The Raising of Jairus’s daughter,
The Widow of Naim’s son,
And Lazarus.
In Answer to
The Objections of Mr. Woolston’s Fifth
Discourse on the Miracles of our Saviour.
By NATHANIEL LARDNER.
LONDON:
Printed for Theodore Sanders, at the Bell in Little Brittain, Richard Ford at the Angel, and John Gray, at the Cross-Keys in the Poultry. 1729.
THE ensuing Vindication was drawn up, about nine months since. But it was done for my own satisfaction, without any view to a publication at that time. And when the Reverend Dr. Harris’s Remarks on the case of Lazarus came out, I thought, the Public and Mr. W. had received in a short compass a full answer to all the material objections of the Discourse, with which these papers are concerned.
Nor did I determine to send them to the Press, till after I
had seen a passage in Mr. W's Defence of his Discourses, p. 61.
where
If Mr. W. by way of such a reply means a reply drawn up
with the wit and spirit of that Author; I freely own it much above my capacity,
and am not so vain as to attempt it. If by way such a reply he means
a reply without abusive raising terms, or invoking the aids of the civil magistrate,
I have done it in that way. I wish Mr. Woolston no harm; I only
wish him a sincere conviction and profession
of the truth effected and brought about by solid reasons and arguments
without pains or penalties. And in this point I agree exactly with the learned Dominican, De
Maussac, who in his Prolegomena. to Raymond Martini’s
When, at the erecting the Royal Society, into which were freely admitted men of different religions and countries,
some, it is likely, were apprehensive of this free converse of various judgments, Dr. Sprat
Dr. Bentley in a Sermon at a public Commencement at Cambridge says:
These learned men have assured us upon the foundation of the scriptures, of the fathers, and reason, that all force on the minds of men in the matters of belief is contrary to religion in general, and to the Christian religion in particular; and that severity instead of doing good has always done harm.
These points might be enlarged upon, but nothing new can be offered. Possibly some good men may still be in some doubt concerning the issue of admitting the principles of religion to be freely and openly canvassed. But I think, that such may find satisfaction even upon this head in the passages I have quoted, provided they will be pleased to consider them. However I will add a few observations briefly upon this matter.
It is an old saying, which has been much admired and applauded for its wisdom, that Truth
is great, and strong above all things. There is
certainly some real excellence in truth above errour. Great and important truths are clearer
than others, and not likely to be mistaken, but to shine the more for examination. The
Christian
These are considerations taken from the nature of things. Experience is on the same side. The Christian Religion triumphed for the first three hundred years over errour and superstition, without the aids of civil authority, against the veneration of ancient custom, against ridicule, and calumny, false arguments, and many severe persecutions. From small beginnings by its own internal excellence, and the force of that evidence with which God had clothed it, and the industry and zeal of its honest professors, it spread itself over the Roman Empire and the neighbouring countries.
The Christian church had in the same space of
time a triumph within itself over those false and
absurd opinions that sprang up under the Christian name. “These
heresies, Eusebius
Our own time also affords a convincing instance to all that will open their eyes to observe. The Protestant states and kingdoms of Europe, as they enjoy greater liberty than others, proportionably exceed their neighbours in the justness of their sentiments, and the goodness of their lives. Indeed there is among us Protestants a great deal of vice and irreligion, which all good men observe with grief and concern, and some very bad and selfish men delight to aggravate and magnify with a view to their own evil designs; but still without vanity, if we are barely just to our circumstances, sure we have some reason to glory over some of our neighbours in this respect. Which advantage can be ascribed to no other cause so much as to the liberty we enjoy. For introduce among us the tyranny they are under; and we shall be as ignorant, as superstitious, and corrupt, as they.
If then men should be permitted among us, to go on in delivering their sentiments freely in matters of Religion, and to propose their objections again Christianity itself; I apprehend, we have no reason to be in pain for the event. On the side of Christianity I expect to see, as hitherto, the greatest share of learning, good sense, true wit, and fairness of disputation: which things, I hope, will be superior to low ridicule, false argument, and misrepresentation.
For ought I can see, in an age so rational as this we live in, the victory over our enemies may be speedily obtained. They will be driven to those manifest absurdities, which they must be ashamed to own; and be silent in dread of universal censure. But suppose the contest should last for some time, we shall all better understand our Bibles; we shall upon a fresh examination better understand the principles, and the grounds of our Religion. Possibly some errours may be mixed with our faith, which by this means may be separated, and our faith become more pure. Being more confirmed in the truths of our Religion, we shall be more perfect in the duties of it. Instead of being unthinking and nominal, we shall become more generally serious and real Christians: each one of which advantages will be a large step toward a compleat and final victory.
This victory obtained upon the foot of argument and perswasion alone, by writing and discourse, will be honourable to us and our Religion: and we shall be able to reflect upon it with pleasure. We shall not only keep that good thing we have received, but shall deliver it down to others with advantage. But a victory secured by mere authority is no less to be dreaded than a defeat. It may appear a benefit for the present, but it really undermines the cause, and strikes at the root of our holy profession. Will any serious and sensible Christian, in the view of a future judgment, undertake to answer for the damage thereby brought to the doctrine of his Saviour, the meek and patient Jesus? as meek in his principles, as in the example he has bequeathed us.
I might now address myself to our adversaries, and tell them: That
it is a very desirable thing, that all authors should write, as scholars
and gentlemen, at lest like civilized people: That it is a point long
since determined,
that in controversial writings authors should confine themselves to things, that
is, the merits of the cause, without annoying persons That it is grievous to all
sorts of men, to have those things which they respect, treated with indecence.
I might tell them, that other mens reputations are as sacred as their own. I might
remind them, that Christians at this time, generally speaking, are in as good
Besides, as all men are more concerned for the good conduct of their
friends, than of
A Passage of Origen out of his Books against Celsus, concerning these three Miracles.
I HAVE in the Vindication prolixly shewn, that the
literal histories of these miracles is rational, consistent, and credible: so
that we may be safe and easy in understanding them in their literal sense, whatever
any fathers or other people may say to the contrary. I shall however here set
before the reader a passage of Origen writ about A. D. 245, which passage
I have chosen, not only as containing a testimony to the real performance of
these
miracles in their literal sense, and shewing, that Origen argued the Messiaship
of Jesus from miracles; but also as containing an excellent observation concerning
the credibility of the Evangelists. The reader will likewise perceive, that in
Celsus’s time, who flourished about the middle of the second century, the
miracles of
“But this, says Origen, is no new thing with Celsus, when he is not able directly to oppose the miracles which Jesus is recorded to have done, to asperse them as
jugling tricks. To which I have already often replied according to my ability. And here
ERRATA. Page 6. l. 19. after there, r. mere. p. 16. l. 4. for every, r. ever. p. 43. l. 6. for despair any longer, r. hope no longer, p. 104. l. 18. for in his, r. is his.
MR. W. begins his fifth Discourse, p. 1, 2. with
saying, that he is now to take into examination the three miracles of
Jesus’s raising
the dead, viz. of Jairus’s daughter,
I have read over his examination of these miracles, and am still of opinion, that the histories of them are credible.
I. I will therefore first consider all his objections against these literal stories.
II. I will consider the Jewish Rabby’s letter inserted in this Discourse.
I will shew, that the histories of these three miracles are well circumstanced, and have in them the marks and tokens of credibility.
I WILL first consider all Mr. W’s objections to these literal stories.
Mr. W. says in his preamble, before he comes to propose his objections in form: That these three miracles are not equally great, but differ in degree, is visible enough to every one that but cursorily reads, and compares their stories one with another.—The greatest of the three, and indeed the greatest miracle, that Jesus is supposed to have wrought, is that of Lazarus’s resurrection; which, in truth, was a most prodigious miracle, if his corps was putrified and stank; and 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.—The least of the three is that of his raising Jairus’s daughter, p. 4, 5.
For my own part, I will not pretend to affirm,
that these three miracles are equally great, tho’
the difference is small:, But I should think it
highly probable, that the Being which can
give life to a person really dead, tho’ but for a
quarter of an hour, or even a minute, is able also
to raise to life another that has been dead many
days. The length of time in which a person has
lain dead from the time he expired does indeed
somewhat increase the certainty of his death. But
the difficulty of the work of a resurrection from
real death is so very great, that length of time
from the decease can add but little to it. This
If then it shall be made appear, that the three persons here mention’d were indisputably dead, and raised to life again; or that there are no just exceptions against the credibility of these stories; we have in the gospels, three stupendous miracles which were wrought by Jesus Christ; and we have no occasion to have recourse to any mystical interpretations.
1. Observe, says he, p. 6. that the unnatural and preposterous order of time, in which those miracles are related, justly brings them undersuspicion of fable and forgery. The greatest of the three is indisputably that of Lazarus’s resurrection; but since this is only mentioned by St. John, who wrote his gospel after the other Evangelists;—Here is too much room for cavil and question, whether this story be not entirely his invention: Again: If Matthew, the first writer had recorded only the story of Lazarus, whole 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—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 postpon’d to the least) administers just occasion of suspicion of the truth and credibility of all their stories, p. 9, 16.
On the contrary I maintain, that St. John the last Evangelist’s recording a miracle omitted by the former, even supposing it to be greater than. any related by them, does not administer any just occasion of suspicion of the truth and credibility of all their three stories, or of any one of them.
If there is any force in this argument of Mr. W. it must lie in some one or more of these following suppositions:
1. That some of the three former Evangelists have expressly declared, they have related all the miracles, or all the greatest miracles, which Jesus ever wrought, or which they knew of.
2. Or, if they have not expressly declared this, that however they have in their way of writing shewn an affectation of mightily encreasing the number of our Saviour’s miracles, or of setting down all and especially the greatest which they knew of.
3. Or else, that the later Evangelists have betray’d a fondness in their gospels, to record more in number, or greater in degree, than those who went before them; and thereby give ground for suspicion of forgery and invention.
4. Or lastly, that the omission of a miracle recorded by the last Evangelist, if it had been really done, is absolutely unaccountable.
1. That some of the three former Evangelists have expressly declared, they have related all the miracles, or all the greatest miracles that Jesus ever did, or that they knew of. This they have none of them said. Nor is it so much as pretended, they have said so. Indeed they have often declared the contrary.
