Litteratos gravissimo Somno stertere convincam,Hieron.
Printed for the Author, and Sold by him next door to theStar, inAldermanbury, and by the Booksellers ofLondon, andWestminster. 1728.
[Price One Shilling.]
Chapter Bar.
My Lord,
Capital I.
n yourSermonbefore theSocietiesfor Reformation of Manners, you are pleased to give a Character of my formerDiscourses on Christ's Miracles;which, tho' I don't at all like, yet I thank you for the Favour of taking Notice of them; aFavourthat I have long'd for from a considerableClergyman;but could not flatter myself with the Hopes of receiving it from so great aPrelate.
Some of the inferiorClergy,whom I despise for their Ignorance and Malice, have before in their Conversation represented me as animpiousandblasphemous Infidel;and I have met with Affronts for it: But I never imagin'd that any, much less yourLordship,would have ventur'd such a Character of me from thePress,for fear of a Resentment, which would not be agreeable. Surely yourLordshiphas not read myDiscourses,but has taken a Report of them upon Trust, from some EcclesiasticalNoodle;or you could never have been so much mistaken about my Design in them.
I took myself to be aChristianof the same Faith with the Fathers of the Church; and, without Vanity, think, I have publish'd some Tracts,in Defence of Christianity, equal, if not superior to any Thing this Age has produced. I repeatedly also in myDiscourses on Miracles,to obviate the Prejudices of an ignorantClergy,made solemn Protestations of the Sincerity of my Design, not to do Service to Infidelity, but to make Way for the Demonstration ofJesus's Messiahship from Prophecy: But all these Asseverations of the Integrity of my Heart, it seems, stand for nothing (and I don't wonder at it) with theClergy,who in their Principles, their Oaths, and Subscriptions are so accustom'd to prevaricate with God and Man. I shall make no more serious Protestations of my Faith, but expect yourLordshipshould soon publish a Defence of your foulChargeagainst me, that I may see what Skill you have in the impious and blasphemous Writings of anInfidel.
And if your railingAccusationbe not soon followed with a Dissertationof more Reason, I shall insist on a publick Reparation of the Injury done to my Reputation by yourvileandslanderousSermon; and appeal to the worshipfulSocietiesfor Reformation of Manners, whether it be not just and reasonable, you should do one or the other.
Now I have laid hold on yourLordship,than whom I could not have wish'd for anAdversary,that will do me more Honour to overcome, I will hold you fast; and you must expect to be teaz'd and insulted from thePress,if you enter not the Lists against me.
A clear Stage, my Lord,and no Favour. If you have the Sword of the Spirit in your Hand, cut as sharply as you can with it. I had conceiv'd a great Opinion of your Learning, and should have been a little apprehensive of the Power of it; if you had not in yourSermonbetray'd as great Weakness andIgnorance, as could be in a poorCurat;or you had never asserted that theGreekCommentators adher'd more strictly, to the litteral Sense of the Holy Scriptures; as if you knew not, that St. TheophilusofAntioch,and evenOrigenhimself and others, the greatestAllegorists,if a Comparison may be made, wereCommentatorsof theGreekChurch.
The sooner yourLordshipappears from thePress,the better, in as much as you may possibly prevent my Publication of moreDiscoursesof this Kind. And that it may not be long first, I will accept of a Dissertation from you, on any two or three of the Miracles, I have handled, as sufficient for all. Take your Choice of them: but don't I beseech you, touch the Miracle ofJesus's driving theBuyersandSellersout of the Temple, because it is ahotone, and may possibly burn your Fingers. The Miracles, that Ihave most ludicrously and, of consequence, most offensively handled, are thetwoof this present Discourse. If you please, my Lord,let them be the easy and short Task imposed on you. If you can defend the Letter of the Stories of thesetwoMiracles, I'll quietly give up the Rest to you.
So heartily thanking yourLordshipfor the Favour done me, in taking Notice of myDiscourses on Miracles,which shall be turn'd to good Use and Advantage, I subscribe myself,
Feb. 26.1728
My LORD,Your most obligedHumble Servant,Tho. Woolston.
Chapter Bar.
Capital M.
y two former Discourses having met with a favourable Reception, I am encourag'd to go on and publish another; which, without any more Preface, I enter upon, by a Repetition of three general Heads, at first proposed to be spoken to, and they were,
I. To show that the Miracles of healing all Manner of bodily Diseases, whichJesuswas justly famed for, are none of the proper Miracles of theMessiah, neither are they so much as a good Proof of his divine Authority, to found a Religion.
II. To prove, that the literal History of many of the Miracles ofJesus, as recorded by theEvangelists, 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, whatJesusmeans, when he appeals to his Miracles, as to a Testimony and a Witness of his divine Authority; and to show that he could not properly and ultimately refer to those he then wrought in theFlesh, but to those Mystical ones, that he would do in theSpirit, of which those wrought in the Flesh are but mere Types and Shadows.
Tho' I have already, spoken what may be thought sufficient, to the first of these Heads; yet I have several Things still, bothfrom Reason and Authority, to add to it; but having not here a convenient Place for that purpose, I defer it to a better Opportunity; and so pass immediately to the Resumption of my
II. Second general Head, and that is, to prove, that the literal History of many of the Miracles ofJesus, as recorded by theEvangelists, does imply Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities; consequently they, either in whole or in part were never wrought, as it is commonly believed now-a-days, but are only related, as Prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what would be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.
To this Purpose I have taken into Examination six of the Miracles ofJesus,viz.those.
1. Of his driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple.
2. Of his exorcising theDevilsout of the Mad-men, and sending them into the Herd of Swine.
3. Of his Transfiguration on the Mount.
4. Of his healing a Woman, that had an Issue of Blood, twelve Years.
5. Of his curing a Woman that had a Spirit of Infirmity, eighteen Years, and
6. Of his telling theSamaritanWoman her Fortune of having had five Husbands, and being then an Adulteress with another Man.
Whether I have not prov'd the Storys of these Miracles, either in whole or in part, to consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and incredibilities, according to the Proposition before us, I leave myReadersto judge; and now will take in Hand
7. A Seventh Miracle ofJesus;viz.that[145]of his cursing the Figtree, for not bearing Fruit out of Season; which Miracle, upon the bare mention of it, appears to be such an absurd, foolish, and ridiculous, if not malicious and ill-natured Act inJesus, that I question, whether, for Folly and Absurdity, it can be equalled in any Instance of the Life of a reputed wise Man. The Fathers, such asOrigen, St.Augustin, St.John of Jerusalem, and others, have all said as smart Things, as the wittiest Infidels can, against the Letter of this Story. St.Augustin[146]very plainly says, thatthis Fact in Jesus, upon Supposition that it was done, wasa foolish one. If therefore I treatthis Story a little more ludicrously than ordinary, and expose the Folly of the Fact as well as of the modern Belief of it, I hope their Authority and Example will plead my Excuse for it.
