calming storms, of making rivers and the sea itself afford them and their companions an easy and safe passage, Martin and Gregory have not suffered this power to go unrivalled. True; but does not the word of God afford us several examples of the same kind? The Red Sea was obedient to Moses, the river Jordan to Joshua, and they afforded them and all their armies an easy and safe passage. Moses and Samuel commanded the storms and hail, and they obeyed them. Our blessed Saviour and St Peter walked upon the waters; and Christ rebuked the stormy winds and the raging sea, and there came a great calm. Is it, therefore, any thing incredible that Almighty God should do by a Martin or a Gregory, His holy and faithful servants, what He had so often done to others from the earliest times?

XXIX. Let us now stand still a while-to use the words of Mr Brook himself upon this occasion—and take a short review of this mighty argument, in which he so loudly exults, and see what important purposes it may serve. Can anything be more unchristian and uncharitable than to put miracles done by holy men, and in the name of the living God, in the same class and upon the same footing with the fictitious stories of the heathens, to which they have but a distant and unimportant likeness in the facts related; and not rather class them with those of the Holy Scriptures, to which they bear the greatest resemblance, both in the facts themselves, and in all their circumstances? Is it not ridiculous to pretend that, on account of this faint likeness to heathen miracles, they are to be rejected as fictitious, though ever so fully attested by the strongest evidence? Let common sense judge and decide the weight and importance of this argument.

XXX. After Mr Brook has collected all the various

arguments used against the credibility of miracles in the later ages, he concludes by attacking the testimony of the holy fathers themselves who relate them; and here he is guilty of so much unfair dealing and misrepresentation, that even his admirers, if they reflect, will be ashamed of it. It is not my intention to follow all that he says on this head. I shall only observe two things: first, his chief argument against the testimony of the holy fathers, Saints Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerom, Ambrose, and the others, is, that they contradict themselves and one another in the testimony they give of miracles in their days; sometimes affirming that miracles have entirely ceased, and even inquiring into the cause of this cessation; at other times relating miracles as performed in different places even in their own times and presence. On this Mr Brook expatiates with all his eloquence, and, by those small arts which are well known in the schools of logic, endeavours to display this argument as unanswerable. But how unworthy and ungenerous

is this!

We have seen above, from the clearest testimony of St Augustine in his retractations, the distinction between the extension and universality of the chrismatic graces, with the visible signs of the communication of the Holy Ghost, and the performance of particular and occasional miracles independent of these graces: the former is acknowledged to have ceased before the days of St Augustine; the latter, we contend, has continued in every age of the Church till this day. Now St Augustine expressly declares, that wherever he speaks of the cessation of miracles, he means only those of the former kind, but by no means of the latter, many remarkable instances of which, he assures us, were consistent with his own personal knowledge. Mr Brook had read this

passage of St Augustine, which is a key to all that the other holy fathers have said upon this subject, and entirely dissipates Mr Brook's objection. This he had read in St Augustine, because he refers to it. How, then, could he conceal the truth, and so grossly misrepresent the sense and meaning of these holy men?

XXXI. I observe, secondly, that Mr Brook, on this head, uses many pitiful reflections, to throw suspicion on the testimony of the fathers of the fourth and fifth ages, similar to those used by Dr Middleton against all the fathers in general, and which, if allowed, would stamp them as so many fools and knaves. Now Mr Brook having justly condemned all that the Doctor had said against those of the first three ages, how can he give the same ungenerous treatment to those of the fourth and fifth, especially as the self-same arguments by which he condemns the Doctor equally condemn himself? For if the fathers of the fourth and following ages were fools and knaves, from whom nothing candid or impartial can be expected, what becomes of the faith of history? what becomes of the Bible, which reaches us only through their hands? what becomes of Christianity? Let Mr. Brook or his admirers answer these questions if they can, and Dr Middleton's party will learn what answer to give when they are urged by Mr Brook against them.

XXXII. I have now examined all the arguments of any note used against the credibility of the miracles related after the first three ages, and I have shown that they all proceed either upon false suppositions or misrepresentations; that the conclusions drawn from them, when the case is properly stated, have not the least connection with the premises; that they may all be used by deists and heathens against the miracles related in the Scriptures, with as great show of reason as they are

used against those of the fourth and following ages; in a word, that they are mere sophistry, clothed in pompous language, sallies of wit and bold assertions, which may indeed impose upon superficial readers, but can never bear the test of strict examination.

Mr Brook has said all that can be said upon the subject; neither his ability nor inclination can be doubted. Since, therefore, all that he has said is so little to the purpose, we may infer that no reason can be brought against the credibility of the miracles of the fourth and following ages, either from the facts themselves, or from their circumstances; and, consequently, that such miracles in these ages as are properly vouched for by sufficient testimony, cannot in justice be rejected. This is further confirmed by what we have seen in the preceding chapter on the manner in which this question is treated by Dr Middleton and his Protestant adversaries. Their setting out by begging the question, and proceeding upon the same principles; their extending or limiting the necessities of the Church as best suits their system; their allowing the self-same reason to have the greatest weight in one age, and none in another, evidently shows their utter want of all solid arguments against the continuation of miracles in any one age of the Church from her commencement to the present time.

VOL. II.

I

130

CHAPTER XIV.

PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF MIRACLES THROUGHOUT ALL AGES.

I.

WHOEVER seriously considers what we have stated in the two preceding chapters, will, I presume, readily admit that no solid argument can be produced against the credibility of miracles in whatever age they are said to be performed, provided their existence be sufficiently attested by unexceptionable witnesses. We have carefully examined all the pretended arguments usually employed to disprove the credibility of miracles ; and we have shown them to be in every respect defective, frivolous, and utterly incapable of even weakening the credibility of any one well attested miracle. We are thus brought back to what I showed in another place, that as testimony is the only way by which the existence of miracies can be proved to persons not eyewitnesses, so it is a full, perfect, and sufficient means for this purpose; that all the metaphysical arguments brought against any miracle a priori, and extrinsic to the testimony, are mere sophisms, and can never have the least. weight or weaken the conviction which the force of testimony gives; and therefore, that the only rational