Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

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.

130

CHAPTER XIV.

PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF MIRACLES THROUGHOUT ALL AGES.

I.

WH

HOEVER 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 miracles 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

objection against a miracle must be such as strikes directly at the testimony by which it is supported. We might therefore supersede the consideration of all presumptive evidence for the perpetual continuation of miracles in the Christian Church, and proceed to prove it by positive testimony. But as we possess abundance of such evidence, and that of a more satisfactory nature than Protestant writers against Dr Middleton have used to prove the continuation of miracles down to the various periods assumed by them; and as the production of this will add strength and clearness to the positive proofs which we shall afterwards consider,-I propose at present to take a view of this presumptive evidence, and to show the ground on which it stands.

II. Though Mr Brook proposes the presumptive evidence for the miracles of the first three ages under several heads, yet these are all reducible to this one proposition and its consequence. "The exigencies of the Church, for the support and propagation of religion, made it highly becoming Almighty God to work miracles in these ages, therefore it was to be expected, and we may reasonably presume that He did so." This is the proposition upon which all the different systems of the duration of miracles proceed.

Dr Middleton adopts this as his reason for the continuation of miracles during the apostolic age, yet smiles at his adversaries for extending it beyond that age. He pronounces it highly "rash and presumptuous to form arguments upon the supposed necessity or propriety of a divine interposition in this or that particular case, and to decide upon the motives and views of the Deity by the narrow conceptions of human reason."-Pref., p. 20. This is certainly a just remark, in which we cordially agree with the Doctor, especially under the authority

of St Paul, who, sensible of this great truth, exclaims, in a rapture of admiration, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! for who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor?" Rom. xi. 33. And indeed there is nothing wherein our modern Christian infidels more manifestly expose their impious presumption, than in measuring the ways of God by their own narrow conceptions; reducing the works of the Omnipotent to the examination of their judgment, and boldly deciding by the feeble light of their blind understandings what it becomes or does not become the Deity to do.

Instead of this, the Doctor assures us, with no less reason, that "the whole which the wit of man can possibly discover, either of the ways or will of the Creator, must be acquired by a contrary method; not by imagining vainly within ourselves what may be proper or improper for Him to do, but by looking abroad, and contemplating what He has actually done." This rule is most judicious, and contains safe ground on which to proceed; for though there must be innumerable cases in which it will become the Almighty to act, though we can by no means judge of the propriety of these a priori, yet certain it is that God will never act either in the ordinary course of His providence, or by an extraordinary interposition, but when this is highly proper and becoming. If we contemplate, then, what Almighty God has actually done, in certain circumstances and for certain ends, we may safely conclude that it highly becomes Him to act in the same manner in similar circumstances, and where the same ends are to be obtained; and from this we draw as an undoubted conse

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »