Читать книгу Six Discourses on the Miracles of Our Saviour, and Defences of His Discourses - Thomas Woolston - Страница 41

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

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

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

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

As the Fathers said of the Woman with her Issue of Blood, that she was a Type of the Church; so they say of this Woman with her Spirit of Infirmity, that she is a[101] Figure of the Church too.

As the Woman was bow'd together; so the Church, as the Fathers do interpret, may be said to be[102] bow'd down to the Earth, when she is prone and bent to, and intent on the literal or earthly Interpretations of the Scriptures; and can in no wise lift up her self, like the Woman, that is, can't raise her Thoughts to the Contemplation of the cælestial, spiritual, and sublime Sense of them. Hence we see the Propriety of the Name of the Woman's Disease, call'd πνευμα ασθενειας, a Spirit of Weakness, which is not properly significative of any bodily Distemper, but succinctly is very expressive of the Church's Weakness at the Spirit of Prophecy, which at this Day she labours under.

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

St. Luke says, that the Woman could not lift up herself εις το παντελες, v. 11. which, without animadverting on our English Translation, should be rendered, until all was perfected, or until the Perfection of Time, which, the Apostle[105] and the Fathers agree, is the Time for the Church to be cured of her Weakness, and to be endu'd with Power at the Spirit of Prophecy.

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

But the Ruler of the Synagogue is said to be moved with Indignation, v. 14. at this charitable Work of Jesus, in healing of the Woman, because it was done on the Sabbath-Day; which in my Opinion can't be literally true: Though I am willing enough, to please our Divines, to allow as much as may be of the Letter of this Story, yet I except against this Part of it. Origen says, there are some things of the Gospel related as Facts, which were not done; and I believe this of the Ruler of the Synagogue to be one of them. Human Nature, I think, is not capable of such base and unnatural Resentment. Works of Necessity, and requisite Offices of Kindness and Charity to Man and Beast, were allow'd by the Law, and practised by the Jews on the Sabbath: And the Cure of this Woman, though on the Sabbath-Day, was such an Act of Beneficence and Compassion in the Holy Jesus, that I can't but think bad, as well as good Men, would rather glorify God, that had given such Power unto Man, than find fault with it. But in the Mystery of this Part of the Story, there is clear Sense and Truth. Who then is this Archisynagogus, or Ruler of the Synagogue, that will be full of Indignation at the healing of the Church of her foresaid Infirmity at the Spirit of Prophecy? Origen says that the[107] right Interpretation of the Names of Persons and Places in Scripture is of good Use to the mystical Application. Accordingly Archisynagogus does signify the Chiefs of our Congregations: And who should they be then but the Clergy? And if this ben't enough to fix this Name and Character upon them, then let Theophanes Cerameus speak here, who says, that the Archisynagogus, is a[108] Type of all Priests, who will be against the foresaid miraculous healing of the Church. And why will the Clergy be mov'd 'with Indignation at the curing the Church of her Infirm, and restoring her to a sound Spirit of Prophecy? Because as St. Augustin says,[109] they are not only bow'd down to the Letter themselves; but because this Infirmity of the Church will be a Reproach to them, in as much as it is a Proof of their Apostacy and Insufficiency at Prophecy; and the Cure of it will be attended with such Consequences, as affect their Reputation and Interests. Who can question but the Clergy, who are the Archisynagogus of the Text, and who are for the Church's bending and stooping to the low Sense of the Letter of the Scripture, will be averse to her being rais'd, lifted up, and erected to the Contemplation of the sublime, anagogical, and heavenly Sense of it? Such an Healing and Erection of the Church will vex them at the Heart, as it will bring Shame and loss of Interest along with it; and they will undoubtedly be Adversaries to this good Work of Christ, which, upon the Testimony of all Antiquity, is to be done on or against the Evangelical and great Sabbath.

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

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

The Writings of the Evangelists so abound with Stories of Satan, Belzebub, the Devil, and of greater and less Number of Devils, and of Dæmons and of unclean Spirits, more than any Histories before, as one would think, if these Stories were literally to be understood, that was the Age in which Christ came, that Hell first broke loose, and then primarily infested Mankind; and that upon the Destruction of Judæa and Propagation of the Gospel, the Devils accompanied the Jews in their Dispersion, or the Apostles in their Travels, and have been the Tempters, Seducers, and Tormentors of other Nations ever since.

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

As to the Place and State of Hell, many are the Notions of Divines of several Ages past, as well as of the present. I shall not recount them all here, much less refute any of them. But there is an antient, rational, and cabalistical Notion of Hell, which I have learned of the Fathers, who signify, that the babylonish and bewilder'd State of Christ's Church may be call'd Hell, because, as the Word αδης does import, it is a State without Vision. Hence Origen says,[112] that whoever can form to himself an Idea of the Church in time to come, when she will be dignified with the Title of the New Jerusalem, for her Peace and Vision may understand what is meant by Hell, and all that is written of it.

