Thomas Woolston
SIX DISCOURSES
ON THE MIRACLES
OF OUR SAVIOUR
and
DEFENCES
OF HIS DISCOURSES
1727-1730
Garland Publishing, Inc., New York & London
1979
[A]
DISCOURSE
ON THE
MIRACLES
OF OUR
SAVIOUR,
In View of the Present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates.
—Nostrum est tantus componere Lites.
The Fifth 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
EDMUND,
Lord Bishop of London.
My Lord,
pon no other View do I make a Dedication of this Discourse to your Lordship, then to submit it to your acute Judgment, expecting soon to hear of your Approbation or Dislike of it. If it so happen, that you highly approve of it, I beg of you to be sparing of your Commendations, least I should be puff'd up with them.
In my Moderator, some Expressions dropt from my Pen about the Miracles of our Saviour, which, for want of Illustration then, gave your Lordship some Offence, and brought upon me more Trouble: But, having now fully and clearly explain'd my self out of the Fathers, I hope you'll be reconciled to me; and as you are a Lover of Truth, will, against Interest and Prejudice, yield to the Force of it.
Whether your Prosecution of me, for the Moderator, was just and reasonable, I'll not dispute here, having already expostulated that Matter with you in several Letters, to which you would not condescend to give me any Answer. For what Reason you was silent, is best known to your self. But, in my own Vindication, I hope, I may publish without Offence, that your taking me for an Infidel, was such a Mistake as I thought no Scholar could have made; and the Injury done to my Reputation and low Fortunes, by the Prosecution, so considerable, that the least I expected from your Lordship, was a courteous Excuse, if not an ample Compensation, for it.
As to the Expediency of prosecuting Infidels for their Writings (in whose Cause I am the farthest of any Man from being engaged) I will here say nothing. The Argument, pro and con, has already, by one or other, been copiously handled. And I don't know but I might be, with your Lordship, on the persecuting side of the Question; but that it looks as if a Man was distrustful of the Truth of Christianity, and conscious of his own Inability to defend it; or he would leave that good Cause to God himself and the Sword of the Spirit, without calling upon the Civil Magistrate for his Aid and Assistance.
That scurvy Writer of the Scheme of literal Prophecy, &c. which your Lordship must have heard of, would insinuate, that they are only atheistical Priests, who, for fear of their Interests in the Church, set Persecutions on foot: But after your Lordship has publish'd a strenuous Defence of Christianity to the Purpose of our present Controversy, I'll have no such Suspicions of you.
Your Lordship's persecuting (or, if you will, prosecuting) Humour, is reputedly all pure Zeal for God's Glory; and, with all my Heart, let it be so accounted, whether it be according to Knowledge or not. Against Popery and Infidelity you are all Ardency! Who does not commend you? Who can question the Sincerity of the Zeal of a Protestant Bishop, and of a Protestant Clergy, when they persecute the Enemies of their Church, that considers their own Steadiness to Principles against Interest, under all Changes, since the Reformation; and their Abhorrence of Extortion upon the People, for the Duties of their Function, in and about this City. Such Honesty and Constancy in their Profession, is a Proof of the Integrity of their Hearts, or I know not where to find one.
But that your Lordship's Zeal for Religion is very remarkable and successful, I could prove by many Instances; one is, that of your routing a turbulent Sect of Peripateticks out of St. Paul's Cathedral; and if you could as effectually clear Christ's Church of Infidels, what a glorious Bishop would you be!
And what Pity is it, that Infidels likewise are not to be quell'd with your Threats and Terrors! which (without the Weapons of sharp Reasonings, and thumping Arguments, that others are for the Use of) would transmit your Fame to Posterity, for a notable Champion for Christianity, as certainly as, that your judicious Prosecution of the Moderator for Infidelity is here remember'd by,
London,
April 17,
1727.
My LORD,
The Admirer of
Your Zeal
Wisdom and
Conduct,
Thomas Woolston.
A
DISCOURSE
ON THE
MIRACLES
OF OUR
SAVIOUR, &c.
f ever there was an useful Controversy started, or revived in this Age of the Church, it is this about the Messiahship of the holy Jesus, which the Discourse of the Grounds, &c. has of late rais'd. I believe this Controversy will end in the absolute Demonstration of Jesus's Messiahship from Prophecy, which is the only way to prove him to be the Messiah, that great Prophet expected by the Jews, and promised under the Old Testament. And tho' this way of Proof from Prophecy seems to labour under many Difficulties at present; and tho' some Writers against the Grounds, being distressed with those Difficulties, are for seeking Refuge in the Miracles of our Saviour; yet we must persist in it, till what I have no doubt of, his Messiahship shall be clearly made out by it.
And the way in Prophesy that I would take for the Proof of Jesus's Messiahship, should be by an allegorical Interpretation, and Application of the Law and the Prophets to him; the very same way, that all the Fathers of the Church have gone in; and the very same way, in which all the ancient Jews say their Messiah was to fulfil the Law and the Prophets: But this way does not please our ecclesiastical Writers in this Controversy, neither will they at present give any Ear to it.
The Way in Prophecy that they are for taking, is by a literal Interpretation and Application of some Prophecies of the Old Testament to our Jesus, but they are hitherto unsuccessful in this Way. The Authors of the Grounds and of the Scheme, grievously perplex them with their Objections against this way of Proof, so far as, being sensible, I say, of almost insuperable Difficulties in it, they are flying apace to the Miracles of our Saviour, as to their sole and grand Refuge.
But to show that there's no Sanctuary for them in the Miracles of our Saviour, I write this Discourse: And this I do, not for the Service of Infidelity, which has no Place in my Heart, but for the Honour of the Holy Jesus, and to reduce the Clergy to the good old way of interpreting Prophecies, which the Church has unhappily apostatis'd from, and which, upon the Testimony of the Fathers, will, one Day, be the Conversion of Jews and Gentiles.
For this Opinion, that there is no Sanctuary in the Miracles of our Saviour, I chanc'd to say in the Moderator,[1] That Jesus's Miracles, as they are now-a-days understood, make nothing for his Authority and Messiahship. And again,[2] That I believe, upon good Authority, some of the Miracles of Jesus, as recorded by the Evangelists, were never wrought, but are only related as prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what will be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him: Which Expressions gave Offence to some of our Clergy, and brought upon me their Indignation and Displeasure. I see no Reason to depart from the said Expressions, or so much as to palliate and soften them, much less to retract them; but in Maintenance of my Opinion, to the Honour of our Messiah, and the Defence of Christianity, I write this Treatise on Jesus's Miracles, and take this Method following.
I. I will 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. 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. I shall consider what Jesus means, when he appeals to his Miracles as to a Testimony and Witness of his Divine Authority, and show, that he could not properly and ultimately refer to those he then wrought in the Flesh, but to those mystical ones, which he would do in the Spirit; of which those wrought in the Flesh are but mere Types and Shadows.
In treating on these Heads, I shall not confine my self only to Reason, but also to the express Authority of the Fathers, those holy, venerable, and learned Preachers of the Gospel in the first Ages of the Church, who took our Religion from the Hands of the Apostles, and of apostolical Men, who dy'd, some of them, and suffer'd for the Doctrine they taught; who professedly and confessedly were endu'd with divine and extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit; who consequently can't be supposed to be Corrupters of Christianity, or Teachers of false Notions about the Miracles of our Saviour, or so much as mistaken about the apostolical and evangelical Sense and Nature of them. I know not how it comes to pass, but I am a profound Admirer, and an almost implicit Believer of the Authority of the Fathers, whom I look upon as vast Philosophers, very great Scholars, and most orthodox Divines. Whatever they concurrently assert, I firmly believe. And tho' they are, for the most part, mysterious Writers out of the Reach of the Capacities of many, who slight them; yet I, who have had the Honour and Happiness of much of their Acquaintance, fancy my self well apprised of their Meanings. If at any time I read a Passage in them which I don't presently apprehend, I salute it with Veneration for all that, till my Understanding is opened to receive the Sense of it. If I meet with but a single Opinion in any one of them, I pay my Respects to it; but where there is an Harmony and Agreement of Opinion amongst them, it is with me, and ought to be with all Christians, of such Weight, as to bear down all Prejudice, Opposition, and Contradiction before it; or the Authority of no Man, whether ancient or modern, is to have any Regard paid to it; and of what ill Consequence to Religion such an utter Rejection of Authority will be, I need not say.
This I thought fit to premise, concerning the Authority of the Fathers, to abate of the Prejudice beforehand, which some may conceive against the following Discourse about the Miracles of Jesus. I don't question, but some may be startled at the foregoing Heads, as if, what is the farthest of any thing from my Heart, the Service of Infidelity was in View; but craving the Temper and Patience of such Readers for a while, and they shall find, that its no other than just Reasoning, clear Truth, and primitive Doctrine about Jesus's Miracles, that I advance: Or if it should so happen, that none besides my self should discern the Reasoning and Truth of the Argument; yet I hope it will not be thought a Crime to revive primitive Doctrine, which none will be able to deny it to be, whether they like it or not. If I err, I err upon Choice with the Fathers, of whose Faith I am. And if any are offended at what follows about the Miracles of Christ, let them turn their Displeasure and Indignation against the Fathers, for whose express or implicit Opinions I can be deserving of no Blame.
I am sorry for the Occasion of such a Preface against Offence, which the Apostacy of the Age, and its Unacquaintedness with the Fathers, has made necessary. So I enter upon the particular handling of the Heads foregoing. And,
I. I will 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, nor are they so much as a good Proof of Jesus's divine Authority to found and introduce a Religion into the World.
And to do this, let us consider, first, in general, what was the Opinion of the Fathers about the Writings of the Evangelists in which the Life of Christ is recorded. Eucherius says,[3] That the Scriptures of the New as well as Old Testament, are to be interpreted in an allegorical Sense. And this his Opinion, is no other than the common one of the first Ages of the Church, as might be proved by many the like Expressions of other Fathers. As in such Expressions, they do not except the Writings of the Evangelists; so they must include the History of Christ's Miracles, which as well as other Parts of the History of his Life, is to be allegoriz'd for the sake of its true Meaning; consequently the literal Story of Christ's Miracles proves nothing.
But let's hear particularly their Opinion of the Actions and Miracles of our Saviour. Origen says, that[4] Whatsoever Jesus did in the Flesh, was but typical and symbolical of what he would do in the Spirit; and to our Purpose,[5] that the several bodily Diseases which he healed, were no other than Figures of the spiritual Infirmities of the Soul, that are to be cured by him. St. Hilary is of the same Mind with Origen, as any one may see by the[6] Expressions referr'd to, and his Commentary on St. Matthew. St. Augustin,[7] and St. John[8] of Jerusalem, both say, that the Works of Jesus import farther Mysteries; and with them, the rest of the Fathers agree, making the Miracles that Jesus did then, no more than the Shadow of some more powerful and mystical Operations to be done by him, as I could show by more Citations out of them, if it was needful. But from the foregoing Citations out of the Fathers it is plain, in their Opinion, that our modern Divines are in the wrong of it, to lay much Stress on any of the Operations of Jesus, which he did in the Flesh, for the Proof of his divine Authority and Messiahship, which is only to be proved by his more mysterious Works, of which those done in the Flesh are but Type and Figure.
