_Arch-Heretick_, or _Popish Exorcist_, our _Divines_ would have flouted
at it; they would have told us, there was nothing supernatural and
uncommon in the Event, nor any thing at all to be wonder'd at in it.
Taking the _Devil_ out of this Story, and there's no more in it, than
what's common for a simple, melancholy, and drooping Woman, to be
chear'd and elated upon the comfortable Advice and Admonition of a
reputedly wise and good Man. And the putting the _Devil_ into the Story,
in another Case, our _Divines_ would have said was only the Fancy of the
Woman, or the Device of the _Miracle-Monger_, to magnify his own Art and
Power. And if _Infidels_, _Jews_, and _Mahometans_, should say so of
this Story of _Jesus_, they would be no more unreasonable in their
Conjectures and Solutions of this Miracle, than we should have been in
another and parallel Case.

The _Pope_, when last at _Benevento_, is said to have exorciz'd a
_Dæmon_ out of a young Maid, which our _Divines_ no more believe than
_Infidels_ do. But it is not at all impossible or improbable, that a
young Woman might be troubled with Vapours, and go droopingly upon it,
whom the holy Father, of whose Prayers and Sanctity she had a good
Opinion, might relieve with his Talk, and give another Turn to her
Thoughts and Temper: And if she fancy'd herself before possess'd with a
_Dæmon_, or rather, if the _Pope_'s Partizans persuaded her so, it's not
unlikely to make a Miracle on't. Just so may _Infidels_, with their
Descants on this Miracle before us, reduce and lessen it: And what must
we Believers do then? Why, we must find out a Way to ascertain the Truth
and Greatness of the Miracle, or give it up. We must determine certainly
what was the Woman's Distemper, and how the Cure of it by ordinary Means
was impossible, or make no more Words about it.

And how can we come at the Knowledge of this Woman's Disease, but by
the original Words of the _Evangelist_. St. _Luke_ says, she was one
πνευμα εχουσα ασθενειας, _that had a Spirit of Weakness_, that is, was
poor-Spirited and pusilanimous; and if she was συγκυπτουσα, _bow'd
down_ upon't, its no more than might be expected of a disconsolate,
melancholy and dejected Person. Here then is the Disease of the Woman:
If it had been worse, St. _Luke_, the Physician, if he was of
Sufficiency in his Art, should better have express'd himself; so as to
give us another Conception of it. And if _Satan_ had not been brought
into the Tale, whom it is easy, by reasoning as above, to exorcise out
of it, here is a no more grievous Distemper, than what upon the
comfortable Exhortations of a wise Man may be cured. And do what our
Divines can, they can make literally no more of this Story.

It is said, that for _eighteen Years_ the Woman labour'd under this
Disease. And she might be _hippish_ and _drooping_ for a longer time,
and be no less easily at last cured. It's pity the _Evangelist_ had
not told us how old this Woman was, when the Distemper first seiz'd
her; then we could have made better Conjectures about the Nature and
Cure of it. If there was any room to suppose, either from the Words of
Scripture or extra-scriptural History, that she was about _fifty_ or
_sixty_, when she first began to droop and the _Devil_ got upon her
Back; here had been Scope for a most stupendous Miracle; and our
_Divines_ might have asserted, what no Body could have contradicted,
that _Jesus_ had made an old Woman, who was _bow'd down_, not only
under the Weight of _Satan_, but under the Burthen of seventy or
eighty Years, young again; and had restored her to the Health, Vigor,
and Beauty of one of fifteen. Here would have been a mighty Miracle
indeed. And I don't doubt, but our _Divines_ would willingly get into
such a Notion of this Miracle, and would heartily espouse it, but for
the Offence they must needs give to decrepid old Women, who may be out
of Conceit with themselves upon it, as if they carried the _Devil_ on
their Shoulders, as the Cause of their Decripedness and Incurvity. And
such an Offence would be of ill Consequence.

Reasonably then speaking, there was not much in the Disease and Cure
of this Woman. Excepting that Part, which _Satan_ bears, in the Story,
there is nothing wonderful in it. And supposing _Jesus_ might exorcise
the _Devil_ out of this Woman, or dismount him from off her Shoulders;
yet even this makes nothing for his Divine Power and Authority, in as
much as many _Exorcists_ among the _Jews_ and even among _Papists_, if
Protestants had not more Wit than to believe it, could do as much. And
after all, I don't believe the _Evangelist_ intended, that our Saviour
should be had in Admiration for the Letter of this Miracle, or St.
_Luke_ would accurately have described the Disease, so as to put it
out of the Power of Nature and Art to heal it, and of the Wit of
_Infidels_ to cavil at the miraculous Cure of it. Neither do I find
that the Fathers of the Church ever trouble themselves about the
Letter of this Story, which is some Argument, that no great Heed is to
be given to it; but are only curious about the Mystery, for which this
Miracle was related, and which I come now to give an Account of.

As the Fathers said of the Woman with her _Issue of Blood_, that she
was a Type of the Church; so they say of this Woman with her _Spirit
of Infirmity_, that she is a[101] Figure of the Church too.

As the Woman was _bow'd together_; so the Church, as the Fathers do
interpret, may be said to be[102] _bow'd down_ to the Earth, when she
is _prone_ and _bent_ to, and _intent on_ the literal or earthly
Interpretations of the Scriptures; and _can in no wise lift up her
self_, like the Woman, _that is_, can't raise her Thoughts to the
Contemplation of the cælestial, spiritual, and sublime Sense of them.
Hence we see the Propriety of the Name of the Woman's Disease, call'd
πνευμα ασθενειας, a _Spirit of Weakness_, which is not properly
significative of any bodily Distemper, but succinctly is very
expressive of the Church's _Weakness_ at the _Spirit_ of Prophecy,
which at this Day she labours under.

As it was _eighteen Years_ that the Woman was griev'd with her _Spirit
of Infirmity_, for so long had her Distemper been growing on her; so it
is almost eighteen (hundred) Years, or the eighteenth Century of Years,
that this _Infirmity_ of the Church at the _Spirit_ of Prophecy has been
coming on her: And she is now so _bent_ to the Earth of the Letter, that
nothing less than the Hand and Power of Jesus, that erected the Woman,
can raise her to mystical, divine, and sublime Contemplations on the Law
and Prophets. St. _Augustin_[103] will have these _eighteen Years_ of
the Woman's _Infirmity_, as she is a Type of the Church, to be
synchronical with the[104] _three Years_ of the Fig-Tree's
Unfruitfulness. I don't rightly apprehend his mystical Arithmetic. But
this is certain, upon the Authority of the Fathers, that those two
Numbers, with the _twelve Years_ of the Woman's _Issue of Blood_, are
all conterminous and will end together: Consequently at the same time,
that the Woman of the Church will be cured of her _Issue of Blood_, she
will be heal'd of her _Infirmity_ at the _Spirit_ of Prophecy; _that
is_, at the Conclusion of certain grand Periods of Time she will enter
upon a blessed State of _Peace_ and _Vision_; which is the concurrent
Doctrine of the Fathers, as any one may discern, that has dip'd into
them, and is a good Confirmation of our present Exposition, and mystical
Application of the miraculous Story before us.

St. _Luke_ says, that the Woman could not lift up herself εις το
παντελες, _v._ 11. which, without animadverting on our _English_
Translation, should be rendered, _until all was perfected_, or until
the _Perfection of Time_, which, the Apostle[105] and the Fathers
agree, is the Time for the Church to be cured of her _Weakness_, and
to be endu'd with _Power_ at the Spirit of Prophecy.

As the Woman was heal'd by _Jesus_ on the Sabbath-Day; so the Church,
upon the ample Authorities of the Fathers, which Men of Reading will
excuse me the Production of, is certainly to be heal'd of her _spiritual
Infirmity_, at the Understanding of Prophecy against the mystical
and[106] grand Sabbath, which, according to the Fathers, commences at
the Expiration of her eighteen (hundred) Years _Weakness_.

But the _Ruler of the Synagogue is said to be moved with Indignation,
v._ 14. at this charitable Work of _Jesus_, in healing of the Woman,
because it was done on the Sabbath-Day; which in my Opinion can't be
literally true: Though I am willing enough, to please our _Divines_,
to allow as much as may be of the Letter of this Story, yet I except
against this Part of it. _Origen_ says, there are some things of the
Gospel related as Facts, which were not done; and I believe this of
the Ruler of the Synagogue to be one of them. Human Nature, I think,
is not capable of such base and unnatural Resentment. Works of
Necessity, and requisite Offices of Kindness and Charity to Man and
Beast, were allow'd by the Law, and practised by the _Jews_ on the
Sabbath: And the Cure of this Woman, though on the Sabbath-Day, was
such an Act of Beneficence and Compassion in the Holy _Jesus_, that I
can't but think _bad_, as well as _good_ Men, would rather glorify
God, that had given such Power unto Man, than find fault with it. But
in the Mystery of this Part of the Story, there is clear Sense and
Truth. Who then is this _Archisynagogus_, or Ruler of the Synagogue,
that will be full of Indignation at the healing of the Church of her
foresaid _Infirmity_ at the _Spirit_ of Prophecy? _Origen_ says that
the[107] right Interpretation of the Names of Persons and Places in
Scripture is of good Use to the mystical Application. Accordingly
_Archisynagogus_ does signify the _Chiefs of our Congregations_: And
who should they be then but the Clergy? And if this ben't enough to
fix this Name and Character upon them, then let _Theophanes Cerameus_
speak here, who says, that the _Archisynagogus_, is a[108] _Type of
all Priests_, who will be against the foresaid miraculous healing of
the Church. And why will the _Clergy_ be mov'd 'with Indignation at
the curing the Church of her _Infirm_, and restoring her to a _sound_
Spirit of Prophecy? Because as St. _Augustin_ says,[109] they are not
only _bow'd down_ to the Letter themselves; but because this
_Infirmity_ of the Church will be a Reproach to them, in as much as it
is a Proof of their Apostacy and Insufficiency at Prophecy; and the
Cure of it will be attended with such Consequences, as affect their
Reputation and Interests. Who can question but the _Clergy_, who are
the _Archisynagogus_ of the Text, and who are for the Church's
_bending_ and _stooping_ to the low Sense of the Letter of the
Scripture, will be averse to her being rais'd, _lifted up_, and
erected to the Contemplation of the sublime, anagogical, and heavenly
Sense of it? Such an Healing and Erection of the Church will vex them
at the Heart, as it will bring _Shame_ and loss of Interest along with
it; and they will undoubtedly be _Adversaries_ to this good Work of
_Christ_, which, upon the Testimony of all Antiquity, is to be done on
or against the Evangelical and great Sabbath.

Our Saviour is supposed to reprove the _Ruler_ of the _Synagogue_, for
his _Indignation_ at the Cure of the Woman on the Sabbath-Day, saying,
_v._ 15. _Thou Hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath
loose his Ox or his Ass from the Stall, and lead him away to Watering?
And ought not this Woman to be loos'd from this Bond on the
Sabbath-Day?_ There is Force in this Argument according to the Letter:
And the _Ruler_ of the _Synagogue_, and other _Jesus_'s Adversaries
hereupon, might well be _asham'd_ for finding Fault with such a
merciful and beneficent Work done on the _Sabbath_; when they
themselves did Works on the _Sabbath_ of much less Consequence. But
to[110] the Mystery. What may be said to our Ministers of the Letter,
of whom the _Archisynagogus_ is a Type, for their Averseness to the
healing of the Church in like manner? Why, that they are _Hypocrites_,
that is, superficial Criticks on the Scriptures, and don't consider
that _the Law is spiritual_, and how against the Evangelical Sabbath
every Man is to be released from his Bondage and Servility to
irrational Principles (for which he has been like an _Ox_ and an
_Ass_) and to be conducted to drink of the Waters of Divine Wisdom:
For this grand Sabbath will be a Day of absolute Liberty, perfect
_Rest_, immense Knowledge, real Vision and Contemplation on God and
his Providence, as the antient _Jews_ and Fathers so copiously
declare, that they who are ignorant herein, may be _ashamed_;
consequently they might know, that the Church is to be cured of her
_Spirit of Weakness_ at Prophecy on that Day.

But _Satan_ is said to have _v._ 16. _bound_, and, as is supposed,
_bow'd down_ this Woman; the literal Truth of which I much question:
But how then has _Satan bound and bow'd down_ the Church? This,
seemingly, is the great Difficulty in the mystical Application of this
Story, and must be the great Curiosity of my Readers to know how I
will account for it. If the Fathers don't help me out at this dead
Lift, and that clearly and intelligibly too, I shall abate of my
Veneration for them. If they don't tell me, and make me to apprehend,
what this _Satan_ is, that for many Ages has _bound_ and oppress'd the
Church after the supposed Manner of the typical Woman, I had better
have held my Peace, and said nothing to this parabolical Miracle.

The Writings of the _Evangelists_ so abound with Stories of _Satan_,
_Belzebub_, the _Devil_, and of greater and less Number of _Devils_,
and of _Dæmons_ and of _unclean Spirits_, more than any Histories
before, as one would think, if these Stories were literally to be
understood, that was the Age in which Christ came, that _Hell_ first
broke loose, and then primarily infested Mankind; and that upon the
Destruction of _Judæa_ and Propagation of the Gospel, the _Devils_
accompanied the _Jews_ in their Dispersion, or the _Apostles_ in their
Travels, and have been the Tempters, Seducers, and Tormentors of
other Nations ever since.

_Arnobius_[111] says, _That before Christ, Devils were things unknown
to the World_; by which _Arnobius_ must mean, either that they were
hardly talk'd of before, or that their Nature was not understood, till
Christ inform'd us of it. In both these Senses, I believe, _Arnobius_
may be taken, _viz._ that there was not only little Talk of _Satan_
and the _Devil_, but less of his Nature apprehended, before _Christ_
by his Parables and parabolical Miracles, rightly interpreted,
instructed us in it. And if after Ages have departed from the true and
original Doctrine of _Devils_, making a literal Story of that, which
is only mystical and cabalistical; and have formed to themselves
_Ideas_ of hideous and horrible Fiends, _Mormos_ and _Hobgoblins_, it
shall not disturb me.

As to the Place and State of _Hell_, many are the Notions of _Divines_
of several Ages past, as well as of the present. I shall not recount
them all here, much less refute any of them. But there is an antient,
rational, and cabalistical Notion of Hell, which I have learned of the
Fathers, who signify, that the babylonish and bewilder'd State of
Christ's Church may be call'd _Hell_, because, as the Word αδης does
import, it is a State _without Vision_. Hence _Origen_ says,[112] that
whoever can form to himself an _Idea_ of the Church in time to come,
when she will be dignified with the Title of the _New Jerusalem_, for
her Peace and Vision may understand what is meant by _Hell_, and all
that is written of it.