Jesuswas hungry, it seems, and being disappointed of Figs, to the Satisfaction of his Appetite, cursed the Figtree. Why so peevish and impatient? OurDivines, when they please, makeJesusthe most patient, resign'd and easy under Sufferings, Troubles and Disappointments, of any Man. If he really was so, he could hardly have been so much out of Humour, for want of a few Figs, to the Allay of his Hunger. But to curse the Figtree upon it, was as foolishly and passionately done, as for another Man to throw the Chairs and Stools about the House; because his Dinner is not ready at a critical Time, or before it could be got ready for him.
ButJesuswas hungry, some will say, and the Disappointment provoked him. What if he was hungry? He should, as he knew the Return of his Appetite, have made a better and more certain Provision for it. Where wasJudashis Steward and Caterer with his Bag of Victuals as well as Money? Poor Forecast,and Management amongst them, orJesushad never trusted to the uncertain Fruits of a Figtree, which he espy'd at a Distance, for his Breakfast.
And ifJesuswas frustrated of a long'd-for Meal of Figs, what need he have so reveng'd the Disappointment on the[147]senseless and faultless Tree? Was it, because he was forc'd to fast longer than usual and expedient? not so, I hope neither: Could not Angels, if he was in a desert Place, have administered unto him? Or could not he miraculously have created Bread for himself and his Company, as he multiplied or increased the Loaves for his Thousands in the Wilderness? What Occasion then for his being out of Humour for want of Food? If he was of Power to provide Bread for others on a sudden, he might sure have supply'd his own Necessities, and so have kept his Temper, without breaking into a violent Fit of Passion, upon present Want and Disappointment.
But what is yet worse,the Time of Figs was not yet, when Jesus look'd and long'd for them. Did ever any one hearor read of any thing more[148]unreasonable than for a Man to expect Fruit out of Season?Jesuscould not but know this before he came to the Tree, and if he had had any Consideration, he would not have expected Figs on it, much less, if he had regarded his own Reputation, as a wise Man, would he have so resented the Want of them. What, if aYeomanofKentshould go to look forPipinsin his Orchard atEaster, (the supposed Time[149]thatJesussought for these Figs) and, because of a Disappointment, cut down all his Trees; What then would his Neighbours make of him; Nothing less, than aLaughing-stock; and if the Story got into our publick News, he would be the Jest and Ridicule of Mankind. HowJesussalv'd his Credit upon this his wild Prank; and prevented the Laughter of theScribesandPhariseesupon it, I know not; but I cannot think of this Part of the Letter of this Story, without smiling at it at this Day; and wonder ourDivinesare not laugh'dout of Countenance for reading it gravely, and havingJesusin Admiration for it.
Again, I would gladly know, whose Figtree this was, and whetherJesushad any legal Right to the Fruit, if haply he had found any on it, or any Leave or Authority to smite it with a Curse for its Unfruitfulness? As to the Tree's beingJesus's Property, that could not be. For he was so far from being either Landlord or Tenant, that it's said he had not where to lay his Head. During the Time of his Ministry, he was but a Wanderer, like a Mendicant Fryar, or an itinerant Preacher, and before that Time was no better than a Journeyman Carpenter (of whose Workmanship, I wonder, the Church ofRomehas no holy Relicks, not so much as a Three-footed-stool, or a Pair of Nutcrackers;) consequently he had no House nor Land of his own by Law, much less any Figtree, and least of allthiswhich he espy'd at a distance in his Travels. How then had he any Right to the Figs, if he had met with any? I hope he ask'd Leave beforehand of the Proprietor, orInfidelswill say of him, that if he had had an Opportunity he would have been aRob-Orchard. And it he had no Right to the Fruit, much less to smite the Tree with a Curse; where washis Honour,[150]his Justice, his Goodness, and his Honesty in this Act? TheEvangelists, if they would have us to think,Jesusdid no wrong to any Man, should have left us somewhat upon Record, to Satisfaction, in this Case; orInfidels, who have here Scope for it, will think worse ofJesus, than possibly he may deserve. WhetherJesus, modestly speaking, met with any Blame or Reprimand from the Proprietor, for his Act of Execration, none can affirm or deny. But if any one so spitefully and maliciously should destroy almost any other Tree, whether fruitful or not, of another Man's, in this Country, he would have good Luck, if he escaped the House of Correction for it.
And what now have ourDivinesto say, to all this Reasoning against the Letter of this Story? Nothing more than "That the Act of cursing the Figtree, whether it be at this Distance of Time reconcilable to Reason, Justice and Prudence or not, was a supernatural Work, above the Power of Nature or Art to imitate; consequently it was a Miracle, and they will admire and adoreJesusfor it." And to agree with them at present, that it was a real Miracle, and a supernatural Event, yet I hope, they'll acknowledge, that ifJesus, as St.Augustin[151]says, had, instead of cursing the Figtree, made a dry, dead and withered one, immediately to bud, flourish and revive, and in an Instant to bring forth ripe Fruits, out of Season, it would have pleased them much better. Such an Instance of his Power had been an indisputable Miracle: Such an Instance of his divine Power had carry'd Goodness along with it, and none of the foresaid Exceptions could have been made to it: Such an Instance of his Almighty Power, had been a Demonstration of his being Lord of the Creation, and Author of the Fruits of the Earth for the Use of Man, in their Season, or he could not have produced them out of Season: In suchan Instance of Power, his Divine Care and Providence against Hunger and Want would have been visible; and it would have been an Admonition to us, to depend daily upon him for the Comforts and Necessaries of Life: Such an Instance of his Power would have been, as St.Augustinsays above, like his Miracles of healing Diseases, of making the Languid,Sound; and the Feeble,Strong; and we might more certainly have inferr'd from one with the other, that both were the Operations of a good God. But this Instance of his cursing the Figtree in this Fashion spoils the Credit, and sullies the Glory of his other Miracles. It is in its own Nature of such a malevolent Aspect, that its enough to make us suspect the Beneficence ofChristin his other Works, and to question whether there might not be some latent Poyson and diabolical Design under the Colour of his fairer Pretences to Almighty Power. It is so like the malignant Practices ofWitches, who, as Stories go, upon Envy, Grudge, or Distaste, smite their Neighbours Cattle with languishing Distempers, till they die, that it's hard, if not impossible, to distinguish one from the other, in Spite and Malice. IfMahomet, and notJesus, had been the Authorof this Miracle, ourDivineswould presently have discover'd theDevil's Foot in it, and have said thatSatandrew him into a Scrape, in the Execution of this mad and foolish Frolick, on purpose to exposehimfor aWizardandhisMusselmen of all Ages since forFoolsin believing on him. The Spirit ofChrist, who is all Love and Mercy, should, one would think, breath forth nothing but Goodness and Kindness to Mankind; but that such a pestilential Blast, like a mortiferous North-East Wind in some Seasons, should proceed from his Mouth, to the Destruction of another Man's harmless and inoffensive Tree, is what none upon Earth can account for.
