So ends the Invective of a suppos'd JewishRabbiagainst this Miracle; which ourDivines, as well as myself, are to consider of an Answer to. Whether they shall think themselves able to answer the rational Parts of it, consistently with the Letter, I know not; but I own myself unable, and believe it impossible for them, to do it: And therefore they must of necessity go along with me to the mystical Interpretation of the Fathers; or this Miracle will turn to the dishonour ofJesus, and disadvantage of his Religion.
Justin Martyr[243]says, it is absurd to take the Stories of the Marriages and Concubinages of thePatriarchsof the Old Testament in a literal Sense. And indeed, literally consider'd, they are some of them too luscious Tales to be related by divine and inspired Penmen: whereupon he, as well as St.PaulandPhilo-Judæus[244], turn these Stories for the Honour of God and Edification of his Church, into an Allegory. Consequently, ifJustinhad had an occasion to speak of this Marriage before us, there's no doubt on't, but he would have made Mystery of all and every Part of it.
To the same purposeOrigen[245]says, "That since the Law is a shadow of good Things to come, and writes sometimes of Marriages and of Husbands and Wives; we are not to understand it of Marriages according to the Flesh, but of the spiritual Marriage between Christ and his Church. As for Instance,Abrahamhad two Sons,&c.here we ought not to confine our Thoughts to carnal Marriages, and their Offsprings; but to extend them to the Mysterieshere signified. And there are almost a thousand other places in Scripture about Marriages; but in every place (unusquisque Locus castum & divinum de Nuptiis continet Intellectum secundum Expositionem moralem) is to have a divine, moral, and mystical Construction put on't. Whoever therefore reads the Scriptures about Marriages, and understands no more by them, than carnal Marriages; he errs, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God." From hence may be easily concluded, what wasOrigen's opinion about this Marriage inCanaofGalilee, if there were no other Passages in him for a Confirmation of it. But to come closer to the Purpose.
St.Augustin[246]says, there is Mystery signified in the Story of this Marriage, as in allJesus's Miracles, which it becomes us to open and search for; till, if possible, we areinebriatedwith the spiritual and invisible Wine, thatJesusmadeat this Feast. And again[247]says, Let us then consider the several Particulars of the Story, and what is meant by the six Waterpots; and the Water that is turn'd into Wine; and the Governor of the Feast; and who are the Bridegroom and the Bride; and who is the Mother ofJesusin a Mystery; and what is to be understood by the Marriage.
And again, says St.Augustin[248], there is Mystery in this Marriage, orJesusupon no invitation had gone to it. The Bridegroom is our Lord himself, to whom it is said thou hast reserv'd the good Wine of the Gospeluntil now, that is, until the typified Time of the Celebration of this mystical Marriage, which according to St.Augustin[249]is to be on the sixth Age of the World, signified by the six Water-Pots, holding two or three Firkins apiece,that is, all Mankind, as they are divided into thetwosorts ofJewsandGentiles, or intothree, as they are descended of thethreeSons ofNoah.
And in another Place, the same St.Augustininterpreting this Story, says[250]thus; "Our Saviour is invited to a Marriage; what can that mean but that the Holy Spirit is courted and invocated by the Church, wishing to be espoused to him?Jesuscomes with his Disciples, that is, into a holy Place of a Company of Saints.Marythe Mother of our Lord signifies to him,that they have no Wine; so the Church makes known to him, the Deficiency of the Spirit, which she waits for the Power of. And ifJesuscallsMary, a Woman; he means the Church, who by Transfiguration may be a Virgin, the Mother, the Spouse of Christ, and a Whore too."
And again St.Augustinexplaining[251]what is meant by the Water, and the Wine that it wou'd be turn'd into, at the Time of the spiritual Celebration of this Marriage of Christ with his Spouse of the Church, says plainly enough, that byWateris meant the Letter of the Scriptures; and by the bestWineis to be understood spiritual Interpretations, which would transport the understandings of Men with divine knowledge; and warm their Hearts and Affections into a spiritualInebriation; after the similitude of Wine natural.
St.TheophilusofAntioch, a most antient Greek Commentator (who according toBishop Smalbrokeshould strictly adhere to the Letter) says[252], that by this Marriageis meant the Conjunction of Christ and his Church, as it is the Tradition of the Old and New Testament. And thatJesushimself is the Bridegroom; andMosesthe Governor of the Feast.
Other Fathers, such as St.Cyril, St.Theophylactand St.Jeromeare of the same mind about the mystical Interpretation of this Marriage, as might be prov'd by Passages out of them, if I had room here to cite them. But I must observe here, that according to the Fathers, the Story of this Marriage is but another Emblem of the Marriage of the Lamb with the Bride of theNew Jerusalem, spoken of in theRevelations, to which all the Fowls of the Air will be invited, that is, spiritual and heavenly minded Christians, who[253]soar and fly aloft in their divine and sublime Contemplations on the anagogical Sense of the Scriptures, which will exhibit those intellectual Dainties, they are there to be entertain'd with.
