S |

\mhc9-

J^
J&7
Jl  . —
YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy of the book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

VIEW

OF THE

CONTROVERSY,

CONCERNING

Miraculous Powers, &rc,

VIEW OFTHE
CONTROVERSY, CONCERNING THE
Miraculous Powers,
Which are fuppofed to have fubfifted in tht
CHRISTIAN CHURCH,
from the Earliest Ages, through
feveral Successive Centuries.
As it ftands, between
The Introductory Discourse, to a
Larger Wo r k defigned hereafter to be
publiflied : 4
a k b,
Observations on the Introductory Difcourfe. 1
WITH
Occafional Remarks on other Writers in this
Controverfy.
And a Postscript, occafioned by Mr. Brooke's
Defenfio Mtraculorum, &c

¦ adeo fanftum eft vetus omne ! ¦

Nee Veniam Antiquis, fed Honorem & Prxmia pofci !
Hor.

LONDON:
Printed for W. In n y s in Pater-r.^sr-E-Ovj.
M DCC XLVIII.

&i!&®^l^JR&& * #.

*&*&<!

VIEW OFTHE
CONTROVERSY, ©V.
| T is a true Obfervatibn, which I have
fomewhere met with, that the State
of writing, is, like Hobbes's State of
Nature, a State of War. — Such is the
Genius of the Age, and the Partiality to favourite
Syftems •, that, whenever any Book is publiflied,
.the Queftion feems to be, not how well or how
ill the Author hath fiipported his Opinion ; but,
•what his Opinion is : For as foon as That is .known,
the Bufinefs is done •, and whether the Book hath
even been read, or not, 'tis determined by the
Gentlemen on the other Side, — that, it muft be
anfwered: — And if any One fliould, by former
Writings, be once fuppofed not to aflent to every
popular Opinion, or to think with the Few in fome
Particulars, though perhaps neither effential or
fundamental in the true'Syftem of Religion or
B Chriftianity ;

2 View of the Controverfy
£hriftianity ; he is looked upon, from that Mo
ment, as. for ever after intapable of %3ng a Word
of Truth upon the Subject of Religion. Every
Pamphlet he writes, carries the Infection in it.
Whatever paffes through his Hands, like the Ca-
melion, takes its Colour from thence, and muft be
tin<&rld ^vith Deifm ; and eveji out of \jjfe of
Hornet^ or Tully, there are Some, who will find out
a Defign upon Mofes, and Jefus Chrift. — Each Man,
from whom he diffefis, fets hit Face againft him ;
and he is mark'd out, like a wounded Deer, to be
driven out, and excommunicated. from the Society..
THis-fdems to be the Caie of the Author of jfn
Introductory Difcourfe to a larger Work, defigned-
bere&fteft to be pybUffied ; whofe Intention btefng ta
fliew, thaU we have, no fufficifiM- Reajtyii H-bmtMt
¦Upon the duthority 'of the Primitive Pi$Mrs-, thd
mirajsulws'' Powers were continwfd, to* th&X£hrijliaft
Church, after the. Days, vf 'the. ApPjftleso, an. Outcry
is immediately, raifed,. and the whole Body. take
the Alarm ¦>, 3&,i£ the.Foundatioris.of Religion were
ajtaek'd,, and, Chriftianity, depended upon 'the ..gain*
ing, or lofing, this,fingje Spot.
I? L thought that the Truth of Chriftimity dfc
pended upon.ttye Suppofkion ojt, the Continuance of
miraculous^ Powers to the Church, after the. Days $
ib.e,Apoftles ; thoughjt would not makemejiaye.a
better Opinion of fome , of the J^acles record^
ot. thofe Times ; yet I lho)ild conclude,- that fuch
Powers, were . continued, feut as £ dp riot yet .fee,
that, although.it fhould be rfue» that no miraculous Powers

co/iQgmmgMinaouhus Powers. 3
Powers Were >fe continued, the Truth or Evidence
.ef ©ferift-iaflity would twin any way afte&ed by it j
1 do not apprehend, at prefent, any thing ib for
midable, as Some'teay be apt to fancy, in the
Propbfition ofthe MrtiiitBory Dffccmrj/e.
I fhall avail myfelf of this univerfal Liberty of
writing ; and 'fliall take leave to trouble the Public
with "a few Remarks, as tfhey occurred to me, in
reading a late Pamphlet, intituled, Obfervations on
an Introductory Difcourfe to a larger Work, &c.
And I fhall do this, as on the one Hand, with
that Wbeedoftti w?Meh b&somfes Sfr impartial Enquiry
ftfter TrjHth ; fej.- ©n irfie o&erv with ihat Decency,
¦w'rHeh is due to the Chorafer of the Perfon K>
Whom the Pn&lk have 'given the OipriOations.
'But the grep&r my Opinion is df the Gentle'-
nfian's Afeilities in general ; he wMl not, I hope,
be otflfended, that- 1 am fo much the more furpfifed,
to fmd th^s he -Gould think his Pamphlet to be any
¦Mnfftt&r ta the JMtv^uMo-ry Difcourfi ; or fatisfy
triftiTelf - with Gbfsmmmis, which, -as they appear
to me, are throughout, infurRcient and fupefffcial.
As to the Merits Of the Cawalfei m on which Side
the Truth, upon the whole, really Ijes ; jt is noe
the Intention .of thefe -Papers tp prefume to deter
mine. - 1,, at pceftot, take neither Side in the
{^$1011.* but rdfirwe to. myfelf the Liberty ©f
jogging, >and deferrtfiniag nay Opinion, as the
Truth fliall appear «o me, in theGourle of the
debate-, yyben .the Larger Wmk, promis'd, ih&il
have . been laid before, and examined by the Pens
R 2 of

•4 View of the; Controversy^
of the Learned, My : only Defign here isp, to con
sider 'the Point fo far as it is .at prefent carried,
-between the Introductory Difcourfe, and the Obferr
-vations; and to fhew only, :ithat, as far as thefe go,
Nothing appears - to have keen: faid by the Qbfer-
ver, which any way invalidates, the Argument of
.the Introductory Difcourfe.— -In this View only, the
Reader is to confider the following Remarks.

I. .--
He fets forth with the following Obfervation.
.'The Author [of the Introductory Difcourfe]
Ogives himfelf an Air of Importance, as qualified
' to fettle the Point ;— how long after the Days of
?the Apoftle?, the Extraordinary Gifts of -the
.' Holy Spirit continued in the Church, or in what
' Age they were actually withdrawn,- — whether 'till
* the third, fourth, or fifth, &c. Century. If he
'could have fettled this Point, which by his
* Manner of introducing himfelf, one would have
* fuppofed it was his Bufinefs to have fettled ;
* though I fhould not have thought him the moft
* ufefully employed ; he might yet have given fome
' Proof of his fuperior Sagacity8'. But I muft
beg leave to differ from this Gentleman, and muft
own, that, for my part, I fhould have had no great
Opinion of the Author's Sagacity, if he had em
ployed himfelf in fettling, whether the miraculous
Powers were continued to the Church, 'rill the
third.
* Qbfervations, p. 4, 5,

concerning Miraculous Powers. 5
third, fourth, or fifth Century ; when- the whole
Purport and Defjgn .of his Difcourfe was, to fhew
that we have ( no , Reafon to believe, they were
continued to any ojj.ishefli.all. To which of thefe
Centuries, , therefore, the jjiiraculous;: Powers were
continued, is Sk Point, which I dare fayj the Au
thor never thought- -.himfelf qualified to* fettle.-, .and
his . very Title- J\ige , might vhavfi ¦ prevented
the Obfervatiw* that it was his. Bufinefs ¦,;¦¦ unlefs a
Defign to fhew,.. that-\we, have no fufficienls. Reafon
to believe, uptin the- Authority of the -Primitive
Fathers* .that the miraculous Powers .were conti
nued,, afier. tfie : Day s'oofz the Apbftles ^unlefs this
Defign be confident- wilhsthat o£ feMtingitht Point,
whether, they continuodfre-the 'pbtrd, faarfbi or fifth
Century : And therefore* - the Obferaer, I appre
hend, might have fafelyr:romitted this ;R$fleCtitin
upon the .Author's Sagacity, without any .way im
peaching his own. < 0. —. J '¦ - ; o..".'f^
II.
Th e Author of the Introductory Difcourfe had
faid, that the Opinion there delivered is what he
' takes not only to be true, but ufeful alfo, and
* even neceffary to the Defence of Chriftianity, as
* it is generally received, and ought always to be
' defended, in Proteftant Churches b\— To which
the Obferver anfwers, that, ' for his part, he cannot
' fee, that this Queftion hath any thing to do
with
* Introdu&ory Difcourfe, p. z.

6 <v„&M'to Af.$&&\CJnttw>erj(jr'
1 'with die' Deforce, either of <^briftiafl*ty at lafge
« -againft ,Jffl6dtfls» ^'wicWaO^ifl^nity, as it is
« "gttietaffly jeaesved in- Pro&*&nc Churches, figafeft
* *hofe'of Jihe'BxmJh .Cemtiiuh&h *
•Mfs -fteSfon ' w*hy It »Has tMthing to do with
tiie ©efetnjei of Chriftjhriky^a^^^ againft: Infi-
M, i'ri> *.Bfccaufe, o$'$i®ffi&e$ after the ©ays 5©f
" the Apoftle&r. were #Gt nWffn'y'iof the Confix
* marioniOf the Gofpel j"' gereShfly they could $6
* no Barm4^T*Th£ ?Qbftrwr'kii\h< here formM hfe
Anfwer, as if She Ii&rA£terf\D\fioi$*f&. -had faid*
that tlie oltfoarwnthiuawinofomirsidalam^P&imti to
the Ghucchr ' m <h? .Agss ^fter the Apoftles, wag
IK<^«^.t9>ihe EtefenbedOFv Confirmation Qf the
Truth pf ,<sfe r^GefpeJL(-©Biit:idid he #BaJly think
that ithe Author 'fkid> dii^i? If. he did think fo, I
fliatfojdy fay, it is umc^oiihtablei The Author's
Meaning is raaoft evident i- riot that thtweal- Con
tinuance of Miracles in the Church* m the ibird,
fourth, fifth, or fifteenth Century could have done.
any harm ; but, -that th? appealing now to Mira
cles in thofe Ages, in our Defence of the Truth of
the Gofpel, *nay do harm -, becaufe there ia no
ftiffieierit Proof of, or Authority for, the ^Reality
of fuch Miracles j or that the miraculous Powers
were continued to the Church in thofe' Ages: thai
to make ufe *herefotfe of aa Argument in Evidence^
Founded upon a Fad in Hiftory, which PaCt itfelf
wants a Support, and hath no fufficient Authority
In Hiftory ta ftand upon* is weakening a Caufe
i'.i-i inftead
c Obfervations p. 5. .; ¦ * I&d. pi j. <!J(

;UOi

concerning MiTu€t4oks Powers, f
inftead of ftrengthenifig it ; fince itr as tierttdnly
doefcharm to the Evidence for Chfiftlariity, to ih"
fifl? ugen Argurftefits- frhifch art not welt f<suiflfe$,
as to r^afifc thofe: which Are fo.— The Author of
the LttivdttCttry, SjCfowr/e %sv— tor appeal to Mi
racles, in thofe AgSfcof the Church* when it can
not W proved that there <&ere any^ dods; harm to
the Evidence of- (S&riftia»ity."The©i5$rs«r an
fwers* T-Mnw&J in thfcfe Ages could certainly' do
no harm; which is- juft as much an Am%eV* to
our AMther» as it is to the Ksmub.% an Anfwer,
which certainly can do Jio harfy ttrths'-AfguBi&it
of the Introductory Difimrfe-, .unlefs it- can follbwi
that, becaufe r-ed Mirueks could have dim' nd
barm; therefore* no. Appeal' to falfe Miiftfcfeft and
whieh ftand upon no fufficient Credit, can do no
barm likewife-, whioh They 'tyha can fee* may; fee
at the fame time, thap a good Argument and a
bad oa&i are both' the fame thing,
The. Obferverts Reafon, why this O^ieftian
hath nothing to do. with, the Defiance of Chri-
ftianityy as it is generally received in Proteftant,
'Qhurcbes, againft Thofe of the ILomifh Cpmr
rauniqn,,. ifi> ' Beeaufe,. fuppofing. it -admitted,
' that* Miraclesr did not eeafe with die Apoftles*
' but were continued in the Church fome Time
* after i .it-may yet be -true (and. Proteftanc. Writers
* have-fhewnit to be true) that- Popery can gain no
' Advantage by fuchConceffion?'1— The Author of
the Introductory Difcourfe hath endeavoured to fhew,
in what manner Popery »z#y-gaifl- Advantage, by
a Con-
1 Obferv. p. 5.

