tian religion, but must necessarily proceed from a spirit fit to be abhorred by all mankind, and can never be a humane way of 'propagating truth,' whether for or against christianity. These, dear Sir, are my free and impartial thoughts upon that particular passage in your letter, which mentions the 'considerable indulgence' that ought to be made as to the manner' of writing against christianity. And I hope, upon the whole, that you and I don't differ so much even on this point, as we may seem to do. What punishments are proper for such a manner of writing, or whether it may be looked upon as a breach of the peace in a ' christian society,' and so by your own allowance punishable by the civil magistrate, are points I shall not enter into now, any farther than to declare freely my opinion, that such a writer ought to be punished by the ecclesiastical censure of the church, and declared excommunicate by a proper authority; and if he could be farther restrained from writing on in the same 'outrageous manner' by the civil magistrate, (with a liberty still to use reason instead of railing,) I don't see how this could be any prejudice to the christian religion, any contradiction to the true forbearing spirit of it, any injury to the just liberties of mankind, or any injustice to the writer himself, but in my poor opinion the greatest kindness that could possibly be done him. I heartily thank you, good Sir, for the present you have made me of your additions to your former excellent book, which, I am sure, I shall read with a great deal of profit, as well as pleasure, as soon as they come to hand. You will be so good as to excuse me in not transcribing this long letter, which indeed (considering the many corrections in it) I should do, but such compliments between friends will, I hope, not be expected, nor am I sure if I should attempt it, not to commit again as many faults as I mend. I am, therefore, without any more ceremony, and with the greatest sincerity and respect, Reverend Sir, Your very faithful Friend, EDWARD CHICHESTER. My Lord, Mr. Lardner answered: December 2, 1729. I HAVE the favour of your letter of the 25th of November, which, I hope, your Lordship will permit me to say, is a pattern of condescension and goodness; nor can I help esteeming it an honour to me, that my sentiments are so agreeable to that truly christian spirit expressed in your letter. The reasons of my saying that it was a consequence of permitting men to write against the christian religion, that there 'must be likewise considerable indulgence as to the manner of writing,' were chiefly these: that the permission of writing against the christian religion contained in it so much, that the manner of it also should be borne with, in a considerable degree: and secondly, the cause of those who oppose christianity is so bad and desperate, that they who argue against it are naturally, and almost necessarily, led into an unfair way of arguing. If men are so weak, or so wicked, as to write against christianity, I expect to see them make use of some bad arts to support their cause. The fact has been agreeable to this supposition. The writers in the defence of christianity have actually exceeded their adversaries, not only in their arguments and reasons, but also in the manner of arguing and reasoning. If what Mr. Woolston says, that he cannot write otherwise,' be true, it farther confirms this supposition, and is a shameful truth for him and his cause, publicly acknowledged by himself. To your Lordship's question, What I think would have been the conduct of St. Paul, and other primitive christians, in a like case? I readily answer, my Lord, that, I believe, they would have pronounced a sentence of excommunication, and it would, in my opinion, be justly pronounced upon Mr. Woolston. The sentiments advanced by him, and his manner of defending them, do both together, and each of them singly, deserve that sentence. Mr. Woolston has writ in a most abusive and injurious manner to men's characters, but I did not know that he had been prosecuted for it, though I thought he well deserved it. I have also the honour to agree with your Lordship, that we ought to have a very great zeal and concern for the honour of our blessed Saviour, and an abhorrence of all ways, not humane, of propagating truth, whether for or against christianity; or that have a plain tendency to destroy a sense of religion and virtue in men's minds. I conclude with humbly acknowledging your Lordship's goodness in communicating to me your sentiments upon these matters in so kind and friendly a manner. I am, my Lord, Your Lordship's most obliged, most humble, and obedient Servant, N. LARDNED APPENDIX, No. II. LETTER OF MR. LARDNER TO LORD BARRINGTON. My Lord, March 7, 1729-30. I AM very sensible of the honour done me by your Lordship's approbation of the "Vindication of three Miracles, &c." and have a great deal of reason to rejoice, that the manner in which the argument for free writing is managed in the preface is not unacceptable to your Lordship; for, as to the principles themselves, I had no doubt but they would be agreeable to your judgment, however they may be suspected or disliked by others, who have less studied the christian doctrine; a true christian may suffer on account of his religion, but he can never make others suffer on account of theirs. Whatever may be the consequence of it, we are not to support christianity by force. Our blessed Saviour, rather than make use of compulsion, would choose to be without a follower. John vi. 67. I will briefly go over all your Lordship's difficulties relating to the death of Jairus's daughter, and then offer some considerations in favour of the common opinion. 