2. Or, If they have not expressly declared this; that the
former Evangelists have however by their way and manner of writing shewn an affectation
of mightily encreasing the number of our Saviour's miracles, or of setting down all; and
especially the greatest which they knew of. This Mr. W. charges them with: To aggrandize the fame of their Master, as a worker
of miracles, he says, was the design of all the Evangelists, especially
of the three first, p. 7. This does not appear from their histories,
but quite the contrary. Having related two or three miracles wrought by Jesus in
any place, they content themselves therewith, though they knew of many other. St.
Matthew in his eighth chapter, having set down the miraculous cures
of a leper, of the centurion’s servant, and of Peter’s wife’s mother,
relates no more miracles particularly, but only says in general: When the
even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the
spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick,
As they do not multiply their particular relations of miracles,
but omit great numbers which they knew, so neither do they affect always to take the greatest in degree, or those that
seem so. I do not pretend to understand all the various degrees of miracles. But it appears to me a more
showy
and affecting work to cure a demoniac, than to heal a person with a fever. But yet
Matthew in the chapter just quoted, at the same time that be relates the
cure of Simon’s wife’s, mother, omits all particular accounts of
those which
were that same day delivered from evil spirits, though there many such instances.
There is in all the gospels but one particular account of any person cured by only
touching the hem of Christ’s garment; namely, the woman with the bloody
issue.
And yet there were many other such cases. St. Matthew says, that in the
land of Gennesaret, they besought him, that they might only touch the
HEM of his garment, and as many as touched were made
perfectly whole,
Nay, there is a great deal of reason to think, that the
Evangelists did know of more persons raised to life by Jesus,
than those they have particularly mentioned. St. Luke, having given
the history of raising up the young man, says immediately: And the disciples of
John shewed him of all these things. And John calling unto him two
of his disciples, sent them to Jesus, saying; Art thou he that should come,
or look we for another.—Then Jesus answering, said unto them, Go your way, and
tell
John, what things ye have seen and heard, how that the blind see, the lame walk,—the
DEAD are raised,
Farther, in answer to this assertion, that the design of all
the Evangelists was to aggrandise the fame of their Master, as a worker of miracles; I would
observe, that the gospels, though but short histories, are not filled
with accounts of miracles. There are whole chapters together containing nothing,
but an account of our Saviour’s pure and heavenly doctrine. Other chapters contain
nothing but parables, which are also interspersed here and there in other parts
of the
Since then the first three Evangelists appear not to have given an account of all the miracles of Jesus which they knew, nor of all his greatest miracles, nor of all those which he had raised from the dead: since they have not filled up their gospels with accounts of miracles or other wonderful appearances, and have writ all without any marks of affectation or ostentation; it can be no prejudice to the credit of another later historian of Jesus, tho’ he relate some few particular miracles not expressly mentioned by the foregoing.
3. Or else, that the later Evangelists have in
their gospels betrayed a fondness to record more in
number, or greater in degree, than those that went
before: and thereby give ground for suspicion of forgery and invention. Here St. John, the last Evangelist, in point of number, is perfectly innocent;
he not having related half so many miracles, as
any one of the former. The offence therefore,
if there be any, must be this, that later Evangelists relate greater miracles than the foregoing.
And this Mr. W. would insinuate to have been
the practise of all in general. For he says, p. 11.
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. To this I answer,
that a general conclusion ought not to be drawn
from a particular instance, or two: Supposing,
that the raising of the widow’s son of Naim, related by Luke, be greater than that of raising
In the first place we will take a view of the conduct of
the three former Evangelists. Matthew relates a story of Christ’s
feeding a multitude in a miraculous manner. He says, there were five thousand
of them fed with five loaves, and that twelve baskets of fragments
were taken up,
There is another thing very observable. One and the same Evangelist, who has given an account of a very great miracle of a certain kind, does sometimes a good while after relate another miracle of the same sort, but a great deal less than the former.
Thus Matthew first gives a history of five thousand
fed with five loaves and two fishes, and says there were twelve baskets
of fragments,
It is utterly unaccountable, that a forger of miracles should
fall into such a method. He who forges stories of miracles knows they are
false. His reader’s mind must be humoured. By a lesser he may be prepared to receive
a greater, which, if told first, had perhaps induc’d him to throw away the whole
tale. Besides a forger of miracles certainly designs to entertain his reader, whereas
in this way instead of being entertain’d
Now we will take a view of the conduct of St. John, the last Evangelist. It is St. John in particular, that Mr. W. means, when he says 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, p. 11. But this is somewhat strange, that Mr. W. should impute such an action to St. John; since he has himself said, p. 7. That to aggrandise their Master, as a worker of miracles, was the deign especially of the three first. Moreover Mr. W. allows, p. 9. that one resurrection miracle is sufficient. Why then should it be thought, that St. John hath given an account of one raised from the dead, but that he knew it had been really done?
But not to rely on these observations of Mr. W. though so much
in our favour: let us observe St, John’s conduct on other occasions; one
instance, as I said, not being sufficient. It is he who has inform’d us of the turning
water into wine at Cana in Galilee,
Nor may any say, that the reason of St. John’s relating here
so small a miracle was, that he judged it not proper to tell a great miracle at first, but to
reserve such an one, and particularly the huge miracle of Lazarus’s
resurrection
for the last. For soon after this he relates a surprising miracle of a great cure
wrought on a person at a distance, and that the son of a nobleman. So
Jesus
came again into Cana of Galilee.—And there was a certain noble
man, whose son was sick at Capernaum. When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought
him, that he would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the
POINT OF
DEATH.—Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way, thy son liveth. And afterwards
upon enquiry when the fever left him, the father knew, that it was at the same
hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth. This
is again the second miracle, that Jesus did, when he was come out of
Judea into Galilee,
Let us view St. John in another place. In the sixth
chapter of his gospel he relates a story of Christ’s feeding a multitude in
a miraculous manner,
There is no reason then to suspect the truth of the history of Lazarus’s resurrection, purely because it is a greater miracle than those recorded by the former Evangelists. If the miracle recorded by St. John be greater than those recorded by them, it is not owing (for any thing that yet appears) to St. John’s invention, but to truth and real matter of fact, and his regard to it, which was equally the concern of them all.
4. The last pretended ground of suspicion of fable and forgery
to be considered is, That the first Evangelists omission of a miracle, recorded
by the last, if the miracle had been really done, is absolutely unaccountable.
Let us hear Mr. W. who is here very copious, in his way, saying the same
thing over and over in different words. What could be the reason, he asks,
p. 6. that Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who all wrote their gospels
before John should omit to record this remarkable and most illustrious
miracle of Lazarus?—What then was the reason, I ask it again, that the
three first
To which I answer, that we are under no obligation to account for the omission of the former Evangelists. It would be no sufficient ground to refuse our assent to St. John’s history of the raising of Lazarus, though we could think of no manner of reason at all for its being omitted by the three former.
However a variety of reasons for this omission offer themselves. I have already shewn, the Evangelists have not affected to increase the number of our Saviour’s miracles, but pass’d by many, and those very great ones, which they knew very well. Mr. W. himself allows, that one miracle of a resurrection is sufficient. He says likewise, p. 3. that the restoring a person indisputably dead, to life again, is a stupendous miracle. (I hope to shew hereafter, that every person said to have been raised to life by our Saviour had been certainly dead, and that therefore every one of these instances are stupendous miracles.) If then the lest of these, is a stupendous miracle, Why should we cavil with the Evangelists for not putting down, every one of them, the greatest miracle of all, if indeed there be a difference? Is it not very reasonable to suppose, that an Evangelist might content himself with the relation of one person raised from the dead; since one instance is sufficient, and is a stupendous thing?
Another very common occasion of omissions
in writers is a regard to brevity. Mr. W. himself could not help thinking of this
excuse, the
He who considers this great number and variety of matters contained in the gospels, (as also the engaging nature of them, by which an historian must be much inclined to dwell upon them, both for his own sake and for the pleasure and entertainment of others) must needs allow, that the Evangelists have ardently desired and most carefully studied brevity, or their works had rose to a great bulk. They have certainly aimed at this all along, in almost every part of their accounts. And I have before shewn they have done this in their relations of miracles; since having given a particular history of some few, they mention many others in a summary way only. It is not at all strange then (we have here a very good reason of it) that when an Evangelist had given an account of one person raised from the dead, it being a stupendous miracle, he contented himself therewith.
Nor ought the Evangelists to be blamed for
aiming at brevity. They deserve very high commendations both for the design itself, and for
their excellent execution of it. Their intention
was to give a history of Jesus, that all men
might believe him to be the Christ, and might
have life through his name. It was absolutely necessary therefore to put down the doctrine of
Christ, and also somewhat under each one of
those heads abovementioned. But though the subject was extremely copious; these
books being intended for the use of all, for the learned
and unlearned, for the poor, the rich, the busie,
I have proved a regard to brevity in general, and particularly in the account of miracles, and have also shewn that this design was necessary and reasonable. This study of brevity must certainly have obliged each one of them to observe silence upon some matters, after they had related others; that they might reserve room for some important events, essential parts of their history, still behind: lest they should proceed to a length and prolixity, they had resolv’d to avoid. It is therefore very easy to suppose in behalf of the three former Evangelists, that when they had come to some certain place or period in their history of the ministry of Jesus, they observ'd they had given a sufficient account of his doctrine and miracles: and since they must reserve room for an account of his last sufferings, and his resurrection, they resolv'd to pass over in silence what happen’d between that period and the time of his last journey to Jerusalem, where he suffer'd.
Such a period as this may be observ'd in the
three former Evangelists, by which means they
had not an opportunity of relating the resurrection
St. Matthew says,
St. Mark says,
From which it appears, that St. Matthew and St. Mark
have given no particular account of any journeyings of Jesus and have
spoke but very little of any thing else concerning him (except some discourses in
the place of his retirement)
The same thing appears to me in St. Luke also. But that I may not be tedious, I will decline showing that particularly at present. I may the better be excused, because he has two resurrection miracles, which is one more than is sufficient.