But to come closer to the Purpose, let's see how indifferently, I had almost said contemptibly, the Fathers speak of the Miracles of Jesus, and particularly of his Power of healing all bodily Diseases, which by modern Writers is so much magnified and extoll'd. St. Irenæus says,[9] that if we consider only the then temporal Use of Jesus's Power of Healing, he did nothing grand and wonderful; consequently Irenæus could not hold, that Jesus's Miracles then wrought, were a sufficient Proof of his divine Authority, much less of his Messiahship. Origen says[10] that tho' many were brought to believe in Jesus upon the Fame of the Miracles which he did once among the Jews, yet (what implies the Insufficiency of them for the Conversion of Men) he intimates that his greater and mystical Works do prove his Authority. St. John of Jerusalem says[11] that Jesus's Cures performed upon the Blind, &c. were indeed considerable and great, but unless he do daily as mighty Works in his Church, we ought to forbear our Admiration of him. St. Augustin not only says[12] that if we examine into Jesus's Miracles by human Reason, we shall find he did nothing great, considering his Almighty Power, and considering his Goodness, what he did was but little; but he tells us also, that[13] such Works as Jesus did, might be imputed to, and effected by Magic Art. And accordingly Moses and our Saviour himself confess, that false Prophets, and false Christ's, will do Miracles; and Anti-Christ himself, according to St. Paul, will do them to the Deception of Mankind. Nay, the Fathers[14] say, what I believe, that Anti-Christ will imitate and equal Jesus in all his Miracles which he wrought of old. How then can we distinguish the true Prophet from the false; the true Christ from the Anti-Christ by Miracles? our Divines will find it hard to do it, if what the Fathers say of Anti-christ be found true. Moreover History affords us Instances of Men, such as of Apollonius Tyanæus, Vespasian, and of the Irish Stroaker, Greatrex, who have miraculously cured Diseases to the Admiration of Mankind, as well as our Jesus: But if any of them, or any other greater Worker of Miracles than they were, should withall assume to himself the Title of a Prophet, and Author of a new Religion, I humbly conceive, we ought not to give heed to him.
Neither is there the least Reason that we should; for the Power of doing Miracles is no certain, nor rational Seal of the Commission and Authority of a divine Lawgiver. St. Paul says[15] there is a Diversity of the Gifts of the Spirit, for to one is given by the Spirit, the Word of Wisdom; to another the Word of Knowledge; to another the Gift of Healing; to another the working of Miracles; to another Prophecy; to another discerning of Spirits; to another divers Kinds of Tongues; to another the Interpretation of Tongues. These Gifts may be given apart and separately. One of them may be conferr'd on this Man, and another of them on his Neighbour. There is no Necessity that any two or more of these Gifts should meet in one Man. To argue then, that a Man, who has one of these Gifts, must have the other; that is, that he must needs have the Gift of Wisdom, or of Prophecy, or of discerning of Spirits, or of divers Kinds of Tongues, because he has the Gift of Healing and of working Miracles, is very inconclusive, and false Reasoning: And yet this is the Reasoning of our modern Writers who would prove Jesus's Authority, to found a Religion, from his Miracles. I don't question but Jesus had all the foresaid Gifts and Powers of the Spirit in a most superlative Degree; but then it is unreasonably inferr'd, for all that, that a Man, because he of Certainty has some of them, must of consequence have the other. St. Augustin[16] cautions us against being deceived into a good Opinion of a Man's Wisdom, because of his Power to do Miracles. And I think accordingly, that we may as well say, that the strongest Man is the wisest; or that a good Physician must needs be a good Casuist; or that the best Mathematician is the ablest Statesman, as that Jesus, because he was a Worker of Miracles, such as his are, and a Healer of all manner of Diseases, ought to be received as the Guide of our Consciencies, the Director of our Understandings, the Ruler of our Hearts, and the Author of a Religion.
What then will the Writers against the Grounds do to prove Jesus's Authority and Messiahship from his Miracles? Or how by his Miracles will they be able to distinguish him from an Impostor, a false Prophet, and the Anti-christ? Why, they will say perhaps,
1. That besides Greatness of Power, there was nothing but Goodness, Kindness, and Love to Mankind shewn in Jesus's Miracles. As to the Miracles of false Prophets and Impostors, if they be, many of them, of a kind and benevolent Aspect, yet the Devil's Foot, if we look well to it, will discover it self in some ludicrous and mischievous Pranks: But Jesus's Miracles were all of a beneficent Nature; He went about doing good, healing all manner of Diseases among the People, and did no Wrong to any one; which is a good Argument, they say, of his divine Authority, or God would not have suffer'd, nor the Devil have work'd such a Testimony in behalf of it. On this Head our Divines are copious and rhetorical, and many notable and florid Harangues have they made on it. But
In answer to them, they don't seem to have their Memories at Hand, when they declaim at this rate. The Fathers, upon whose Authority I write, will tell such Orators, that Jesus, if his Miracles are to be understood in the literal Sense, did not only as foolish Things as any Impostor could do, but very injurious ones to Mankind. I shall not here instance in the seemingly foolish and injurious Things which Jesus did for Miracles, intending under the next Head to speak to some of them: But they are such, if literally true, as our Divines do believe, as are enough to turn our Stomachs against such a Prophet; and enough to make us take him for a Conjuror, a Sorcerer, and a Wizard, rather than the Messiah and Prophet of the most High God. But
2. To prove the Messiahship of the Holy Jesus from his Miracles, our Divines urge the Prophecies of the Old Testament, such as that of Isaiah, C. xxxv. V. 5, 6. Then the Eyes of the Blind shall be opened, and the Ears of the Deaf shall be unstopp'd; then shall the lame Man leap as the Hart, and the Tongue of the Dumb sing; and say that these Prophecies were accurately fulfill'd by our Jesus in the several specifical Cures of Blindness, Deafness, Lameness, and Dumbness, which he often perform'd upon one or other; and, inasmuch as our Saviour seems to appeal to such Prophecies, do conclude this his Accomplishment of them, to be no less than a Demonstration, that he was the true Messiah, that great Prophet, who was to come into the World. To which I answer,
First, That the Accomplishment of Prophecies that can neither be given forth by human Foresight, nor fulfill'd in a Counterfeit, are good Proofs of Jesus's Messiahship: But then, what shall we say if others besides Jesus should do the like Cures and Miracles? It is said of Anti-christ, and I believe it, that he will not only do all the Miracles that Jesus did, but will appeal to the like Prophecies too. How then we are to distinguish the true Christ from the false Christ by Miracles and Prophecies in this Case, is the Question, which I leave with our Divines to consider of an Answer to, against the Time that it is proved that Anti-christ does all those Miracles, which Jesus in the Flesh wrought. But
Secondly, The foresaid Prophecies and others mentioned in Isaiah, neither were, nor could be Prophecies of the miraculous Cures of bodily Diseases which Jesus then did. And this may be made appear, not only from the Context of those Prophecies which received then no Accomplishment from Jesus, who ought to have fulfill'd one Part of the Prophecy as well as the other, or is not to be taken for the Fulfiller of either; but from the Opinion of both Jews and Fathers, who adjourn the Accomplishment of those Prophecies to Christ's spiritual Advent. But
Thirdly, The Prophet Isaiah, in the Place above cited, speaks not of bodily Blindness, &c. which the Messiah is to heal, but of the spiritual Distempers of the Soul, metaphorically so called; as may be easily proved, not only from the Prophecies themselves, but from the old Jews, who were allegorical Interpreters of those Distempers, and from the antient Fathers,[17] who so understood them. Consequently our Jesus's healing of those bodily Diseases, was no proper Accomplishment of those Prophecies. It is true our Saviour, Matt. xi. 4, 5. seems to appeal to those Prophecies, and to make his Cure of corporal Distempers an Accomplishment of them: But he means not in the literal Sense, that our Divines take him in, as I shall show hereafter, when I come to consider what Jesus means, by appealing to his Works and Miracles, as bearing Witness of him.
Our Divines then may admire and adore Jesus as much as they please for his Miracles of healing bodily Distempers; but I am for the spiritual Messiah that cures those Distempers of the Soul, that metaphorically pass under the Names of Blindness, Lameness, Deafness, &c. And the Cure of these spiritual Diseases, is the proper and miraculous Work of the true Messiah; for the sake of which, says[18] St. Augustin, Jesus condescended to do those little Miracles of healing bodily Distempers, which were but the Type and Shadow of his more stupendous Miracles of curing spiritual Diseases. The Cure of spiritual Infirmities is a God-like[19] Work, above the Imitation of Man or of Anti-christ, infinitely more miraculous than the healing any bodily Distempers can be.
Whether our Jesus be at this Day such a spiritual Messiah, I leave to our Divines to consider, with those spiritual Distempers of the Church, that seem to want his miraculous Hand and Touch. The Fathers of the Church said, that Jesus was in part such a spiritual Messiah in their time, and argued[20] his Messiahship, not from bodily Cures, but from his most miraculous Cures of the Diseases of the Soul: But there was another and future Time, in which he would be such a spiritual and glorious Messiah to the greatest Perfection. In the mean while, no healing of corporal Distempers can prove Jesus to be the Messiah, nor any other of his miraculous Works recorded in the Evangelists: So far from it, that
II. I shall prove that the literal Story of many of Jesus's Miracles, as they are recorded in the Evangelists, and commonly believed by Christians, does imply Improbabilities and Incredibilities, and the grossest Absurdities, very dishonourable to the Name of Christ; consequently, they, in whole, or in part, were never wrought, but are only related as prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what would be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.
The reading of this Head will, I doubt not, strike with Horror some of our squeamish Divines, who, notwithstanding they will sacrifice almost any Principles to their Interest, will not bear that our literal evangelical History of such renown'd Miracles should be thus called in Question, and contemptuously spoken of. What does this Author mean, will some say, thus to do Service to Atheism and Infidelity? Away with him! Our Indignation is moved against him! No Censure and Punishment can be too severe for such Impiety, Profaneness, and Blasphemy, as is aim'd at, and imply'd in this Proposition.
To calm therefore the Spirits, and abate the Prejudices of such Accusers, I must proceed with the greater Caution and with Reason and Authority well fortify myself before and behind, or I shall feel the Weight of the Displeasure of our Divines, who are prepossess'd of the Belief of the literal Story of all Jesus's Miracles.
Before then I enter upon the particular Examination of any of his Miracles, I will premise two or three general Assertions of the Fathers about them. And first Origen[21] says, that in the historical Part of the Scriptures, There are some Things inserted as History, which were never transacted, and which it was impossible should be transacted; and other Things, again, that might possibly be done, but were not. This he asserts of the Writings of the Evangelists, as well as of the Old Testament, and gives many Instances to this Purpose. St. Hilary[22] says, There are many historical Passages of the New Testament, that if they are taken literally, are contrary to Sense and Reason, and therefore there is a Necessity of a mystical Interpretation. And St. Augustin[23] says, that there are hidden Mysteries in the Works and Miracles of our Saviour, which if we incautiously and literally interpret, we shall run into Errors, and make grievous Blunders. Of the same Mind are the rest of the Fathers, as might be proved by express or implicit Citations; but, studying Brevity, I think the three Testimonies above, enough to cool the Rage, and assuage the Prejudices of my Adversaries against the Proposition before us, which I now come to a particular Consideration of; that is, to shew that the Story of many of Jesus's Miracles is literally absurd, improbable, and incredible. And
1. To speak to that Miracle of Jesus's driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple, which all the[24] four Evangelists make mention of.
I have read in some modern Author whose Name does not occur to my Memory, that this was, in his Opinion, the most stupendous Miracle that Jesus wrought. And, in truth, it was a most astonishing one, if literally true, and Jesus must appear more than a Man, he must put on an awful and most majestick Countenance to effect it. It is hard to conceive, how any one in the Form of a Man, and of a despised one too, (and we don't read that Jesus chang'd his human Shape) with a Whip in his Hand, could execute such a Work upon a great Multitude of People, who were none of his Disciples, nor had any regard for him. Supposing he could, by his divine Power, infuse a panick Fear into the People; yet what was the Reason that he was so eaten up with Zeal against the Profanation of that House, which he himself came to destroy, and which he permitted, I may say commanded, to be filthily polluted not long after. But not to form by my self an Invective against the Letter of this Story, let's hear what the Fathers say to it,
Origen makes the whole but a[25] Parable. His allegorical Expositions of it, are frequent, and one time or other he gives us the mystical Meaning of every Part of it. By the Temple, he understands the Church: By the Sellers in the Temple, he means such Preachers who make Merchandize of the Gospel, whom the Spirit of Christ, some time or other, would rid his Church of. He is so far from believing any thing of the Letter of this Story, that he has form'd a[26] large Argument against it: The Substance of which is, that if Jesus had attempted any such thing, the People would have resisted, and executed their Revenge on him; if he had effected it, the Merchants of the Temple might have reproach'd him with Damage done to their Wares; and would have justly accused him of a Riot against Law and Authority. Whether there is not Reason in this Argument of Origen, let any one judge.
St. Hilary is of the same Mind with Origen. He says that this Story is only a[27] Præfiguration of what will be done in Christ's Church upon another Occasion. And he admonishes[28] us to search into the profound and mystical Import of every Part of it; particularly he hints that[29] by the Seats of those who sell Doves, may be understood the Pulpits of Preachers who make Sale of the Gifts of the Spirit, which is represented by a Dove. As to the Letter of the Story, he is plain enough, that there was no such[30] Market kept in the Temple of Jerusalem: And if any Historians besides the Evangelists had asserted it, I know of none, who would have been so foolish as to believe that Oxen and Sheep and Goats were there sold.
St. Ambrose too is for the Mystery, and against the Letter of this Story, saying[31] what should be the Reason that Jesus should overturn the Seats of those that sold Doves? This must be, says he, a figurative Story, and signifies nothing less than the future Ejection of Priests out of his Church, who shall make Gain and Merchandize of the Gospel.
St. Jerome, as his manner is in other Cases, gives us a literal Exposition of this Miracle, as far as it will bear it: But then corrects himself again, saying, there are[32]Absurdities in the Letter; but, according to its mystical Meaning, Jesus will enter his Temple of the Church, and cast out of it Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, who make a Trade of Preaching. And in another Place he tells us of the mystical[33] Whip, that Jesus will make use of to this Purpose.
St. Augustin also is against the Letter of the Story of this Miracle, saying,[34] Where could be the great Sin of selling and buying Things in the Temple, that were for the Use of it, and offer'd as Sacrifice in it? We must therefore, says he, look for the Mystery in this[35] figurative Story, and enquire what is meant by the Oxen, and Sheep, and Doves, and who are the Sellers of them in Christ's Church; and he is very positive that Ecclesiasticks, who are selfish, and make worldly Gain of the Gospel, are here meant. And as to the Expression of turning the Temple into a Den of Thieves, he says it has Respect to the[36]Clergy in Time to come, who would make such a Den of Christ's Church.
Lastly, with the foregoing Fathers agrees St. Theophylact, who is an Allegorist too upon this Miracle, saying, that those[37] who sell Doves, are the Priests who sell spiritual Gifts; and that Christ sometime or other would overturn their Seats, and clear his Church of them. In another Place he intimates what are meant by Oxen and Sheep, viz. the literal Sense of the Scriptures. And if the literal Sense be irrational and nonsensical, the Metaphor we must allow to be proper, inasmuch as now-a-days, dull and foolish and absurd stuff we call Bulls, Fatlings, and Blunders.
Behold a wonderful Harmony among the Fathers in their Rejection of the literal, and Espousal of the mystical Sense of this Miracle. It is said of the Church in her first Ages, that she was inspired; and so she was, or before an Hire for the Priesthood was established, and pleaded for, she could never have written in this Fashion. If the Fathers had lived now, and written thus, we should have thought the Spirit of Quakerism was gotten amongst them, or they would never have given such an Exposition of this Story to favour an Enmity to an Hireling Priesthood.
How and when Christ's Power, according to the Figure and Parable before us, will enter his Church, and drive out of her these ecclesiastical Merchants, is not the Question. But when ever it does so effectually, it will be a stupendous Miracle, much greater than the typical one is supposed to be; and not only a Proof of Christ's divine Power and Presence in his Church, but an absolute Demonstration of his Messiahship from his Accomplishment both of the foresaid Prophecies of the Fathers, and of other remarkable ones of the Old Testament, which will be then clearly understood, and which it is not my Business here to apply or mention.
Against the aforesaid Exposition of this Miracle, perhaps it may be objected, that (excepting a little Reasoning against the Letter of it) this is only the chimerical and whimsical Dream of the Fathers, whose Notions are obsolete, and who[38] have adulterated Christianity with their Cant and Jargon; and that none of our Protestant and Orthodox Divines have ever given into their Opinion.
I confess, that none of our Protestant Divines, whom I know do embrace the foresaid Exposition of the Fathers, but it may be nothing the worse for all that: And tho' their Exposition may be very disagreeable to the Priesthood of this Age, yet I can tell them of the greatest Man of these last Ages, and that was Erasmus, who, cautiously expressing himself for fear of giving Offence to the Clergy, is of the same Mind with the Fathers; or he would not say that[39] that Work of Jesus did prefigure somewhat else: For Jesus could not be zealous against the Prophanation of that Temple of the Jews, which was soon to be destroy'd, but meant to shew his Dislike and Hatred of ecclesiastical Covetousness, which, after the Way of the Type, he would take his Opportunity to rid the Church of.
Before I dismiss this Miracle, I must observe, that if the Fathers are right above, then our Latin and English Translations of the Place in St. Matthew err in a main Point. Instead of reading, and Jesus cast out them that sold and bought, it should be, those who sold and preach'd; that is sold what they preach'd: For the Word αγοραζειν, does more properly signify to preach than to buy; and in this Sense here, according to the Fathers, it should be construed.
Again, I must observe, that our Commentators are a little perplex'd to know who, and what those κολλυβιστων, Money-Changers, were. The Greek[40] Word does import those who have a Knack to barter away little base and Brass Money, with the Effigies of an Ox or Bull on it, in exchange for good Coin. How applicable the Word was to any Merchants of the old Temple at Jerusalem, is hard to conceive. But it is very agreeable to our ecclesiastical Collybists, who, as I may appeal to Freethinkers, vend their brasen-faced Bulls and Blunders at an extravagant and great Price. And if τραπεζας, which is translated Tables, does properly signify[41] Pulpits, who can help it?
So much then on the Miracle of Jesus's driving the Sellers and Buyers out of the Temple. And how I appeal to our Divines, whether it be not an absurd, improbable, and incredible Story according to the Letter, and whether it be any other than, as the Fathers said of it, a prophetical and parabolical Narrative of what would be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by Jesus. And so I come to speak to a
2. Second Miracle of Jesus, and that is, that of his[42] casting the Devils out of the Madman or Madmen, and permitting them to enter into the Herd of Swine, which thereupon ran down a Precipice, and were all choaked in the Sea.
To exorcise, or cast Devils out of the Possess'd, without considering the Nature of such a Possession, or the Nature and Power of the Devil, we'll allow to be not only a kind and beneficent Act, but a great Miracle. But then, be the Miracle as great as can be imagined, it is no more than what false Teachers,[43]Workers of Iniquity, and even some Artists amongst the Jews, have done before; consequently, such a work of Exorcism in our Saviour, could be no Proof of his divine Authority. And if there was no more to be said against this Miracle, this is enough to set it aside, and to spoil the Argument of Jesus's divine Power from it. But there are many Circumstances in the Story literally consider'd, that would induce us to call the Truth of the whole into question. How came those Madmen to have their Dwelling amongst the Tombs of a Burying-Ground? Where was the Humanity of the People, that did not take Care of them, in Pity to them, as well as for the Safety of others? Or if no Chains, as the Text says, which is hardly credible, could hold them, it was possible surely, as well as lawful, to dispatch them, rather than their Neighbours and Passengers should be in Danger from them. Believe then this Part of the Story who can? But what's worse, its not credible there was any Herd of Swine in that Country. If any Historians but the Evangelists had said so, none would have believed it. The Jews are forbidden to eat Swine's Flesh; what then should they do with Swine (which are good for nothing till they are dead) who eat neither Pig, Pork, nor Bacon? Some may say that they were kept there for the Use of Strangers: but this could not be; because that after the Time of Antiochus, who polluted the Temple with the Sacrifice of an Hog, the Jews[44] forbad, under the Pain of an Anathema, the keeping of any Swine in their Country. Perhaps it may be said, that the Gadarens, so call'd from the Place of their Abode, were not Jews, but neighbouring Gentiles, with whom it was lawful to eat, and keep Swine. We will suppose so, tho' it is improbable; but then its unlikely (without better Reason than at present we are apprised of) that our Saviour would permit the Devils to enter into a Herd of them to their Destruction. Where was the Goodness and Justice of his so doing? Let our Divines account for it if they can. It is commonly said of our Saviour, and I believe it, that his Life was entirely innocent, that his Miracles were all useful and beneficial to Mankind, and that he did no Wrong to any one. But how can this be rightly said of him, if this Story be literally true? The Proprietors of the Swine were great Losers and Sufferers; and we don't read that Jesus made them amends, or that they deserv'd such Usage from him. The Proprietors of the Swine, it seems upon this Damage done them by Jesus, desire him to depart out of their Coasts, to prevent farther Mischief; which was gentler Resentment, then we can imagine any others would have made of the like Injury. I know not what our Divines think of this Part of the Story, nor wherefore Jesus escaped so well; but if any Exorcist in this our Age and Nation, had pretended to expel the Devil out of one possess'd, and permitted him to enter into a Flock of Sheep, the People would have said that he had bewitch'd both; and our Laws and Judges too of the last Age, would have made him to swing for it.
Without Offence, I hope, I have argued against the Letter of this strange Story of the holy Jesus; I should not have dared to have said so much against it, but upon the Encouragement of Origen and other Fathers, who say, we ought to expose the Absurdities of the Letter, as much as may be, to turn Men's Heads to the mystical and true Meaning.
Let's hear then what the Fathers say to this Miracle. Origen's Commentaries on this Part of St. Matthew, and St. Luke's Gospel, are lost; otherwise unquestionably he would not only have told us, that he believed no more of the Letter of this Story, than he did of the Devil's[45]taking our Saviour to the Top of a Mountain, and shewing him all the Kingdoms of the World; but, as he is an admirable Mystist, would have given us curious Light into the Allegory and Mystery of it. But without Origen, we have enough in the other Fathers against the Letter of this Story.
St. Hilary reckoning up all the Parts of this Miracle together, says of it, that it is[46] typical and parabolical, and written for our Meditation of what would be done hereafter by the holy Jesus. According to him, and other Fathers, the Madman is Mankind; or if they were two, they were Jew and Gentile at Christ's coming, who may be said to[47] be possess'd with Devils, in as much as they were under the Rule of diabolical Sins, and subject to the Worship of Δαιμονιων, false Deities, which we translate Devils. They were so fierce[48] as no Chains could hold them, because of their most furious Rage and Enmity to the Church, whom no Bonds of Reason could restrain from doing Violence to the Christians. They are said to be[49] naked, because they were destitute of the Clothing of the Spirit, and of Grace. And may be said to be among the[50] Tombs; because they were dead in Traspasses and Sins. After that Jesus had exorcis'd these diabolical Spirits out of the Gentiles, and brought them to their right Senses, which was upon their Conversion to the Faith; then a good Way off, some Ages after, did the like Devils, by divine Permission, enter into a[51] Herd of Swine, i. e. into Hereticks of impure Lives and furious Natures. What sort of Hereticks are meant, or whether they are not to be understood of Christians In general, let our Divines consider. But one would be apt to think that Ministers of the Letter are included, because the Letter of the Scripture is mystically call'd[52] Swines Food. I am not obliged to pursue the mystical Interpretation of this Parable (for so I will call it) thro' all its Parts, nor to say what is meant by the Sea, that the Swine are to be absorp't in; but leave our Divines to chew upon this mystical Construction given them in part, and to consider, whether there's not a Necessity for such an Interpretation to make the Story credible.
And thus have I given you the Opinion and Exposition of the Fathers upon this Miracle, which they turn all into Mystery. If our Divines are still far adhering to the Letter of this Story, let them account for the Difficulties it is involv'd with. To cure Men violently distracted, and possess'd with Devils, is, whether it be miraculous or not, a good and great Work; but to send the Devils, who without Jesus's Permission could not go into the Herd of Swine, was an Injury done to the Proprietors, and unbecoming of the Goodness of the holy Jesus. Neither is there any other Way to solve the Difficulty, than by looking upon the whole, with the Fathers, as Type and Figure.
If this miraculous Story had been recorded of Mahomet, and not of Jesus, our Divines, I dare say, would have work'd it up to a Confutation of Mahometanism. Mahomet should have been, with them, nothing less than a Wizard, an Enchanter, a Dealer with familiar Spirits, a sworn Slave to the Devil; and his Mussulmen would have been hard put to it to write a good Defence of him.
When our Saviour was brought before Pilate to be arraign'd, try'd, and condemned, Pilate put this Question to the Jews, saying, What Evil hath Jesus done? If both, or either of the Stories above, had been literally true of Jesus, there had been no need of false Witnesses against him. The Merchants of the Temple were at hand, who could have sworn "that he was the Author of an Uproar and Riot, the like was never seen on their Market-Day; that they were great Sufferers, and Losers in their Trades; and, whether he or his Party had stolen any of their Goods or not, yet some were embezzled, and others damaged; and all thro' the outragious Violence of this unruly Fellow, against Law and Authority." If such Evidence as this was not enough to convict him of a capital Crime, then the Swine-Herds of the Gadarenes might have deposed, "how they believed him to be a Wizard, and had lost two thousand Swine through his Fascinations: That he bid the Devils to go into our Cattle, is not to be deny'd. And if he cured one or two of our Countrymen of a violent Possession, yet in as much as he did us this Injury in our Swine, we justly suspect him of diabolical Practices upon both."
Upon such Evidence as this, Pilate asks the Opinion of the Jews, saying, What think you? If they all had condemn'd him to be guilty of Death, it is no wonder, since there is not a Jury in England would have acquitted any one arraign'd and accused in the like Case.
It is well for our literal Doctors, that such Accusations were not brought against Jesus; or their Heads would have been sadly puzzled to vindicate his Innocence, and to prove the Injustice and Undeservedness of his Death and Sufferings. But for this Reason, if no other, that no such Crimes were laid to his Charge, I believe little or nothing of either of the seemingly miraculous Stories before us, but look upon them both as prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what would mysteriously and more wonderfully, and consistently with the Wisdom and Goodness of Jesus, be done by him. And so I pass to a
3. Third Miracle of Jesus, and that is his Transfiguration[53] on the Mount. And this is the darkest and blindest Story of the whole Gospel, which a Man can make neither Head nor Foot of; and I question whether the Conceptions of any two thinking Doctors do agree about it. To say there is nothing in the Letter of this Story, we Believers must not, because St. Peter[54] says he was an Eye-witness of Jesus's Majesty, saw his Glory on the Mount, and heard the Voice out of the Cloud. But as Infidels will be prying into the Conduct of Jesus's Life, and forming their Exceptions to the Credibility or Probability of this or that part of it, so we Christians should be ready at an Answer, that might reasonably satisfy them; and not forcibly bear down their Opposition, which will make no sincere Converts of them. And I believe they would easily distress us with Difficulties and Objections to the Letter of this Story.
St. Augustin himself[55] owns, that the whole of it might be perform'd by Magic Art; and we know, in these our Days, that some Jugglers are strange Artists at the Imitation of a Voice, and to make it as if it came from a far off, when it is uttered close by us, and can cast themselves too into different Forms and Shapes, without a Miracle, to the Surprise and Admiration of Spectators.
But what, I trow, do our Divines mean by Jesus's Transfiguration. We read that his Countenance did shine like the Sun, and his Raiment was made as white as Snow, and that's all. And is this enough can we think, to demonstrate that Transaction, a miraculous Transfiguration? Philosophers will tell us, that the Reflections of the Light of the Sun will change the Appearance of Colours, and to none more than Whiteness; and Sceptics will say, that its no Wonder if the Countenance of Jesus look'd Rubicund, when the Sun might shine on it.
The Word in the Original for transfigured, is μεταμορφωθη, that is, he was metamorphosed, transform'd, or, if you will, transfigured. And what is to be understood by a Metamorphosis, we are to learn not only from the natural Import of the Word, but from the ancient Use of it. Accordingly, it signifies nothing less than the Change or Transformation of a Person into the Forms, Shapes, and Essences of Creatures and Things of a quite different Species, Size, and Figure: But Jesus, it is conceived, was not so transfigured. Our Divines, I suppose, would not have him thought such a Posture-Master for the whole World. If I, or anyone else, should assert, that Jesus upon the Mount transform'd himself into a Calf, a Lyon, a Bear, a Ram, a Goat, an Hydra, a Stone, a Tree, and into many other Things of the animate and inanimate World, I dare say there would, among our orthodox Divines, be such Exclamations against me for Blasphemy, as the like were never heard of. They, to be sure, will not hear of such a Transfiguration; nor, like good plain believers, will bear any thing more than that Jesus's Countenance did shine like the Sun, and the Colour of his Vestments was changed; which whether it comes up to the Import of a Metamorphosis or not, they don't care.
But to close with our Divines, and acknowledge that the glorious Change of Jesus's Countenance, and of the Colour of his Vestments, was a true and proper Transfiguration, and that it was as real and wonderful a Miracle as could be wrought: But then we may, I hope, ask them, what was the particular Reason and Use of this Miracle? Was it a Miracle only for the sake of a Miracle? That's an Absurdity in the Opinion of[56] St. Augustin, who says, what is reasonable to think, that all and every one of Jesus's Miracles had its particular End and Use; or he who is the Wisdom as well as Power of God, had never wrought them. And what, I pray, was the life of this Miracle? Of that the evangelical History is silent, and our Divines, with all their reasoning Faculties, can say nothing to it.
And what did Moses and Elias on the Mount with Jesus? Was it in their own proper Persons that they appear'd? or were they only some Spectres and Apparitions in resemblance of them? It is said, that they were talking with Jesus; what then did they talk about? The three greatest Prophets and Philosophers of the Universe could not possibly meet and confer together, but on the most sublime, useful, and edifying Subject. Its strange that the Apostles, who over-heard their Confabulation, did not make a Report of it, and transmit it to Posterity for our Edification and Instruction. St. Luke, as our English Translation has it, seems to say that they talk'd together of Jesus's Decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem; but this can't be the Meaning of St. Luke's[57] Words, which so interpreted, are no less than a Barbarism, and, I appeal to our Greek Criticks, an Improper Expression of such Signification. We must then look for a more proper Construction of the Phrase in St. Luke, or we must remain in the Dark, as to the Subject, that Moses and Elias talked with Jesus about.
But further, Why could not this Miracle have been wrought in the Valley as well as upon a Mountain, whither Jesus and his three Apostles ascended for the Work of it? Naughty Infidels will say, it was for the Advantage of a Cloud, which often moves and rests on the Tops of Mountains, to display his Pranks in. And why was it not done in the Presence of the Multitude, as well as of his three Apostles? The more Witnesses of a Miracle, the better it is attested, and the more reasonably credited; and there could not surely be too many Witnesses of this, any more than of others of Jesus's Miracles, if real ones. Ought not the unbelieving Multitude, for many Unbelievers unquestionably were amongst them, to have had a Sight and Hearing of this Miracle, as well as the Apostles? Who should rather see the Miracle, than those who wanted Conviction? Were they to take the Report of the Miracle upon the Word of the Apostles, who were Parties in the Cause? Our Divines may possibly say they ought: But Infidels and Free-Thinkers would cry out against them, for juggling Tricks, and pious Impostures.
These are all Difficulties and hard Questions about the Miracle of Christ's Transfiguration, which our Clergy, who are Admirers of the Letter of that Story, are obliged to account for; and I believe it will be long enough before they give a proper and satisfactory Answer to many of them.
Let's hear then what the Fathers say to this miraculous Story of Jesus's Transfiguration. And it is agreed amongst them, that the whole is but a Type,[58] Prefiguration, and[59] ænigmatical Resemblance of a future and more glorious and real Transfiguration. And whenever they speak of any Part of the Story, they never explain to us how the Matter went upon Mount Tabor, but tell us of what this or that Part of it is figurative and emblematical; and how it is to be understood, and will be fulfill'd in future Time. As thus, by the[60] six Days, they understood six Ages of the World, after which a real and mysterious Transfiguration will be exhibited to our intellectual Views. By Moses and Elias[61] talking with Jesus, they mean the Law and the Prophets, upon an allegorical Interpretation, bearing Testimony unto Christ as the Fulfiller of them. By the[62] Mountain on which this future Transfiguration will be exhibited, they understand the sublime and anagogical Sense of the Law and the Prophets. By his Transfiguration it self, they mean his taking upon him, and passing through the Forms of all the Types of him under the Law, as of a Lamb, a Lion, a Serpent, a Calf, a Rock, a Stone, and of many others, which he is to fulfil, and which will then be clearly discern'd by us. By the black Cloud[63] that at present obstructs this Vision, they understand the Letter of the Old Testament. By the white[64] Vestments of Jesus, they mean the Words of the Scriptures, which will then shine clear and bright. By the Voice out of the Cloud, they mean, with St. Peter, the Word of Prophecy, that will sound in the Ears of our Apprehensions. And lastly, they tell us, that the Way to attain to the Sight of this glorious Vision, is by ascending (not by local Motion, but by Reason) to the Tops of the Mountain of the mysterious and sublime Sense of the Law and the Prophets. If we continue in the Plains and Vallies[65] of the Letter, like the Multitude under the Mountain, we shall never see Jesus in his shining Vestments, nor how he was transform'd into the Types of the Law; nor Moses and Elias talking with him; nor the Law and the Prophets agreeing harmoniously in a Testimony to him.
After this fashion do the Fathers, one or other of them, copiously treat on every Part of this Transfiguration of Jesus. I could collect an almost infinite Number of Passages out of their Writings to this Purpose: But from these few it is plain, they look'd on the Story of Christ's Transfiguration, but as a Figure and Parable; and they were certainly in the right on't, in as much as this their Sense of the Matter, and no other, will solve the Difficulties before started against the Letter, as any one may discern, if he attentively review and compare one with the other: As, for instance, this their Sense and Interpretation lets us into the Reason of Moses and Elias's appearing on the Mount with Jesus; and gives us to understand what they talk'd about, and that was, not on Jesus's Decease which he would accomplish at Jerusalem, as our Translation has it, but on the Prophecy of the Old Testament; particularly, as St. Luke says, on Moses's Book of Exodus, and how he would fulfill it at the New Jerusalem.
Whether any, besides my self, does really apprehend, and is willing to understand this Story of Christ's Transfiguration, as I do, I neither know nor care. I am not bound to find others Ears, Eyes, and Capacities. What I have said is enough to shew the Sense of the Fathers about this Matter. If any dislike their concurrent Opinion of Jesus's Transfiguration's being an Emblem, an Enigma, and figurative Representation of a future and most glorious Transfiguration, such a one as they speak of; let him account for the Difficulties and Objections which I have before raised against the Letter of this Story. In the mean time I shall think it, literally, an absurd, improbable, and incredible one, and no other than a prophetical and parabolical Narrative of what will be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by Jesus.