As then the Fathers had a cabalistical Notion of _Hell_, which modern
_Divines_ are Strangers to; so they had of _Satan_, and the _Devil_
and his Angels. I own myself at a Loss for an express Testimony out of
the Fathers about _Satan_ in the Text before us; but according to
their Explications of _Satan_ in other Places, nothing more is meant
by him here than, "That furious Principle and Temper in Man that is
not only averse to Liberty in Religion, but for binding, restraining,
and tying down the Church and Christian People to certain Opinions and
Ways of Worship." In such a State of Bondage has the Woman of the
Church been kept, by such a _Satan_, in one Order of Men or other,
for all Ages past. And that this is a right and primitive Notion of
_Satan_, I could prove by Authorities enough. _Origen_ tells us[113]
of the Names of Kings in prophetical Scripture, which would be Enemies
to Christ's Church; but such Kings never did, nor would personally
exist; their Names, according to Interpretation, standing only for so
many Sins and Vices, reigning in Mankind. To the same Purpose he
says[114] _human Vices are Devils_: And _Satan_ himself, (as the Word
signifies _Adversary_) is with him[115] and the antient _Jews_ too, no
other than an _Aversness_ in Man to the Will of God. I could quote
other Fathers to this Purpose; but being sparing of my Pains at
present, I refer my Readers to my former[116] _Discourse_, in which
they will see the Opinion of the Fathers about the _Devils_ in the
Madman, and afterwards in the Herd of Swine; from which let them
judge, whether the Fathers could have any other Notion of _Satan_
here, than what I have represented. It is certain, and may be easily
prov'd, that by _Satan_, the _Dragon_ and the _Devil_, mentioned in
the _Revelations_, nothing more is to be understood, than a furious,
persecuting, satanical, and diabolical Temper in Man; and if what St.
_John_ writes of _Satan_ be cabalistical and allegorical; the other
Assertions of the Evangelists and Apostles about _him_ will of Course
come under that Denomination; or the primitive Rule of Interpretation
of Scripture according to the natural Signification of the Names of
Persons and Places is not good.

As then the _Woman_ of the Gospel was, as is supposed, _v._ 16. _bound
by Satan, loe, for eighteen Years_: So the foresaid furious Principle
in Man, which is a mystical _Satan_, an _Adversary_ to Liberty, has
bound the Church, _loe_, to the _eighteenth_ Century of Years: But she
is to be entirely released from this spiritual Bondage, and set
at[117] _perfect Liberty_ against the acceptable and Evangelical
Sabbath. And here it is to be noted out of St. _Augustin_, and most
worthy of Observation it is, that at the[118] same time, in which the
Church will be loosed from her Bondage; _Satan_ himself will[119] be
_bound_ and _chain'd_ for a[120] _thousand Years_, the time of the
evangelical Sabbath, that is, says _Ephræm Syrus_[121] for ever. And
how will our mystical _Satan_ or the _Dragon_ be bound and chain'd?
Not with Chains or Links of Iron or other Metal; but _Vinculis
Rationis_, with the Chains of Reasons and Arguments for Christian
Liberty, which will restrain the _Adversary_, _Satan_, from any more
Impositions and Persecutions of the Church. And I can't here but
applaud the great Mr. _Grounds_ and Mr. _Scheme_, for their Work and
Labour of Love to Mankind, in making _Chains_ of Argumentations for
Liberty, which I hope will prove of sufficient Strength to bind
_Satan_ and restrain him (in Dr. _Rogers_, Bishop _G--bs--n_, and
others his Angels) from giving any more Molestation to Christian
Philosophers in their Enquiries after, and Lucubrations on Divine
Truth. All the Honour that I aim at in that Work is, by the Help of
the Fathers, to point out that anti-Christian Principle or Temper in
the _Clergy_[122] which, for its _Averseness_ to Liberty, is called
_Satan_; for its _Calumnies_, is called the _Devil_; for its
_Furiousness_, is called the _Dragon_; and for its _Unreasonableness_,
is called the _Beast_, to the intellectual Views of Mankind, and to
direct them how to apprehend and lay hold on it.

Our Saviour, according to _Origen_, had never call'd _Peter_,[123]
_Satan_, if _Satan_ had been any Thing else than _Man-averse_ to the
Will of God.

And thus have I spoken to the Miracle of _Jesus_'s healing the _Woman
of her Spirit of Infirmity, whom Satan had bound and bow'd down_,
which, according to the Letter, is no Miracle at all; and some Parts
of the Story are improbable and incredible; but the mystical
Completion of it will be most prodigious, and a Demonstration not only
of Christ's Power and Presence in his Church, but of his
_Messiahship_, in as much as a vast Number of Prophecies of the _Old
Testament_, more than can soon be collated to this Purpose, will
thereupon receive their Accomplishment. And so I come to a

3. _Third_ miraculous Story of _Jesus_'s, that is of his telling
(_John_ iv.) the Woman of _Samaria_ her Fortune, _of having had five
Husbands, and being then an Adulteress_, &c. in which there is a
notable Miracle display'd, in the Opinion of our _Divines_, that
proves _Jesus_'s Omniscience, or he could not so have search'd into
the Heart of this Woman, and told her such Occurrences, that concern'd
her Life past. I thought once of transcribing here entirely this
Story; and so I would, but that it is a long one, and might have set
some Readers, who are by this time awaken'd to pry into the
Absurdities of the Letter, a laughing, before I had time my self
regularly to animadvert on it.

Whether there was any Truth at all in the Letter of this Story, I
should much have questioned, but that some Fathers write of it, as if
they believed it literally, tho' they make a mystical and allegorical
Explication of the whole and every part of it. And I, having a sincere
Veneration for the Fathers, will not contradict them, (and I hope this
Concession will please the _Clergy_) but, for all that, can't like any
part of this Story literally, but could almost wish, that the Fathers,
for the Honour of _Jesus_, had made the whole no other than a Parable.

It's strange that no _Jews_ or _Infidels_ have as yet ludicrously
treated this Story to the, almost, Confutation of our Religion. If
their Tongues had not been ty'd by the aforesaid _Satan_ or
_Adversary_ to Liberty, I can't think but they must have made some
pleasant Animadversions upon it before now. If such a broken,
elliptical, and absurd Tale had been told of any other Impostor in
Religion; the Wits of our _Clergy_ had been at Work to expose it
plentifully; and indeed there's no need of much Wit to make this Tale
nauseous and ridiculous to vulgar Understandings.

I shall not myself here make all the Remarks I can to the Disadvantage
of this Story: I am not as yet so disposed to make Scoffers and
_Infidels_ laugh at the _Clergy_ for their Adherence to the Letter of
it. All I shall do now, is to make my Observations on the two Uses,
that the Clergy very seriously put this Story to, and they are,

_First_, to prove the Expectation that there was amongst the
_Samaritans_, of a _Messiah_ to come; And

_Secondly_, to prove _Jesus_'s Omniscience, or he could not have entered
into the Heart of the Woman, and told her, that she had had five
Husbands, and was then an Adulteress. To these two Purposes, I find this
Story urged by our _Divines_, and I must needs say, as to the

_First_ of them; it is rightly from hence asserted by the[124]
_Bishop_ of _Lichfield_ and others, that the _Samaritans_ had an
Expectation of a _Messiah_: But why then did not the _Bishop_ and
others, who are now in Quest after Arguments of _Jesus_'s Messiahship,
prove him hence to be the _Messiah_, because he told the _Samaritan_
woman her Fortune? If this was a real and substantial Argument to her
of _Jesus_'s _Messiahship_, it ought to be urg'd by the Clergy at this
Day. The Controversy about _Jesus_'s Messiahship is now on foot; Why
do the Advocates for it overlook this Proof of it? Why, because, as I
suppose, they are aware, that _Infidels_ would make sport with it. But
if _Jesus_'s telling the Woman her Fortune was no real and conclusive
Argument of his being the _Messiah_; St. _John_ has told us an
impertinent Tale of a simple Woman, upon whose Credulity and false
Notions _Jesus_ palm'd himself as the true _Messiah_; and whether he
did not ill thus to banter and deceive the Woman, let any one judge.

But let us here behold the Difference amongst the _Jews_ and
_Samaritans_, as to the Expectation of a _Messiah_. Some of the old
_Jews_, like the Apostles, expected the _Messiah_ would be a temporal
Prince, a great Warriour and Conqueror of the World. Others[125] of
them, like the Fathers, expected he would be a Prophet like _Moses_ in
all Things, and deliver his People out of another _Egypt_: But here the
_Samaritans_ expected he would be a _Conjurer_ and _Fortune-Teller_; or
there is no Sense in what the Woman said to the Men of the City, _v._
29. _Come and see a Man that has told me all that I have done_,
particularly my Fortune of having had five Husbands, and being now an
Adulteress, _Is not this the Christ?_ What could she mean, but that the
_Messiah_ would be a strolling _Fortune-Teller_, to inform People of the
Events of their Lives past and to come? And _Jesus_ to humour the Woman
in her Conception of himself and of the _Messiah_, says to her, _v._ 26.
_I that speak unto thee, am He._ Whether our _Divines_ like _Jesus_ the
better for this Story of him literally, I can't tell; but I am sure they
dislike the Fortune-telling Trade at this Day in others, and believe it
to be all Fraud, and are for punishing strolling _Gypsys_ for Cheats,
who practice it; and in the last Age were intent on the[126] Prosecution
of judicial Astrologers, who pretended to it: And if antient History had
furnish'd us with an Instance of the Punishment of a pretended
_Fortune-Teller_ in the Reign of _Tiberius_, they could not have found
Fault with it. Whether any Accusations were laid against _Jesus_ for
such his Delusions of the People, we know not. Evangelical History is
silent, or the _Evangelists_ have prudently suppressed it. But I much
wonder, that our _Gypsys_, from this Story, don't account themselves the
genuine Disciples of _Jesus_, being endu'd with the like Gifts and
exercising no worse Arts, than he himself practised.

If the _Samaritans_ did not expect the _Messiah_ would be a
_Fortune-Teller_; how came the Thought into the Woman's Head, that
_Jesus_ was the _Messiah_, because he had told her, her Fortune? What
can our _Divines_ say to it? Why, they must either say, that his
telling the Woman her Fortune was a real Proof of his _Messiahship_;
or that the Woman was foolish and credulous, and drew a false
Conclusion; and if she had not been an impudent and graceless Whore,
would have gone away blushing, and never have divulg'd, as the Text
supposes she did, her Shame to the Men of _Sychar_, who too had but
little Wit, or they had never stir'd from their Homes, to see such a
Fortune-Teller upon the Report of a poor Whore.

But the Men of the City had their Fortunes too told them by _Jesus_,
and they concluded him to be the _Messiah_ upon it; or there is no
Sense in what they _v._ 42. _said to the Woman, Now we believe not
because of thy Saying, for we have heard him ourselves, and know that
this is indeed the Christ_: What could they hear, but their Fortunes,
as the Woman had before? And if _Jesus_, whose Ability at all fair
Questions in the magic Art I don't question, did tell them their
Fortunes; I hope he had more Prudence than to talk to them in common
of their Fornications and Adulteries, which might occasion domestick
Jarrs, and the Breach of good Neighbourhood amongst them; but if he
directed any of them to find their lost Cattle, and help'd them again
to their stolen Goods, he did well, and they alone did amiss, to
conclude thereupon, _that he was indeed the Christ_. Let our _Divines_
now judge whether I have not made a natural and excellent Comment on
this part of the Story, which relates to the Expectation and Opinion,
which the _Samaritans_ had of a _Messiah_ to come. But,

_Secondly_, From this Story literally our _Divines_ prove _Jesus_'s[127]
Omniscience; and _Cardiognostick_ Power to tell what was in the Hearts
and Thoughts of Man. But how so? Is it because he told a Woman, that she
was an Adulteress, and had had five Husbands? Where's the Consequence?
_Duncan Campbel_, and other _Moorfields_-judicial-Astrologers have done
greater Feats at Conjuration than _this_, and never were thought to be
Omniscient. And for any Thing appears in this Story of our Saviour, it
might be all Cheat and Fraud in him. If _Infidels_ should assert it, our
_Divines_ could not disprove it. If they should say, it was possible for
_Jesus_ to get Intimations of these and other Circumstances of the
Woman's Life, before he attempted to tell her, her Fortune; we can't
say, that this is an impious and unreasonable Suggestion, since it is
the common Subtilty of delusive Fortune-Tellers, to get what
Intelligence they can by Insinuations and Informations, before they
utter their Oracles, and ambiguous Responses to simple poor Folks. And
there is one Circumstance in this Story, that looks very ill upon
_Jesus_, and is enough to make him suspected for a Cheat in his
pretended Art, and that is, he seems to draw the Woman in by a[128]
_Wile_ to hear her Fortune, saying to her, _v._ 16. _Woman go, call thy
Husband_; upon whose denying she had any Husband, Jesus was forward,
very forward to surprize her with his Knowledge of her having had five
Husbands, and living then in Adultery; which raising the silly Woman's
Admiration of his prophetick and soothsaying Talent, he closes with her
Conceptions, and what upon other Occasions, before wiser People, he
was[129] backward to own, says to her, _that he was the Messiah_; and so
he pass'd for the _Messiah_ with her and the Men of _Sychar_, who had no
more Wit than to receive him for such, upon such Proof, and gave him
Entertainment for no less than _v._ 40. _two Days_. I am glad we hear of
no Money, he squeez'd out of them for the exercise of his prophetick
Art, which our _Divines_ would have made an Argument of their Divine
Right to Tythes, Fees, and Stipends for their Divinations.

But no more of this silly Story according to the Letter. To point at
it is enough to expose it to the considerate and unprejudiced. I could
not help saying so much as I have; because it is necessary to form
some Invective against the Letter, to make way for the Reception of
the mystical and allegorical Interpretation of it, which I am now to
speak to.

Tho' the Fathers, against whose Authority I dare not write, or I should
be tempted to it in this Case, acknowledge the Letter of this Story,
suspecting only some[130] particular Passages of it; yet they look upon
the whole, for all that, as a[131] typical Narration, and endeavour at
the mystical Construction of all and every part of it. St. _Augustin_,
as if he was afraid some Christians of after Times should espouse, as
our Divines do, only the Letter, prefaces his Exposition of this Story
with these Words, saying,[132] _There are mysteries in all the Sayings
and Actions of our Saviour, particularly in the Story of the Woman of_
Samaria, _and whoever carelesly and imprudently_ (meaning literally)
_interprets it, will advance erroneous and pernicious Doctrine_; which,
if modern Commentators had any Regard for the Authority of St.
_Augustin_, is enough to deter them from their literal Expositions. The
most literal Interpreter among the Fathers, whom I know of, is St.
_Cyril_, and he says[133] there is a Type and Parable in this Story. But
to descend to Particulars.