OurDivines, one or other of them, have publish'd several notable Notions about Miracles, and have laid down good Rules to distinguishtruefromfalseones; but none of them, as far as I perceive, have taken any Pains to shew the Consistence ofJesus's Miracles to their own Rules and Notions. Mr.Chandler, (who as theArchbishop[152]says, has rightly slated the Notion of a Miracle) amonghis Rules of judging by whom Miracles are perform'd, says,[153]That the Things pretended to be done, are to be such, as that it is consistent with the Perfections of God to interest himself in; and again,they must be such as answer to the Character of God as a good and gracious Being; and again,It seems reasonable to believe, that whenever the first and best of Beings is pleased to send an extraordinary Messenger with a Revelation of his Will, he will furnish him with such Proofs of his Mission, as may argue, not only the Power of him in whose Name be comes, but his Love to Mankind, and his Inclination to do them good. I have no Dislike to these Notions of Mr.Chandler; but as it is not to be questioned, that he (and theArchbishoptoo) had this Miracle ofJesus's cursing the Figtree, and some others, as of hisboisterous driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple; ofhis sending the Devils into the Herd of Swine; ofhis turning Water into Wine for the Use of Men, who had before well drank, &c. in his View, when he gave forth the foresaid Rules; (for acute and learned Writers in Theology are supposed to have their Wits about them;) so it isto be hop'd that he or theArchbishopwill soon publish somewhat to reconcile these Miracles ofJesusto their own Notions; tho' I don't expect it beforelatter Lammas.
But after all, it may be questioned, if Infidels should go about it, whether this Work ofJesuswas miraculous; and whether there was not more of the Craft of Man, than of the Power of God in it; or to use Mr.Chandler's[154]Words, whether it don'tlook like the little Tricks and cunning Deceits of Impostors. St.Matthewsays,presently the Figtree withered away; but thispresentlyis an indeterminate Time, and may be understood of a Day, or a Week or two, as well as of the Moment in which the Words were spoken,Let no Fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. St.Marksays,that in the Morning as the Disciples passed by; they saw the Figtree dry'd up from the Roots, which was at least the Day[155]after the Curse was utter'd, so that there was certainly four and twenty Hours for its withering; and if it is said that theTree dry'd up from the Roots, it does not imply that the Trunk of it perish'd, or was reduc'd tonothing; but only that the green Leaves of the Whole, and of every Part of it, were in a withering Condition: And might not all this be done without a Miracle? What ifJewsandInfidelsshould say, thatJesus, being minded to impose on his Disciples and Followers, took a secret Opportunity beforehand to lay his Carpenter's Ax to the Root of this Tree, and so imperceptibly circumcised it, as that the Leaves did, what they will do, wither in a Night and a Day's Time. God forbid, that I should think,Jesusdid so; but as to the Possibility of such a Fraud in an Impostor, none can doubt of it.
I am so far from thinking there was any such Fraud in this supposed Miracle ofJesus, that I don't believe it was at all done by him according to the Letter: And for this I have not only a clear and intrinsick Proof from the Story itself; but the Authority of the Fathers. St.Ambrose, treating on the Parable of the Figtree in[156]St.Luke, intimates, that what St.Matthewand St.Markwrite ofJesus's cursing the Figtree, is but[157]Part of the same Parable.And St.JohnofJerusalem[158]says expressly enough, that the threeEvangelistswrite of one and the same Figtree, consequently parabolically, and that, what St.Matthewand St.Markwrite of it, was no more a literal Transaction, than the Parable in St.Luke. Thanks to these holy Fathers for their ridding us of the Belief of the Letter of this Story, which otherwise might have perplex'd us with its Absurdities before urg'd. And to their Opinion I desire it may be added and considered, whether it be not as reasonable in itself to take what the threeEvangelistswrite of this Figtree as Part of one Story, as well as, what they write of theWoman with her Issue of Blood, and ofJesus's calling the Devils out of the Madmen, and of other Miracles which are but several Relations of the same Story, Parable or Miracle, Neither is it any Argument for a literal Transaction of this Miracle, that theEvangelistsspeak of it, as a Thing done: For, asOrigensays, there are some Things spoken of in theEvangelists, as Facts, which were never transacted; so it is of the Nature of Prophecy (and ourSaviour in his whole Life prophesied) to speak of Things to come, as if they were already past; because such Prophecies are not to be understood till after their Accomplishment, and then the Reason of the Use of thepræter, instead of thefutureTense, in Prophecy, will be visible. But what, in my Opinion, is an absolute Demonstration, that there's no Truth in the Letter of this Story, is, what our Saviour adds, upon the Disciples wondering at the sudden withering of the Figtree, saying,[159]that if they had Faith they should not only do what was done to the Figtree; but should say to this Mountain, (that was near him, I suppose)be thou removed and cast into the Sea, and it shall be done. But these Things were never litterally done by them, consequentlyJesushimself did not litterally curse the Figtree; or the Disciples wanted Faith for the doing the said Miracles, which is an Absurdity to suppose; orJesustalked idly of a Promise to invest them with a Power, they were never to be possess'd of. But of what ill Consequence to Religion, either of these Suppositions is, let the old ObjectioninPaschasius Rathertus[160]speak; which I shall not stay here to urge and revive; but only say at present, that ifJesusactually cursed a Figtree, his Disciples ought to have done so too, and to remove Mountains. If we adhere to the Letter in one Case, we must in the other also; but we are only to look to the Mystery in both, or St.Augustin[161]will tell us, thatJesusutter'd vain, empty and insignificant Words and Promises.