What I have here said out of the Fathers to the Story of this Marriage, is enough to quicken ourDivinesto search for the like mystical Interpretation of the whole. The Part of it that's mostdifficult to be spiritually expounded, is that saying ofJesusto his Mother,Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine Hour is not yet come.For the clear interpretation of which, I own, I meet with little in the Fathers. But St.Augustin[254]assures us, there's latent Mystery in the words. How then shall we come at it? Why, if we cast away theInterrogation, and look upon the Sentence, as ellyptical, like an infinite number of prophetical ones, the Sense paraphrastically, and agreeably to the rest of the Mystery, arises thus: In answer to the Woman of the Church's Expectation of the Wine of the Spirit;Jesuswill tell her or make her to understand of what importance it is to her (and himself) to be supply'd with that mystical Wine to her Edification, which it was not his time to pour forth upon the Church, till the Celebration of his Nuptials with her.
And thus have I done with the Miracle ofJesus's turning Water into Wine at a Marriage ofCanaofGalilee. Whether it be not an absurd and offensive Story according to the Letter, let anyone judge. If the supposed JewishRabbihas forced a worse Sense upon it, than it will naturally bear, ourClergymay expostulate with him for it, which they hardly will any otherwise than by Exclamations against him, without Reason and Authority. But in the mystical Operation of this Miracle at the Marriage of Christ with his Church, there will be the Wisdom and Power and Goodness of God visible. And it will be a demonstration ofJesus'sMessiahship, in as much as the Water of the Letter of the Law and the Prophets can't be turn'd into the Wine of spiritual Interpretations, but we must discern how he is the Accomplisher and Fulfiller of them. And so I pass to an
11.EleventhMiracle of Jesus,viz.[255]That of his healing a Paralytick, for whom the Roof of the House was broken up to let him down into the Room whereJesuswas.
And this Story (without excepting that of the Pool ofBethesda) is the most monstrously absurd, improbable and incredible of any according to the Letter. There is not one Miracle ofJesusspecifically related, that does not labour undermore or less Absurdities, either in Substance or Circumstance: But this, for number and greatness of Absurdities, I think surpasses them all: And the Absurdities of it too are so obvious and stare a Man in the Face, that I wonder they are hitherto overlook'd; and that considerate and intelligent Persons have not before now hesitated and boggled at them. If Interest had not blinded the Eyes of our learnedClergy, they would easily have descry'd the Incredibilities and Absurdities of this Story; and in anotherImpostor's Case presently have pointed them out to the ridicule of his Admirers and Adorers.
If a Man was to torture his Brains for the Invention of a romantick Tale of improbable and surprizing Circumstances, that he might, withal, hope to palm for a Truth, if it was but for a Week or a Day, upon the Faith and Understanding of the Credulous; he could never have presumed, I think, so far upon the weakness of their Intellects, as to imagine any thing so grossly and notoriously contradictory to Sense and Reason, would have gone down with them, as isthisbefore us, which has pass'd currently thro' many Ages of the Church, has been read with attention by the Learned, and reveredby the rest of Christians, without any exception, hesitation, or doubt of the Truth of it. In short, so palpable is the falsity of the Story of this Miracle, that it requires no Sagacity to detect it; and was it not for the sake of the Mystery more than to expose the Folly of theClergyin believing of it, I had never bestow'd the following Pains on it.
The People, it seems, so press'd and throng'd about the Door of the House, whereJesuswas, that the Paralytick and his Bearers could not get near it. What did they so throng and press for? Was it to seeJesus, who waswithout Form and Comeliness, according to the ProphetIsaiah; or, who was one of the most graceful of the Sons of Men, asPaintersandPublius Lentulusdo describe him? This could not be the Reason of the Croud. Tho' a Person extraordinary, either for Beauty or Deformity may attract the Eyes of the People, and occasion too a Throng about him; yet this could be no Reason for aPressaboutJesus, atCapernaum, where he dwelt, and was commonly seen and well known.
Was it then to hear him preach? Nor this neither. Tho' an excellent Preacher does sometimes, and a very indifferent one does oftener draw multitudesafter him; yetJesus, as a Prophet, was without Honour atCapernaum, his own Country; consequently, it is not to be supposed that, for his Doctrine, he was so much follow'd here, tho' we read, that hepreach'd the Word unto them.
Was it then to behold him working of Miracles and curing of the diseased? This is the likeliest Reason of the Crouds and Throng about him. And perhaps it was a Day appointed beforehand for his healing of the diseased, which might occasion a more than ordinary Concourse of the People. But then this Reason would have induced the People to make way for theLame,Blind, andParalyticksto come toJesus; for they frustrated their own Hopes and Expectations of seeing Miracles wrought; and acted more unreasonably than ever Mob did, or can be supposed to do.
But whatever was the Reason of this tumultuous Crouding, which is hard to be accounted for; it's said, the poorParalytickwith his Bearers could not get to the Door of the House for thePress, and therefore in all haste is he haul'd to the Top of the House, and let down, thro' a breach of the Roof, into the Room whereJesuswas. What needwas there of such Haste and Pains to get toJesusfor a Cure? It was but waiting a while, not many Hours, and in all probability the Tumult would be appeas'd, and access easily had to him. But that the Bearers of the poor Man should enterprise a trouble and difficulty, that could not require less Time, than the Tumult could be supposed to last, is a little strange and somewhat incredible.