And thus I have considered three of the Miracles of our Saviour, and shewn how they are Absurdities, according to the Letter, consequently do make nothing for his Authority and Messiahship. I can and will do as much by his other Miracles; for I would not have any one think I am gotten to the End of my Tedder, but for some Reasons best known to my self, I publish these Remarks on these three first. After the Clergy have chew'd upon these a while, I will take into Examination some others of Jesus's Miracles, which for their literal Story are admired by them. As for Instance,
I will take to task his Miracle[66] of changing Water into Wine at a Marriage in Cana of Galilee; which was the beginning of Jesus's Miracles, and should by right have been first spoken to; but I am almost too grave to handle the Letter of this Story as I ought; and if I had treated it as ludicrously as it deserves, I don't know but at setting out, I should have put the Clergy quite out of all Temper. I would not now for the World be so impious and profane, as to believe, with our Divines, what is contain'd and imply'd in the Letter of this Story. If Apollonius Tyanæus, and not Jesus, had been the Author of this Miracle, we should often have reproached his Memory with it. It is said of Apollonius Tyanæus, that a Table was all on a sudden, at his Command, miraculously spread with Variety of nice Dishes for the Entertainment of himself and his Guests; which Miracle, our Divines can tell him, makes not at all to his Credit, in as much as it was done for the Service and Pleasure of luxurious Appetites. But if Apollonius had done, as our Jesus did at this Wedding, they would have said much worse of him; and that, modestly speaking, he delighted to make his Friends thoroughly merry, or he would not be at the Pains of a Miracle to turn so much Water into Wine, after they had before well drank. If the Fathers then don't help us out at the mystical and true Meaning of this Miracle, such farther Objections may be form'd against the Letter, as may make our Divines asham'd of it.
I will also take into Examination Jesus's Miracle[67] of feeding many Thousands in the Wilderness with a few Loaves and Fishes; which, according to the Letter, are most romantick Tales. I don't in the least question Jesus's Power to magnify or multiply the Loaves, and, if he pleass'd, to meliorate the Bread: But that many Thousands of Men, Women, and Children, should follow him into the Wilderness, and stay with him three Days and Nights too, without eating, is a little against Sense and Reason. Whether the Wilderness was near to, or far from the People's Habitations, the Difficulties attending the Story are equally great. I wonder how Jesus amused them all the while, that they had the Patience to stay with him without Food; but I much more wonder, that no Victuallers besides the Lad with his Loaves and Fishes, of whom, and his Occupation, whether it was that of a Baker or Fishmonger; and of his Neglect of his Master's Business here; and of the Reason that he met with no hungry Chapmen for his Bread before, we shall make some Enquiry; but particularly why he alone, I say, and no other Victuallers, no other Retalers of Cakes and Gingerbread followed the Camp. In short, for all the imaginary Greatness of the Miracle (which there is a way to reduce and lessen) of Jesus's feeding his Thousands with a few Loaves, there must be some Fascination or Enchantment (condemn'd by the Laws of the Jews as well as of other Nations) in the Matter; or the People if they had stay'd one Day, would not two, much less three to faint, but would, especially the Women and Children, have been for returning the first Night home. We must then seek to the Fathers (who say the five Books of Moses are the five Barley Loaves, &c. and the septiform'd Spirit, the seven Loaves, &c.) for a good Notion of this Miracle, and if they don't make it a Parable; do what our Divines can, it will turn to the Dishonour of the holy Jesus.
I will also consider the Miracle of Jesus's[68] curing the Man sick of the Palsy, for whom the Roof of the House was broken up, to let him down into the Room where Jesus was, because his Bearers could not enter in at the Door for the Press of the People. This literally is such a Rodomontado, that were Men to stretch for a Wager, against Reason and Truth, none could out-do it. Where was the Humanity of the People, and wherefore did they so tumultuate against the Door of the House? Its strange they had not so much Compassion on the Paralytick, as to give way to him: Its more strange that his Bearers could get to the Top of the House with him and his Bed too, when they could not get to the Door, nor the Sides of it: Its yet stranger, that the good Man of the House would suffer his House to be broken up, when it could not be long ere the Tumult of the People would be appeas'd: But most strange, that Jesus, who could drive his thousands out at the Temple before him, and draw as many after him into the Wilderness, did not, by Force or Persuasion, make the People to retreat, but that such needless Trouble and Pains must be taken for the miraculous Cure of this poor Man. Let's think of these Things against the Time, that out of the Fathers I prove this Story to be a Parable.
I will also take into Consideration the Miracle of Jesus's curing the[69] blind Man, for whom Eye-Salve was made of Clay and Spittle; which Eye-Salve, whether it was balsamick or not, does equally affect the Credit of the Miracle. If it was naturally medicinal, there's an End of the Miracle; and if it was not at all medicinal, it was foolishly and impertinently apply'd, and can be no otherwise accounted for, than by considering it, with the Fathers, as a figurative Act in Jesus.
I will also take into Consideration the several Stories of Jesus's raising of the Dead; and, without questioning his actual bringing of the Dead to Life again, will prove from the Circumstances of those Stories, that they are parabolical, and are not literally to be apply'd to the Proof of Jesus's divine Authority and Messiahship; or, for Instance, Jesus, when he raised Jairus's[70] Daughter from the Dead, would never have turned the People out of the House, who should have been his best and properest Witnesses.
I will also consider the Miracle of Jesus's[71] cursing the Fig-Tree, for its not bearing Fruit out of Season; which, upon the bare mention of it, appears to be a foolish, absurd, and ridiculous Act, if not figurative.
I will also consider the[72] Journey of the Wisemen out of the East, with their (literally) senseless and ridiculous Presents of Frankincense and Myrrhe, to a new-born Babe. If with their Gold, which could be but little, they had brought their Dozens of Sugar, Soap, and Candles, which would have been of Use to the Child and his poor Mother in the Straw, they had acted like wise as well as good Men. But what, I pray, was the Meaning and Reason of a Star, like a Will-a-Whisp, for their Guide to the Place, where the holy Infant lay. Could not God, by divine Impulse, in a Vision or in a Dream, as he ordered their Return home, have sent them on this important Errand; but that a Star must be taken or made out of Course to this Purpose? I wonder what Communication passed between these Wisemen and the Star, or how they came to know one anothers Use and Intention. But the Fathers shall speak hereafter farther to the Senselessness of this Story literally, and make out the Mystery and true Meaning of it.
I will also, by the Leave of our Divines, take again into Consideration the miraculous Conception of the Virgin Mary, and the Resurrection of Jesus from the Dead. I do believe, if it may so please our Divines, that Jesus was born of a pure Virgin, and that he arose from the Dead: But speaking too briefly, in the Moderator, to these two Miracles, they took Offence. I will therefore give them a Review, and speak home to them; particularly to Christ's Resurrection, the evangelical Story of which literally, is such a Complication of Absurdities, Incoherences, and Contradictions, that unless the Fathers can help us to a better Understanding of the Evangelists than we have at present, we must of Necessity give up the Belief of it.
These and many[73] other of the historical and miraculous Parts of Jesus's Life, will I take into Examination, and shew, that none of them literally do prove his divine Authority: so far from it, that they are full of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities; but that his whole Life in the Flesh, is but[74] Type, Figure, and Parable of his mysterious and spiritual Life and Operations in Mankind.
In the End of this Head, it will be a curious and diverting Subject to examine the Miracles of Jesus as they are literally understood, by the Notions which our Divines have advanced about Miracles; and to shew, that even their Notions compared with Christ's Miracles, are destructive of his Authority, and subversive of Christianity. This, I say, would be a most diverting Undertaking, and it will be strange, if some Free-Thinker, that loves Pleasure of this kind, does not take the Hint, and snatch the Work out of my Hands. If I do it my self, I shall have especial Regard to the Writers against the Grounds, without passing by Mr. Chandler's Essay on Miracles; on which the more Remarks will be made, if it be but to pay my Respects to the Archbishop's Judgment, and to shew my Admiration at those extravagant Praises, which his Grace at Lambeth has bestowed on that Author. Among other his notable Notions of a Miracle (and the Archbishop says he has[75] set the Notion of a Miracle upon a clear and sure Foundation) one is,[76] That Miracles should be Things probable as well as possible, that they do not carry along with them the Appearance of Romance and Fable, which would unavoidably prejudice Men against believing them. This is certainly a good and right Notion of a divine Miracle; and I don't doubt, but according to it, Mr. Chandler and the Archbishop think, they can justify the literal Story of our Saviour's Miracles, against the Charge of Fable and Romance: But whether they are able to do it or not, I shall go on, in some Discourses hereafter to be publish'd, to prove that our Divines, by espousing the Letter of Christ's Miracles, have deceived themselves into the Belief of the most arrant Quixotism that can be devis'd and palm'd upon the Understandings of Mankind. I say, they have deceived themselves; for neither the Fathers, nor the Apostles, nor even Jesus himself, means that his Miracles, as recorded in the Evangelists, should be taken in a literal Sense, but in[77] a mystical, figurative, and parabolical one. And this should bring me to the
III. Head of my Discourse; that is, to consider what Jesus means, when he appeals to his Works and Miracles, as to a Witness and Testimony of his divine Authority; and to shew, that he could not properly and truly refer to those supposed to be wrought by him in the Flesh, but to those mystical ones he would do in the Spirit, of which those seemingly wrought by him in the Flesh, are but Types and Shadows.
But this Head can't be rightly spoken to, till I have more amply discuss'd the former, which, by God's Leave, I promise to do: And if my courteous Readers will be so kind as to trust me till that Time, I assure them to prove, that no Ignorance and Stupidity can be greater, than the Imagination that Jesus really appeal'd to his Miracles, supposed to have been wrought by him in the Flesh, as to a Witness and Testimony of his divine Authority, and Messiahship.
In the mean Time our Divines may go on in their own Way, if they think fit, and admire Jesus of old, and celebrate his Power and Praises for healing of bodily Diseases, and doing other notable Feats according to the Letter of the evangelical Story; but I am for the spiritual Jesus and Messiah, who cures the worse[78] Distempers of the Soul, and does other mysterious and most miraculous Works, of which those recorded in the Evangelists, are but Figure and Parable. This is the primitive and concurrent Opinion about the true Messiah, which the Fathers universally adher'd to. Whether our Jesus, at this Day, be such a spiritual Messiah to his Church, or whether she does not stand in need of such a one, is the Question that our Divines are to see to. But I will add here, what I believe, and than have another Opportunity to prove, that God on purpose suffer'd or empower'd false as well as true Prophets, bad as well as good Men, such as Apollonius, Vespasian, and many others to cure Diseases, and to do other mighty Works, equal to what are literally reported of Jesus, not only to defeat us of all distinction between true and false Miracles, which are the Object of our bodily Senses, but to raise and keep up our Thoughts to the constant Contemplation of Jesus's spiritual, mysterious, and most miraculous Works, which are the Object of our Understandings, and loudly bespeak the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God; and which are to be the absolute Demonstration of Jesus's divine Authority and Messiahship to the Conversion of Jews and Infidels.
I have no more to do at present, but, like a Moderator, to conclude with a short Address and Exhortation to Infidels and Apostates, the two contending Parties in the present Controversy. And
First, To Apostates, I mean the Writers against the Grounds and Scheme. Whether you, grave Sirs, who account your selves orthodox Divines, tho' there is little but Contradiction and Inconsistency amongst you, do like the Name of Apostates which is given you, I much question: But it is the properest, I could think of, for your Desertion of primitive Doctrine about Prophecy and Miracles. I could, not improperly have given you a worse Title, but I was willing to compliment you, rather than reproach you with this.
But setting aside the Title of Apostates, whether it be, in your Opinion, opprobrious or not; you may plainly perceive, that I am, Sirs, on your Side, as to the Truth of Christianity; and if you'll accept of my Assistance for the Proof of Jesus's Messiahship from Prophecy, upon the Terms of the allegorical Scheme proposed in my Moderator, you shall find me your hearty Abettor. Upon the allegorical Scheme, I don't doubt but we shall soundly drub and mawl Infidels, and beat them out of the Field of Battle. If you, being wedded to the literal Scheme, will not accept of my Assistance, you may go on in your own Way, and see the Event of the Controversy, which in the End will turn to your Dishonour.
You, Sirs, can't but be sensible, how those two great Generals, Mr. Grounds, and Mr. Scheme, with their potent Armies of Reasons and Authorities against your literal Prophecies, have grievously distress'd and gall'd you; and if you don't make an honourable Retreat in Time, and seek to Allegorists for Help, will gain a compleat Victory and Triumph over you.
