he could not wait the dispersion of the Tumult, but, for want of a free
entrance at the Door, is, cost what it will, to be rais'd to the top of
the House, and a breach must be there made for him. The Question is,
whether such an Enterprize was or could be feisable and practicable? I
have no Conception of the possibility of it. If they could not get to
the Door of the House for the Press; of consequence they could not come
at the Sides of it. How should they? over the Heads of the People?
That's not to be imagined; consequently here's another difficulty in the
Story, that renders it yet more strange and incredible.
But, without questioning the possibility and easiness of getting the
_Paralytick_ and his Couch over the Heads of the Mob, to the sides of
the House; thither he is brought, where we now behold him and his
Bearers with their Pullies, Ropes, and Ladders (that were not at hand,
nor could suddenly be procured) hauling and heaving him to the top of
the House. Of what height the House was, is not of much Consequence.
Some for the Credit of the Story may say[257], it was a _very low
one_; tho' antient and modern _Commentators_ are pretty well agreed,
that it was an _upper-Room_, where _Jesus_ was; consequently the House
was at least two Stories high: But if it was much higher, I'll allow
that Art and Pullies (which they wanted for the present) would raise
the Man and his Bed to the top of it: So we will not dispute nor
differ upon that matter. On the top of the House then, we are now to
behold the _Paralytick_ and his Bearers with their Hatchets and
Hammers, _&c._ (which they forgot to bring with them, for they could
not think of any use they should have of them) uncovering the Roof of
the House; breaking up _Tiles_, _Spars_, and _Rafters_, and making a
Hole, capacious enough for the Man and his Bed to be let thro'. An
odd, strange, and unaccountable Work _this_, which, if they had not
been cunning Fellows, would hardly have enter'd into their Heads to
project. But at work they are, when it was well, if Jesus and his
Disciples escaped with only a broken Pate, by the falling of Tiles,
_&c._, and if the rest were not almost smother'd with the Dust; for it
was over their Heads that the breach was made. Where was the good Man
of the House all this while? Would he suffer his House to be thus
broken up, and not command them to desist from their foolish and
needless Attempt, till the Mob was quell'd, and there was a free
entrance at the Door of his House, which could not be long first? Is
there nothing in all this, of difficulty and obstruction in the way of
the belief of this Story?
Some modern _Commentators_, being aware of these difficulties in this
Story, and willing to reconcile Men to the earlier belief of it, say,
as _Drusius_[258] did, that the Houses of _Judæa_ were _flat-roof'd,
and not ridg'd_: And Doctors, _Lightfoot_ and _Whitby_[259] say, there
was a Door on their flat Roofs, by which the _Jews_ used to ascend to
the top of their Houses, where they discours'd on the Law and
religious Matters; and that it was thro' such a Door, by a little
widening of the sides of it, that the _Paralytick_ was let down in the
presence of _Jesus_. To which Opinion I would yield, if it was not
liable to these Objections, _viz._ that it is not reconcilable to what
St. _Luke_ says, of _their letting the Paralytick down thro' the
Tiling with his Couch, in the midst, where Jesus was_; nor hardly
consistent with what St. _Mark_ says of their _uncovering_ and
_breaking up the Roof of the House_: which Expressions the
_Evangelists_ had never used, if there had been a Door for him to
descend by. But to indulge _Lightfoot_ and _Whitby_ in their Notion; I
may ask them, what occasion was there then of widening the doorway,
and breaking down the sides of it? They'll say, because the Passage
otherwise was too narrow, for the Man's Couch to get thro'. Why then
did not they take him out of his Couch, and let him down in a Blanket,
a Chair, or a Basket? Or rather, why did not _Jesus_, to prevent this
Trouble and Damage to the House, ascend thro' this Door, to the Top of
it, and their speak the healing Word to this poor Man? To say, that
_Jesus_ could not or would not go up to the Paralytick, I would not,
for Fear of an Imputation of Blasphemy against me. Our _Divines_
therefore are to look for, what they'll hardly find, an Answer to the
said Question, which will consist with the Wisdom, the Goodness and
Honour of _Jesus_; or here will be another and insuperable Bar to the
Credibility of this Story.