By the _Woman of Samaria_ is to be understood an[134] Heretical and
Adulterous Church, which Jesus, _being wearied_ with her[135] corrupt
State, will meet with in _the sixth Hour_, that is in[136] the _sixth
grand Age_ of the World. So, by the By, according to the Fathers,
_Jesus_ will come to, and meet with the _Samaritan_ Church to her
Edification, at the same time, that he cures the Church of her _Issue
of Blood_ and _Spirit of Infirmity_.

And where did _Jesus_ meet with the Woman of _Samaria_? At _Jacob_'s
_Well_, where she was for Water to quench Thirst: So at the[137]
_Well_ of the Holy Scriptures, whose Sense lies deep as in a Well, and
flows with Knowledge as with Water, will Christ then find his Church,
drawing and drinking of the[138] Waters of the Letter, which could not
quench the Thirst of the Soul hitherto: But in the Perfection of Time,
signified by the _sixth Hour_, will Christ, according to the Fathers,
enable her to draw out of this _Well_ of the Profundity of the
Scriptures, spiritual Waters of Divine Knowledge, which will daily
more and more, like the Fountains of the Waters of Life, arise and
flow in upon the Soul, and constantly recreate and refresh her with
Wisdom, to her Delight and Satisfaction; so as she may be said never
to thirst more, after the Manner she does now.

And Jesus _then_ told the Woman of _Samaria_, _all that she had done_:
So will Christ in the _sixth Hour_, that is, towards the latter End of
the _sixth Age_ of the World, give the Woman of the Church to
understand _all that she has done_, according to the Writings of
_Moses_ and the Prophets, who, upon the Testimony of the Fathers, have
written a prophetical History of her, in Types, Symbols and Parables;
which Understanding of the Things that have been prophecy'd of her,
will enable her, of Consequence, to prove and declare to the World,
with Joy and Pleasure, that _Jesus_ is the true Messiah, the Christ,
and Fulfiller of the Law and the Prophets.

But particularly, as _Jesus_ then told the Woman that _she had had
five Husbands, and was then an Adulteress_ with one who was not her
true Husband: So the Church will be made to apprehend, according
to[139] _Origen_ and[140] St. _Augustin_, and others, how she has had
five Husbands of the five bodily Senses, that is, metaphorically
speaking, has been _wedded_ not only to sensual Pleasures, but to the
sensible Things of the Letter of the five Books of _Moses_; and that
at present, consequently, she lives in Adultery[141] with Anti-Christ,
whom the Fathers call the Devil, instead of the Spirit of Christ, the
Spirit of the Law, who should be her true Spouse, whom she should
_call_ for, and believe in.

And not only the Woman of _Samaria_, but the Men of the City,
_Sychar_, believ'd _Jesus_ to be the Messiah, _v._ 42, upon what he
said to themselves as well as to her: So the Ministers of the Letter,
who are _Sycharites_, according to _Origen_ and _Theophanes Cerameus_,
will be clearly convinced, and be able to convince others, that _Jesus
is the Christ or Messiah_, when they shall hear, learn and apprehend
from the Spirit of the Law and the Prophets, that the Church and all
she has been doing, was foretold and prophecy'd of.

Lastly, _Jesus_'s Disciples, _v._ 27. are said _to Marvel that he
talk'd with the Woman_. What in the Name of Wonder, literally, could
be the Meaning of this? Did they _Marvel_ at _Jesus_'s Condescention
to speak to a Woman, as if the Sex was beneath his Care? Or did they
_Marvel_ that he who was very bashful, had Courage to speak to one? Or
did they _Marvel_ at his Conversation with a Whore, for fear of his
being tempted by her? Some one or other of these must be the _Marvel_
of the Disciples; but how absurd and ridiculous they all are,
according to the Letter, let a reasonable Man judge. But mystically,
the true Disciples of our Lord, who understand the Mysteries of the
Kingdom of Heaven, will, when they are apprized of _Jesus_'s spiritual
Conversation with his Church, and of all the Things that she has done
according to Prophecy, _Marvel_ with rapturous Astonishment at the
Wisdom and Power of God in the Accomplishment of the Scriptures.

After such a Mystical and Allegorical Manner, is every minute
Circumstance of this Story of the _Samaritan_ Woman to be apply'd.
St. _Augustin_[142] says there are so many great Mysteries contain'd
in it, that they require much Time to go through them all. I find it
so, and that no less than a Volume might be written of them, out of
the Fathers. But what I have briefly here touch'd on, is enough to
convince any one of the Absurdities of the Letter of this Miracle,
which consisted in the telling a Woman her Fortune, and such a
Fortune, as _Jesus_ by Craft might come to the Knowledge of.
Therefore, for the Honour of _Jesus_, let us look upon the whole Story
as a typical and parabolical Representation of what would be
mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.

And thus I have spoken to the three Miracles, proposed to be treated
on in this Discourse. Before I enter upon my third general Head, which
is, _to consider what Jesus means when he appeals to his Miracles as
to a Witness of his Divine Authority_; I must take to Task some more
of his pretended Miracles even till I have not left him a good,
credible and substantial Miracle, according to the Letter, to appeal
to. The Consequence of which will be, that his mysterious Operations
are to prove his Authority and Messiahship, or we must give up him and
his Religion for a Piece of Fraud and Imposture.

What Miracles will be the Subject of my next Discourse, I can't
certainly foretell, but there are many Historical as well as
miraculous Parts of _Jesus_'s Life, that according to the Letter, are
to be call'd into Question; such as

The History of his riding on an Ass to _Jerusalem_. I have given some
Offence on this Point already in my _Moderator_, and ought to excuse
or justify my self, by calling the Fathers to Account for laughing at
the Letter of that Story. It was an untoward saying of St. _Jerome_,
that I there cited, and suffered a Prosecution for: But it is a worse
Intimation of St. _John_ of _Jerusalem_, who, if there was any literal
Truth in the Peoples pulling off their Garments, and Branches of
Trees, and strewing them in the Way of _Jesus_, will needs have it not
respectfully but mischievously done, to make the Colt stumble, and so
dismount his Rider. And according to him it may be questioned, whether
the _Hosannahs_ of the People were of any more Respect to _Jesus_,
than the _Huzzahs_ of a _Mob_ would be to the Bishop of _L----n_, if
to shew his Meekness and Lowlyness, he should ride upon an Ass, in his
_Pontificalibus_ through this City. But I have here a momentous
Controversy to decide about the Beast _Jesus_ rode on. St. _Matthew_
seems to say, he rode upon both _Ass_ and _Colt_ together. St. _Mark_
and St. _Luke_ say, he rode upon the _Colt, on which Man never before
sat_. The Bishop of _Lichfield_ says, he rode upon the _Ass_ (on which
Man had before sat) and the _Colt_ ambled after. St. _Cyril_ and St.
_Chrysostom_ say, he rode upon the _Colt_, and the _She-Ass_ trotted
after. St. _John_ the _Evangelist_ says he rode upon a _Mule_, or an
οναριον Ass-like Creature of the neuter Gender. The _Jewish Cabalists_
say, their _Messiah_ was to ride on a great huge _Ass_, big enough to
carry him and all true Israelites, and that the Ministers of
_Antichrist_ would then hang an _A-ss_. So do the great Doctors of the
World differ! To whom I shall decree the Prize of Orthodoxy, I shan't
foretell; but am inclined to favour the Opinion of the _Cabalists_.
However, I shall be very grave as well as learned on this Head: And if
I can, I will, to oblige Dr. _Sherlock_, hook in a Digression about
_Shilo_'s _binding his Fole to the Vine, and his Asses Colt to the
choice Vine_: The Accomplishment of which _literal_ Prophecy seems to
have been drop'd in the Providence of God, or the _Dean_ of
_Chichester_[143] had never stopt at it. I will endeavour to look it
up, in some Corner of History, if it be but to merit the Praises of
the _Master_ of the _Temple_.

I must also sometime take into Consideration the Story of _Jesus_'s
Abode in the Wilderness, forty Days, in Company of the _Devil_, who
tempted him. This literally, as our _Divines_ understand it, is a
Scandalous Story. The _Jews_, in our Saviour's Time, said, that
through _Belzebub_, he cast out _Devils_; and their Posterity have
asserted, that he learn'd the Magick Art of a _Dæmon_. This Story
gives too much Grounds for such a Suspicion. Our _Divines_, who should
know best, talk of abundance of Mischief, the _Devil_ has been
permitted to do in the World ever since; I hope it was not by Compact
and Agreement between them; but it would have been of some
Satisfaction to the Contrary, if the _Evangelist_ had told us expresly
upon what Terms they mett and parted. As Fables go, it is said to the
Honour of St. _Dunstan_, that he took the _Devil_ by the Nose, when he
tempted him; and if _Jesus_ had taken him by the _Collar_, and thrust
him into his _Dungeon_, and there chain'd him, and shut _Hell-Gates_
upon him; I appeal to honest plain Christians, whether such an
_Herculean_ Labour would not have pleased them well. Ever since I read
of _Martin Luther_'s Conversation with the _Devil_, I have had but
indifferent Thoughts of his _Protestantism_; and unless the Fathers
turn this Story before us into Mystery, Allegory and Cabalism, I shall
think ill of Christianity.

I should also take into Examination the Story of an Angel's appearing
to the Shepherds, and saying to them; _Behold I bring you Tidings of
great Joy_, &c. If there was any Truth literally in _this_ Story, and
in _that_ of a Star's appearing to the wise Men, there must be a great
Mistake in the Report of both of them. St. _Matthew_ and St. _Luke_
have both blunder'd. It was the Star that appear'd to the Shepherds by
Night; and the Angel (I speak upon Reason and Authority) that was sent
to the wise Men. What then to do with these two Stories, and to salve
the Credit of the _Evangelists_, I knew not, till the Fathers directed
me to the Use of a mythological _Metamorphosis_: And then I presently
learn'd the Trick on't, to transform Stars into Angels, and Shepherds
too, or Pastors of Christ's Flock (which was the Difficulty) into
wise Men; and so I made one Moral or Mistery of the two Fables.

I must also some Time take to task the Story of the _many dead Bodies of
the Saints, that upon Christs Resurrection, came out of their Graves,
and appear'd unto many_; which is too imperfectly related to merit
Credit. The _Evangelist_, if he would have a reasonable Man believe his
Story, should have told us, who those Saints were, and what Numbers of
them; and whether they appear'd to the converted or unconverted _Jews_;
whether they were some of the Patriarchs and Prophets of old, or some
lately departed Disciples, who, for all _Jesus_'s healing Power, died in
the Time of his Ministry; and whether there were any Women among those
Saints; and whether they appear'd naked (as _Jesus_ modestly did to
_Mary Magdalen_, unless he flip'd himself by _Stealth_ into the Cloths
of the Gardener, which might be the Reason of her Mistake, for she
suppos'd she saw the Gardener) and whether they return'd again to
Corruption, or ascended into Heaven. For want of these specifical
Circumstances, the _Evangelist_ has told us a Tale, that has neither
Head nor Foot to it: and unless the Fathers mystically answer, to
Satisfaction, every one of the aforesaid _Queries_, I'll reject this
Story for mere Romance and Imposture.

These and many other historical and seemingly miraculous Stories of
the Gospel, are some time to be taken into Consideration; for I will
not give this Work over, till I have demonstrated beyond all
Contradiction, that the evangelical Writings are but the Shadow of
Divine Mysteries; and that literal Interpreters, whom[144] _Origen_
calls _vulgar Capacities_, are under a Mistake, if they think, they
understand any Thing, as they ought, of the four Gospels.

I should conclude now, as it becomes a _Moderator_, with an Address to
_Infidels_ and _Apostates_, the great Combatants in this Controversy.
But I have not Room to be as large, as I would, in my Exhortations to
them distinctly, so I can only desire them to continue the Controversy
with Zeal and Vigour, not doubting but it will end to the Honour of
Jesus, the Good of his Church, and the Happiness of Mankind. The blessed
Fruits of this Controversy are already seen and felt in the almost Cure
of a most malignant Distemper, call'd _Bigottry_, which has been the
Bane of human Society, and in Times past more destructive of the World
than either War or Pestilence. Go on then, _Great_ and _Good Sirs_, till
the Cure is perfected. And as you merit Praises and Rewards for your
several Labours; So I hope you'll meet with them. The _Nobility_ and
_Gentry_, of the Kingdom, as I learn, are sensibly touch'd with the
Usefulness of this Controversy; whereupon it is to be hoped the
_Legislative Authority_ will soon give Thanks to the great Mr. _Grounds_
and Mr. _Scheme_ for their Pains in it; and not forget to do Justice to
the _Bishops_ and _Clergy_ according to their Merits. But I can't stay
here to talk more on this Head, being obliged to make an Epistolary

_P. S._ To Mr. _T. Ray_, the Author of a _Discourse_, call'd _Our
Saviour's Miracles vindicated_, &c. As I, _Sir_, enter'd the _Press_,
you came forth, or I might possibly have paid more of my Respects to
you another Way. But upon mature Consideration, I found a properer
Reply could not be made to you, than is the foregoing Discourse;
which, if you are not sick of your former Performance, will find you
some more Work. And that you may write more pertinently against this
Discourse, than you did against my other, I'll give you some
Instructions, _viz._ if you think of writing to the Purpose, you must
prove these two Things; _First_, that the Fathers did not hold the
Stories of _Jesus_'s Miracles to be typical and figurative; and
_Secondly_, that _Jesus_'s Miracles neither will nor can receive a
mysterious and more wonderful Accomplishment. But you have not said
one Syllable to either of these Points; consequently have written
nothing to the Purpose against me. As for Instance; In the Miracle of
_Jesus_'s _driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple_: You
should prove, _First_ that the Fathers don't hold that Miracle to be
typical of the future Ejection of _Bishops_, _Priests_, and _Deacons_
out of the Church, that make Merchandize of the Gospel: And
_Secondly_, that it was impossible that the Miracle should receive
such an Accomplishment. But you have done nothing of this. So, if you
should attempt again to write against this Discourse, as for Instance,
against my Explication of the Miracle of _Jesus_'s healing the Woman,
that _had an Issue of Blood_; you must prove that _that_ Story neither
was in the Opinion of the Fathers Typical, nor could receive a
mystical Accomplishment; or you may as well hold your Peace. And
after all, whether your Reasonings for the Letter of Christ's
Miracles, are equal to mine against it, let our Readers judge, who
will easily discern, that you jump over my choicest Invectives against
the Letter, as if you was afraid of being touch'd by them.