Instead of the Help of Allegorists, you, I find, under the Disappointment of your literal Scheme, chuse rather to have Recourse to Jesus's Miracles: But what little Dependence there is upon his Miracles, in your Sense, I have in part proved in this Discourse; and this I have done (give me leave repeatedly to declare it) not for the Service of your unbelieving Adversaries, but to reduce you to the good old Way of interpreting Oracles, which, upon the Testimony of the Fathers, will, one Day, be the Conversion of the Jews and Gentiles.
Whether you, Sirs, will be pleas'd with this short Discourse on Christ's Miracles, I much question. But before you put your selves into a Rage against it, I beg of you to read St. Theophilus of Antioch, Origen, St. Hilary, St. Augustin, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, St. John of Jerusalem, St. Theophylact, and other occasional ancient Pieces on one part or other of the Evangelists; and you'll find how they countenance such a Discourse as this on Miracles, and will abundantly assist me in the Prosecution of it.
I expect, Sirs, that some of you will be ready to rave against me for this Discourse; but this is my Comfort, that if your Passion should arise to another Prosecution of me, you can't possibly separate any of mine from the Opinions of the Fathers to ground a Prosecution on: And what Dishonour in the End will redown to Protestant and pretendedly learned Divines of the Church of England, to persecute again the Fathers for primitive Doctrine, I desire you to think on.
But, as I suppose, you'll have more Wit, Sirs, than to prosecute me again for this Discourse; so I hope you'll have more Ingenuity, than odiously (after your wonted manner) to represent me to the Populace, for Profaneness, Blasphemy, and Infidelity. If you dislike the whole, or any part of this Discourse, appear like Men and Scholars, from the Press against it. Use me as roughly in Print as you think fit, I'll not take it ill.
Veniam petimus, dabimusq; vicissim.
I desire nothing more than to be furiously attack'd from the Press, which, if I am not much mistaken, would give me a long'd for Opportunity to expose your Ignorance to more Advantage.
Be not longer mistaken, good Sirs. The History of Jesus's Life, as recorded in the Evangelists, is an emblematical Representation of his spiritual Life in the Soul of Man; and his Miracles are Figures of his mysterious Operations. The four Gospels are in no Part a literal Story, but a System of mystical Philosophy or Theology.
If you are resolved not to come into this Opinion, I beg of you again, before you break forth into a Passion, to try to vindicate the literal Story of the three Miracles spoken to in this Discourse, viz. those of Jesus's driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple; of his exorcising the Devil out of the Madman; and of his Transfiguration on the Mount; which if you are able to defend against the Fathers, and my Objections, I'll give up the Cause to you, and own my self (what I am far enough from being) an impious Infidel and Blasphemer, and deserving of the worst Punishment. In the mean time, I make bold again to assert, that the literal Story of Christ's Life and Miracles, is an absurd and incredible Romance, full of Contradictions and Inconsistencies; and that modern Paraphrases are not only a consequential Reflection on the Intellects of the Evangelists, and their divine Gifts of the Spirit, as if they could not write an intelligible and coherent Piece of Biography without your Help at this Distance of Time; but have even darken'd and obscured the seemingly native Simplicity of the Story of the Life of Jesus. So leaving you to chew upon this, I turn
My Address to Infidels, particularly to the two most renown'd Writers of the Party, Mr. Grounds, and Mr. Scheme. I should, Gentlemen, by right, salute you with the Title of Free-Thinkers, a proper Name for your philosophical Sect, who are for the free Exercise of your Reason about divine and speculative Points in Theology. And I had distinguish'd you by this Title from your apostatical Adversaries, but that I had a mind to oblige my old Friends the Clergy, in giving you a no more honourable Title than I do them. And I trust you will not be offended at the Title of Infidels, since not only your Writings seem to have a Tendency to Infidelity; but, if there be any Fault in your Principles, you know how to charge it on your Adversaries, the pretended Advocates for Christianity, whose Absurdities, false Reasonings, Inconsistencies, and foolish Glosses on the Scriptures, have occasioned your Departure from the Faith in Christ.
I thank Mr. Scheme for the noble Present of his Book, which I received and read with Pleasure. But instead of one, he should have sent me a Dozen for the Use of Friends and Borrowers, who are very curious and importunate for the Perusal of it. For what Reason he envies the Booksellers the publick Sale of his Work, chusing rather to give it away gratis, than that they should reap any Profit by it, I know not. Surely it is not to bring an Odium on the Clergy for Persecutors, as if such an useful and philosophical Piece might not appear publickly without Danger from them: If so, I hope the Clergy will resent the Indignity, and invite him to a Publication of his Book, with a Promise of Impunity, which would wipe off the Reproach, which this clandestine Method of disposing of it has cast on them.
I once almost despair'd, Sirs, of seeing such another Piece from your Quarter. I was afraid the Prosecution of the Moderator, would have deterr'd you from the Press, whereby our excellent Controversy on Foot must have been dropt: But the sudden and unexpected Appearance of Mr. Scheme, has revived me, and rejoiced the Cockles of my Heart. Go on then, great Sirs, in this Controversy, which Mr. Grounds happily commenc'd; and if you are deny'd the Liberty of the Press, and publick Sale of your Books, I hope you'll, for all that, as occasion offers it self, oblige the Learned and Curious with some more of your bright Lucubrations, tho' you print them, and dispose of them in this clancular and subtil Method.
It is not that I wish well to your Cause of Infidelity, that I thus encourage you. You have more Sense and Reason than to suspect me tainted with unbelieving Principles. Christianity will stand its Ground against your battering Armour; and the Church of Christ will be the more firmly establish'd on a Rock of Wisdom, for that Opposition you make to it. Tho' you will entirely vanquish the literal Schemists, and ride in Triumph over them, yet other Defenders of the Faith, call'd Allegorists, will arise to your Confutation and final Overthrow.
If I am not mistaken, Sirs, your Adversaries, the literal Schemists, whom I call Apostates, are about making a Retreat, and yielding the Field of Battle to you. The Bishop of Litchfield, the greatest General on their Side, will not only find it hard to levy any more Forces in Defence of his twelve literal Prophecies; but he knows that, if he draws his Sword any more against you, he must attack too the Authority of the Fathers for the allegorical Interpretation of some of those Prophecies, already urg'd in my Supplements to the Moderator; or, if the Fathers are neglected by him; they and I, keeping out of the Reach of his Bug-Bear, will treat him with such familiar Language, as never was given to one of his Order.
Mr. Scheme seems to promise us a Discourse on the Miracles in the Scriptures; I hope he'll be as good as his Word, and ere long publish it. This Discourse of mine can't possibly supersede his. As I question not but his Thoughts and Remarks on Miracles will be very considerable; so I shall be a little impatient till I see them. But be his Discourse on Miracles of what Kind soever, I believe it will hardly be an Obstruction to my Undertaking in Hand, which I intend, by God's Leave, to go on with, to the Honour of the holy Jesus, our spiritual Messiah, to whom be Glory and Praise for ever and ever. Amen.
FINIS.
A SECOND
DISCOURSE
ON THE
MIRACLES
OF OUR
SAVIOUR,
In View of the present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates.
Audendum est, ut illustrata Veritas pateat, multique ab Errore liberentur. Lactant.
By Thomas Woolston, sometime Fellow of Sidney-College in Cambridge.
LONDON:
Printed for the Author, Sold by him in Bell-Alley, Coleman-Street, and by the Booksellers of London and Westminster. 1727.
[Price One Shilling.]
TO THE
Right Reverend Father in God
EDWARD,
Lord Bishop of Lichfield.
My Lord,
our Fame for that celebrated Book, call'd the Defence of Christianity, is the Occasion of this Dedication. I need not tell you, what vast Reputation you have acquired by it: You have been not only often applauded from the Press, but have met with large Compliments and Thanks from your Clergy for it. And tho' Mr. Scheme has very untowardly written against you, yet this is still your Honour, that you are an Author, not unworthy of his Regard and Notice.
I am, in Opinion with the Fathers, against an establish'd Hire for the Priesthood, thinking it of disservice to true Religion: But when I consider'd the Usefulness of your Lordship's Episcopal Riches and Honours to this Controversy, I almost chang'd my Mind. Your exalted Station in the Church, has given Credit and Authority to your Work, which, if it had came from the Hands of a poor Priest, had never been so much admir'd; neither would Mr. Scheme, I believe, nor my self, have paid so many Respects to it.
For this Reason, I wish some more of your Order would appear in this Controversy, that the World might see what famous Men are our Bishops, and of what Use their Hundreds and Thousands a Year are to the Defence of Christianity; which, if such able Hands were not amply hired to its Support, might be in Danger, as certainly as, that Men of low Fortunes must needs be Men of poor Parts, little Learning, and slender Capacities to write in Vindication of it.
Some have conceiv'd Hopes that the great Bishop of London, from his last Charge to his Clergy, will second you in this Controversy; if so, there's no doubt on't, but his Performance will be commensurate to his State and Revenues. Of his Zeal in the Controversy, he has already given a notable Instance, when he prosecuted the Moderator; and I dare say, he'll vouchsafe us a more remarkable Specimen of his Knowledge in it, as soon as he can spare Time for't; and then (Oh my Fears!) he'll pay me off for my Objection against Christ's Resurrection, which he would have persuaded the Civil Magistrate to have done for him.
But whether the Bishop of London seconds you or not, it's Time, my Lord, to expect another Volume from you, in Answer to Mr. Scheme, which, for all the Reports that are spread of your intended Silence, I hope soon to see publish'd. What will the People say, if that Philisthin goes off, giving you the last Blow in the Controversy? Nothing less than that he has gotten the better of the Learned Bishop of Lichfield, and has refuted Christianity to the Conviction of the Bishop himself, who would renounce it too, but for the temporal Advantages he enjoys by it.
Think, my Lord, on the Dishonour of such Reflections, and resume Courage against the Adversary. I look upon you as a more sturdy Gladiator than for one Cut on the Pate, to quit the Stage of Battle. Tho' Mr. Scheme has unluckily hit you on a soft Place, and weaken'd your Intellectuals for a while; yet he is a generous Combatant, and gives you Time to recover your wonted Strength of Reason. At him again then, my Lord, and fear not, in your Turn, to give him such a Home-Thrust, as will pierce his unbelieving Heart.
And when your Lordship engages him again from the Press, I hope you'll be more explicite for Liberty of Debate. Through godly Zeal for Church, you unhappily made a Slip, in your Dedication to the King, on the persecuting Side of the Question, which had lik'd to have sully'd the Glory of your whole Work. Such a grand Philosopher, as you are, should trust alone to the Goodness of your Cause, and the Strength of your Reasonings, in Defence of it: Such a potent Champion for Christianity, as you are, should disdain the Assistance of any, but of God, to fight for you. The Use of the Civil Sword on your Side, is not only a Disparagement to your Parts, but a Disgrace to our Religion.
I know not what your Lordship may think on't, but the Prosecution of the Moderator was, in the Judgment of others, more than of my self, some Reproach to you: Because of a few slender Animadversions, I made on your renown'd Book, some think I suffer'd a Prosecution, which you, in Honour, should have discourag'd. I am willing to acquit you as much as may be; and would, if I could, impute it to your Forgetfulness, rather than your Malice, that you step'd not between me and Danger.
Whether this Discourse will be acceptable to your Lordship, is somewhat uncertain; I am afraid it will be a little disgustful to your nice and delicate Taste in Theology, which relishes nothing better than the plain and ordinary Food of the Letter of Christ's Miracles: But however, you will readily interpret this Dedication to your Honour, and if you should make me a large present of Gold for it, I sincerely assure your Lordship, it will be more than I aim'd at; neither do I desire any other Return for it, than to be endulg'd the Liberty and Pleasure to pay my customary Respects to your Writings; and upon proper Occasions to testify to the World, how much I am,
London,
October 13th
1727.
My LORD,
The Admirer of
Your Wit, Learning
and Orthodoxy,
Thomas Woolston.