In short, there are more and greater Difficultys affecting the Credit
of this Miracle, on the side of _Jesus_, than any before urg'd. Could
not he, as it was antiently[260] objected, have made the Access to
himself more easy? Could not he, to prevent all this Trouble and Pains
of getting to the Top of the House, and of breaking up the Roof of it,
have desired or even forc'd the People to make way for this poor Man
and his Bearers? This was not impossible for him to do. If it was hard
for another; it was not for him, who was omnipotent. He that could
drive his Thousands before him out of the Temple; and draw as many
after him into the wilderness, might surely, by Force or Persuasion
have made the People, how unreasonably mobbish soever, to retreat. And
why did he not? Without a good and satisfactory Answer, which I can't
conceive, to this Question, here is the most unaccountable and
incredible part of the whole Story, that reflects on the Wisdom, the
Power and Goodness of _Jesus_. If there had been no other absurd
Circumstances of it, this is enough to spoil its Credit, so far as
that I believe it impossible for _Ministers_ of the _Letter_, with all
their Wit, Penetration and Sagacity to get over it.
Believe then the Story of this Miracle, thus taken to Pieces, who can?
It is such an Accumulation of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and
Incredibilities, that a Man of the most easy Faith, if he at all
think, can't digest. It's not credible, I said, to suppose, the People
of _Capernaum_, where _Jesus_ dwelt, and was well known and little
admired, would at all _press_ to see or hear him: And if the occasion
of their Concourse was to behold his Miracles; it is less-reasonable
to think they would tumultuate to their own disappointment; but rather
make way for the diseased, for the satisfaction of their own
Curiosity, to come to him: And if they did mob it to their own
disappointment, about the Door of the House; it was next to
impossible for the poor Man and his Couch to be heav'd over their
Heads, and rais'd to the top of it: More unreasonable yet to think,
the master of the House would suffer the Roof of it to be so broken
up: But most of all against Reason to suppose, _Jesus_ would not give
forth the healing word, and prevent all this Labour, or by his divine
Power disperse the People, that the _Paralytick_ might have present
and easy access to him.
Whether all this be not absolutely shocking of the Credit of this Story,
let my Readers judge. In my Opinion, no Tale more monstrously romantick
can be told. I don't here question _Jesus_'s Power to heal this
Paralytick, nor the miraculousness of the Cure of him: The trouble of
that Question is saved me, by the many other incredible Circumstances of
the Story, which are such a Contradiction to Sense and Reason, as is not
to be equall'd, in any thing, that's commonly receiv'd and believ'd by
Mankind. _Cicero_ says, that there is nothing so absurd, which some of
the Philosophers have not held. And they might and did, some of them,
hold gross Absurdities. But the Letter of the Story of this Miracle
before us, which is the Object of the Faith of our learned Priesthood
at this Day is a Match for the worst of them.
But as absurd, as this Story is, I expect that our _Clergy_ will be
disgusted at my ludicrous display of it; and that Arch Deacon _Stubbs_
in particular will again be ready to exclaim against me, and say, that
this is turning a _miraculous Fact_ and a _divine Testimony_ of our
Religion into Ridicule. Whereupon it is to be wish'd, _that
Arch-Deacon_ would write, what would be a Pleasure to see, a
Vindication of this Story. If he can account for the possibility and
credibility of the Letter of it, he shall have my leave to make
another dull Speech in _Convocation_ against me. And it is not
unlikely, but he may say as much for it, as another Man: For as the
Story is senseless, so it is the better suited to his Head and Brains.
But if he don't, I much question, whether any other Clergyman of more
Wit will, appear in Defence of it.
So absurd is the Letter of this Story, that for the Honour of _Jesus_,
and Credibility of his Gospel, it is absolutely necessary to turn it
into Allegory. To the Fathers then, let us go for their help in this
Case. If they did not read me a better Lecture upon this Miracle, than
do our modern _Commentators_, I should be almost tempted to renounce my
Religion upon it: But as they have rationally and rightly instructed me
in its true meaning, so I retain my Christian Faith, and admire the
Sublimity of the Mystery, which I am now to give an account of.