8; " View of the Controverfy
a Gonceflion of mimculotis' Powers to the third,
fourth, and fifth Century ; fince it is (according
to Him) putting them in Poffeffion of a Proof of
their falfe Doclrines and fuperftitious Rites; thefe
being the Ages (according to the Introductory Dip
courfe) in which ' the chief Corruptions of Popery,
' were either actually introduced^ or the' Seeds of
' them fo effectually fown, -that they could not
* fail of producing the Fruits, which wC-now fee.
1 By thefe Corruptions I mean, the Inftituti'on of
' Monkery, ibe Worfhip of Refyues; Invdcatioh of
« Saints ; 'Prayers for the Dead ; the fuperftitious life
' of Images ; of the Sacraments , of the Sign of the
4 Crofs ; and of confecrated Oil; by the Efficacy of
* all which Rites, and as a Proof of their Divine
c Origin, perpetual Miracles are affirm'd to have
c beeri wrought in thefe very Centuries f.'
If then Wp have good Reafon to deny the Conti
nuance of miraculous Powers to thefe Ages ; here is at
once, a' fufficient Anfwer to all Appeals to fuch Mi
racles, in Support of the Superftition of the Church
of Rome : Whereas, if we admit fuch Miracles,
weare plunged into a Difficulty, which T We fhall
not find it eafy to get out of; fince, * if we ad-
' mit the Miracles (fays he) we muft neceflarily ad-
* mit the Rites for the Sake of which they were
c wrought8 : And for thefe Reafons it is that he hath
afferted it to be ufeful and neceffary to the Defence
of Chriftianiry, in Oppofition to the Pretences of
Popery,
' Vid. Introd. Difc. p. i a. 8 Ibid p. 22. '

concerning Mirdcukifs.Potyers. ,-, 9
Pdpery, to re/Vt? the Suppofition of the Continuance
of Miracles to thofe Ages.
In Anfwer to all This,, the Obferver fays, that
' .He is not fatisfied that this Account of the fourth
'"Century is quite fair. Proteftant Writers dd
t* not. admit that worshipping Reliques, or I-
' mages, or Saints, were Practices known fo early1".
But tho' They do not admit, that worshipping
them was a Practice known fo early; They muft
adroit the Heliquiarum Veneralio, SanClorum Invo-
aaiio, Crucis Veneratio, &c. to have been Practices
as early as the fourth Century1-, ,and which fup'er*-
ftitious P radices -we're certainly the Prelude and
Foundation* the Seeds of all that Growth of Super-
ftition which appeared in fucceeding Ages : And
fince the Author of the Introductory Difcourfe fays
only, that in thefe Ages, the chief Corruptions of
Popery, were either, actually introduced, or the
Seeds of them fo effectually fown, Stc. I believe
the Reader wiU think, that the Practices in the
fourth Century, now mentioned, are fufficient to
juftify Him in that Affertion; and that the Obferver,
by endeavouring to make the Reader believe,
that our Author hath given in a falfe Account of
the fourth Century ; becaufe They did not; in that
Age, worship Reliques, Saints, and Images, in the
high Senfe of Worfhip — hath not dealt quite fair
with Him. C But
h Obferv. p. 7.
- ' Vid. Frid. Spanbem. Introduft. ad C-hronol. et Hiflor.
Sacr. in Secul.iv. Tom. 1. p. 387, fcfV. Edit. 410. Ami
1694. Pfaffii Inftitut. Hiftor. Ecclef; in Secul. iv. p. Z07.
ed. z.

i o View of the Controverfy
Bv r however This be, the Obferver fays, that
' as This is not material to his Purpofe at prefent,
' He fhall notconteft it, but fuppofe with the Au-
* thor, that all the Ufages mention'd prevailed in
* the fourth Century k\ ¦*- Nor is He ' difpos'd
' (it feems) to difpute the Author's general Point,
c that if We admit the Miracle, We muft accept
• the Doctrine in Confirmation of which the Mi*
* raele is wrought \ '. * But the- Thing ( fays
' He) to be attended to at prefent is, whether it be
* always neceffary to confider the Miracles wrought
1 in any Age, as Confirmations of the concurrent
* Ufages or Practices of that Age.'— And He main
tains that * it is not always neceffary, nor is k
* ever proper or reafonable io to confider them,
' unlefs there be fome Circumftanee in the Miracle
• which fpetifies the Intention of the Worker, and
* fliews that it is meant to authorize fuch Ufage/
— ' If the Cafe (fays Pie) fhould be that fome
' Writer has told us, that Miracles were wrought,
* not by the Miniftry of any living and holy Men,
' but, by the Reliques of the Dead, or the OU
* of their Lamps, or the Sign of the Crofs — We
r may admit the Miracles (if there is proper Evi-
' dence to fuppdtft ^iem) without being obliged
' to admit as divine Verities the Invocation oi Saints,
*¦ the Adoration of Reliques o? Images, or any other
* fuperftitious Cuftom which then prevailed.' His
Reafon is, ' Becaufe there does not appear to be
' any neceffary ComeCHo» between the Work, and
' the Worker's Approbation of fuch Practices "".
I muft
* Obferv. p. 7.
1 Obferv. p. 8. a Obferv. p. 8  ro.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 1 1
I muft here beg Leave to obferve, in my turn,
that tbe thing to be attended to at prefent is, not, as
the Obferver puts it, ' whether Miracles wrought in
« any Age, are Confirmations ofthe concurrent Ufages
« or Practices of that Age* (Confirmations of th$
Divine Approbation of fuch Praftices, I fuppofe
He means ; ) nor, whether the Obligation to the
Adoration of Reliques, will follow from Miracles
being wrought by fuch Reliques ; But, whether Mi
racles wrought in any Age, through or by means of
any Rhe, upon Application to God through that
Rite; whether Mir deles fo wrought, are not
to be confidered as Confirmations of the Divine
Approbation of the Innocence or Lawfuhefs of
fuch Rite of Application; 'provided always, that
no Mark or Intimation of a Difapprokatim' of ihe Rite
be, or hath been given (which muft be fuppofed
in the prefent Cafe, or elfe We are arguing about
Nothing) to diftinguifh between, granting the End*
and, approving tbe Means. This is the Que
ftion: For if the Affirmative be true; namely,
that Miracles fo circumftanced, are to be coaEdered
as Confirmations of the Divine Approbation of
the Lawfukefi qf fuch Rit£s ; then it will follow,
that wherever We admit tbe Miracle, We muft ad
mit the Pradice ts have fuch Divine Approbation ;
and then, to admit the Miracles, faid to be wrought
in the Ages after the Apoftles, to which Popery
may appeal, in Confirmation of it's fuperftitious
Rites, as by the Efficacy of fkch Rites, perpetual
Miracles are affirm'd to have been wrought ; — Tp
C 2 admit

I 2 View of the ' Controverfy ¦*¦
admit thefe Miraclds* will certainly be a Conceffion
(unlefs it can be fhewn, as above, that fome Mark
or Intimation of a Difapprobation hath been given)
by which the Church of Rome will obtain Advan
tage ; which is the Propofition the Author of the
Introductory Difcourfe maintains, and the Obferver
is difputing. ¦.'.
Now, the Obferver admits, that if there ap
pears neceffary -Connection between the Work and
the Worker's Approbation Of fuch Practice ; that
then, if We admit the Miracle, We muft admit the
Practice to be a Divine Veritit ; that is, We muft
admit the Divine Approbation of. it. — How far that
Approbation goes, is another Queftion •, But it is
fufficient to my Author's Argument, that the Di
vine Approbation extends (as I have above put it)
to the Innocence and Lawfulnefs . of fuch Practice ;
For This will give fufficient Advantage to the
Church of Rome,
The only Queftion then1 remaining, is, Whether
there does appear any neceffary Connection between a
Miracle, wrought, by Means of any Rite, upon
Application to God, through that Rite, without any
Mark or 'Intimation of a Difapprobation of the
Rite having been given ; whether, there does ap^
pear any neceffary Connection' between a Miracle
fo wrought, and the Divine Approbation of the
Innocence and Lawfulness of that Rite.-r-To Me
there appears to be a neceffary Connection • beT
tween them; i. e. a Connexion morally- neceffary -,
fucha Connection, as that every Man of common Under-

concerning Miraculous Powers. 1 3
Underftanding will, and ought to, infer , the one
from the other ; which is fufficient to the prefent
Argument. If We admit that Perfons, in, the
Ages fpoken of, have (for Inftance) applied to
God for the Cure of Diftempers, through the
Touch or Adoration of Reliques or Images; and
that God hath, actually conferrd the defired Cures,
upon fuch Application, by, and through thefe Rites,
without any Mark of his Difapprobation of fuch
Practice having been given* — What are We to
conclude from hence? I think, if We have Reafon
and common Underftanding, We muft infer, that
God approved of thefe Rites of Application, at leaft
as innocent and lawful; and This, joined with fo
great and particular Efficacy of them, as God's
even working a Miracle, upon Application, through
thefe Rites, will infer the Divine Approbation of
the Ufe of them, as not unfit, or improper Rites
of Application. I do not fee, how fuch Appro
bation could be more furely declared. Actions
fpeak as truly as Language can do ; and Approbation,
or Difapprobation, may be as ftrongly expreffed by
the one, as by the other. There was a late Cuftom,
even in this Proteftant Nation, of applying to
God for the Cure of a Diftemper, through the
Royal Touch; from thence called the Kings-Evil.
If You give up the Cures, faid to have been done by
it, there is an End of the Queftion : But if You
affert the Facts ; I ask, does God approve of
this Rite as lawful, or does He not ? If You
fay He does not, it will lie upon fome Perfons tp
vindicate

i4 View of the Controverjy
vindicate die Ufe of it, and of a Form of Prayer
eompofed for* and ufed in, a Rite which God does
not approve of, as lawful, though the Cures be
afferted. But if You fay He does fo approve
Of it; how will You prove That; or defend the
Lawfulnefs of a Pra&iee, which feems to carry
rather more Superftition in it, than touching the
Reliques of a Saint, or a Martyr (iot Kings are
not always either the one or the other ;) but by al-
l'edgtng the Cures ftfrppofed to begiven, in Evidence
of the Divine Approbation of this Rite, and no
Mark oi- Difapprobation appearing?
'T i s true, God may fometimes fee fit to grant
a Rfequeft, when He does not approve of the Re-
queft", nor of the Thing requefted ; as in the Cafe
of rV Ifraelite: asking a King ; But then, He let
Tnem know, at the fame Time He 'granted their Re-
qr:eft, that He difapproved oi both: Whereas the
Cafe is' quite different, when He grants the Re-
queft, and works a Miracle for it, by the Inftru-
Wentalily' oi that Rite, through which He is applied
fo for it, without having fignified any Difappro
bation of the Rite:
I do not fay, that every Miracle is a Proof of
the Divine Approbation, either ofthe Means, or of
the End ; For, what We may' call a Miracle, may,
for oughtWe know, be wrought by inferior Powers,
by God's Sufferance ; as Mofes intimates, by warn
ing,, his People againft Thofe who might attempt
to feduce Them, even though fhe Sign came topnifs.
But what I affert is, that if God Hmfelf'jWBrk a
MraeJe