As to your charging me falsly in one or two Places, with
Misrepresentations of the Fathers, I'll expostulate that Matter with
you, when I hear that the _Bishop_ of _London_ gives your Performance,
the Reputation of a solid, and substantial one, by a Change of your
_Cloak_ into a _Gown_, which you seem to aim at; or you had never so
besmear'd the _Bishop_ with your Compliments, nor had been so
mealy-mouth'd as to the Point of Liberty.

But what need you, _Sir_, have told the World, that you take me for an
_Unbeliever of the Scriptures_. If the _Bishop_'s wise Prosecution of
me for an _Infidel_ had not given you the Hint, you could never of
your self have made that Discovery. And why did you not join the
Fathers with me in Unbelief? I thought I had been of the same Faith
with them. A Man of your Penetration into another's Principles, will,
I suppose, from this present going Discourse, conclude me to be a
downright _Atheist_. And what must I do then to clear my self!

If you write any more, _Sir_, I desire you, without making more Haste
than good Speed, to be as expeditious as you can; or you will not
prevent my Publication of another Discourse, like these two, to the
Honour of _Jesus_, to whom be Glory for ever and ever. _Amen._

                               ~_FINIS._~

FOOTNOTES:

[79] _Matt. Ch._ ix. _Luke Ch._ viii. _Mark Ch._ v.

[80] Factum quidum est, &, ita ut narratur, impletum. _In Serm._
lxxvii. _Sect._ 7.

[81] _On Mat. Chap._ ix.

[82] _Matt. Ch._ ix. _v._ 21.

[83] Non autem Fimbria Jesu, sed ejus Cogitatio eam salvam fecit. _In
Loc. Marci._

[84] _Matt. Ch._ xiii. _v._ 58.

[85] In Locum _Matt._

[86] Illa vero Mulier quæ Fluxum Sanguinis patiebatur, Ecclesiam
figurabat ex Gentibus. St. _August. in Serm._ lxxvii. _Sect._ 8.
Præparatur igitur Mulier, in cujus Typo universalis Ecclesia sub
specie designetur. _Paschas. Ratbert. in Loc. Matt._

[87] Hæc Mulier, i. e. Sancta Ecclesia de Gentibus congregata quæ
lapsu Criminum deperibat Sancti _Ambrosii in Loc. Luc._ Ut Mulier, quæ
fluxum sanguinis patiebatur, &c. ita omnis Anima percussa incurabili
Vulnere Peccati, habens fontem pravarum Cogitationum, &c. _Macarii
Ægypt. in Hom._ xx.

[88] Επιγαζες γαρ την φοινικην αμαρτιαν. _In Orat._ XL.

[89] Quæ est enim hæc Mulier nisi Ecclesia Gentium--Fluxum Sanguinis
patiebatur, quia in suorum Peccatorum Sanguine versabatur; quia
Sanguinum Rapina & Occisione nutriebatur. _In Dominic._ xxiv.

[90] Adversus Hæreses. _Lib._ I. _Cap._ iii.

[91] _Revel. Chap._ xii. _v._ 6.

[92] Excellentes Verbi Prædicatores tanquam magni Medici.--_Sancti
August. in Psal._ LXXXVII. _Sect._ 10.

[93] Per hos enim Medicos, Ariolos & Philosophos intelligere possumus,
quorum persuasionibus cæteri credentes a fidei Veritate aberrantes ad
Animæ Sanitatem attingere non valebant. _In Dominic._ xxiv.

[94] Per Medicos intellige falsos Theologos. _In Loc. Marci._

[95] _Mark Ch._ v. _v._ 26.

[96] Medici Molestiam potius quam Sanitatem ægrotanti præbentes.
_Ephræm. Syri._ p. 63.

[97] _Mark Ch._ v. _v._ 34.

[98] Dei Posteriora sunt novissima tempora. _Origen in Psal._ xxxvi.

[99] Vestimenta Jesu sunt Sermones & Scripta Evangeliorum. _Origen in
Matt. Ch._ xvii.

[100] _Luke Ch._ xiii.

[101] In Muliere infirma est Figura Ecclesiæ. _Theoph. Antioch. in
Loc. Lucæ._ Unde intelligitur illa Mulier in Typo Ecclesiæ a Domino
sanata & erecta, quam curvaverat Infirmitas, alligante Satana, _Sancti
August. de Trinit. Lib._ iv. _Sect._ 7. In Typo Ecclesiæ fæminam
salvat. _Sancti Ambros. in Loc. Lucæ._

[102] Totum Genus humanum tanquam ista Mulier curvatum est ad
terram,--Diabolus & Angeli ejus Animas hominum curvaverunt ad terras,
id est, ut pronæ in ea quæ terrena, superna non quærerent. _Sancti.
August. in Serm._ cccxcii. Qui occidentem sequuntur Literam terrena
sapiunt. _Sancti Hieron. in Lib. Amos, Ch._ i.

[103] Quid illa Mulier octo decem Annos habens in Infirmitate. Sex
Diebus Deus perfecit opera sua. Ter seni decem & octo faciunt. Quod
ergo significavit triennium in Arbore, hoc octo decem Anni in illa
Muliere. _In. Serm._ cx.

[104] _Luke Ch._ xiii. 7.

[105] 1 _Cor. Ch._ xiii. 9, 10.

[106] Ut Deus sex Dies in tantis Rebus fabricandis laboravit; ita &
Religio ejus & Veritas in his sex millibus Annorum laboret, necesse est,
malitia dominante & prevalente. Et rursus, quoniam perfectis operibus
requievit Die septimo, eumque benedixit; necesse est, ut in sine sexti
millessimi Anni Malitia omnis aboleatur e terra & regnet per Annos mille
justitia; sitq; tranquilltas & requies a Laboribus, quos Mundus jamdiu
perpessus est. _In Lanctant. Instit. Lib._ VII. _Ch._ xiv. Dies septimus
etiam nos ipsi erimus quando (Christi) Benedictione & sanctificatione
fuerimus pleni & refecti; ibi vacantes videbimus, quoniam ipse est Deus.
_Sancti August. de Civit. Dei. Lib._ XXII. _Ch._ xxx.

[107] Contemnenda non est accurata circa Nomina Diligentia ei qui
volucrit prole intelligere sacras Literas. _In Johan. Evang. Tom._ 8.

[108] Jam Archi-Synagogus adumbrat omnes Sacerdotes, &c. _In. Hom._ xii.

[109] Caluminabantur autem erigenti, qui, nisi curvi? _In Serm._
cccxcii.

[110] Sed nesciebat Archi-Synagogus vel hoc vel illud multo
excellentius sacramentum, quod Sabbato curando Dominus intimabat, quia
scilicet post sex hujus seculi Ætates perpetuæ Vitæ immortalis erat
gaudia daturus. _Venerab. Bed. in Loc._

[111] Ante Christum in cogniti & a solo sciente detecti. _In Lib._ II.
_adv. Gentes_.

[112] Consequens autem est ei, qui cognoscit quæ sit Hierusalem in
divisione veræ Hæreditatis filiorum Isræl, ut intelligat Sermonem de
Gehenna. _In Matt. Ch._ xxiii.

[113] Ego puto quod nomina hæc Scriptura divina non pro Historia
narraverit sed pro Causis & Rebus,--non enim tam Regum quam Vitiorum
Nomina, quæ regnant in hominibus referuntur. _In Numer. Ch._ xxxi.

[114] Quid ergo mirum videtur, si per singula genera Peccatorum
singuli Dæmones ascribuntur. _In Lib. Josu. Ch._ xi.

[115] Sed in alio quodam Libello, qui apellatur Testamentum duodecem
Patriarcharum, talem quendam sensum invenimus, quod per singulos
peccantes, singuli Satanæ intelligi debeant. Evidentius autem & ipsa
Nominis ejus interpretatio hoc idem significare videtur; _Satanas_
namq; Adversarius dicitur. Omnes ergo qui adversantur dei voluntati,
Satanæ possunt dici. _Ibid._

[116] On Miracles, _p._ 36.

[117] Quamdiu vera Pax veniat, & Sabbatismus, & Septem decadarum
Numerus.--Ecclesia non plenam recipiat Libertatem. _Sancti. Hieron. in
Zechar. Ch._ i.

[118] Illa Mulier curvata intelligitur figurare Ecclesiam, quam _in
Sexta Mundi Ætate_ a Captivitate Diaboli Jesus liberabit. _In Quæst._
25. _Dialog._ LXV _Quæst._

[119] Vidi Angelum habentem Clarem & Catenam ad ligandum
draconem.--_In Sexto Annorum Millenario_ hæc Res agitur. _De Civit.
Dei. L._ XX. _Ch._ vii.

[120] _Revel. Ch._ xx. _v._ 2.

[121] Propter Infinitatem Annorum Mille Annos dixit. _In Serm. de
Pænitentia._

[122] Diaboli Forman assumimus--Leonis Personam induimus &
Draconis,--quando crudeles & callidi sumus. _Origen. in Luc. Hom._ viii.

[123] _Mark Ch._ viii. _v._ 33.

[124] Defence of Christianity, _p._ 8.

[125] Doctioribus inter Judæos notissimum est,--quod Moses qui primus
fuit Salvator Isrælis etiam in omni Vita & Operibus suis fuerit Typus
& Figura ultimi Redemptoris. _Christian. Meyer de Gen. Christi_, p.
145. Judæi Veteres expectabant similem Ægyptiacæ Liberationem, ut
scilicet Pharaoh & omnis ejus Exercitus qui per 430 Annos Populum Dei
Captivum tenuit, in Mari Rubro submersus est; sic etiam Romani qui
eodem Annorum Numero Judæos possessuri, Ultione Domini deleantur.
_Sancti Hieron. in Joel. Ch._ v.

[126] See the Life of _William Lilly_.

[127] See Dr. _Hammond_ on the Place.

[128] Percontando de Viro, Occasionem cepit occulta revelandi. _Sancti
Cyril. Alex. in Loc._

[129] _John Ch._ x. _v._ 24.

[130] Fortasse verum non erat, _Judæos cum Samaritanis Commmercium non
habere_,--ac ne illud quidem verum, _neque Haustorium habes, & Puteus
altus est_,--fortasse etiam neque illud, _quod Jacob ex Puteo biberit,
& filii ejus, & Pecora_ ejus. _Origen. in Loc._

[131] Plena Mysteriis & gravida Sacramentis. _Sancti August. in Johan.
Ch._ iv.

[132] Evangelica Sacramenta in Domini nostri Jesu Christi dictis
factisque signata non omnibus patent, & ea nonnulli minus diligenter,
minusque sobrie interpretando, afferunt plerumque pro salute
Perniciem, & pro Cognitione Veritatis Errorem, inter quæ illud est
Sacramentum quod Scriptum est de hac Samaritana, _&c._ _In Quæst._ 63,
_de_ Lxxxiii. _Quest._

[133] Ως εν τυπω παλιν ημιν και δι αινιγματος υποδεικνευς. _In Loc.
Johan._

[134] Illa Mulier Typum gerebat Ecclesiæ, quæ ventura erat ex
Gentibus--Ecclesiæ non justificatæ, sed justificandæ. _Sancti. August.
in Loc. Johan._

[135] Tunc fatigatur Christus, quando nullam Virtutem in Populo suo
recognoscit. _Sancti August. in Serm._ xciii. _Appen._

[136] Hora sexta id est, sexta Ætate Generis Humani. _Sancti August.
in Quæst._ 64. lxxxiii. _Quæst._

[137] Puteus est Divina Scriptura, scientia scatens, ut aqua, Cujus
putei Profunditas sunt plena Mysteriis Symbola. _In Theoph. Ceram
Homil._ xxxviii. _de Samaritana_.

[138] Lex secundum Literam est aqua amara. _Hieronym. in Ezekiel. Ch._
xlvii. Qui bibit ex hac aqua sitiet rursus, id est, qui participat
profunditatem humanæ sapientiæ, prudentesque Rationes, receptis
Intelligentiis judicio suo inventis, tamen rursus secundo cogitans,
denuo dubitabit de his in quibus requieverat. _Origen. in Loc. Johan._

[139] _In Locum Johan. Evang._

[140] Quinque enim Viros habuisti, & nunc quem habes _non est Vir
tuus_. Sed non sunt hæc carnabiter accipienda, ne huic ipsi Mulieri
Samaritanæ similes videamur,--Per quinque Viros, quinque Libros Mosis
Nonnulli accipiunt--sed quinque Viri intelliguntur quinque Corporis
sensus. Et quia naturales sunt ipsi Sensus, qui ætatem primam regunt,
recte dicuntur Mariti. _In Quæst._ 64. _de_ lxxxiii. _Quæst._

[141] _Et nunc quem habes non est Vir tuus_; Quia non est in te
(Ecclesia) Spiritus qui intelligat Deum, cum quo legitimum potes
habere conjugium; sed Error Diaboli potius dominatur, qui te
adulterina Contaminatione corrumpit. _Venerab. Bedæ in Locum._

[142] Magna quidem acta sunt Sacramenta, sed augustum Tempus est, ut
omnia pertractentur. _In Serm._ xci. _Sect._ 2.

[143] _In his Dissertation on the Blessing of_ Judah.

[144] Ut Lex Umbram continet futurorum bonorum, quæ declarantur ab ea
Lege; sic etiam Evangelium, quod vel a quibusque vulgaribus intelligi
existimatur, Umbram docet Mysteriorum Christi. _In Præfat. ad Johan.
Evang._

                                A THIRD
                               DISCOURSE
                                 ON THE
                                MIRACLES
                                 OF OUR
                               _SAVIOUR_,

                         In VIEW of the Present
                           Controversy between INFIDELS
                           and APOSTATES.

           _Litteratos gravissimo Somno stertere convincam_,
                                                HIERON.

                           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

                               _RICHARD_,

                      Lord Bishop of St. DAVID'S.

MY LORD,

_In your_ Sermon _before the_ Societies _for Reformation of Manners,
you are pleased to give a Character of my former_ Discourses on
Christ's Miracles; _which, tho' I don't at all like, yet I thank you
for the Favour of taking Notice of them; a_ Favour _that I have long'd
for from a considerable_ Clergyman; _but could not flatter myself
with the Hopes of receiving it from so great a_ Prelate.

_Some of the inferior_ Clergy, _whom I despise for their Ignorance and
Malice, have before in their Conversation represented me as an_
impious _and_ blasphemous Infidel; _and I have met with Affronts for
it: But I never imagin'd that any, much less your_ Lordship, _would
have ventur'd such a Character of me from the_ Press, _for fear of a
Resentment, which would not be agreeable. Surely your_ Lordship _has
not read my_ Discourses, _but has taken a Report of them upon Trust,
from some Ecclesiastical_ Noodle; _or you could never have been so
much mistaken about my Design in them_.

