23. Luke vi. l. Matth. xvii. 14. send his disciples to enquire of him, whether he was the true Messias or no. Why our From Matth. Blessed Saviour, who, as a Teacher sent from heaven,' was to instruct the people in xii. 1. Mark ii. the most plain truths, made use of the parabolical method, wherein there is a manifest John v. 1. to obscurity, especially since the declared end of his doing so is said to be, (a) that seeing Mark ix. 14. they might not see, and hearing they might not understand:' Why he did not (b) Luke ix. 37. vouchsafe the Pharisees a sign from heaven, to approve himself the prophet foretold by John vii. 1. Moses, especially since the sign of the prophet Jonas, which was only typical of his future resurrection, was incompetent for a present sign, and incapable of giving them any satisfaction: Or, lastly, why he made such mean instruments, as obscure, illiterate fishermen, to be the first preachers of the Gospel, when, in all subsequent ordinations. a tolerable stock of knowledge and learning, as well as some influence and authority among the people, is thought no bad qualification for that office. Whether the evangelists have given us a right representation of our Saviour's behaviour, we shall not pretend to determine; but a person of a philosophic soul, much more of a Divine original, should be seated above all passionate resentments, one would think, and look upon his enemies, if he had any, with pity and contempt, rather than with (c) anger and indignation: And so calm and composed should his whole deportment be, as to give no umbrage to any, much less to his nearest relations, who may be presumed to know him best, to call in question the soundness of his intellectuals, or to come to apprehend him at any time, under pretence that (d) he was beside himself.' Whatever some protestants may imagine, we cannot but think, that our Blessed Lord invested St Peter with a certain pre-eminence above the rest of his apostles, when upon him he promises (e) to build his church, and to give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' But what the (f) unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost does properly import, and in what sense we are said (g) to eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and to drink his blood,' both protestants and papists have been at a long puzzle to find out: And therefore no wonder that some of our Lord's first disciples, upon hearing of these (h) 'hard sayings,' which are not yet discovered, and perhaps never will, (i) went back, and walked no more with him." ST JOHN, according to the general sense of antiquity, having perused the other evan- ANSWer. gelists, and observed in what particulars they were defective, at the persuasion of the other bishops of Asia was prevailed upon to write his gospel, as a supplement to their omissions. Whoever will give himself the trouble to compare his history with that of the other evangelists, will find this notion in a great measure verified. For (not to mention other particulars) our Saviour's miracles, antecedent to his resurrection, as they are recorded by St John, are no more than eight. 1st, His turning water into wine at the marriage of Cana in Galilee. 2d, His telling the Samaritan woman the secrets of her life. 3d, His healing the nobleman's son at Capernaum. 4th, His curing the lame man at the pool of Bethesda. 5th, His feeding five thousand men with five barley. loaves and two fishes. 6th, His walking upon the surface of the water, and calming the storm at sea. 7th, His giving sight to a blind man by anointing his eyes with clay. And 8th, his raising Lazarus from the dead. Now all these are omitted by the former evangelists, except the 5th and 6th, which St John seems to have recorded, chiefly to introduce a moral discourse, which our Saviour took occasion to make to the people, and which the other sacred penmen had omitted; which is a plain argument, that the intent of St John's Gospel was to supply the defects of the other three; and that therefore their silence is no manner of argument against St John's account of the pool of Bethesda. A. M. 4035. &c. or 5440. Ann. Dom. 31. &c. It may seem a little strange indeed, that Josephus should give us no account of it, especially when the sanative virtue of its waters, occasioned by so extraordinary a means, could not but redound to the honour of his country. (a) But when it is conVulg. Er. 29. sidered that the like omissions have been frequently made by other historians, who in their writings have neglected to insert several considerable matters of antiquity, merely because they were so familiar and well known to them; (b) when it is considered that Josephus in particular wrote his history for the information of the Greeks and learned Romans, who were heathens, and, for fear of shocking their belief, is very tender of dwelling too much upon miracles; when it is considered that he is entirely silent in several other instances that bear some relation to our Saviour Christ; that he does not so much as intimate the slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem, mentioned by St Matthew (c), nor give any clear account of the Roman census, or taxation, which occasioned our Lord to be born at Bethlehem, as it is recorded by St Luke (d); when it is considered that the miraculous cure of the impotent man by