Chapter VI: Front Matter (6)

And how long did this Man with his Infirmity lay in these Porches of _Bethesda_? _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 these _thirty 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 hitherto _rested_, into a sublime Sense, and then he will walk uprightly and steadily in the Faith, without wavering like a Paralytick.

And at what Season did _Jesus_ come to this infirm Man? It was at a Feast of the _Jews_. _Irenæus_, _Chrysostom_, _Theophylact_, and _Cyril_ call 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 of _Jesus_'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 ancient _Jews_ and Fathers assert, Mankind will be cured of this Infirmity at the Spirit of Prophecy. And this too is the _certain 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 the _Clergy_ will 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_, The _Jews_, 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. The _Jews_ were not such precise Observers of the Sabbath; nor _so stupid and foolish_, as St. _Cyril_,[203] says, as to think 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 the _Clergy_, who would be _Jews_ inwardly, 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, an _unlawful_ Work; 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 the _Sabbath_, the _Pentecost_, the End of _thirty eight Years_, the Spirit of Truth will descend on Mankind, to their Illumination in Prophecy, and to the healing of their _Errors_, call'd _Diseases_; 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 to _eight_ of the Miracles of _Jesus_; and whether I have not shew'd them, in whole or Part, according to the Proposition before us, to consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities; and whether they are not prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what will be mysteriously, and more wonderfully done by _Jesus_, I appeal to my _Readers_.

After another Discourse of some other Miracles, I intend to take into Examination the several Stories of _Jesus_'s raising of the Dead as of _Lazarus_, _Jairus_'s Daughter, and the Widow's Son of _Naim_; which reputedly are _Jesus_'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 the _Bishop_ of _London_, give my Objection against _Christ_'s Resurrection a Review, and some more Force, then what will become of the Argument of _Christ_'s Power, Authority, and _Messiahship_ from his Miracles?

But, besides _Jesus_'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 of _Jesus_, and show what nonsensical and absurd Things they are, according to the Expositions of our most famous Commentators of these last Ages. _Jesus_ was certainly the absolute, and most consummate Perfection of a _Cabalist_, _Mystist_, _Parabolist_ and _Enigmatist_; 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 of _Christ_'s Doctrine and Parables, because one Article of the Prosecution against me was for saying, _that any of the Philosophers of the Gentiles_, or _any 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 the _Clergy_, 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 of _Jesus_'s Miracles already discuss'd, as may effectually stop my Mouth, and prevent my giving them any more Trouble of this Kind? And I suppose I have now gotten an Adversary in the _Bishop_ of 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 the _Clergy_ than the _Reasonableness_ of Christianity, which must be understood of the History of _Christ_'s Life and Doctrine, or the Application of the Word _Reasonableness_ to 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 more _reasonable_ Religion than the Christian, upon modern _Schemes_ and _Systems_.

If what I here say is offensive to our _Divines_, the _Press_ is 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 the _Press_: 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 all _Bishop Smallbrook_ and Dr. _Roger_'s _Hobbism_, 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 our _Divines_ make from the _Press_ and _Pulpit_, 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!

The _Press_, 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 a _Bishop_ or _Doctor_ in _Divinity_, 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 was so Shallow-pated, as to think Heresy and Infidelity punishable by the Civil Magistrate, I should think myself as much oblig'd to confute by _Reason_, as he is to punish by the _Sword_. If the _Bishop_ of _London_ had 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_, _Turks_ or Domestick _Infidels_, 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 of _Infidels_, 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 the Civil 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 that _Infidels_ had gotten the better of _Christ_'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. _Rogers_ and the _Bishop_ of 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. _Grounds_ and Mr. _Scheme_, have it in their Hearts to raise Mobbs upon the Government, and to beat out the Brains of the _Clergy_. All the Harm, or rather Good, they aim at, is to exercise the Wits of the _Clergy_ with their Doubts and Objections; and if the Passions of our _Ecclesiasticks_ are not raised upon it, to the doing of Violence to these _Gentlemen_, the Peace of the Publick will never be disturb'd. As to myself, tho' I have a vast and numerous Party on my 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 the _Emperors_ of _Rome_; 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.

