is of our
_Jesus_, I would have ridicul'd and satiriz'd it to the utmost of my
Power, and have render'd him and his Disciples of all Nations, as
contemptible as I could, for the Belief of it; and I don't doubt, but
our Christian _Priests_ would have given me ample Praises and
Commendations for so doing. It is said of _Apollonius_, that for the
Entertainment of his Friends, he commanded variety of nice Dishes of
Meat, together with Bowls of choicest Wines, all on a sudden to descend
upon his Table and range themselves in good Order. Whether there was any
Truth in this Miracle of _Apollonius_, is not the Question; but Mr.
_Chandler_[235] could see a Fault in it, (tho' none in _Jesus_'s Wine at
this Wedding) as if it was done for the Pleasure of luxurious Appetites,
tho' we read of no Intemperance at it, which can't be said of the
_Wedding-Feast_ before us. Our _Divines_ I suppose, no more than
myself, believe any thing of the said Miracle in _Apollonius_; but, if
it was really wrought, I fancy, I could have lampoon'd him for it, and
would have made it a diabolical Work, like that, as Fables go, of the
Feastings of _Wizards_ and _Witches_; and our _Divines_ (passing by
_Jesus_'s _Wine_ here) would readily, as they are Believers of the
Storys of Witchcraft, have struck in with me.
But setting aside that miraculous Story of _Apollonius_, which has but
_one_ Voucher; the Case before us is _Jesus_'s _turning Water into
Wine_ for the use of Men, who had before _well drank_. How shall I
force Nature and Faith to ridicule this Story? How shall I lay aside
that profound Veneration for the Holy _Jesus_, which Conversation with
the Fathers, more than the Prejudice of Education has begotten in me,
and ludicrously here treat him and his Miracle too, as is incumbent
upon me, to make way for the Mystery? In short, I can't do it, in my
own Name; but having met with a satirical Invective of a supposed
Jewish _Rabbi_ to this purpose, I here publish it, that our _Clergy_,
as well as myself, may think of an Answer to it, and so prevent that
Mischief it may do by being handed about among _Jews_ and _Infidels_,
in Manuscript. It is as follows;