Jesus had so visible a connection, that he could not, in decency, give an account of the one without making some mention of the other, and therefore chose rather to decline the history of both; and, lastly, when it is considered that this pool (according to (e) Tertullian) ceased to be beneficial to the Jews, upon their final perseverance in blasphemy and infidelity against Christ ;"-there is no wonder at all that Josephus, who was very defective in other matters, and no great lover of miracles, should omit giving us an account of a pool, whose virtue was extinct and gone, when first he wrote his Antiquities, and which he could not well make mention of, without giving an implicit honour to Christ. t [The truth, however, is, that Josephus doth speak of the waters or fountain of Siloam as something very remarkable, and relates of it one prodigy, which, if real, renders perfectly credible that which is recorded of its sanative powers by St John. In the excellent speech by which,. during the last siege of Jerusalem, he endeavoured to persuade his countrymen to submit to Titus, he says (f)-" The springs, which when in your power were dry, now flow plentifully for Titus; for ye know that, before his coming, Siloam, and all the other springs that were without the city, did so far fail, that water was sold by distinct measures; but they so abound to your enemies, as not only to suffice for themselves and for their cattle, but even for watering the gardens. The same wonderful sign ye also formerly experienced, when the fore mentioned king of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar) made war against us, took the city, and burnt the temple." If the waters of Siloam were thus made an instrument in the hands of God to punish the rebellious Jews by supplying their enemies, (and when the theocratic government of Judah is considered, the thing is perfectly credible) the same waters which, in one of the prophecies of Isaiah (g) are represented as emblematic or typical of the mild and beneficent reign of the Messiah, may easily be conceived to have been miraculously endowed with their sanative quality at the feast of the passover for some years before he actually appeared publicly preaching the kingdom of God.] That upon the death of our Blessed Saviour, this pool might lose its sanative quality, is no improbable conjecture, because the Jews no longer deserved such a peculiar blessing; but when at first it came to be impregnated with it, is not a matter of so easy solution. The words in the text are, that "an (h) angel went down (xαтà xαrgor) at a certain season," which (i) a learned author chuses rather to render" at the season (ie. of the passover) and troubled the water;" from whence he infers, that the first time of this supernatural moving of the water, and consequently of the pool's receiving a miraculous healing quality, was at this passover; which was the second after (a) Bishop Smallbrooke's Vindication, p. 498. (c) Chap. n. 16. (g) Ch. viii. 6, 7. (d) Chap. 11. 1, 2. (b) Dr Pearce's Vindication, part iv, p. 19. (e) Adv. Jud. c. 13. (1) Bell. Jud. lib. v. cap. ix. § 4. (i) Dr Pearce's Vindication, part iv, xi. 1. Mark ii. Mark ix. 14. the commencement of our Saviour's public ministry; and the reason he assigns for its From Matth. being this, rather than any other passover, is," That our Saviour having gone through 23. Luke vi. 1. all the cities of Galilee, and most of the other parts of the country of Judea, preaching John v. 1. to and healing diseases, came up to Jerusalem at the passover, with an intent to fix his Matth. xvii. 14. abode there; that, to prepare his way before him, God might give this pool an healing Luke ix. 37. quality, (a) thereby to shew the Jews (in a typical manner) that the messenger of the John vii. 1. covenant was coming among them, to "open a fountain (b) to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness;" but that, instead of giving him a kind reception, they took "counsel together, how they might take away his life," which made him" withdraw himself from them," and, upon his departure, the miraculous virtue of the water ceased." The only objection against this hypothesis is, that it makes the miracle of no more than a week or ten days continuance, which is too short a space for so great a company (as is here represented) to be gathered together; to have taken up their abode (as it were) in the apartments of this hospital; and to be acquainted so perfectly (as the paralytic, in his discourse with our Saviour, seems to be) with the nature of the pool, and the manner of its preternatural perturbation. And therefore (to follow the generality of commentators), though we should suppose that its medicinal virtue began at the time of this second passover, yet we may still adhere to the opinion of Tertullian, and say, that at certain times at least, it continued with the Jews (and a singular blessing it was) until they had filled the measure of their iniquity, (c)" by denying the Holy One, and the Just, and by killing the Prince of Life +.' 