A Second
DISCOURSE
ON THE
MIRACLES
OF OUR
SAVIOUR, &c.
here publish another Discourse on our Saviour's Miracles, which I am not only oblig'd to, by the Promise I made in my former; but am encouraged to it by the Reception which that met with. If any of our Clergy were, and besides them, few or none could be offended at my former Discourse, they should have printed their Exceptions to it, and, if possible, their Confutation of it, which might perhaps have prevented me the giving them any more Trouble of this Kind.
In my former Discourse I fairly declar'd, that if the Clergy could disprove my Arguments against the Letter, and for the Spirit of the Miracles I there took to task, I would not only desist from the Prosecution of my Design, but own my self an impious Infidel and Blasphemer, and deserving of the worst Punishment: But since they are all mute and silent, even in this Cause, which in Honour and Interest they should have spoken out to, they ought not to be angry, if I proceed in it. I have given them time enough to make a Reply, if they had been of Ability to do it: What must I think then upon their Silence? Nothing less than that my Cause is impregnable, and my Arguments and Authorities in Defence of it irrefragable; and though they don't professedly yield to the Force of them; yet they have nothing to say in Abatement of their Strength, or it had certainly seen the Light before now.
I go on then in my undertaking to write against the literal Story of our Saviour's Miracles, and against the Use that is commonly made of them to prove his divine Authority and Messiahship: And this I do, I solemnly again declare it, not for the Service of Infidelity, but for the Honour of the Holy Jesus, and to reduce the Clergy to the good old Way, and the only Way of proving his Messiahship, and that is, by the allegorical Interpretation of the Law and the Prophets. Therefore, without any more Preamble, I resume again the Consideration of the three Heads of Discourse, before proposed to be treated on to this Purpose. And they are,
I. To shew, That the Miracles of healing all manner of Bodily Diseases, which Jesus was justly fam'd 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. 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 Witness of his divine Authority; and to shew that he could not properly and ultimately refer to those, he then wrought in the Flesh, but to those mystical ones, which he would do in the Spirit, of which those wrought in the Flesh are but mere Types and Shadows.
I have already spoken, what I then thought sufficient to the first of these Heads; and though I could now much enlarge my Reasons, and multiply Authorities upon it to the same Purpose; yet I shall not do it; but only, by Way of Introduction to my following Discourse, say, that if it had been intended by our Saviour, that any rational Argument for his divine Authority and Messiahship should be urged from his miraculous healing Power; the Diseases which he cured, would have been accurately described, and his Manner of Operation so cautiously express'd, as that we might have been sure the Work was supernatural, and out of the Power of Art and Nature to perform: But the Evangelists have taken no such Care in their Narrations of Christ's Miracles. As for Instance, Jesus is supposed often miraculously to cure Lameness; but there is no Account of the nature and degree of Lameness he cured; nor are we certain, whether the Skill of a Surgeon, or Nature it self, could not have done the Work without his Help. If the Evangelists had told us of Men, that wanted one or both their Legs, (and such miserable Objects of Christ's Power and Compassion, were undoubtedly in those Days as well as in ours) and how Jesus commanded Nature to extend itself to the entire Reparation of such Defects; here would have been stupendous Miracles indeed, which no Scepticism, nor Infidelity itself could have cavill'd at; nor could I, nor the Fathers themselves have told how to allegorize, and make Parables of them. But there is no such Miracle recorded of Christ, nor any thing equal to it; so far from it, that the best and greatest Miracles of Jesus, which must confessedly be those related at large, (for no Body can suppose he did greater than those more particularly specify'd) are liable to exception, being so blindly, and lamely, and imperfectly reported, as that, by Reasonings upon the Letter of the Stories of them, they may be dwindled away, and reduced to no Wonders, which brings me to treat again on the
II. Second Head of my Discourse, and that is, to shew, that the literal History of the Miracles of Jesus, as recorded in the Evangelists, does imply Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities; consequently they, in whole or in part, were never wrought, but are only related as parabolical Narratives of what would be mysteriously, and more wonderfully done by him.
To this Purpose I, in my former Discourse, took into Examination three of the Miracles of Jesus, viz. those, of his driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple; Of his exorcising the Devils out of the Madmen, and sending them into the Herd of Swine; and Of his Transfiguration on the Mount. How well I perform'd on these Miracles which have been admired for their literal Story, let others judge and say.
I now will take into Consideration three others of Jesus's Miracles, viz. those, Of his healing a Woman that was afflicted with an Issue of Blood, twelve Years; Of his curing the Woman that labour'd under a Spirit of Infirmity, eighteen Years; and Of his telling the Samaritan Woman her Fortune of having had five husbands, and living then in Adultery with another Man: Which are, all three, reputedly most miraculous and admired Stories. The two former, they say, are Arguments of Jesus's mighty Power; and the latter, of his immense Knowledge: But how little of certain Power and Knowledge there is in any of them, according to the Letter, will be seen in the sequel of this Discourse. Infidels, I dare say, if they had not wanted Liberty, would e'er now have facetiously exposed those Stories. If I snatch that Work out of their Hands, our Clergy ought to be glad, because what I do in it, is to the Honour of the Holy Jesus, and to turn those pretendedly miraculous Stories into divine Mysteries.
In my former Discourse I gave my Readers some Reason to expect, that in this I would treat on some of Jesus's Miracles, which I there mentioned, viz. On his turning Water into Wine at a Marriage in Cana of Galilee; and On his feeding of Thousands with a few Loaves and Fishes in the Wilderness; and On his Cure of the Paralytick, for whom the Roof of the House was broken up to let him down into the Room where Jesus was, &c. And I then really did design to speak to these Miracles, but upon Consideration, finding them most ludicrous Subjects according to the Letter, I forbear it at present, having no Inclination to put the Clergy quite out of all Temper. If any should say, this is Fear and Cowardice in me, I can't help it: But, for all that, now I have the Clergy in a tolerable good Humour for Liberty, I'll endeavour to keep them in it, and not disturb them by an hasty and unnecessary Provocation of them. Who knows not, that the Clergy, like an untamed Colt, that I have a mind to ride, may be apt to winch and kick, and may give me a Fall before I come at the end of my Journey, to the Disappointment of my Readers? They shall therefore be gently handled and stroak'd, till they are a little more inur'd to the Bit and Saddle: And for their Sakes will I postpone such Miracles as are most obnoxious to Ridicule, and at present chuse the aforesaid three, that of almost any in the Gospel may be most inoffensively treated on. I begin then,
1. To speak to that Miracle of Jesus's[79] healing a Woman diseased with an Issue of Blood, twelve Years. To please our Divines, I will allow as much of the Truth of the Letter of this Story, as they can desire. The Fathers themselves, who are for turning the whole History of Jesus's Life into Allegory and Mystery, don't deny that a Woman was cured of an Hæmorrhage, after the Manner that is here described by the Evangelists. St. Augustin says[80] of this Miracle, that it was done, as it is related; and I have a greater Veneration for his Authority, than to gainsay it. But for all that, Infidels may and will take into Examination the nature of this Miracle, and if possible make little or nothing of it. And if I do this for them, it is not to do Service to Infidelity, but to turn Mens Heads to the mystical Use of it, for which it is recorded.
As there is a particular Narration of this Miracle, among the few others, that are specified; so Reason should tell us, that if the Letter of the Story of Christ's Miracles, as our Divines hold, is only to be regarded, this is one of the greatest that Jesus wrought, or it would not be related by itself, but thrown into the Lump of all manner of Diseases, which He heal'd. And how then shall we come to the Knowledge of the greatness of this Miracle? Why, there are but two Ways to it, and they are,
First, By considering the nature of the Disease, or the lamentable Condition of the Patient before Cure. And
Secondly, By considering the Manner or Means by which the Cure was performed.
If one or both of these Considerations don't manifest the Certainty of a Miracle, Infidels may conclude there was none in it.
First, As to the nature of the Disease of this Woman, we are much in the Dark about it, and very uncertain of what Kind and Degree it was. St. Matthew writing of it, says the Woman was αιμορροουσα, that is, obnoxious to bleeding; St. Mark and St. Luke say of her, that ουσα εν ρευματε αιματος, she was in an efflux or running of Blood. But neither one nor the other of the Evangelists signify of what Degree her Hæmorrhage was, nor from what part of her Body it proceeded, nor how often or seldom she was addicted to it. It might be, for ought we know, only a little bleeding at the Nose, that now and then she was subject to: Or it might be an obnoxiousness to an Evacuation of Blood by Siege or Urine: Or it was, not improbably, of the menstruous Kind. Any of these might be the Case of this Woman for what's written; and I don't find that any of our Divines have determined of what sort it was. But a great Miracle is wrought, they think, in her Cure, without knowing the Disease; which Infidels will say is asserted at Random and without Reason, in as much as it is necessary to know the nature of the Distemper, or none truly and properly can say, there was a great, much less a miraculous Cure wrought.
But supposing this Hæmorrhage proceeded from what Part of the Body our Divines think fit; How will they make a grievous Distemper of it in order to a Miracle? The Woman subsisted too long under her Issue of Blood, and bore it too well, for any to make her Case very grievous. Beza[81] will have it, that is was a constant and incessant Effusion of Blood that the Woman labour'd with. But this could not be, nor was it possible, as I suppose Physicians will agree, for Nature to endure it so long, or the Woman to live twelve Days, much less twelve Years under it.
No more then, than some slight Indisposition can reasonably and naturally be made of this Woman's Distemper. And it would be well, if Infidels would rest here with their Objections against it. But what if they should say, that this Hæmorrhage was rather of Advantage to the Health of the Patient, than of Danger to her, and that the Woman was more nice than wise, or she would never have sought so much for Help and Cure of it? Some Hæmorrhages are better kept open than stop'd and dry'd up; and if Infidels should say, that this was a Preservative of the Life of the Woman, like an Issue, at which Nature discharges itself of bad Humours, Who can contradict them? Nay, if they should say that Jesus's Cure of this Woman's Hæmorrhage was a Precipitation of her Death, for she died some time after it, rather than a Prolongation of her Life, for she lived twelve Years under it, and was of good Strength, when she applied to our Saviour for Cure, or she could never have born the press of the People to come at him; Who can gainsay them? It is true she was very sollicitous for a Cure, and uneasy under her Distemper, or she would never have spent all she had on Physicians; which is a Sign, some may say, that her Disease was grievous, irksome, and dangerous, as well as incurable by Art. But Infidels will say, not so; for there are some slight cutaneous Distempers, sometimes issuing with a little purulent and bloody Matter, that nice Women will be at a great Expence for Relief, and are always tampering, and often advising about them, though to no Purpose: And if they should say that this was the worth of the Case of this Woman, Who can disprove it?
In short then here is an uncertain Distemper both in Nature and Degree; how then can there be any Certainty of a Miracle in the Cure of it? Mr. Moore, the Apothecary, accurately describes the Diseases he pretends to have cured; and he is in the right on't so to do, or he could not recommend his Art, and aggrandize his own Fame. So the Bodily Disease of this Woman should have been clearly and fully represented to our Understanding, or we can form no Conception of Christ's Power in the Cure of it. And I can't but think that the Evangelists, especially St. Luke the Physician, had made a better Story of this Woman's Case, if Christ's Authority and Power had been to be urg'd from the Letter of it. It's enough to make us think, Christ cured no extraordinary and grievous Maladies, or the Evangelists would never have instanced in this, that so much Exception is to be made to. As then, reasonably speaking, there was no extraordinary Disease in this Woman cured, and consequently no great Miracle wrought; so let us now,
Secondly, Consider the Manner of the Cure, and whether any Miracle is to be thence proved. The Woman said within her self,[82] that if she could but touch the Hem of Jesus's Garment, she should be made whole. And I can't but commend her, at this distance of Time, for the Power of her Faith, Persuasion, or Imagination in the Case, which was a good Preparative for Relief, and without which, it's certain, she had continued under her Disease. The Power of Imagination, it's well known, will work Wonders, see Visions, produce Monsters, and heal Diseases, as Experience and History doth testify. There being many Instances to be given of Cures performed by frivolous Applications, Charms, and Spells, which are unaccountable any other Way, than by the Imagination of the Patient. Against the Reason and Judgment of a Physician, sometimes the diseased will take his own Medicines and Benefit. And I don't doubt, but Stories may be told of Cures wrought, the Imagination of the Patient helping, by as mean a Trifle, as the Touch of Christ's Garments, and no Miracle talk'd on for it. Even in the ordinary, natural, and rational Use of Physick, it is requisite, that the Patient have a good Opinion of his Physician and of his Medicines. A good Heart in the Sick, tends not only to his Support, but helps the Operation of Prescriptions. As despair and dejection of Mind sometimes kills, where otherwise reasonably speaking, proper Medicines would cure; so a good Conceit in the Patient at other times, whether the Medicines be pertinent or not, is almost all in all. And if Infidels should say that this was the Case of this Woman in the Gospel; if they should say as St. John of Jerusalem[83] did, that her own Imagination cured herself; and should urge the Probability of it, because Jesus could do no Cures and[84] Miracles against Unbelief, Who can help it? In this Case our Divines must prove, that this Woman's Hæmorrhage was of that kind, that no Faith nor Fancy in herself could help her without the Divine Power; but this is impossible for them to do, unless there had been a more certain Description of her Disease, than the Evangelists have given of it.