St.Chrysostomsays[256], that theParalyticksaw that the Market-place or Street was throng'd with People, who had obstructed all Passage to the House, whereJesuswas; and yet he did not so much as say to his Friends and Bearers, "What's the Reason of this Tumult? Let's stay till it is appeas'd, and the House clear'd of the People, who ere long will depart; and then we shall privately and quietly get admittance to Jesus," But why did he not say so? Any one beside himself and his Bearers, if they had any Reason andSenses about them, would have so argued. St.Chrysostomsays, it was theirFaiththat made them in such haste to get toJesus: But I should have thought theirFaithmight have work'dPatience, and disposed them to stay till Jesus could come out to them, or they get in to him: And it is an Addition to the strangeness and incredibility of this Story, that it did not.
But supposing thisParalytickin such haste and danger of Life, that he could not wait the dispersion of the Tumult, but, for want of a free entrance at the Door, is, cost what it will, to be rais'd to the top of the House, and a breach must be there made for him. The Question is, whether such an Enterprize was or could be feisable and practicable? I have no Conception of the possibility of it. If they could not get to the Door of the House for the Press; of consequence they could not come at the Sides of it. How should they? over the Heads of the People? That's not to be imagined; consequently here's another difficulty in the Story, that renders it yet more strange and incredible.
But, without questioning the possibility and easiness of getting theParalytickand his Couch over the Heads ofthe Mob, to the sides of the House; thither he is brought, where we now behold him and his Bearers with their Pullies, Ropes, and Ladders (that were not at hand, nor could suddenly be procured) hauling and heaving him to the top of the House. Of what height the House was, is not of much Consequence. Some for the Credit of the Story may say[257], it was avery low one; tho' antient and modernCommentatorsare pretty well agreed, that it was anupper-Room, whereJesuswas; consequently the House was at least two Stories high: But if it was much higher, I'll allow that Art and Pullies (which they wanted for the present) would raise the Man and his Bed to the top of it: So we will not dispute nor differ upon that matter. On the top of the House then, we are now to behold theParalytickand his Bearers with their Hatchets and Hammers,&c.(which they forgot to bring with them, for they could not think of any use they should have of them) uncovering the Roof of the House; breaking upTiles,Spars, andRafters, and making a Hole, capacious enough for the Man andhis Bed to be let thro'. An odd, strange, and unaccountable Workthis, which, if they had not been cunning Fellows, would hardly have enter'd into their Heads to project. But at work they are, when it was well, if Jesus and his Disciples escaped with only a broken Pate, by the falling of Tiles,&c., and if the rest were not almost smother'd with the Dust; for it was over their Heads that the breach was made. Where was the good Man of the House all this while? Would he suffer his House to be thus broken up, and not command them to desist from their foolish and needless Attempt, till the Mob was quell'd, and there was a free entrance at the Door of his House, which could not be long first? Is there nothing in all this, of difficulty and obstruction in the way of the belief of this Story?
Some modernCommentators, being aware of these difficulties in this Story, and willing to reconcile Men to the earlier belief of it, say, asDrusius[258]did, that the Houses ofJudæawereflat-roof'd, and not ridg'd: And Doctors,LightfootandWhitby[259]say, there wasa Door on their flat Roofs, by which theJewsused to ascend to the top of their Houses, where they discours'd on the Law and religious Matters; and that it was thro' such a Door, by a little widening of the sides of it, that theParalytickwas let down in the presence ofJesus. To which Opinion I would yield, if it was not liable to these Objections,viz.that it is not reconcilable to what St.Lukesays, oftheir letting the Paralytick down thro' the Tiling with his Couch, in the midst, where Jesus was; nor hardly consistent with what St.Marksays of theiruncoveringandbreaking up the Roof of the House: which Expressions theEvangelistshad never used, if there had been a Door for him to descend by. But to indulgeLightfootandWhitbyin their Notion; I may ask them, what occasion was there then of widening the doorway, and breaking down the sides of it? They'll say, because the Passage otherwise was too narrow, for the Man's Couch to get thro'. Why then did not they take him out of his Couch, and let him down in a Blanket, a Chair, or a Basket? Or rather, why did notJesus, to prevent this Trouble and Damage to the House, ascend thro' this Door, to the Top of it, and their speak the healingWord to this poor Man? To say, thatJesuscould not or would not go up to the Paralytick, I would not, for Fear of an Imputation of Blasphemy against me. OurDivinestherefore are to look for, what they'll hardly find, an Answer to the said Question, which will consist with the Wisdom, the Goodness and Honour ofJesus; or here will be another and insuperable Bar to the Credibility of this Story.