St.Augustin, who believes no more of the Letter of this Story, than I do, says, that the Works ofJesusare all figurative and of a spiritual Signification, which is so manifest from his Act of cursing the Figtree, as Men must,[162]whether they will or notacknowledge it. But he is mistaken: Tho' there might be none in his Timewho would question, that this supposed Fact ofJesushad a mystical Signification; yet if he had liv'd in our Days, he would have met withDivines, who, for all the foresaid Absurdities and their Cogency to drive us to Allegory, do adhere to the Letter only, whether the Truth, Credibility and Reasonableness of it be defensible or not. But then to do Justice to St.Augustin's Assertion, he would have met with others, whoagainst their Wills, interpret this Miracle figuratively, such as Dr.Hammondand Dr.Whitby, who say,Jesuscursed the Figtree by way of Type of the Destruction of theJewishState, which declined and wasted away after the Similitude of this withering Tree. But why then don't theseCommentatorsallegorically interpret and apply other Miracles of our Saviour? Because they think the Letter will stand good and abide the Test without an Allegory. And why do they allegorise this Miracle only? Because of the Difficulties and Absurdities of the Letter, which they can't account for. And are these Reasons good? No, certainly: TheEvangelistsshould have made the Distinction for them. They should have told us, which Miracles are to be allegoris'd and mystically applied, and which are not;or we are to allegorise all or none at all. And how came these modern Allegorists of this Miracle to apply it as they do, and to make it a mystical Representation of the Ruin of theJewishState? Did they take up this Notion of their own Heads, or did they borrow it of the Fathers? Why in all Probability they took the Hint from the Fathers; wherefore then don't they, what none of them do, cite and acknowledge their Authors for it? Because, like Men of Subtilty, they would be thought to devise it of themselves; for if they had quoted the Fathers for it, the Fathers would have oblig'd them, upon their Authority, to allegorise the rest ofJesus's Miracles, in the way that I have interpreted some of them; but this would not have agreed with their Stomachs for many Reasons. No Thanks then to the aforesaidCommentatorsfor their allegorical Application of this Miracle, which they are again to desert, or abide the Consequence of allegorising others also, which for their Interests and Reputations they will not do. Therefore let them return again to the Letter of this Miracle, and say for it, what is all that is to be said for it, withVictor Antiochenus, an Apostatical Writer of thefifth Century,[163]that when we read this Passage of Scripture concerning the Figtree, Jesuscursed, we ought not curiously to enquire whether it was wisely or justly done ofJesus,or not; but we ought to contemplate and admire this Miracle, as well as that ofJesus's drowning the Swine, notwithstanding some think it void of the Face of Justice. Ay, ay, ourDivinesmust allegorise allJesus's Miracles, or betake themselves to this Opinion ofVictor; which thisFree-thinkingAge will hardly let them quietly rest in. So, supposing ourDivinesto be, what they generally are, still Ministers of the Absurdity of the Letter, I pass to the Consideration of the Authority of the Fathers, and to see, whether we can't learn of them this Parable of the Figtree.
Who or what is meant by the Figtree seems not to be agreed among the Fathers; or, more properly speaking, they are not agreed, all of them to apply it always toone and the same Thing. Some, as[164]GregorytheGreat, say Human Nature or Mankind is typified by the Figtree. Others, as[165]St.Hilary, say theJewishChurch or State is meant by it. Others, as[166]Origensay, it is a Type of the Church of Christ. So do the Fathers seem to be divided in their Opinions; but it is without any Difference or Inconsistency with each other. For as there is, according to the Fathers, Mystery upon Mystery in all the Actions ofJesus; so I believe the Figtree here, as a Type, may be properly enough apply'd to the foresaid three Purposes. And if the Fathers had been ask'd their Opinion in this Case, I dare say, they would have said so too. This is certain thatOrigen[167]understands it as applicable to theJewishas well as theChristianChurch. And St.Augustin, as Occasion offers itself, takes it in the foresaid three Senses. When they understand it as a Type of all Mankind, they say that thethree Yearsof its Unfruitfulnessare to be interpreted of the[168]three grand Periodsof the World; theonebefore the Law ofMoses;anotherunder the Law; and thethirdunder the Gospel; at the Conclusion of whichthirdPeriod, as it was an ancient and common Opinion,Jesusin Spirit would come to his Figtree of Mankind, and animadvert on them for their Unfruitfulness, not by any Destruction of human Nature, but by a Cessation of its Unfruitful State, which then will wither away, and be turn'd into a fruitful one against the grand Sabbath, or acceptable Year, which is the Year signified in the Parable,that it is to be let alone to bring forth Fruit in. They that understand the Figtree as a Type of theJewishState, mean by thethree Years Jesuscame to it, thethree Yearsof his preaching among theJews; at the End of which, afterChrist's Passion and Resurrection, theJewishState, like the Figtree, withered away, and, for its Unfruitfulness, was rooted up. They, that understand the Figtree as a Figure of the Church ofChrist, by thethree Years, mean the apocalypticaltwelve hundred and sixty Days(that is, three Years and a half) of the Church's barren and unfruitful State in the Wilderness, at the Conclusion of which, the Fathers say,Jesuswill come again to his Church or Figtree, seeking Fruit on it.
Some perhaps may be ready here to interpose with a Question, and say, how willJesusthen come to his Church? I have carefully perused the Fathers upon this Question, and can't find that they mean any more byChrist's second or spiritual Advent, than that clearTruth, rightReasonand divineWisdom(which are the mystical Names ofJesus) will descend upon the Church, on the Clouds of the Law and the Prophets, to the Removal of her unfruitful and unprofitable Errors, and to enable her to bring forth the Fruits of the Spirit, against the grand Sabbath. Neither can any reasonable Man conceive how otherwise[169]the Lord should come, (notwith ten thousand of his Saints, as our Translation has it, but) εν μυριασιν αγιαις αυτου, that is, asOrigeninterprets,in his holy thousandsof Allegorists ποιησαι κρισεν,to criticise upon allthe Scripture, and to convinceMinisters of the Letterof theirabominable Errors, and of their horrid Blasphemies spoken, preach'd and printed against the Holy, (Ghost or) Spirit of the Law and Prophets. As to that literal and common Pulpit-Story (with all its Appendages) ofJesus's second Coming on ætherial Clouds, as on a Wool-sack, in his human, tho' glorious and majestick Appearance, for the Resurrection of Mens Bodies, by the Sound of a Trumpet, in the Audience of the Dead,&c.it is the most absurd, nonsensical and unphilosophical, (such groundless and worthless Stuff have theClergysold and preach'd to God's People!) that ever was told against Reason, against prophetick and evangelical Scripture, and against other antient and good Authority. It is no Place here to multiply Testimonies and Arguments to either of these Purposes which my Readers, if they do but attend, will see no Occasion for. But if ourDivinesshould think I have put a false Gloss on the Text of St.Judeabove, I have a Bundle of Arguments and Testimonies to produce in Defence of it, at their Service.