Our Divines will indeed tell us, what I believe, that it was the Divine Power co-operating with the Faith and Imagination of the Woman that cured her; because Jesus says that Virtue had gone out of him to the healing of her: And I wish Infidels would acquiesce here, and not say, that Jesus's Virtue hung very loose on him, or the Woman's Faith, like a Fascination, could never have extracted it against his Will and Knowledge: But what if they should say, that Jesus, being secretly appriz'd of the Woman's Faith, and Touch of him, took the Hint; and to comfort and confirm her in her Conceit, and to help the Cure forward, said, Virtue was gone out of him? This would be an untoward Suggestion, which if Infidels should make, our Divines must look for a Reply to it.
It is said of the Pope, when he was last at Benevento, that he wrought three Miracles, which our Protestant Clergy, I dare say, believe nothing at all of. But, for all that, it is not improbable, but that some diseased People, considering their superstitious Veneration for the Pope, and their Opinion of the Sanctity of the Present, might be persuaded of his Gift of Miracles, and desirous of his Exercise of it; and if they fancyfully or actually received Benefit by his Touch, I don't wonder, without a Miracle. And what if we had been told of the Popes curing an Hæmorrhage like this before us? What would Protestants have said to it? Why, "that a foolish, credulous, and superstitious Woman had fancy'd herself cured of some slight Indisposition; and the crafty Pope and his Adherents, aspiring after popular Applause, magnified the presumed Cure into a Miracle. If they would have us Protestants to believe the Miracle, they should have given us an exacter Description of her Disease, and then we could better have judg'd of it". The Application of such a supposed Story of a Miracle wrought by the Pope, is easy; and if Infidels, Jews, and Mahometans who have no better Opinion of Jesus, than we have of the Pope, should make it, there's no Help for it.
And thus have I made my Descants on this supposed Miracle before us and argued, as much as I could, against the Miraculousness of it, both from the Nature of the Disease, and the Manner of the Cure of it. Whether any one shall think I have said any thing to the Purpose or not, is all one to me. My Design in what I have done, is not to do Service to Infidelity, but, upon the Command and Encouragement of the Fathers, to turn Mens Thoughts to the mystical Meaning of the said Miracle, which I come now to give an Account of.
None of the Fathers (excepting St. Chrysostom[85], who writes here more like an Orator than a Physician) ever trouble themselves, when they speak of this Miracle, about the Nature of the Disease, literally, in this Woman, or the greatness of the Cure of it; but alone bend their Studies to the mystical Interpretation, for the sake of which, this Evangelical Story was written, and originally transacted.
Accordingly, they tell us that this Woman is a Type[86] of the Church of the Gentiles in after Times. And as to her Hæmorrhage or Issue of Blood, they understand it of the[87] Impurity and Corruption of the Church by ill Principles and bad Morals, that the would flow with. Some of the Fathers, as[88] Gregory Nazianzen, and[89] Eusebius Gallicanus, will have the Issue of Blood to be a Type of the scarlet Sin of Blood-guiltiness in the Church: If so, we must understand it of the Effusion of Christian Blood by War and Persecution.
The twelve Years of the Woman's Affliction with her Hæmorrhage is a typical Number of the Church's impure State for above twelve Hundred Years. And whether some of the primitive Church did not, by the said twelve Years of the Woman, understand twelve Ages, I appeal to[90] Irenæus, to whom I refer my Readers, Accordingly this typify'd Woman of the Church, should be the same with the Woman[91] in the Wilderness, that, as St. John says, was twelve Hundred and sixty Days or Years there sustained; and by whom many Protestants, as well as the Fathers, understand the Church universal. When the said twelve Hundred and sixty Days or Years of the Church's being in the Wilderness, did commence or will end, is none of my Business to enquire or ascertain. But as this Woman in the Gospel is said after twelve Years Affliction, to be cured of her Disease by Jesus; so it is the Opinion of the Fathers, that the Church universal, after twelve Hundred Years of her Wilderness State, will be purified and sanctified by the Gifts of the Spirit of Christ, and enter upon a more holy, peaceable, and happy Condition, absolutely freed from her Issue of Blood, which, through Persecution and War, she has for many Ages labour'd under. It is not my Concern to collect all the Authorities of the Fathers to this Purpose; but only say, that if at the End of twelve Hundred and sixty Days or Years, the Church, like the Woman, be not cur'd of her Hæmorrhage and mystical Wounds and Sores; if her present impure and unsound State be not chang'd into an holy, healthy, and peaceable one; many good Protestants, as well as the Fathers, are mistaken, and abundance of Prophecies of the Old and New Testament, that have been hereunto urged, will lose their Credit.
But who are meant by the Physicians of the Woman, that have had the mystical Hæmorrhage and Diseases of the Church Under Cure all this while? Who should, but pretended Ministers, of the Gospel? Ministers of the Gospel are not only by the Fathers call'd metaphorically[92] spiritual Physicians; but our Divines and Preachers of all Denominations like the Metaphor, and think themselves able Physicians at the Diseases of the Church, which they are forward to prescribe and apply Medicines to, whenever, in their Opinion, she stands in need of them. Whether our Divines like to be accounted the Physicians of the Text before us, I much question; but it is certain that[93] Eusebius Gallicanus expressly says, that our Divines and pretended Philosophers are meant by them; and venerable Bede[94] upon the Place is of the same Mind too.
The Woman of the Gospel is said[95] to suffer many Things of many Physicians, and was nothing better'd, but rather grew worse; that is, she grew worse not in time only, but through the Use of her Physicians, who were her[96] Tormentors. So the Diseases of the Church in time have increased, for all the Use she has made of her spiritual Physicians, the Clergy. In every Age has the Church been degenerating in Morals and Principles, as any one knows, that is able to make an Estimate of Religion in times past; and all along have her ecclesiastical Quack Doctors contributed to her ill State of Health. As many Physicians with their different Applications tormented the poor Woman; so our many Empericks in Theology with their different Schemes of Church Government and various Systems of Divinity, like so many Prescriptions for Cure, have increased the Divisions, widen'd the Wounds, and inflamed the Sores of the Church. And if the Woman's Issue of Blood be, according to the Fathers, a particular Type of the Blood of the Church, that is shed in Persecution and War; our Theological Pretenders to Physick, have been so far from providing and prescribing a good Stiptic in this Case that they have been the Occasion of the Effusion of much Christian Blood; there having been many a War and Persecution, that these Incision Doctors, who should be all Balsam, have been the Cause of.
The Woman spent all her Living, all her yearly Income, upon her Physicians, and as it seems to a bad Purpose; so very great and large Revenues of the Church, are expended on her ecclesiastical Doctors in spiritual Physick: And to what End and Purpose? Why, to open and widen the bleeding Wounds of the Church, which they should heal and salve up. It is now about twelve Hundred Years, like the twelve Years of the Woman, that the Clergy, our Practitioners in Theological Physick, have received of the Church vast Fees, Stipends and Gratuities (for before that time her Doctors prescrib'd freely) to take care of her Health and Welfare; but unless God provide in due time a Medicine of his own, she is likely to continue in a diseased and sorrowful Condition for all them.
One would think that the Woman of the Gospel might have had more Wit than to lay out all she was worth upon Physicians to no good Purpose; one would think that after some Experience of their Insufficiency to cure her, she might have forborn seeing them, and reserved the Remains of her Estate for better Uses: So the Fees and Revenues of the Church, after due Experience of the Inability of her spiritual Doctors to heal her Sores, might have been in my Opinion better employ'd, and the Church of Christ more out of Danger of Wounds and Sickness, by Sin and Error. Certain it is, that many an Issue of Blood, through Persecution and War, had been prevented; if such barbarous and blood thirsty Doctors of Ecclesiastical Physick, had never been so fee'd and hired to take care of the Welfare of the Church, which, for all their Spiritual Medicines, will continue in a languishing Condition, till heal'd by the Virtue and Graces of the Spirit of Christ in his foresaid appointed Time.
So much then to the mystical Interpretation of the Story of the Cure of the Issue of Blood in this Woman. Every minute Circumstance of it is thus to be allegorized, if need was. Whether the Clergy will like this parabolical Explication of it, I neither know nor care. They have their Liberty with Atheists and Infidels to believe as little of it as they think fit; and I hope they'll give me leave with the Fathers of the Church to believe as much of it as I please. But whether they approve of this allegorical Interpretation of this supposed Miracle or not; they must own, that if the Church, after the foresaid twelve Ages, should be purified and sanctified; if her Errors and Corruptions, of which the Woman's Uncleanness is a Type, should be heal'd; if War and Persecution, typified by her Issue of Blood, should then entirely cease; if all Christians should then be united in Principle, Heart and Affection, and made to walk in a peaceable and quiet State, as the Woman was[97] bid to go in Peace; if the Church should then come behind Jesus (which[98] is a Figure of future Time) and rightly touch by Faith, and apprehend his[99] Garments or Words of Prophecy, about which Christians have hitherto been pressing and urgent; and if the Gifts of the Spirit, like Virtue on the Woman, should then be poured forth upon the Church to the absolute Cure of her present Diseases, we must, I say, allow the Story of this Woman to be an admirable Emblem and typical Representation; and the Accomplishment of it most miraculous and stupendous; and not only an indisputable Proof of the Power and Presence of Christ with his Church, but a Demonstration of his Messiahship, in as much as an almost infinite Number of Prophecies of the Old Testament, will thereupon receive that Accomplishment, which hitherto, by no shadow of Reason, can be pretended to.
After such a mystical Healing of the Hæmorrhage of the Church, there's no doubt on't, but the Story of this Woman in the Gospel will be allow'd to be typical and emblematical. In the mean time, without making a Parable of the Story of her, I assert, there is little or nothing of a Miracle to be made of her Cure, unless we were at a greater Certainty about the Nature of her Disease, and the Manner, rationally speaking, of Jesus's healing of it. And so I pass to the Consideration of
2. Another Story of a miraculous Cure perform'd by Jesus on another Woman, and that is on her, who[100] had a Spirit of Infirmity, eighteen Years, and was bow'd together, and could in no wise lift up herself——being bound of Satan, &c. This too, as I suppose, is with our Divines a great Miracle, and one of the greatest that Jesus wrought, or it had not been specify'd, but cast indiscriminately into the Number of all manner of Diseases, which he heal'd. And for the sake of the Letter, and to please our Divines, whom I would not offend wilfully, I will allow, that Jesus might lay his Hands on, and speak comfortably to such a drooping, stooping, and vaporous Woman, full of Fancies of the Devil's Temptation and Power over her; and she might thereupon recover, and be afterwards of a more cheerful Heart, and erect Countenance, freed from the whimsical Imagination of being Satan-ridden: And what of all that? Where's the Miracle? If the Story of such a Miracle had been related of any Impostor in Religion, of an 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.