_I took myself to be a_ Christian _of the same Faith with the Fathers
of the Church; and, without Vanity, think, I have publish'd some
Tracts, in Defence of Christianity, equal, if not superior to any
Thing this Age has produced. I repeatedly also in my_ Discourses on
Miracles, _to obviate the Prejudices of an ignorant_ Clergy, _made
solemn Protestations of the Sincerity of my Design, not to do Service
to Infidelity, but to make Way for the Demonstration of_ Jesus_'s
Messiahship from Prophecy: But all these Asseverations of the
Integrity of my Heart, it seems, stand for nothing (and I don't wonder
at it) with the_ Clergy, _who in their Principles, their Oaths, and
Subscriptions are so accustom'd to prevaricate with God and Man. I
shall make no more serious Protestations of my Faith, but expect your_
Lordship _should soon publish a Defence of your foul_ Charge _against
me, that I may see what Skill you have in the impious and blasphemous
Writings of an_ Infidel.

_And if your railing_ Accusation _be not soon followed with a
Dissertation of more Reason, I shall insist on a publick Reparation of
the Injury done to my Reputation by your_ vile _and_ slanderous _Sermon;
and appeal to the worshipful_ Societies _for Reformation of Manners,
whether it be not just and reasonable, you should do one or the other_.

_Now I have laid hold on your_ Lordship, _than whom I could not have
wish'd for an_ Adversary, _that will do me more Honour to overcome, I
will hold you fast; and you must expect to be teaz'd and insulted from
the_ Press, _if you enter not the Lists against me_.

_A clear Stage_, my Lord, _and no Favour. If you have the Sword of the
Spirit in your Hand, cut as sharply as you can with it. I had
conceiv'd a great Opinion of your Learning, and should have been a
little apprehensive of the Power of it; if you had not in your_ Sermon
_betray'd as great Weakness and Ignorance, as could be in a poor_
Curat; _or you had never asserted that the_ Greek _Commentators
adher'd more strictly, to the litteral Sense of the Holy Scriptures;
as if you knew not, that St_. Theophilus _of_ Antioch, _and even_
Origen _himself and others, the greatest_ Allegorists, _if a
Comparison may be made, were_ Commentators _of the_ Greek _Church_.

_The sooner your_ Lordship _appears from the_ Press, _the better, in as
much as you may possibly prevent my Publication of more_ Discourses _of
this Kind. And that it may not be long first, I will accept of a
Dissertation from you, on any two or three of the Miracles, I have
handled, as sufficient for all. Take your Choice of them: but don't I
beseech you, touch the Miracle of_ Jesus_'s driving the_ Buyers _and_
Sellers _out of the Temple, because it is a_ hot _one, and may possibly
burn your Fingers. The Miracles, that I have most ludicrously and, of
consequence, most offensively handled, are the_ two _of this present
Discourse. If you please_, my Lord, _let them be the easy and short Task
imposed on you. If you can defend the Letter of the Stories of these_
two _Miracles, I'll quietly give up the Rest to you._

_So heartily thanking your_ Lordship _for the Favour done me, in
taking Notice of my_ Discourses on Miracles, _which shall be turn'd to
good Use and Advantage, I subscribe myself_,

[Sidenote: _Feb. 26. 1728_]

  _My LORD_,
    _Your most obliged_
      _Humble Servant_,
  Tho. Woolston.

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

My two former Discourses having met with a favourable Reception, I am
encourag'd to go on and publish another; which, without any more
Preface, I enter upon, by a Repetition of three general Heads, at
first proposed to be spoken to, and they were,

I. To show that the Miracles of healing all Manner of bodily Diseases,
which _Jesus_ was justly 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
whole or in part, were never wrought, as they are 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 a Witness of his divine Authority; and to show
that he could not properly and ultimately refer to those he then
wrought in the _Flesh_, but to those Mystical ones, that he would do
in the _Spirit_, of which those wrought in the Flesh are but mere
Types and Shadows.

Tho' I have already, spoken what may be thought sufficient, to the
first of these Heads; yet I have several Things still, both from
Reason and Authority, to add to it; but having not here a convenient
Place for that purpose, I defer it to a better Opportunity; and so
pass immediately to the Resumption of my

II. Second general Head, and that is, 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 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.

To this Purpose I have taken into Examination six 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, and

6. Of his telling the _Samaritan_ Woman her Fortune of having had five
Husbands, and being then an Adulteress with another Man.

Whether I have not prov'd the Storys of these Miracles, either in
whole or in part, to consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and
incredibilities, according to the Proposition before us, I leave my
_Readers_ to judge; and now will take in Hand

7. A Seventh Miracle of _Jesus_; _viz._ that[145] _of his cursing the
Figtree, for not bearing Fruit out of Season_; which Miracle, upon the
bare mention of it, appears to be such an absurd, foolish, and
ridiculous, if not malicious and ill-natured Act in _Jesus_, that I
question, whether, for Folly and Absurdity, it can be equalled in any
Instance of the Life of a reputed wise Man. The Fathers, such as
_Origen_, St. _Augustin_, St. _John of Jerusalem_, and others, have
all said as smart Things, as the wittiest Infidels can, against the
Letter of this Story. St. _Augustin_[146] very plainly says, that
_this Fact in Jesus_, upon Supposition that it was done, was _a
foolish one_. If therefore I treat this Story a little more
ludicrously than ordinary, and expose the Folly of the Fact as well as
of the modern Belief of it, I hope their Authority and Example will
plead my Excuse for it.

_Jesus_ was hungry, it seems, and being disappointed of Figs, to the
Satisfaction of his Appetite, cursed the Figtree. Why so peevish and
impatient? Our _Divines_, when they please, make _Jesus_ the most
patient, resign'd and easy under Sufferings, Troubles and
Disappointments, of any Man. If he really was so, he could hardly have
been so much out of Humour, for want of a few Figs, to the Allay of
his Hunger. But to curse the Figtree upon it, was as foolishly and
passionately done, as for another Man to throw the Chairs and Stools
about the House; because his Dinner is not ready at a critical Time,
or before it could be got ready for him.

But _Jesus_ was hungry, some will say, and the Disappointment provoked
him. What if he was hungry? He should, as he knew the Return of his
Appetite, have made a better and more certain Provision for it. Where
was _Judas_ his Steward and Caterer with his Bag of Victuals as well
as Money? Poor Forecast, and Management amongst them, or _Jesus_ had
never trusted to the uncertain Fruits of a Figtree, which he espy'd at
a Distance, for his Breakfast.

And if _Jesus_ was frustrated of a long'd-for Meal of Figs, what need he
have so reveng'd the Disappointment on the[147] senseless and faultless
Tree? Was it, because he was forc'd to fast longer than usual and
expedient? not so, I hope neither: Could not Angels, if he was in a
desert Place, have administered unto him? Or could not he miraculously
have created Bread for himself and his Company, as he multiplied or
increased the Loaves for his Thousands in the Wilderness? What Occasion
then for his being out of Humour for want of Food? If he was of Power to
provide Bread for others on a sudden, he might sure have supply'd his
own Necessities, and so have kept his Temper, without breaking into a
violent Fit of Passion, upon present Want and Disappointment.

But what is yet worse, _the Time of Figs was not yet_, when Jesus
look'd and long'd for them. Did ever any one hear or read of any
thing more[148] unreasonable than for a Man to expect Fruit out of
Season? _Jesus_ could not but know this before he came to the Tree,
and if he had had any Consideration, he would not have expected Figs
on it, much less, if he had regarded his own Reputation, as a wise
Man, would he have so resented the Want of them. What, if a _Yeoman_
of _Kent_ should go to look for _Pipins_ in his Orchard at _Easter_,
(the supposed Time[149] that _Jesus_ sought for these Figs) and,
because of a Disappointment, cut down all his Trees; What then would
his Neighbours make of him; Nothing less, than a _Laughing-stock_; and
if the Story got into our publick News, he would be the Jest and
Ridicule of Mankind. How _Jesus_ salv'd his Credit upon this his wild
Prank; and prevented the Laughter of the _Scribes_ and _Pharisees_
upon it, I know not; but I cannot think of this Part of the Letter of
this Story, without smiling at it at this Day; and wonder our
_Divines_ are not laugh'd out of Countenance for reading it gravely,
and having _Jesus_ in Admiration for it.

Again, I would gladly know, whose Figtree this was, and whether
_Jesus_ had any legal Right to the Fruit, if haply he had found any on
it, or any Leave or Authority to smite it with a Curse for its
Unfruitfulness? As to the Tree's being _Jesus_'s Property, that could
not be. For he was so far from being either Landlord or Tenant, that
it's said he had not where to lay his Head. During the Time of his
Ministry, he was but a Wanderer, like a Mendicant Fryar, or an
itinerant Preacher, and before that Time was no better than a
Journeyman Carpenter (of whose Workmanship, I wonder, the Church of
_Rome_ has no holy Relicks, not so much as a Three-footed-stool, or a
Pair of Nutcrackers;) consequently he had no House nor Land of his own
by Law, much less any Figtree, and least of all _this_ which he espy'd
at a distance in his Travels. How then had he any Right to the Figs,
if he had met with any? I hope he ask'd Leave beforehand of the
Proprietor, or _Infidels_ will say of him, that if he had had an
Opportunity he would have been a _Rob-Orchard_. And it he had no Right
to the Fruit, much less to smite the Tree with a Curse; where was his
Honour,[150] _his Justice_, his Goodness, and his Honesty in this Act?
The _Evangelists_, if they would have us to think, _Jesus_ did no
wrong to any Man, should have left us somewhat upon Record, to
Satisfaction, in this Case; or _Infidels_, who have here Scope for it,
will think worse of _Jesus_, than possibly he may deserve. Whether
_Jesus_, modestly speaking, met with any Blame or Reprimand from the
Proprietor, for his Act of Execration, none can affirm or deny. But if
any one so spitefully and maliciously should destroy almost any other
Tree, whether fruitful or not, of another Man's, in this Country, he
would have good Luck, if he escaped the House of Correction for it.

And what now have our _Divines_ to say, to all this Reasoning against
the Letter of this Story? Nothing more than "That the Act of cursing the
Figtree, whether it be at this Distance of Time reconcilable to Reason,
Justice and Prudence or not, was a supernatural Work, above the Power of
Nature or Art to imitate; consequently it was a Miracle, and they will
admire and adore _Jesus_ for it." And to agree with them at present,
that it was a real Miracle, and a supernatural Event, yet I hope,
they'll acknowledge, that if _Jesus_, as St. _Augustin_[151] says, had,
instead of cursing the Figtree, made a dry, dead and withered one,
immediately to bud, flourish and revive, and in an Instant to bring
forth ripe Fruits, out of Season, it would have pleased them much
better. Such an Instance of his Power had been an indisputable Miracle:
Such an Instance of his divine Power had carry'd Goodness along with it,
and none of the foresaid Exceptions could have been made to it: Such an
Instance of his Almighty Power, had been a Demonstration of his being
Lord of the Creation, and Author of the Fruits of the Earth for the Use
of Man, in their Season, or he could not have produced them out of
Season: In such an Instance of Power, his Divine Care and Providence
against Hunger and Want would have been visible; and it would have been
an Admonition to us, to depend daily upon him for the Comforts and
Necessaries of Life: Such an Instance of his Power would have been, as
St. _Augustin_ says above, like his Miracles of healing Diseases, of
making the Languid, _Sound_; and the Feeble, _Strong_; and we might more
certainly have inferr'd from one with the other, that both were the
Operations of a good God. But this Instance of his cursing the Figtree
in this Fashion spoils the Credit, and sullies the Glory of his other
Miracles. It is in its own Nature of such a malevolent Aspect, that its
enough to make us suspect the Beneficence of _Christ_ in his other
Works, and to question whether there might not be some latent Poyson and
diabolical Design under the Colour of his fairer Pretences to Almighty
Power. It is so like the malignant Practices of _Witches_, who, as
Stories go, upon Envy, Grudge, or Distaste, smite their Neighbours
Cattle with languishing Distempers, till they die, that it's hard, if
not impossible, to distinguish one from the other, in Spite and Malice.
If _Mahomet_, and not _Jesus_, had been the Author of this Miracle, our
_Divines_ would presently have discover'd the _Devil_'s Foot in it, and
have said that _Satan_ drew him into a Scrape, in the Execution of this
mad and foolish Frolick, on purpose to expose _him_ for a _Wizard_ and
_his_ Musselmen of all Ages since for _Fools_ in believing on him. The
Spirit of _Christ_, who is all Love and Mercy, should, one would think,
breath forth nothing but Goodness and Kindness to Mankind; but that such
a pestilential Blast, like a mortiferous North-East Wind in some
Seasons, should proceed from his Mouth, to the Destruction of another
Man's harmless and inoffensive Tree, is what none upon Earth can account
for.

Our _Divines_, one or other of them, have publish'd several notable
Notions about Miracles, and have laid down good Rules to distinguish
_true_ from _false_ ones; but none of them, as far as I perceive, have
taken any Pains to shew the Consistence of _Jesus_'s Miracles to their
own Rules and Notions. Mr. _Chandler_, (who as the _Archbishop_[152]
says, has rightly slated the Notion of a Miracle) among his Rules of
judging by whom Miracles are perform'd, says,[153] _That the Things
pretended to be done, are to be such, as that it is consistent with
the Perfections of God to interest himself in_; and again, _they must
be such as answer to the Character of God as a good and gracious
Being_; and again, _It seems reasonable to believe, that whenever the
first and best of Beings is pleased to send an extraordinary Messenger
with a Revelation of his Will, he will furnish him with such Proofs of
his Mission, as may argue, not only the Power of him in whose Name be
comes, but his Love to Mankind, and his Inclination to do them good_.
I have no Dislike to these Notions of Mr. _Chandler_; but as it is not
to be questioned, that he (and the _Archbishop_ too) had this Miracle
of _Jesus_'s cursing the Figtree, and some others, as of his
_boisterous driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple_; of _his
sending the Devils into the Herd of Swine_; of _his turning Water into
Wine for the Use of Men, who had before well drank_, &c. in his View,
when he gave forth the foresaid Rules; (for acute and learned Writers
in Theology are supposed to have their Wits about them;) so it is to
be hop'd that he or the _Archbishop_ will soon publish somewhat to
reconcile these Miracles of _Jesus_ to their own Notions; tho' I don't
expect it before _latter Lammas_.

But after all, it may be questioned, if Infidels should go about it,
whether this Work of _Jesus_ was miraculous; and whether there was not
more of the Craft of Man, than of the Power of God in it; or to use
Mr. _Chandler_'s[154] Words, whether it don't _look like the little
Tricks and cunning Deceits of Impostors_. St. _Matthew_ says,
_presently the Figtree withered away_; but this _presently_ is an
indeterminate Time, and may be understood of a Day, or a Week or two,
as well as of the Moment in which the Words were spoken, _Let no Fruit
grow on thee henceforward for ever_. St. _Mark_ says, _that in the
Morning as the Disciples passed by; they saw the Figtree dry'd up from
the Roots_, which was at least the Day[155] after the Curse was
utter'd, so that there was certainly four and twenty Hours for its
withering; and if it is said that the _Tree dry'd up from the Roots_,
it does not imply that the Trunk of it perish'd, or was reduc'd to
nothing; but only that the green Leaves of the Whole, and of every
Part of it, were in a withering Condition: And might not all this be
done without a Miracle? What if _Jews_ and _Infidels_ should say, that
_Jesus_, being minded to impose on his Disciples and Followers, took a
secret Opportunity beforehand to lay his Carpenter's Ax to the Root of
this Tree, and so imperceptibly circumcised it, as that the Leaves
did, what they will do, wither in a Night and a Day's Time. God
forbid, that I should think, _Jesus_ did so; but as to the Possibility
of such a Fraud in an Impostor, none can doubt of it.

I am so far from thinking there was any such Fraud in this supposed
Miracle of _Jesus_, that I don't believe it was at all done by him
according to the Letter: And for this I have not only a clear and
intrinsick Proof from the Story itself; but the Authority of the
Fathers. St. _Ambrose_, treating on the Parable of the Figtree in[156]
St. _Luke_, intimates, that what St. _Matthew_ and St. _Mark_ write of
_Jesus_'s cursing the Figtree, is but[157] Part of the same Parable.
And St. _John_ of _Jerusalem_[158] says expressly enough, that the three
_Evangelists_ write of one and the same Figtree, consequently
parabolically, and that, what St. _Matthew_ and St. _Mark_ write of it,
was no more a literal Transaction, than the Parable in St. _Luke_.
Thanks to these holy Fathers for their ridding us of the Belief of the
Letter of this Story, which otherwise might have perplex'd us with its
Absurdities before urg'd. And to their Opinion I desire it may be added
and considered, whether it be not as reasonable in itself to take what
the three _Evangelists_ write of this Figtree as Part of one Story, as
well as, what they write of the _Woman with her Issue of Blood_, and of
_Jesus's calling the Devils out of the Madmen_, and of other Miracles
which are but several Relations of the same Story, Parable or Miracle,
Neither is it any Argument for a literal Transaction of this Miracle,
that the _Evangelists_ speak of it, as a Thing done: For, as _Origen_
says, there are some Things spoken of in the _Evangelists_, as Facts,
which were never transacted; so it is of the Nature of Prophecy (and
our Saviour in his whole Life prophesied) to speak of Things to come,
as if they were already past; because such Prophecies are not to be
understood till after their Accomplishment, and then the Reason of the
Use of the _præter_, instead of the _future_ Tense, in Prophecy, will be
visible. But what, in my Opinion, is an absolute Demonstration, that
there's no Truth in the Letter of this Story, is, what our Saviour adds,
upon the Disciples wondering at the sudden withering of the Figtree,
saying,[159] _that if they had Faith they should not only do what was
done to the Figtree; but should say to this Mountain_, (that was near
him, I suppose) _be thou removed and cast into the Sea, and it shall be
done_. But these Things were never litterally done by them, consequently
_Jesus_ himself did not litterally curse the Figtree; or the Disciples
wanted Faith for the doing the said Miracles, which is an Absurdity to
suppose; or _Jesus_ talked idly of a Promise to invest them with a
Power, they were never to be possess'd of. But of what ill Consequence
to Religion, either of these Suppositions is, let the old Objection in
_Paschasius Rathertus_[160] speak; which I shall not stay here to urge
and revive; but only say at present, that if _Jesus_ actually cursed a
Figtree, his Disciples ought to have done so too, and to remove
Mountains. If we adhere to the Letter in one Case, we must in the other
also; but we are only to look to the Mystery in both, or St.
_Augustin_[161] will tell us, that _Jesus_ utter'd vain, empty and
insignificant Words and Promises.

St. _Augustin_, who believes no more of the Letter of this Story, than
I do, says, that the Works of _Jesus_ are all figurative and of a
spiritual Signification, which is so manifest from his Act of cursing
the Figtree, as Men must,[162] _whether they will or not_ acknowledge
it. But he is mistaken: Tho' there might be none in his Time who
would question, that this supposed Fact of _Jesus_ had a mystical
Signification; yet if he had liv'd in our Days, he would have met with
_Divines_, who, for all the foresaid Absurdities and their Cogency to
drive us to Allegory, do adhere to the Letter only, whether the Truth,
Credibility and Reasonableness of it be defensible or not. But then to
do Justice to St. _Augustin_'s Assertion, he would have met with
others, who _against their Wills_, interpret this Miracle
figuratively, such as Dr. _Hammond_ and Dr. _Whitby_, who say, _Jesus_
cursed the Figtree by way of Type of the Destruction of the _Jewish_
State, which declined and wasted away after the Similitude of this
withering Tree. But why then don't these _Commentators_ allegorically
interpret and apply other Miracles of our Saviour? Because they think
the Letter will stand good and abide the Test without an Allegory. And
why do they allegorise this Miracle only? Because of the Difficulties
and Absurdities of the Letter, which they can't account for. And are
these Reasons good? No, certainly: The _Evangelists_ should have made
the Distinction for them. They should have told us, which Miracles are
to be allegoris'd and mystically applied, and which are not; or we
are to allegorise all or none at all. And how came these modern
Allegorists of this Miracle to apply it as they do, and to make it a
mystical Representation of the Ruin of the _Jewish_ State? Did they
take up this Notion of their own Heads, or did they borrow it of the
Fathers? Why in all Probability they took the Hint from the Fathers;
wherefore then don't they, what none of them do, cite and acknowledge
their Authors for it? Because, like Men of Subtilty, they would be
thought to devise it of themselves; for if they had quoted the Fathers
for it, the Fathers would have oblig'd them, upon their Authority, to
allegorise the rest of _Jesus_'s Miracles, in the way that I have
interpreted some of them; but this would not have agreed with their
Stomachs for many Reasons. No Thanks then to the aforesaid
_Commentators_ for their allegorical Application of this Miracle,
which they are again to desert, or abide the Consequence of
allegorising others also, which for their Interests and Reputations
they will not do. Therefore let them return again to the Letter of
this Miracle, and say for it, what is all that is to be said for it,
with _Victor Antiochenus_, an Apostatical Writer of the fifth
Century,[163] _that when we read this Passage of Scripture concerning
the Figtree_, Jesus _cursed, we ought not curiously to enquire whether
it was wisely or justly done of_ Jesus, _or not; but we ought to
contemplate and admire this Miracle, as well as that of_ Jesus'_s
drowning the Swine, notwithstanding some think it void of the Face of
Justice_. Ay, ay, our _Divines_ must allegorise all _Jesus_'s
Miracles, or betake themselves to this Opinion of _Victor_; which this
_Free-thinking_ Age will hardly let them quietly rest in. So,
supposing our _Divines_ to be, what they generally are, still
Ministers of the Absurdity of the Letter, I pass to the Consideration
of the Authority of the Fathers, and to see, whether we can't learn of
them this Parable of the Figtree.

Who or what is meant by the Figtree seems not to be agreed among the
Fathers; or, more properly speaking, they are not agreed, all of them
to apply it always to one and the same Thing. Some, as[164] _Gregory_
the _Great_, say Human Nature or Mankind is typified by the Figtree.
Others, as[165] St. _Hilary_, say the _Jewish_ Church or State is
meant by it. Others, as[166] _Origen_ say, it is a Type of the Church
of Christ. So do the Fathers seem to be divided in their Opinions; but
it is without any Difference or Inconsistency with each other. For as
there is, according to the Fathers, Mystery upon Mystery in all the
Actions of _Jesus_; so I believe the Figtree here, as a Type, may be
properly enough apply'd to the foresaid three Purposes. And if the
Fathers had been ask'd their Opinion in this Case, I dare say, they
would have said so too. This is certain that _Origen_[167] understands
it as applicable to the _Jewish_ as well as the _Christian_ Church.
And St. _Augustin_, as Occasion offers itself, takes it in the
foresaid three Senses. When they understand it as a Type of all
Mankind, they say that the _three Years_ of its Unfruitfulness are to
be interpreted of the[168] _three grand Periods_ of the World; the
_one_ before the Law of _Moses_; _another_ under the Law; and the
_third_ under the Gospel; at the Conclusion of which _third_ Period,
as it was an ancient and common Opinion, _Jesus_ in Spirit would come
to his Figtree of Mankind, and animadvert on them for their
Unfruitfulness, not by any Destruction of human Nature, but by a
Cessation of its Unfruitful State, which then will wither away, and be
turn'd into a fruitful one against the grand Sabbath, or acceptable
Year, which is the Year signified in the Parable, _that it is to be
let alone to bring forth Fruit in_. They that understand the Figtree
as a Type of the _Jewish_ State, mean by the _three Years Jesus_ came
to it, the _three Years_ of his preaching among the _Jews_; at the End
of which, after _Christ_'s Passion and Resurrection, the _Jewish_
State, like the Figtree, withered away, and, for its Unfruitfulness,
was rooted up. They, that understand the Figtree as a Figure of the
Church of _Christ_, by the _three Years_, mean the apocalyptical
_twelve hundred and sixty Days_ (that is, three Years and a half) of
the Church's barren and unfruitful State in the Wilderness, at the
Conclusion of which, the Fathers say, _Jesus_ will come again to his
Church or Figtree, seeking Fruit on it.

Some perhaps may be ready here to interpose with a Question, and say,
how will _Jesus_ then come to his Church? I have carefully perused the
Fathers upon this Question, and can't find that they mean any more by
_Christ_'s second or spiritual Advent, than that clear _Truth_, right
_Reason_ and divine _Wisdom_ (which are the mystical Names of _Jesus_)
will descend upon the Church, on the Clouds of the Law and the Prophets,
to the Removal of her unfruitful and unprofitable Errors, and to enable
her to bring forth the Fruits of the Spirit, against the grand Sabbath.
Neither can any reasonable Man conceive how otherwise[169] _the Lord
should come_, (not _with ten thousand of his Saints_, as our Translation
has it, but) εν μυριασιν αγιαις αυτου, that is, as _Origen_ interprets,
_in his holy thousands_ of Allegorists ποιησαι κρισεν, _to criticise
upon all_ the Scripture, and to convince _Ministers of the Letter_ of
their abominable Errors, and of their horrid Blasphemies spoken,
preach'd and printed against the Holy, (Ghost or) Spirit of the Law and
Prophets. As to that literal and common Pulpit-Story (with all its
Appendages) of _Jesus_'s second Coming on ætherial Clouds, as on a
Wool-sack, in his human, tho' glorious and majestick Appearance, for the
Resurrection of Mens Bodies, by the Sound of a Trumpet, in the Audience
of the Dead, _&c._ it is the most absurd, nonsensical and
unphilosophical, (such groundless and worthless Stuff have the _Clergy_
sold and preach'd to God's People!) that ever was told against Reason,
against prophetick and evangelical Scripture, and against other antient
and good Authority. It is no Place here to multiply Testimonies and
Arguments to either of these Purposes which my Readers, if they do but
attend, will see no Occasion for. But if our _Divines_ should think I
have put a false Gloss on the Text of St. _Jude_ above, I have a Bundle
of Arguments and Testimonies to produce in Defence of it, at their
Service.

In the Parable of St. _Luke_, it is said, _Lo, these three Years come
I seeking Fruit on this Figtree_; as if _Jesus_ came annually and
successively for _three Years_ together: but according to the
Original, it ought to be read, _Lo, it is three Years and I now
come_, or, _Lo, the three Years are now past, and I come_. And here it
is to be noted, that whether we understand the Figtree, as a Figure of
the Church in particular, or of Mankind in general; the mystical
Number of _three Years_ will terminate about the same Time, against
the Evangelical Sabbath, on which the Unfruitfulness of the Church, or
of Mankind, according to the Fathers, is to have an End put to it.

And _Jesus_, when he came to the Figtree, _found nothing thereon but
Leaves only_: So _Jesus_, when he comes to his Church, will find
nothing in her but Leaves only. And what is here meant by Leaves? Let
the Fathers, such as[170] St. _Hilary_, St. _John_[171] _of
Jerusalem_, and[172] St. _Theophylact_ tell us, who by Leaves
understand a vain and empty Appearance of Wisdom and good Works, or
the Words and Letter of the Scriptures, which are the Leaves of the
Oracle, without any Figs of spiritual Interpretations of them. And
whether this ben't the Case of the Church at present, our _Divines_
are to consider. The Figs that _Jesus_ may be supposed to look for at
his Coming, are not only the Fruits of the Spirit mention'd by St.
_Paul_, but[173] _spiritual Interpretations_ of the Scriptures, which
St. _Jerome_[174] says are _mystical Figs_; because, as ripe Figs are
sweet to the Palate of our Mouths, so are they no less delicious to
the Soul of Man.

But _Jesus_ is said to be _hungry_ after Figs: so will _Jesus_ in
Spirit _hunger_ for the mystical Figs of his Church, that is, as
_Origen_[175] rightly interprets, he will earnestly desire, like a Man
that is hungry, the Fruits of the Spirit in his Church, which will be
as grateful to him as Figs can be to a Man naturally. To understand
this Expression of _Jesus_'s _Hunger_ literally, is such a mean
Circumstance of Life, that unless it be, what's next to impossible,
necessarily introductory to some noble Transaction, its unfit to be
remember'd of a _Saint_ in History. _Diogenes Laertius_ would have
disdain'd to mention such a frivolous Circumstance in the Life of a
Philosopher as _this_ of _Jesus_. But if we understand this _Hunger_
in _Jesus_ mystically, and figuratively of his Desires of the Fruits
of the Spirit in his Church, it is sublime and noble; and the Emblem
confessedly proper and instructive.

But _Jesus_ is said to come to the Figtree at an unseasonable Time;
_For the Time of Figs was not yet_; which Expression has been the
Perplexity of _Commentators_, who with all their Wit and Sagacity
can't get well over it. I shall not mention here all or any of their
pretended Solutions of this Difficulty; but let us see whether we
can't easily and at once unlose it. St. _Mark_'s Words are ου γαρ ην
καιρος συκων, which are and have been commonly translated, _for the
Time of Figs is not yet_. But if we change the _Point_ into an
_Interrogation_, and read thus, _for was it not the Time of Figs?_ the
Difficulty vanishes as certainly, as that it is absurd to suppose
_Christ_ should come to his Figtree and look for Fruit, when he could
not reasonably expect any. This my Solution of this Difficulty
certainly serves the Purpose of the mystical Interpretation; and if
it does not the litteral, I answer, we are not to heed the Letter,
which seldom or never has any Sense or Truth in it. But, by the by, it
does the litteral too, since there are no Grounds from the Text to
think, what has been the common Opinion, that it was about the
_Jewish_ Passover that _Jesus_ came to the Figtree. If this my
Solution of the Difficulty don't please, I must say with[176]
_Heinsius_, that it must be left as a Knot for _Elias_ to untie, who,
according to the[177] ancient _Jews_, is first to gather Fruits off
this mystical Figtree, and present them to the intellectual Taste of
Mankind. But, that my Solution is good, will appear by what follows.