Now the time of our Lord’s coming into the country beyond
Jordan may be learnt from St. John. It was soon after the feast of dedication,
There is another reason of their silence about
this matter, concurring with their study of brevity. The design of a writer may be collected
from his work. From the three first gospels it appears, that the design of the
three first Evangelists was to give an account of the most public part of our
Lord's ministry. They therefore entirely
For the same reason that they omitted the former and lest public part of his ministry, before the imprisonment of John the Baptist, they have also slightly pass'd over what happen’d from our Lord’s arrival beyond Jordan, till he is going up to his last passover. For in this interval he lived somewhat more privately than he had done before. He receiv’d all who came to him, either for instruction, or to be healed by him; but he did not go about the cities and villages of Judea preaching publickly, as he had done for some time before.
St. John observing what had been the method of the three
former Evangelists, and that they had given a very sufficient account of that part
of Christ’s ministry which succeeded the imprisonment of John the Baptist,
resolv'd to supply their omissions. By which means he was led to give
some history
of things done by Jesus between his temptation in the wildernesse and the
imprisonment of John the Baptist, and also of some things that happen’d between
our Lord’s going into the country beyond Jordan, and his journey to the
last
passover at Jerusalem, in
We have here (so far as I am able to judge) a fair account of the occasion of the omission of Lazarus’s resurrection by the three former Evangelists, and of its relation by St. John.
Once more: Since the miracles of Jesus were so numerous (according to the account of all the three first Evangelists) that they could not be all particularly related without an inconvenient and unnecessary prolixity; these Evangelists might very reasonably prefer some miracles before others, and in particular the miracle wrought on Jairus’s daughter before that on Lazarus. If one of these miracles were to be omitted, I would ask, which of the two it should be? I can readily answer for myself; I should choose to omit that of Lazarus rather than the other. And though all men should not presently decide with me, I believe that most would waver in the choice.
The raising any person to life is an amazing and truly divine
work. Jairus was a ruler of a synagogue, of an order of men generally
averse to Jesus: Lazarus was a friend. The miracle therefore on Jairus’s
daughter is more unexceptionable in this respect than that on Lazarus.
All the miracles of Jesus, considering his blameless character, and the
circumstances
with which they are related, are really unexceptionable. But there are degrees in
all kinds of things, and one miracle, even of Jesus himself, may be more
unexceptionable than another; which is an important thing in a miracle, as well
as the greatness
Moreover the miracle on Jairus’s daughter was perform’d in the very height of Christ’s public ministry, when there were great numbers continually attending on him; enemies undoubtedly and spies, as well as other people. But to Bethanie Jesus came privately with his disciples, and unexpectedly, to raise Lazarus. There happened indeed to be there at that time friends of the Pharisses (as I suppose there were every where) who went away, and told them what Jesus had done. But his arrival at Bethanie was perfectly unexpected to all, and a surprise even to the family of Lazarus. The evidences which there are in the relation, that our Lord’s corning to Bethanie at that time was unlook’d for, shew that there was no concert between him and his friends there: But for the same reason the Pharisees might not be so well prepar’d to observe this miracle as some others.
To conclude this point: Mr. W. says: p. 9. 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 if 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.
Undoubtedly, all had been well then, because there are not in the gospels any tokens of forgery or fiction, but plain marks of a real history of matter of fact, and of the strictest regard to truth. But all things are as well now. And if Lazarus’s story had stood in the three first gospels in the room of that of Jairus’s daughter, there might have been as much room for exceptions, as there is now, as appears from what I have just said about the circumstances of these persons. Nor is there any good objection to be brought against the present order. The three first Evangelists have wisely taken that miracle, which occurred to them in the course of our Lord’s most public ministry, and which is in all respects most unexceptionable.
Upon the whole, the reasons I have here offer'd of the silence
of the three first Evangelists about Lazarus’s resurrection are such as readily
offer themselves to my mind; they arise out of the gospels themselves; and they
appear to me to be of no small weight. But they are not intended to the prejudice
of any other probable reasons assign’d by Grotius, or Dr. Whitby,
or any other learned and judicious writers
I have endeavour’d to put the force of this objection of Mr. W. into the four beforementioned
suppositions, which I have considered. But
No wise and honest man ought to countenance cavil.
It is sufficient that there be no just reason for doubt and question, as there is
not here. If any man were now to write a history (never heard of before) of some person raised from the dead, about
sixty years ago, in a town not far from one of the chief cities of Europe;
and should mention time and place; and names of persons concern’d, as St. John
has done, he would find no credit with any one. Indeed the design is so foolish
and extravagant, that no one will attempt it when there is a liberty of enquiry,
as there certainly was in St: John’s time, the friends of
christianity being fewer than its opposers. But there is no reason to suppose
St. John first
told this story now, sixty years after our Saviour’s ascension. He had undoubtedly
told it before an infinite number of times, in conversation, and in public
discourses,
before many people, when the fact might be enquired into, and easily known to be
true or false. Eusebius, who took a great deal of pains to get the best
information concerning
From which we learn two things; first, that St. John had spent his time in preaching Jesus Christ, from the time of our Lord's ascension: Secondly, that his gospel contains the substance of his preaching. For he wrote what he had hitherto taught only by word of mouth. Consequently he had often told his hearers this story of Lazarus’s resurrection, long before he wrote his gospel.
Soon after our author says: p. 7. The first writer of the life of an hero, to be sure makes mention of all the grand occurrences of it.—If a third or fourth biographer after him shall presume to add a more illustrious action 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 apprised of it, and would have inserted its story, if there had been any truth in it.
How the lives of heroes are writ, I do not
know, not being read in legends and romances.
But omissions are common in the lives of princes
and other great men. Suetonius is allowed to be
But it will be said: The objection is not, that the raising of Lazarus is another occurence, or another grand occurrence omitted by the three former historians; but that Lazarus’s resurrection is a most prodigious miracle, p. 4; a huge and superlatively great miracle, p. 7; the miracle of miracles, ibid; a monstrously huge one, sp. 11.) in comparison of the other; and especially of the first, which is an imperfect and disputable miracle in comparison of the other two, p. 9.
This indeed Mr. W. does say, and he is obliged to say it, however
contradictory it may be to what he says at other times. For if the later miracle
related by the last writer be only somewhat greater, more considerable than
the former, the argument is of no force. Let us therefore see what the
Evangelists
say. According to St. Matthew, the first writer, Jairus’s daughter
was dead before Jesus came to the house, for the musicians were
come to make lamentations for her. And according to St. John, Lazarus
had been
I argue therefore against Mr. W. thus: St. John’s miracle exceeds in degree the other two but a small matter, therefore he did not invent and forge it. For if he had had a design of forging a miracle, from a sense of the insufficience of the former, he would have made it prodigiously or vastly greater than these, which he has not done. The reader will judge, whether this be a confutation of this objection of Mr. W. or not.
I will add farther: The miracle on Lazarus exceeds that on Jairus’s daughter in but one circumstance, which is that he had lain dead a little longer. In several other respects the miracle on Jairus’s daughter is superior to that on Lazarus; for Lazarus was a friend, but Jairus was a stranger and a ruler of a synagogue; and the miracle on his daughter was perform’d in the most public part of our Lord’s ministry. St. John therefore did not invent the story of Lazarus from a sense of the insufficience of the former: for if he had invented, he would have related not only a history of a person dead much longer than the other, (as I shewed just now) but the person to be the subject of his miracle would have been a stranger, and a rabby, a ruler, or a nobleman, or some other person of figure: and he would have placed it, in all likelihood, in the most public part of Christ’s ministry. What I say here appears to me to be of the highest degree of probability: That if St. John had contriv’d a miracle, because he judged the former not sufficient, he would not have taken a friend of Jesus for the subject of it; and he would have related it with several other different circumstances.
One quotation more from our author, before
we leave this article. 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 incredible gory of the
resurrection of a Phoenix) or Ignatius, or Polycarp, or the
Author of the Apostolical Constitutions
. This argument is proposed with great airs of assurance, but I cannot see the force of it. As, to Clement’s story of the Phoenix, we have nothing to do with it here, that I know of; it not being a christian miracle, but an old heathen story told by many authors, though with somewhat different circumstances. If Clement, Ignatius, or Polycarp had given the history of a miracle of Jesus, writ in a credible manner, with proper circumstances, I make no doubt but a due regard would be had to their authority; in proportion to their nearness to the time of Jesus.
As for John’s being above a hundred, when he writ his
gospel; it shews us he was thirty years of age or more, when Jesus lived here
on earth; and therefore was arrived at years of discretion, and was able to judge
of things. That he was in his dotage, there is no proof. His gospel is not the work
of a man in his dotage. Let Mr. W. shew me any where out of the bible,
so
fine, and yet so simple, so natural a narration of a matter of fact, as that of
the cure of the man blind from his birth, contained in the
I pass, says Mr. W. p. 15. to a second observation.—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 raised from the dead; or we must have heard somewhat of their station and conversation in the world afterwards.
If I may speak my mind freely: This, and all that follows under this observation, is mere idle and impertinent harangue. I have so good an opinion of the generality of mankind, as to suppose them wiser than to be capable of being mov’d by it, to admit any doubt of the truth of these histories.
We are not concern’d to know, what became
of those persons, whom Jesus cur’d or restor'd
to life. A miracle on the body does not mend
the dispositions of the mind. Some of those
For the truth of these miracles we have the testimony of the Evangelists, honest and credible men. Their testimony is confirm’d by the event. The gospel of Christ had not had the mighty progresse in the hands of the apostles, which it had, if these things had not been true. What they did, who were the subjects of these works, we do not need to know particularly. But the event, or the great progreffe of the gospel in a short time, renders it highly probable, that many of these persons by modest and humble acknowledgments of the benefits they had received, by satisfying inquisitive persons, and by other means, according to their several Nations, help’d forward the work of the apostles and others engaged in spreading the doctrine of Christ.
Our author, speaking of Lazarus, who is
said by
Why very probably; so long as he lived, he spoke, upon all proper occasions, of this miracle wrought on himself, and of the other miracles perform’d by Jesus upon others; and exhorted men, suitably to his station and circumstances, to believe on him as the Messias. But it is most probable, that our Saviour did not give him a special commission, like that of the apostles, to go preach the gospel. I believe our Lord had a greater regard to the decorum of things, or if you please, to the rules of modesty and prudence. There was nothing better, than for Lazarus to stay at home, to be ready to answer enquirers, who might come to Bethanie to know the truth of the fact reported concerning him. Abroad the testimony of others was more worth than his own. And St. John’s short account of his resurrection is more valuable than an history of it writ by Lazarus himself would have been.