concerning Miraculous Powers. 1 t;
Miracle through any Kite, upon Application to
Him for it by that Rite, without having given any
Mark, or Notice, of His Difapprobation : offueb
Rite; This, as fer as I am able to judge, muft
infer that He approves of the Instrumentality of that
Rite of Application as lawful, innocent, and neither
unfit, nor improper.— The Obferver fays, there
* muft be fome Circumftance in the Miracle nvhich
' fpecifies the Mention of the Worker, and Shews
' that it is meant to authorize fuch Ufage".' This
Affertion (for it is no more) I deny; and let. the
Obferver prove it at his Leifure. In order to au
thorize any Ufage, there is no Neceffityth&t there
fliould be any Circumftance in the Miracle. to fhew,
that the authorizing fuch Ufege, is the End and
Intention of the Miracle; if the Divine ,Approba.-
tion of the Lawfuhtefs of foth Ufage may 'be m-
ferr'd, nmthout knowing whether the ; authorizhg ic
were fitopiy the End of the Miracle or not: But
that the Divine Approbation of its Lawfulnefs may
be inferred, without that Circumftance, : will, in
the Sequel, be fufficiently made to appear. .
But let Us hear what the Obferver hath farther
so urge. — ' If God (fays He) thinks fit to. work a
' Cure by dead Men's Bones, it will not follow that
' dead Men, or their Bones ought ro be warjbippei^
* or that. God approves fuch Warjhip, in 'Thofe
' Who receive the Cure".'  No: To infer the
Worfhip of Reliques, in the . high Senfe of Wor
fhip, merely from Miracles, being wrought by
them, is an Inference too large; But We may
: infer
" Obferv. p. 8. ° Obferv. p. io.

1 6 - View oj c the Cdntroverfy
infer the Lawfulnefs and. Innocence oi the Rite, fo
far as. it, goes; which- is > all the Inference contend.,-
ed for; namely, that if God think "At to work a
Cure, upon Application to Him' for, it, .through
the Rite of touching, or venerating ,\ dead Men's
Bones; We may infer (if no Mark. or Intimation of
His Difapprobation hath been given) that fuch Rite
of Application to Him . is lawful and innocent-— or
elfe I will throw* away my Logic,, and conclude
.that" Nothing. can be inferr'd from any Thing..
And' this inference ris fufficient, to our Autho r*s
Argument. — He is to fhew, that Popery may gain
Advantage by Our admitting thefe' Miracles -to have
been wrought, through ox for the Sake o/;fuch fuper
ftitious Rites as are before-mentioned, without any
-Mark of Difapprobation '<¦ given : And an Advan
tage Popery will certainly -gain by fuch Cbnceflion,
if Popery can plead, or appeal to, fuch -Miracles
in the Primitive Ages, ¦ for the Lawfulnefs and
•Innocence of the Ufe of fuch Rites of Application:
But this Lawfulnefs and Innocence I have fhewn
may be inferr'd from fuch Miracles: Therefore,
here is Advantage fufficient to fupport Their fuper
ftitious Veneration of Reliques, and Their Application
to God through fuch Rites ; and confequently Advan
tage fufficient to prove the Expediency oi rejecting
the Miracles appealed to for that Purpofe.
Another Writer hath appear'd, whofe Book
profeffes to be a Confutation of the Principles of tbe In
troductory Difcourfe^ But Principles are not always
confuted, with the fameEafe that a Title-Page.is writ-
• ten.

concerning miraculous Powers. if '
The Principles of the Introductory Difcourfe are, 1
believe, far enough Out of this Gentleman's peachy1.
What He has to fay by way' of 'Argument, lies
within a very fhprt COmpafs ; and therefore it.
will, be no great Interruption, if We take it in pur
Way.— He' argues, that the Worffip of Reliques,
&c. was not fo early as the Miracles perform'd by
them; and therefore, that the latter will not infer" "
the former.-*"- 1 have diftinctly fhewn (fays He) that!.
'We may allow Miracles to have been performed
' by a Power attending upon a mbnafticLife; Upon
'the Reliques of Martyrs, -the TSign of the Crofs,
4 and confecrated Oil, before thefe Rites and Infti-
'tutions' were abufed. And it does not appear^
1 that Any "of the Fathers declare actually, upofi1
'Their own Knowledge, . that Miracles wire
' Wrought as Cohfequences of thefe Rites and In-
' "ftitutions thus abufed. And therefore though Wc
r allow rqal Miracles to have attended upon thefe
* Rites on the Authority of the Fathers, We may
« confiftently reject thefe Rites abufed as they are"
' by the Rprnifh. Church.6' He admits here, that
there were Rite s and Inftitutions, relating to the
touching of Reliques, through which, by a Power
Attending upon them, the Miracles in. queftion were
wrought; for He fpeaks of thefe Rites before they
were abufed^ as they now are, in the Church of
Rome. The Abufe of the Rites, fuppofes the Rite's
exifting before. Now what are the Principles He is
D here
. "Mr. Cem&er'i Examination of a late Introductory Dif
courfe, p. 41.'

1 8 x Zfm Qf tk ContrQver^im^
hereto confute.?. Th^y are, that tf We admit the-
Miracles, We muft admit tbe Rites, for the Sake of.
which the Miracles were wroMg&tt ' And that when-,.
ev'eV any facred Rite becoijipj tlie Inftrument of,
real MiracUJ, We 6ugrit''f^c6niiaer thai t Rite as,
confirmed by Divine. Approbation.— -Now, hpw does
He'cQiifute This? Why, He fays, very fhrewdly,
that "Mtracfes wrought by thefe P^tes^ in the Pri-T
r^tij^ges, y^^o0rtti ^.'Worfhip of R^
lujuesyias now prattifed. in, thp Church of Rom/.
—But, if the ^jra'cjes., wer,e. wrought by thefe.
Rites of touching Re}iques, or applying to God-
foralCure, through fuch I£ites,> fo. cirsumftanced,
as afore- mentioned; This, will (for any thing he.
has raid) . coniirrn tne . Lqwfclnefi^ '^a&^nnoffnce. of
fuxb'kiies; <^c\\fi^ikQfUoMufu^i o^fflie 7«/ro-.
duftory Difcourfe \ and 'which therefore ftands un-
cpnfuted by,th^'^ Pofition of,
t^e//«W^%^i§^«%|sr ,t^ jf ^e a^mit the,
Miracles, We mifffadmit the "Krfw fpr,/^ &?&? o/I
^K&V^. /ft? M\racles wer^ wrought ; ^ndj therefore,,
though it be true, d/ijat "VVe are not obliged tp ad-
xrjif the Werfhrp of. Reliques, , in,, th^.^y^ Sy«/f e£
fgprj&j.pi.a^jt is,«o^fajd. to be. pr|ftifed in the.
£h,urch 'off §ome';. y.e|. it may ftiU .^e tru?, thaj^
We muft "admit tlie.; i$*f «•* they,, w,ere praCtiJed
when tbe Miracles werj. wrought ; which is fufficient,
to our. Author's Purpofe; . „as it will be allowed*
that_/«r& Rites were the Seedj^t leaft of fuch Cor-,
rijpttions, "as now appear, at full Growth in the
Romifh Church. This is fufficient to our Author's
Argument}

concefhrHg MtracuMiPvwers. 19
Argument; For if that Church be once put in
Pofie&dri of % Proof from Mirdctes, of tht LawT
fulnefs bf fuch kites, and of Applying to God for
the Cure pf Dfftempers through fuck Rite's; it is
eafy to fee what Advantage' it will make
of It. For furely the $xaminer knows, that there
is not one Mah of Senfe, in the Church of Rome?
Who would go abdut to prove the LawmlnefS of
the Worfhip of Reliques, ih the high 'Senfe 'qf Wor
fhip '(whatever the Practice may Be; by appealing
to fuch Miracles ; but will be corirehted with the
&eliquiarum Venemtio, . Sariaorkm Invocatib, and
Cr'ucis Veheratio, before- mentib'rieci ; which 'Thei
may eafily prove fp have been Practices 8f rjie
fourth Century ; ahd will be fatisfieQ with Oiir ad
mitting Mtrqcles to have been wrdirgrlt through fuch
Rites : So' that to fay, that They ca"hnbi defend, by
thefe Means, the Worfhip of p,etiqup, in the high
Senfe of Worfhip, (a Practice They df claim) is faying
Nothing;;" if We leave Them in Poffeffion of a
Proof of that fnperftltioiis Feneration, and Media
torial Application, the Practice of tffticfi .They at-
aTncf contend for?' &nd w'Hidh ate

Rite's fafficiefitfjr itnlnwful; and, together with
other Dbftrihes and Practicesr affordihg pfrp'urB
enough for our Stpdratidri from th^t Church ; and
to deter Us^ frbrrt delivering tip tb Them,' Proofs
of What We know to be utilatiful;jMb\ utifcfipiutdl
%iies of Application.
Tiii s; is one confider able bbje'citbrt (aV the Eximlrier
calls It)' tb our1 Author's Cdnclufon.—* til the ''rteft
V 2 • Place

gp ,., View of the Controverfy
'Place (fays He) although We fhould allow real
'r.'^rkcles to have, been the Confequences of the
' -performance of thefe Rites when abufed, yet We
' might confiftently'ftill reject the Rites themfelves r
'.for if they can be proved' [obferve fhe Reafon',
for it is, a curious one ! ] * ihcdnfiftent with God's
' Commands, it is inconfiftent to fuppofe them tp
' be confirmed by His Power, and therefore We
* muft conclude thefe Miracles the Operations of
* evil Spirits.'? — And therefore I will tell Him
fomething farther that We muft conclude too; and
That is, that the Examiner's Thoughts muft have
been a Jittle wandring, when He cpmpofed this
Part qf His Confutation pf our Author's Principles;
For, in the Name of All thcFathers, did any One,by
,the Miraculous Powers continued to the Church after
fie Days of the Apoftles, about Which the Queftion is
.—Did any One ever mean, by thefe, the Operation
cf ' Evil Spirits ? -r;.h npt the Queftion, Whether
the Divine Interpofition by Miracles, attended the
.Church in the Ages ftjccetding the Apoftles?
What then have We to do with the Examiner's
gvil Spirits? Would the Miracles cpntended for,
by the ancient and modern Dolors of the Church,
be worth contending fpr, as the Operation of Evi\
Spirits ? — Or wpuld they beany Thing to the Purpofe
in the prefent Debate? — The Examiner's Argument
jherefore, as it ftands poffefs'd with thefe Evil Spirits* is
Nothing to thePurpofe. — But this Gentleman.inftead
pi confuting the Author He oppofes,hath here argued
Himfelf into an unlucky Dilemma}Wi\ich will oblige
Him,
p Exam. p. 4;.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 2 1
Him,- either to afterr, that the Miracles} in the
prefent Queftion, if true, were really, the Ope
ration of Evil Spirits; or elfe, to give up, the
Queftion, that if We admit the Miracles to- be Di
vine, We .mjuft admit ibe . Innocence of the Riter.
For the Rites, We fpeak of, are fuppofed, on
both Sides, 'to be unlawful,. -(otherwife .thefe
Gentlemen would have no Ufe for. Their DiftiriEliony
pi admitting-, ihe Miracle^ and rejecting fhe Rite.*
For if thefe : Rites were lawful, They might then,
in Support pf .Their Queftion, as well admit the
Rite as the Miracle, and fo would be under no
Difficulty from this Argument ;) But if thefe Rites
be unlawful* ..they will ftand in the fame Clafs
with Rites abufed; for Rites abufed,, are no other-
wife fo, than as they are unlawful. If then the
Rites we fpeak of, be unlawful ; it will follow, by
this Writer's own Principle, that the Miracles in
Queftion, if really wrought, were the Operation
of Evil Spirits; for Rites abufed (fays He) infer the
Miracles wrought by them to be the Operations
of Evil Spirits; a Method This, of defend
ing the 'truth pf the Miracles in the Ages after
the Apoftles, which the pendemen, who write
on that Side the Queftion, will not thank him for,
— If, on the other hand, He fay that thefe Mi
racles were not the Operation of Evil Spirits,
but Divine- Miracles; then it will follow, by His
.own Principle ftill, that thofe Ritjs were lawful ;
Becaufe, if they were unlawful, or Rites abufed,
t^ey would infer the Miracles, $o be the Operation

