Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour Part 17

TO THE Right Reverend Father in G.o.d _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 _Lords.h.i.+ps_, 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 a.s.sure them, that their _Lords.h.i.+ps_ 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 _Lords.h.i.+ps_, 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 _Lords.h.i.+p_ got a _Welsh-Bishop.r.i.c.k_ 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 _Lords.h.i.+p_'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 _Lords.h.i.+p_ 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 _Wors.h.i.+pful 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 _Lords.h.i.+p_ 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_.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

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 Gallica.n.u.s_, 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 a.s.sure 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 circ.u.mstanced, 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 G.o.d, or he could not do them. But G.o.d 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 circ.u.mstanced 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 Circ.u.mstances 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 ill.u.s.trious Miracle of _Lazarus_? They could not forget it, nor be ignorant of it, if the Story had been really true; and to a.s.sign 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 Circ.u.mstances and Additions of less Moment. If a third or a fourth _Biographer_ after him shall presume to add a more ill.u.s.trious 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 ill.u.s.trious 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 Repet.i.tions. 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 Circ.u.mstances, 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 _Phnix_) or _Ignatius_, or _Polycarp_, or the Author of the _Apostolical Const.i.tutions_ 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 _Const.i.tutions_ 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 _Const.i.tutions_, 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 cas.h.i.+er'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 pa.s.s 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 Grat.i.tude 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 astonis.h.i.+ng, 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.

_Jesus_ did but[285] _call a little Child, and set him in the midst_ of his Disciples; and that Act was remember'd in the Piety and Zeal[286] of _Ignatius_, who made a renown'd Bishop. But the Favour and Blessing conferr'd on these three rais'd Persons was exceedingly greater; and one might have expected, that _Lazarus_ and the Widow's Son would have been eminent Ministers of the Gospel. But instead of that, their Lives afterwards were pa.s.s'd in Obscurity, or, what's as bad, Ecclesiastical History has neglected a Report of them. What can any one hereupon think less, than that the Favour of the Miracles was lost on undeserving Persons, which I abhor the Thoughts of; or that their Stories are but Parables, which I rather incline to.

Ministers of the _Letter_ may here say, "That the Ecclesiastical History of the Apostolical Age is very scanty; and that many Memorials of other Persons and Transactions are lost and buried in Oblivion: Which unhappy Fate has attended the after-Lives and Actions of these rais'd Persons, or undoubtedly we should have had a famous Record of them." This is not impossible; tho' in the Wisdom of Providence it is hardly probable, but that some more Remembrance must have been left of one or other, if not of all the three Persons; in as much as such a Remembrance of them would now-a-days have no less gain'd a Belief of the Miracles, than this Historical Silence tends to the Discredit of them.

It's somewhat strange, that we hear no more of the after-Fame and Life of any of the diseased Persons, whom _Jesus_ miraculously cured; excepting of the Woman, heal'd of an Issue of Blood; who, tho' she _spent_ ALL _she had, even_ ALL _her Living_ upon _Physicians_; yet out of the Remains of it erected, says[287] _Eusebius_, at _Caesarea Philippi_, two most costly Statues of Bra.s.s, to the Memory of _Jesus_ and of herself, and of the Miracle wrought by him; which Dr.

_Whitby_[288] as if he was tainted with Infidelity, endeavours to make an idle Tale of. But excepting, I say this Story of this Woman, we hear nothing of any other heal'd Person; which is Matter of some Speculation: But that the Persons rais'd from the dead should not at all be mention'd in History for their Labours and Lives afterwards to the Honour of _Jesus_, is absolutely unaccountable. Whether such a profound Silence in History about them be not shocking of the Credit of the Miracles, let our _Divines_ consider. I am of Opinion that if _Jesus_ really rais'd these Persons from the dead; this and no other Reason, in the Providence of G.o.d, can be given for the Silence of Ecclesiastical History about them afterwards, than to make _dead-letter'd_ Stories of their Miracles, in order to turn our Heads entirely to the Consideration of their mystical Signification, without which the _Letter_, for the Argument before us, is deserving of no Regard nor Credit. But

3. By way of Objection to the _Letter_ of these three Miracles, let us consider the Condition of the Persons rais'd from the dead; and whether they were at all proper Persons for _Jesus_ to work such a Miracle upon, in Testimony of his divine Power. If they were improper Persons according to the _Letter_, it's not credible that He, who was the Wisdom of G.o.d, would raise them; or if he did, it was because they were the properest to make mystical Emblems of their Stories.