And of Jairus’s daughter, and of the widow of Naim’s
son, which is astonishing, we read nothing at all, p. 17. Not astonishing
in the lest. Women are seldom admitted to public posts. The apostles did not allow
women to speak in the church. It is no wonder therefore, that Jairus’s daughter
has been no where mentioned, but on occasion of the. miracle wrought
upon her. Should her private conversation afterwards have been recorded? I think
it was not necessary. And after all, she may have been eminently useful
Our author says: p. 19. By way of objection to
the letter of these three miracles, Let us consider
the condition of the persons raised from the dead.—Where then was his wisdom and prudence to chuse
these three persons above others to that honour? p. 20.
I answer, that Jesus did not ordinarily choose
the subjects of his miracles, but heal'd those
chiefly who earnestly implored his mercy, or
who pressed on him to be healed, or importunately desired it of him by others, when they
could not possibly come to him themselves. It
was great wisdom and prudence in him not ordinarily to choose persons, or to do a miracle
without being first earnestly sought to for
it. If he had acted otherwise, it would have
been made use of as an exception against the
truth and reality of the miracle, and the extent
of his power. Indeed the widow of Naim’s son
was in some sense chosen but since he was publickly
Jairus’s daughter was an insignificant girl of twelve years old.—The widow of Naim’s son too was but a youth, and whether older than the girl above is doubtful, p. 21.
Never the worse at all, on any account whatever, The power of raising a girl is as great as that of raising a woman; and a boy of twelve years old, as a man of forty. The suspicion of cheat and fraud is less; the benignity of Jesus is greater, in that he disdained not the meaner objects.
But that an insignificant boy and girl (forfooth!) and the obscure Lazarus, are preferr’d by Jesus to such publick and more deserving persons is unaccountable, p. 25.
The obscurity of Lazarus is no objection at all, as appears from what has been already said concerning the two others. The more inconsiderable Lazarus was, the benignity of Jesus is the greater. But they were none of them preferred to others. Were there any other dead persons proposed to Jesus to be raised, whom he refused to concern himself with, though he raised these? None at all. If by preferring is meant choosing out of the number of those, who died in Judea during our Saviour’s ministry; it has been answered already. Jesus could not ordinarily choose an object, without being defined. It might have had an appearance of ostentation, and enemies would have said of fraud and deceit.
Jesus raised the dead, and wrought other miracles, say our divines often, not only to manifest his own power and glory, but his love to mankind. For which reason his miracles are useful and beneficial, as well as stupendous and supernatural acts.—On this topick our divines are very copious, as if no more useful and wonderful works could be done, than what he did, p. 23. 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 raised a useful magistrate, &c. p. 24.
Divines say very truly, that most of our Saviour’s miracles were acts of beneficence to those on whom they were performed, and were in this respect suitable to the goodness and excellence of his doctrine, and to the goodness and meekness of disposition, that appeared in all the other parts of his life. But the main design of a miracle is not the profit of him, who is the subject of it, nor of others his friends or relations, who are interested in him. The great use of a miracle is to attest the divine mission of him who works it, and to give authority to the message or doctrine which he brings. And for this purpose the raising a poor day-labourer is as useful, as raising a prince; and opening the eyes of a blind beggar by the way side, as curing a powerful magistrate, or a wealthy merchant.
It is not the intention of divines to strain the notion of our
Saviour’s beneficence toward all the miserable objects that were in Judea,
as if he had been obliged to act to the utmost of his power for the
temporal advantage of men at that time. Mr.
That a miracle may be of use to confirm the character of a prophet,
and the truth of his doctrine, it is necessary not only that it be done, but that
it be known to be done by him, or the divine power concurring with him. Jesus,
when at Jerusalem, might have healed a sick person in Galilee,
without the person himself, or any other knowing who cured him. But this, tho’
an act of goodness, would not have made known our Saviour’s character. Let
us give an instance. Jesus might have immediately healed the daughter
of Jairus (as he did the centurion’s servant,
The spiritual interests of men are more considerable than their bodily, temporal
interests.
The spiritual interests of many are to be preferred
I will proceed to one thing more, without observing intermediate steps or gradations. Our blessed Saviour might have healed all the persons he cured during his ministry, and also many others, without their coming to him, or without their so much as thinking of him, and without any one else knowing that those cures were wrought by him: But then neither the men of that age, nor we, had had the proof we now have from his works, of the certainty of a future life, and of the other parts of Christ’s doctrine, so admirably suited to raise men from sin to holinesse, from earth to heaven, and to turn them from satan to God: We had also lost that, eminent and undeniable proof they now afford us of our Lord’s great charmer: We had not been assured, as we now are, of that unspeakable instance of the love of God, in sending his Son into the world for our salvation.
How far Jesus may have extended his goodness even to the bodies of men, during his abode here on earth, beyond all those miraculous instances of his power for attesting his character, we cannot tell. But it was necessary that the exercise of his goodness in the way of working miracles for the proof of his mission and doctrine should be chiefly confined to those who were disposed to ask help of him; whether they were poor or wealthy, mean and obscure, or rich, learned and honourable: and that the exercise of his goodness should be also regulated in a great measure by the nature of their desires. This way his miraculous works are free from ostentation, and are unexceptionable.
But yet, when he had an opportunity of doing good, without incurring the suspicion of ostentation or concert, he readily manifested his compassion and benignity to the distressed; as he did in particular to the widow of Naim, whose son he raised to life when he was carried out to be interred.
And herein indeed appear wisdom and goodness, that those acts of beneficence perform’d by
him on the bodies of men, and those perhaps
chiefly poor and mean persons, such mostly having come to him, tho' some wealthy
and honourable (all however who came to him, none
having been refused, and some who never sought
to him) have been made to subserve the great
design of almighty God in saving mankind; and
give credit to that doctrine, which is of such admirable use and tendence to cure the minds of
men of all evil habits and dispositions: To cure,
I should think, says Mr. W. p. 24. Jesus ought to have raised an useful magistrate, whose life had been a common blessing; an industrious merchant, whose death was a public loss.
The design of Christ in coming into the world was not barely to promote the temporal advantage of men, but for an infinitely higher end, For which reason, I should think, he should cure and raise those, whose cure or restoration would most serve this end. These are they only, who might be cured without suspicion of cheat or fraud; which are chiefly such as voluntarily came to him, or whom he casually met with; whether magistrates or subjects, wealthy or poor.
Soon after he says, p. 25: 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 opened their mouths against him, especially if the persons raised from the dead were selected upon the recommendation of this or that city.
Ridiculous! should Jesus have gone to the magistrates and people of
some town or city, and tell them: If they had lately lost any useful magistrate or worthy citizen, whom they wished to
have restored again to life, and would be pleased
to recommend such person to him, he would
raise him up? I think no minister or messenger
of God, endowed with the power of working
miracles, would be guilty of such meanness.
But certainly it was by no means needful,
that the miracles of Jesus, of any kind, should
be generally perform’d on magistrates and wealthy men, or at their
recommendation. This method might have serv’d indeed to stop mens mouths,but not to convince them: There is an observation of Origen in his answer to Cellus,
which
is much more judicious than any thing said by
our author upon this subject. “It is not, says Origen
But now I am speaking, says Mr. W. 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 raised 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.—This is a very reasonable question, p. 25. A very silly one, most people will think. John the Baptist had performed his work and finished his course. If he had been soon raised to life again, the value and merit of his testimony given to Jesus had been much weaken’d. If it had been related in the history of Jesus that John the Baptist had been raised again to life by him; Mr. W. might have said, It gave ground .for suspicion of collusion between the Principal and the forerunner.
Mr. W. asserts, p. 26. That none of these raised persons had been long enough dead to amputate all doubt of Jesus’s miraculous power in their resurrection. They have been long enough dead,
Mr. W. says a good deal more about the time these
persons ought to have been dead. Speaking of Jairus's daughter, he says: p. 27. 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.
Mr. W’s first proposition here appears to me very strange, That supposing she was really dead, yet for the sake of an indisputable miracle—she ought to have been dead much longer. If she was really dead, (as she certainly was) and was restored again to life, it is with all men of sense and reason an indisputable miracle.
As for the time which Mr. W. requires, that a person must be some days if not weeks dead and buried; buried two or three weeks first: This is not needful. If we could not be certainly assured of the death of persons, by evident tokens appearing in their bodies, in less time than Mr. W. prescribes here, we should not be justified in committing to the grave any man in less time, Much less could we endure to bury our dearest friends and relations under two or three weeks or more after they seem to have expired. We cannot justify burying men, but on a well grounded supposal that they are really dead. We cannot justify the laying out of mens bodies, as we do very soon after visible tokens of death, if those tokens were not sufficient.
And since they buried their deceased friends
much sooner in those warm countries than we
do here, this must doubtless have been, because
dead bodies became also much sooner offensive there, than in our cold climate.
This circumstance strengthens my argument: For how can
There may have been mistakes made some times, though but very rarely; and even those accidents have chiefly happen’d in cases of sudden death. Where any dangerous distemper precedes, the possibility of mistake is very small, and can seldom happen. This was the case, we know, of Jairus’s daughter, and of Lazarus: And this confirms us still more in the belief, that their friends were not mistaken in the perswasion of their death; upon which perswasion the one had been buried, and for the other the public mourners were come to make lamentations. And as for the young man at Naim; though we do not know how he died, whether suddenly, or of a gradual illness, we may rely upon the fondness of a mother, a widow too, that she would not have carried forth to burial her only son without knowing he was become a dead corpse.
It is so natural and even unavoidable for men
that argue against plain truth to contradict
themselves; that it is hardly worth while to
take any notice of Mr. W’s self-contradictions.