The _Bishop_ of 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 by _treating with Contempt and Scorn the most sacred and important Truths_, he means, our burlesquing, bantering and ridiculing the _Clergy_ for their Ministry of the Letter: And for _this_ he would, I conceive, have incensed the _Societies_ for Reformation of Manners to a Prosecution of me. And if they had not been wiser, and more merciful than their Preacher, I must have gone to Pot. But why should the _Bishop_ dislike this way of Writing? Don't he know, that the Fathers of the Church used to jest and scoff at the _Gentiles_ and their Priests for their foolish Superititions? Don't he know, that our _Reformers_ banter'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 the _Bishop_ be against that way of writing, which was of good Use to the _Reformers_, and first _Christians_? The grand Subject for _Burlesque_ and _Banter_, in my Opinion, is _Infidelity_; and that _Bishop_, who can't break two Jests upon _Infidels_ for their one upon Christianity, has but a small Share of Wit. The Christian Religion according to the _Bishop_, 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 and sincerely embraced. And therefore hope, that the Controversy before us, between _Infidels_ and _Apostates_ will 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 the _Clergy_ to believe me, would again solemnly declare that what I do in it is with a View to the Honour of _Jesus_, our spiritual _Messiah_, to whom be Glory for ever. _Amen._

~_FINIS._~

FOOTNOTES:

[145] _Matt._ Chap. xxi. _Mark_, Chap. xi.

[146] Hoc factum, nisi figuratum, stultum invenitur. _In Serm._ lxxvii.

[147] Nulla esset Ligni Culpa, quia Lignum sine sensu non habebat Culpam. Augustin _in Serm._ lxxxix.

[148] Quærit poma; necesciebat tempus nondum esse? quod Cultor Arboris sciebat, Creator Arboris nesciebat? _Augustini in Serm._ lxxxix.

[149] Hoc ideo probamus, quia Passionis Domini Dies propinquabat, et scimus quo tempore passus sit. _Ibid._

[150] Arbor non est justé siccato. _Johan. Hierosol in Loc. Marci._

[151] Si miraculum fuerat tantummodo commendandum, et non alquid prophetice figurandum, multo clementiùs dominus et sua misericordia digniùs fecerat, Si quam aridam invenerat, viridem redderet, sicut languentes sanavit. Tunc vero e contrario, quasi adversus Regulam Clementiæ suæ invenit Arborem virentem, præter tempus fructus nondum habentem, non tamen fructum agricolæ negantem, et aridam fecit. _In Serm._ lxxxix. _Sect._ 3.

[152] See Arch-Bishop _Wake_'s Letter to Mr. _Chandler_, which is handed about Town and Country.

[153] _Vindication of the Christian Religion_, p. 82.

[154] _Ibid._

[155] Quod sequenti die viderint exaruisse fieum. _Theophylact. in Locum Marci._

[156] Chap. xiii.

[157] Quid sibi vult, quod in Evangelio suo Dominus Fici Parabolam _frequenter_ inducit: Habes enim alibi, quod jussu Domini Viriditas omnis hujus Ligni frondentis aruerit. _In Loc. Lucæ._

[158] Videamus, ubi alibi scriptum de ista ficu; in Evangelio secundum Lucam legimus, &c. _In Loc. Marci. Hom._ xii.

[159] _Matth._ Chap. xxi. 21.

[160] Quanquam igitur juxta Literam Hæc facta non legantur ab Apostolis, sicut quidam Paganorum calumniati sunt, et garriunt contra nos, etiam in suis scriptis asserentes Apostolos non habuisse fidem, quia monues non transtulerunt neque Ficulneas verbo exsiccarunt. _In Loc. Matth._

[161] Legimus Apostolorum miracula, nusquam autem legimus arborem ab his arefactam, aut montem in mare translatum; quæramus ergo in mysterio ubi factum sit, non enim Verba Domini vacare potuerant. _In Serm._ lxxxix.

[162] Sed futurum aliquid Miraculo commendasse, multa sunt quæ nos admoneant, nobisq; persuadeant imo ab _invitis_ extorqueant. _Ibid._

[163] Porro quando in hunc locum incidimus, nemo curiose inquirat, aut anxie disputet, justene an secus factum sit; sed Miraculum editum contempletur et admiretur. Nam de submersis Porcis quoq; nonnulli hanc quæstionem moverant, factumq; justitiæ coloræ destitutum prædicare veriti non sunt. _In Loc. Merci._

[164] Quid Arbor fici, nisi humanam naturam designet? _In Homil._ xxxi.