I $ ^ View ^ $fo {johtrobetfy
9f-miV~i$rtos\ arid therefore, if thefe Miracles
w8sfe »WJ the Opetfafifen of evil S^iritV ihe kite's
feobld ndt be mlah&fiil.— But now, if i)z'<y}«* jtiK-
fMes infer1 fofcjjfti Rfois then He gives' up 'the
Qaeftibrr, and owns, that if We admit We Divini
Mirtkle-s; 'We niuft fcJfez? the LawfuBrefs of the
Rile;iV& fo, inftead bf confuting this Principle,
He \issgivth it up, and' 'confirmed #.— Ey erid'ea-
vburmgto ward Off his Adverfary's Objection, Of
glvirtg an Advantage to the Chtifch Of koine ;
Hfe gives up the Queftion, 'viz. the Exiftence' W
Miracles ; fbf Miracles' wrbtight by Evil Spirits, arid
m Miracles, are, iri the prefent Cafe, the fame ; fincfe
Miracle's Wrought by Evil Spirits will not prove
the Divine Affiftance, as evidenced by Miracles,
in the Ages fucceedlng the Apoftles ; Which is
the Paint contended for.— And fo much for the
Confutation. I now1 return to the Obferver.
* GOD (fays- He) may reward the Piety of the
' Perfon Who ap£lltes to Him in Faith and Truft,
* Without bditig underftobd, as approvifig the Su-
1 pef ftition.' * - — "Without befhg fo underftood by
Whom ?— The Perfon applying ?— -Can it be fup
pofed that lie would not Underftand God's grant-
$rl<* His Requeft, by fhe Mea'ris through which He
appHifi for it, as an Approbation oi the LaWuhieft
and innocence oi thefe Means ;M ho Note of Difi
dpprdbdtion were sodded ?" — ' Would not the fame
•tffattfa^Sbri' have -alio- the like Effect upon tfit
Sfed-dtof's, and upon all fUcceeding Ages, if HO'Mark
or IrWirriarion' of any Difapprobdlioft be ever after
given ?
* Obferv. p. to.

concerning Mirac^lot^^ Powers. 23
given ? Which muft be fuppofed in the prefect
Cafe. — Fpr my tart, I t^nript fee how They could,
think otherwife.«r-The Argument is, God may
rewara\ the Piety" of the Perfon applying, by the
Cure, without approving the Means, of Appli-
catipn.^-Byii, as to the Manlir^felf, the Queftion
is ; h it i;eafpnable f<^r Him to believe, that God
would reward His Piety by and. through thofe v^ry
Means which it is fuppofed that He difapproyes of ,as
unlawful ?. Would He reward the pipiis Man', by
doing Xb®tA . which would confirm him fof .eve^,.
ahd( rivet Him in His. Superftitiop, without giving
Him any Made to diftinguifh, between rewarding
His Piety, and,' approving, the' Means ; bur, kave^
Him to find out, "What, without; the Afpffence-of
the Obferver* s Argument, He wpujd probably never
think of? Surely it would be very far from rer.
warding Him, thus tp confirm. Him in, and give \
SanCiiofl to, Hi? Superftitipn ; fuch. a Sanction,.' a$
ten, I, believe, would npt look u.rjqn, a^^Mi,rJk.
of the Divine Approbation,
But He Ceen/js to think, that, the Man's Fajfb,
may merit fuch a Reward, as He calls it.— r— I fhaHf
not prefume to limit the Merits or the Rewards of
Faith. Nor do I queftiou thati the Obferver thinks
it will go a, great Way : Bp_c This I mav baVe
Le4Vje- tp.fey;:tha£ if He- isi of -Opinion,, that a
Perfon's applying to God in Faith, through the
%meyatiqn of R,eliques and. Images, , for the Cure.qf
Difeafes, is fufficient to- authorise- the Belief of a
Divine Miracle .to. be - wrought, in, Reward ^f Mis
Piety ; I- do not fee, but, by the fame Method.;
:':'; .:'''' He

24 View oftheContr&oerff
He may vindicate' afl the prefent Superftition con
demned in the Church of Rome ; provided only,
thai" thefe Rites be pradtifed in Faith ; .'and fo, the
more fuperftitious,; the.' more Reafon to' expeCt ML
racles.-— If Minclesfdre not even now wrought by
thefe 'Means, the Obferver allows that they maybe,
in 'Reward of the Piety, and Faith- pf the Devotee ;
and what farther Marie, of the Divine Approbation,
and cpnfequently what 'better Vindication ,of the
Practice, would fuch an One defire or expect ? —
May He not with Reafon fay. — God approves of
my Piety and Faith, in applying "to Him for the.'
Cure- of my Difeafe, through the * Veneration , and''
"Touch of a \ Crucifix ; by falling down to the Reliques oj '
a Female, Martyr, r or the venerable Bones oi ^Symeon
Slylites.s— Would He reward Me with the Cure thro' '
thefe Means, if my Actions, and tlie Means, were fin
ful, or unlawful ? Might 1 not. rather expect, as
a. Reward of my Piety and Faith, that He would
gracioufly give me fome Notice of my Error, if it,
be one,, that I might a void it for the future ;. in-'
ftead of fhewing fuch a Manifeftation of His
Power, hisTep*T(* ta.niyd.Ktt, in my Behalf, and thro'' thofe
«• Vid. Chryfoft. Op. T. 2. p 641;. Ed. Bened. ">
• There were Two fo called. The Former flouriflied Ann.;
448. lived 30 Years upon the Top of a high Pillar, whence tie'.
had His Name, is faid to have work'd man}/ Miracles, arid diecf-
between Ann. 460, and 467. '•— The Latter flouriflied Ann.
527 ; Who, in Imitation of the Extravagance .of the Other,
Jived 68 Years in the fame Manner ; and died, famous alfo for1
His Miracles, Ann. 595. — Vid. Cav. Hilt. Lit.. Vol. I. p. ,438}
508. Ed. Oxon. 1740.
It is alfo faid of the farmer Symeon, that He lived feven
Years upon the Top of a Rock, where He had fattened Him-.
felf with a great Iron Chain, (ibid ) — Which if He had not,
would certainly have been the wifeft Thing His Friends could
have done for Him.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 25
thofe very- Means, which You tell' Me we finful,
and offenfive to Him ; without the leaft Mark of
Difapprobation ? For, though fome learned, and
ciear-fighted Proteftants may underftand, that God
may reward my Piety and Faith, by working a
Miracle, through, and by Means of, that Rite of
Application which I make ufe of to that End, with
out -fignifying thereby any Approbation of the Law
fulnefs of that Rite '; yet This feems to be a Di-
ftinCtion (He may fay) calculated for the Meridian
of London, and a Subtilty, beyond the Refinement of
the Church of Rome.
The Truth is, Faith may undoubtedly expect
it's Reward ; But then it muft be a rational Faith,
and it's Reward, the Reward proper to it.— A
Faith proper to Perfons, Times, and Circumftances.
— The Word Faith, in Scripture, is ufed in Very
different Significations ; But from none of them are
We authorized to expect Miracles now.— I know
but one Senfe of it, from whence any One may ex
pect This ; and That is, a groundlefs imaginary
Affurance. This can be the only Kind of Faith
to be found in the Expectation of Miracles, through
fuch Rites of Application as, it is fuppofed, God
does not approve of. — Yet this is the Faith which
the Obferver is here contending, that God may ne-
verthelefs reward by a Miracle; And He is wel
come to make the moft of this Argument, with
out juftifying all the Superftition oi Popery.
. But the Reader will give Me Leave to take
Notice here, of What an ingenious Friend fuggefted,
in a Converfation Upon this Subject, viz. * that
E ' They

a 6 View of the Controverfy
* They Who, in the Primitive Ages, may have in-
* ferr'd the Divine Approbation of the Lawfulnefs
« and Innocence of the Rites in the prefent Debate^
' from Miracles fuppofed to have been wrought
c by them ; may neverthelefs have made an Inference
' that is not a right one ; Becaufe God might, in
' His Wifdom, fee Reafon to work the Miracle
* through fuch a Rite of Application, which Rite
' He at the fame Time difapproved of in itfelf,
' without fhe wing fuch Difapprobation ofthe Rite ;
1 as it might not be a proper 'time for it ; that the
c Circumftances, and State of the Church and
? Chriftianity, might require thefe Rites to be
* fuffer'd as yet ; and that, though an Abolition oi
' them might, in itfelf, be proper ; yet, that (as
1 our Lord fays upon another Occafion) They could
' not bear it now ; and fo that God might intend to
* wait a proper and fit Opportunity ; to let the Mi-
.* racle and the Rite go jointly at prefent, and both
* grow together (like the Wheat and the Tares)
* until the Harveft of Chriftianity was fully got
* in, and the Church fo filled and eflablifhed, as
c to admit, with more Succefs, fuch a Purgation,
' fuch a Separation oi the good and the bad ; but
'. that the Hour was not yet come.'
I have thought proper to mention this Ob
jection, becaufe it is more to the Purpofe than any
I have yet met with. I have endeavoured to put
it in as ftrong Terms as I could, and to give it its
due Weight.
But my learned Friend will be pleas'd to confi
der, that there is a great Difference between Amply per-

concerning Miraculous. Powers. 27
permitting or fuffering a Practice (upon which the
Strefs of this Argument lies ) and' giving, as it
were, a Sanction to it; working a Miracle through
that Rite or Practice (as is fuppofed in the prefent
Cafe) and thereby giving fuch a fuppofed Note of
Approbation, as that the Man cannot but infer the
Lawfulnefs and Innocence oi fuch Practice: And
therefore, tho' We may fuppofe, that God may,,
on fome. Occafions, permit, or fuffer a Practice to
continue for a Seafon, which, at the fame Time,
He may difapprave of, as neither lawful nor inno
cent ; yet We cannot, I think, with equal Reafon
fuppofe, that God would alfo add a Mark, which
fhould have fuch an. Appearance of His Sanction,
and Approbation of fuch Practices.
When St. Paul found the City oi Athens, wholly
given to Idolatry ( or full of Idols, *g.7*lShkov
%mv nv tto'mc ) and beheld 'Their Devotions (7*
oiCo.7im.to) Their Sacra, Their Images, and Altars,
and religious Rites) He told the People, Whom
He perceived in all Things too fuperftitious (very fu
perftitious, J'HmituiMViH^i) that the' Times of this
Ignorance God winked at, »>#, over-looked,
paffed over, permitted, or fuffer ed to be Times of
Ignorance. Now This, I will allow, is confiftent
with a Difapprobation of fuch Practices : But if
God had alfo wrought Miracles by Their Images
and Altars, upon Their Application to Him
through Their Sacred Rites ; This would have been
more than fimply permitting, or fuffering thefe
Practices-, it would have been an Approbation of
fhe Innocence and Lawfulnefs of them ; " and there
in 2 fore