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

As then the Woman of the Gospel was, as is supposed, v. 16. bound by Satan, loe, for eighteen Years: So the foresaid furious Principle in Man, which is a mystical Satan, an Adversary to Liberty, has bound the Church, loe, to the eighteenth Century of Years: But she is to be entirely released from this spiritual Bondage, and set at[117] perfect Liberty against the acceptable and Evangelical Sabbath. And here it is to be noted out of St. Augustin, and most worthy of Observation it is, that at the[118] same time, in which the Church will be loosed from her Bondage; Satan himself will[119] be bound and chain'd for a[120] thousand Years, the time of the evangelical Sabbath, that is, says Ephræm Syrus[121] for ever. And how will our mystical Satan or the Dragon be bound and chain'd? Not with Chains or Links of Iron or other Metal; but Vinculis Rationis, with the Chains of Reasons and Arguments for Christian Liberty, which will restrain the Adversary, Satan, from any more Impositions and Persecutions of the Church. And I can't here but applaud the great Mr. Grounds and Mr. Scheme, for their Work and Labour of Love to Mankind, in making Chains of Argumentations for Liberty, which I hope will prove of sufficient Strength to bind Satan and restrain him (in Dr. Rogers, Bishop G—bs—n, and others his Angels) from giving any more Molestation to Christian Philosophers in their Enquiries after, and Lucubrations on Divine Truth. All the Honour that I aim at in that Work is, by the Help of the Fathers, to point out that anti-Christian Principle or Temper in the Clergy[122] which, for its Averseness to Liberty, is called Satan; for its Calumnies, is called the Devil; for its Furiousness, is called the Dragon; and for its Unreasonableness, is called the Beast, to the intellectual Views of Mankind, and to direct them how to apprehend and lay hold on it.

Our Saviour, according to Origen, had never call'd Peter,[123] Satan, if Satan had been any Thing else than Man-averse to the Will of God.

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

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

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

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

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

First, to prove the Expectation that there was amongst the Samaritans, of a Messiah to come; And

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the Woman of Samaria is to be understood an[134] Heretical and Adulterous Church, which Jesus, being wearied with her[135] corrupt State, will meet with in the sixth Hour, that is in[136] the sixth grand Age of the World. So, by the By, according to the Fathers, Jesus will come to, and meet with the Samaritan Church to her Edification, at the same time, that he cures the Church of her Issue of Blood and Spirit of Infirmity.

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

And Jesus then told the Woman of Samaria, all that she had done: So will Christ in the sixth Hour, that is, towards the latter End of the sixth Age of the World, give the Woman of the Church to understand all that she has done, according to the Writings of Moses and the Prophets, who, upon the Testimony of the Fathers, have written a prophetical History of her, in Types, Symbols and Parables; which Understanding of the Things that have been prophecy'd of her, will enable her, of Consequence, to prove and declare to the World, with Joy and Pleasure, that Jesus is the true Messiah, the Christ, and Fulfiller of the Law and the Prophets.

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

And not only the Woman of Samaria, but the Men of the City, Sychar, believ'd Jesus to be the Messiah, v. 42, upon what he said to themselves as well as to her: So the Ministers of the Letter, who are Sycharites, according to Origen and Theophanes Cerameus, will be clearly convinced, and be able to convince others, that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah, when they shall hear, learn and apprehend from the Spirit of the Law and the Prophets, that the Church and all she has been doing, was foretold and prophecy'd of.

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

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

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

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

The History of his riding on an Ass to Jerusalem. I have given some Offence on this Point already in my Moderator, and ought to excuse or justify my self, by calling the Fathers to Account for laughing at the Letter of that Story. It was an untoward saying of St. Jerome, that I there cited, and suffered a Prosecution for: But it is a worse Intimation of St. John of Jerusalem, who, if there was any literal Truth in the Peoples pulling off their Garments, and Branches of Trees, and strewing them in the Way of Jesus, will needs have it not respectfully but mischievously done, to make the Colt stumble, and so dismount his Rider. And according to him it may be questioned, whether the Hosannahs of the People were of any more Respect to Jesus, than the Huzzahs of a Mob would be to the Bishop of L——n, if to shew his Meekness and Lowlyness, he should ride upon an Ass, in his Pontificalibus through this City. But I have here a momentous Controversy to decide about the Beast Jesus rode on. St. Matthew seems to say, he rode upon both Ass and Colt together. St. Mark and St. Luke say, he rode upon the Colt, on which Man never before sat. The Bishop of Lichfield says, he rode upon the Ass (on which Man had before sat) and the Colt ambled after. St. Cyril and St. Chrysostom say, he rode upon the Colt, and the She-Ass trotted after. St. John the Evangelist says he rode upon a Mule, or an οναριον Ass-like Creature of the neuter Gender. The Jewish Cabalists say, their Messiah was to ride on a great huge Ass, big enough to carry him and all true Israelites, and that the Ministers of Antichrist would then hang an A-ss. So do the great Doctors of the World differ! To whom I shall decree the Prize of Orthodoxy, I shan't foretell; but am inclined to favour the Opinion of the Cabalists. However, I shall be very grave as well as learned on this Head: And if I can, I will, to oblige Dr. Sherlock, hook in a Digression about Shilo's binding his Fole to the Vine, and his Asses Colt to the choice Vine: The Accomplishment of which literal Prophecy seems to have been drop'd in the Providence of God, or the Dean of Chichester[143] had never stopt at it. I will endeavour to look it up, in some Corner of History, if it be but to merit the Praises of the Master of the Temple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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