A FIFTH DISCOUsRSE ON THE MIRACLES OF OUR SAVIOUR, &c.

ACcording to Promiſe in my laſt Diſcourſe, I am in this to take into Examination the three Miracles of Jeſus's raiſing the dead, viz. Of Iairus's Daughter ¹; of the Widow of Naim's Son ²; and of Lazarus ³: The literal Stories of which [2] I ſhall ſhow to conſiſt of Abſurdities, Im⯑probabilities and Incredibilities, in Order to the myſtical Interpretation of them: And becauſe ſome of our Biſhops and Cler⯑gy were a little diſguſted at the ludicrous Treatment of the Letter of ſome foregoing Miracles, I will handle theſe with the more Caution; being as unwilling, as any Man of my primitive Faith can be, to offend weak Brethren.

Whether Jeſus rais'd any more from the dead, beſides the foreſaid three Perſons is uncertain from the Evangelical Hiſtory. St. Auguſtin ⁴ thinks, he rais'd many others; and he founds his Opinion on the modeſt Hyperbole of St. John, who ſup⯑poſes ⁵ the World it ſelf could not con⯑tain the Books that might be Written of Je⯑ſus. And Euſebius Gallicanus, of whoſe Mind entirely I am, ſays ⁶ the Reaſon lies in the Myſtery, why theſe three, and no more than theſe three Miracles of this [3] Kind are recorded by the Evangeliſts. But ſince our Divines are averſe to Myſteries on Miracles, I would gladly know their Opi⯑nion, whether Jeſus rais'd any others from the dead, or not: I have made ſome ſearch into modern Writers for their Opinion in this Caſe, but can't find it: And unleſs I knew their Opinion, it would be loſt Labour to argue againſt either Side of the Queſtion, and much more againſt both Sides of it: But I can aſſure our Divines, that, which Side of the Queſtion ſoever they ſhould hold, the Conſequence upon the Argument would be neither better nor worſe, than that they muſt of neceſſity eſpouſe the myſtical and allegorical Inter⯑pretation of theſe Miracles, or grant that Jeſus literally rais'd none from the dead at all.

But waving that ſort of Argument for the preſent againſt the Letter; theſe three Miracles are reputed the greateſt that Jeſus wrought: And I believe, it will be granted on all hands, that the reſtoring a Perſon, indiſputably dead, to Life again, is a ſtupendous Miracle; and that two or three ſuch Miracles well circumſtanced, and credibly reported, are enough to con⯑ciliate the Belief of Mankind, that the Author of them was a divine Agent, and inveſted with the Power of God, or he [4] could not do them. But God knows, (and for the ſake of the Myſtery, I am not ſorry to ſay it) this is far from being the Caſe of theſe three Miracles before us, or of any one them.

That theſe three Miracles are not equal⯑ly great, but differ in Degree, is viſible enough to any one, that but curſorily reads, and compares theirs Stories one with ano⯑ther. The Fathers of the Church ⁷ have taken Notice of ſuch a Difference amongſt them. The greateſt of the three, and indeed, the ⁸ greateſt Miracle, that Jeſus is ſuppos'd to have wrought, is that of Lazarus's Reſurrection; which, in Truth, was a moſt prodigious Miracle, if his Corps was putrified and ſtank; or if there were no juſt Exceptions to be made to the Credibility of the Story. Next to that, in magnitude, is Jeſus's raiſing of [5] the Widow's Son, as they were carrying him to his Burial: And a great Miracle it was to bring him to Life again; if none be⯑fore or ſince had been miſtaken for dead, and carried to their Graves alive; or if no Impoſtor and his Confederates could frame ſuch a ſeemingly miraculous Scene, as is that whole Story, to his own Glory. The leaſt of the three is that of his raiſing Jairus's Daughter, which in Appearance is ſo far from a Miracle, that according to the Story itſelf, ſhe was but aſleep, or by the Shrieks of By-ſtanders frighted out of her Senſes for the preſent.

But however it really might be with theſe three ſuppoſed dead and revived Per⯑ſons; the Caſe of none of them was well enough circumſtanced to ſerve the Purpoſe of our Divines. I am apt to believe with the Fathers, that Jeſus actually did raiſe the dead; but then, as theſe Miracles are only recorded for the ſake of the Myſtery, I affirm that none of them, as to the Letter, will abide the Teſt of a critcal Examination, nor ſtand its Ground againſt ſuch Exceptions as may be made to them. If Jeſus was to raiſe any dead Bodies to Life, for a Teſtimony of his divine Power and Authority, he would and ſhould have made Choice of other dead Perſons, un⯑der other Circumſtances of Death; and [6] the Hiſtory of their Reſurrection ſhould have been more credibly and carefully tranſmitted to Poſterity, ſo as there ſhould have been no Room left to make a reaſona⯑ble Doubt of the Truth of it. But this, I ſay, is not the Caſe in the Reſuſcitation of any of theſe Perſons, as will appear from the following Remarks and Obſer⯑vations upon them. And

1. Obſerve, that the unnatural and pre⯑poſterous Order of Time, in which theſe Miracles are related, juſtly brings them all under ſuſpicion of Fable and Forgery. The greateſt of the three is indiſputably that of Lazarus's Reſurrection; but ſince this is only mention'd by St. John, who wrote his Goſpel after the other Evange⯑liſts, and above ſixty Years, according to the beſt Computation, after our Lord's Aſcenſion; here is too much Room for Cavil and Queſtion, whether this Story be not entirely his Invention. What could be the Reaſon that Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who all wrote their Goſpels before John, and many Years nearer to the Death of our Saviour, ſhould omit to re⯑cord this remarkable and moſt illuſtrious Miracle of Lazarus? They could not for⯑get it, nor be ignorant of it, if the Story had been really true: and to aſſign any [7] other Reaſon than Ignorance or Forgetful⯑neſs, is hard and impoſſible. To aggran⯑dize the Fame of their Maſter, for a Worker of Miracles, was the Deſign of all the Evan⯑geliſts, eſpecially of the three firſt, who may be preſumed to make a Report of the greateſt, if not of all, that Jeſus wrought: But that there ſhould come after them an Evangeliſt with an huge and ſuperlatively great Miracle, and meet with Credit for it, is againſt all Senſe and Rea⯑ſon; neither is there any Story, ſo diſor⯑derly told, in all Hiſtory, that Critics will admit of the Belief of. The firſt Writer of the Life of an Hero, to be ſure makes mention of all the grand Occurrences of it, and leaves no Room for Biographers af⯑terwards, but to enlarge and paraphraſe upon what he has written, with ſome other Circumſtances and Additions of leſs Moment. If a third or a fourth Biogra⯑pher after him ſhall preſume to add a more illuſtrious Tranſaction of the Hero's Life, it will be rejected as Fable and Romance, tho' for no other Reaſon than this, that the firſt Writer muſt have been appris'd of it, and would have inſerted its Story, if there had been any Truth in it. And whether St. John's Story of Lazarus's Reſurrection, that Miracle of Miracles, ought not to be ſubjected to the like Criticiſm upon it, [8] Chriſtians may conſider, and Infidels will judge.