28 View of the Cohiroverfy
fore inconfiftent with any fuppofed Difapprobation. -
But I would, afk (in the Cafe fuppofed) what
is the Man to do? He knows not the Rite to be,
finful, or unlawful ; . but thinks . the Contrary, .
when He makes Ufe of it. . He hath likewife
a ftrong appearing Mark of. God's Approbation of
the Innocence and Lawfulnefs of it, by his working.
a Miracle, at the Defire of the Supplicant,.
through this Rite. For the Miracle is, all along, in.
this,Debate, fuppofed to be.a Divine Miracle, a Mi
racle wrought by God. Is He now to wait, notwith-.
Handing This, all His Life after, without venturing,
again to ufe the fame ; in prder to fee, whether God
may not, in fome future Time, give Notice of His
Difapprobation ; and which Time may, for the fame
Reafon, be expected from Century to Century ? Or,
if the fame Rite be fuppofed to have been practifed
twenty Times, and received, as often, the fame ap
pearing Note" of fuch Divine Approbation ; is He ftill
to fufpeCt, that, poffibly, God may hereafter give
an Intimation that He did not approve of it ? And
is fuch a mere Sufpicion, to have more Weight
againft the Pradice, than the prefent pofitive Mark
of Approbation, hath for the; Practice?
Well, but ftill He may infer wrong. — If He
may, notwithftanding what I have faid, which
places the higheft Probability on the other Side ; it
mtjft, I think, be allowed to be an excuftable,
and almoft inevitable Error, in any Man who will
follow His Reafon;' and the Conclufion fuch, as
- He could fcaree avoid making. In a word,
there' is the higheft Probability of His. being in the
right ;

concerning Miraculous Powers. 29
right; which furely is to out-weigh the bare
Pofftbility of His being in the wrong.
As to the fucceeding Ages, the Objectipnj now
confider'd, does not lie; Becaufe, if, in many
Ages after, there fhould. have appear'd no fuch
Mark of, the, Divine Difapprobation of fuch Rites
as We are. fpeaking of; the Inference is7& much the
ftronger for the divine Approbation of their Law
fulnefs and Innocence; fupppfing the Miracles to
have been wrought fo circumftanced as before
mentioned'; and that there hath been no Marks of
fuch Difapprobation fhewn, muft ('as I have before
obferved) be fuppofed in the prefent Queftion ;
otherwife, the Cafe now debated would be no
Queftion at all: For, if it could be proved, that
God had fo explained His Will and Intention, and
Difapprobation of any Rite, through which He
had thought proper, in His Wifdom, notwithftand
ing, to work a Miracle ; no One would go about
to argue for His Approbation of it, from the Miracle ;
againft His exprefs Declaration of the Contrary. Or,
if it could be proved, that He hath given as
ftrong an Evidence only (but as ftrong it muft
be) for His Difapprobation ; as the Miracle-is of His
Approbation; This likewife would preclude the
Argument from the Latter. The Queftion there
fore can be only, what Inference is to be drawn
from a Divine Miracle, fo circumftanced as afore-
faid, without any Mark of Difapprobation having
been fhewn. And this being the Queftion ; the
foregoing Reafoning, I think, ftands good, for in
ferring the Divine Approbation pf the Rite, as inno~
cent and lawful, I?

3 o -'c% View of tlye Cmtroverfy
If it be faid, that the Want of Miracles now,
upon Application through fuch Rites, is as ftrong\
a Proof of the TiivineDifapprobation of the Rites ;
as the Miracles vr ere, of the Divine Approbation;
This I muft deny ; becaufe the Difapprobation of
working Miracles at allj, through any Rite, may be
fufficient to account for the Want oi Miracles, in any
Cafe, without a Difapprobation of the Rite oi Appli
cation as unlawful in itfelf. Prayer to God through
Chrift, is a Rite of Application, which We know
hath the Divine Approbation ; and yet the want of
Miracles, though requefted through that Rite, may
be expected in the prefent State Of the Church ;
and accounted for, from God's not feeing it pro
per to work Miracles at all; and does not infer a
Difapprobation of the Rite.— We cannot conclude,
even from any common Requeft not being grant
ed, that the Rite of Application is therefore dis
approved of ; much lefs can We draw fuch a Con-
clufion, from not obtaining the Requeft of Mi
racles. — Miracles ceafing to be wrought, therefore,
through fuch Rites, as they are reported to have
been wrought by, in the Ages now in Queftion, is fo
far from being as ftrong a Proof of God's Difappro
bation of the Rites, as the working Miracles through
thofe Rites was a Proof of His Approbation
of them ; that it is no Proof at all.— But however,
an Argument from the want of Miracles now, will
be of no Force againft Thofe who appeal to Mi
racles in the Primitive Church as inferring the Divine
Approbation of Their fuperftitious Rites ; Becaufe
'the fame Perfons contend for tfye Continuance of
Miracles ftill in their own.
But

concerning Miraculous Powers. 3 1
But it may perhaps be urged, that God's exprefs
Declarations in Scripture, againft all Superftition and
Idolatry, are as ftrong a Proof pf His Difapproba
tion of thefe Rites ; as the 'Miracles can be fup
pofed to be of His Approbation ; and therefore, that
the Miracles do not infer HisApprobation of fuchi? ites.
I would reply, that by God's exprefs Declara
tions in Scripture, againft all Superftition and Idola
try, muft be meant, either His exprefs general De- ,
clarations againft all Superftition and Idolatry ; , pr
His exprefs particular Declarations, againft any Jper
cifical, , or fpscial Rite. If . the former he meant »
it may be confidered, that a Divine Miracle, wrought
by any Rite, through which- the Supplicant applies
for it, is a ftronger Mark of God's ^Approbation of
the Innocence oi that Rite, than His general Decla
ration againft' Superftition, and Idolatry can be of
His Difapprobation ; where God's direct Will and
Intention {as being delivered in generals) muft be
lefs explicite,a.nd intelligible ; and in which Cafe the
moft reafonable Conclufion would be, that that
Rite, having fuch an exprefs Atteftaiion, cannot be
a Part of , the Idolatry, or Superftition forbidden.
If, by God's exprefs Declaration againft all Su
perftition and Idolatry, be meant His expreis par
ticular Declaration, againft* particular Rites ; dien,
I fay, that it is not reafonable to fuppofe, that
God would give fuch a miraculous Sanction to any
Rite, as is fuppofed, which He had, in Scripture,
given an exprefs and particular Prohibition of; at
leaft not without giving, at the fame Time, fome
Explanation oi this Conduct; to prevent the
Difficulty Mankind muft otherwife inevitably be

3 2 - Vtew of the Contrbverjy
be- involved in, without being able to extricate
Themfelves; by feeing, on one hand, a Pro'
bibitionoi the Rite; and, on the other, a Divine
Sanction of it: And This, with refpect to- the Sup
plicant Himfelf, as "well as Others ; and whether He
befuppofed to know, orbeignorantoiiachProhibition.
If He be fuppofed to&fiM&it, though fuch Suppofition
be not very confiftent with (at leaft a good Man's)
venturing to apply through fuch a Rite ; yet, it
is lefs confiftent with the Suppofition, of God's
giving Him fuch a Mark of Divine Approbation-.
If He be fuppofed to-be ignorant of fuch- Pro
hibition ; yet ftill fuch Explanation appears ' ne
ceflary, as- there really was fuch a Prohibition, -and
as the Man may hereafter be informed of, and
irtftructed in the Knowledge of it.
But however This be; if the Rite, through
which God is faid to work the Miracle, be a
Rite, of which He is fuppofed to have given,
in Scripture, an exprefs and particular Prohibition ;
Whether He add any Explanation of this^Conduct,
or not ; the Miracle, fo circumftanced, is reduced
to the Cafe of a Miracle wrought through a Rite,
of which particular Rite,- a Mark of the Divine
Difapprobation hath been given ; and therefore is
a Cafe beyond the Limits of the prefent Queftion ;
wherein (as I have all along ftated the Cafe) no
Mark of Difapprobation muft be fuppofed to have
been given. — But, if the Gentlemen on the other
Side fhould diflike this Manner of ftalingthe Qde-
ftion ; I beg Leave to obferve, once for all, that
if this Suppofition be not included in the' State of
the Queftion ; it is not only (as I obferved before)
making

concerning Miraculous Powders. 33
nteking it no Queftion at all ; but cannot, in Fact,:
be the Queftion of the prefent Debate : For, if
They fuppofe the Rites of Application, through
which They contend for Divine Miracles having
been wrought in the Ages fucceeding the Apoftles*
to have been Rites of which God hath given His1
exprefs and particular Prohibition in Scripture ; and
fhould think proper to argue frOm that Topic, that
therefore the Miracle does not infer the Divini
Approbation of the Rite ; Then, fince the Primitive
Fathers have recorded thefe Miracles, and fpoken
of thefe Rites with Approbation ; They will, con-^
fequently charge the Fathers, either with being igi
norant of the exprefs, and particular Prohibition of
Scripture ; or elfe, with approving Practices,
which are directly contrary to God's exprefs and
particular Prohibitions. The firft will be incon-
fiftent with the Wifdom, the fecond with the
Piety of the Primitive Fathers. And, I fuppofe,
thefe Gentlemen will not contend for ftating the
Queftion, in any Manner that muft be done at
the Expence of either the one, or the other of thefe
Suppositions. T o fuppofe thefe Primitive Fathers miftaken,
as to the Lawfulnefs or Innocence of certain Rites,
oi which particular Rites, there is fuppofed to be
no exprefs Mark or Declaration of the Divine Dif
approbation given ; may be confiftent with the
Character of Wifdom and Piety (becaufe a wife Man
may yet in fuch a Cafe be miftaken j) But to fup
pofe Them ignorant of the Unlawfulnefs of Rites,
which have in Scripture, received God's exprefs
F and

34 View of the Controverfy
and particular Prohibition, is a Reflection, which,
I dare fay, thefe Writers will not prefume to
throw -upon the Fathers, The former then m«rft
be the Cafe, with RefpeA to thofe Rites in the
prefent Debate ; But here, you fee, -ighe Suppofition
of; po Mark of the Divine Difapprifbatim' of fuch
particular Rites, is included; a«d therefore, that
Suppofition -muft (as: I have laid) make Part in
the State of the prefent Queftion : And if fo,
then, to fuppofe that- the Rites, through which
God is faid to. have work'd the Miracles in Do-
bate, are Rites, of which God hath given His ex
prefs particular Prohibition ; and therefore, that the
Miracles will not infer His Approbation oi the Rites;
This, would be arguing Upon a Suppofition, which
is ^beyond the Bounds ofthe prefent Queftion;
which therefore muft be (as I have all along ftated
j(t) Whether a Divine Miracle, wrought for the
Cure of a Perfon, through the Rite by which He
applies' to God for it, and where no Mark or No
tice js given of God's Difapprobation of the Rik;,
whether a Miracle fo circumftanced, will infer the
Divine Approbation of the Rite, as innocent and law
ful ; and therefore, whether, if We admit the Mi
racles, We muft not alfo admit fhe Innocence and
Lawfulnefs of the Kite. — This is the Queftion
10 which the Debate muft be reduced, and which
¦therefore was the Queftion to be examined.
The fame ingenious Perfon before-mentioned,
feemed to think, that Something might be pleaded,
from* the Cafe of Saul and the "Woman at Endor, in
sfavour

concerning Miraculous Powers. 3 5
favour of the Opinion, that a Divine Miracle;
wrought through any Rite, by which God is ar>
plied to for it, will not truly infer the Innocence
of the Rite. But when the Cirtumflancn of this
remarkable Story are duly confidered, the Cafe will
appear to have no Relation to the prefent Queftion.
I T is not certain, whether God iraterpofed ; or
whether it might not be within the Power of the fa
miliar Spirit to whom Saul applied, to raife up Sa
muel, or fome other Spirit perfonating Samuel, by
God's Permiflion. If the latter were the Cafe ;
then it is plain indeed that the Divine Approbation
of the Lawfulnefs of the Rite can no more be
inferi'd, than the Divine Approbation! of the
Heathen Rites of Application to Their Gods and
Oracles, can be inferr'd from the Succefs which
God might think proper to fuffer Them to re
ceive from thence : But then the Reafon why the
Divine Approbation cannot be inferr'd from' the
Succefs of this Rite, is becaufe the Miracle, in
this Cafe, was not properly a Divine- Miracle, bnt
a Miracle wrought by an Evil Spirit.
But fqppofing that God mterpofed in the Affair,
and that Sanmel appeared, sot by the Power of
Enchantment, but by God's Direction and Appoini-
ntent: Taking the. Cafe to be fo; it may yet be
-confider'd, 1. That We find, Saul had cut off
Thofe that had familiar Spirits, and the Wizards out
of the Land, i Sam. xxviii. 9. And therefore
muft be fuppofed to know before hand that this
Rite of enquiring of familiar Spirits was unlawful.
F 2 ;-!¦ 2. Saul

