since God must of necessity annex to His language divine and spiritual ideas, as man annexes to his language human and natural ideas. In order then to comprehend in any degree the language of the ALMIGHTY, it is necessary that the mind of the hearer or reader become spiritual; in other words, become open to the perception of spiritual and eternal realities, as they are contained in and conveyed by natural and temporal images. Thus, and thus only, can it be expected that the mystery of the above miracle will become intelligible, and that the true ground and reason will be discovered why the INCARNATE GOD was pleased to send His apostle Peter to the sea, and there to cast in a hook, and take up the fish that first came up, and to open its mouth; and when he had found therein a piece of money, to take and give it for them both.

Q. What then is the general instruction which you learn from this miracle?

A. From the letter, or literal sense of this miracle, I learn the edifying lesson, that the BLESSED JESUS, when he sojourned here on earth, paid respect unto the laws and customs of civil society, insomuch that He wrought a miracle to satisfy the demands of those laws and customs, and thus gave an example to all His followers, never to give offence on such occasions. But from the spirit, or spiritual sense of the same history, I receive additional instruction, and this on a point of the utmost importance to be well understood, viz. what principle in man is free, and what principle serves; and that the spiritual principle in

man is of the former description, and the natural principle is of the latter. I am instructed yet further, that when God speaks to man, He always annexes divine and spiritual ideas to all His expressions, so that when He applies, as in the case of this miracle, the natural terms sea, a hook, a fish, a piece of money, He applies them in a sense very different from that in which man applies them, because He uses them as natural images expressive of His own all-wise, instructive and divine sentiments. I am resolved therefore to attend well to the above interesting lessons of heavenly instruction, first, by distinguishing well in my own mind the two principles of freedom and of servitude, until I am led to exalt in myself what is spiritual above what is natural; in other words, to exalt a spiritual end, spiritual objects, and spiritual goods, above natural ends, natural objects, and natural goods; and secondly, by fixing deep in my mind the edifying persuasion, that all the words of Gon, though expressed according to natural language, must of necessity contain in them divine ideas, and that consequently when He employs na tural images, as the sea, a hook, a fish, a piece of money, &c. &c. he doth not mean to express by them the mere natural things which they suggest to the natural mind of man, but those spiritual and eternal realities which relate to Himself and His everlasting kingdom. AMEN.

199

SIGHT RESTORED A SECOND TIME TO TWO BLIND MEN.

MATT. XX. 29 to the end.

And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed Him; and behold, two blind men sitting by the way-side, when they heard, that JESUS passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O LORD, Thou Son of David, &c. &c.

Q. YOU have already told me, in explaining the miracle recorded in chap. ix. ver. 28 to 32, concerning two other blind men, what is to be understood by spiritual blindness, and by the recovery of spiritual light. Can you now inform me in what particulars the present miracle differs from the former?

A. The difference between the two miracles appears to be grounded in the different kinds and degrees of intellectual blindness, and of the recovery of intellectual sight, figured and represented in each miracle. For, as there are different kinds and degrees of spiritual good and

spiritual evil, and as those kinds and degrees have reference in general to good or evil in the human will, and to good or evil in the human understanding, in like manner, and for the same reason, there are different kinds and degrees of spiritual blindness, which is nothing else but spiritual ignorance and error, and also different kinds and degrees of retoration to spiritual sight, which is nothing else but deliverance from spiritual ignorance and error. Accordingly, there is a blindness originating in the understanding, in consequence of false principles and persuasions which have been imbibed by education; and there is also a blindness originating in the will, in consequence of hereditary and natural evil, indisposing man for the reception of heavenly truth, and thus for the restoration of spiritual sight. Suffice it then to observe, that it appears not improbable that the two blind men, recorded in the former miracle, were intended to figure and represent the blindness, of the Jewish church, so far as it originated in the understanding, and in the false principles and persuasions inseminated therein by education; whereas the two blind men, in the present instance, were intended to figure and represent the blindness of the same church, as originating in the will, through the prevalence of hereditary and actual evil. And that all this is not improbable, will appear from considering the peculiar circumstances attending each miracle, as first, that the two blind men in the former miracle addressed the BLESSED JESUS only as the Son of David,

whereas in the present miracle, they address Him as the LORD, the Son of David; secondly, that in the former miracle JESUS saith to the blind men, Believe ye that I am able to do this ? whereas in the present miracle, He saith, What will ye that I should do unto you? It deserves also to be remarked, that in the former miracle the two blind men are described as following JESUS, whereas in the present miracle they are described as sitting by the way side.

From these distinct circumstances then it is not unreasonable to conclude, that the former miracle had more relation to blindness originating in the understanding, and the present miracle more to blindness originating in the will. For when the BLESSED JESUS is called LORD, it is always in reference to the divine good of His divine love, and of course has more relation to the will, than to the understanding; and when He asks in one case, Believe ye that I am able to do this? and in the other case, What will ye that I should do unto you? it is evident that in the former instance He addresses Himself to the understanding, and in the latter to the will. The same remark will apply to the two expressions, following JESUS, and sitting by the way-side, because the term sitting is uniformly applied in the sacred Scriptures to a state of the will or love, and the term following (or walking after) to the understanding or thought.

Q. Do you conceive then that the sight restored in the one instance differed from the sight restored in the other instance?