In short, there are more and greater Difficultys affecting the Credit of this Miracle, on the side ofJesus, than any before urg'd. Could not he, as it was antiently[260]objected, have made the Access to himself more easy? Could not he, to prevent all this Trouble and Pains of getting to the Top of the House, and of breaking up the Roof of it, have desired or even forc'd the People to make way for this poor Man and his Bearers? This was not impossible for him to do. If it was hard for another; it was not for him, who was omnipotent. He that could drive his Thousands before him out of the Temple; and draw as many after him into the wilderness, might surely, by Force or Persuasionhave made the People, how unreasonably mobbish soever, to retreat. And why did he not? Without a good and satisfactory Answer, which I can't conceive, to this Question, here is the most unaccountable and incredible part of the whole Story, that reflects on the Wisdom, the Power and Goodness ofJesus. If there had been no other absurd Circumstances of it, this is enough to spoil its Credit, so far as that I believe it impossible forMinistersof theLetter, with all their Wit, Penetration and Sagacity to get over it.
Believe then the Story of this Miracle, thus taken to Pieces, who can? It is such an Accumulation of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities, that a Man of the most easy Faith, if he at all think, can't digest. It's not credible, I said, to suppose, the People ofCapernaum, whereJesusdwelt, and was well known and little admired, would at allpressto see or hear him: And if the occasion of their Concourse was to behold his Miracles; it is less-reasonable to think they would tumultuate to their own disappointment; but rather make way for the diseased, for the satisfaction of their own Curiosity, to come to him: And if they did mob it to their own disappointment, about theDoor of the House; it was next to impossible for the poor Man and his Couch to be heav'd over their Heads, and rais'd to the top of it: More unreasonable yet to think, the master of the House would suffer the Roof of it to be so broken up: But most of all against Reason to suppose,Jesuswould not give forth the healing word, and prevent all this Labour, or by his divine Power disperse the People, that theParalytickmight have present and easy access to him.
Whether all this be not absolutely shocking of the Credit of this Story, let my Readers judge. In my Opinion, no Tale more monstrously romantick can be told. I don't here questionJesus's Power to heal this Paralytick, nor the miraculousness of the Cure of him: The trouble of that Question is saved me, by the many other incredible Circumstances of the Story, which are such a Contradiction to Sense and Reason, as is not to be equall'd, in any thing, that's commonly receiv'd and believ'd by Mankind.Cicerosays, that there is nothing so absurd, which some of the Philosophers have not held. And they might and did, some of them, hold gross Absurdities. But the Letter of the Story of this Miracle before us, which is the Object of the Faithof our learned Priesthood at this Day is a Match for the worst of them.
But as absurd, as this Story is, I expect that ourClergywill be disgusted at my ludicrous display of it; and that Arch DeaconStubbsin particular will again be ready to exclaim against me, and say, that this is turning amiraculous Factand adivine Testimonyof our Religion into Ridicule. Whereupon it is to be wish'd,that Arch-Deaconwould write, what would be a Pleasure to see, a Vindication of this Story. If he can account for the possibility and credibility of the Letter of it, he shall have my leave to make another dull Speech inConvocationagainst me. And it is not unlikely, but he may say as much for it, as another Man: For as the Story is senseless, so it is the better suited to his Head and Brains. But if he don't, I much question, whether any other Clergyman of more Wit will, appear in Defence of it.
So absurd is the Letter of this Story, that for the Honour ofJesus, and Credibility of his Gospel, it is absolutely necessary to turn it into Allegory. To the Fathers then, let us go for their help in this Case. If they did not read me a better Lecture upon this Miracle, than do ourmodernCommentators, I should be almost tempted to renounce my Religion upon it: But as they have rationally and rightly instructed me in its true meaning, so I retain my Christian Faith, and admire the Sublimity of the Mystery, which I am now to give an account of.
By thisParalitick, St.Hilary[261]says, is to be understoodMankindof all Nations, which opinion too the Fathers held of theParalitick, who was heal'd at the Pool ofBethesda. And by his Palsy is not meant any bodily Distemper, but the spiritual Palsy of the Soul, that is, as St.Augustin[262]and St.Jerome[263]interpret, a dissoluteness of Morals, and an unsteadiness of Faith and Principles, which is the Condition of Mankind at present, who wantJesus's help for the Cure of it.Eusebius Gallicanus[264]says, our Saviour's words signify,that it is not a bodily but a spiritual Disease here meant; or he had never said to the Paralytick,Son, thy Sins are forgiven thee, which words respect the inward Man, and demonstrate the Palsy here to be a disease Of the Soul.
The Man sick of the Palsy hadfour Bearers. And who are they mystically in this Case? Why, the Fathers[265]understand by them thefour Evangelists, on whose Faith and Doctrine Mankind is to be carry'd unto Christ; for no Soul can be brought unto him, for the Sanation of his Sins and Errors, but by thesefour.
But to the top of the House is Mankind, thus paralytically diseased, to be carry'd by the four Evangelists, his Bearers. And what then is this House and its Top? The House ofJesusis the intellectual Edifice of the World, otherwise call'd Wisdom's House; of the beautiful Buildings of which the Scriptures propheticallytreat: therefore to thesublime Senseof the Scriptures, call'd the Top[266]of the House, is Man to be taken: He is not to abide in thelow and literal Sense[267]of them, where Peoplepressand strive in vain to come toJesus: But if he is taken to the Sublimity of the Scriptures and thereopen[268]the Houseof Wisdom, he will presently be admitted to the Presence and Knowledge ofJesus.