36 View of the Controverfy
—2. Saul did not apply to God, but to the Woman,
and tier familiar Spirit. He had before enquired, of
the Lord, but the Lord would not anfwer Him, nei
ther by Dreams, nor by Urim, nor by Prophets^
ver. 6.— And therefore it was, that He fought out
a Woman with a familiar Spirit, to raife up Sa
muel; nor did He underftand any Power to be
e^ercifed in the Cafe, befides That of the Woman,
by Her familiar Spirit ; therefore could not infer the
Divine Approbation of this Application to En
chantment; on the Contrary, would think, that
God was no way concerned in it ; Becaufe He had
already refujed to anfwer Him, and was departed
from Him, and become His Enemy, ver. 15, 16. — ;
3. When Samuel appeared, He rebuked Saul fe-
verely, for this His Prefumption in the whole
Tranfaction ; fo that here was a Mark of Dif
approbation fhewn, by God's Prophet : Or if this be
fuppofed to be only a Difapprobation of the calling
up Samuel; yet the whole Turn of the Story, and
the Circumftances attending it, plainly fhew, that
Saul knew what He was doing to be an unlawful
ACt ; and that the divine Power interpofed, un
known to Saul, to permit the Requeft to take
place ; and to raife up Samuel for a Rebuke to Saul,
and in the way of Punifhment ; which can never
jnfer the Divine Approbation of the Rite.-— The
Reader will now confider thefe Circumftances, of
the Story ; and I fhall leave it to Him to apply
thefe Obfervations farther, and to compare thera
with the Cafe in the prefent Debate ; and make '
no

concerning ^Miraculous Powers. % 7
no Doubt that He will foon perceive, that they
are directly oppofite to each other.
I ask Pardon of the Author of the Obfer*
vations, for having a little digreffed from Him
(though not from the Subject) to examine an Ob
jection or two which occurred, in confidering the
Matter in hand.  I now return to His Pam
phlet. The Introductory Difcourfe fays, * That when*
* ever any Sacred Rite or religious Inftitution be-
* comes the Inftrument of real Miracles, We
* ought to confider that Rite, as confirmed by
' Divine Approbation *.' To which the Obferver
anfwers, — 'It may as plaufibly be faid, that if
* God makes any Man the Inftrument of real Mi_
* racks, We ought to confider that Man as, ap-
' prov'd of God V — And fo We may, fo. far as
the Man is concern'd in the prefent Argument.
But there is a Fallacy m this Reafoning, which an
attentive Reader will fee, and which I dare fay
the Writer did not. — What do We mean, by
the Divine Approbation of the facred Rite, when We
fay, that it may he inferred, from that facred Rite
being made an Inftrument of a real Miracle ? Does -
any Man mean more than the Divine Approbation
of the Lawfulnefs of the Ufe of it? — This is all
which the Author, I believe, intended ; I am fure
it is aH that is neceffary to His Argument, to
infer.
But
1 Page 23. " Obfgrv. p. io.
,31-

jS - . View'- of 4ht Controversy
Bu-T now, when the Obferver "talks of infer
ring, in like manner; the Divine Approbation of
the- Man,- from the Man being made a like Inftru
ment ; What does He mean by The Man? Why,
He means the moral Character ofthe Man. . But
was there ever fuch a Parallel drawn ?" What haa
the moral Charaaer oi the Man to do here, i. e;
the Man, abftracted from all Relation to the pre--
fixt Cafe? The Divine Approbation of the Ufe of
the Man may, indeed, be inferr'd from His being
made an Inftrument of a real Miracle ; as the Ap
probation of the Ufe of the Rite is inferred, in, the
other Cafe ; But the moral Character oi the' Man,
hath no Concern in the Argument. The Lawful
nefs oi the InftrumewtaEty oi them, may, in each
Cafe, be inferred j and that is all which is neceflary
to the Purpofe to infer.
But the Obf&tmt, overlooking what it was in
the facred Rite, of which We infer the Divine Ap-.
probation, argues (very plauffbly, indeed, as He
fays) that if the facred Rite be approved, the Man
muft be approved ; and fo, by a Joofe and vague
ExprefEon, He thinks to involve the Argument
in an Abfordity : Whereas, let Him be pleafed ta
fpeak determinately ; and fay, that if the Divine
¦Approbation of the Up of the facred Rite (which
is what the Author means by the facred Rite) be
infe.irr'd from the Rite being made an Inftrument
of a Miracle ; then, the Divine Approbation of
the moral Character of the Man (which is what
the Obferver means by the Man) may be inferr'd from

concerning Miraculoks Powers. 39
from the Man being made a :like Inftrument. — -
Let Him argue.^ thus (a& He in Reality "does)
and then every one -will fee, that the whole is ih.
kjgical, and Nothifig, at all to the Purpofe.
> 'And yet it is, certain (fays He) if Scripture, is
* toA relieved, that bfld Men have been made.. /«*•
'¦ftmmettts 'm the 'Hand of God for very exira-
* ordinary Purpofesw. And 'tis true, that as- front
hence no more san be inferr'd, than the Divine Apr
probation of the Inftrumentality of bad Men jg H®
H-atid, forovery.rtxtfaerdinaty Purpojes-,: So rjbither
in the other Cafe, can any Thing more be inferrfd,
than the Divine Approbation ©£ the -l?iftr,uiNi&rihtlity
of the RiUi- -Nor is any Thing more cOnfpnded
for, or neceffary to the Argument. — The Appro
bation oi the .Inftrumentality is the onlyThing We
are concerned with ; and That, We fee, is equally
infert'd in both Cafes alike. The Reader may •, perr
haps, think that I ought to make an Apology for
having taken any Notice of this Qbfervatiov:—T
But every Thing which comes from fo eminent a
Writer, as rhe Author of the Obfervations, .is
worthy our Regard, and even His Sophifms have
their Dignity. This might be a fufficient An
fwer to all the Obferver proceeds to quote from Dr.
Clagel, to the fame Purpofe ; But, in Refpect to
fy great a Name, and that Names may not pafs
for ^Arguments, I fhall take a particular Notice
of it.
The Obferver cites it, as ' the Determimtim of
* One of the ableft Writers of HisTime, Who had
' well
* Ibid.

$o View ofthe Gohtroverfy^
* w&lt "Confidered the Cafe*:' Not intending, I
fappofe, that We fhould fubfcribe to ariy Man's
Determination, any' farther than' "His > Argument
reaches.'— But it feems He had-weti- confidered tbe
Cafe, was One of ihe ableft Writers of His'Timej and
replies to the --very Argument y.
From One of the ableft Writers of His Time',
and ' Who had well confidered -the- Cafe, One would
expect Something cbnfiderdble. — Let Us then attend
to it. - • •-'- 'h"' ¦ '
1 Th e r b is no Reafon to fuppofe (fays Dr*
« Claget) that every Circumftance oi the Devotion
c of Chriftians that received miraculous Relief
•muft be attefted by thofe Miracles"which God
* wrought in Confirmation of the Truth of Chri-
* ftianity V This is Nothing to our Purpofe.
For the 'Queftion is not, whether every Cir cum*
fiance of the Devotion in general of Chriftians, be
attefted by the MiracleS wrought in 'Confirmation
of Chriftianity in general: But whether the Law
fulnefs or Innocence of the Ufe of any particular
Rite of Devotion, be attefted by Miracles wrought
ly Means of that Rite, upon Application to God
through the fame ; Which is quite a differentThin°\
—But Dr. Claget goes on.
* God has made Ufe even of wicked Men for
« the working of Miracles ; and I cannot under-
* ftand, why a Miracle may not be wrought in
* Behalf of a Sincere Man, without approving HPs
' Weaknefs, any more than the Other's Wickednefs

' is

* Obferv. p. 1 1. r Ibid. * Ibid.

concerning MratUloUs Towers. 4: f
' is appuvfed by" God's making1 UYe of' Him to'
' tefthy the Truth V I arrfwef; In this Cafe, The
Weaknefs of the Man, is not What 'We infer the Di
vine Approbation 6i\, but, *f the lawful' Ufe 'of the
R'tte.— In the other Cafe, the' Wickednefs of 'the
Man, His generalmdraVChdrdCfer, is not approved'
by: His being ^riade . an' Inftrumenl' of a MiracU;
becaufe His ntoratCharaCler has'no Connection witjj'
or Relation to, the Miracle. Nothing can be in-*
ferr'd, for that Reafon, from a Divine Mr£c%l
wrought by means' of a. &wf iVf^«^.but 'that' God,
approves- of tie Inftrument'ality of 'the' J$an; arid'
No'thing is inferr'd, in the other' Cafe, bu'tthitHe'
approves, of the Lawfulnefs or Innocence" of the'Rite,
(between which^ ,and the Miracle1 being wrought
by means of that Rite, upon Application' through
the fame, I have already foe.wn that- there "is ,aJ»^
ceffary Connection^ "which indeed ' are the only." two
Things, to be compared, not' the mor at Character's .of
the Men, -
T« e Obferver next tells a Story, which DV^
Clqget mentions from Jerom ; 'that Hefychius', a
'holy Man, rventurecf His Life' txrfteal thevB6dy
' of Hilarion the Monk, out of the Garden of
' Cyprus, where He was burie'd, . to carfy. it "To
* Paleftine; and that Conftdritia took' the* Lofs ^f
' the Body, fo to Heart, that. She died upon
* it. — That even in t Wis Time there were great
' Miracles dene in both Places; -s which raifed" a
' Contention between Thofe oi Paleftine ahd Thofe
G of
•Obferv.- p. u.

4 % View of the Controversy
« oi Cyprus, one, pretending to his Body, the other
' to his Spirit ;' being willing, it feems, to divide
the Saint between them. -—I fhall- forbear making,
any Remarks upon the^Story.— St. Jerom ahd Dr.
Claget, and perhaps more DoClors have told it.
But however, Dr. Claget,. it feems, — ' does not
^pretend to vouch for the Truth of it," [though St.
Jerom, His Author,, does vouch for it, and that the
Miracles were done, even in His Time] ' as with-
' out Doubt (fays the Obferver, very gravely) all'
'.Stories of , ibis Kind are not to be received iri-
' differently : But to the" Purpofe of our prefent
* Argument, He [Dr. Claget'] makes this Re-..
'mark upon it — If Miracles were done in both"
* Places, I am pretty well fatisfied .that God did
« hot thereby intend to demonftrate either the
' Clearnefs of Hefychius,, Or the Difcretipn of Con-
' ftantia in this Bufinefs, nor approve the violent
\ Paffion of Either of Them for Reliques. — That..
* thofe Miracles did by no means canonize the
' Weaknefs of any holy Perfon, in the Matter of
' Martyrs, or Saints, or Reliques, nor the Indif-
' cfeiion of Hefychius. or Conftanti'a, nor did they
'give any. Authority at all to fuch Examples b'.'
Now, I believe, the intelligent Reader will
eafily fee, that all this long Story, and the Re
mark upon it, are fo far from being any Deter
mination of the Queftion, that they are intirely fo-
reign.— "the Author of the Introductory Difcourfe
maintains, that a Miracle wrought by Divine Power- for
v0Werv. p. n.— ,13.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 43
for the Cure of a Perfon, by means of the touching
(for Inftance) of Reliques, upon the Perfon's applying
to God for that Cure, by the Veneration and Touch
of fuch Reliques ; will infer that fuch Veneration,
and the Lawfulnefs or Innocence of the Ufe of fitch
a Rite of Application, have the Divine Approbation.
—And now, What have We in Anfwer to This ?
Why, We have a Remark upon an idle Story, about
a holy Man ftealing a Monk ; and Conftantia's dying
upon it. — That the Miracles faid to be wrought,
did not infer the Innocence ofthe One, nor the Dif-
cretion of the Other. — But What is all This to the
Purpofe ? Does any One fay, that Miracles wrought
by means of a Relique, would, infer the Divine
Approbation of Theft, or Folly? '.'But ftill, if Di
vine Miracles had been wrought upon Htfychius,
or' Confianlia, or any Other, by means of this
Stoln Relique, through Application made, by a rer
ligious Veneration of it; This, I imagine, would
be thought to infer the Divine Approbation of the
Lawfulnefs or Innocence of the Ufe of fuch a Rite
of Application ; Which is all- the Author is con-
cern'd to defend — whatever becom?s of the reft of
the Story.
Since then, by the Obferver 's Confeffion, if
there appear to be a neceffary Connection between
the Work, and the. Workers Approbation of fuch
Pradice0; We muft,. in foch Cafe, admit the
Lawfulnefs and Innocence of the Ufe of the Rite
jf We admit the Miracle to be wrought by Applj-
G 2 cation
c Obferv. p. 9, io.