In the Parable of St.Luke, it is said,Lo, these three Years come I seeking Fruit on this Figtree; as ifJesuscame annually and successively forthree Yearstogether: but according to the Original, it ought to beread,Lo, it is three Years and I now come, or,Lo, the three Years are now past, and I come. And here it is to be noted, that whether we understand the Figtree, as a Figure of the Church in particular, or of Mankind in general; the mystical Number ofthree Yearswill terminate about the same Time, against the Evangelical Sabbath, on which the Unfruitfulness of the Church, or of Mankind, according to the Fathers, is to have an End put to it.
AndJesus, when he came to the Figtree,found nothing thereon but Leaves only: SoJesus, when he comes to his Church, will find nothing in her but Leaves only. And what is here meant by Leaves? Let the Fathers, such as[170]St.Hilary, St.John[171]of Jerusalem, and[172]St.Theophylacttell us, who by Leaves understand a vain and empty Appearance of Wisdom and good Works, or the Words and Letter of the Scriptures, which are the Leaves of the Oracle, without any Figs ofspiritual Interpretations of them. And whether this ben't the Case of the Church at present, ourDivinesare to consider. The Figs thatJesusmay be supposed to look for at his Coming, are not only the Fruits of the Spirit mention'd by St.Paul, but[173]spiritual Interpretationsof the Scriptures, which St.Jerome[174]says aremystical Figs; because, as ripe Figs are sweet to the Palate of our Mouths, so are they no less delicious to the Soul of Man.
ButJesusis said to behungryafter Figs: so willJesusin Spirithungerfor the mystical Figs of his Church, that is, asOrigen[175]rightly interprets, he will earnestly desire, like a Man that is hungry, the Fruits of the Spirit in his Church, which will be as grateful to him as Figs can be to a Man naturally. To understand this Expression ofJesus'sHungerliterally, is such a mean Circumstance of Life, that unless it be, what's next to impossible, necessarily introductory to some noble Transaction,its unfit to be remember'd of aSaintin History.Diogenes Laertiuswould have disdain'd to mention such a frivolous Circumstance in the Life of a Philosopher asthisofJesus. But if we understand thisHungerinJesusmystically, and figuratively of his Desires of the Fruits of the Spirit in his Church, it is sublime and noble; and the Emblem confessedly proper and instructive.
ButJesusis said to come to the Figtree at an unseasonable Time;For the Time of Figs was not yet; which Expression has been the Perplexity ofCommentators, who with all their Wit and Sagacity can't get well over it. I shall not mention here all or any of their pretended Solutions of this Difficulty; but let us see whether we can't easily and at once unlose it. St.Mark's Words are ου γαρ ην καιρος συκων, which are and have been commonly translated,for the Time of Figs is not yet. But if we change thePointinto anInterrogation, and read thus,for was it not the Time of Figs?the Difficulty vanishes as certainly, as that it is absurd to supposeChristshould come to his Figtree and look for Fruit, when he could not reasonably expect any. This my Solution of this Difficulty certainly serves the Purpose of the mystical Interpretation;and if it does not the litteral, I answer, we are not to heed the Letter, which seldom or never has any Sense or Truth in it. But, by the by, it does the litteral too, since there are no Grounds from the Text to think, what has been the common Opinion, that it was about theJewishPassover thatJesuscame to the Figtree. If this my Solution of the Difficulty don't please, I must say with[176]Heinsius, that it must be left as a Knot forEliasto untie, who, according to the[177]ancientJews, is first to gather Fruits off this mystical Figtree, and present them to the intellectual Taste of Mankind. But, that my Solution is good, will appear by what follows.
AndJesusfinding Leaves only says, in St.Matthew, to the Figtree,Let no Fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever; which (with its parallel Place in St.Mark) is in my Opinion a false Translation: The Original is, Μηκετι εκ σου καρπος γενηται εις τον αιωνα, and ought to beenglished,not as yet, ornot until now, (that I come)against the(grand)Age(of the Sabbath) has Fruit grown on thee. So that the Miracle ofJesuswas to make the Figtree of the Church fruitful; and if her preceding unfruitful State, which (in St.Mark)Jesusis said to curse, or rather to devote to Ruin, wasted away, it was by Consequence.
But what Time of Day was it thatJesuscame to the Figtree? It was in theMorning. And of what Day? That is uncertain as to the Letter, but according to the mystical Extent of theThree Years, whether we understand the Figtree as a Type of the Church, or of all Mankind of all Ages, it will be on theMorningof the great Sabbath, when, upon the Appearance of the Light of Christ, like the Rising of the Sun, an unfruitful and erroneous Church must needs wither away. And the Disciples on the saidMorningwill, asOrigen[178]says, with their intellectual Eyes behold her waste with Admiration. And then too, they under Christwill do what is done to the Figtree, of the Church, andremove Mountainsof Antichristian Power, that exalt themselves againsthim; as the Fathers interpret, and I need not explain.
And what is meant by the Means, which St.Lukespeaks of, to make the Figtree of the Church fruitful on the Sabbatical Year;the Year it is to be let alone to bear Fruit in? There must bedigging about it, that is[179]into the Earth of the Letter of the Scriptures, anddungingof it, that is calling[180]to Remembrance her Sins and Errors of the Time past, which rationally speaking will make the Church to bring forth good Fruit.
After this Fashion is the rest of the Parable of the Figtree to be allegorized out of the Fathers. St.Gregory[181]theGreatand St.Augustin, make these two Stories or Parables,viz.of the Figtree, and of the Woman with herSpirit of Infirmity, as they are blended together in St.Luke, to be Figures of the same Mystery. Theeighteen Yearsof the Woman's Infirmity and thethree Yearsof the Figtree's Unfruitfulness, they will have to be mystically synchronical. And the Woman'sIncurvityto the Earth is, they say, significative of the same Thing with theUnfruitfulnessof the Figtree. And theErectionof the Woman on the Sabbath is of the same Import with theReservationof the Tree for Fruitfulness on that Day. And let any one see, if they don't admirally agree, as I have interpreted these two Parables.
Before I dismiss this Story of the Figtree, I can't but adore the Providence of God, that the Miracle has been hitherto placed in the withering away of the Tree. If the Miracle had been a plain Story of a dead and wither'd Tree's being made to bring forth Leaves and Fruit on a sudden; this would have been such a manifestly supernatural Work, and so agreeable to modern Notionists about Miracles, that Mens Thoughts would have been so absorpt in the Consideration of the Letter, as they would never have extended them to the Contemplation of the Mystery. And our Divines would have made such a Noise, in our Ears of the Excellency and Marvellousness of such a Miracle, as that there would be no bearing of it. ButBut as theEvangelistshave in a good Measure suppress'd all mention of the after Fruitfulness of the Tree; and the Story, by Misconstruction, is clog'd with the foresaid Difficulties and Absurdities, we are of Necessity driven to the search after Mystery for good Sense and Truth in it.