By this _Paralitick_, St. _Hilary_[261] says, is to be understood
_Mankind_ of all Nations, which opinion too the Fathers held of the
_Paralitick_, who was heal'd at the Pool of _Bethesda_. And by his
Palsy is not meant any bodily Distemper, but the spiritual Palsy of
the Soul, that is, as St. _Augustin_[262] and St. _Jerome_[263]
interpret, a dissoluteness of Morals, and an unsteadiness of Faith and
Principles, which is the Condition of Mankind at present, who want
_Jesus_'s help for the Cure of it. _Eusebius Gallicanus_[264] says,
our Saviour's words signify, that it is not a bodily but a spiritual
Disease here meant; or he had never said to the Paralytick, _Son, thy
Sins are forgiven thee_, which words respect the inward Man, and
demonstrate the Palsy here to be a disease Of the Soul.
The Man sick of the Palsy had _four Bearers_. And who are they
mystically in this Case? Why, the Fathers[265] understand by them the
_four Evangelists_, on whose Faith and Doctrine Mankind is to be
carry'd unto Christ; for no Soul can be brought unto him, for the
Sanation of his Sins and Errors, but by these _four_.
But to the top of the House is Mankind, thus paralytically diseased,
to be carry'd by the four Evangelists, his Bearers. And what then is
this House and its Top? The House of _Jesus_ is the intellectual
Edifice of the World, otherwise call'd Wisdom's House; of the
beautiful Buildings of which the Scriptures prophetically treat:
therefore to the _sublime Sense_ of the Scriptures, call'd the
Top[266] of the House, is Man to be taken: He is not to abide in the
_low and literal Sense_[267] of them, where People _press_ and strive
in vain to come to _Jesus_: But if he is taken to the Sublimity of the
Scriptures and there _open_[268] _the House_ of Wisdom, he will
presently be admitted to the Presence and Knowledge of _Jesus_.
Venerable _Bede_, who is altogether a Transcriber of the Fathers, for
which Reason I cite him among the Fathers, says[269], that by the
_Tiles_ of the House spoken of in St. _Luke_, is meant the _Letter_ of
the Scriptures, which is to be laid open for the manifestation of Christ
and of divine Mysteries to the healing of Man's spiritual Palsy, the
unsteadiness and dissoluteness of his Morals and Principles.
So much, in short, then to the mystical Interpretation of the Story of
this Miracle. The literal Sense of it is so encumber'd with romantick
Circumstances, as are enough to turn a Man's Heart against
Christianity it self: But in the Mystery there will be a most
stupendous Miracle, which will be not only an Argument of _Jesus_'s
divine Power, but of his _Messiahship_, as certainly as his House of
Wisdom, of which the Scriptures write, is open'd to the Manifestation
of his Presence, and to the Cure of Mankind of his paralytical
Disease, call'd an instability of Faith and Principles.
And thus have I, in this _Discourse_, taken into Examination three more
of _Jesus_'s Miracles; which I submit to the Judgment of my Readers,
whether the literal Story of them does not consist of Absurdities,
Improbabilities and Incredibilities according to the Proposition before
us; and whether there is not a necessity, for the Honour of _Jesus_, to
turn them into prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what will be
mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.
My next _Discourse_, if my mind hold, shall treat on the three Stories
of _Jesus_'s raising of the dead, _viz._ of the Widow of _Naim_'s Son,
of _Jairus_'s Daughter, and of _Lazarus_; after which I will give the
literal History of Christ's Resurrection, that sandy Foundation of the
Church, a Review; and so conclude my Discourses on the Miracles of our
Saviour.
To run thro' all the Miracles of _Jesus_, and handle them in the manner
I have done the foregoing, would be a long and tedious Work. But if our
_Divines_ shall think, I have selected only those Miracles, which are
obnoxious to Cavil and Ridicule; and have omitted others, that literally
are a more unexceptionable Testimony of _Jesus_'s divine Power, and
Authority; I will, for their Satisfaction take more of them to Task, and
give the Letter of their Stories, the like ludicrous treatment. If I
mistake not, the Miracles already spoken to, together with those of
_Jesus_'s raising of the dead, and of his own Resurrection, are the most
famous and remarkable of any others: And according to the Observation I
have made on the rest, they are no less but rather more liable to
Ridicule and Exception. But if any are of a contrary Opinion, and will
let me know, which in their Judgment are more unexceptionable Miracles,
I will vouchsafe them an Examination. I am sure there is not one
Miracle, which the Fathers of the Church did not turn into Allegory; and
if we don't at this Day make mystical Operations of them, they will none
of them according to the Letter, stand their Ground, nor abide the Test
of a critical Inquiry into them.