What then was the Reaſon, I ask again, that the three firſt Evangeliſts neglected to record this renown'd Miracle of Lazarus? And why too (may I enquire here) did not Matthew and Mark mention the Story of the Widow of Naim's Son, as they could not but know of it, if true, more certainly than Luke, the Companion of Paul, who alone has made a Report of it? Grotius ſays, ⁹ it may ſeem ſtrange that this illuſtrious Miracle of the Widow's Son was omitted by Matthew and Mark: And what is the Reaſon that Grotius gives for this ſtrange Omiſſion? Why, he tells us ¹⁰ that theſe two Evangeliſts were content with one miraculous Inſtance of this Kind, by which Chriſtians might judge of Jeſus's Power in others alſo. And is this Reaſon ſufficient? True it is, they were content with one Inſtance; but if they had made a Report of two or three more of the ſame ſort, no body would have thought their Hiſtory of Chriſt overcharg'd with impertinent and tautological Repeti⯑tions. [9] But one Inſtance of a Perſon rais'd from the dead, they were, ſays Grotius, content with: And I'll grant one to be ſufficient: But which then ſhould they, as wiſe and conſiderate Hiſtorians have made Choice of, the greateſt or the leaſt Mira⯑cle? The greateſt, to be ſure, and that was of Lazarus, or of the Widow's Son, if they knew of either. But inſtead of ei⯑ther of theſe, they tell us the Story of Jai⯑rus's Daughter, that is ¹¹ an imperfect and diſputable Miracle, in Compariſon of the other two, which conſequently they knew nothing at all of, or they would have preferr'd the Report of them.

If Matthew, the firſt Writer, had re⯑corded only the Story of Lazarus, whoſe Reſurrection was the greateſt Miracle; and if Luke had added that of the Wi⯑dow of Naim's Son; and John laſtly had remember'd us of Jairus's Daughter, which the other Evangeliſts, not through Igno⯑rance or Forgetfulneſs, but ſtudying Bre⯑vity, had omitted, then all had been well; and no Objection had hence lain againſt the Credit of any of theſe Mira⯑cles, or againſt the Authority of the E⯑vangeliſts: But this unnatural and pre⯑poſterous [10] Order of Time, in which theſe Miracles are recorded (the greateſt being poſtponed to the leaſt) adminiſters juſt Occaſion of ſuſpicion of the Truth and Credibility of all their Stories. And it is lucky for Chriſtianity, that Jews and In⯑fidels have not hitherto hit upon the Abſur⯑dity of this prepoſterous Narration, or they might have form'd a cogent Ob⯑jection againſt theſe Miracles thus, ſay⯑ing;

"Jeſus, it is manifeſt, rais'd not the dead at all. The only Perſon, that Chriſtians can reaſonably pretend, he did raiſe, was Jairus's Daughter, whom Matthew writes of; and ſhe, according to the Story was only in a Sleep, or an Extacy, when Jeſus revived her. But the Galileans, who were after a Time call'd Chriſtians, finding their Account in a Reſurrection-Miracle; Luke, for the former Advantage of the Cauſe, de⯑viſed another Story of better Circum⯑ſtances, in the Widow of Naim's Son: But this not being ſo great a Miracle, as the Church ſtill wanted; John, when no body was alive to contradict and ex⯑poſtulate with him for it, trumps up a long Story of a thumping Miracle, in Jeſus's raiſing of Lazarus, who had been not only dead, but buried ſo long [11] that he ſtank again. But to prove the Story of this Miracle to be falſe and fa⯑bulous, we need ſay no more than that it was laſt recorded. If there had been any Truth in it, the firſt Evangeliſt would have remember'd us of it.

"We don't ſuppoſe, that you Chriſtians, becauſe of your Prejudices, will ſub⯑ſcribe to this Account, that we thus give of the Riſe of theſe Miracles: But this is certain, that if theſe three Mira⯑cles had not been reported of Jeſus, but of Mahomet, in the ſame diſorder of Time, by three different Hiſtorians, you would preſently have ſcented the Forgery and Impoſture: You would juſtly have affirm'd that the three Stories were apparently three Fables and Falſ⯑hoods; and that the three Hiſtorians viſibly ſtrove to outſtretch each other: That the firſt was ſparing and modeſt in his Romance; and the ſecond, being ſen⯑ſible of the Inſufficiency of the former's Tale, deviſes a Miracle of a bigger Size; which ſtill not proving ſufficient to the End propoſed; the third Writer, rather than his Prophet's Honour ſhould ſink for want of a Reſurrection-Miracle, forges a Story of a monſtrouſly huge one; againſt which it is, and always will be Objection enough, that it was not [12] related by the firſt Hiſtorian. So would you Chriſtians argue againſt theſe three Miracles in another Impoſtor's Caſe; and there is not a judicious Critic in the Univerſe, that would not approve of the Argument, and applaud the Force of it, tho' you will not endure the Thoughts of it in the Caſe of your Jeſus.

"But to come nearer home to you; ſuppoſing John (who was then above a Hundred, and in his Dotage) had not reported this Miracle of Lazarus; but that Clement (joining it with his ¹² in⯑credible Story of the Reſurrection of a Phaenix) or Ignatius, or Polycarp, or the Author of the Apoſtolical Conſtitutions had related it; would not your Chriſ⯑tian Critics have been at work to ex⯑plode it? There is not an antient extra⯑evangelical Tradition of any Note about Jeſus, that ſome or other of your Cri⯑tics have not boggled at; but ſuch a Story as this of Lazarus would have been received by none. I queſtion, whether Mr. Whiſton would not have rejected the Conſtitutions upon ſuch a Story in them; or if his Fancy for ſome other Things in them had overcome his [13] Reaſon againſt this; yet Biſhop Small-broke, who has written againſt the Ca⯑nonicalneſs of the Conſtitutions, with his judicious Animadverſions upon this Story, would abſolutely have over⯑thrown their Authority. And what would he have ſaid here? Not only that the Miracle ſmells rankly of Forge⯑ry and Fraud, or the Evangeliſts, eſpeci⯑cially Matthew, had never forgotten to record it; but he would have reminded us of intrinſic Notes (hereafter to be men⯑tion'd) of Abſurdity, and Incredibility, that would for ever have caſhier'd the Belief of it. And whether we Infidels ought not to take the ſame Liberty to criticize on John's Goſpel, which you do on your Apoſtolical Fathers, who wrote before him, let the impartial and unprejudiced judge: If in juſtice we ought to take it; we are ſure we could give two or three notable Reaſons (but that We will not now put Chriſtians out of Temper with them) why John may be ſuſpected of a Miſtake or Fraud in this Miracle, rather than any other Chriſtian Writer of the firſt or ſecond Century."

To ſuch an unhappy Objection, ariſing from the unnatural and prepoſterous Order of Time, in which they are recorded, [14] are theſe three Miracles before us obnoxi⯑ous. And I am thinking how Miniſters of the Letter will be able to get over it. As for my ſelf, who am for the myſtical Inter⯑pretation of theſe Miracles, I have a ſolid and ſubſtantial Anſwer at hand to the fore⯑ſaid Objection, an Anſwer that curiouſly accounts for the Order of Time in which theſe Miracles are related; but my Anſwer will not pleaſe our Divines, nor ſtand them in any ſtead; therefore they muſt look up another good one of their own, that will comport with the Letter; or the ſaid Ob⯑jection, improved with another preſently againſt Lazarus's Reſurrection, will be too hard, not for Chriſtianity it ſelf, but for their Miniſtry.