^4- Miew,afo$e.CwtrQverJy
cjltjpn. through, iu$h Rite ; .and fince it has been*
jl'jhink, fofficieptly, made to appear, that there is&
ipeceffary Cpnne&iqp between the Work, the Mi
racle fo wrought aH^ the Worker's Approbation oi
the Lawfulnefs and Innocence of the Ufe of. fiich
Practice, fuch Rite, through which it is wrought •>
\t .fpjlows, that, either We mpft' reject the Truth
of the Miracles faid to have beep wrought .through
fuch Sort of Rjtes ; or elfe We ijiuft admit them
as Confirmations of the Lawfalpefs of Inmcence ofthe
Ufe of fuch' Rites: And therefore, ..the conce
ding fuch Miracles, fo wrought, in jthbfe Centuries,
to which , the Papifts appeal for fuch Miracles ^
is a Conceffion, wruch, if Popery .cannot gain Ad
vantage by, I know i\ot any by which' it can;
fince it appears to Me to be a direcl Conceffiort9 in
Support oi the Ifke fuperftitious Rites ufed in the
Church qf Rome. So that this ' Affertion turns put,
to be neither fo bold, nor fo needlefly adventured
upon, as the Obferver represents it. — ' When W.e
' fee this Writer (fays He) thus needlefly adven-
' turing upon a Md Affertipn, and fetting All Chri-
' ftian Writers, both ancient and modern, atabfolutj?
« Defiance ; it gives but too much Caufe for Suf-
« picion, that Something elfe lay at . Bottom, to exjciie
'rHim to this Undertaking, befides the Growth of
* Popery in this f^ing4ottfi.?r- As to the Charge, pf
fetting All Chriftian Ifrit.ers, both ancient andjnor
dem, at abfolute Defiance ; it wjll ,more properly
be taken notice of in another Place, As tp th?
Alfertion being boldly and .needlefly adventured upom
I ihal'l only obferve, that if to afiert, that-' a Con-.
* Obferv. p. 5. ceffion

conQermqgMiracufausPffwers. 4^5
? c#ok of fuch Miracles to the Ages after the
* Apoftles, to which Pap$s may appeal in Support
* of Their fuperftitious Rites, will give Advantage
'.to Papay", beaPrQpafitioniwlbifiiiiheM.Hdiar of
the Introductory Difcourfe -ow ^>rave ; and*if, ma
-the other fidq, ,to aflaKt, .that ' Papery nan. granwo
' Advantagebyfuah-ConcdfEon,' .be -a ftopusfirion
which ^•Qb/ermr ineither (has, mor .can iprove 5
the Reader will judge, ,to -whieh of ihe two Affer-
stionstihe £oldnefs is pr.op.erJy te be changed.
3 u t -chece lis iCmfie for Mfptem ,(at (feoms) .that
Something .$fe lies .ai •Bmtt>mr~-&\it if fobe tFouadacion
of Jhis Suspicion ((which Wefind «was «he fu^fidfed
Maldqefs jubdMeedlefitqlfi *af (the AtfkaAcmj) is raben
,a*yay ; the Author -will be dm mo igrezt Pain jfor
<the Qbferver'h $^&r,£ki^ym ; Hi&12bf&,vMiwxkm.
Samethug dfe muft He oat Mtf4om.-—The Aasdaor <cff
the introdu&ory Difmrfe hait'hflheiwsn {as.Hethirafesj
ghat the Growth of Piopery may tee adwantaiged by
|he iQjncpffloo, \i the Oifsrver thinks «3ae 'Coa-
Israry .; Is it not a fuficierat AgooiKit of this Phse-
nomenon, that Doctors differ, and that One cf
Them is jraiftaksen ? ¦ — Why muft Something elfe
lie at Bottom.?- — I would &y Nothing willingly,
that might ju-fMy giveOjiieoce.to the Obferver; But
I cannot avoid faying, that the throwing out dark
Sufpicions and dubious Ifljjuendos, ai Something elfe
lying at Bottfun, Which always leaves the candid
Reader tp fopppfe the very worft He can t though
it be but too common a Cuftom, is yet not very
confiftent with the Charity of a Chriftian Writer,
whether ancient or modern. III.

46 View of the €ontroverjy
III.
The Author of the Introductory Difcourfe fays,
that ' the pretended Miracles of the fourth Cen-
* tury, were not only in general, and for the greateft
f Part, but intirely and univerfally the Effects of
' Fraud and Impofture'.'— This the Obferver re
peats, and adds — ' meaning in the Bifhops and
' Clergy, Whom He (the Author of the Introductory
f Difcourfe) charges but a few Lines after, with
6 tampering with Lies and Forgeries. Surely This
• is an unreafonable Stretch f.'~But if the Bifhops
and Clergy believed, reported, referred to, or ar
gued upon falfe Miracles ; is not This fufficient to
authorize the Charge of tampering with Lies and
Forgeries -, without concluding, that He muft
mean tb Charge the Bifhops and Clergy with being
the Liars and Forgers Themfelves ? — To fix This
as His Meaning from What He hath here faid, is
therefore, to fay the leaft of it, a very unreafonable
Stretch. " Why is it not as eafy (fays the Obferver) to
f afcribe the Credit of fuch Miracles to mere Su-
' perflation and Credulity, as to Fraud and Im-
* pofture8?'— The Credit of them with Whom?
—With the Relators, and Others, in the fame
or after Ages, Who were not the Spectators of thefe
pretended Miracles j the Credit of them may polk bly
* Introd. Dif. p. 29. t Obfervat. p. 1 3. Introd. Difc. p. 30.
s Obferv. p. 14, ¦ . - f a v. -

concerning Miraculous Powers. 47
bly be afcribed merely to Superftition and Credulity in
Them: But the Miracles muft ftill be, originally, the
Effects oi Fraud and Impofture.— As to the Perfons
on Whom th*y are faid to have been wrought ; if they
really were not wrought, they could have no Credit
with Them from any fuppofed Superftition or Cre
dulity : For no Man could believe He was cured of
a Diftemper, by the Touch of a Relique or a Cru
cifix, or the Oil of the Lamps ; when He found
Himfelf ftill labouring undes the fame.— —If fuch
Miracles therefore were pretended,, by the Perfons
Themfelves. on Whom fuch Cures were faid to have
been wrought, and were not real ; they muft here
be the Effect of Fraud and Impofture. — As to the
Spectators, and the Populace oi thofe Times ; nei
ther could mere Superftition, md Credulity be fuffi
cient here to account for the Univerfality, and Series
of Credit, which thefe pretended Miracles obtained.
———A few Perfons, in a few Inftances, may
poflibly be fuppofed, through mere Superftition and
Credulity, to have fancied They have feen Mira
cles of this Kind, when there have been none : But
it cannot eafily be fuppofed, that, fuch a Number of
pretended incredible Events, as are recorded of the
fourth, and fucceding Ages, could have been aU
believed -really to have been true Events by the
Spectators, and Populace of thofe Ages, merely
from Their own Superftition and Credulity. The
Fraud of Others, muft be called' in to account for it..
Thefe numerous pretended Miracles could not have
had fuch a Series of Credit, if no fuch Cures, or
Effe&s, pf whatever Kind they were,, had ap
peared

4& "View bf $se<5ontr<wer$% "~
pyarta^totliem to have.beenmiraculoufly wrought*
by flich Kites1 as are 'before-mentioned ; and i£
there '.'were'tealfy no fuch Events at all^ as were
pretended"; or. if not' miraculous ; they 'could not"
hkve fo > conftantly, , or. -frequently appeared T' to have
attended the rR%&, ' merely1, from* tlie Mforfijlton ahd
Cfedttlity of the "Spectators ; but mufFbe owing to'
fo*me Fraud and Impofture .behind' the- Scene.- A'fre-
(^.ent-RepeMn and 'Tryal hfiKe fame' Rftgs, would'
Have1 difcovered theJMiftkkei un'Itfe'the- Spccefs1
Had'Bfefti fuppfirtedJ'by'the'-yf^r)?ri? oi Others ; arid"
cannprbe" fuppofed to have defcendedthrough fe'-,
veral Centuries'; the fa'me Rites to;have'been peir^
petually applied to,' and,' "the farne, or the like"'
Event's to have appeared regularly to follow ; um'
lefs'-Fr^Wand ImpoftUrebe taken in to account fox^
the Sjicceft ofthe peltifibn. — In that bungling Trick'
(as Mr. Addifoh calfe'it) played at Naples with the-'
Blood5 of St; Januarius-, it may perhaps.be flip- '
pofedv that the Spectators mayv havet Deeh fo far
carried by their Superftition and Creduliijr, as to
have imagined the Blood,, once or twice, to havel
liquified, at the Approach of' the Saint's '. Head f
when it really , did not: But can. it be .fuppofed,'
that tht fame Event conWifave^libays and 'confianilp
appeared,' and have been .believed' to be real^J
through mere Super ft'tthtf and Credulity, if there,"'
really, was never any fuch Event ? " And can this
Event be fuppofed regularly and conftantly to appear^
if not miraculous, without the Affiftance ot Fraud,
and Impofture to carry on the Cheat ?^— In like-
manner, the pretended Cure oi a Perfon drfeafed,' by

concerning Miraculous Powers. 4$
by the Touch of a Relique, or by any other fuper
ftitious Rite, might perhaps by chance, once or
twice, appear to be a real Event : But could there >
conftantly appear to be the like Event, through
mere Superftition and Credulity, if there was no
fuch real Event ?— There muft be Fraud and Im
pofture in the Cafe.
Mere Superftition and Credulity, therefore, though
they may be fuppofed to account for the Credit of
pretended Miracles in after Ages, and in Thofe.
Who are not the Spectators, and in a few Inlands ;
yet are not fufficient to account for the Origin of
fuch a Number oi incredible Fictions, as are recorded
of the fourth and following Ages ; nor for the Se
ries of Succefs with the Populace ; but muft have
been the Effects of Fraud and Impofture fome-
where, — The Author of the Introductory Difcourfe
does not, in this Place, fay where ; nor any
Thing here (whatever He may have faid ; elfe-
where) which can infer His Meaning to be, that this
Fraud or Impofture was in the Bifhops and Clergy ;
but may therefore (for any Thing He has here
faid) fuppofe the Bifhops and Clergy to have cre
dited them through Their Superftition and Credulity ;
and the Fraud and Impofture to have been in
Others. ' Is every Man (fays the Obferver) a Knave or
' a Cheat, Who believes that there is Vertue in a
' Charm or an Amulet"?' — No : but the conflant
Ufe, and Series cf Credit, which Charms and Amu
lets. obtained in feveral Ages, muft be owing to
H the
?Ofcferv. p. 14.