I shall only just observe, that this story of Lazarus’s resurrection, which before was represented by him as the miracle of miracles,
superlatively great, and monstrously huge, as if nothing
Mr. W. says, p. 28, 29. And where there is a possibility of fraud, it is nonsense, and mere credulity to talk of a real, certain and stupendous miracle, especially where the jugler and pretended worker of miracles has been detected in some of his other tricks. Perhaps there are few or no cases where there is an absolute impossibility of fraud. It is sufficient that fraud be improbable, unlikely, and next to impossible. In such a case (which is ours) it is not nonsense, and mere credulity, but the highest reason to admit the truth of a relation; and to assert a real, certain, and great, or if you choose, stupendous miracle. A fraud is as easy to happen in a person who has been dead and buried many weeks, as in one publickly carried out to burial.
Herein however I readily agree with Mr. W that it is mere credulity to talk of such a thing, where a jugler has been detected in any other tricks. But where was he who is said to have raised the widow’s son at Naim detected of any tricks? When Mr. W. has detected such a thing in any one case, I will allow it in this also. But till then, as this story is credibly related, I shall continue to pay a regard to it.
Our author has several other things under this observation; but as they do not properly belong to this, of the length of time these persons are said to have been dead, but rather to his sixth observation, of the circumstances of the narrations, I shall take no notice of them here; I have already spoke to some things here, which might have been let alone till we come to that observation.
5. The consideration that none of these raised persons did or could, after the return to their bodies, tell any tales of their separate existence; otherwise the Evangelists had not been silent in this main point, &c. p. 32.
None of these persons, Mr. W. says, told any
tales of their separate existence. So I suppose
with him. As for the two first: How should
they? being only, as Mr. W. says, an insignificant boy and girl, of twelve years of age, or
thereabouts. Or if they did, the Evangelists
were wiser than to take any notice of their
tales. As for Lazarus, I would suppose he was a
wiser man than to indulge a vain inclination
of amusing people with idle stories of no life.
Besides, I presume he had been a follower of
Jesus before he died. And when he had been
The Evangelists have recorded no tales told by any of these three
raised persons. I much admire this objection. I am very glad they have not mention’d
any such things. Jesus himself, who was from above, who was in the bosom of the
Father, has not deliver’d any profound unintelligible theory of the separate
state
of existence. The great apostle Paul, who was an apostle, not of men,
neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead,
Jesus and his apostles have made known the certainty of a resurrection of the just and unjust; a general judgment, wherein men shall be judged in righteousness; when the wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment, and the righteous into life eternal. What they say of the different recompences of good and bad is great and awful, sufficient to affect the minds of all; but they have not entered into a detail of needless particulars, above the capacities of men in the present state.
Religion is the concern of all. That is the most perfect religion, which is suited to all. This is the Christian doctrine, which, as it was preached to the poor, and to every creature under heaven, is wonderfully suited to all capacities.
To the immortal honour then of the Evangelists be it said; that when they wrote the history of the preaching and miracles of Jesus, who knew all things, they have not recorded dreams and visions, or abstruse theories of a separate state, for the amusement of mankind, but important, certain truths, taught by Jesus, for their edification.
Was any person, in this age, to be raised to life, that had
been any time dead; the first thing that his friends and acquaintance would
enquire of him, would be to know where his soul had been, in what company, &c. p. 32. Not impossible: Vulgar minds might shew such weakness even now.
And the greatest minds, while in an uncertainty about another life,
Our author is pleased to trifle so much, as
to put questions about the place where the souls of these persons had been, between their
death and their being raised up again; and
particularly the soul of Lazarus. But the
thoughts, that any of Jesus’s friends should go
to hell, will not be born with.—And if Lazarus’s soul had been in paradise, it was hardly
a good work in Jesus to recall it,—to the troubles and miseries of this wicked world, p. 34.
Suppose Lazarus’s soul to have been asleep,
or in paradise, or in heaven itself, it might
be a very good work in Jesus to recall it into
this world for a time. It was much for the spiritual benefit of many, who might be induced by the great miracle of raising him to life,
to believe in Jesus, and receive his doctrine,
which, when heartily embrac’d is fruitful, of
the greatest benefits. Nor could the soul of
any good man be unwilling to return for a
time to the troubles and miseries of this wicked world, how grievous soever, in order to
serve the great design of saving his fellow
creatures; for which end Jesus his Saviour descended
6. and lastly, Let us consider the intrinsick absurdities,
and incredibilities of the several stories of these three miracles, p. 36.—As to Jairus’s daughter, and her resurrection from the dead, St.
Hilary
St. John’s words in the last quoted text are these: Nevertheless,
among the chief rulers also many believed on him, but because of the
Pharisees,
they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. This
text is no ways to our author’s purpose. The rulers
But why did Jesus say, this girl was but in a sleep? p. 36. Mr. W. had before affirmed
this: Jesus. himself says, she was but asleep. And it is true that our Lord, when he came
into the ruler’s house, and saw the minstrels.—He said unto then, Give place, for the maid is
not dead but sleepeth. But by this our Lord
did not intend to deny that she was expired,
but to assure them in a modest way, that she
would be raised up as it were out of sleep.
That this is our Saviour's meaning, is most
evident from his use of these same expressions
in St. John concerning Lazarus. See
If he was going to work a miracle in her resuscitation, he should not have call’d death,
SLEEP; but if others had been of a contrary
opinion, he should first have convinc’d them of the certainty of her
death, p. 36, 37. That is, Jesus should have spent time, and taken pains to convince them
of what they were convinced of before, and were so positive in, that when they understood
him to say the maid was
It follows in our author: And why did he charge the parents of the girl, not to speak of the miracle? There might be many reasons for this, and those founded not upon the falshood or uncertainty of the miracle, but on the certainty and greatness of it. This prohibition then was partly owing to the humility and modesty of Jesus, who, instead of ordering men to proclaim his works, often desir'd them to be silent about them. It was partly owing to prudence, that he might have opportunity, during the short time his ministry was to last, for teaching men the will of God, and for instructing his disciples; that he might avoid the suspicion of setting up for a ruler and governour, or attempting any disturbance; which suspicion might have arose in mens minds, if the concourse of men to him had been too numerous.
These prohibitions therefore may be understood also to be only
temporal, or for the present. Thus our Saviour forbid his disciples to speak of
the transfiguration on the mount, until the Son of man be risen from the dead,
Besides, though the parents of this maid were to be silent of this miracle, here were many others that might speak of it. All her friends, who knew the was dead, were witnesses of her resurrection, when they saw her alive again.
And rather than suspect any bad design in this prohibition, which is so contrary to the whole character of Jesus; I would conceive that he might have some regard to the character of Jairus, as a ruler of the synagogue; and since he was an honest man, who had entertain’d a faith in Jesus for working so great a miracle, he by this advice of silence dispensed with his speaking publickly of the miracle, which might have been much to his prejudice, and was not at present absolutely necessary. This I am sure is more consonant to the meekness and goodness of Jesus, upon many other occasions, than any suspicion of fraud or imposture.
And why,—did he turn the people out of the
house, before he would raise her! p. 37. Why,
perhaps, partly for the reasons of silence just
mentioned. If many had been actually present at the raising her up, they might have
been more excited to spread abroad the miracle, and thereby make too great a
concourse;
which might have given umbrage, and been
a handle to his enemies to charge him with
innovations in the state. Another reason is
this; that no more might thrust into the
room where the young woman lay dead, than
There were the parents of the young woman, and three of our Saviour’s disciples, which are witnesses enough of any action; and being with our Lord six in number might be as many as could have in the room where she lay a clear sight without interrupting each other. Five close witnesses, at full ease, are better than forty witnesses in a crowd and confusion. This action of our Blessed Lord in clearing the house of hired musicians and other people is no exception in the lest to this miracle.
There is still a reflexion of Mr. W’s relating to this miracle to be consider’d, which
he places under one of his former observations; which I pass'd by then, only that it
might be consider’d here in its proper place.
And it is not, says he, p. 27. impossible, but
the passionate screams of the feminine by-standers
might fright her into fits, that bore the appearance of death; otherwise, why did Jesus
turn these inordinate weepers out of the house,
If by passionate screams Mr. W. intends the lamentation
of the minstrels and other people making a noise, whom Jesus found in the house: I
should have thought Mr. W. might know very well, that it was not possible
they should hurt the young woman; unless they could fright her after she was dead.
If her friends had not known she was dead, they would not have suffer'd
these musicians
to enter their house, and make lamentations, and
I think I have now consider’d all the objections against the history of raising Jairus’s daughter.
As for the story of the widow of Naim’s son,
says Mr. W. p. 37, 38. excepting what is before
observ'd of the shortness of the time, in which he
lay dead, and of the unfitness of his person to be
raised—I have here no more fault to find in the
letter of it. These objections I have spoke to
already. But under one of them Mr. W. plac’d
some objections to the circumstances of this
story, which I will now consider. He then says, p. 28: 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
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 raised, 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.
To all this I answer: That the character of Jesus, and his doctrine prevents all suspicion of so vile a thing as that of contrivance. His doctrine is as holy and excellent, to say no more, as that which the best men ever taught. He is in his whole behaviour innocent, meek, and undesigning. It is not possible, that such a person should form or countenance a contrivance to deceive and impose upon men.
If he had entertain’d a thought of contrivance, yet it was not possible he should succeed therein. How was it possible, that a piece of fraud might be here concerted between Jesus, a subtil youth, and his mother, and others; and all the formalities of a death and burial contrived? Such a scene could not be acted, without a great many persons being in the intrigue, (as is apparent from the objection itself) who must have known the fraud. Jesus, who had so many enemies, and those men of power, was the most unlikely of any to succeed herein. Besides, when men form contrivances, they are not of such public open. scenes as this was, but are attended with some circumstances of secrecy. When was there ever such a contrivance as this scene is? so public, so open? Jesus entring into a city, many of his disciples with him, and much other people; a public funeral, in day time, attended with much people of the city!
Moreover, none could be under any temptations to enter into a contrivance with him. For Jesus was poor, and subsisted on the voluntary .contributions of his friends; and therefore could give no bribes. Men must be some way or other tempted to such an action, because they thereby would incur the censure of the civil magistrate, and expose themselves to some very heavy punishment. If you say here, that Jesus did at last suffer death, and therefore he must certainly have been convicted of some such fault as this: I answer, that it appears from the history of his condemnation, that he was innocent; that there was no crime prov’d against him; and that Pilate himself saw clearly, that it was only out of envy and malice that the chief priests and Pharisses accused him. But not to insist now on this: There were no persons punish’d, or taken up, as accomplices with Jesus; not his disciples, nor any other persons whatever; which is a demonstration, that no imposture was proved upon Jesus, nor suspected concerning him.
