hominem, id est, spiritum paryliticum esse demonstrat. Hoc enim non
dixisset, si ad Corporis Infirmitatem respexisset. Non ideo Corpus
sanatur, quia Anima a peccatis liberatur. _In Homil. in Dominic._ xix.
_post Pentecost_.
[265] Sed qui sunt isti quatuor, qui hunc Paralyticum portant & Domino
offerunt. Per hos enim nescio, qui melius quam quatuor Evangelistæ
intelligi possunt. Nulla enim Anima nisi per istos Domino offertur,
nulla Anima nisi per istorum fidem sanatur. _Euseb. Gallican. ibid._ Sum
Paraliticus, quia non operantur & immobiles sunt Vires Animæ meæ ad
bonum, sed si a quatuor Evangelistis gestatus & adductus fuero ad
Dominum, tunc audiam, remittuntur Peccata. _Theophylact. in Loc. Marci._
[266] Tectum Domus qua Christus docet, ascendendum, id est, Sacræ
Scripturæ Sublimitas est appetenda. _Bedæ in Loc. Lucæ._
[267] Non utique in Infirmis exterius, qua turbæ tumultuantur
remanendum, sed Tectum Domus, &c. _Ibid._
[268] Patefacto Tecto ægerad Jesum summittitur, quia reseratis
Scripturarum Mysteriis, ad Notitiam Christi pervenitur. _Bedæ in. Loc.
Marci._ Est Paralysis interior, ut pervenias ad Christum (forte enim
latet Medicus & intus est, hoc est, iste verus Intellectus in
Scriptoris occultus est) exponendo quod occultum est aperi Tectum, &
depone Paraliticum. _Augustin. In Serm._ XLVI. _Sect._ 13. Impediri
turbis nisi Tecta id est operta Scripturarum aperiat, ut per hæc ad
Notitiam Christi perveniat. _Ejusdam in Quæst. 4ta in Evangel. Lucæ._
[269] Et bene Domus Jesu juxta alterius Evangelistæ Narrationem tegulis
esse contecta reperitur, quia sub contemptibili Literarum Velamine, si
adsit, qui reseret, divina spiritualis Gratiæ Virtus invenietur.
Denudatio etenim Tegularum in Domo Jesu, Apertio est, in utilitate
Literæ, sensus spiritualis ac arcanorum coelestium. _In Loc. Marci._
A FIFTH
DISCOURSE
ON THE
MIRACLES
OF OUR
_SAVIOUR_,
In VIEW of the Present
Controversy between INFIDELS
and APOSTATES.
----_Ridiculum acri
Fortius & melius magnas plerumq; secat Res._
The Second Edition.
By THO. WOOLSTON, B.D. sometime
Fellow of _Sidney-College_ in _Cambridge_.
_LONDON_:
Printed for the Author, and Sold by him
next door to the _Star_, in _Aldermanbury_,
and by the Booksellers of _London_, and
_Westminster_, 1728.
[Price One Shilling.]
[Illustration]
TO THE
Right Reverend Father in God
_THOMAS_,
Lord BISHOP of _Bangor_.
MY LORD,
Whatever we poor _Authors_ may sometimes pretend to, by the Dedication
of our Works to _Great_ Men; it's certain we aim at nothing less than
Rewards and Preferments, whether we deserve them or not: That this is
my Design in _Dedications_, is so apparent, that it's to no Purpose to
deny or dissemble it.
Wherefore else have I made Choice of some of our Learned and Wealthy
_Bishops_ for the Patrons of these _Discourses_, which I foresaw
would be grateful to their nice and critical Palates? Wherefore else
have I been so profuse of such Compliments on their _Lordships_, as I
was sure, they would take great Pleasure in? Wherefore else, _My
Lord_, do I inscribe _this_ to your _Right Reverend_ Name, but that I
expect your Approbation of it, and hope for a Recompence, equal to the
Honour, that is here done you.