66 How the waters of this pool came by their sanative quality, opinions, in some measure, have been divided. Our (d) learned Hammond (who sometimes affects a singularity of interpretation) * supposes, that the waters became medicinal by being impregnated with an healing warmth from the blood and entrails of the sacrificed beasts that were washed there, and that the angel in the text is not to be understood of any of those celestial beings that are usually distinguished by that name, but only of a common messenger, viz. an officer or servant of the priests, who, at a proper season, was sent by bim to stir the pool. The great (e) Bartholine supposes, that these waters were naturally medicinal, and that their commotion was occasioned by an extraordinary fermentation of some mineral in them; and therefore he makes the angel no more than a Divine power, which originally gave this efficacy, though it was exerted in a natural way. But besides that the word ayyños seldom occurs in the former, and never in this sense, in any historical narrative in scripture, there are these plain objections against both hypotheses, viz. (f) That, be the waters impregnated with what ingredient we please, (had their operation been mechanical) they must necessarily have cured more than one person at every commotion or fermentation; and yet they never can be sup (a) Whitby's Annotations on John v. 4. (6) Zech. xiii 1. (c) Acts iii. 14, 15. [it is in the highest degree improbable that it did not acquire its sanative virtue till our Lord's second passover; nor do I see any reason for supposing with Whitby that an angel visibly descended into the water, for if the water was visibly moved without any physical cause known to the Jews, and acquired after the motion, its miraculous quality, they would na turally attribute its motion to a good angel, as they would have attributed it to a devil or dæmon, had its acquired qualities been pernicious That it was de prived of its virtues when the Jews had filled up the measure of their iniquities, and were rejected by God, follows of course, if the reason which we have as signed for its being first endowed with those virtues (d) Annotations on the vth. chapter of St John. [I certainly think with our author and Whitby, that Hammond's interpretation of this pass ge cannot be maintained; but it contains several observations worthy of notice, and well deserves to be consulted by the reader.] (e) De Paralyticis N. Test. (f) Whitby's Annotations, and Bishop Small brooke's Vindication, p. 507. Ann. Dom. 31, &c. A. M. 4035, posed of efficacy enough to cure all manner of diseases in an instant, and at one single &c. or 5140. immersion, as the waters of Bethesda are represented to do: And therefore, waving all such groundless suppositions, we may be allowed to set the authority of an ancient faVulg. Ær. 29. ther of the church against these modern names, and say, "That the angel which descended at a certain season gave the water its medicinal virtue; for the nature of the water was not sanative in itself, (if it had, cures would have always happened) but the whole depended on the virtue communicated to it by the angel." Now the true reason why the virtue thus communicated to the water by the operation of an angel, was effectual only to the curing of one person at one time, was to evince the miraculousness of the cure. Had many been cured at once, the sceptic might have imputed their cures to the natural virtue of the water, and, upon this supposition, been emboldened to ask, "Where is the wonder of this? Do not many medicinal baths cure various kinds of diseases, and multitudes of such as labour under each disease, provided their case be curable? Had one only indeed been cured, the first that could get in after the troubling of the water, there would have been then a great and real miracle; but now the numbers make the fact suspicious. To make it appear a miracle indeed, its effects should have been confined and limited to particular times and persons, and otherwise so circumstantiated, as that the power of God, and not of blind nature, might have been apparent in it." But all this language is effectually silenced by the method which the wise Providence of God took in this case, and the miracle established upon such evident conviction, as the mouth of infidelity itself cannot gainsay. That the widow of Nain's son, and the ruler of the synagogue's daughter, were both of them really dead, is evident from the sense of all that were about them, who were actually carrying the one to his burial, and making preparation for the funeral of the other; so that had not our blessed Saviour been confident of the Divine virtue residing in him, whereby he was able to recover them to life again, it would have been madness in him to have attempted to do it. "He might suppose, perhaps, that there was a mistake in the people that were about them, and that these two young persons might possibly be in a lethargic state.” But besides the folly of presuming upon a thing which scarce happens once in a century, how could he tell that upon his touching the bier of the one, or the hand of the other, and calling upon them, they would instantly awake? And if they did not awake at his call, his whole pretensions of being a prophet sent from God, with power to restore life to the dead, must as effectually have been ruined, as if the persons here supposed in a lethargy only had actually been dead. But now, if we examine a little into our Lord's conduct in both these cases, we shall find that he acted, not upon any supposition of mistake in the people, but out" of the fulness of the Godhead that