[165] In Ficu, Synogogæ positum Exemplum est. _In Loc. Matt._

[166] Absit a nobis, ut, Jesu veniente ad nos et volente manducare de ficu (_Ecclesiæ_) non inveniatur Fructus in ea. _In Matth. Tract._ xxx.

[167] Potest autem ficus illa intelligi populus Circumcisionis. _Ibid._

[168] Arbor ficulnea Genus humanum est----Triennium autem tria sunt Tempora, unum ante Legem, alterum sub Lege, tertium sub gratia. St. _Augustin in Serm._ cx.

[169] _Jude_, ver. 14.

[170] Inveniet infæcundam, foliis tantummodo vestitam, id est Verbis inanibus gloriantem, sed fructibus vacuam, Operibus quippe bonis sterilem. _In Loc. Matt._

[171] Habentem folia et non fructus; Verba, non Sensus; Scripturas, non intelligentiam Scripturarum. _In Loc. Marci._

[172] Folia sola habentem, hoc est, apparentem Litteram, non Fructus Spiritus. _In Loc. Matt._

[173] Qærens non Sensiles Fructus sed intellectilem ex Lege et Prophetis dulcemq, Fæcunditatem. _Cæsarii in Dialog._ 40.

[174] Ficus sunt dona dulcissima Spiritus Sancti, Spiritualia dogmata et Scientia Scripturarum. _In Aggæ_; _Cap._ ii.

[175] Esuriit autem Jesus semper in justis, volens manducare Fructum Spiritus Sancti i neis. _In Matt. Tract._ xxx.

[176] Ad quem (Locum) intelligendum, ut oportet, expectandum esse Eliæ, ut nonnunquam loquuntur Veteres de Locis obscurissimis Adventum. _In Excercitat. Sac. Lib._ ii. _cap._ 6.

[177] Fructus dulces omne genus de arbore Vitæ comedendum præbebit Elias. _Apud Buxtorf. Synag. p._ 738.

[178] Oculis Spiritalibus viderunt Mysterium fici siccatæ. _Matt. Tract._ xvi.

[179] Effodientes Literam Legis. _Cyril. Glaphyr._ L. 1. P. 1.

[180] Mittitur ergo Cophinus Stercoris ad Radicem Arboris, quando pravitatis suæ Conscientia tangitur memoria Cogitationis. _Gregor. M. in Hom._ xxxi.

[181] Sed hoc significat Ficulnea infructuosa, quod Mulier inclinata; et hoc Ficulnea reservata, quod Mulier erecta. Hoc autem & octodecem Annorum Numero signatur, quod tertio die Dominus Vineæ Ficulneam venisse perhibetur. _In Homil._ xxxi.

[182] _John_, Chap. v.

[183] Vid. Milli. Nov. Test. _In Loc._

[184] Quare modo non movetur Aqua? _St. Ambros de Sacrament._ _Lib. C._ 2.

[185] [Greek: Eis monos tou eniautou etherapeueto.] _In Serm. contra Eberietatem._

[186] Vid. Milli. Nov. Test. _In Loc._

[187] Tot jacebant & unus curatus, cum posset uno Verbo omnes erigere. Quid ergo intelligendum est, nisi quia Potestas & Bonitas illa magis agebat, _&c._ _In Loc. Johan._

[188] Defence of Christianity, P. 415.

[189] Quis hic Curationis modus? quid hoc nobis mysterium significatur? non [Greek: aplôs] nec [Greek: eikê] hæc, sed futura nobis, tanquam imagine et figura quadam describuntur, ne res nimium incredibilis et inexpectata, accedente fidei Virtute, Multitudinis Animas offenderet. _In Loc. Johan._

[190] Aqua turbata----credas hoc Angelica Virtute fieri solere, non tamen sine significante aliquo Sacramento? _In Loc. Johan._

[191] Cujus Rei & cujus signi profundum mysterium, quantum Dominus donare dignatur, loquar ut potero. _Ibid._

[192] Piscina illa Baptismum designat. _Theophyl. In Loc._ Quænam igitur hæc descriptio? Futurum erat Baptisma plenum maximæ Potestatis & Gratiæ purgaturum peccata. _Chrysost. In Loc._

[193] Per quinque Porticus, quinque Libras Mosis intelligo, St. _Theophil. Antioch. in Loc._ Quinque Porticus sunt quinque Libri Mosis. St. _August. in Loc._

[194] Mosis quinque Libros scripsit, sed in quinque Porticibus Piscinam cingentibus languidi jacebant, et curari non poterant. Vide quomodo manet littera, convincens eum non salvans iniquum. Illis enim quinque Porticibus, in figura quinque Librorum prodebantur potius quam sanabantur ægroti. Ergo quicunque amatis litteram fine gratia, in Porticibus remanebitis, ægri eritis, jacentes non convalescentes, de littera enim præsumitis. _In Psal._ lxx.