As to what is urg'd in the first place: 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: This likewise
contains an intimation of a fraud, which, as
I said, is absolutely inconsistent with Jesus’s
character. It also supposes vile and selfish
We may now proceed to the story of Lazarus which the author calls long, and says, is brimfull of absurdities. He will single out only three or four of them at present, reserving the rest for another opportunity, when the whole story of this miracle will appear to be such a contexture of folly and fraud in its contrivance, execution and relation, as is not to be equall’d in all romantick history. p. 38.
Let us however examine the three or four
pretended absurdities. First then, says Mr. W.
It does not appear from St. John, that Jesus did weep and groan for the death of
Lazarus. He says
indeed that Jesus wept: Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him.
But it does not follow, that in this they judg'd right, any more than in some
other reflexions. pass'd on Jesus at other times; which though
the Evangelists knew to be false, they do not concern themselves to refute them.
But supposing, he did out of love for Lazarus weep for his death; there
is nothing in this inconsistent with patience and resignation to God
As for the groans of Jesus; they were not owing to the death
of Lazarus, but to somewhat else, as is very plain from the account;
which is this: Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him,
she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother
had not died. When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping
which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and
was troubled. Here are two just grounds of
grief and concern, namely, the excess of sorrow and mourning of Mary and her friends
for the loss of Lazarus; and secondly, the tokens which she and the rest gave of want of
faith in his power to raise him up after his
death. For Mary says to him; If thou hadst
been here, my brother had not died. Which implies her doubting his power to raise him up.
Which was a great fault in her, considering
the proofs he had before given of his power;
considering all the appearances from heaven
in his favour, and all the other evidences that
had been given that he was the Christ. It
The occasion of his last groaning was thus: And some of them
said, Could not this Man which opened the
eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?
Jesus
therefore again groaning in himself, cometh to the. grave. Here also was
another sign of want of faith in his power to raise dead Lazarus; which
shewed, they did not fully believe him to be the Christ, though he had. given more
than sufficient proofs of it
Secondly, Observe, says the author, p. 40. that John says it was with a loud voice, that Jesus call’d Lazarus forth out of his grave.—Was dead Lazarus deafer than Jairus’s daughter, or the widow’s son? &c.
It is necessary, when a miracle is wrought
for the proof of the character or divine mission of any person, that it appear to be done
by him, and not to be a casual thing. It has
been common therefore for all the prophets
and extraordinary messengers of God to make
use of some external action at the same time
that they perform’d a miracle, though that
external action was in itself of no real virtue.
When the red sea was to be opened to give a
passage for the children of Israel, God said to
Moses: Lift up thy rod, and stretch thine hand
over the sea, and divide it,
Thirdly, Because that a miracle should be well guarded against all suspicion of fraud, I was thinking to make it an absurdity, that the napkin, before Jesus raised Lazarus, was not taken from his face, that the spectators might behold his mortified looks, and the miraculous change of his countenance from death unto life, p. 41. This wise objection is repeated again in the Jew’s letter. But however this was, They [the spectators] could not but take notice of the napkin about his face all the while; which Jesus, to prevent all suspicion of cheat, should have first ordered to be taken off; that his mortified countenance might be viewed, before the miraculous change of it to life was wrought, p. 51, 52.
The napkin over Lazarus’s face is one proof, that he was
supposed by his friends to be dead, when they buried him. Do not all civiliz’d people
out of decency cover the face of a corps with a napkin, or some such other thing,
as well as the other parts of it? If any one had been sent into the sepulchre
by Jesus, before he commanded Lazarus forth, it might have given ground
of suspicion, that the person had been order’d in to see whether Lazarus
was alive, and capable to come out of himself, and concur with the command pronounced
to come forth. Or it might have been pretended, that he went in to daub his face
with some juices that might make him look like a mortified corps. Any meddling
with the body beforehand might have caused
Fourthly and Observe St. John says,
It is true, that some went to the Pharisees, and told
them what things Jesus had done. But it does not follow, that
they were persons, who did not believe. They did not indeed believe Jesus
to be the Christ, as many other Jews did hereupon; but they believed
the miracle, and knew it, and went and told the Pharisees. of it. That
these
persons told the Pharisees of a miracle done by Jesus, is evident
from the speeches of the Pharisees upon occasion of the report brought them,
Mr. W. goes on, p. 42: Whereupon the chief priests and Pharisees were
so far incensed as,
I must take leave to observe, that it is no where said, that
Lazarus absconded or fled for it. Nor is there any account of the Pharisees
having at this time any design against Lazarus. Afterwards, whenJesus
came again to Bethanie, we find that Lazarus was then at home.
And many of the Jews came thither, not for Jesus sake only, but
that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. But the
chief priests consulted, that they might put Lazarus to death. Because that
by reason of him, many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus,
But this retirement of Jesus with his disciples into a
country near the wilderness is judged so mighty an objection, that it
is repeated
The judgments of men are surely very unfair and unequal. When
any of the first Christians are observ'd to have been too forward in exposing
themselves, they are represented as a company of mad men, and hot headed enthusiasts.
Jesus now for avoiding a danger is taxed with want of courage and resolution; nay his retirement for only a very
short time is term’d, a plain sign of
guilt and fraud. Thus the desire of serving a present low purpose prevails
over all the regards of justice and equity. “So hard is it, (as
Socrates,
It might be sufficient here to remind men pf Christ’s returning in a short time to Bethanie again, and appearing publickly
at Jerusalem, and teaching in the temple. But let
us at present observe only this history of his
raising Lazarus from the grave. When Jesus
heard of the sickness of Lazarus, he was in
the country beyond Jordan,
So that our Blessed Lord, when he was in
a place of safety, resolv'd to come to Bethanie near Jerusalem for the sake of Lazarus: and herein
shewed great courage and
WE Are now come to the letter of Mr. W’s Jewish Rabby, whom Mr. W. calls his friend, and says his letter consists of calm and sedate reasoning, p. 55. I on the other hand can see no reason in it. But the reader than not need to rely upon my judgment. Therefore I will transcribe some parts of it, and then make some remarks. The argument of the letter is, that the story of Lazarus’s being raised is an imposture; or else the Jews could not have been so wicked, as to be on that account provoked against Jesus and Lazarus.
If there had been an indisputable miracle wrought in Lazarus’s resurrection, why were the chief priests and Pharisees so incensed upon it, as to take council to put Jesus and Lazarus to death for it? p. 43.
The reason is very evident; because that by reason of it many of the Jews went away, deserted the proud Pharisses, and believed
on Jesus,
If, says he, historians can parallel this story of the malignity of the Jews towards Jesus and Lazarus upon such a real miracle with thing [things] equally barbarous and inhuman in any other sect and nation; we will acknowledge the truth of it against our own nation: or if such inhumanity, abstractly considered, be at all agreeable to the conceptions any one can form of human nature, in the most uncivilized and brutish people, we will allow our ancestors in this case, to have been that people.—And he promises to make it out as foolish and wicked an imposture as ever was contrived and transacted in the world that it is no wonder the people by an unanimous voice, call’d for the releasement of Barabbas, a robber and murderer before Jesus, p. 46, 53, 54.
The demand made of a parallel of the malignity of the
Jews against Jesus, upon such a real miracle, is very idle,
because
there never was such a public miracle done by any other for so pure a doctrine.
But if this Jew or any one else will produce an instance of such a miracle
done by any one, who also taught the same spiritual heavenly doctrine that Jesus
did, and nothing else; and who converted and taught as publickly as Jesus
did; and spoke the truth to all without fear or favour: And I will shew he
had an ignominious death,
But though an instance of equal malignity cannot be
shewn,
because there is no other character equal to our Saviour’s in innocence of life
and greatness of works; yet the Jewish nation will afford an instance, which
I am very sorry is so near parallel. Moses was the greatest prophet, and meekest
man, they ever had among them, except Jesus, and they often murmured
against
him. And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, What shall I do unto this people? They be almost ready to
stone me.
This people were to a man obliged to Moses, who
had brought them up out of a state of servitude. Nor had they any just ground of
complaint against him, whilst in the wilderness, for God says: Ye have seen
what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles wings,
Thou knowest, says Aaron to Moses, that this people is
set upon mischief
Why should it be thought strange that this people, who would have
stoned Moses, and
Any man may perceive, that a prophet is
the most unpopular of all characters. For he
is to cry aloud and spare not; to lift up his voice like a trumpet,
It is a very unjust way of judging: Such an one suffered, or
was hated and opposed; therefore he was a wicked man, or an impostor. If we will
pass a judgment on men, we should. examine their conduit, as well as the treatment
they meet with: otherwise we are in danger of being unjust to the memory of some
of the bell men that ever were. Solomon says, A just man falleth [into
trouble] seven times, and riseth up again
Solomon says again: An unjust man is an abomination
to the just: and he that is upright in the way, is abomination to the wicked Si quis vitiorum omnium inimicus rectum iter vitae coepit
insistere, primum propter morum differentiam odium habet. Quis enim potest probare
diversa? Petron. Arbiter, laudat. a Grot. ad Καὶ γαρ καὶ μισοῦνται, ἐλέγχοντες αὐτῶν τὰς ἀμαθίας.
Lucian. Contemplant. V. 1. p. 357. edit. Amst.
But I am ashamed to give this argument its full force. I little
expected to have ever seen this objection seriously produced against the miracles,
or any other branch of the history of the New Testament, and called
calm and sedate reasoning, p. 55. An apologist for christianity
Let us examine another passage in the Jew’s letter. Such a manifest miracle, let it be wrought for what end and purpose, we can possibly imagine, would strike men with awe and reverence, and none could hate and persecute the Author of the miracle; least he who could raise the dead, should exert his power against themselves, and either wound or smite them dead with it. For which reason, the resurrection of Lazarus, on the certain knowledge of our ancestors was all fraud, or they would have reverenced and adored the power of him that did it, p. 48, And more such stuff has this Jew again and again to this same purpose.