dwelt in him bodily." He, coming to the city of Nain, attended with his disciples, meets at the gate the funeral of a certain young man," the only son of a woman that was a widow." The consideration of her destitute condition moved his compassion indeed; but for all that he might have let the funeral pass. None of the company either asked or challenged him to raise the dead youth: it was entirely his own offer; and an offer that no wise man who set up for a prophet would have ever made, had he not been conscious (as we find he was) that he was able to perform it. While he was at Capernaum, a person of some note requests of him to go and heal his daughter, who was at the point of death. Before he could get to the house, a messenger comes and acquaints the father that she was actually dead. (a) Here our Lord had a fair opportunity to excuse himself; for though he might pretend to cure diseases, (which was all that Jairus requested of him) yet it did not therefore follow that he was to raise the dead. But instead of retracting, he offers of his own accord to go forward, (a) Defence of the Scripture History, p. 17. and tells the father, (as he afterwards did) that he would raise her to life again: (a) From Matth. "Be not afraid; only believe, says he, and she shall be made whole;" which he could xii. 1. Mark ii. never have said from any other principle than a consciousness of that (b)" Almighty John v. 1. to Power, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself." 23. Luke vi. 1. Matth. xvii. 14. But though our Lord was conscious of his Divine power, yet, upon his coming to the Luke ix 37. ruler's house, instead of making any ostentatious boast of it, we find him, by the mo. John vii. 1. desty of his expression, the "maid is not dead, but sleepeth," endeavouring to conceal it. It is, in a great measure indeed, owing to his modesty and great humility, that instead of proclaiming, he requires the people so frequently to suppress the fame of his marvellous works: But in the present case, he might have some regard to the character of Jairus, as ruler of the synagogue, and by this advice of silence, dispense with his speaking publicly of a miracle which might possibly draw the malice of the scribes and Pharisees upon him, as well as upon himself. In the case of his raising Lazarus, we find that, (c)" because, by reason of him many of the Jews went away and believed on Jesus, the chief priests consulted, not only how to destroy Jesus, but to put Lazarus likewise to death" And much of the same design might have been suspected (which our Saviour by this kind caution endeavoured to prevent) if it once came to their knowledge, that so great a man as a governor of the synagogue, by the miraculous recovery of his daughter, had forsaken the religion of his ancestors, and was become a convert to the Christian faith. [But our Lord's chief reason for prohibiting those who were miraculously cured by him from proclaiming his fame, was probably to allow himself time to lay the foundation of his church on earth. Had his fame been proclaimed everywhere, and himself attended by all whom he had restored from disease to health of body, and from diabolical possession to soundness of mind, either the chief priests and scribes would have brought him to a premature death, before he could have taught his disciples all those important truths which the Holy Ghost afterwards brought to their recollection, and which formed the subject of that preaching by which they converted the world; or the people who looked for a temporal deliverer, would have taken him, as they often endeavoured to do, and placed him by force on the throne of David. Had either of these things happened, the great purpose for which he came into the world would have been defeated. Had he fallen in a civil war occasioned by himself, instead of being believed to have made his soul an offering for sin, he would have been looked on as a rebel to the powers that were, who had justly suffered for his rebellion; and though, on the other supposition, his death might have made atonement for the sins of the world, his disciples would have been left by him but half instructed] Gadara was one of the cities beyond Jordan, belonging to the country called Decapolis, which was sometimes in the hands of the Jews and sometimes of the Syrians, but at this time was inhabited by both. The Syrians were heathens, and consequently made use of swine, not only for food, but for sacrifices likewise and it is not improbable that the Jews of the country might be tempted to feed swine by the advantage they made in selling them to their heathen neighbours. (d) This was against a prohibition of their law, it is true, but laws we know are not always observed, and perhaps least of all at Gadara, which being in the extremity of the Jewish territories, and under the jurisdiction of heathens, left the Jews without any restraint upon them, but that of conscience, which is too frequently violated for the sake of gain. To bring the matter then to a narrow compass. The swine which were destroyed, in consequence of the permission which our Saviour gave the evil spirits to enter into them, belonged either to the Jews or Gentiles of Gadara: if they belonged to the Jews, (a) Luke viii 50. (d) Dr Pearce's Vindication, part ii. (b) Phil. iii. 21, (c) John xii. 10, 11, |