And _Jesus_ finding Leaves only says, in St. _Matthew_, to the
Figtree, _Let no Fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever_; which
(with its parallel Place in St. _Mark_) is in my Opinion a false
Translation: The Original is, Μηκετι εκ σου καρπος γενηται εις τον
αιωνα, and ought to be englished, _not as yet_, or _not until now_,
(that I come) _against the_ (grand) _Age_ (of the Sabbath) has Fruit
grown on thee. So that the Miracle of _Jesus_ was to make the Figtree
of the Church fruitful; and if her preceding unfruitful State, which
(in St. _Mark_) _Jesus_ is said to curse, or rather to devote to Ruin,
wasted away, it was by Consequence.

But what Time of Day was it that _Jesus_ came to the Figtree? It was in
the _Morning_. And of what Day? That is uncertain as to the Letter, but
according to the mystical Extent of the _Three Years_, whether we
understand the Figtree as a Type of the Church, or of all Mankind of all
Ages, it will be on the _Morning_ of the great Sabbath, when, upon the
Appearance of the Light of Christ, like the Rising of the Sun, an
unfruitful and erroneous Church must needs wither away. And the
Disciples on the said _Morning_ will, as _Origen_[178] says, with their
intellectual Eyes behold her waste with Admiration. And then too, they
under Christ _will do what is done to the Figtree_, of the Church, and
_remove Mountains_ of Antichristian Power, that exalt themselves
against him; as the Fathers interpret, and I need not explain.

And what is meant by the Means, which St. _Luke_ speaks of, to make
the Figtree of the Church fruitful on the Sabbatical Year; _the Year
it is to be let alone to bear Fruit in_? There must be _digging about
it_, that is[179] into the Earth of the Letter of the Scriptures, and
_dunging_ of it, that is calling[180] to Remembrance her Sins and
Errors of the Time past, which rationally speaking will make the
Church to bring forth good Fruit.

After this Fashion is the rest of the Parable of the Figtree to be
allegorized out of the Fathers. St. _Gregory_[181] the _Great_ and St.
_Augustin_, make these two Stories or Parables, _viz._ of the Figtree,
and of the Woman with her _Spirit of Infirmity_, as they are blended
together in St. _Luke_, to be Figures of the same Mystery. The
_eighteen Years_ of the Woman's Infirmity and the _three Years_ of the
Figtree's Unfruitfulness, they will have to be mystically
synchronical. And the Woman's _Incurvity_ to the Earth is, they say,
significative of the same Thing with the _Unfruitfulness_ of the
Figtree. And the _Erection_ of the Woman on the Sabbath is of the same
Import with the _Reservation_ of the Tree for Fruitfulness on that
Day. And let any one see, if they don't admirally agree, as I have
interpreted these two Parables.

Before I dismiss this Story of the Figtree, I can't but adore the
Providence of God, that the Miracle has been hitherto placed in the
withering away of the Tree. If the Miracle had been a plain Story of a
dead and wither'd Tree's being made to bring forth Leaves and Fruit on
a sudden; this would have been such a manifestly supernatural Work,
and so agreeable to modern Notionists about Miracles, that Mens
Thoughts would have been so absorpt in the Consideration of the
Letter, as they would never have extended them to the Contemplation of
the Mystery. And our Divines would have made such a Noise, in our Ears
of the Excellency and Marvellousness of such a Miracle, as that there
would be no bearing of it. But But as the _Evangelists_ have in a
good Measure suppress'd all mention of the after Fruitfulness of the
Tree; and the Story, by Misconstruction, is clog'd with the foresaid
Difficulties and Absurdities, we are of Necessity driven to the search
after Mystery for good Sense and Truth in it.

And thus have I spoken enough to the Miracle of _Jesus_'s cursing the
Figtree, which according to the Letter is a foolish and absurd Story:
But the mystical Operation, of which the Letter is a Shadow, will be
ravishing, marvellous and stupendous; and not only a Proof of
_Christ_'s Power, and Presence in his Church, but a Demonstration of
his _Messiahship_, in as much as an infinite Number of Prophecys upon
Prophecys, will thereupon be discern'd to be accomplish'd, or the
Church can't bring forth the Fruits of the Spirit, that is Spiritual
Interpretations of the Scriptures, like ripe Figs. And so I pass to an

8. _Eighth_ Miracle of _Jesus_, and that is,[182] "of his healing a
Man of an Infirmity, of thirty eight Years Duration, at the Pool of
_Bethesda_, that had five Porches, in which lay a great Multitude of
impotent Folk, blind, halt, withered, waiting the troubling of the
Waters, upon the Descent of an Angel, who gave a Sanative Virtue to
them, to the curing of any one, be his Distemper of what kind soever,
who first stept down into them."

This whole Story is what our Saviour calls a _Camel_ of a monstrous
Size for Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities, which our
_Divines_, and their implicit Followers of these last Ages, have
swallowed without chewing; whilst they have been straining at _Knats_
in Theology, and hesitating at frivolous and indifferent Things of the
Church, of no Consequence.

As to _Jesus_'s Miracle in this Story, which consisted in his healing
a Man, of no body knows what _Infirmity_, there neither is nor can be
proved any Thing supernatural in it, or there had been an express
Description of the Disease, without which it is impossible to say,
there was a miraculous Cure wrought. As far as one may reasonably
guess, this Man's _Infirmity_ was more _Lazyness_ than _Lameness_, and
_Jesus_ only shamed him out of his pretended Illness, by bidden him to
take up his Stool and walk off, and not lie any longer, like a lazy
Lubbard and Dissembler, among the Diseased, who were real Objects of
Pity and Compassion: Or, if he was no Dissembler, he was only
fancyfully sick, and _Jesus_ by some proper and seasonable Talk
touch'd his Heart, to his Relief; and so, by the Help of his own
Imagination, he was cured, and went his Way. This is the _worst_ that
can be made of this _infirm_ Man's Case; and the _best_ that can be
said of _Jesus_'s Power in the Cure of him, as will appear, by and by,
upon Examination into it. But the other Parts of the Story of the
healing Virtue of the Waters, upon the Descent of an Angel into them,
is not only void of all good Foundation in History, but is a
Contradiction to common Sense and Reason, as will be manifest after an
Inquiry into the Particulars of it.

St. _John_ was the beloved Disciple of our Lord, and I hope he lov'd
his Master: or he was worse than an Heathen, who loves those who love
him: But this Story, and some others, that are peculiar to his Gospel,
such as, of _Jesus's telling the Samaritan Woman her Fortune_; _of his
healing the blind Man with Eye-Salve made of Clay and Spittle_; _Of
his turning Water into Wine for the Use of Men, who had before well
drank_; and of _his raising Lazarus from the Dead_, are enough to
tempt us to think, that he wilfully design'd, either to blast the
Reputation of his Master, or to try how far the Credulity of Men who
through blind Love were running apace into Christianity, might be
imposed on; or he had never related such idle Tales, which, if the
_Priesthood_, who should be the philosophical Part of Mankind, had not
been amply hired into the Belief of them, would certainly have been
rejected with Indignation and Scorn before now.

St. _John_ wrote his Gospel many Years after the other _Evangelists_:
What then should have been his peculiar Business? Certainly nothing
more, than to add some remarkable Passages of Life, to _Jesus_'s
Honour, which they had omitted; and to confirm the Truths which they
had before reported of him. But St. _John_ is so far from doing this,
that the Stories, he has particularly added, are not only derogatory
to the Honour of _Jesus_, but spoil his Fame for a Worker of Miracles,
which the other _Evangelists_ would raise him to. By reading the other
_Evangelists_, one would think, that _Jesus_ was a Healer of all
manner of Diseases, however incurable by Art and Nature, and that
where-ever he came, all the sick and the maim'd (excepting a few
Infidels) were perfectly cured by him. But this Story before us will
be like a Demonstration, that _Jesus_ was no such Worker of Miracles
and Healer of Diseases, as he is commonly believed to have been; and
that he wrought not near the Number of Cures, he is supposed to have
done, much less any great ones. The best Conception that an impartial
Reader of the Gospel can form of _Jesus_, is, that he was a tolerable
good natural _Orator_, and could handsomely harangue the People off
hand, and was according to the Philosophy of the Times, a good
_Cabalist_; and his Admirers finding him endewed with the Gift of
Utterance, which was thought by them more than human, they fancy'd he
must have the Gift of healing too, and would have him to exercise it;
which he did with Success, upon the Fancies and Imaginations of many,
who magnified his divine Power for it. And the Apostles afterwards, to
help forward the Credulity and Delusion of the People, amplified his
Fame with extravagant Assertions and strange Stories of Miracles,
passing the Belief of considerate and wise Men. Whether this
Representation of the Case, according to the _Letter_ of the Gospels,
be false and improbable, let my _Readers_ judge by the Story before
us, which I come now to dissect, and make a particular Examination
into the several Parts of it. Accordingly it is to be observ'd

_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,

_Secondly_, To ask, what was the true Occasion of the Angel's Descent
into this Pool? Was it to wash and bath himself? Or, was it to impart
an healing Quality to the Waters for some one diseased Person? The
Reason, that I ask the first of these two Questions, is, because some
antient Readings of v. 4. say[183] the Angel ελουετο _was washed_,
which supposes some bodily Defilement or Heat contracted in the
Cælestial Regions, that wanted Refrigeration or Purgaton in these
Waters: But how absurd such a Thought is, needs no Proof. To impart
then compassionately an healing Power to the Waters for the Benefit of
the Diseased was the sole Design of the Angel's Descent into them. And
God forbid, that any should philosophically debate the Matter, and
enquire how naturally the Waters deriv'd that Virtue from the Angel's
corporal Presence. The Thing was providential and miraculous, our
_Divines_ will say, and so let it pass. But I may fairly ask, why one
diseased Person only at a Time reap'd the Benefit? Or why the whole
Number of impotent Folks were not at once healed? I have a notable
Answer presently to be given to these Questions; but I am afraid
beforehand, our _Divines_ will not approve of it: Therefore they are
to give one of their own, and make the Matter consistent with the
Goodness and Wisdom of God; or the said Questions spoil the Credit of
the Story, and make an idle and ridiculous Romance of it. And when
their Hands are in, to make, what it impossible, a satisfactory Answer
to the said Questions; I wish, that, for the sake of _Orthodoxy_, they
would determine, whether the Angel descended with his Head or his
Heels foremost, or whether he might not come, swauping upon his Breast
into the Waters, like a Goose into a Horse-pond. But,

_Thirdly_, How often in the Week, the Month or the Year did the Angel
vouchsafe his Descent into the Pool? And for how many Ages before
_Christ_'s Advent, and why not since and even[184] _now_, was this
Gracious and Angelical Favour granted? St. _John_ should have been
Particular as to these Points, which he could not but know
Philosophers would be curious to enquire about. If it was but once in
the Year, as St. _Chrysostom_[185] hints, little Thanks are due to him
for his Courtesy. One would think sometimes, that his Descent was
frequent; or such a Multitude of impotent Folk, variously disorder'd
had never attended on it. And again at other Times, one would think
that his Descent was seldom, or the Diseased as fast as they came,
which could not be faster than the Angel could dabble himself in the
Waters, had been charitably dismissed with restor'd Health. Here then
is a Defect in St. _John_'s Story, and a _Block_, at which wise and
considerate Freethinkers will stumble. But,

_Fourthly_, How came it to pass, that there was not better Care taken,
either by the Providence of God, or of the Civil Magistrates of
_Jerusalem_ about the Disposal of the Angelical Favour to this or that
poor Man, according to his Necessities or Deserts: But that he, who
could fortunately catch the Favour, was to have it. Just as he who
runs fastest obtains the Prize: So here the Diseased, who was most
nimble and watchful of the Angel's Descent, and could first plunge
himself into the Pool, carried off the Gift of Sanation. An odd and a
merry Way of conferring a divine Mercy. And one would think that the
Angels of God did this for their own Diversion, more than to do good
to Mankind. Just as some throw a Bone among a Kennel of Hounds, for
the Pleasure of seeing them quarrel for it; or as others cast a Piece
of Money among a Company of Boys for the Sport of seeing them scramble
for it: So was the Pastime of the Angels here. It was the Opinion of
some Heathens, that _Homines sunt Lusus Deorum_, the Gods sport
themselves with the Miseries of Mankind; but I never thought, before I
considered this Story, that the Angels of the God of the _Jews_ did so
too. But if they delighted in it, rare sport it was to them, as could
be to a _Town-Mobb_. For as the poor and distressed Wretches were not
to be supposed to be of such a polite Conversation, as in Complaisance
to give place to their betters, or in Compassion to make way for the
most miserable; but upon the Sight or Sound of the Angel's Fall into
the Pool, would without Respect of Persons strive who should be first:
So those who were behind and unlikely to be cured, would like an
unciviliz'd _Rabble_, push and press all before them into it. What a
Number then, of some hundreds perhaps, of poor Creatures were at once
tumbled into the Waters to the Diversion of the City Mob, as well as
of God's Angels? And if one arose out of it, with the Cure of his
Disease, the rest came forth like drown'd _Rats_, to the Laughter of
the foresaid Spectators; and it was well if there was not sometimes
more Mischief done, than the healing of _one_ could be of Advantage,
to those People. Believe then this Part of the Story, let him that
can. If any Angel was concern'd in this Work, it was an Angel of
_Satan_ who delights in Mischief; and if he healed _one_ upon such an
Occasion, he did it by way of Bait, to draw others into Danger of Life
and Limb. But as our _Divines_ will not, I suppose, bear the Thoughts
of its being a bad Angel; so I leave them to consider upon our
Reasonings, whether it was credible that either a good or a bad Angel
was concerned, and desire them to remember to give me a better Reason,
why but _one_ at a Time was healed.