Grotius, being aware of the foreſaid Objection, has given us ſuch a ¹³ Solu⯑tion of it as then occurr'd to his Thoughts. Dr. Whitby, not being ſatisfied with Gro⯑tius's [15] Solution, has given us ¹⁴ another: But how weak and inſufficient both their Solutions are, I will not ſpare Time to conſider, till ſome Writer ſhall appear in Defence of the Sufficiency and Strength of one or other of them. And ſo I paſs to a

2. Second Obſervation, by Way of Ob⯑jection to the Letter of theſe Miracles, and that is, by enquiring, what became of theſe three Perſons after their Reſurrection? How long did they live afterwards? And of what Uſe and Advantage were their reſtored [...]ives to the Church or to Man⯑kind? The Evangelical and Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory is entirely ſilent as to theſe Queſ⯑tions, which is enough to make us ſuſpect their Stories to be merely romantick or parabolical; and that there were no ſuch Perſons rais'd from the dead; or we muſt have heard ſomewhat of their Station and [16] Converſation in the World afterwards. It's true, that Ephiphanius ¹⁵ ſays, what he found among Traditions, that Lazarus lived thirty Years after his Reſurrection: But how did he ſpend his Time all that while? Was it to the Honour of Jeſus, to the Service of the Church, and Proga⯑gation of the Goſpel? Of that we know nothing; tho in Reaſon and Gratitude to Jeſus, his Benefactor, it ought to have been ſo ſpent; and if it had been ſo em⯑ploy'd, Hiſtory ſurely would have inform'd us of it. According to the Opinion of Grotius, in a Citation above, Lazarus for the reſt of his reſtored Life abſconded, and skull'd about the Country for Fear of the Jews, who lay in Wait for him; which is a Suggeſtion, not only diſhonourable to Jeſus, as if the ſame Power, that rais'd him from the dead, could not protect him againſt his Enemies; but reproachful to Lazarus himſelf, who ſhould have choſen to ſuffer Death again, rather than not bear an open Teſtimony to Jeſus, the Author of his Reſurrection. However it was, we hear no more of Lazarus, than that he lived thirty Years afterwards, which Tra⯑dition, [17] without other Memorials of his Life, brings the Miracle more under ſuſpi⯑cion of Fable, than if he had dy'd ſoon after it. And of Jairus's Daughter, and of the Widow of Naim's Son, which is aſto⯑niſhing, we read nothing at all. Does not this Silence in Hiſtory about them, make their Miracles queſtionable, and but like Gulliverian Tales of Perſons and Things, that out of the Romance, never had any Being.

Jeſus did but ¹⁶ call a little Child, and ſet him in the midſt of his Diſciples; and that Act was remember'd in the Piety and Zeal ¹⁷ of Ignatius, who made a re⯑nown'd Biſhop. But the Favour and Bleſ⯑ſing conferr'd on theſe three rais'd Perſons was exceedingly greater; and one might have expected, that Lazarus and the Wi⯑dow's Son would have been eminent Mi⯑niſters of the Goſpel. But inſtead of that, their Lives afterwards were paſs'd in Ob⯑ſcurity, or, what's as bad, Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory has neglected a Report of them. What can any one hereupon think leſs, than that the Favour of the Miracles was loſt on undeſerving Perſons, which I ab⯑hor the Thoughts of; or that their Stories [18] are but Parables, which I rather incline to.

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

It's ſomewhat ſtrange, that we hear no more of the after-Fame and Life of any of the diſeaſed Perſons, whom Jeſus mi⯑raculouſly cured; excepting of the Wo⯑man, heal'd of an Iſſue of Blood; who, tho' ſhe ſpent ALL ſhe had, even ALL her Living upon Phyſicians; yet out of the Remains of it erected, ſays ¹⁸ Eu⯑ſebius, at Caeſarea Philippi, two moſt coſt⯑ly Statues of Braſs, to the Memory of [19] Jeſus and of herſelf, and of the Miracle wrought by him; which Dr. Whitby ¹⁹ as if he was tainted with Infidelity, endea⯑vours to make an idle Tale of. But ex⯑cepting, I ſay this Story of this Woman, we hear nothing of any other heal'd Per⯑ſon; which is Matter of ſome Specula⯑tion: But that the Perſons rais'd from the dead ſhould not at all be mention'd in Hiſtory for their Labours and Lives afterwards to the Honour of Jeſus, is ab⯑ſolutely unaccountable. Whether ſuch a profound Silence in Hiſtory about them be not ſhocking of the Credit of the Mira⯑cles, let our Divines conſider. I am of Opinion that if Jeſus really rais'd theſe Per⯑ſons from the dead; this and no other Rea⯑ſon, in the Providence of God, can be gi⯑ven for the Silence of Eccleſiaſtical Hiſto⯑ry about them afterwards, than to make dead-letter'd Stories of their Miracles, in order to turn our Heads entirely to the Conſideration of their myſtical Significa⯑tion, without which the Letter, for the Argument before us, is deſerving of no Regard nor Credit. But

3. By way of Objection to the Letter of theſe three Miracles, let us conſider the [20] Condition of the Perſons rais'd from the dead; and whether they were at all pro⯑per Perſons for Jeſus to work ſuch a Mi⯑racle upon, in Teſtimony of his divine Power. If they were improper Perſons according to the Letter, it's not credible that He, who was the Wiſdom of God, would raiſe them; or if he did, it was becauſe they were the propereſt to make myſtical Emblems of their Stories.

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

[21] Jairus's Daughter was an inſignificant Girl of twelve Years old: And there could be no Reaſon for raiſing her, but to wipe Sorrow from the Hearts, and Tears from the Eyes of her Parents, who ought to have been better Philoſophers, than im⯑moderately to grieve for her. And was here a good Reaſon for Jeſus to interpoſe with his Almighty Powe? No certainly; a Lecture of Patience and Reſignation in this Caſe had been enough. And tho Jeſus could raiſe her from the dead; yet for as much as that Favour was to be con⯑ferr'd but on a few; and his Miracles ought to be uſeful as well as conſpicuous, ſhe ſhould have been paſs'd by, as an im⯑proper Object of his Power, in Compari⯑ſon of many others, preſently to be na⯑med. If therefore a better Reaſon, than what's diſcernible in the Letter, is not to be fetch'd from the Myſtery; I can't ſup⯑poſe that Jeſus, the Wiſdom of God would raiſe this Girl; but that the modern Be⯑leif of her Reſuſcitation, excluſive of the myſtical Signification, is, as ſhall be by and by argued, altogether groundleſs.

The Widow of Naim's Son too was but a [...] Youth, and whether any thing older than the Girl above is doubt⯑ful; but his Life certainly was of no more Importance to the World after, than [22] before his Reſurrection. And why was he then one of the three to be rais'd from the dead? Why had he this Honour done him, before others of greater Age, Worth, and Uſe to MankInd? Some will ſay, for the Comfort of his ſorrowful Mother. And is this Reaſon ſufficient? A Diſcourſe on the Pleaſures of Abraham's Boſom, where ſhe would e'er long meet her Son, had been enough to chear her Heart. If therefore the Fathers don't help me to a ſolid myſtical Reaſon, why the Son and only Son of a Widow was to be rais'd by Jeſus, as they were carrying him to his Bu⯑rial, I'll not believe, He would raiſe this dead Boy rather than many others, for the Manifeſtation of his Power; but that the Story of his Reſurrection, as ſhall ſoon be reaſonably proved, was all Sham and Cheat.