VenerableBede, who is altogether a Transcriber of the Fathers, for which Reason I cite him among the Fathers, says[269], that by theTilesof the Housespoken of in St.Luke, is meant theLetterof the Scriptures, which is to be laid open for the manifestation of Christ and of divine Mysteries to the healing of Man's spiritual Palsy, the unsteadiness and dissoluteness of his Morals and Principles.
So much, in short, then to the mystical Interpretation of the Story of this Miracle. The literal Sense of it is so encumber'd with romantick Circumstances, as are enough to turn a Man's Heart against Christianity it self: But in the Mystery there will be a most stupendous Miracle, which will be not only an Argument ofJesus's divine Power, but of hisMessiahship, as certainly as his House of Wisdom, of which the Scriptures write, is open'd to the Manifestation of his Presence, and to the Cure of Mankind of his paralytical Disease, call'd an instability of Faith and Principles.
And thus have I, in thisDiscourse, taken into Examination three more ofJesus's Miracles; which I submit to the Judgment of my Readers, whether the literal Story of them does not consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities according to the Proposition before us; and whether there is not a necessity, for the Honour ofJesus, toturn them into prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what will be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.
My nextDiscourse, if my mind hold, shall treat on the three Stories ofJesus's raising of the dead,viz.of the Widow ofNaim's Son, ofJairus's Daughter, and ofLazarus; after which I will give the literal History of Christ's Resurrection, that sandy Foundation of the Church, a Review; and so conclude my Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour.
To run thro' all the Miracles ofJesus, and handle them in the manner I have done the foregoing, would be a long and tedious Work. But if ourDivinesshall think, I have selected only those Miracles, which are obnoxious to Cavil and Ridicule; and have omitted others, that literally are a more unexceptionable Testimony ofJesus's divine Power, and Authority; I will, for their Satisfaction take more of them to Task, and give the Letter of their Stories, the like ludicrous treatment. If I mistake not, the Miracles already spoken to, together with those ofJesus's raising of the dead, and of his own Resurrection, are the most famous and remarkable of any others: And according to the Observation I havemade on the rest, they are no less but rather more liable to Ridicule and Exception. But if any are of a contrary Opinion, and will let me know, which in their Judgment are more unexceptionable Miracles, I will vouchsafe them an Examination. I am sure there is not one Miracle, which the Fathers of the Church did not turn into Allegory; and if we don't at this Day make mystical Operations of them, they will none of them according to the Letter, stand their Ground, nor abide the Test of a critical Inquiry into them.
I don't expect, that thisDiscoursewill be any more pleasing and acceptable to theClergy, who areMinistersof theLetterofJesus's Miracles, as well as of the Prophecies of him, than any of my former: But their Displeasure in the Case will give me no Disturbance, nor am I concern'd about any Resentment, they can make of it. If they are offended at theseDiscourses, they should as they came forth, have written solid Confutations of them, and so have prevented my Publication of any more of this kind: But instead of serious and potent Reasonings against me, I have met with little else but oral Railings, Exclamations, Defamations, and attempts for Prosecution;which have been so far from terrifying me, that they give me a secret Pleasure, and animate me to proceed in the Undertaking in hand.
I did not much question but theBishopof St.Davids, whom I look'd upon as a Person of Ingenuity and Learning, would, before this Time, have publish'd somewhat in Confutation of one or other of my formerDiscourses. Whether he was not obliged to it, or to make me some publick Reparation of the Injury done to my Reputation, by his slanderous Sermon, I appeal now to the worshipfulSocietysfor Reformation of Manners; to whom, and to other Civil Magistrates, I hope his Sermon, without Reason, will be a Caution, that no Pulpit-Invective move them to prosecute or think the worse of any Author.
Liberty of thinking, writing and judging for our selves in Religion is a natural, a Christian, and a protestantRight: It is aRightthat the Magistrates as well as the Subjects are interested in, and are to see to the Conservation of, or their Understandings as well as their Purses will be ridden and oppress'd by an ignorant and tyrannical Priesthood. I urge not this for my own security against Prosecution for Infidelity and Blasphemy, declaringthat if theBishopsofLondon, St.Davids, orArch-Deacon Stubbs, who are zealous for Persecution, will but engage me on the Stage of Controversy, and make good their Accusations against me, I will submit to the worst Punishment, that can be inflicted on the worst Offender.
In the mean time I will go on with my Undertaking, to the advancement of Truth, and demonstration of theMessiahshipof the HolyJesus, to whom be Glory for ever,Amen.
——Ridiculum acriFortius & melius magnas plerumq; secat Res.
Printed for the Author, and Sold by him next door to theStar, inAldermanbury, and by the Booksellers ofLondon, andWestminster, 1728.
[Price One Shilling.]
Chapter Bar.
