Chapter V: Front Matter (5)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With these impotent Folk lay _a certain Man who had an Infirmity_. And who is this infirm Man? Mankind in general, say St. _Cyril_[195] and[196] St. _Augustin_, And what is his Infirmity? The Fathers call it the[197] _Palsy_, because of his Instability, and Unsteadiness in Faith and Principles, which is now the Case of Mankind. St. _John_ calls it [Greek: astheneian] _a Weakness_, which being a general Name of all Distempers, we can't guess what might be here the specifical one. But reasonably speaking, according to the Rule of Interpretation, this Man's _Infirmity_ is the same with the Woman's _Spirit of Infirmity_, and that is a Weakness at the Spirit of Prophecy, which Mankind, as well as the Woman of the Church, is to be cured of in the Perfection of Time.