Lazarus indeed was Jeſus's Friend, whom he Loved; and as I will not que⯑ſtion but Jeſus's Affection was wiſely and deſervedly placed on him; ſo here, to Appearance, was a better Reaſon for the raiſing of him, than of either of the other Two. But even this Reaſon, ſuppoſing Jeſus was to raiſe but three Perſons, is not ſufficient againſt the Caſes of many others, that may be put for the Mani⯑feſtation of his Power, for the Illuſtration of his Wiſdom and Goodneſs, and for the [23] Converſion of Unbelievers: Conſequently, if this Story of Lazarus be not parabolical, the litteral Fact is diſputable, and obnoxi⯑ous to ſuch Exceptions preſently to be ob⯑ſerved againſt it, as will not be eaſily got over.

Jeſus rais'd the dead, and wrought o⯑ther Miracles, ſay our Divines often, not only to manifeſt his own Power and Glo⯑ry, but his Love to Mankind, and his Inclination to do them good: For which Reaſon his Miracles are uſeful and bene⯑ficial as well as ſtupendous and ſupernatu⯑ral Acts, on purpoſe to conciliate Men's Affections as well as their Faith to him. On this Topick our Divines are copious and rhetorical, when they write on Jeſus's Miracles, as if no more uſeful and won⯑derful Works could be done, than what he did. And I do agree with them, that (what Reaſon beſpeaks) the Miracles of a pretended Author of Religion ought to be both as uſeful and great as well as could be. But ſuch were not Jeſus's Miracles according to Letter, and leaſt of all his Acts of raiſing the dead. For if we conſider the Perſons rais'd by him, we ſhall find, he could hardly have exerted his Power on any of leſs Importance to the World, both before and after their Reſurrection. A young Girl indeed is fitter to be rais'd [24] than a decripid old Woman, who by the Courſe of Nature was to return to Cor⯑ruption again, as ſoon as reſtored to Life: And a Boy rather than an infirm old Man for the ſame Reaſon: And Lazarus the Friend of Jeſus, perhaps, and but perhaps, rather than his profeſs'd Enemy. But what are theſe three Perſons in Compari⯑ſon of many others of other Circum⯑ſtances? Inſtead of a Boy, and a Girl and even of Lazarus, who were all of no Conſequence to the Publick, either before or ſince; I ſhould think, Jeſus ought to have rais'd an uſeful Magiſtrate, whoſe Life had beed a common Bleſſing; an in⯑duſtrious Merchant, whoſe Death was a publick Loſs; a Father of a numerous Family, which for a comfortable Subſiſt⯑ance depended on him. Such dead Ob⯑jects of Jeſus's Power and Compaſſion could not but offer themſelves, during the Time of his Miniſtry, and if he meant to be as uſeful as he could, in his Miracles, he would have laid hold on them. If a few Perſons only were to be rais'd from the dead, the foreſaid were the propereſt, whoſe Reſurrection and Return to Life would have begotten the Applauſe as well as the Wonder of the World; would moſt extenſively have ſpread Jeſus's Fame; and would have gain'd him the Love and [25] Diſcipleſhip of all that heard of his being ſo great a Benefactor to Mankind. Such Inſtances of his Power would have de⯑monſtrated him to be a moſt benign as well as a mighty Agent; and none in In⯑tereſt or Prejudice could have open'd their Mouths againſt him, eſpecially if the Per⯑ſons rais'd from the dead were ſelected upon the Recommendation of the People of this or that City. But that an inſigni⯑ficant Boy and a Girl, (forſooth!) and the obſcure Lazarus, are preferr'd by Jeſus, to ſuch publick and more deſerving Per⯑ſons is unaccountable. Their Story there⯑fore, upon this Argument, ſavours of Ro⯑mance and Fraud; and unleſs the Myſtery help us to, what the Letter can't, a good Reaſon for Jeſus's Conduct here, the Mi⯑racles may be hence juſtly queſtion'd, and the Credibility of their Report diſputed.

But now I am ſpeaking of the Fitneſs and Unfitneſs of deceaſed Perſons to have this grand Miracle wrought on them; it comes into my Head to ask, why Jeſus rais'd not John the Baptiſt to Life again? A Perſon of greater Merits, and more worthy of the Favour of Jeſus and of this Miracle, could not be. If Jeſus could raiſe any from the dead he would ſurely have raiſed him; and why did he not? This is a reaſonable Queſtion, and an [26] Anſwer ſhould be thought on for it. Was it a Thing out of Jeſus's Power? Not ſo; He was Omnipotent, and could by Force or Perſuaſion have reſcued John's Head out of the Hands of his Enemies; and the tacking it again to his Body, and the infu⯑ſing new Life into him was no more dif⯑ficult to Jeſus, than the Reſuſcitation of a ſtinking Carcaſs. If Jeſus had here exer⯑ted his Power, and rais'd his deareſt Friend and choiceſt Miniſter for the Preparation, if not Propagation of the Goſpel, none could queſtion his Ability to raiſe any others, tho he had rais'd no more. But in as much as John the Baptiſt, one of his ſingular Merits and Services to Chriſt, was overlook'd and neglected by him; and three uſeleſs and inſignificant Perſons had this Honour done them, the Facts may rea⯑ſonably be called into queſtion, and, if the Myſteries don't ſolve the Difficulty, their litteral Stories may hence be account⯑ed fooliſh, fictitious and fabulous; eſpeci⯑ally if we conſider,

4. That none of theſe three rais'd Per⯑ſons had been long enough dead to ampu⯑tate all Doubt of Jeſus's miraculous Power in their Reſurrection. As to Jairus's Daughter, ſhe was but newly expired, if at all dead, when Jeſus brought her to [27] Life again. Jeſus himſelf ſays, ſhe was but aſleep. And according to Theophanes Cerameus ²⁰, and Theophilact ²¹ there is Room to ſuſpect that this Girl was only [...] beſide herſelf. And it is not im⯑poſſible, but the paſſionate Skreams of the Feminine By-ſtanders might fright her into Fits, that bore the Appearance of Death; otherwiſe why did Jeſus turn theſe inor⯑dinate Weepers out of the Houſe, before he could bring her to her Senſes again? And why did he tell her Parents, that ſhe was only in aſleep, but to Comfort them with the Poſſibility of his awakening her out of it? Is not this deſtructive of the Miracle, and making no more of it, than what another Man might do? And is there not ſome Probability, that here's all of this Story? But ſuppoſing ſhe was really dead, yet for the ſake of an indiſputable Miracle in her Reſurrection, it muſt be granted, that ſhe ought to have been much longer, ſome Days if not Weeks, dead and buried.

As to the Widow of Naim's Son, there was ſomewhat more of the Appearance of Death in him, than in Jairus's Daughter. He was carried forth to his Burial, and ſo may be preſumed to be really a dead [28] Corpſe. But might not here be Fraud or Miſtake in the Caſe? Hiſtory and com⯑mon Fame affords Inſtances of the miſta⯑ken Deaths of Perſons, who ſometimes have been unfortunately buried alive, and at other Times happily, by one Means or other, reſtored to Life: And who knows but Jeſus, upon ſome Information or other, might ſuſpect this Youth to be in a lethargick State, and had a Mind to try, if by chafeing, &c. he could not do, what ſucceſsfully he did, bring him to his Senſes again: Or might not a Piece of Fraud be here concerted between Jeſus, a ſubtil Youth, and his Mother and others; and all the Formalities of a Death and Bu⯑rial contrived, that Jeſus, whoſe Fame for a Worker of Miracles was to be rais'd, might here have an Opportunity to make a ſhew of a grand one. The Mourning of the Widow, who had her Tears at Com⯑mand and Jeſus's caſual meeting of the Corpſe upon the Road, looks like Contri⯑vance to put the better Face upon the Matter. God forbid, that I ſhould ſuſ⯑pect, there was any Fraud of this Kind here; but of the Poſſibility of it, none can doubt. And where there is a Poſ⯑ſibility of Fraud, it is Nonſenſe, and mere Credulity to talk of a real, certain and ſtupendous Miracle, eſpecially where [29] the Juggler and pretended Worker of Mi⯑racles has been detected in ſome of his other Tricks. All that I have to ſay here to this Matter, is, that if Jeſus had a Mind to raiſe the Son of this Widow, in Teſtimony of his divine Power, he ſhould have ſuffer'd him to have been buried two or three Weeks firſt; otherwiſe, if the Myſtery don't account for Jeſus's ſtopping the Bearers of the Corpſe upon the Road, here is too much Room for ſuſpicion of Cheat in the Letter of the Story.

