Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

miracles during those pure ages; and therefore they uphold them against Dr Middleton, by the force of human testimony, by the authority of the Christian writers, of the holy fathers and church historians, who flourished during the period which they assign for their continuation.

Of these gentlemen it may be remarked that, although they have no other way of proving this continuation down to their respective assigned periods than this testimony, and declare it to be, in their opinion, a full and satisfactory proof, yet, the moment after these their respective eras, they deny it all weight, and treat it as utterly incapable of proving the existence of one single miracle. Why so? In the judgment even of their Protestant brethren the testimony is the same afterwards as before, nor can any rational cause be assigned why it should not be of equal value in both cases. But if it were allowed to proceed, it would favour Popery, and therefore, be the consequences what they may, it must be rejected. Is it not evident that this is mere trifling, and that all that they advance upon this subject is nothing but opinion and prejudice in favour of a preconceived hypothesis, which each one assumes as best suits his own fancy?

XXIII. It appears, then, that Dr Middleton and his Protestant opponents are in reality in the same predicament, all building upon the same foundation, "a mere begging of the question," and assuming as truth what they can never prove; nay, what is not only called in question, but absolutely denied, and looked upon as impiety and heresy by the great majority of Christendom. Whatever weight, therefore, this may have against Dr Middleton's system in the mouth of his opponents, it must militate with equal force against themselves. He and they must stand or fall together.

XXIV. This, however, will be more evident when we take a more minute view of their way of managing their cause. Between them and the Doctor there is the most perfect conformity. The same arguments by which they show the falsehood of the Doctor's system, and prove that the power of miracles continued in the Church after the apostolic age, show equally the falsehood of their own various systems, and prove that these powers most certainly continued in the Church after the different periods which they respectively assign. And the reasons by which they as Christians pretend to show that the miracles said to have been wrought after their supposed periods of cessation are falsehood and forgery, have the self-same force in the mouths of heathens and deists to prove that the miracles which they admit, and even the Scripture miracles themselves, are exactly of the same kind.

XXV. As it would be tedious, and indeed an endless repetition, to examine each of their systems apart, I shall confine myself to the one most commonly received by Protestants: That the power of miracles continued in the Church till about the end of the third, or the beginning of the fourth century, and was then totally withdrawn. This opinion is adopted, and strenuously defended by Mr Brook, in his " 'Examination of the Free Inquiry;" a work in which he has displayed, in a masterly manner, all that can be said in defence of this system, or indeed of any of the others; for in all the arguments are the same, and only arbitrarily applied to the different periods, without any reason for appropriating them to one more than to another.

In ex

amining, therefore, what Mr Brook advances upon this system, we, in fact, examine all the others at the same time.

XXVI. I have stated that Protestants who write against the Doctor's system have chiefly two points in view, and that their whole aim is to establish them: "That the power of working miracles continued in the Christian Church for some ages after the apostles; and that it was totally withdrawn from her at those particular periods which they respectively assign." The first of these propositions they maintain against Dr Middleton, the other against the Catholic Church. For the sake of perspicuity we shall treat them separately.

XXVII. In proving that miracles continued in the Church for some time after the apostles, two kinds of arguments are used; the first is drawn from presumptive evidence, the second from positive testimony. The first shows that it was reasonable to expect miracles after the apostolic age, removes such prejudices as might arise against them, and, of course, prepares the mind to believe them. The other shows that they actually were performed; and the two produce complete conviction. "The miracles of the earlier ages of the Christian Church (says Mr Brook) are probable in themselves; there is a strong presumptive evidence of their truth and reality. There is no sufficient reason to suspect that evidence; of consequence, when well attested, they are equally to be believed with any other common historical facts. They are not therefore to be set aside, where there is the unanimous testimony of credible witnesses, without destroying the faith of all history, without introducing an universal scepticism." Brook's Examin., p. 51.

A little after he adds: "If facts probable in themselves, the truth of which we have no reason to suspect from the nature of the thing, but, on the contrary, there appear manifest reasons why we should believe them, are nevertheless to be set aside as doubtful and incredible, though

supported by the unanimous testimony of such persons who lived in those very times, and were eyewitnesses of them, all historic evidence must rest on so sandy a foundation as to be utterly insupportable by human testimony. There can remain no one rational and steady principle to direct us in judging of any past events represented to us in writing," p. 55. This, then, is the sum of the proof used by these writers for the continuation of miracles in the Church after the days of the apostles,"presumptive evidence," which makes it reasonable to expect them in those times; and "positive testimony," which expressly asserts them.

XXVIII. This presumptive evidence, as displayed by Mr Brook, for the three first ages, consists of the following arguments: 1. "If the hand of God did continue to co-operate visibly with the saints of the apostolic age, throughout the whole ministry of all the apostles, it is not likely that this extraordinary providence should vanish instantaneously, and leave the Gospel to make the rest of its way by its own genuine strength. Such a supposition is utterly inconsistent with the natural notions we have of God's proceedings, as well as with what is revealed about them. Whenever the Supreme Being works any changes in nature, those changes are always made, not on a sudden, but in time, and by slow degrees; and in all the dispensations of His providence to the sons of men, as far as we know from reason only, the method of His proceedings is not hasty and violent, but ever gentle and gradual.”

"The Jewish religion was established by an extraordinary providence. The divine interpositions in favour of that people were very frequent and notorious, till they had got quiet possession of the promised land, and till their whole polity, civil as well as religious, was effec

tually established; but even, though such extraordinary interpositions became less frequent, they were not totally withdrawn; God still continued to show among His peculiar people, at certain times, visible and supernatural tokens of His almighty power and overruling providence. And afterwards, in the days of Elijah and Elisha, when the frequency of these divine interpositions was renewed, it did not vanish instantaneously at the death of these two prophets; it was gradually withdrawn. Why, then, should it be thought an improbable thing that God should act in the same manner in defence and support of the Christian religion? What reason is there to suppose that He should be more favourable to the religious dispensation of Moses than to that of His own Son?"

2. "Had the miraculous powers been immediately withdrawn upon the death of the apostles, this must have been of the greatest prejudice to religion; for, by this means, the Gospel must have been left in a naked and defenceless state, to become a prey to the prejudices, to the malice, and to the outrage of men. The immediate successors of the apostles must have fallen into the utmost discouragement, discontent, and despondency of mind, seeing they had the same difficulties to struggle with as those before them, from a malicious and perverse world; and yet perceiving they had none of those powers and assistances to relieve and support them, which had been of late so liberally bestowed upon the disciples of Jesus in the preceding age. What an obstruction must this experience have occasioned to the furtherance of the Gospel? What an aversion to it must it have caused in some? What apostasy in others? What dejection, what murmuring, what despair in all?” "Let a man seriously and impartially reflect on these things, and then judge whether it be not probable, that

« AnteriorContinuar »