[195] Est Figura Populi in ultimis temporibus sanandi. _In Loc. Johan._

[196] Languidus ille, de quo in Evangelio legimus, quia jacebat, Typum Generis humani habere videbatur. _In Serm._ cclxxiv. _Append._

[197] Paralyticum qui juxta Natatoriam jacebat. _Irenæi. Lib._ ii. Chap. 22.

[198] Tempus et Annus sunt centum Anni, _Tichonii in Reg._ 5^a

[199] Quod autem triginta et octo Annos in Languoribus positut erat, do illo Quadraginta numero, quem supra diximus duo minus habens; et quæ sunt ista duo, nisi duo præcepta, dilectio Dei et Proximi. Ista duo, in quibus tota Lex pendet et Prophetæ, si non habuerit, languidus et Paralyticus jacet. _In Ps._ lxxxiii.

[200] Quod autem sub finem Hebdomadum Sanctæ Pentecostes ipse revertitur Hierosolymam, figuraté et ænigmatice significat futurum nostri Salvatoris Reversionem ultimis præsentis ævi temporibus. _In Loc. Johan._

[201] Turbabat Angelus,----dictus est Dominus magni consilii Angelus. _Augustin in Serm._ cxxv. _Sect._ 3.

[202] Turbavit Aquam, id est, turbavit Populum. _Ejusdem in Ps._ cii.

[203] Sabbatum est et Grabatum non licet tollere. Quid stupidius aut inertius esse potest? _In Loc. Johan._

[204] Sermon before the Society for Reformation, _&c._ p. 12.

A FOURTH
DISCOURSE
ON THE
MIRACLES
OF OUR
_SAVIOUR_,

In VIEW of the Present
Controversy between INFIDELS
and APOSTATES.

_Canes qui oblatrant contra Inquisitionem
Veritatis._ Clem. Alex.

The Third Edition.

By THO. WOOLSTON, B.D. sometime
Fellow of _Sidney-College_ in _Cambridge_.

_LONDON_:

Printed for the Author, and Sold by him
next door to the _Star_, in _Aldermanbury_,
and by the Booksellers of _London_, and
_Westminster_, 1728.

[Price One Shilling.]

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

MY LORD,

_If the_ Convocation _had been sitting, I would have made this Dedication to them, and humbly implored of them, what, for their Love to the Fathers, they would readily have granted, a Recommendation of these my_ Discourses _on_ Miracles _to the_ Clergy: _But being unhappily disappointed of a Session of that_ Reverend _and_ Learned _Body, for whose wise Debates and orthodox Votes I have such a Veneration, as is not to be express'd in a few Words, I presently turn'd my Thoughts on your_ Lordship, _to whom a_ Dedication _is due, because of your Respect, often declared, for the Authority of the Fathers, which induces me to think, you now approve of the Use I have made of them_.

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

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

_Upon your_ Lordship'_s Advancement to a Bishoprick_, Difficultys and Discouragements _not withstanding, I wish'd, without prescribing to the Wisdom of the Government in the choice of a learned Prelate, that the great Mr._ 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 a_ Gentleman _of real Probity and Conscience, and might possibly boggle at Subscriptions, unless you and Bishop_ Hoadly _could help him to some of your_ Reserves _and_ Distinctions, _wherewith you must be both well Stock'd, to overcome that_ Difficulty. _And why should not_ Dean Swift _for his Writings, as well as some others, be made a Bishop? I should like to see him one; if the_ then _Right Reverend Bishop_ Grounds _would not think him, for his_ Tale of a Tub, _too loose in the Faith, for his Company_.

_Don't, imagine,_ My Lord, _that I am forming of Schemes for my self to be a Bishop. Tho' these my_ Discourses _on_ Miracles _are of very great Merit, as well as your Lordship's_ Difficulties, _&c. yet you may be assured, I have no such View, when I tell you, that the Honour, the Fathers have exalted me to, of a_ Moderator _in this Controversy, sets me above all Ecclesiastical Preferment, excepting the_ Arch-Bishoprick _of_ Canterbury, _which I'm afraid will be void, before the King is apprised of my singular Worth and Qualifications for it_.

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

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

[Sidenote: London, _May_ 14. 1728.]

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

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

Now for a _fourth_ Discourse on _Jesus_'s Miracles, which, as before, I begin with a Repetition of the three general Heads, at first proposed to be treated on; and they are,

I. To show, that the Miracles of healing all manner of bodily Diseases, which _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 pass under the general Name of _Blindness_. And sometimes we hear of famous _Chance-Doctors_, like _Jesus_, who by a Gift of God, Nature, or Fortune, without any Skill in the Structure of the Eyes, have been very successful in the Cure of one Distemper or other incident to them: Such was Sir _William Read_, who, tho' no Scholar, nor of acquir'd Abilities in _Physick_ and _Surgery_, yet cured his Thousands of sore or blind Eyes; and many of them too to the surprise and astonishment of profess'd _Surgeons_ and _Physicians_. Whether He, or _Jesus_, cured the greater number of Blindness may be question'd. To please our _Divines_, it shall be granted that _Jesus_ cured the greater Numbers; but that he cured worse or more difficult Distempers in the Eyes, can't be proved. Sir _William_ indeed met with many Cases of blind and sore Eyes, that were out of the reach of his Power; and so did _Jesus_ too, or he had never let great Multitudes of the blind, and otherwise distemper'd People, go unheal'd by him. Our _Divines_ will here say, that it was never want of Power in _Jesus_, but want of Faith in the diseased, if he did not heal them; but in other _Surgeons_ and _Physicians_, it is confessedly their own Insufficiency: To which I have only this 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 pass'd but for a _Chance-Doctor_.

But to come to the particular Consideration of the Miracle before us. _Jesus_ restored, it seems, a blind Man to his Eye-sight, by the use of a peculiar Ointment, and washing of his Eyes, as directed, in the Pool of _Siloam_. Where lies the Miracle? I can't see it; but hope our _Divines_ will take their opportunity to point it out to me. Our _Surgeons_, with their Ointments and Washings can cure sore and blind Eyes of one sort or other; and _Jesus_ did no more here; and yet he must be reckon'd a Worker of Miracles; and they but artificial Operators: where's the Sense and Reason of this difference between them? If Mr. _Moor_, the _Apothecary_, for the notable Cures he performs, by the means of his Medicines, should write himself, and be accounted by his Admirers, a _Miracle-worker_; he and they would be but laugh'd at for it: And yet _Jesus_ for his curing the sore Eyes of a poor Man with an Ointment, must be had in veneration for a divine and miraculous Operator, as much as if by the breath of his Mouth he had removed an huge Mountain!

A Miracle, if I mistake not the Notion of our _Divines_ about it, is a supernatural Event, or a Work out of the Power of Nature or Art to effect. And when it is spoken of the Cure of a Disease, as of Blindness or Lameness, it ought to be so represented, as that skilful and experienced _Surgeons_ and _Physicians_, who can do strange and surprizing Cures by Art, may give it upon their judgment, that no Skill of Man could reach that Operation; but that it ought to pass for the Work of a divine and almighty Hand and Power. But there is no such care taken in the Description of any of the Diseases, which _Jesus_ cured; much less of this before us; against the miraculousness of which, consequently, there are these two Exceptions to be made:

_First_, that we know nothing of the Nature of this poor Man's Blindness; nor what was the defect of his Eyes; nor whether it was curable by Art or not: Without which Knowledge, it is impossible and unreasonable to assert, that there was a Miracle wrought in the Cure of him. If his blindness or weakness of Eye-sight was curable by human means, and Jesus did use those means, there's an end of the Miracle. If the _Evangelist_ had given us an accurate Description of the Condition of this Man's Eyes before Cure, we could have judg'd better: But this is their constant neglect in all the Distempers _Jesus_ heal'd, and is enough to induce us to doubt of his miraculous Power. There are, as I have said, some sorts of sore or blind Eyes curable by Art, as Experience does testify; and there are others incurable, as _Physicians_ and _Patients_ do lament. Of which sort this Man's was, we know not. The worst that we know of his Case, is, that he was blind from his Birth, or Infancy, which might be: and yet Time, Nature and Art, may give relief to him. As a Man advances in Years, the diseases of Childhood and Youth wear off. What we call the _King's-Evil_, or an 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 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.