Lazarus's Caſe ſeems to be the leſs excep⯑tionable of the three. He had been buried four Days, and ſuppoſed to be putrified in the Opinion of his Siſter Mary, and of mo⯑dern Chriſtians: And if ſo, his Reſuſcita⯑tion was a moſt grand and indiſputable Miracle. And I could have wiſh'd, if I had not loved the Myſtery rather than the Letter, that no Cavil and Exception could have been made to it. Whether La⯑zarus, who was Jeſus's Friend and beloved Diſciple, would not come into Meaſures with his Lord, for the Defence of his Ho⯑nour, and Propagation of his Fame, Infi⯑dels, who take Chriſtianity for an Impoſ⯑ture, will not queſtion: And whether he would not conſent to be interr'd alive, in a hollow Cave, where there was only a Stone laid at the Mouth of it, as long as [30] a Man could faſt, none of them will doubt. Four Days was almoſt too long for a Man to faſt without danger of Health; but if thoſe four Days are number'd according to the Arithmetick of Jeſus's three Days in his Grave, they are reducible to two Days and three Nights, which Time, if no Victuals were ſecretly convey'd with him, a Man might faſt in Lazarus's Cave. As to the ſtinking of Lazarus's Carcaſs: that, Infidels will ſay, was but the Aſſertion of his Siſter beforehand, like a Prologue to a Farce. None of the Spectators at his Reſurrection ſay one Word of his ſtinking. And as to the Weepings and Lamentations of Jeſus and of Lazarus's Siſters, they will ſay that was all Sham and Counterfeit, the better to carry on the Juggle of a feign'd Reſurrection. And what's worſt of all, they will ſay, that tho Jeſus did call La⯑zarus forth with a loud Voice, as if he had been as deaf as a dead Man; yet his Face was bound about with a Napkin, ſo that the Spectators could not diſcern what was of the Eſſence of the Miracle, the Change of his Countenance from a dead to a live one, which is a plain Sign, that it was all Fraud and Impoſture.

God forbid, that I ſhould have the ſame ſenſe with Infidels, of this Matter; but to be juſt to their Suggeſtions and Imagina⯑tions [31] here, I muſt needs ſay, there are ſome other unhappy Circumſtances, preſently to be conſider'd, in this Story, which, if they are not emblematical, make it the moſt notorious Cheat and Impoſture that ever was put upon Mankind. In the mean Time, from what is here argued, it is plain, that Lazarus was not ſo long dead and buried, as that there is no Room to doubt of the Miracle of his Reſurrection.

Now whether theſe Arguments againſt theſe three Miracles, drawn from the Shortneſs of the Time, in which theſe Perſons lay for dead, have any Force in them, let our Divines conſider. If no⯑thing of all this is in their Opinion affect⯑ing of the Credit of the Miracles; yet they muſt allow, that Jeſus, if he could raiſe the dead, might have made Choice of other Inſtances of Perſons, more unqueſti⯑onably dead, who had lain longer in their Graves, and were in a viſible State of Putre⯑faction. And if this grand Miracle of raiſing the dead was to be wrought by Jeſus for the Manifeſtation of his Glory, and in Teſtimony of his Authority; he ſhould have exerciſed his Power on ſome ſuch Perſons, nominated by the Magiſtrates of this or that City, who with the People ſhould be preſent at the miraculous Ope⯑ration, beholding the putrified Bodies, [32] (without a Napkin before their Faces) and how they were ſuddenly enliven'd and in⯑vigorated with new Fleſh, after the Simi⯑litude of their priſtine Form, when in Health and full Strength. Becauſe that Je⯑ſus rais'd not ſome ſuch Perſons to Life, I muſt take the Stories of the three Mira⯑cles before us to be but typical of more myſterious Works; or believe them for the Arguments above to be downright Cheats and Fables. And what is enough to induce a modern Divine to this Opini⯑on. Is

5. The Conſideration, that none of theſe rais'd Perſons did or could, after the Return of their Souls to their Bodies, tell any Tales of their ſeparate Exiſtence o⯑therwiſe the Evangeliſts had not been ſi⯑lent in this main Point, which is of the Eſſence of Chriſtianity. Are not our Di⯑vines here reduced to an unhappy Dilemma, either to deny the ſeparate Exiſtence of the Soul, or the precedent Deaths of theſe rais'd Perſons? As Chriſtians, we profeſs to believe both, which ſeemingly are in⯑compatiable; or the Evangeliſts had made ſuch a Relation, as their return'd Souls had given of the other World. Was any Per⯑ſon, in this Age, to be rais'd to Life, that had been any time dead; the firſt Thing [33] that his Friends and Acquaintance would enquire of him, would be to know, where his Soul had been; in what Company; and how it had fared with him; and Hiſ⯑torians would certainly record his Narra⯑tive. The ſame Curioſity could not but poſſeſs People of old, when theſe Miracles were wrought; and if the rais'd Perſons had told any Stories of their ſeparate Ex⯑iſtance, the Evangeliſts no leſs unqueſ⯑tionally would have reported them, in as much as ſuch a Report would have been, not only a Confirmation of that Doctrine, which is of the Eſſence of our Religion; but an abſolute Confutation of the Sadducees and Sceptiſts of that Age, and of the Ma⯑terialiſts of this. But this their Silence in this Caſe is of bad Conſequence, either to the Doctrine of the Soul's Exiſtence in Se⯑paration from the Body, or to theſe Mira⯑cles themſelves, ſince we muſt hereupon almoſt neceſſarily hold, that theſe rais'd Perſons were not at all dead, or that their Souls dy'd with them.

The Author of a Sermon, aſcrib'd to St. Auguſtin tells us ²² that Lazarus af⯑ter [34] his Reſurrection made a large Report of Hell, where he had been: But as this is a mere Fiction of that Author, without the leaſt Authority from Scripture; ſo I pre⯑ſume it will be accounted a Blunder in him, to ſuppoſe the Soul of Lazarus, the Friend and beloved of Jeſus, was in Hell. The Soul of Jeſus indeed, for Reaſons beſt known to himſelf, upon his Death, de⯑ſcended into Hell, when ſome think he ſhould rather have gone, with the penitent Thief, into Paradiſe. But the Thoughts, that any of Jeſus's Friends ſhould go to Hell, I ſuppoſe will not be born with; or what will become of the Preachers of this Age, who would be accounted Men of that Denomination. And if Lazarus's Soul had been in Paradiſe, it was hardly a good Work in Jeſus to recall it, for thir⯑ty Years afterwards, to the Miſeries and Troubles of this wicked World. I wiſh therefore our Divines could determine, where Lazarus's Soul was for the four Days of his Burial; becauſe I can't poſſi⯑bly conceive any thing elſe, than that he was not really dead, or that his Soul dy'd with him, or went to a bad place, other⯑wiſe after his Reſurrection he had never [35] abſconded for fear of the Jews, as if he was unwilling to die again, and return to the Place from whence he came.