I don't expect, that this _Discourse_ will be any more pleasing and
acceptable to the _Clergy_, who are _Ministers_ of the _Letter_ of
_Jesus_'s Miracles, as well as of the Prophecies of him, than any of my
former: But their Displeasure in the Case will give me no Disturbance,
nor am I concern'd about any Resentment, they can make of it. If they
are offended at these _Discourses_, they should as they came forth, have
written solid Confutations of them, and so have prevented my Publication
of any more of this kind: But instead of serious and potent Reasonings
against me, I have met with little else but oral Railings, Exclamations,
Defamations, and attempts for Prosecution; which have been so far from
terrifying me, that they give me a secret Pleasure, and animate me to
proceed in the Undertaking in hand.
I did not much question but the _Bishop_ of St. _Davids_, whom I look'd
upon as a Person of Ingenuity and Learning, would, before this Time,
have publish'd somewhat in Confutation of one or other of my former
_Discourses_. Whether he was not obliged to it, or to make me some
publick Reparation of the Injury done to my Reputation, by his
slanderous Sermon, I appeal now to the worshipful _Societys_ for
Reformation of Manners; to whom, and to other Civil Magistrates, I hope
his Sermon, without Reason, will be a Caution, that no Pulpit-Invective
move them to prosecute or think the worse of any Author.
Liberty of thinking, writing and judging for our selves in Religion is
a natural, a Christian, and a protestant _Right_: It is a _Right_ that
the Magistrates as well as the Subjects are interested in, and are to
see to the Conservation of, or their Understandings as well as their
Purses will be ridden and oppress'd by an ignorant and tyrannical
Priesthood. I urge not this for my own security against Prosecution
for Infidelity and Blasphemy, declaring that if the _Bishops_ of
_London_, St. _Davids_, or _Arch-Deacon Stubbs_, who are zealous for
Persecution, will but engage me on the Stage of Controversy, and make
good their Accusations against me, I will submit to the worst
Punishment, that can be inflicted on the worst Offender.
In the mean time I will go on with my Undertaking, to the advancement
of Truth, and demonstration of the _Messiahship_ of the Holy _Jesus_,
to whom be Glory for ever, _Amen_.
~_FINIS._~
FOOTNOTES:
[205] John. ix.
[206] Quid Lutum i linere opporet? hoc potius eæcum reddere, quis
unquam hoc pacto curatus est? _In Loc. Johan._
[207] Quam ob causam dicet aliquis, cum omnia solo Verbo præstare
possit, nulloque negotio, Lutum quidem sputo macerat? _In Loc. Johan._
[208] Sed Rationem quandam mysticam habet Vis Rei istius de sputo.
_Ibid._
[209] Ei autem qui cæcus fuerat a Nativitate, jam non per sermonem sed
per operationem præstitit visum; non vane, neque prout evenit, hoc
faciens, sed ut ostenderet manum Dei, eam quæ ab initio plasmavit
Hominem, _&c._ Contra Hæres. L. v. c. 15.
[210] _See his Sermons before the Societys for Reformation._ p. 12.
[211] Ipse Salvator noster apertissime ostendit, quod ejus Miracula
Aliquid significent, dum ea faciendo, aliquid agit, quod Ratione
carere videatur. Nisi enim aliquid significaret, quid necessarium
fuit, in hujus cæci Illuminatione, ut Lutum faceret, quo oculos ejus
liniret, cui solum dicere sufficiens erat. Quæramus igitur
significationem, & videamus quid cæcus iste significet. _In Homil.
quarta post quartam Dominicam._
[212] Similitudo erat & Typus futurorum unumquodque quod fiebat in
Corpore. Veluti nescio quis à Nativitate cæcus Visum recuperavit. Vere
autem cæcus iste erat à Nativitate Gentilium Populus, cui Salvator
reddidit Visum, Saliva sua ungens oculos ejus & mittens ad _Siloam_,
quod interpretatur missus, mittebat quippe illos quos spiritu unxit ad
Apostolos. _In Isai._ c. vi.
