Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

that the miracles they see really exist? There it will appear that the Doctor's reasoning in the above passage is entirely founded on a false supposition that miracles are not plain facts, lying open to the testimony of the senses, of which the most simple and illiterate person is as able to judge as the most learned philosopher; whereas the contrary is undoubtedly the case with the generality of miracles, especially such as are principally referred to as proofs of doctrines.

XXXIX. The Doctor's Protestant adversaries, then, justly condemn this his opinion as subversive, not only of the faith and credit of all history, but of the Gospel itself, and therefore as altogether unworthy of a Christian, and utterly inexcusable in one who professes that name; and they lay down such qualifications and circumstances attending testimony, as render it a certain and unquestionable proof even of the existence of miracles, when it is accompanied by them. Some of their sentiments on this head we have seen above, chap. xi., when considering the nature of the proof for the existence of miracles; but as Mr Brook is particularly explicit upon it, I shall here relate the substance of his remarks.

"First," he justly observes, that "the validity of an evidence given to a matter of fact, either viva voce, or in writing, is not determined by the particular opinions which the witnesses may espouse in other matters, but by their knowledge of the things which they attest, and by their own integrity. In courts of civil judicature, where the nature of this evidence is best understood and most fairly examined, the character of a witness, and the competency of his knowledge as to the particular point under debate, is the only subject of inquiry, not his doctrines or persuasions. No distinction is made between a member of the Church of England

and a Sectarist; between a Romanist and a Protestant ; between a Deist and a Christian. If their knowledge and veracity is unquestionable, the evidence of them all is admitted without exception. The same method is constantly pursued in all the dealings which men have with one another."

"The measures of credibility in historical facts are exactly of the same nature. The whimsical and extravagant doctrines of an historian, his strange and erroneous opinions in matters of speculation, do .not at all affect the truth of his history, if his testimony as a witness, that is, if his knowledge and veracity be unexceptionable and our want of belief in this case is not occasioned by want of evidence-but either by the force of some strong prejudices on the mind of the person to whom the thing is related, or by the improbability of the fact itself, which no human testimony is able to support. Whatever evidence is fair and reasonable in common historical facts will likewise be fair and reasonable in facts of an extraordinary and miraculous kind, if the nature and circumstances are such as not to render them liable to any material objection; for in such a case they are upon the same level with ordinary events, and therefore can require no higher degree of evidence."-Brook's Examin., chap. iv.

Secondly, he lays down the circumstances required in testimony, in order to render the evidence for miracles arising from it above all exception; which are, 1. When there is the concurrent testimony of various writers of different principles and persuasions, who lived in the very times when these facts happened, and were themselves eyewitnesses of them. Nothing, indeed, but the force of truth, and the reality of the things themselves, is able to create an agreement so unanimous and univer

sal. 2. This becomes still stronger when it is confirmed by the testimony even of enemies themselves, and is contradicted by none. 3. When such testimony is given, and published to the world in the face of the most violent enemies, at a time when the truth of the facts attested might easily have been disproved, and a detection of the least fraud or fiction would most effectually have ruined the credit and authority of the witnesses, have heightened the malice of their adversaries, and have proved the lasting disgrace of their party. 4. All this is still more strongly corroborated when those who give the testimony profess it to be a firm tenet of their belief that every lie is criminal in the sight of God, and that he will not fail to punish those who speak untruths, even for the advancement of a good cause.

XL. From these principles, Mr Brook, with great reason, vindicates the miracles of the three first ages; because all the above circumstances concur in the testimony given by the fathers of those ages, for the existence of miracles in their days; whereas the exceptions made by Dr Middleton against their testimony are only taken from their particular opinions in speculative points, their mistakes in interpreting some parts of Scripture, their errors in the etymologies of language, their being misinformed regarding the authenticity of some books, and suchlike failings, of which the Doctor imagines he finds them guilty, and from which he concludes that they were all knaves or fools; and that their testimony for the existence of miracles which fell under the observation of their own senses, is absolutely unworthy of credit, even though attended with all the above circum

stances.

This conclusion is justly set aside by Mr Brook, and the Doctor's other Protestant adversaries; and indeed

we are surprised to see such an argument published to the world by a person of Dr Middleton's powers and penetration. But what could he do? The testimony for the continuation of miracles in each succeeding age, down to the present time, was equally strong, and equally attended by every corroborating circumstance, with those of the ages immediately succeeding the apostles; and therefore, if human testimony was admitted to be a sufficient proof of the miracles in the primitive ages, it could never be refused as an equal proof of those in all succeeding ages, which would be giving up the cause at once in favour of Popery. He was under a necessity, therefore, of producing some arguments for rejecting the testimony of all ages, and was forced to take the above, as his cause could furnish nothing better. These, indeed, he produces in the most specious form, and in the most persuasive manner, in order to conceal their weakness. But these were not the reasons by which he himself was persuaded. He had already taken up his opinion before he had invented the reasons. The true ground of his sentiments he himself expresses in these words: "If the cause must be determined by the unanimous consent of the fathers, we shall find as much reason to believe these miraculous powers were continued even to the latest ages as to any other, how early and primitive soever after the days of the apostles," Pref. p. xiv., and therefore, "by granting them (the Romanists) but a single age of miracles after the times of the apostles, we shall be entangled in a series of difficulties whence we can never fairly extricate ourselves, till we allow the same powers also to the present age."-Introd., p. lxxxii

XLI. We must now take a short review of the principles and proceedings of the Doctor and his adversaries. The principles in which they all agree, at least in

VOL. II.

F

appearance, and upon which they all proceed, are these: "Christianity must be defended; Popery must be condemned; whatever is necessary for the defence of Christianity must be admitted; whatever tends to establish Popery must be rejected." The Doctor thinks Christianity will be sufficiently defended if the apostolic miracles be admitted as founded on divine testimony; but that Popery must be established if miracles be admitted in any one age after the apostles on the credit of human testimony. He rejects, therefore, all the miracles recorded after the apostolic age, and declares in plain terms, as his reason for so doing, that miracles are of so peculiar a nature that no human testimony can render them credible; or, in other words, that their innate incredibility is such as cannot be overcome by human testimony.

Mr Brook is of opinion that Christianity cannot stand if the miracles of the first three centuries be rejected; they must therefore be defended. But if those of the succeeding ages were admitted, Popery would be established, and, therefore, they must be disproved. He of course rejects the Doctor's system with respect to the first three centuries; because it would destroy the credit of history and undermine the Gospel: and he rejects his argument from the incredibility of miracles, because, in the mouth of a heathen or a deist, it would with equal strength condemn the miracles of the Scripture itself. He holds, therefore, that miracles, as such, are as capable of proof from human testimony as any other natural event, except they be of such an incredible nature, either in themselves, or in their circumstances, as no human testimony can support. He asserts that the miracles of the first three centuries were by no means of this incredible nature, and therefore,

« AnteriorContinuar »