But however it was with the Souls of theſe rais'd Perſons before their Re-union to their Bodies, here is another Difficulty and Objection againſt theſe Miracles; and how will our Divines get over it? Perhaps they may ſay, that tho' theſe rais'd Perſons were before really dead; yet their Souls were not as yet gone to their Places prepared of God for them, but continued hovering about their Bodies, like the Flame about the Snuff of a Candle, with deſires

to be again rejoin'd to them. And with⯑all my Heart let this Anſwer paſs, if our Divines and Infidels can ſo agree upon it. As for my own Opinion, it is this, that theſe Miracles of Jeſus are Parables, and that it was beſide the Purpoſe of the Parable, and of the Evangeliſts to ſay any thing of the Place and State of the Soul upon its Separation from the Body; otherwiſe the Letter of their Stories is manifeſtly ob⯑noxious to the Objection above, or the Deaths of theſe pretended rais'd Perſons, upon Chriſtian Principles, are queſtionable. But

[36] 6. And laſtly, Let us conſider the in⯑trinſick Abſurdities and Incredibilities of the ſeveral Stories of theſe three Miracles. And ſuch Abſurdities ſhall we find in them, that, if they had been intended as Teſti⯑monies of Jeſus's divine Power, had never been inſerted in their Narratives.

As to Jairus's Daughter, and her Reſur⯑rection from the dead, St. Hilary ²³ hints, that there was no ſuch Perſon as Jairus whoſe Name was fictitious, and coin'd with a ſpiritual Signification for the Uſe of the Parable; and he gives this Reaſon, and a good Reaſon it is, why he thought ſo, becauſe it is elſewhere ²⁴ intimated in the Goſpel, that none of the Rulers of the Synagogues confeſſedly be⯑lieved on Jeſus. Is not here then a ſtum⯑bling-Block at the Threſhold of the Let⯑ter of this Story? But why did Jeſus ſay, this Girl was but in a Sleep? If he was going to work a Miracle in her Reſuſcita⯑tion, he ſhould not have call'd Death, [37] Sleep; but if others had been of a contra⯑ry Opinion, he ſhould firſt have convinced them of the Certainty of her Death, be⯑fore he did the great Work on her. And why did he charge the Parents of the Girl not to ſpeak of the Miracle? If he meant it as a Teſtimony of his divine Power, he ſhould rather have exhorted them, in juſtice to himſelf to publiſh it, and make it well known. And why, as St. Ambroſe ²⁵ puts the Queſtion, did he turn the People out of the Houſe, before he would raiſe her? The more Witneſſes are pre⯑ſent at a Miracle, the better it is atteſted, and the more readily believed by others; and who ſhould be preſent at the Miracle rather than thoſe who were incredulous of Jeſus's divine Power? Are not all theſe Circumſtances, ſo many Abſurdities, which, if they are not to be accounted for in the Myſtery, are ſo far deſtructive of the Let⯑ter, as that it is Nonſenſe and Folly in our Divines to talk of a Miracle here, againſt Jeſus's expreſs Word and Prohibition to the contrary.

As to the Story of the Widow of Naim's Son, excepting what is before obſerved of [38] 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 over⯑throw the Credility of the Miracle) I have here no more Fault to find in the Letter of it.

But the long Story of Lazarus is ſo brim⯑ful 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, re⯑ſerving 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.

[39] Firſt then, obſerve that Jeſus is ſaid to have wept. and groan'd for the Death of Lazarus: But why ſo, ſays ²⁶ 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 Com⯑pany 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 be⯑came him than ſuch childiſh and effemi⯑nate Grief, which not only makes him a mean and poor-ſpirited Mortal; but is a groſs Abſurdity and Incredibility upon Con⯑ſideration of his Will and Power to fetch [40] Lazarus to Life again. If there be not, according to the Fathers, Myſtery in theſe Tears of Jeſus, they are a fooliſh and un⯑natural Prelude to a Farce, he was acting in the pretended Reſuſcitation of Lazarus.

Some antient Catholicks, not being ap⯑priſed of the Myſtery; were ſo offended at theſe Words, Jeſus wept, that, as Epi⯑phanius ²⁷ 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 Re⯑jection of the Miracle.

Secondly, Obſerve that John ſays, it was with a loud Voice, that Jeſus call'd Laza⯑rus forth out of his Cave. And why, I pray, a louder Voice than ordinary? Was dead Lazarus deafer than Jairus's Daugh⯑ter, 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 gi⯑ven for this loud Voice here; but how ab⯑ſurd it is according to the Letter, Infidels will judge, till Chriſtians can aſſign a bet⯑ter. The dead can hear the Whiſper of the Almighty, if Power go along with it, [41] 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 hu⯑man Repreſentations of it.

Thirdly, Becauſe that a Miracle ſhould be well guarded againſt all Suſpicion of Fraud, I was thinking to make it an Ab⯑ſurdity, 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 Laza⯑rus'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, [42] and how the Buſineſs was tranſacted: Whereupon the Chief Prieſts and Phari⯑ſees 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 La⯑zarus 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 con⯑tinued with his Diſciples; otherwiſe in all Probability they had been all ſacrificed.

I dare not argue upon theſe Circum⯑ſtances, 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 La⯑zarus's Reſurrection, and ſent me a Letter upon it, deſiring me to publiſh it, and ex⯑hort 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.

So ends the Letter of my Friend, the Jewiſh Rabbi, which conſiſts of calm and ſedate Reaſoning, or I would not have publiſh'd it; for I am reſolv'd he ſhall no more impoſe upon me with his ludicrous and bantering Stuff, like his Satirical In⯑vective againſt Jeſus's Miracle of turning Water into Wine, ſo offenſive to our Godly Biſhops. And becauſe it conſiſts of calm and ſedate Reaſoning, which Biſhop Smal⯑broke allows of, I hope his Lordſhip will take it into Conſideration, and write an Anſwer to it, which I, without the Help of the Myſtery, can't do.

If the foreſaid Letter be offenſive to our Clergy, who don't judge it meet that the Jews ſhould take this Liberty to write againſt the Miracles of our Saviour, and in Vindication of their own disbelief of Chriſ⯑tianity, I beg of them, for the Love of Jeſus, not to let their Diſpleaſure be viſi⯑bly ſeen; becauſe the Jews will then laugh in their Sleeves, and perhaps openly inſult and triumph upon it: But if they will pri⯑vately acquaint me with their Diſpleaſure [56] at it, I'll promiſe them to hold no more Correſpondence with ſuch Jewiſh Rabbies; neither will I ever hereafter publiſh any other Objections againſt Chriſt's Religion and Mi⯑racles, than what come from the Hoten⯑tots and Pawawers: and then it will be ſtrange, if our dignified Clergy, of moſt grave and demure Looks, can't ſolidly confute the worſt, that ſuch ignorant and illiterate People can urge againſt them.