[213] Genus humanum est iste cæcus. _In Loc. Johan._
[214] Cæcus humanum Genus significatur. _In Com. Johan._
[215] Cæcus iste a Nativitate, Genus humanum esse videtur à primo
homine.----Hæc enim cæcitas non Corporis sed Animæ est. _In Loc. supra
laudat._
[216] Per cæcum naturaliter non videntem & illuminatum significat
Genus humanum. _In Loc. Johan._
[217] Vere autem cæcus iste erat a Nativitate Gentilium Populus. _In
Isai._ c. vi.
[218] Cæci hujus Curationem in figuram & typus vocationis Gentium
accepimus. _In Loc. Johan._
[219] Intellige hoc Miraculum spiritualiter. Nam cæcus quidem erat
omnis homo à Nativitate, id est, ab Initio Mundi. _In Loc. Johan._
[220] In Sabbato est figura ultimi Temporis. _St. Cyril in Loc. Johan._
[221] Cæcitas est Infidelitas. _In Loc._
[222] Cæcus qui destituitur divino Lumine. _De Adorat._ p. 414.
[223] Cæcus qui sedet in tenebris omnis Ignorantiæ, & non potuit
videre Conditorem Mundi. _In Loc. Johan._
[224] Literam Legis sequentes, in Errores, Superstitiones &
Infidelitatem incurrunt. _In Matt. Tract._ xxvi.
[225] Cæcus iste est cæcus in Litera, & hoc statu Sanari non potest.
_In Marc._ c. viii.
[226] Cæci qui imperiti Scripturarum. _In Loc. Johan._
[227] Lutum vero factum de Saliva oris Domini, ac positum super oculos
cæci, significat hic, quod naturæ deerat, opere suo implere Figulum.
_In Loc. Johan._
[228] Saliva sua ungens Oculos cæci & mittens ad _Siloam_ quod
interpretatur _Missus_, mittebat quippe illos, quos spiritu unxit. &c.
_In Isa. c._ vi.
[229] Saliva est perfecta Doctrina. _In Marc._ c. viii.
[230] Ei autem qui cæcus fuerat à Nativitate, jam non per sermonem sed
per operationem præstitit Visum; non vane neque prout evenit hoc
faciens, sed ut ostenderet manum Dei, eam quæ ab Initio plasmavit
hominem. Quapropter expuit in Terram, & fecit Lutum, & superlinivit
illud Oculis, ostendens antiquam Plasmationem, quemadmodum facta est,
& manum Dei manifestans his qui intelligere possunt, per quam è Limo
plasmatus est homo. _Cont. Hæreses. L._ v. _c._ 15.
[231] John ii.
[232] _See his Speech in Convocation, printed in the_ Post-Boy _of_
March _the 30th_.
[233] Rursus hoc in loco calumniantur nonnulli hunc ebriosorum fuisse
Conventum, _&c._ _In Loc. Johan._
[234]
Pueri aut Saltatores volutabantur, in his autem
Tibiæ, Lyræque Vocem habebant. Mulieres autem
Cantum accipientes, volvebantur per medias
Quæcunque optimatum erant uxores atque filiæ.
Illi vero ad Saltationem & desiderabilem Cantum
Conversi delectabantur, &c.
In _Homero-Centon._
[235] _Vindication of the Christian Religion._ p. 82.
[236] Luke ii. 48.
[237] Christus asperius respondit, quid tibi & mihi, Mulier? _St.
Chrysost. in Loc. Johan._ Vide & _Theopolact. in Loc._
[238] Vide Sanctum Augustinum. _In Loc. Johan._
[239] Apud St. Chrysostomum _In Loc. Johan._
[240] _Vindication of the Christian Religion_, p. 82.
[241] Sed quanam gratia, antequam implerentur, non fecit Miraculum,
quod longe fuisset admirabilius? Siquidem aliud est subjectæ Materiæ
qualitatem mutare, aliud ipsam substantiam ex nihilo facere. _Chrysos.
in Loc._
[242] Sæpe obest Magnitudo, ne Miracula creditu sint facilia.
_Theophylact. in Loc._
[243] In Dialog. cum Tryphone, _p._ 364.
[244] In Lib. de Abrahamo.
[245] _In Matt. Tract._ xxii.