1. There is not the conclusive evidence that Jairus's daughter was dead, &c.' The evidence is conclusive and satisfactory here. If they might be mistaken in her case, so they might in Lazarus, when buried: and if buried, while in a deliquium or sleep, he might have continued in it several days. II. Ewenσtraι in the text is a general word. It does not directly express healing barely, but that she should do well, let the case be never so desperate; and this was as much as it became our Saviour to say at that time. III. Our Saviour, your Lordship knows very well, did not speak in Greek, but in Syriac. Probably he used one and the same word, when he said " Lazarus sleeps," and the “maid sleeps." That the evangelists have used kalévow in one place, and Koopa in another, is of no manner of importance; since the disciples understood him to speak of natural sleep, when he said, "Lazarus sleepeth." IV. The saying, she was "not dead," as well as she sleeps," does not appear to strengthen the assertion. It is all one and the same thing. I think we ought to make no scruples here, now we have the story of Lazarus, in which it is related, First, that Christ said, this sickness is not "unto death," and yet he did die: and then "our friend Lazarus sleeps:" meaning at the same time, that Lazarus was dead, and he would raise him up. As when he said Lazarus's sickness " was not unto death," he must be understood of a final death; so when he said, the maid "is not dead," he must be understood also of a final death, since all her friends knew she was dead. V. The matter of the fifth objection serves, in my opinion, to show the propriety of the common interpretation. "Be gone," for there is no occasion for you; the maid is not to be buried, she is not finally dead, but will be raised up, as out of a sleep; therefore your lamentations are not seasonable. VI. The last objection is taken from the circumstances. I perceive no impropriety at all in the action of taking her by the hand, supposing her to be dead; nor in the ordering meat to be set before her.' This last indeed would have been very improper in the case of the two other persons raised to life, who were abroad, but she was at home. Their life, health, and strength, would also appear sufficiently in walking home before the company present, with all the vigour and agility becoming men. But as this other case was in a woman, who cannot with decency show strength and vigour by leaping, or agility in walking, and as she was at home, eating was a very proper sign to be given of her health and strength. Moreover, as her resurrection was performed before so few witnesses, it was very proper to have some more near, close witnesses of her life and health; and such the servants and friends of the family would be, when they immediately saw her eat. The considerations whereby I would support the common opinion are these: I. If Jairus's daughter was not dead, Matthew and Mark have given no instance of a resurrection to life by our Saviour; which would be very strange, since there were several, and they appear to know there were. Another consequence is this: If it be supposed, that Jairus's daughter was not dead, 'tis impossible to prove to an infidel, that the other two persons were dead. Her friends supposed her dead; Matt. ix. 24. When Jesus said, the maid was not dead, "they laughed him to scorn:" Mark v. 40,"And they laughed him to scorn." Luke viii. 53, "They laughed him to scorn, knowing she was dead." We must take the cases of those Christ healed or raised as they are brought to him, or represented to him by those who may be reasonably supposed to know what their cases are; or we overthrow all evidence, and weaken the credit, not of this only, but of all the other miracles of our Saviour. II. Matthew and Mark thought she was dead, and that this miracle was a resurrection to life, or else they would have related some other miracle of this sort. III. All the three evangelists represent her dead. Matt. ix. 18, 24; Mark v. 35, 40; Luke viii. 49, 53. IV. The common paraphrase of, "the maid is not dead," &c. that is, she is not finally dead, so dead as to be buried, but shall be raised, as out of a sleep, is very agreeable to our Saviour's way of speaking upon some other occasions; and is extremely suitable to silence those weepers and lamenters to whom he spoke. I intended to have concluded here: but, upon a review, I fear your Lordship may think I have not paid a sufficient regard to the first circumstance of the sixth objection, viz. that our Saviour takes her by the hand, before he says, "Arise!" which is not an action suited to raise one absolutely incapable to help herself.' There is no more assistance given to a lame man than to a dead man by taking him by the hand to enable him to walk alone. No action or word is used in working a miracle, because there is any virtue in the word spoken, or the action used, of taking hold by the hand, or in any other action assignable. All the virtue is owing to the infinite, almighty power of God alone, who graciously performs the work, when those words are spoken, or those actions are done by his servants, by his orders. Again, That our Saviour takes her by the hand, before he says, Arise! Perhaps, the taking by the hand, and the word arise, were simultaneous, or the word arise was spoken immediately after Christ took her by the hand, as soon after as could be. But I shall show presently (as I apprehend) the propriety of the different method taken by Christ and Peter; though it is by no means necessary, that we should be able to assign the precise propriety of every word or action recorded in the history of these matters. It seems to me, not becoming Peter to make use of any action, that looked like helping a man perfectly impotent, (such as taking him by the hand,) before he first pronounced these or the like words: "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk:" but after that it was proper enough for him to use an action, which is a sort of token of kindness, and take him by the hand. When Peter raised Dorcas, he first went to prayer, and did not take her by the hand till after she had opened her eyes, and sat up; that is, was perfectly restored to health and life by the Divine Being. It is too arrogant for an apostle, in the case especially of a dead person, to use an action that has an appearance of giving help, before he has been at prayer, or made some other address to God. But in our blessed Saviour it was highly proper and becoming, to take by the hand, in a kind and friendly manner, even a dead person, as if she were alive. Though no one would reasonably say there was any impropriety in Christ's saying, Arise! to Jairus's daughter, before he took her by the hand, yet there does appear to me a peculiar propriety in our blessed Saviour's taking by the hand this dead young woman, before, or at the very instant, that he said, Arise! I hope there is no reason for me to add a caution, that it ought not to be objected to me, that there was no such action used in |