And thus have I done with my Objec⯑tions againſt the Letter of theſe three Mi⯑racles. If our Divines ſhall think there is little or nothing of Force in them; then an Anſwer, which I ſhould be glad to ſee, may the more eaſily be made to them. As for my part, without being conceited of the Acuteneſs and Strength of any of the Objections, I think it impoſſible ſatis⯑factorily to reply to them, without having Recourſe to the Opinions of the Fathers, that theſe three Miracles, whether they were ever litterally tranſacted or not, are now but emblematical Repreſentations of myſterious and more wonderful Opera⯑tions to be perform'd by Jeſus.

To the Fathers then let us go for their myſtical Interpretation of theſe Miracles. St. Auguſtin, in his Introduction to a Ser⯑mon on the Widow of Naim's Son, ſays [57] ²⁹ thus, "There are ſome ſo ſilly as to ſtand amazed at the corporal Miracles of Jeſus, and have no Conſideration of his greater and ſpiritual Miracles, ſigni⯑fied by them: but others who are wiſer can hear of the Things that Jeſus did on Men's Bodys, without being aſtoniſh'd at them, chuſing rather to contemplate with Admiration his more wonderful Works on Men's Souls, after the ſimili⯑tude of bodily Miracles. And theſe are the Chriſtians that conform their Studies to the Will of our Lord; who would have his corporal Miracles, ſpiritually interpreted: For He wrought not Mi⯑cles in the Fleſh, for the ſake of ſuch Miracles abſtractedly conſider'd; but [58] that, if they were ſurpriſing to ſome Mens Senſes, they ſhould be more aſto⯑niſhing to the Underſtanding of others, who apprehend the ſpiritual Meaning of them. And they who by Contempla⯑tion can attain to the myſtical Signifi⯑cation of Jeſus's Miracles, are the beſt Scholars and moſt learn'd Diſciples in his Church and School. And, (ſpeaking of the Abſurdity of Jeſus's curſing the Figtree according to the Letter) preſent⯑ly after ſays, that this he obſerv'd, that he might perſuade his Hearers to think, that our Lord Jeſus therefore wrought Miracles, that he might ſignify ſomewhat by them, which he would have his Diſ⯑ciples to learn and conſider of. Come now, ſays he, and let us ſee what we are miſtically and ſpiritually to underſtand by the Stories of the three Perſons rais'd from the dead."

There are two Ways, that the Fathers took in the moral and myſtical Interpreta⯑tion of theſe Miracles: One was from the Number three, and their Difference in Mag⯑nitude. According to which they ſaid with St. Auguſtin ³⁰ that theſe three [59] ſorts of dead Perſons, ſo rais'd to Life, are Figures of three ſorts of Sinners, whom Jeſus raiſeth from the death of Sin to the Life of Righteouſneſs. They who have conceiv'd Sin in their Hearts, and have not brought it forth into Act; are figured by Jairus's Daughter, who lay dead in the Houſe of her Father, and was not taken forth to her Burial. Others, who after Cogitation and Conſent, paſs into actual Sin are figured by the Young Man, carried towards his Grave. But thoſe Sinners, who are habituated and long ac⯑cuſtom'd to Sin, are like Lazarus bury'd, and in a ſtinking Condition under the Cor⯑ruption [60] of it; whom Jeſus, for all that, with the loud Voice of the Praedication of his Goſpel, will call forth out of the Death and Grave of their Sins to a new Life. So does St. Auguſtin make theſe three dead Perſons and their Reſurrections, Emblems of the ſaid three Sorts of Sin⯑ners, who are dead in Treſpaſſes and Sins, and by the Power of Jeſus quicken'd to a Life of Righteouſneſs. And to this Opi⯑nion of St. Auguſtin, do St. Ambroſe, Euſe⯑bius Gallicanus, and Venerable Bede agree. And according to this Notion of theſe Miracles they deſcend to a particular Ex⯑plication of the ſeveral Parts of their Sto⯑ries. As to give you two or three In⯑ſtances.

The People who were turn'd out of the Houſe, upon the raiſing of Jarius's Daugh⯑ter, which is an Abſurdity according to the Letter are, ſays ³¹ Bede, a Multitude of wordly and wicked Thoughts, which, except they are excluded from the Secrets of the Heart, are a Hindrance of the Re⯑ſurrection of a Sinner to a new Life.

[61] The Bearers of the Young Man ³² to his Burial are Vices, evil Spirits, Haere⯑ticks, and Seducers; and the Widow, his Mother, to whom he was reſtored, is the Church, who mourns for the Death of ſuch Sinners, as are typified by that Young Man.

Jeſus's weeping for dead Lazarus, which is an Abſurdity according to the Letter, is a Sign ³³ of the deplorable State, that habitual Sinners are in, enough to excite the Sorrows and Mournings of good Chriſtians, who have the Spirit of Chriſt, for them. And the Stone that lay at the Grave of Lazarus, is ³⁴ a figure of the Hardneſs of the Heart of ſuch a Sinner [62] which muſt be taken away before Jeſus will call him to a new Life. So do the Fathers moraliſe and allegoriſe every Mi⯑nute Circumſtance of theſe three Miracles, as any one, who will conſult them, may find, and ſave me the Trouble of a tedious Recital of their Authorities.

But the other myſtical Way of interpre⯑ting theſe three Miracles is by making them Types of three great Events at the Time of Chriſt's ſpiritual Advent. Accor⯑dingly the raiſing of Jairus's Daughter is a Type of the Converſion of the Jews at that Day, as Euſebius Gallicanus ³⁵ and venerable Bede ³⁶ and others expound it. By Jairus, the Ruler of a Synagogue; is meant Moſes ³⁷; and by his Daugh⯑ter is to be underſtood the Jewiſh Church, which, being at preſent in a State of Spi⯑ritual Death, will be revived and conver⯑ted in the Perfection of Time. And to the myſtical Reſurrection or Reſtitution of the Jewiſh Synagogue, call'd Jairus's [63] Daughter, will Jeſus come ³⁸ at the ſame Time he heals the Woman of the Church of her Iſſue of Blood. And this is the Reaſon that the Stories of theſe two Miracles are blended together by the Evan⯑geliſts, with their ſynchronical Numbers of the Age of the Girl and of the Diſeaſe of the Woman; becauſe they are Types of that bleſſed Scene of Affairs at the Conver⯑ſion of the Jews, when the Fulneſs of the Gentiles is come in. Concerning which bleſſed ſtate of the Church, Origen ³⁹ ſays, Jeſus wrought many Miracles, by Way of Type and Figure.

Among all the Miracles that Jeſus wrought, and are recorded by the Evan⯑geliſts, I think, as far as I have had Occa⯑ſion to obſerve, the Fathers are moſt ſcan⯑ty in their Interpretations of that of the [64] Widow of Naim's Son: Excepting what is before noted of his being a figure of a Sinner dead in actual, tho not habitual Sin, I find very little. But if Origen's Comments on this Miracle had been ex⯑tant, I dare ſay he would have given us this following Interpretation of it. This Widow, he would have call'd the Church; and her only Son or maſculine Offspring, he would have call'd the Spiritual Senſe of the Scriptures, which is now dead, and that the Miniſters of the Letter, who are his Bearers, are for interring him within the Earth of the Letter: But Jeſus, upon his Spiritual Advent will put a ſtop to the Intention of ſuch Bearers, by reviving the Spiritual Senſe of the Scriptures; and by reſtoring it, like a quicken'd Son, to the Comfort of his Mother, the Church; who has been in a ſorrowful and lamentable Condition upon the Death and Want of it. This, I am ſure, would be Origen's Interpretation of this Miracle, which, if I had Room here, by a little Circumlocu⯑tion, I could prove.

