Six Discourses on the Miracles of Our Saviour, and Defences of His Discourses. Thomas Woolston

the Fathers, for the Honour of Jesus, had made the whole no other than a Parable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Tho' the Fathers, against whose Authority I dare not write, or I should be tempted to it in this Case, acknowledge the Letter of this Story, suspecting only some[130] particular Passages of it; yet they look upon the whole, for all that, as a[131] typical Narration, and endeavour at the mystical Construction of