Some, who are envious, _My Lord_, of my good Fortune in _Episcopal_
Patrons, will not believe that I have receiv'd so much as one _Purse_ of
_Gold_ for any of my _Dedications_; but I would have such Malignants to
know, that the less I have receiv'd, the more there is behind: And I can
moreover assure them, that their _Lordships_ have it in their Heads and
their Hearts too, highly to advance me in the World; and if their
Endeavours for my Promotion fail not, I shall be a very _Great_ Man.
Such primitive Doctrine, _My Lord_, as I have reviv'd, must, in the
Judgment of our _Bishops_, be deserving of their distinguish'd
Favours: And if they should Design for me such a _mystical_ Crown of
Glory, as the _Gentile Priests_ help'd some of the Fathers of the
Church to; I profess without Dissimulation, that, for all my Love to
_Mysteries_, it will be more than I am ambitious of: But if the Honour
is forc'd on me, it will be my Duty to their _Lordships_, to sound an
_allegorical_ Trumpet of their Fame, that their Names, which, might
otherwise be soon forgotten, may be everlastingly remember'd for their
Love and Good-will towards me.
But the chief Foundation, _My Lord_, of my Merits lies, they say, in my
Treatment of the Miracles of our Saviour, after the Manner you handled a
Scripture-Prophecy, of a _Man's kicking a Serpent on the Pate, for
biting him by the Heels_: And if your _Lordship_ got a
_Welsh-Bishoprick_ upon it, what may not I expect for my more
meritorious Works of the same kind? The Great _Mr. Scheme_ has
celebrated your Praise for that Effort of your Wit: And I must needs
say, to your _Lordship_'s Applause, that were not your Thoughts
unhappily shackled with Interest and Subscriptions, (an Unhappiness you
sadly lament!) you would endeavour to make as pleasant Work with the
_Letter_ of the _Old_, as I can do with that of the _New_ Testament.
I have not here Room, _My Lord_, for a sufficient and deserv'd
_Encomium_ on your _Use and Intent of Prophecy_; therefore must be
content to say of it, in short, that it is a most curious Piece of,
what the Fathers call, _Engastromuthism_; or such a singular Specimen
of a Webb, spun out of a Man's own Bowels, as one of fewer Brains in
his Head can hardly equal.
It was wisely done of your _Lordship_ to caution your Readers against
taking your _Book_ for an Answer to Mr. _Grounds_; otherwise it had not
been impossible, but some others as well as the _Worshipful Benchers_ of
the _Temple_ might have mistaken the _Use_ and _Intent_ of it.
After I had gone thro' your _beautifully-printed_ Work, I wish'd, _My
Lord_, for another _Decoration_ of it, that some Annotations out of
the Fathers had been subjoin'd to it. How would your Notions then and
Theirs about Prophecy have stood as a _Foil_ to each other! How should
I then have admired the Difference between a _Rich_ Bishop and a
_Poor_ Father as to Wit and Sense! How should I then have contemplated
the Usefulness of Ecclesiastical Wealth in our _Clergy_ for the
Understanding of the Inspirations of the poor old Prophets!
When your _Lordship_ is call'd upon for another Edition of your _Book_,
vouchsafe me the Favour of making some marginal Remarks on it, which
shall not be without their good Use. As you know, savoury Sawce makes
some sort of Food go down the better; so a little more of that Salt,
which Mr. _Scheme_ has too sparingly sprinkled on your _Work_, will give
your _Readers_, a right Relish of it: But whether I am indulg'd this
Favour or not; I than take another opportunity, according to Promise
elsewhere made, of testifying to the World, how much I am,
[Sidenote: October 25. 1728.]
_My LORD,
The Admirer of
Your_ Use _and_
Intent _of Prophecy_,
_Thomas Woolston_.
[Illustration]
A FIFTH
DISCOURSE
ON THE
MIRACLES
OF OUR
_SAVIOUR_, &c.