[246] Aliquid enim & in ipsis factis innuit nobis, puto, quia non sine
causa venit ad Nuptias. Excepto Miraculo, aliquid in ipso facto
Mysterii & Sacramenti latet. Pulsemus ut aperiet & de Vino invisibili
inebriet nos. _In Loc. Johan._
[247] Nihil dicemus, quid sibi velint Hydriæ, quid Aqua in Vinum
conversa, quid Architriclinius, quid Sponsus, quid Mater Jesu in
Mysterio, quid ipsæ Nuptiæ? _Ibid._
[248] Per hoc invitatus Dominus venit ad Nuptias, ut ostenderetur
Sacramentam Nuptiarum,----Illarum Nuptiarum Sponsus Personam Domini
figurabat, cui dictum est, servasti bonum Vinum usque adhuc, Bonum
Vinum id est Evangelium servasti usque adhuc. _Ibid._
[249] Sex Hydriæ sunt sex Ætates Temporum capientes Prophetiam
pertinentem ad omnes gentes sive in duobus generibus hominum, id est,
Judæis & Græcis, sive in tribus propter Noe tres Filios. _Ibid._
[250] Vocatur Salvator ad Nuptias, hoc est, Ecclesiæ voto spiritus
sanctus invocatur----Venit cum Discipulis suis, id est, in Loco sancto,
Turba sanctorum. Mirabilia Dei Maria Mater expectat, hoc est, Virtutem
Christi expectat Ecclesia.----Maria ait, ecce Vina deficiant, hoc est,
Vinum Spiritus Ecclesia optat excipere.----Numquid Mulierem dicit Jesu
Mariam, quæ Virgo post Pactum inventa est? Sed Ecclesiam alloquitur, quæ
non solum Mulier, sed meretrix nuncupatur. _In Sermon_ xcii. _Append._
[251] Vinum multis Locis accipimus Scripturas Sanctas meracissimum
Vigorem coelestis sapientæ continentes; quibus incalescant sensus &
inebrientur Affectus. Operante Christo in Cana Galileæ Vinum defecit &
Vinum sit, id est, Umbra removetur & Veritas præsentatur. Recedit Lex,
Gratia succedit. Carnalia spiritualibus commutantur. Bonum quidem
Vinum est vetus Testamentum, sed sine spirituali Intellectu vanescit
in Litera. _In Sermon_ xc. _Append._ Sed illud quod in Litera Legis
aquam sapiebat, dum spiritualiter intellgi fecit, aquam in Vinum
convertit. _In Sermon_ xci. _Append._
[252] Per Nuptias, Conjunctionem Christi Ecclesiæ, hoc est Veteris &
Novi Testamenti Traditionem debemus accipere. Sponsus est Christus.
Architriclinius est Moses. _In Loc. Johan._
[253] Voluores Coeli sunt verè puri & ad cælestis sapientiæ
Cognitionem evolare parati. _Clem. Alex. Strom. L._ iv.
[254] Quid mihi & tibi est, Mulier? Procul dubio, Fratres, latet ibi
aliquid Mysterii. _In Loc. Johan._
[255] Matt. ix. Mark ii. Luke v.
[256] Paralyticus reppletum videret Theatrum, Aditus Interclusos,
Portum obseptum,----Non tamen dixit Propinquis suis, quid hoc Rei est?
Expectemus quousque Domus evacuetur, Theatrum dimittatur, recedent,
qui congregati sunt, poterimus privatim ad ilium accedere. _In Homil.
de hoc Paralyt._
[257] Dicet aliquis valde dimissum fuisse Locum, à quo per Tegulas
deposuerunt Paralytici Lectum. _Johan. Nepot. Hieros. in Loc. Luc._
[258] Judæorum Tecta plana erant, & non in Coniformam lastigiata. _In
Loc. Luc._
[259] _In Loc. Marci._
[260] Numquid enim facilem illi potuit Accessum redere? _Apud
Chrysostom. de hoc Paralyt._
[261] In Paralytico Gentium universitas offertur me denda. _In Loc.
Matt._
[262] Paralyticus potest intelligi Anima dissoluta Membris, id est,
bonis operibus. _Inter. Quæst. Evang._
[263] Paralysis Typus est Torporis, quo piger jacet in Malitia Carnis,
habens desiderium Salutis, & Torporis Ignavia & duplis Cogitationibus,
ac si enervatus Membris ostendit. _In Loc. Marci._