I must therefore remind him of some examples in the books
of the Old Testament. In
Ahaziah, another king of Israel, fell down through
a lattice in his upper chamber, and was sick,
One story more to our purpose out of the
Jewish writings
This Jew says, p. 49: That it is certain, according to christian commentators, that some of them did not believe the miracle. Again he says, p. 51: It is plain from the story in John, that there was a dispute among the by-standers at Lazarus’s resurrection, whether it was a real miracle or not. I presume to say: This is a false account. It is not plain, that there was any dispute among the by-standers, whether it was a real miracle. It is plain those people, who went to the Pharisses, told them of a real miracle. And the Pharisses, when met in council, say: What do we? for this Man doth many miracles.
Nor do I know, that any christian commentators
Perhaps, says this Jew, they discovered some fragments of the food, that for four days in the cave, he had subsisted on. There is no ground here for a perhaps. How should a man take any food, who was bound hand and foot with grave clothes? and whose face was bound about with the so often mention’d napkin?
As it is plain, (says the Jew again) from the
story in
John, that there was a dispute among the by-standers at Lazarus’s resurrection,
whether it was a real miracle; so it is the opinion of us Jews,
which is of the nature of a tradition, that the chief priests and civil
magistrates of Bethany, for the better determination of the dispute—required
that Jesus should repeat the miracle upon another person, there lately dead and
There is no reason to believe, that this is the opinion of the Jews; but supposing it to be so; it is groundless. And here a present opinion is advanced into a tradition. This tradition is set up against authentic history, writ by witnesses and other well informed persons, who lived near the event. Is that a good cause, that needs such a defence? Will any man of sense and reason engage, in any other case, in so desperate a cause?
There are innumerable proofs in the Evangelists not only that the raising of Lazarus was a real miracle, but also that the Pharisees knew it to be so. Their not putting Lazarus or any other person to death, as an accomplice with Jesus, is demonstration that this and the other miracles of Jesus were known to be real, and not impostures. It is apparent from the trial of Jesus, that the truth of his miracles could not be called in question. If they had, the Evangelists, who have recorded so many charges against Jesus, and so many spiteful, scurrilous reproaches on him, would not have omitted this.
I AM now to shew, that the histories of these three miracles are well circumstanced, and have in them the marks and tokens of credibility. But I have here very little to say. Scarce any thing can be added to the perspicuity of the Evangelists several relations.
I shall however make two or three general observations, and then go over the particulars of the relation of each miracle.
There are in these relations proper circumstances of time and place,
and the names
and characters of persons. Of the miracle on
Jairus’s daughter, the time and place are sufficiently specified by St. Mark and St.
Luke. It was soon after his crossing the sea of Galilee,
The character of the person on whom the miracle was perform’d
is particularly described. She is the daughter of a ruler of a synagogue, whose
name was Jairus. Matthew says,
Of the next miracle, related by Luke only, it is
said to have been done the day after the cure of the centurion’s servant
at Capernaum. The place is the city of Naim, the person is the only
son of a widow there.
Of the last miracle related by St. John only,
the person on whom it is said to have been
done is, Lazarus, of the town of Bethanie,
nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off,
This specifying of time, place and names or characters of persons, is an argument of a real story and not a fiction: for, if it had been a fiction, it might have been easily discovered.
2. These miracles were done at the usual place of the residence of those persons, on whom they were performed; a much greater security; in this case, against cheat and imposture, than if they had been done on travellers, who were strangers in the places, where such things are acted on them.
3. They were all very, public miracles, as is apparent from the
relation. It may be difficult to say, where there was the greatest concourse; but I am inclined to think, that the company at
Lazarus’s resurrection
was the fewest; and also, that the company which attended Jesus to the
house of Jairus was the greatest concourse of the three. There were not
indeed so many present at speaking the word, when his daughter was restored
to life. Nor could the young woman’s corpse be brought out of her chamber, and
placed before the house, in order to raise her there before all the people,
without ostentation; which is entirely unbecoming the character of Jesus:
But all the numerous company then attending
We will now go over the particulars of the relation of each miracle, from which it will appear, that these persons had been dead, and were raised to life by Jesus.
Jairus, ruler of a synagogue, came to Jesus and worshipped him; or as Mark, and Luke, fell down at his feet, saying, My daughter is even now dead, or, at the point of death, but come and lay thy hand upon her and she shall live.
It is not reasonable to suppose, that a ruler of a synagogue would come to Jesus, and ask him to heal his daughter in so earnest a manner, and with such signs of high esteem and respect, and that before great numbers of people, unless his daughter’s case was desperate, and past all hopes of remedy in an ordinary way. It was dishonourable to pay any respect to Jesus. There were few or none of Jairus’s character who publickly owned. him for the Christ. His application to him must be very offensive to his brethren. And therefore we may be assured, he had no prospect of help for his daughter any other way but this.
Moreover, the manner, in which he comes to Jesus, shews an uncommon concern and earnestness. While Jesus is speaking in public, he comes and falls down at his feet, and besought him greatly—I pray thee come and lay thy hands on her.
The expressions he uses concerning his daughter represent her to be in the utmost extremity; so that she must be near expiring when he left her.
Upon his earnest entreaty Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples, Matth. and much people followed him and thronged him, Mark. and from St. Luke it appears, that a multitude thronged and pressed him. From all the three Evangelists, who relate this matter, it is plain, that when Jairus came to Jesus, much people was round about him. The request of Jairus, so noted a person, to come and heal his daughter, would also doubtless increase the number of people that were before gathered together about him. It was impossible for Jesus surrounded by so great a crowd to go in great hast to Jairus’s house.
Moreover all these three Evangelists are agreed, that as Jesus
was going along, there came behind him a woman who had an infirmity of twelve
years standing, who touched the hem of his garment and was made whole. St. Matthew assures
us also, that Jesus had then some discourse with this woman: St. Mark
and St. Luke, that Jesus perceiving virtue to have gone out of
him, stood still, looked
And accordingly, we are assured by Mark and Luke, that while he yet spake with this woman, there came one or more persons from Jairus’s house, .Thy daughter is dead, why troublest thou the Master any further? This person came from Jairus’s house, and very probably had been dispatched away by some of those who attended on the young woman. Would any of his servants or friends come with such a melancholy story to Jairus, that his daughter had died while he was abroad, if they had not known for certain, that she was dead?
By all there things we know, that Jairus’s daughter died of sickness that made gradual advances; not of a sudden fit, or fright, or any thing like it. She lay dying, when Jairus left the house. Some persons come to him, and tell him, that she was dead, and disswade him from troubling the Master any farther; whereas, if she had only had something like a fit, it had been most unreasonable to disswade Jairus from troubling:Jesus any farther.
Let us go on: When Jesus came into the ruler's house, he saw the minstrels and the people making a noise, Matth: he seeth the tumult and them that wept greatly, Mark: And all wept and bewailed her, Luke. Here were friends and public hired musicians, weeping and bewailing the young woman. They knew therefore that she was dead; she had been dead some time, or else these minstrels had not begun their lamentations.
Jesus says: Give place, for the maid is not dead but sleepeth. Whereupon, say all the three Evangelists, they laughed him to scorn. So sure were these persons that she was dead, and not in a sleep; as they understood Jesus to say.
Jesus puts forth out of the house these public mourners, and other strangers. When the disciples and all the people saw these minstrels come out, they had farther evidence hereby of the death of the young woman.
Jesus having removed all strangers, that the house might
be quiet, enters into the room where the young woman lay, taking with him the parents,
the father and mother, of the maiden, and three of his own disciples; a
sufficient number of persons to attest any fact; yet not
so many, but that they might all have a clear and distinct view of the thing:
the properest
persons of any to be admitted; the father and the mother, as best
knowing the young woman’s case, the most unwilling of any to admit
These five persons Jesus took along with him; and now the three disciples saw the dead corps of the young woman, whom her parents and friends knew to be dead before.
And he took her by the hand, and said, maid arise. And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway, and walked. Upon Jesus;s taking hold of her hand, and bidding her arise, she immediately arose.It was therefore evidently the effect of that power that accompanied his word. She also walked, so that life and strength were at once conveyed. He also commanded to give her meat. And then all who ministred food to her, and saw her eat, were witnesses of her perfect recovery.
They who were present were convinced it
was a miracle. Her parents were astonished,
says St. Mark; And they were astonished with
a great astonishment, says St. Luke, meaning,
it is likely, the three disciples as well as the
parents. Lastly, St. Matthew says, The fame
hereof went abroad into all that land. So that whether the parents, and the three disciples
The three disciples present at this transaction were afterwards the most forward and couragious of any in declaring Jesus to be the Son of God, in the midst of dangers; whereas they must have been the most backward of all men in giving him this character, if they had perceived this affair to be any thing but a real miracle.
The next story is that of the widow of Naim’s son.
Jesus
The dead man carried out was the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. As sure as persons do not carry men forth to burial till they are dead, so sure are we that this was a dead corpse. The person was not one who had no friends to take care of him. He was the only son of a widow, therefore her only support, her husband being dead.
There were much people of the city with her, her neighbours. Could she have concerted a fraud for carrying out her only child, if he had been alive! It is observable, that there were much people of the city with her, which, is no unusual thing at the funeral of a person who leaves behind him so fond a relation as a widow-mother. But had here been any fraud, it is very unlikely that she should have carried out her son with much company of that place. She would have contrived some pretense to excuse their company at this time. Or rather, The would have said nothing of the matter to any one, but carried him out privately to burial as dead, without any previous notice. This, much people of the city with the mother ruins all objections that can be raised.
If it be said: It might be the contrivance of the young man,
a subtle youth, without the
knowledge of his mother: I answer, that is
And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. Jesus, before he had seen the corpse, without asking any questions, knowing the power he had of raising the dead to life, bid her forbear weeping; thereby intimating in a modest way, that she should soon see her son, whose death was the cause of her sorrow, restored to life.
And he came and touched the bier, (and they that bare him stood still) and he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead, sat up, and began to speak: and he delivered him to his mother. Presently upon the voice of Jesus, commanding him to arise, he sat up, and began to speak. The tokens of life, strength and vigour, appeared immediately upon the command of Jesus. His life was manifestly known hereby to be the effect of the power accompanying the word of Jesus.