According to Promise in my last _Discourse_, I am in _this_ to take
into Examination the three Miracles of _Jesus_'s raising the dead,
_viz._ Of _Iairus_'s Daughter[270]; of the Widow of _Naim_'s Son[271];
and of _Lazarus_[272]: The literal Stories of which I shall show to
consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities, in Order
to the mystical Interpretation of them: And because some of our
_Bishops_ and _Clergy_ were a little disgusted at the ludicrous
Treatment of the _Letter_ of some foregoing Miracles, I will handle
these with the more Caution; being as unwilling, as any Man of my
primitive Faith can be, to offend weak Brethren.
Whether _Jesus_ rais'd any more from the dead, besides the foresaid
three Persons is uncertain from the Evangelical History. St.
_Augustin_[273] thinks, he rais'd many others; and he founds his
Opinion on the modest _Hyperbole_ of St. _John_, who supposes[274]
_the World it self could not contain the Books that might be Written
of Jesus_. And _Eusebius Gallicanus_, of whose Mind entirely I am,
says[275] the Reason lies in the Mystery, why these _three_, and no
more than these _three_ Miracles of this Kind are recorded by the
_Evangelists_. But since our _Divines_ are averse to Mysteries on
Miracles, I would gladly know their Opinion, whether _Jesus_ rais'd
any others from the dead, or not: I have made some search into modern
Writers for their Opinion in this Case, but can't find it: And unless
I knew their Opinion, it would be lost Labour to argue against either
Side of the Question, and much more against both Sides of it: But I
can assure our _Divines_, that, which Side of the Question soever they
should hold, the Consequence upon the Argument would be neither better
nor worse, than that they must of necessity espouse the mystical and
allegorical Interpretation of these Miracles, or grant that _Jesus_
literally rais'd none from the dead at all.
But waving that sort of Argument for the present against the _Letter_;
these three Miracles are reputed the greatest that _Jesus_ wrought:
And I believe, it will be granted on all hands, that the restoring a
Person, indisputably dead, to Life again, is a stupendous Miracle; and
that two or three such Miracles well circumstanced, and credibly
reported, are enough to conciliate the Belief of Mankind, that the
Author of them was a divine Agent, and invested with the Power of God,
or he could not do them. But God knows, (and for the sake of the
Mystery, I am not sorry to say it) this is far from being the Case of
these three Miracles before us, or of any one them.
That these three Miracles are not equally great, but differ in Degree,
is visible enough to any one, that but cursorily reads, and compares
theirs Stories one with another. The Fathers of the Church[276] have
taken Notice of such a Difference amongst them. The greatest of the
three, and indeed, the[277] greatest Miracle, that _Jesus_ is suppos'd
to have wrought, is that of _Lazarus_'s Resurrection; which, in Truth,
was a most prodigious Miracle, if his Corps was putrified and stank;
or if there were no just Exceptions to be made to the Credibility of
the Story. Next to that, in magnitude, is _Jesus_'s raising of the
Widow's Son, as they were carrying him to his Burial: And a great
Miracle it was to bring him to Life again; if none before or since had
been mistaken for dead, and carried to their Graves alive; or if no
Impostor and his Confederates could frame such a seemingly miraculous
Scene, as is that whole Story, to his own Glory. The least of the
three is that of his raising _Jairus_'s Daughter, which in Appearance
is so far from a Miracle, that according to the Story itself, she was
but asleep, or by the Shrieks of By-standers frighted out of her
Senses for the present.
