_First_, that this Story of the _Pool_ of _Bethesda_, abstractedly considered from _Jesus_'s Cure of an infirm Man at it, has no good Foundation in History: It merits no man's Credit, nor will any reasonable Person give any heed to it. St. _John_ is the only Author that has made any mention of this Story; and tho' his Authority may be good, and better than another Man's in Relation to the Words and Actions of _Jesus_, in as much as he was most familiar and conversant with him; yet, for foreign Matters, that have no immediate Respect to _Jesus_'s Life, he's no more to be regarded than another _Historian_, who, if he palm upon his _Readers_ an improbable Tale of senseless and absurd Circumstances, will have his Authority questioned, and his Story pry'd into by the Rules of _Criticism_, and rejected or received as it is found worthy of Belief and Credit. If there had been any Truth in this Story before us, I cannot think but _Josephus_ or some other _Jewish_ Writers, it is so remarkable, peculiar and astonishing an Instance of the Angelical Care and Love to the distressed of _Jerusalem_, would have spoken of it: But I don't find they have; or our modern _Commentators_ would have refer'd to them, as to Testimony of the Credibility of the Gospel-History. _Josephus_ has professedly written the History of the _Jewish_ Nation, in which he seems to omit nothing that makes for the Honour of his Country, or for the Manifestation of the Providence of God over it. He tells us of the Conversation of Angels with the Patriarchs and Prophets, and intermixes Extra-Scriptural Traditions, as he thought them fit to be transmitted to Posterity. How came he then and all other _Jewish_ Writers to forget this Story of the Pool of _Bethesda_? I think, we may as well suppose that a Writer of the natural History of _Somersetshire_ would neglect to speak of the medicinal Waters of _Bath_, as _Josephus_ should omit that Story, which, if true, was a singular Proof of God's distinguishing Care of his peculiar People, or an Angel had never been frequently, as we suppose, sent to this Relief of the Diseased amongst them. Is then St. _John_'s single Authority enough to convey this Story down to us? Some may say, that there are several Prodigies, as well as political Events of antient Times, that, tho' they are reported but by one Historian, meet with Credit; and why may not St. _John_'s Testimony be equal to another Writer's? I grant it; and tho' it is hardly probable but that this Story, if true, before us, must have had the Fortune to be told by others; yet St. _John_'s single Authority shall pass sooner than another Man's, if the Matter be in itself credible and well circumstanc'd. But where it is blindly imperfectly and with monstrously incredible Circumstances related, like this before us, it ought to be rejected. Which brings me,