That _Jesus_ ought to have rais'd all that dy'd, where-ever he came, during the Time of his Ministry, none, I presume, can hold. Two or three Instances of his almighty and miraculous Power of this Kind will be allow'd to be sufficient: But then they must be wisely and judiciously made Choice of, out of a vast Number of Persons, that must needs die in that Time. Where then was his Wisdom and Prudence to chuse these three Persons above others to that Honour? Why were all of them, or indeed any one of them preferr'd to other Persons of a different Age and Condition in the World? Nay, if the _Letter_ of their Stories is only to be regarded, were not all these three Persons almost the improperest and most unfit of any for _Jesus_ to exercise that Power on?

_Jairus_'s Daughter was an insignificant _Girl_ of twelve Years old: And there could be no Reason for raising her, but to wipe sorrow from the Hearts, and Tears from the Eyes of her Parents, who ought to have been better Philosophers, than immoderately to grieve for her. And was here a good Reason for _Jesus_ to interpose with his Almighty Power? No certainly; a Lecture of Patience and Resignation this Case had been enough. And tho' _Jesus_ could raise her from the dead; yet for as much as that Favour was to be conferr'd but on a few; and his Miracles ought to be useful as well as conspicuous, she should have been pa.s.s'd by, as an improper Object of his Power, in Comparison of many others, presently to be named. If therefore a better Reason, than what's discernible in the _Letter_, is not to be fetch'd from the Mystery; I can't suppose that _Jesus_, the Wisdom of G.o.d would raise this _Girl_; but that the modern Belief of her Resuscitation, exclusive of the mystical Signification, is, as shall be by and by argued, altogether groundless.

The Widow of _Naim_'s Son too was but a ?ea??s??? _Youth_, and whether any thing older than the _Girl_ above is doubtful; but his Life certainly was of no more Importance to the World after, than before his Resurrection. And why was he then one of the _three_ to be rais'd from the dead? Why had he this Honour done him, before others of greater Age, Worth, and Use to Mankind? Some will say, for the Comfort or his sorrowful Mother. And is this Reason sufficient? A Discourse on the Pleasures of _Abraham_'s Bosom, where she would e'er long meet her Son, had been enough to chear her Heart. If therefore the Fathers don't help me to a solid mystical Reason, why the Son and _only Son_ of a Widow was to be rais'd by _Jesus_, as they were carrying him to his Burial, I'll not believe, He would raise this dead _Boy_ rather than many others, for the Manifestation of his Power; but that the Story of his Resurrection, as shall soon be reasonably proved, was all Sham and Cheat.

_Lazarus_ indeed was _Jesus_'s Friend, whom he Loved; and as I will not question but _Jesus_'s Affection was wisely and deservedly placed on him; so here, to Appearance, was a better Reason for the raising of him, than of either of the other Two. But even this Reason, supposing _Jesus_ was to raise but three Persons, is not sufficient against the Cases of many others, that may be put for the Manifestation of his Power, for the Ill.u.s.tration of his Wisdom and Goodness, and for the Conversion of Unbelievers: Consequently, if this Story of _Lazarus_ be not parabolical, the litteral Fact is disputable, and obnoxious to such Exceptions presently to be observed against it, as will not be easily got over.

_Jesus_ rais'd the dead, and wrought other Miracles, say our _Divines_ often, not only to manifest his own Power and Glory, but his Love to Mankind, and his Inclination to do them good: For which Reason his Miracles are useful and beneficial as well as stupendous and supernatural Acts, on purpose to conciliate Men's Affections as well as their Faith to him. On this Topick our _Divines_ are copious and rhetorical, when they write on _Jesus_'s Miracles, as if no more useful and wonderful Works could be done, than what he did. And I do agree with them, that (what Reason bespeaks) the Miracles of a pretended Author of Religion ought to be both as useful and great as well as could be. But such were not _Jesus_'s Miracles according to _Letter_, and least of all his Acts of raising the dead. For if we consider the Persons rais'd by him, we shall find, he could hardly have exerted his Power on any of less Importance to the World, both before and after their Resurrection. A young _Girl_ indeed is fitter to be raised than a decripid old Woman, who by the Course of Nature was to return to Corruption again, as soon as restored to Life: And a _Boy_ rather than an infirm old Man for the same Reason: And _Lazarus_ the Friend of _Jesus_, perhaps, and but perhaps, rather than his profess'd Enemy. But what are these three Persons in Comparison of many others of other Circ.u.mstances? Instead of a _Boy_, and a _Girl_ and even of _Lazarus_, who were all of no Consequence to the Publick, either before or since; I should think, _Jesus_ ought to have rais'd an useful Magistrate, whose Life had been a common Blessing; an industrious Merchant, whose Death was a publick Loss; a Father of a numerous Family, which for a comfortable Subsistance depended on him.