But however it really might be with these three supposed dead and
revived Persons; the Case of none of them was well enough
circumstanced to serve the Purpose of our _Divines_. I am apt to
believe with the Fathers, that _Jesus_ actually did raise the dead;
but then, as these Miracles are only recorded for the sake of the
_Mystery_, I affirm that none of them, as to the _Letter_, will abide
the Test of a critical Examination, nor stand its Ground against such
Exceptions as may be made to them. If _Jesus_ was to raise any dead
Bodies to Life, for a Testimony of his divine Power and Authority, he
would and should have made Choice of other dead Persons, under other
Circumstances of Death; and the History of their Resurrection should
have been more credibly and carefully transmitted to Posterity, so as
there should have been no Room left to make a reasonable Doubt of the
Truth of it. But this, I say, is not the Case in the Resuscitation of
any of these Persons, as will appear from the following Remarks and
Observations upon them. And
1. Observe, that the unnatural and preposterous Order of Time, in
which these Miracles are related, justly brings them all under
suspicion of Fable and Forgery. The greatest of the three is
indisputably that of _Lazarus_'s Resurrection; but since this is only
mention'd by St. _John_, who wrote his Gospel after the other
_Evangelists_, and above sixty Years, according to the best
Computation, after our Lord's Ascension; here is too much Room for
Cavil and Question, whether this Story be not entirely his Invention.
What could be the Reason that _Matthew_, _Mark_, and _Luke_, who all
wrote their Gospel's before _John_, and many Years nearer to the Death
of our Saviour, should omit to record this remarkable and most
illustrious Miracle of _Lazarus_? They could not forget it, nor be
ignorant of it, if the Story had been really true; and to assign any
other Reason than Ignorance or Forgetfulness, is hard and impossible.
To aggrandize the Fame of their Master, for a Worker of Miracles, was
the Design of all the _Evangelists_, especially of the three first,
who may be presumed to make a Report of the greatest, if not of all,
that _Jesus_ wrought: But that there should come after them an
_Evangelist_ with an huge and superlatively great Miracle, and meet
with Credit for it, is against all Sense and Reason; neither is there
any Story, so disorderly told, in all History, that _Critics_ will
admit of the Belief of. The first Writer of the Life of an _Hero_, to
be sure makes mention of all the grand Occurrences of it, and leaves
no Room for _Biographers_ afterwards, but to enlarge and paraphrase
upon what he has written, with some other Circumstances and Additions
of less Moment. If a third or a fourth _Biographer_ after him shall
presume to add a more illustrious Transaction of the _Hero_'s Life, it
will be rejected as Fable and Romance, tho' for no other Reason than
this, that the first Writer must have been appris'd of it, and would
have inserted its Story, if there had been any Truth in it. And
whether St. _John_'s Story of _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, that Miracle
of Miracles, ought not to be subjected to the like Criticism upon it,
_Christians_ may consider, and _Infidels_ will judge.
What then was the Reason, I ask again, that the three first
_Evangelists_ neglected to record this renown'd Miracle of _Lazarus_?
And why too (may I enquire here) did not _Matthew_ and _Mark_ mention
the Story of the Widow of _Naim_'s Son, as they could not but know of
it, if true, more certainly than _Luke_, the Companion of _Paul_, who
alone has made a Report of it? _Grotius_ says,[278] _it may seem
strange that this illustrious Miracle of the Widow's Son_ was omitted
by _Matthew_ and _Mark_: And what is the Reason that _Grotius_ gives
for this strange Omission? Why, he tells us[279] _that these two
Evangelists were content with one miraculous Instance of this Kind, by
which Christians might judge of_ Jesus'_s Power in others also_. And
is this Reason sufficient? True it is, they were content with one
Instance; but if they had made a Report of two or three more of the
same sort, no body would have thought their History of _Christ_
overcharg'd with impertinent and tautological Repetitions. But one
Instance of a Person rais'd from the dead, they were, says _Grotius_,
content with: And I'll grant one to be sufficient: But which then
should they, as wise and considerate _Historians_ have made Choice of,
the greatest or the least Miracle? The greatest, to be sure, and that
was of _Lazarus_, or of the Widow's Son, if they knew of either. But
instead of either of these, they tell us the Story of _Jairus_'s
Daughter, that is[280] an imperfect and disputable Miracle, in
Comparison of the other two, which consequently they knew nothing at
all of, or they would have preferr'd the Report of them.