And thus have I spoken enough to the Miracle ofJesus's cursing the Figtree, which according to the Letter is a foolish and absurd Story: But the mystical Operation, of which the Letter is a Shadow, will be ravishing, marvellous and stupendous; and not only a Proof ofChrist's Power, and Presence in his Church, but a Demonstration of hisMessiahship, in as much as an infinite Number of Prophecys upon Prophecys, will thereupon be discern'd to be accomplish'd, or the Church can't bring forth the Fruits of the Spirit, that is Spiritual Interpretations of the Scriptures, like ripe Figs. And so I pass to an
8.EighthMiracle ofJesus, and that is,[182]"of his healing a Man of an Infirmity, of thirty eight Years Duration, at the Pool ofBethesda, that had five Porches, in which lay a great Multitude of impotent Folk, blind, halt, withered, waiting the troubling of theWaters, upon the Descent of an Angel, who gave a Sanative Virtue to them, to the curing of any one, be his Distemper of what kind soever, who first stept down into them."
This whole Story is what our Saviour calls aCamelof a monstrous Size for Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities, which ourDivines, and their implicit Followers of these last Ages, have swallowed without chewing; whilst they have been straining atKnatsin Theology, and hesitating at frivolous and indifferent Things of the Church, of no Consequence.
As toJesus's Miracle in this Story, which consisted in his healing a Man, of no body knows whatInfirmity, there neither is nor can be proved any Thing supernatural in it, or there had been an express Description of the Disease, without which it is impossible to say, there was a miraculous Cure wrought. As far as one may reasonably guess, this Man'sInfirmitywas moreLazynessthanLameness, andJesusonly shamed him out of his pretended Illness, by bidden him to take up his Stool and walk off, and not lie any longer, like a lazy Lubbard and Dissembler, among the Diseased, who were real Objects of Pity and Compassion: Or,if he was no Dissembler, he was only fancyfully sick, andJesusby some proper and seasonable Talk touch'd his Heart, to his Relief; and so, by the Help of his own Imagination, he was cured, and went his Way. This is theworstthat can be made of thisinfirmMan's Case; and thebestthat can be said ofJesus's Power in the Cure of him, as will appear, by and by, upon Examination into it. But the other Parts of the Story of the healing Virtue of the Waters, upon the Descent of an Angel into them, is not only void of all good Foundation in History, but is a Contradiction to common Sense and Reason, as will be manifest after an Inquiry into the Particulars of it.
St.Johnwas the beloved Disciple of our Lord, and I hope he lov'd his Master: or he was worse than an Heathen, who loves those who love him: But this Story, and some others, that are peculiar to his Gospel, such as, ofJesus's telling the Samaritan Woman her Fortune;of his healing the blind Man with Eye-Salve made of Clay and Spittle;Of his turning Water into Wine for the Use of Men, who had before well drank; and ofhis raising Lazarus from the Dead, are enough to tempt us to think, that he wilfully design'd, either to blast the Reputation of his Master,or to try how far the Credulity of Men who through blind Love were running apace into Christianity, might be imposed on; or he had never related such idle Tales, which, if thePriesthood, who should be the philosophical Part of Mankind, had not been amply hired into the Belief of them, would certainly have been rejected with Indignation and Scorn before now.
St.Johnwrote his Gospel many Years after the otherEvangelists: What then should have been his peculiar Business? Certainly nothing more, than to add some remarkable Passages of Life, toJesus's Honour, which they had omitted; and to confirm the Truths which they had before reported of him. But St.Johnis so far from doing this, that the Stories, he has particularly added, are not only derogatory to the Honour ofJesus, but spoil his Fame for a Worker of Miracles, which the otherEvangelistswould raise him to. By reading the otherEvangelists, one would think, thatJesuswas a Healer of all manner of Diseases, however incurable by Art and Nature, and that where-ever he came, all the sick and the maim'd (excepting a few Infidels) were perfectly cured by him. But this Story before us will be like a Demonstration, thatJesuswas no such Worker of Miracles andHealer of Diseases, as he is commonly believed to have been; and that he wrought not near the Number of Cures, he is supposed to have done, much less any great ones. The best Conception that an impartial Reader of the Gospel can form ofJesus, is, that he was a tolerable good naturalOrator, and could handsomely harangue the People off hand, and was according to the Philosophy of the Times, a goodCabalist; and his Admirers finding him endewed with the Gift of Utterance, which was thought by them more than human, they fancy'd he must have the Gift of healing too, and would have him to exercise it; which he did with Success, upon the Fancies and Imaginations of many, who magnified his divine Power for it. And the Apostles afterwards, to help forward the Credulity and Delusion of the People, amplified his Fame with extravagant Assertions and strange Stories of Miracles, passing the Belief of considerate and wise Men. Whether this Representation of the Case, according to theLetterof the Gospels, be false and improbable, let myReadersjudge by the Story before us, which I come now to dissect, and make a particular Examination into the several Parts of it. Accordingly it is to be observ'd
First, that this Story of thePoolofBethesda, abstractedly considered fromJesus's Cure of an infirm Man at it, has no good Foundation in History: It merits no man's Credit, nor will any reasonable Person give any heed to it. St.Johnis the only Author that has made any mention of this Story; and tho' his Authority may be good, and better than another Man's in Relation to the Words and Actions ofJesus, in as much as he was most familiar and conversant with him; yet, for foreign Matters, that have no immediate Respect toJesus's Life, he's no more to be regarded than anotherHistorian, who, if he palm upon hisReadersan improbable Tale of senseless and absurd Circumstances, will have his Authority questioned, and his Story pry'd into by the Rules ofCriticism, and rejected or received as it is found worthy of Belief and Credit. If there had been any Truth in this Story before us, I cannot think butJosephusor some otherJewishWriters, it is so remarkable, peculiar and astonishing an Instance of the Angelical Care and Love to the distressed ofJerusalem, would have spoken of it: But I don't find they have; or our modernCommentatorswould have refer'd to them, as to Testimony of the Credibility of theGospel-History.Josephushas professedly