If any Pool or Cistern of Water about this City of _London_ was so
blessed with the Descent of an Angel to such an End, the Magistrates,
such is their Wisdom, would, if God did not direct, take care of the
prudent Disposal of the Mercy to the best Advantage of the Diseased.
And if they sold it to an infirm _Lord_ or _Merchant_, who could give
for it most Money, to be distributed among other Poor and distressed
People, would it not be wisely done of them? To suppose they would
leave the Angelick Favour to the Struggle of a Multitude, is absurd
and incredible. And why then should we think otherwise of the
Magistrates of _Jerusalem_? Away then with the Letter of this Story!
And if this be not enough to confute it. Then,

_Fifthly_, Let us consider, to its farther Confutation, who and what
were the impotent Folk, that lay in the Porches of _Bethesda_, waiting
the Troubling of the Waters. St. _John_ says they were _Blind_,
_Halt_, _Withered_, and as some Manuscripts[186] have it,
_Paraliticks_. And what did any of these there? How could any of them
be supposed to be nimble enough of Foot to step down first into the
Waters, and carry off the Prize of Sanation, before many others of
various Distempers? Tho' the troubled Waters might be of such
medicinal Force as to heal a Man of whatsoever Disease he had; yet
none of the foresaid Persons for want of good Feet and Eyes could
expect the Benefit of it. Tho' the Ears of the Blind might serve him
to hear, when the Angel plump't like a Stone into the Waters, yet
through want of Sight for the guidance of his Steps, he would by
others be jostled out of the right Way down into them. And if the Lame
had good Eyes to discern the Descent of the Angel, yet Feet were all
in all to this Purpose: Consequently these impotent Folk, specified by
St. _John_, might as well have stay'd at Home, as resorted to
_Bethesda_ for Cure. I know not what Fools the Diseased of _Jerusalem_
of old might be, but if there was such a Prize of Health to be strove
for, by the Distempered of this City, I appeal to all Men of common
Sense, whether the _Blind_, the _Lame_, the _withered_ and
_Paralyticks_ would offer to put in for it. St. _John_ then forgot
himself, or else blundered egregiously, or put the Banter upon us, to
try how far an absurd Tale would pass upon the World with Credit.
There might be, if there was any litteral Sense in the Story, many of
other Distempers, but there could be neither _blind_, _halt_ nor
_withered_, without _such an Absurdity_, as absolutely disparages the
Story, blasts the Credit of the _Relator_, or rather brings to mind
the Assertion of St. _Ambrose_, that the Letter of the _New_ as well
as of the _Old Testament_ lies abominably. If what I have here said
does not overthrow the Letter of this Story; Then what I have,

_Sixthly_, To add, will do it more effectually, and that is, of the
_certain Man, that had an Infirmity thirty and eight Years_, and lay
at this Pool for an Opportunity to be cured of it. Tho' these _thirty_
and _eight_ Years are, in our _English_ Translation prædicated of this
Man's Infirmity, yet more truly, according to the Original, are they
spoken of the Time he lay there? and the Fathers so understood St.
_John_'s Words. What this Man's Infirmity was, we are uncertain: For
[Geek: astheneia] _Weakness_ or _Infirmity_ is a general Name of all
Distempers, and may be equally apply'd to one as well as to another:
Whereupon, tho' we can't certainly say from this Man's Infirmity, that
he was a Fool to lay there so long, expecting that Cure, which it was
impossible for him to obtain; yet what he says to our Saviour, _I have
no Man, when the Waters are troubled to put me into the Pool, but
while I am coming another steppeth down before me_, does imply his
Folly sufficiently, or rather the Incredibility of the whole Story.
What then did this _infirm_ Man at this Pool, if he had neither Legs
of his own good enough, nor a Friend to assist him, in the Attainment
of Sanation? Was he not a Fool, if it was possible for any to be so
great a one, for his Patience? Would it not have been as wisely done
of him to wait, in the Fields so long, the Falling of the Sky, that he
might catch Larks? The Fathers say, this Man's _Infirmity_ was the
_Palsy_; but whether they said so for the Sake of the Mystery, or to
expose the Letter, I know not. But that Distemper, after _thirty_ and
_eight_ Years Duration, and Increase; if it was more curable than
another at first, had in that time undoubtedly so weakened and
render'd him uncapable to struggle with others for this Relief, that
it is without Sense and Reason to think he should wait so long for it.
Our _Divines_, if they so please, may commend this Man for his
Patience, but after a few Years, or rather a few Days Experience,
another Man would have been convinc'd of the Folly and Vanity of his
Hopes, and returned Home. If he could not put in for this Benefit,
with Prospect of Success in his more youthful Days, when the Distemper
was young too, much less Reason had he to hope for it in his old Age,
after _thirty_ and _eight Years_ Affliction, unless he dream'd of,
what was not to be imagin'd, an Opportunity, without Molestation and
Competition, to go off with it. Whatever then our _Divines_ may think
of this Man and his Patience, I will not believe there ever was such a
Fool; and for this Reason will not suppose St. _John_ could literally
so romance, unless he meant to bambouzle Mankind into the Belief of
the greatest Absurdity. A Man that Lies with a Grace to deceive
others, makes his Story so hang together, as to carry the Face and
Appearance of Truth along with it; which this of St. _John_, that for
many Ages has been swallowed, for the Reason before us, has not. But
what is the worst of all against this Story is,

_Seventhly_, That which follows, and absolutely destroys the Fame and
Credit of _Jesus_ for a Worker of Miracles. _And_ V. 1, 2, 3. _Jesus
went up to Jerusalem, where there was by the Sheep-Market, a Pool,
called Bethesda, having five Porches, in which lay a great Multitude
of impotent Folk, blind, halt, withered._ Why then did not _Jesus_
heal them? Here was a rare Opportunity for the Display of his Healing
and Almighty Power; and why did he not exercise it, to the Relief of
that Multitude of impotent Folk? If he could not cure them, there's an
End of his Power of Miracles? and if he would not, it was want of
Mercy and Compassion in him. Which way soever we take this Case, it
turns to the Dishonour of the Holy _Jesus_. What then was the Reason,
that of so great a Multitude of diseased People, _Jesus_ exerted his
Power, and extended his Mercy, on only _one_ poor Paralytick? St.
_Augustin_[187] puts this Question and Objection into my Mouth; and
tho' neither He nor I start it for the Service of Infidelity, but to
make Way for the Mystery, yet I know not why _Infidels_ may not make
Use of it, till Ministers of the Letter can give a satisfactory Answer
and Solution to it.

The Evangelists, _Matthew_, _Mark_, and _Luke_, tell such Stories of
_Jesus_'s healing Power, as would incline us to think he cured all
where-ever he came. He _heal'd_, they say, _all Manner_ of Diseases
among the People, and they make mention of particular Times and
Places, where all the Diseased were healed by him, which Assertions
imply, that _Jesus_'s healing Power was most extensive and (excepting
to an hard-hearted and unbelieving _Pharisee_ now and then) universal;
so far that it might be question'd, whether any died, during the Time
of his Ministry, the Places where he came: And our _Divines_ have so
harangued on _Jesus_'s Miracles, as would confirm us in such an
Opinion: But this Story in St. _John_ confutes and confounds all. St.
_John_ in no Place of his Gospel talks of _Jesus_'s healing of many,
nor of all manner of Diseases, much less of all that were Diseased;
which, if it be not like a Contradiction to the other _Evangelists_,
is some Diminution of their Authority, and enough to make us suspect,
that they stretch'd much in praise of their Master, and said more to
his Honour than was strictly true. But this Place before us is a flat
Contradiction to them, and _Jesus_ is not to be supposed to heal many
in any Place, much less all manner of Diseases, or he had never let
such a Multitude of poor Wretches pass without the Exercise of his
Power and Pity on them. Some good Reason then must be given for
_Jesus_'s Conduct here, and such a one as will adjust it to the
Reports of the other Evangelists; or _Infidels_ will think, that
either they romanc'd for the Honour of their Master, or that St.
_John_ in Spite told this Story to the Degradation of him. I can
conceive no better of this Matter according to the Letter.

The _Bishop_ of _Litchfield_ very remarkably says,[188] _that Jesus
where-ever he went, healed all that came to him without Distinction,
the impotent, halt, withered_. He certainly had this Text of St.
_John_ in his Eye, when he said so, because _Impotent_, _Halt_,
_Withered_, are only mention'd here, where _Jesus_ cured _none_ of
them: Whereupon if his _Lordship_ had made but a marginal Reference to
this Text, it would have been the best Jest and Banter, with a Sneer,
that ever was put upon _Jesus_ and his Power of Miracles: As it is,
it's a very good one, and I desire my Readers to take Notice of it,
that his Lordship may not lose the Credit and Praise of it. It's for
such Circumspection of Thought, Exactness of Expression, and Acuteness
of Wit, that I admire that _Prelate_, and must needs say of him,
whether he ever be translated to _Canterbury_ or _York_, or not, that
he's an _arch_ Bishop.

But to return and go on. The Conduct of _Jesus_, to all Appearance, is
not only blameable, his Power of healing disputable, and his Mercy
indefensible, for that he cured but _one_ infirm Man out of a
Multitude, at _Bethesda_, but,

_Eightly_, and lastly, it may reasonably be questioned, whether he
wrought any Miracle in the healing of this _one_ Man. Miracles (to say
nothing of the ridiculous Distinction between divine and diabolical
ones) are Works done out of the Course of Nature, and beyond the
Imitation of human Art or Power. Now whether the Cure of this infirm
Man can be brought under this Definition of a Miracle, may be doubted.
What this Man's _Infirmity_, which is a general Name for all
Distempers, was, we know not. How then can we say he was miraculously
cured, unless we knew his Disease to be incurable by Art, which none
can affirm? The worst that we know of this Man's Case, is, that it was
of a long Continuance, no less than of _eight_ and _thirty_ Years: And
the _Bishop_ of _Litchfield_ and others in their florid Harangues of
_Jesus_'s Works, make the Cure of such Chronical Diseases to be
miraculous: But why so? Many Instances may be given of Infirmities of
human Nature, of a long Duration, which in Time, and especially in
old Age, wear off. If such Infirmities don't occur to the Memory of
our _Divines_, I could put them in Mind of them. And who knows but
this was the Case of this impotent Man, whose Infirmity _Jesus_
observing to be wearing off, bid him to be gone, and take up his
Couch, for he would soon be made whole.

The Fathers indeed call this Man's Infirmity the _Palsy_, which in
truth is generally worse than better by Time, and after _thirty_ and
_eight_ Years, must needs be very deplorable, and incurable without a
Miracle. But why do they call it the Palsy? They have no Authority for
it from the Text, without which, as our litteral _Doctors_ will not
subscribe to their Opinions in other Cases; so why should I here? In
short, the Fathers had never call'd it the _Palsy_, but for the sake
of the Mystery; and I am not bound to own _that_ to have been the
Distemper, any more than it was want of Legs; for that would be making
of Miracles for _Jesus_, without Reason and Authority.

If _Jesus_ here had healed the whole _Multitude of impotent Folk_;
without Enquiry what Numbers there might be of them, I should have
believed that he wrought there many great Miracles, in as much as in
such a great Multitude, there must needs, in all Probability, be some
incurable by Art or Nature: But since he cured only this _one_ Man, it
affords Matter of Speculation, whether he was the _most_ or the
_least_ diseased amongst them. Our _Divines_, for the sake of the
Miracle, may possibly suppose him to be the most grievously afflicted
of any; but _Infidels_, on the other hand, will say, not so: but with
their Cavils will urge that this infirm Man was either a Dissembler,
whom _Jesus_ shamed out of his pretended Disease, or that he was only
hippish, and fancyfully more than really distemper'd of a long Time,
whom _Jesus_ by suitable Exhortations and Admonitions, working upon
his Imagination, persuaded into a Belief of his Cure, and bid him to
walk off. Certain it is, that _Infidels_ will say, it was not a Power
of Miracles in _Jesus_ which heal'd him, or he had used it then and
there for the Sanation of others also.

And thus have I finish'd my Invective against the Letter of this Story;
which, if any are offended at, they enjoy, what is the most reasonable
Thing in the World, the same Liberty to write for the Letter, which I
have used against it: And so I pass to the Consideration of the
Opinions and Expositions of the Fathers on this strange Story.

The Fathers, upon whose Authority I form'd my preceding Invective
against the Letter, so universally betake themselves to the mystical
Interpretation of this Story, that it may be question'd, whether any
of them, more than myself, believ'd any Thing at all of the Letter of
it. St. _Chrysostom_, who is as much a litteral Interpreter of the
Scriptures as any of them, here intirely discards the Letter, saying
admirably thus,[189] _what a strange Way and Story of healing the
Diseased is here? but what is the Mystery of it? that we are to look
to. The Matter could not be so simply and unadvisedly transacted
litterally, as it is related. There must be somewhat future here, as
by a Type and Figure, signify'd; or the Story, it is so incredible in
itself, will give Offence to many._ St. _Chrysostom_ was certainly in
the right on't; and I wonder, for which no Reason but want of Liberty
can be given, that _Infidels_ have not before now, with their Jests
and Cavils, ridiculed this Story. St. _Augustin_, to the same Purpose,
says,[190] _Can any one believe, that these Waters of Bethesda were
wont to be troubled in this Fashion, and that there was not Mystery,
and a spiritual Signification in it?_ Yes, I could tell St.
_Augustin_, that our modern _Divines_ seem to believe it, tho' he, if
he was now alive, would laugh at them for it. But to come to the
profound Mystery signified by this Story, which to use the Words
of[191] St. _Augustin_, as God shall enable me, I will now speak to.

Our _English_ Version says, _There is at Jerusalem by the
Sheep-Market, a Pool_. How our _Translators_ came by the Notion of a
_Market_ here, I can't imagine, since there is nothing to favour it in
the Original, which stands thus, επι τη προβατικη κολυμβηθρα: By
κολυμβηθρα, the Fathers understand[192] Baptism, or the spiritual
_Laver_ of Regeneration; and who is that for, but the Flock of
Christ, signified by προβατικη? So we have another and clearer
Interpretation of these two Words. And as to _Bethesda_, that is a
mystical Name of the Church, which according to the Signification of
_Bethesda_, is the House of Grace. And if it is said to be at
_Jerusalem_, it is not to be understood of the Old _Jerusalem_, but of
the _New_ and Apocalyptical _Jerusalem_, at the Entrance into which
the Flock of Christ will be baptiz'd by the Waters of the Spirit, as
in a mystical Laver.

_Bethesda_ is said to have five _Porches_, that is, as the Fathers[193]
agree, the five Books of _Moses_, which are as so many Doors of Entrance
into the House of Wisdom, or of the Grace of _Christ_.

At these _five Porches_ of the five Books of Moses lay _a great
Multitude of impotent Folk, blind, halt, withered_. And who are these
mystically? The ignorant, erroneous, and unstable in Faith and
Principle, as the Fathers often understand them spiritually. And what
is the Reason of these their mystical Diseases? Because, as St.
_Augustin_[194] and other Fathers say, they rest on the Letter of the
Law, which throws them into various Errors, like Diseases, of
different Kinds, of which they can't be cured without the Descent of