My Lord,
Capital W.
hatever we poorAuthorsmay sometimes pretend to, by the Dedication of our Works toGreatMen; it's certain we aim at nothing less than Rewards and Preferments, whether we deserve them or not: That this is my Design inDedications, 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 WealthyBishopsfor the Patrons oftheseDiscourses, which I foresaw would be grateful to their nice and critical Palates? Wherefore else have I been so profuse of such Compliments on theirLordships, as I was sure, they would take great Pleasure in? Wherefore else,My Lord, do I inscribethisto yourRight ReverendName, 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 inEpiscopalPatrons, will not believe that I have receiv'd so much as onePurseofGoldfor any of myDedications; 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 theirLordshipshave 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 veryGreatMan.
Such primitive Doctrine,My Lord, as I have reviv'd, must, in the Judgment of ourBishops, be deserving of their distinguish'd Favours: And if they should Design for me such amysticalCrown of Glory, as theGentile Priestshelp'd some of the Fathers of the Church to; I profess without Dissimulation, that, for all my Love toMysteries, it will be more than I am ambitious of: But if the Honour is forc'd on me, it will be my Duty to theirLordships, to sound anallegoricalTrumpet 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 aMan's kicking a Serpent on the Pate, for biting him by the Heels:And if yourLordshipgot aWelsh-Bishoprickupon it, what may not I expect for my more meritorious Works of the same kind? The GreatMr. Schemehas celebrated your Praise for that Effort of your Wit: And I must needs say, to yourLordship'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 theLetterof theOld, as I can do with that of theNewTestament.
I have not here Room,My Lord, for a sufficient and deserv'dEncomiumon yourUse 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 yourLordshipto caution your Readers against taking yourBookfor an Answer to Mr.Grounds; otherwise it had not been impossible, but some others as well as theWorshipful Benchersof theTemplemight have mistaken theUseandIntentof it.
After I had gone thro' yourbeautifully-printedWork, I wish'd,My Lord, for anotherDecorationof 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 aFoilto each other! How should I then have admired the Difference between aRichBishop and aPoorFather as to Wit and Sense! How should I then have contemplated the Usefulness of Ecclesiastical Wealth in ourClergyfor the Understanding of the Inspirations of the poor old Prophets!
When yourLordshipis call'd upon for another Edition of yourBook,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.Schemehas too sparingly sprinkled on yourWork, will give yourReaders, 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,
October 25.1728.
My LORD,The Admirer ofYourUseandIntentof Prophecy,Thomas Woolston.
Chapter Bar.
Capital A.
ccording to Promise in my lastDiscourse, I am inthisto take into Examination the three Miracles ofJesus's raising the dead,viz.OfIairus's Daughter[270]; of the Widow ofNaim's Son[271]; and ofLazarus[272]: The literal Stories of whichI shall show to consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities, in Order to the mystical Interpretation of them: And because some of ourBishopsandClergywere a little disgusted at the ludicrous Treatment of theLetterof 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.
WhetherJesusrais'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 modestHyperboleof St.John, who supposes[274]the World it self could not contain the Books that might be Written of Jesus. AndEusebius Gallicanus, of whose Mind entirely I am, says[275]the Reason lies in the Mystery, why thesethree, and no more than thesethreeMiracles of thisKind are recorded by theEvangelists. But since ourDivinesare averse to Mysteries on Miracles, I would gladly know their Opinion, whetherJesusrais'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 ourDivines, 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 thatJesusliterally rais'd none from the dead at all.
But waving that sort of Argument for the present against theLetter; these three Miracles are reputed the greatest thatJesuswrought: 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 hecould 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, thatJesusis suppos'd to have wrought, is that ofLazarus'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, isJesus's raising ofthe 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 raisingJairus'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 ourDivines. I am apt to believe with the Fathers, thatJesusactually did raise the dead; but then, as these Miracles are only recorded for the sake of theMystery, I affirm that none of them, as to theLetter, will abide the Test of a critical Examination, nor stand its Ground against such Exceptions as may be made to them. IfJesuswas 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; andthe 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 ofLazarus's Resurrection; but since this is only mention'd by St.John, who wrote his Gospel after the otherEvangelists, 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 thatMatthew,Mark, andLuke, who all wrote their Gospel's beforeJohn, and many Years nearer to the Death of our Saviour, should omit to record this remarkable and most illustrious Miracle ofLazarus? They could not forget it, nor be ignorant of it, if the Story had been really true; and to assign anyother 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 theEvangelists, especially of the three first, who may be presumed to make a Report of the greatest, if not of all, thatJesuswrought: But that there should come after them anEvangelistwith 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, thatCriticswill admit of the Belief of. The first Writer of the Life of anHero, to be sure makes mention of all the grand Occurrences of it, and leaves no Room forBiographersafterwards, but to enlarge and paraphrase upon what he has written, with some other Circumstances and Additions of less Moment. If a third or a fourthBiographerafter him shall presume to add a more illustrious Transaction of theHero'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 ofLazarus's Resurrection, that Miracle of Miracles, ought not to be subjected to the like Criticism upon it,Christiansmay consider, andInfidelswill judge.