If _Matthew_, the first Writer, had recorded only the Story of
_Lazarus_, whose Resurrection was the greatest Miracle; and if _Luke_
had added _that_ of the Widow of _Naim_'s Son; and _John_ lastly had
remember'd us of _Jairus_'s Daughter, which the other _Evangelists_,
not through Ignorance or Forgetfulness, but studying Brevity, had
omitted, then all had been well; and no Objection had hence lain
against the Credit of any of these Miracles, or against the Authority
of the _Evangelists:_ But this unnatural and preposterous Order of
Time, in which these Miracles are recorded (the greatest being
postponed to the least) administers just Occasion of suspicion of the
Truth and Credibility of all their Stories. And it is lucky for
Christianity, that _Jews_ and _Infidels_ have not hitherto hit upon
the _Absurdity_ of this preposterous Narration, or they might have
form'd a cogent Objection against these Miracles thus, saying;
"_Jesus_, it is manifest, rais'd not the dead at all. The only
Person, that Christians can reasonably pretend, he did raise, was
_Jairus_'s Daughter, whom _Matthew_ writes of; and she, according to
the Story was only in a Sleep, or an Extacy, when _Jesus_ revived
her. But the _Galileans_, who were after a Time call'd _Christians_,
finding their Account in a Resurrection-Miracle; _Luke_, for the
former Advantage of the Cause, devised another Story of better
Circumstances, in the Widow of _Naim_'s Son: But this not being so
great a Miracle, as the Church still wanted; _John_, when no body
was alive to contradict and expostulate with him for it, trumps up a
long Story of a thumping Miracle, in _Jesus_'s raising of _Lazarus_,
who had been not only dead, but buried so long that he stank again.
But to prove the Story of this Miracle to be false and fabulous, we
need say no more than that it was last recorded. If there had been
any Truth in it, the first _Evangelist_ would have remember'd us of
it.
"We don't suppose, that you Christians, because of your Prejudices,
will subscribe to this Account, that we thus give of the Rise of
these Miracles: But this is certain, that if these three Miracles
had not been reported of _Jesus_, but of _Mahomet_, in the same
disorder of Time, by three different Historians, you would
presently have scented the Forgery and Imposture: You would justly
have affirm'd that the three Stories were apparently three Fables
and Falsehoods; and that the three Historians visibly strove to
outstretch each other: That the _first_ was sparing and modest in
his Romance; and the _second_, being sensible of the Insufficiency
of the former's Tale, devises a Miracle of a bigger Size; which
still not proving sufficient to the End proposed; the _third_
Writer, rather than his Prophet's Honour should sink for want of a
Resurrection-Miracle, forges a Story of a monstrously huge one;
against which it is, and always will be Objection enough, that it
was not related by the first Historian. So would you Christians
argue against these three Miracles in another Impostor's Case; and
there is not a judicious _Critic_ in the Universe, that would not
approve of the Argument, and applaud the Force of it, tho' you will
not endure the Thoughts of it in the Case of your _Jesus_.