written the History of theJewishNation, in which he seems to omit nothing that makes for the Honour of his Country, or for the Manifestation of the Providence of God over it. He tells us of the Conversation of Angels with the Patriarchs and Prophets, and intermixes Extra-Scriptural Traditions, as he thought them fit to be transmitted to Posterity. How came he then and all otherJewishWriters to forget this Story of the Pool ofBethesda? I think, we may as well suppose that a Writer of the natural History ofSomersetshirewould neglect to speak of the medicinal Waters ofBath, asJosephusshould omit that Story, which, if true, was a singular Proof of God's distinguishing Care of his peculiar People, or an Angel had never been frequently, as we suppose, sent to this Relief of the Diseased amongst them. Is then St.John's single Authority enough to convey this Story down to us? Some may say, that there are several Prodigies, as well as political Events of antient Times, that, tho' they are reported but by one Historian, meet with Credit; and why may not St.John's Testimony be equal to another Writer's? I grant it; and tho' it is hardly probable but that this Story, if true, beforeus, must have had the Fortune to be told by others; yet St.John's single Authority shall pass sooner than another Man's, if the Matter be in itself credible and well circumstanc'd. But where it is blindly imperfectly and with monstrously incredible Circumstances related, like this before us, it ought to be rejected. Which brings me,
Secondly, To ask, what was the true Occasion of the Angel's Descent into this Pool? Was it to wash and bath himself? Or, was it to impart an healing Quality to the Waters for some one diseased Person? The Reason, that I ask the first of these two Questions, is, because some antient Readings of v. 4. say[183]the Angel ελουετοwas washed, which supposes some bodily Defilement or Heat contracted in the Cælestial Regions, that wanted Refrigeration or Purgaton in these Waters: But how absurd such a Thought is, needs no Proof. To impart then compassionately an healing Power to the Waters for the Benefit of the Diseased was the sole Design of the Angel's Descent into them. And God forbid, that any should philosophically debate the Matter, and enquire how naturally the Waters deriv'd that Virtue from the Angel's corporalPresence. The Thing was providential and miraculous, ourDivineswill say, and so let it pass. But I may fairly ask, why one diseased Person only at a Time reap'd the Benefit? Or why the whole Number of impotent Folks were not at once healed? I have a notable Answer presently to be given to these Questions; but I am afraid beforehand, ourDivineswill not approve of it: Therefore they are to give one of their own, and make the Matter consistent with the Goodness and Wisdom of God; or the said Questions spoil the Credit of the Story, and make an idle and ridiculous Romance of it. And when their Hands are in, to make, what it impossible, a satisfactory Answer to the said Questions; I wish, that, for the sake ofOrthodoxy, they would determine, whether the Angel descended with his Head or his Heels foremost, or whether he might not come, swauping upon his Breast into the Waters, like a Goose into a Horse-pond. But,
Thirdly, How often in the Week, the Month or the Year did the Angel vouchsafe his Descent into the Pool? And for how many Ages beforeChrist's Advent, and why not since and even[184]now, was this Gracious and Angelical Favour granted? St.Johnshould have been Particular as to these Points, which he could not but know Philosophers would be curious to enquire about. If it was but once in the Year, as St.Chrysostom[185]hints, little Thanks are due to him for his Courtesy. One would think sometimes, that his Descent was frequent; or such a Multitude of impotent Folk, variously disorder'd had never attended on it. And again at other Times, one would think that his Descent was seldom, or the Diseased as fast as they came, which could not be faster than the Angel could dabble himself in the Waters, had been charitably dismissed with restor'd Health. Here then is a Defect in St.John's Story, and aBlock, at which wise and considerate Freethinkers will stumble. But,
Fourthly, How came it to pass, that there was not better Care taken, either by the Providence of God, or of the Civil Magistrates ofJerusalemabout the Disposal of the Angelical Favour to this or that poor Man, according to his Necessities or Deserts: But that he, whocould fortunately catch the Favour, was to have it. Just as he who runs fastest obtains the Prize: So here the Diseased, who was most nimble and watchful of the Angel's Descent, and could first plunge himself into the Pool, carried off the Gift of Sanation. An odd and a merry Way of conferring a divine Mercy. And one would think that the Angels of God did this for their own Diversion, more than to do good to Mankind. Just as some throw a Bone among a Kennel of Hounds, for the Pleasure of seeing them quarrel for it; or as others cast a Piece of Money among a Company of Boys for the Sport of seeing them scramble for it: So was the Pastime of the Angels here. It was the Opinion of some Heathens, thatHomines sunt Lusus Deorum, the Gods sport themselves with the Miseries of Mankind; but I never thought, before I considered this Story, that the Angels of the God of theJewsdid so too. But if they delighted in it, rare sport it was to them, as could be to aTown-Mobb. For as the poor and distressed Wretches were not to be supposed to be of such a polite Conversation, as in Complaisance to give place to their betters, or in Compassion to make way for the most miserable; but upon the Sightor Sound of the Angel's Fall into the Pool, would without Respect of Persons strive who should be first: So those who were behind and unlikely to be cured, would like an unciviliz'dRabble, push and press all before them into it. What a Number then, of some hundreds perhaps, of poor Creatures were at once tumbled into the Waters to the Diversion of the City Mob, as well as of God's Angels? And if one arose out of it, with the Cure of his Disease, the rest came forth like drown'dRats, to the Laughter of the foresaid Spectators; and it was well if there was not sometimes more Mischief done, than the healing ofonecould be of Advantage, to those People. Believe then this Part of the Story, let him that can. If any Angel was concern'd in this Work, it was an Angel ofSatanwho delights in Mischief; and if he healedoneupon such an Occasion, he did it by way of Bait, to draw others into Danger of Life and Limb. But as ourDivineswill not, I suppose, bear the Thoughts of its being a bad Angel; so I leave them to consider upon our Reasonings, whether it was credible that either a good or a bad Angel was concerned, and desire them to remember to give me a better Reason, why butoneat a Time was healed.