Such dead Objects of _Jesus_'s Power and Compa.s.sion could not but offer themselves, during the Time of his Ministry, and if he meant to be as useful as he could, in his Miracles, he would have laid hold on them. If a few Persons only were to be rais'd from the dead, the foresaid were the properest, whose Resurrection and Return to Life would have begotten the Applause as well as the Wonder of the World; would most extensively have spread _Jesus_'s Fame; and would have gain'd him the Love and Disciples.h.i.+p of all that heard of his being so great a Benefactor to Mankind. Such Instances of his Power would have demonstrated him to be a most benign as well as a mighty Agent; and none in Interest or Prejudice could have open'd their Mouths against him, especially if the Persons rais'd from the dead were selected upon the Recommendation of the People of this or that City.

But that an insignificant _Boy_ and a _Girl_, (forsooth!) and the obscure _Lazarus_, are preferr'd by _Jesus_, to such publick and more deserving Persons is unaccountable. Their Story therefore, upon this Argument, savours of Romance and Fraud; and unless the _Mystery_ help us to, what the _Letter_ can't, a good reason for _Jesus_'s Conduct here, the Miracles may be hence justly question'd, and the Credibility of their Report disputed.

But now I am speaking of the Fitness and Unfitness of deceased Persons to have this grand Miracle wrought on them; it comes into my Head to ask, why _Jesus_ rais'd not _John_ the Baptist to Life again? A Person of greater Merits, and more Worthy of the Favour of _Jesus_ and of this Miracle, could not be. If _Jesus_ could raise any from the dead he would surely have raised him; and why did he not? This is a reasonable Question and an Answer should be thought on for it. Was it a Thing out of _Jesus_'s Power? Not so; He was Omnipotent, and could by Force or Persuasion have rescued _John_'s Head out of the Hands of his Enemies; and the tacking it again to his Body, and the infusing new Life into him was no more difficult to _Jesus_, than the Resuscitation of a stinking Carca.s.s. If _Jesus_ had here exerted his Power, and rais'd his dearest Friend and choicest Minister for the Preparation, if not Propagation of the Gospel, none could question his Ability to raise any others, tho' he had rais'd no more. But in as much as _John_ the _Baptist_, one of his singular Merits and Services to _Christ_, was overlook'd and neglected by him; and three useless and insignificant Persons had this Honour done them, the Facts may reasonably be called into question, and, if the Mysteries don't solve the Difficulty, their litteral Stories may hence be accounted foolish, fict.i.tious and fabulous; especially if we consider,

4. That none of these three rais'd Persons had been long enough dead to amputate all Doubt of _Jesus_'s miraculous Power in their Resurrection. As to _Jairus_'s Daughter, she was but newly expired, if at all dead, when _Jesus_ brought her to Life again. _Jesus_ himself says, she was but asleep. And according to _Theophanes Cerameus_[289], and _Theophilact_[290] there is Room to suspect that this _Girl_ was only ?at???? _beside herself_. And it is not impossible, but the pa.s.sionate Skreams of the Feminine By-standers might fright her into Fits, that bore the Appearance of Death; otherwise why did _Jesus_ turn there inordinate Weepers out of the House, before he could bring her to her Senses again? And why did he tell her Parents, that she was only in a sleep, but to Comfort them with the Possibility of his awakening her out of it? Is not this destructive of the Miracle, and making no more of it, than what another Man might do? And is there not some Probability, that here's all of this Story? But supposing she was really dead, yet for the sake of an indisputable Miracle in her Resurrection, it must be granted, that she ought to have been much longer, some Days if not Weeks, dead and buried.

As to the Widow of _Naim_'s Son, there was somewhat more of the Appearance of Death in him, than in _Jairus_'s Daughter. He was carried forth to his Burial, and so may be presumed to be really a dead Corpse. But might not here be Fraud or Mistake in the Case?

History and common Fame affords Instances of the mistaken Deaths of Persons, who sometimes have been unfortunately buried alive, and at other Times happily, by one Means or other, restored to Life: And who knows but _Jesus_, upon some Information or other, might suspect this Youth to be in a lethargick State, and had a Mind to try, if by chafeing, _&c._ he could not do, what successfully he did, bring him to his Senses again: Or might not a Piece of Fraud be here concerted between _Jesus_, a subtil Youth, and his Mother and others; and all the Formalities of a Death and Burial contrived, that _Jesus_, whose Fame for a Worker of Miracles was to be rais'd, might here have an Opportunity to make a shew of a grand one. The Mourning of the Widow, who had her Tears at Command and _Jesus_'s casual meeting of the Corpse upon the Road, looks like Contrivance to put the better Face upon the Matter. G.o.d forbid, that I should suspect, there was any Fraud of this Kind here; but of the Possibility of it, none can doubt.