"But to come nearer home to you; supposing _John_ (who was then
above a Hundred, and in his Dotage) had not reported this Miracle
of _Lazarus_; but that _Clement_ (joining it with his[281]
incredible Story of the Resurrection of a _Phoenix_) or _Ignatius_,
or _Polycarp_, or the Author of the _Apostolical Constitutions_ had
related it; would not your Christian _Critics_ have been at work to
explode it? There is not an antient extra-evangelical Tradition of
any Note about _Jesus_, that some or other of your _Critics_ have
not boggled at; but such a Story as this of _Lazarus_ would have
been received by none. I question, whether Mr. _Whiston_ would not
have rejected the _Constitutions_ upon such a Story in them; or if
his Fancy for some other Things in them had overcome his Reason
against this; yet _Bishop Smallbroke_, who has written against the
Canonicalness of the _Constitutions_, with his judicious
Animadversions upon this Story, would absolutely have overthrown
their Authority. And what would he have said here? Not only that
the Miracle smells rankly of Forgery and Fraud, or the
_Evangelists_, especially _Matthew_, had never forgotten to record
it; but he would have reminded us of intrinsic Notes (_hereafter to
be mention'd_) of Absurdity, and Incredibility, that would for ever
have cashier'd the Belief of it. And whether we _Infidels_ ought
not to take the same Liberty to criticize on _John_'s Gospel, which
you do on your Apostolical Fathers, who wrote before him, let the
impartial and unprejudiced judge: If in justice we ought to take
it; we are sure we could give two or three notable Reasons (but
that We will not now put Christians out of Temper with them) why
_John_ may be suspected of a Mistake or Fraud in this Miracle,
rather than any other Christian Writer of the _first_ or _second_
Century."
To such an unhappy Objection, arising from the unnatural and
preposterous Order of Time, in which they are recorded, are these
three Miracles before us obnoxious. And I am thinking how Ministers of
the Letter will be able to get over it. As for my self, who am for the
mystical Interpretation of these Miracles, I have a solid and
substantial Answer at hand to the foresaid Objection, an Answer that
curiously accounts for the Order of Time in which these Miracles are
related; but my Answer will not please our _Divines_, nor stand them
in any stead; therefore they must look up another good one of their
own, that will comport with the _Letter_; or the said Objection,
improved with another presently against _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, will
be too hard, not for Christianity it self, but for their Ministry.
_Grotius_, being aware of the foresaid Objection, has given us such
a[282] Solution of it as then occurr'd to his Thoughts. Dr. _Whitby_,
not being satisfied with _Grotius_'s Solution, has given us[283]
another: But how weak and insufficient both their Solutions are, I
will not spare Time to consider, till some _Writer_ shall appear in
Defence of the Sufficiency and Strength of one or other of them. And
so I pass to a
2. Second Observation, by Way of Objection to the _Letter_ of these
Miracles, and that is, by enquiring, what became of these three
Persons after their Resurrection? How long did they live afterwards?
And of what Use and Advantage were their restored Lives to the Church
or to Mankind? The Evangelical and Ecclesiastical History is entirely
silent as to these Questions, which is enough to make us suspect their
Stories to be merely romantick or parabolical; and that there were no
such Persons rais'd from the dead; or we must have heard somewhat of
their Station and Conversation in the World afterwards. It's true,
that _Ephiphanius_[284] says, what he found among Traditions, that
_Lazarus_ lived thirty Years after his Resurrection: But how did he
spend his Time all that while? Was it to the Honour of _Jesus_, to the
Service of the Church, and Propagation of the Gospel? Of that we know
nothing; tho' in Reason and Gratitude to _Jesus_, his Benefactor, it
ought to have been so spent; and if it had been so employ'd, History
surely would have inform'd us of it. According to the Opinion of
_Grotius_, in a Citation above, _Lazarus_ for the rest of his restored
Life absconded, and skull'd about the Country for Fear of the _Jews_,
who lay in Wait for him; which is a Suggestion, not only dishonourable
to _Jesus_, as if the same Power, that rais'd him from the dead, could
not protect him against his Enemies; but reproachful to _Lazarus_
himself, who should have chosen to suffer Death again, rather than not
bear an open Testimony to _Jesus_, the Author of his Resurrection.
However it was, we hear no more of _Lazarus_, than that he lived
thirty Years afterwards, which Tradition, without other Memorials of
his Life, brings the Miracle more under suspicion of Fable, than if he
had dy'd soon after it. And of _Jairus_'s Daughter, and of the Widow
of _Naim_'s Son, which is astonishing, we read nothing at all. Does
not this Silence in History about them, make their Miracles
questionable, and but like _Gulliverian_ Tales of Persons and Things,
that out of the Romance, never had any Being.