to produce fuch a Cure. Jefus only touched this Man's Eyes a fecond Time: the Repetition of the Gesture had of itself no more Virtue than the Repetition of the Word; but the Gefture ferving to point out that the Virtue which cured the blind Man proceeded from our Saviour ; the Cure, which was proportioned to the double Motion of his Hand, fhewed, in a striking Manner, that it iffued from him alone. Thus, in Nature, two Phænomena which increase and diminish in the fame Proportion, induce us to judge that the one is the Cause or the Effect of the other.

*/

Our Author pretends that Jefus Chrift made ufe of a Gradation in his Manner of performing this Cure, and that "in order to be the "more cried up*." But according to Mr. Rouffeau's Principles, the making use of a Gradation adapted to throw Doubts upon the Miracle, was not the Way to be fo cried up. The Doubts are thefe; "Nature ne"ver difputes with her Master: he has no "Need of Effort or Perfeverance to make "himself obeyed; nay, he has no Need to fpeak; his Will is fufficient." To em

*Note on page 95.

+ P. 90.

ploy

ploy a Gradation, or to pronounce a Word, or use a Gesture therefore in this Cure, was by no means the Way to make himself cried up; unless it be faid that this Gefture, this Word, this Gradation ferved only to render the Prodigy more fenfible and more palpable. But then, why is it advanced, that all this" fuits not with a fu

pernatural Operation ?" Was that fuperfluous which was calculated to make it the more remarkable?

Mr. Rouffeau judges feverely of the Gofpel Miracles. If they are related in a Manner which feems, in fome Refpects, to bring them near to the Courfe of Nature; this, according to his Account, fuits not with fupernatural Operations. And if the Circumftances of the Narration leave no Room for fuch a Doubt, they appear to him exaggerated; he fufpects them of a fmall Share of Amplification. But what I have said sufficiently demonftrates that these his Complaints are equally ill grounded.

1

Of the Refurrection of Lazarus.

HE Doubts propofed by our Au

TH

thor concerning the Refurrection of Lazarus, are not more difficult to be refolved. "The Miracles of the Gospel,

66

fays he, are not fuch that they are natųrally impoffible. The Refurrection of "a dead Perfon leaves Doubts in Men's "Minds, because a dead Perfon may not "be dead. Lazarus might not be the first "Man who had been buried alive. He "was in the Sepulchre for four Days. "Who counted them? not Jefus, who "was abfent. He fmelt already: How "do you know it? his Sifter fays fo; this "is all the Proof. Difguft might have "made any other Woman fay as much, " even though it had not been true.”

This is, to me, the most troublesome Paffage in this Letter. The Author feems in it to fufpect the Evangelift of Credulity at least, if not of Difingenuity. But is there any Ground for fuch Sufpicions? "A dead Perfon may not be dead;" therefore the Refurrection of a dead Perfon can ne

ver

ver be proved. But is a Death such an Event as it is absolutely impoffible to make out? The Author cites Mr. Bruhier; he might have joined with him Mr. Winflow, and several others, who have treated of the Uncertainty of the Signs of Death. They have fhewn, that the Paleness of the Vifage, the ceafing of the Pulfe, the Coldnefs of the Extremities, are but doubtful Signs of Death; from whence they have concluded, that there is an Impropriety in precipitate Interments; but they have not pretended to say, that it never was poffible to be certain of the Death of a Man, fince then they might have concluded that there was an Impropriety even in the longest delayed Interments: and yet, is there not a certain Time, after which those who bury a dead Perfon may banish the Fear of being Homicides? Moft Authors agree, that at the End of about three natural Days, especially if the Body exhales an ill Smell, we have an infallible Proof of Death.

"We

Let us go on with Mr. Rouffeau. "have just found out the Secret of raising "to Life drowned Perfons; and have we "not discovered that of raising those who **Rouffeau's Words; On a deja cherché celui de ref fufeiter les pendus.

*

K 2

"were

"were hanged? Who knows whether we "fhall, in other Kinds of Death, arrive "at the reftoring to Life Bodies which "were thought to have been deprived of "" it? "

I know not whether the Attempts made to raise hanged Perfons to Life have been fuccefsful; the Author himself does not believe it; at least if we may judge from his Manner of expreffing himself. With regard to the drowned he has expreffed himself, and with Reafon, more pofitively. But what has all this to do with the Miracles of the Gospel?

Letting Blood in the Jugular, putting the Body into Afhes or Sand of a natural Heat, Sheepskins, Tobacco-Smoak forced into the Intestines, Frictions, expectorative Potions, &c. are very eafy Methods to recover the drowned; therefore the Reality of Lazarus's Resurrection cannot be proved. This is our Author's Reasoning. To propose it in this Manner is to refute it; and yet I do not in the leaft alter it, I only present it in a more open manner.

The pretended Refurrection of Perfons drowned, is not offered as miraculous by him who effects it; it is only a Work of Kind