As to Lazarus's Reſurrection, it is in the Opinion of the Fathers ⁴⁰ a Type of the [65] general and myſtical Reſurrection of Man⯑kind in the Perfection of Time. But this is a moſt copious Subject; and unleſs I could here throughly handle it, I had much better ſay nothing.

And thus have I done with the three Reſurrection Stories. If the Convocation, next Seſſion, would determine by an Or⯑thodox Vote, whether Jeſus rais'd any more, than the ſaid three Perſons, from the dead or not; I would preſent them with a new and more entertaining Chain of Thoughts againſt theſe Miracles; ſuch a Chain of Thoughts, as, upon the Con⯑cluſion, let them hold which Side of the Queſtion they pleaſe, will neceſſarily in⯑duce us to hold the myſtical Meaning of theſe Miracles, or to grant that Jeſus rais'd none from the dead at all.

My next and laſt Diſcourſe on Jeſus's Miracles ſhall be againſt the Letter of the Story of his own Reſurrection, in which, if our Biſhops will keep their Temper and Patience, till I publiſh it, I'll cut out ſuch a Piece of Work for our Boy⯑lean [66] Lectures, as ſhall hold them tug, ſo long as the Miniſtry of the Letter and an Hireling Prieſthood ſhall laſt. If Chriſt be not riſen, then, according to the Inference of St. Paul, is their Preaching vain; and why ſhould the People be any longer charg'd with the Maintenance of an igno⯑rant and idle Order of Men, to no Uſe and Purpoſe?

If I had not had Experience of it, I could never have believed that, for all the ludicrous Nature of theſe Diſcourſes, our dignified Clergy could have been ſo fooliſh or malicious as to proſecute me for an In⯑fidel and Blaſphemer upon them. How a Man may be miſtaken in himſelf! I took my ſelf for a real Advocate for the Truth of Chriſtianity; and was ſo vain as to ima⯑gine theſe Diſcourſes tended to a Demon⯑ſtration of Jeſus's Meſſiahſhip: And tho the Biſhop of London may be of a contrary Opinion, yet I am ſtill ſo conceited of my Ability to defend our Religion, that I'll ſtake my Life againſt his Biſhoprick, which I'll not be troubled with, if I win it, that he can't form an Objection againſt Chriſtianity, which I can't ſolidly confute, and make our Readers merry too, with his Weakneſs and Impertinence in it. But perhaps it may be unbecoming of his Lordſhip's Character, and againſt the [67] Grain, to make an Objection to that Re⯑ligion, which he finds much temporal, as well as ſome ſpiritual Comfort in the Pro⯑feſſion of; I will therefore deſcend to ano⯑ther Propoſal, viz. If he'll but publiſh an Anſwer to the Jewiſh Rabbi's Letter in this Diſcourſe, and vouchſafe me the plea⯑ſure of a Reply to him; then (to ſave the Civil Magiſtrate's Trouble) I will ſuffer any Puniſhment that in his Clemency he ſhall think fit to inflict on me, for what's paſt. Oh, what a Hazard do I here run of Life or Liberty!

Some Chriſtians, in my Caſe, would think it a ſad Misfortune to be odiouſly repreſented as an Infidel and Blaſphemer; but I, in Temper and Principle, deſpiſe ſuch Obloquies, Slanders and Defama⯑tions; and would not give a Ruſh to re⯑move them, ſo long as I had the Anſwer of a good Conſcience that I was unde⯑ſerving of them: But conſidering, that it is the Duty of a Chriſtian to ſeek the Peace and Friendſhip of all about him, and eſpe⯑cially of our good Biſhops, who, in Compaſ⯑ſion to the Danger they think my Soul is in, have taken zealous and laudable Pains with the Civil Magiſtrate for my Con⯑viction and Converſion; I do here, for the ſake of a Reconciliation with their Lord⯑ſhips and other good People, make a for⯑mal [68] and ſolemn Confeſſion of my Chri⯑ſtian Faith, which tho' I don't expreſs in the Words of the Apoſtical, Nicene or Athanaſian Creeds; yet will do it in ſuch Terms as will be a Demonſtration that at the Bottom I am ſound as a Roch. Be it known then to all Chriſtian People, that

• Imprimis, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Miniſtry of the Letter of the Old and New Teſtament is downright Antichriſtianiſm.
• Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Miracles of Jeſus, as they are recorded by the Evangeliſts, litte⯑rally underſtood, are the lying Wonders of Antichriſt.
• Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that all oppoſition and Con⯑tradiction to ſpiritual and allegorical Inter⯑pretations of the Scripture, is the Sin of Blaſphemy againſt the Holy Ghoſt.
• Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Miniſtry of the Spi⯑rits or allegorical Interpretations of the Law and the Prophets will be the Conver⯑ſion of Jews and Gentiles.
• [69] Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Miniſtry of the Let⯑ter, and an Hireling-Prieſthood have been the Cauſe of the Infidelity and Apoſtacy of theſe latter Times.
• Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Spirit and Power of Jeſus will ſoon enter the Church and expel Hireling-Prieſts, who make Mer⯑chandiſe of the Goſpel, out of her, af⯑ter the manner he is ſuppos'd to have dri⯑ven the Buyers and Sellers out of the Tem⯑ple.

Theſe are a few Articles of that Faith, once deliver'd to the Saints of the primi⯑tive Church, which I firmly believe, and will earneſtly contend for. Now I ap⯑peal to the Chriſtian World, whether a Man of ſuch a Faith, like Heart of Oak, can be an Infidel or Blaſphemer. Upon this ingenuous Confeſſion of my Faith, which I make by way of Atonement for my paſt ſuppoſed Errors and Offences, I hope the Biſhops and all good Chriſtian People will be reconciled to me.

St. Jame's ſays, that Faith without Works is dead, and how a Man ought to how his Faith by his Works, without [70] which Faith is an empty and airy Nothing. Accordingly I am making what haſte I can to ſhow the Sincerity of my Faith by theſe my Works and Diſcourſes of this Kind. And by the Grace of God, I hope our Biſhops will find me as unmoveable as a Rock in the ſaid Faith.

According to the foreſaid Articles of this my Faith, I am ſo fully convinced, not only of the Error of the Miniſtry of the Letter, but of the Miſchiefs and Incon⯑veniences of an Hireling-Prieſthood, that, having ſet my Shoulders to the Work, I am reſolv'd, by the Help of God, to en⯑deavour to give both a Lift out of this World. This is fair and generous Warn⯑ing to our Clergy to ſit faſt, and look to their own Safety, or they may find me a ſtronger Man than they may be aware of. And tho I don't expect long to ſurvive the Accompliſhment of ſo great and glorious a Work; yet I am delightfully raviſh'd and tranſported with the Fore⯑thought and Contemplation of the Happi⯑neſs of Mankind, upon the Extinction of Eccleſiaſtical Vermin, out of God's Houſe; when the World will return to its Primo⯑genial and Paradiſaical State of Nature, Religion and Liberty; in which we ſhall be all taught of God, and have no need of fooliſh and contentious Prieſt, hired to ha⯑rangue [71] us with his Noiſe and Nonſenſe. Which bleſſed State of the World God of his infinite Mercy haſten, for the ſake of our Spiritual Meſſiah, Mediator and Re⯑deemer Jeſus Chriſt. To whom be Glory for ever, Amen.