What then was the Reason, I ask again, that the three firstEvangelistsneglected to record this renown'd Miracle ofLazarus? And why too (may I enquire here) did notMatthewandMarkmention the Story of the Widow ofNaim's Son, as they could not but know of it, if true, more certainly thanLuke, the Companion ofPaul, who alone has made a Report of it?Grotiussays,[278]it may seem strange that this illustrious Miracle of the Widow's Sonwas omitted byMatthewandMark: And what is the Reason thatGrotiusgives 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 ofJesus'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 ofChristovercharg'd with impertinent and tautological Repetitions.But one Instance of a Person rais'd from the dead, they were, saysGrotius, content with: And I'll grant one to be sufficient: But which then should they, as wise and considerateHistorianshave made Choice of, the greatest or the least Miracle? The greatest, to be sure, and that was ofLazarus, or of the Widow's Son, if they knew of either. But instead of either of these, they tell us the Story ofJairus'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.
IfMatthew, the first Writer, had recorded only the Story ofLazarus, whose Resurrection was the greatest Miracle; and ifLukehad addedthatof the Widow ofNaim's Son; andJohnlastly had remember'd us ofJairus's Daughter, which the otherEvangelists, 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 theEvangelists:But this unnatural and preposterousOrder 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, thatJewsandInfidelshave not hitherto hit upon theAbsurdityof 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, wasJairus's Daughter, whomMatthewwrites of; and she, according to the Story was only in a Sleep, or an Extacy, whenJesusrevived her. But theGalileans, who were after a Time call'dChristians, finding their Account in a Resurrection-Miracle;Luke, for the former Advantage of the Cause, devised another Story of better Circumstances, in the Widow ofNaim'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, inJesus's raising ofLazarus, who had been not only dead, but buried so longthat 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 firstEvangelistwould 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 ofJesus, but ofMahomet, 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 thefirstwas sparing and modest in his Romance; and thesecond, 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; thethirdWriter, 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 notrelated by the first Historian. So would you Christians argue against these three Miracles in another Impostor's Case; and there is not a judiciousCriticin 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 yourJesus."But to come nearer home to you; supposingJohn(who was then above a Hundred, and in his Dotage) had not reported this Miracle ofLazarus; but thatClement(joining it with his[281]incredible Story of the Resurrection of aPhœnix) orIgnatius, orPolycarp, or the Author of theApostolical Constitutionshad related it; would not your ChristianCriticshave been at work to explode it? There is not an antient extra-evangelical Tradition of any Note aboutJesus, that some or other of yourCriticshave not boggled at; but such a Story as this ofLazaruswould have been received by none. I question, whether Mr.Whistonwould not have rejected theConstitutionsupon such a Story in them; or if his Fancy for some other Things in them had overcome hisReason against this; yetBishop Smallbroke, who has written against the Canonicalness of theConstitutions, 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 theEvangelists, especiallyMatthew, 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 weInfidelsought not to take the same Liberty to criticize onJohn'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) whyJohnmay be suspected of a Mistake or Fraud in this Miracle, rather than any other Christian Writer of thefirstorsecondCentury."
"Jesus, it is manifest, rais'd not the dead at all. The only Person, that Christians can reasonably pretend, he did raise, wasJairus's Daughter, whomMatthewwrites of; and she, according to the Story was only in a Sleep, or an Extacy, whenJesusrevived her. But theGalileans, who were after a Time call'dChristians, finding their Account in a Resurrection-Miracle;Luke, for the former Advantage of the Cause, devised another Story of better Circumstances, in the Widow ofNaim'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, inJesus's raising ofLazarus, who had been not only dead, but buried so longthat 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 firstEvangelistwould 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 ofJesus, but ofMahomet, 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 thefirstwas sparing and modest in his Romance; and thesecond, 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; thethirdWriter, 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 notrelated by the first Historian. So would you Christians argue against these three Miracles in another Impostor's Case; and there is not a judiciousCriticin 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 yourJesus.
"But to come nearer home to you; supposingJohn(who was then above a Hundred, and in his Dotage) had not reported this Miracle ofLazarus; but thatClement(joining it with his[281]incredible Story of the Resurrection of aPhœnix) orIgnatius, orPolycarp, or the Author of theApostolical Constitutionshad related it; would not your ChristianCriticshave been at work to explode it? There is not an antient extra-evangelical Tradition of any Note aboutJesus, that some or other of yourCriticshave not boggled at; but such a Story as this ofLazaruswould have been received by none. I question, whether Mr.Whistonwould not have rejected theConstitutionsupon such a Story in them; or if his Fancy for some other Things in them had overcome hisReason against this; yetBishop Smallbroke, who has written against the Canonicalness of theConstitutions, 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 theEvangelists, especiallyMatthew, 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 weInfidelsought not to take the same Liberty to criticize onJohn'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) whyJohnmay be suspected of a Mistake or Fraud in this Miracle, rather than any other Christian Writer of thefirstorsecondCentury."
