Six Discourses on the Miracles of Our Saviour, and Defences of His Discourses

by Thomas Woolston

As to the Story of the Widow of Naim's Son, excepting what is before observed of the shortness of the Time, in which he lay dead, and of the Unfitness of his Person to be rais'd before an Husband and Father of a Family, to the Comfort of his Wife and Children, (which are enough to overthrow the Credulity of the Miracle) I have here no more Fault to find in the Letter of it.

But the long Story of Lazarus is so brimful of Absurdities, that, if the Letter alone is to be regarded; St. John, who was then above a hundred, when he wrote it, had lived beyond his Reason and Senses, or he could not have committed them.

I have not Room here to make Remarks on all these Absurdities, which would be the Work of a Volume; but shall single out 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; and our Divines will find themselves so distress'd upon the Dissection and Display of it, as that they must of Necessity allow this Story to be but a Parable; or, what's most grievous to think on, give up their Religion upon it.

First then, observe that Jesus is said to have wept and groan'd for the Death of Lazarus: But why so, says[295] St. Basil? Was not this an Absurdity to weep at all for the Death of him, whom he could, and was about to recover to Life again? Another Man may as reasonably grieve for the Absence of his Friend, whose Company and Presence he can retrieve in an Instant, as that Jesus should shed Tears for Lazarus in this Case. If Jesus could not or would not raise him from the dead, he ought not, as a Philosopher, who knows Man is born to die, to betray so much Weakness as to weep for him. Patience and Resignation unto God upon the Death of our dearest Friends and Relations is what all Philosophers have rightly taught; and Jesus, one would think, should have been the most Heroical Example of these Graces; and how came he to fail of it here? A Stoical Apathy had better became him than such childish and effeminate Grief, which not only makes him a mean and poor-spirited Mortal; but is a gross Absurdity and Incredibility upon Consideration of his Will and Power to fetch Lazarus to Life again. If there be not, according to the Fathers, Mystery in these Tears of Jesus, they are a foolish and unnatural Prelude to a Farce, he was acting in the pretended Resuscitation of Lazarus.

Some antient Catholicks, not being apprised of the Mystery, were so offended at these Words, Jesus wept, that, as Epiphanius[296] says, they expung'd them out of their Bibles; and I wonder, they have not, before now, disturb'd the Faith of Ministers of the Letter, to the utter Rejection of the Miracle.

Secondly, Observe that John says, it was with a loud Voice, that Jesus call'd Lazarus forth out of his Cave. And why, I pray, a louder Voice than ordinary? Was dead Lazarus deafer than Jairus's Daughter, or the Widow's Son? Or was his Soul at so great a Distance from his Body, as he could not hear a still and low Voice? Some such silly Reason as this must be given for this loud Voice here; but how absurd it is according to the Letter, Infidels will judge, till Christians can assign a better. The dead can hear the Whisper of the Almighty, if Power go along with it, as soon as the Sound of a Trumpet. St. John then should not have written of a loud Voice, unless he meant to adapt his Story to the Capacities and Conceptions of the Vulgar, who have no Apprehensions of God's Power, out of sensible and human Representations of 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 rais'd 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. What Infidels think of this Circumstance I know not: I hope it is not with them a Token of Fraud and Imposture; tho' I must needs say, that if the Fathers did not let me in to the Mystery of the Napkin about Lazarus's Face when Jesus call'd him forth, I should not my self like it.

Fourthly, and lastly, Observe, St. John says, v. 45. that many of the Jews, who had seen the Things that Jesus did here; believed on him; and some of them, v. 46. who did not believe, went their Ways to the Pharisees and told them what Things Jesus had done in this pretended Miracle, and how the Business was transacted: Whereupon the Chief Priests and Pharisees were so far incens'd as v. 53. from that Day forth they took Council together to put him to Death; and Ch. xii. 10. consulted, that they might put Lazarus also to Death. Jesus therefore (and his Disciples and Lazarus fled for it, for they) v. 54. walk'd no more openly among the Jews, but went thence into a Country near to the Wilderness (a convenient hiding Place) and there continued with his Disciples; otherwise in all Probability they had been all sacrificed.

I dare not argue upon these Circumstances, neither would I, for the Honour of Jesus have mention'd them; but that my old Friend, the Jewish Rabbi, who help'd me to the Satirical Invective against Jesus's Miracle of turning Water into Wine, has hence form'd an Objection against Lazarus's Resurrection, and sent me a Letter upon it, desiring me to publish it, and exhort the Clergy to answer it; otherwise he would clandestinely hand it about to the Prejudice of our Religion: Whereupon I, rather than Christianity should so suffer, do here publish it, and it is as follows.