If any Pool or Cistern of Water about this City ofLondonwas so blessed with the Descent of an Angel to such an End, the Magistrates, such is their Wisdom, would, if God did not direct, take care of the prudent Disposal of the Mercy to the best Advantage of the Diseased. And if they sold it to an infirmLordorMerchant, who could give for it most Money, to be distributed among other Poor and distressed People, would it not be wisely done of them? To suppose they would leave the Angelick Favour to the Struggle of a Multitude, is absurd and incredible. And why then should we think otherwise of the Magistrates ofJerusalem? Away then with the Letter of this Story! And if this be not enough to confute it. Then,
Fifthly, Let us consider, to its farther Confutation, who and what were the impotent Folk, that lay in the Porches ofBethesda, waiting the Troubling of the Waters. St.Johnsays they wereBlind,Halt,Withered, and as some Manuscripts[186]have it,Paraliticks. And what did any of these there? How could any of them be supposed to be nimble enough of Foot to step down first into the Waters, and carry off the Prize of Sanation, beforemany others of various Distempers? Tho' the troubled Waters might be of such medicinal Force as to heal a Man of whatsoever Disease he had; yet none of the foresaid Persons for want of good Feet and Eyes could expect the Benefit of it. Tho' the Ears of the Blind might serve him to hear, when the Angel plump't like a Stone into the Waters, yet through want of Sight for the guidance of his Steps, he would by others be jostled out of the right Way down into them. And if the Lame had good Eyes to discern the Descent of the Angel, yet Feet were all in all to this Purpose: Consequently these impotent Folk, specified by St.John, might as well have stay'd at Home, as resorted toBethesdafor Cure. I know not what Fools the Diseased ofJerusalemof old might be, but if there was such a Prize of Health to be strove for, by the Distempered of this City, I appeal to all Men of common Sense, whether theBlind, theLame, thewitheredandParalytickswould offer to put in for it. St.Johnthen forgot himself, or else blundered egregiously, or put the Banter upon us, to try how far an absurd Tale would pass upon the World with Credit. There might be, if there was any litteral Sense in the Story, many of other Distempers, but there couldbe neitherblind,haltnorwithered, withoutsuch an Absurdity, as absolutely disparages the Story, blasts the Credit of theRelator, or rather brings to mind the Assertion of St.Ambrose, that the Letter of theNewas well as of theOld Testamentlies abominably. If what I have here said does not overthrow the Letter of this Story; Then what I have,
Sixthly, To add, will do it more effectually, and that is, of thecertain Man, that had an Infirmity thirty and eight Years, and lay at this Pool for an Opportunity to be cured of it. Tho' thesethirtyandeightYears are, in ourEnglishTranslation prædicated of this Man's Infirmity, yet more truly, according to the Original, are they spoken of the Time he lay there? and the Fathers so understood St.John's Words. What this Man's Infirmity was, we are uncertain: For ασθενειαWeaknessorInfirmityis a general Name of all Distempers, and may be equally apply'd to one as well as to another: Whereupon, tho' we can't certainly say from this Man's Infirmity, that he was a Fool to lay there so long, expecting that Cure, which it was impossible for him to obtain; yet what he says to our Saviour,I have no Man, when the Waters are troubled to put me into the Pool, but while I am coming another steppeth downbefore me, does imply his Folly sufficiently, or rather the Incredibility of the whole Story. What then did thisinfirmMan at this Pool, if he had neither Legs of his own good enough, nor a Friend to assist him, in the Attainment of Sanation? Was he not a Fool, if it was possible for any to be so great a one, for his Patience? Would it not have been as wisely done of him to wait, in the Fields so long, the Falling of the Sky, that he might catch Larks? The Fathers say, this Man'sInfirmitywas thePalsy; but whether they said so for the Sake of the Mystery, or to expose the Letter, I know not. But that Distemper, afterthirtyandeightYears Duration, and Increase; if it was more curable than another at first, had in that time undoubtedly so weakened and render'd him uncapable to struggle with others for this Relief, that it is without Sense and Reason to think he should wait so long for it. OurDivines, if they so please, may commend this Man for his Patience, but after a few Years, or rather a few Days Experience, another Man would have been convinc'd of the Folly and Vanity of his Hopes, and returned Home. If he could not put in for this Benefit, with Prospect of Success in his more youthful Days, when the Distemper was young too,much less Reason had he to hope for it in his old Age, afterthirtyandeight YearsAffliction, unless he dream'd of, what was not to be imagin'd, an Opportunity, without Molestation and Competition, to go off with it. Whatever then ourDivinesmay think of this Man and his Patience, I will not believe there ever was such a Fool; and for this Reason will not suppose St.Johncould literally so romance, unless he meant to bambouzle Mankind into the Belief of the greatest Absurdity. A Man that Lies with a Grace to deceive others, makes his Story so hang together, as to carry the Face and Appearance of Truth along with it; which this of St.John, that for many Ages has been swallowed, for the Reason before us, has not. But what is the worst of all against this Story is,
Seventhly, That which follows, and absolutely destroys the Fame and Credit ofJesusfor a Worker of Miracles.AndV. 1, 2, 3.Jesus went up to Jerusalem, where there was by the Sheep-Market, a Pool, called Bethesda, having five Porches, in which lay a great Multitude of impotent Folk, blind, halt, withered.Why then did notJesusheal them? Here was a rare Opportunity for the Display of his Healing and Almighty Power; and whydid he not exercise it, to the Relief of that Multitude of impotent Folk? If he could not cure them, there's an End of his Power of Miracles? and if he would not, it was want of Mercy and Compassion in him. Which way soever we take this Case, it turns to the Dishonour of the HolyJesus. What then was the Reason, that of so great a Multitude of diseased People,Jesusexerted his Power, and extended his Mercy, on onlyonepoor Paralytick? St.Augustin[187]puts this Question and Objection into my Mouth; and tho' neither He nor I start it for the Service of Infidelity, but to make Way for the Mystery, yet I know not whyInfidelsmay not make Use of it, till Ministers of the Letter can give a satisfactory Answer and Solution to it.
The Evangelists,Matthew,Mark, andLuke, tell such Stories ofJesus's healing Power, as would incline us to think he cured all where-ever he came. Heheal'd, they say,all Mannerof Diseases among the People, and they make mention of particular Times and Places, where all the Diseased were healed by him, whichAssertions imply, thatJesus's healing Power was most extensive and (excepting to an hard-hearted and unbelievingPhariseenow and then) universal; so far that it might be question'd, whether any died, during the Time of his Ministry, the Places where he came: And ourDivineshave so harangued onJesus's Miracles, as would confirm us in such an Opinion: But this Story in St.Johnconfutes and confounds all. St.Johnin no Place of his Gospel talks ofJesus's healing of many, nor of all manner of Diseases, much less of all that were Diseased; which, if it be not like a Contradiction to the otherEvangelists, is some Diminution of their Authority, and enough to make us suspect, that they stretch'd much in praise of their Master, and said more to his Honour than was strictly true. But this Place before us is a flat Contradiction to them, andJesusis not to be supposed to heal many in any Place, much less all manner of Diseases, or he had never let such a Multitude of poor Wretches pass without the Exercise of his Power and Pity on them. Some good Reason then must be given forJesus's Conduct here, and such a one as will adjust it to the Reports of the other Evangelists; orInfidelswill think, that eitherthey romanc'd for the Honour of their Master, or that St.Johnin Spite told this Story to the Degradation of him. I can conceive no better of this Matter according to the Letter.