in his whole behaviour innocent, meek, and undesigning. It is not possible, that such a person should form or countenance a contrivance to deceive or impose upon men.

If he had entertained 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 be'tween Jesus, a subtle youth, and his mother, and others ; ' and all the formalities of a death and burial be 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 entering 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 proved against him; and that Pilate himself saw clearly, that it was only out of envy and malice that the chief priests and pharisees accused him. But not to insist on this: there were no persons punished, 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 urged in the first place: Who knows but Jesus, upon some information or other, might suspect this youth to be in a lethargic state, and had a mind to try, if by chafing, &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 people to be in a combination or correspondence with

him, which is entirely inconsistent with the mean and poor circumstances of our blessed Lord in this world. Lastly, all the circumstances of the relation, the tears of the mother, (who was the most likely of any to know whether her son was in a lethargy or not,) the great number of the people at this funeral; the great company with Jesus, (who, if the meeting of the corpse was not casual, must have known it,) our Lord's coming up to the bier and touching it, without asking beforehand any questions, concur together to induce us to believe that it was a real miracle. To which might be added, that the company present were fully convinced, it was neither a contrivance, nor a cure performed by a successful and fortunate chafing, but a great and awful miracle: For" there came a fear on all, and they glorified God, saying, that a great prophet is risen up amongst us, and that God hath visited his people," Luke vii. 16.

6

We may now proceed to the story of Lazarus, which the author calls long, and says, ' Is brimful 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 equalled in all romantic history,' p. 38. Let us however examine the three or four pretended absurdities. First then, says Mr. W. Observe that Jesus is 'said to have wept and groaned for the death of Lazarus. '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. A stoical apathy had better become him than such childish and effe'minate grief,' p. 38.

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 judged right, any more than in some other reflections passed 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. Nor is there any thing therein weak and effeminate. The ancients, who by many are thought best to have understood human nature, did not think tears unmanful, or disgraceful to a man of true fortitude; as might be amply • See Dr. Harris's Remarks on the Case of Lazarus, p. 75.

shown, if needful. For my own part, I never loved stoical principles or dispositions, and I believe Jesus had as tender sentiments as any man. Supposing then the death of Lazarus, and the affection Jesus had for him to have been the cause of these tears, I see no absurdity in them. But there were other things before Jesus of an affecting kind, which might have drawn forth these tears of compassion. He might at that time be affected with the thought of the many afflictions, to which human nature is liable in this state: or he might be affected with the excess of sorrow, which the sisters of Lazarus and other persons then present seem to have showed on this occasion.

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 was also just matter of concern, that the faith of the people with her was so far from answering the proofs he had given of his power.

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 showed, they did not fully believe him to be the Christ, though he had given more than sufficient proof of it. It is also highly probable,

a There are other places also, in which our Lord is said to have been angry or grieved: the cause or occasion of which grief or anger appears plainly to be the same with that here assigned by me of his groaning, Mark iii. 5. "And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts;" See Mark viii. 12.

that our blessed Lord was now touched with the thought of their continued future unbelief, and the miseries it would bring upon them. As they had not admitted a full conviction of his character from the works they had already seen him do, so he foresaw they would not be convinced neither by the great work he was now going to do in raising Lazarus to life, but would after all persist in their obstinate malice and unbelief. And supposing Jesus to have really done those things which are told of him in the gospels, I think no one can deny, but that the hardness of heart which was in that people was matter of just grief to any wise and good man.

Secondly, observe,' says the author, p. 40. that John 'says, it was with a loud voice, that Jesus called 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 performed 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," Exod. xiv. 16. And when they had passed through, “God said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians,” ver. 26. The "stretching the hand" did not divide the sea, but the divine power that accompanied that action. Nevertheless the action was of great use to convince the people, that the dividing or returning of the waters, which immediately followed thereupon, was not a casual, natural event, but that God was with Moses their leader. The same thing may be said of any other external actions made use of by Moses, or other ancient prophets. Jesus in like manner, when he intended a miracle, sometimes laid his hands on the person to be cured; or else said, Be thou clean, be thou healed, or used some such other words; that the people might be assured, that the cure was wrought by him, and might believe that God had sent him. For this reason, when he raised Jairus's daughter," he took her by the hand," and said unto her, "Damsel, arise." And when he raised the widow's son at Nain," he said; Young man, I say unto thee, arise." And when he raised Lazarus," he cried with

a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth." There is no absurdity in the loudness of the voice. It well became so solemn and awful an event. When he raised Jairus's daughter, there was no occasion for a loud voice; she being raised to life in the chamber where she lay, where there were no more than five persons present. But at Lazarus's grave a loud voice was not at all improper, when there was by a great multitude of people, that all might know Lazarus was raised to life by Jesus. Whether Jesus spoke with a loud voice when he raised the widow of Nain's son is not related, and we are under no obligation to conjecture. I think, Jesus might speak in what voice he pleased upon such great occasions as these. There can be no cavils formed, but what are at first sight unreasonable.

6

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 how'ever this was, they [the spectators] could not but take no'tice 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.

6

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 civilized people out of decency cover the face of a corpse 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 ordered 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 corpse. Any meddling with the body beforehand might have caused some suspicion, but now there was none at all. And the napkin is a circumstance I am very glad St. John did not forget. It very much corroborates other proofs of Lazarus's real death.

Fourthly and lastly, Observe, St. John says, ver. 45, "" that many of the Jews, who had seen the things that Jesus