This was reckoned a miracle by the numerous company
present, before
whom it was publickly done; and they reported it to others, for it follows: And
there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, that a great
We will now take a view of the last story of this kind. .Now a certain man
was sick, named Lazarus of Bethany, the town of Mary
and Martha.—Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold
he whom thou lovest, is sick, Hereby we learn, that Lazarus
did not die suddenly; that he was not taken off by a fit, but by a sickness which made gradual advances. His
sisters send to Jesus, He whom thou lovest,
is sick; supposing that out of his affection for Lazarus, he would
come to Bethany; and hoping also that he might possibly get thither before
he was dead. That Lazarus was dangerously sick, is evident not only from
the substance of the message, but from their sending a messenger so far, and
also
from their not coming, either of them, to Christ. It is also hence apparent, that
there could be no fraud and contrivance. The matter is not secretly transacted between
Lazarus, his sisters, and Jesus, but here is a messenger employed.
Moreover; if they had had any thought of such a great design ia hand, as making
a pretence of raising up Lazarus, though not dead, some one of these sisters
would have come herself. Nothing but real sickness could have kept the sisters at
home, and from coming to Jesus. The thought of making a pretence so great a
Jesus staid some time in the place where he was, after the receiving a message of Lazarus’s sickness. He receives no more messages; a sign there was no longer any need of his coming, and that Lazarus was recovered; or else that he was in such a state, that his friends had no longer hopes of any benefit from Jesus.
But at length Jesus resolves to go into Judea,
and sets out with his disciples for Bethanie, though it was nigh to
Jerusalem , where the Jews had lately sought his life: A sure sign of the consciousness of his innocence and integrity.
Had it been thought necessary to concert a pretended miracle between Jesus
and these persons; Lazarus inight have come to the country beyond Jordan,
and a death and resurrection might have been contrived there. None would
have chosen Bethanie for the scene of a pretended miracle at this time; so near
the fiercest enemies, so near the great council of the Jews. If a miracle
had been contrived at Bethanie, it would not have been upon an inhabitant
of the place, a well known person, but some stranger purposely arrived there by
accident, but who should have no occasion to come thither again. What reward! what
sum of money could be sufficient to induce a well-known
Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already.—And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary to comfort them concerning their brother. Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house. Hence it is evident, that Lazarus’s death and burial were public things. Moreover, these sisters did not go to Jesus: Martha does not go, till the hears Jesus is near the house; and Mary stays still at home; all arguments of true sorrow, and that there was no contrivance.
Then saith Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. How natural expressions of sorrow and concern? Did this person, who spoke these words, know her brother was alive still, and only feigned to be dead? Impossible. But I know, that even now whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. More words, that demonstrate, they were not in any concerted design of feigning a miracle. After some more discourse between her and Jesus, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying the Master is come and calleth for thee.
As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him.
Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where
Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. She had no more thought of seeing her brother raised presently by Jesus, than her sister Martha had,
When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled. Here are in this joint weeping of Mary and her friends the. tokens of a deep sorrow, arising from the death of Lazarus, and a despair of ever seeing him again, before the resurrection at the last day. Their grief so far exceeded the bounds it ought to have done, when Jesus, who had already given such demonstrations of his power, was with them, that he groaned in spirit and was troubled.
They go toward the sepulchre,
Now with what deliberation and with what solemnity of address to the Father, does Jesus proceed to this great work, that the minds of all the company might be attentive, and observe?
There is no occasion for remarks here: He
who was dead came out with burial clothes
Is there any reason to doubt after this view of this relation, whether this was a real miracle; and whether they who were present must not be sure it was so, and report it as such, as John has done?
But we will proceed a little farther. All present are represented as perswaded of it. For many of the
Jews, which came to Mary and had seen the things which Jesus
did, believed on him: that is, believed him to be the Messias. But
some
of them, being wicked malicious men, went to the Pharisees, and told
them what things Jesus had done. And the Pharisses considering
the greatness of this work, and that such things as these would tend to bring all men, great numbers of people to believe on him, from that day forth,
took counsel together to put him to death,
That this thing was no imposture, but a teal miracle, appears finally from hence; that
not long after this, by which time the Pharisses might have enquired into the matter,
and got evidence of the imposture, if any could be had Jesus comes publickly to Jerusalem, enters into the temple, teaches there
boldly from day to day, spends several days
I might conclude here, but I am willing to add a few observations on the propriety and beauty of our Lord’s action, and of the Evangelists relations.
St. Matthew informs us, that when the ruler came to
Jesus, he was discoursing to the
people. While
Not only the disciples, but those also that were hearing him
go along with him: And much
How sedate in his temper! He is not exalted with the thought of the honour done him by a ruler of a synagogue, who had earnestly besought him to heal his daughter. He is not in any haste to proceed to his house, lest the opportunity of shewing his power in the family of a ruler in Israel should be lost. But stands still, enquires who touched him; hears the poor woman tell her case, and confirms her cure, by bidding her, go in peace.
Jesus was now going to Jairus’s house, whose daughter
was by this time dead. And there was no way left for him to help this ruler; and perform his request, of laying his
When he came to the ruler’s house,
I shall by and by give a like instance of modesty in St. John’s
history of the miracle of Lazarus. He who reads such passages as
these
in these Evangelists, the one originally of so sordid an employment as that of
a publican, the other an illiterate fisherman, may be assured, they did not
invent, but that they drew some real character: there not being, I believe,
another such example of modesty to be found in any author ancient or modern; how
well soever skilled in historical facts, or however renowned for greatness of
genius and fruitfulness of fansie. The humble modesty is equal to the miracle.
Such things as these
But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose. How simple! and yet how truly great is this narration of St. Matthew!
I cannot leave this story, till I have observed the wondrous
propriety of our Lord’s action throughout the whole of this affair; which was
so
public, so diversified with incidents, and so various in its circumstances. So
soon as Jairus comes to him, he goes along with him in order to perform the
useful work he had desired of him. As he is going, a woman is healed by a secret
touch of his garment. He asks, Who touched me? The disciples tell him, .that
was a strange question. Still our Lord insists upon it, that some body had touched
him. He then looks round him, but points out no person: is only silent, the woman comes, and trembling reveals the whole matter. And
what a lustre has this delay of Jesus in the way to Jairus’s
house
thrown upon his character! what a discovery
In the history of raising the young man at Naim it is said: And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier (and they that bare him stood still) and he said, Young man, I say unto thee, arise.
On ordinary occasions Jesus could not work a miracle without being first sought to, lest thereby a suspicion should have arisen, that he had chosen objects within his power. But here, the meeting of the corpse being perfectly casual, he had an opportunity of shewing both his power and his goodness, without being sought to. And he wisely and graciously lays hold of it, as soon as it offers. How glorious is Jesus here! Travelling with his disciples he meets a dead man, carried forth to burial. And he on the sudden, without any previous notice of the case, without any prior preparation, raises the dead man to life.
And he delivered him to his mother. The highest propriety! He was moved by compassion to perform this work, and he delivers the raised person to her, to whom his life was the greatest comfort. Not to say farther, that she would best know, whether it was her son or another, that was restored to her: and that instead of making a show, and calling upon the multitude to admire the action; he barely delivers the young man to his mother, as if he had only performed an ordinary piece of kindness.
In the history of raising Lazarus there are these things
very observable. Jesus had declared to his disciples a design of going to
Bethanie.
Before he sets out from the place where he then was, he says to them: Our
friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
Here we have again a like example of humble modesty; with that I observed
before in the account of Jairus’s daughter. These low soft terms does he
use
concerning death, and raising to life: the one he terms sleep, the other awaking
him out of it; as appears from what follows. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he
sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit
Jesus spake of his death: but they thought he had spoken of taking of
rest in sleep. Jesus was obliged to let them understand what he meant.
Then said he unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your
sakes, that I was not there (to the intent you may believe) nevertheless
let us go. When Jesus
Herein also is adorable the wisdom, the goodness, the condescension of Jesus, that he who could have healed sick Lazarus, or raised. him when dead, without opening his lips, or rising from his seat, went from the place of his retirement beyond Jordan into Judea, where they had lately sought his life: because his raising up Lazarus at Bethanie, the place where he had died, and was well known, in all those circumstances, and before so many persons, as he afterwards did, would be a means of convincing men of the truth of his mission, and of drawing men of that and future ages to the belief of his doctrine, which is so suited to prepare them for eternal life.
There is likewise somewhat very remarkable in the manner of performing
this miracle. The great works which our Lord did are in themselves a proof, that
he was espoused by
Other things might be observed here, but I shall take notice of but one particular more. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus come forth. Sure the majesty of the voice well became the work. Herein is some resemblance of that loud command, at the sound of which shall be broken all the bars of hell and the grave, and their doors fly open, and the dead of all orders and of all times shall awake and come forth; some to honour, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. There is a peculiar propriety and decence in this loud and majestic voice, as it had been immediately preceded by a humble and thankful acknowledgement of the Father, who is over all.
F I N I S.
Exodus
2:13 2:14 4:13 14:16 14:26 17:4 19:4 32:22
Numbers
Deuteronomy
1 Kings
2 Kings
1:1-18 4:1-44 6:11 6:12 6:13 6:31
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Matthew
4:2 8:5-13 8:16 8:28 9:18 9:18 9:18 9:18-26 9:23 9:28 10:22 11:5 14:19-21 14:20 14:35 14:36 15:34-37 17:9 19:1 19:2 19:3 20:17 20:29 918
Mark
1:14 1:32-34 3:5 3:10 5:1 5:16 5:21 5:21-43 5:23 5:24 5:35 5:35 6:37-44 6:37-44 6:56 8:5-9 8:12 10:1 10:32 10:46
Luke
4:14 4:40 4:41 6:19 7:2 7:3 7:11 7:11 7:11-15 7:12 7:18 7:19 7:22 8:40 8:40-56 9:13-18 16:31 17:12 18:35
John
2:1 2:23 4:46-54 7:31 7:48 9:1-34 10:22 10:37 10:38 10:39 10:40 10:40 10:41 11:1-44 11:4 11:8 11:11 11:16 11:16 11:17 11:34 11:38 11:41 11:42 11:43 11:45 11:46 11:47 11:53 11:53 11:54 11:54 12:9 12:10 12:10 12:10 12:11 12:42 14:8-11 14:10 14:11 16:28-30
Acts
2 Corinthians
Galatians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111