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 ourDivines, nor stand them in any stead; therefore they must look up another good one of their own, that will comport with theLetter; or the said Objection, improved with another presently againstLazarus'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 withGrotius'sSolution, has given us[283]another: But how weak and insufficient both their Solutions are, I will not spare Time to consider, till someWritershall 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 theLetterof 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 andConversation in the World afterwards. It's true, thatEphiphanius[284]says, what he found among Traditions, thatLazaruslived thirty Years after his Resurrection: But how did he spend his Time all that while? Was it to the Honour ofJesus, to the Service of the Church, and Propagation of the Gospel? Of that we know nothing; tho' in Reason and Gratitude toJesus, 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 ofGrotius, in a Citation above,Lazarusfor the rest of his restored Life absconded, and skull'd about the Country for Fear of theJews, who lay in Wait for him; which is a Suggestion, not only dishonourable toJesus, as if the same Power, that rais'd him from the dead, could not protect him against his Enemies; but reproachful toLazarushimself, who should have chosen to suffer Death again, rather than not bear an open Testimony toJesus, the Author of his Resurrection. However it was, we hear no more ofLazarus, 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 ofJairus's Daughter, and of the Widow ofNaim's Son, which is astonishing, we read nothing at all. Does not this Silence in History about them, make their Miracles questionable, and but likeGulliverianTales of Persons and Things, that out of the Romance, never had any Being.
Jesusdid but[285]call a little Child, and set him in the midstof his Disciples; and that Act was remember'd in the Piety and Zeal[286]ofIgnatius, 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, thatLazarusand the Widow's Son would have been eminent Ministers of the Gospel. But instead of that, their Lives afterwards were pass'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 Storiesare but Parables, which I rather incline to.
Ministers of theLettermay 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, whomJesusmiraculously cured; excepting of the Woman, heal'd of an Issue of Blood; who, tho' shespentALLshe had, evenALLher LivinguponPhysicians; yet out of the Remains of it erected, says[287]Eusebius, atCæsarea Philippi, two most costly Statues of Brass, to the Memory ofJesusand 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 ofJesus, is absolutely unaccountable. Whether such a profound Silence in History about them be not shocking of the Credit of the Miracles, let ourDivinesconsider. I am of Opinion that ifJesusreally rais'd these Persons from the dead; this and no other Reason, in the Providence of God, can be given for the Silence of Ecclesiastical History about them afterwards, than to makedead-letter'dStories of their Miracles, in order to turn our Heads entirely to the Consideration of their mystical Signification, without which theLetter, for the Argument before us, is deserving of no Regard nor Credit. But
3. By way of Objection to theLetterof these three Miracles, let us consider theCondition of the Persons rais'd from the dead; and whether they were at all proper Persons forJesusto work such a Miracle upon, in Testimony of his divine Power. If they were improper Persons according to theLetter, it's not credible that He, who was the Wisdom of God, would raise them; or if he did, it was because they were the properest to make mystical Emblems of their Stories.
ThatJesusought 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 theLetterof their Stories is only to be regarded, were not all these three Persons almost the improperest and most unfit of any forJesusto exercise that Power on?
Jairus's Daughter was an insignificantGirlof 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 forJesusto interpose with his Almighty Power? No certainly; a Lecture of Patience and Resignation this Case had been enough. And tho'Jesuscould 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 pass'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 theLetter, is not to be fetch'd from the Mystery; I can't suppose thatJesus, the Wisdom of God would raise thisGirl; 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 ofNaim's Son too was but a νεανισκοςYouth, and whether any thing older than theGirlabove is doubtful; but his Life certainly was of no more Importance to the World after, thanbefore his Resurrection. And why was he then one of thethreeto 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 ofAbraham'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 andonly Sonof a Widow was to be rais'd byJesus, as they were carrying him to his Burial, I'll not believe, He would raise this deadBoyrather 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.
Lazarusindeed wasJesus's Friend, whom he Loved; and as I will not question butJesus'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, supposingJesuswas 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 Illustration of his Wisdom and Goodness, and for theConversion of Unbelievers: Consequently, if this Story ofLazarusbe 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.
Jesusrais'd the dead, and wrought other Miracles, say ourDivinesoften, 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 ourDivinesare copious and rhetorical, when they write onJesus'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 notJesus's Miracles according toLetter, 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 youngGirlindeed is fitter to be raisedthan a decripid old Woman, who by the Course of Nature was to return to Corruption again, as soon as restored to Life: And aBoyrather than an infirm old Man for the same Reason: AndLazarusthe Friend ofJesus, perhaps, and but perhaps, rather than his profess'd Enemy. But what are these three Persons in Comparison of many others of other Circumstances? Instead of aBoy, and aGirland even ofLazarus, who were all of no Consequence to the Publick, either before or since; I should think,Jesusought 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 ofJesus's Power and Compassion 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 spreadJesus's Fame; and would have gain'd him the Love andDiscipleship 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 insignificantBoyand aGirl, (forsooth!) and the obscureLazarus, are preferr'd byJesus, to such publick and more deserving Persons is unaccountable. Their Story therefore, upon this Argument, savours of Romance and Fraud; and unless theMysteryhelp us to, what theLettercan't, a good reason forJesus's Conduct here, the Miracles may be hence justly question'd, and the Credibility of their Report disputed.