Six Discourses on the Miracles of Our Saviour, and Defences of His DiscoursesWoolston, Thomas
Religion
Six Discourses on the Miracles of Our Saviour, and Defences of His Discourses
Woolston, Thomas
Gibson, Edmund, 1669-1748; Jesus Christ -- Miracles -- Early works to 1800; Smalbroke, Richard, 1672-1749
I am sorry for the Occasion of such a Preface against Offence, which
the Apostacy of the Age, and its Unacquaintedness with the Fathers,
has made necessary. So I enter upon the particular handling of the
Heads foregoing. And,
I. I will show that the Miracles of healing all manner of bodily
Diseases, which _Jesus_ was justly famed for, are none of the proper
Miracles of the Messiah, nor are they so much as a good Proof of
_Jesus_'s divine Authority to found and introduce a Religion into the
World.
And to do this, let us consider, first, in general, what was the Opinion
of the Fathers about the Writings of the _Evangelists_ in which the Life
of _Christ_ is recorded. _Eucherius_ says,[3] _That the Scriptures of
the New as well as Old Testament, are to be interpreted in an
allegorical Sense_. And this his Opinion, is no other than the common
one of the first Ages of the Church, as might be proved by many the like
Expressions of other Fathers. As in such Expressions, they do not except
the Writings of the _Evangelists_; so they must include the History of
_Christ_'s Miracles, which as well as other Parts of the History of his
Life, is to be allegoriz'd for the sake of its true Meaning;
consequently the literal Story of Christ's Miracles proves nothing.
But let's hear particularly their Opinion of the Actions and Miracles
of our Saviour. _Origen_ says, that[4] _Whatsoever Jesus did in the
Flesh, was but typical and symbolical of what he would do in the
Spirit_; and to our Purpose,[5] that _the several bodily Diseases
which he healed, were no other than Figures of the spiritual
Infirmities of the Soul, that are to be cured by him_. St. _Hilary_ is
of the same Mind with _Origen_, as any one may see by the[6]
Expressions referr'd to, and his Commentary on St. _Matthew_. St.
_Augustin_,[7] and St. _John_[8] of _Jerusalem_, both say, that the
Works of _Jesus_ import farther Mysteries; and with them, the rest of
the Fathers agree, making the Miracles that _Jesus_ did then, no more
than the Shadow of some more powerful and mystical Operations to be
done by him, as I could show by more Citations out of them, if it was
needful. But from the foregoing Citations out of the Fathers it is
plain, in their Opinion, that our modern _Divines_ are in the wrong of
it, to lay much Stress on any of the Operations of _Jesus_, which he
did in the Flesh, for the Proof of his divine Authority and
_Messiahship_, which is only to be proved by his more mysterious
Works, of which those done in the Flesh are but Type and Figure.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account