5 & . • • Vmo of the Gmtroverfy
the. §Mpfm, whick ' the Fakh in fuch Kind of
Things received, from the Artifice of Impofture;
of Knaves and Cheats, fomewfaepe. Other wife*'
How .Pomes it to pafs, that ihe. Repu'taim of
Charms and Amulets is not as great now, as ever ?
Can the Decline of it be imputed to any Thing.*,
but the ceafing of that Fraud and Impofture, and
thf Power and Credit Of thofe Knaves and Cheats,
Whs ufed to fupport and propagate fuch Superfti
tion. ' HOW doe* He know, (fays the Obferver) that
' thfe Bifhops and Clergy did not believe them, i.e.
* the prets&cted. Miracles » ?'— Why, fo far froni
faying here, that They did not believe any of
them j Hfe fuppofes that They might often ' be
* deluded fo far, by Other People's Forgeries, as
' to take them for real Miracles V This indeed
the Obftrvir •disHs take notice of; but then' He
telfe U&, that the? Author only fays This, ' Wheft
' He is in a hemt Mbvd, ahd that This fliews He!
* talks 'at random \ •' meaning, that This is incdH"
fiftettt with calling them mere Forgeries, the Effe<^
of Fratid &hd Impofture. -"-But how fo ? Are not
Ot&er PeopH'i Forgeries as much mere Forgeries, the
£ffec\s of FraitH and ImpoftuYe, as if they were
the Frauds' and Forgeries of the Fathers ?-^kyt,
but "He has gone farther, and faid, that ' the
' Principal Fathers of the fourth Age, have af-
' firmed '&s truV, What They fhfemfei ves had eX-
' ther forged,1 W What They knew at leaft to
'•¦',-¦ v ¦ • « ^
1 Obferv. p. 14. k Introd, Difc. g. $7.
1 Obferv. p. 15.

concerni-ng Miraculous Powers. 5 1
c be forged ra.' And This k iueonfiftent with
fuppofihg Them to be deluded with other Peoples
Forgeries. — True, it is (o, in the fame Inftances j
but not in different. Might They not be fuppofed
to forge fome Miracles Themfelves, and to. know
fome to be forged ; and yet to be deluded with re-
fbt& to others ?-~Vthen the Obferver has there
fore fhewn, that the Author of the IntrodaWory
Diftmrfe has faid, that Other People's Forgeries, and
Tbeir ewn were the fame ; or that they were deluded
by Qlh&s, in the Miracles whieh They forged
Themfelves, or knew to be forged -, He will then
have fhewn that the Writer He Oppofes is incfcrf-
fifttnt : But 'till He has done That, and is- in: a
better Mood; jt • will be thought perhaps that He
fhould take his own Reflation home, and be coii-
tented to be thought, for oncer to talk at random*
Will, -but our Author has faid, that ' the
* principal Fathers of the fourth 4ga have affirmed
' as true, What They Themfetves had either
* fofg&J, or What They knew at leaft to be
* forged.' And ' the fmicubtr Argument (fays
* the Otferver) now under Gpnfklqratfefl,- bears
' with ah its Force upon this Suppofition V--™-
The Argument here referr'd to is This.-*-* When
« We reflect on that furprifing Confidence and Se-
'•* Purity, with which the principal Fathers of this
« fourth Age t&ve affirmed as true, What They
? Themfelves had either forged* W What They
H 2 knew
» Introd. Difc. p. 36. Obferv. p. i£.
? Qbfery. p. 16.

5 2 View of the Controversy]
* knew at leaft to be forged ; It is natural to
' fufpect, that fo bold a Defiance Of facred Truth
' could not be acquired, or become general at
' once, but muft have been carried gradually to
* that Heigth, by CuftOm and the Example of
' former Times, and a long Experience of What
c the Credulity and Superftition of the Multitude
' would bear".'—' But fhould it not (fays the
' Obferver) haVe been proved, as well as fuppofed,
' that thefe Fathers reported falfe Miracles, not
' out oiCreduHty, but downright Knavery; not
' as believing them to be true, but as knowing them
' to be; forged P ?' — 'Tis agreed, that this particu
lar Argument depends upon the Truth of the Sup
pofition, that the Fathers either forged Miracles
Themfelves, or knew them to be forged ; and 'tis ad
mitted alfo, that This ought to be proved (by fuch
Kind of Proof as, in the Nature of the Thing, it
will admit of) as well as fuppofed.— Tint then it does
not follow, that it ought to be proved at Length
here, in the Introductory Difcourfe ; which is, in
its Nature, defigned only to be an Introduction to a
larger Work; in which larger Work, if This befo
proved, it will be fufficient. The Obferver indeed
was aware of This, and therefore fays——' Per-
' haps He expects We fhould wait for the Proof,
'till His large Work comes out V Perhaps indeed
He may ; and I do not think that He expects
any Thing very unreafonable therein.
But
" Introd. Difc. p. ?6.
t Obferv. p. 16.
« Ibid.

concerning Miraculous* Pmvtrs. 33
• But then (fays the Obferver) in the mean
' Time, Hejnuftgive up hi% previous Argument
' as a mere Impertinence'.'— But why fp?— The
Defign of an Introductory, or previous- Difcourfe, is
only to give a general View, of What the Book it
felf is to draw put in Form, and inforce by proper
Arguments or Inftances at Length. To do. This
in the previous Difcourfe, would be. to turn the In
troduction into the Book itfelf* The Author ob
viates all Objections of this Kind, by exprefsly
acquainting , Us , with the Intention : and Defign of
this Introductory Difcourfe ; and. that this Particular
of the Fathers' Conduct ; namely, Their efpoufing
and propagating falfe Miracles, which (He lays)
They either forged Themfelves, or knew to be
forged, is to be the proper Bufinefs of His larger
Work ; ' In which (He tells Us) He fhall endea-
' your to evince, by particular: Facts and Tcfti-
' monies, What this general View cf the Queftion,
' here given, and the Reflections naturally arifing
' from it, would previoufiy difpofe Us to fujpeil ;
« that the pretended Miracles of the Primitive
' Church were all mere Fictions ; which the pious
' and zealous Fathers, partly from a weak Credu-
' lity, and partly, from Reafons of Policy ;. be-
' lieving fome perhaps to be true, and knowing
* all of them to be ufeful, were induced to ef-
' poufeand propagate, for the Support of aright
* teous Caufe s.'
The Introductory Difcourfe is here declared to
be (What, by the Nature of it, it fhould be) only a
l Obferv. p. 16. f Introd. Difc. p. 41.

54! Vim fifi xhe Gbriftwerfy
igeneralView of the C^eftion, and ^hat may
previottfly difpdfe Us Jo jftifpeBf&c.'TteFatis and
teftimonies, which "are particularly to evince it, are
tp tome after, in the forger Work,oi which it
^ili bt the proper, ahdwl|§A m the %fr'odut%n,
wljfefe it would have been the improper Bufinefs.'-^
Why then muft the Author' give lip His previous
Argument, as a mere Impertinence? Would this
Writer have had Him trarifcriBed' the Book into
the Preface ? — 1 don't know What tke Obferver
niay think, but I am apt to fancy, that the Pub
lic would have looked upon it to h^ve been a$ im
pertinent ih the Author to have done This, as in
Any-body elfe to expect it.
But ' it ought (fays the Obferver) to have fome
k Footing of its ov/n to ftand uppn ; Which ft
' cannot have, if it takes pro conceffo, the very Thing
* which the principal Evidence is to prove".— If the
previous Argument contains in it, all that is reqiMte
tp the End and Purpofe it is defignedfor ; then it
will have fufficient Footing of "¦ ils own to ftand upon.
Now,, the End and Defign oi it is, profefTedly,
only, and no more, than to give fuch a general
View oi the Queftion, and the Reflections naturally
arifing from that general View ; as may be fuffiT
cient to difpofe Us previoufiy to fufpeCi* that the
^Fathers either forged Miracles, or knew them tp.
be forged. — Confider now the previous Argument
in ,this Light, and fee whether it does not contain
all that is requifite to ibis End.— The Author had
before
' Obferv. p. 16. » See Introd. Dife. p. 41.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 5 5,
before acquainted she Reader, that Mr. Dodwell,
One of the moft jealous Admirers of Primitive
Antiquity, ' condemns the Miracles of the, fourth.
' Century, as generally forged and fabulous: for
' the Proof of whk&, He appeals to themonftrous
* Fictions, whieh St. AStbanafins, St. Jeron\, and:
' St, Gregory of Nyffa, have related w' ; — and * thaj
' They, and St. Epip$mus, St. Safil, St.Ambrofs^
1 St. Anftm, and St. Cbtyfsftm have all feveraUjf-
* recorded, add fbleoaraly attefted, a Number of
' Miracles, faid to be wrought in Confiamatfon of
f fotne favourite Inftitutions of thofe Days, Which,
' in' the Judgment of All the learned and candid
*• Protefknts, are rhanifeftiy fictitious, and utterly
« inetfedibife-* '. — Now is this Account of the f&*
thers true, or is it not ? If it be not, why doe&aqa:
the Olprver eontradict it ? If it he tnse, then here
are Mirachs forged, and the Fathers -oi tht fourth
Century, Who four Author fays) had mwe Le.aira«
ing, more Judgment, and lefs Credoliry than the
earlier Fathers y, efpoufing and propagating them;
— learned, judicious, and not the moft credulous Fa
thers, efpoufing and propagating forged Miracles, ri
diculous. Stories, and incredible Fictions.— How is
This to be reconciled ? Why, unlefs We will fup
pofe, that fuch learned and judicious Perfons, and
not tbe moft Credulous, were yet, at the feme Time,
fo abfurdly credulous and fuperftitims, as to hefieve
.fuch manifeft Fictions , and Stories utterly inereMB; Unlefs
w Introd-. Difc. ?. Vf.. I Introd. tOfe- P- 3»-
* fid. Introd. iDifc. p. 37.

56 . View of the Controverjy
unlefs We will fuppofe fuch an Incdnfiftenty in Their
Character, there muft lie a Prefumption at leaft, a
previous' Sufpicion, that They either forged fuch
Miracles Themfelves, or knew them to be. forged,
and propagated them as ufeful, in fupport of Their
Caufe; miftaken as to the Lawfulnefs of fuch
Conduct. -^Are not here Cohfiderations enough,
to difpofe Us previoufiy tofufpeCi This ? And has not
the previous Argument therefore all that is requifite
in it, :.to anfwer the..End it was defigned for ;
and therefore fufficient Footing of, its own to ft and
upon ? — Is not this Account of Fathers and Miracles-
fufficient to reft the previous Argument upon, and
to ftay our Stomachs 'till the larger, Work is pub
liflied ; in. which, 'perhaps, We may have more
than We fhall be able to digeft ?— But however, it
appears at prefent that the Author does not take.
His Opinion of the Fathers pro conceffo in this
Argument;, but forms- it upon a rational Pre
fumption here, which is to be opened, and exa
mined at large hereafter. IV.
But there is an Objection which the Obferver
makes to the. Author's Argument, which does in
deed feem to carry fome Force with it, at firft
hearing; though, if duly confidered, does not
really conclude, any Thing againft it.
. The Obferver thus puts it: — ' The Fathers of
' the fourth Century, with furprizing Confidence,
i report ; Miracles as done in Their Time which
' were

concerning Miraculous Powers. 5 7
c Were Ithpoftures. But it is not -natural to think,
c that They WOuld have had this Affurance, if
' They had* not had the Examples of former Times
' to convince Them how much the Credulity and
' Superftition of the Multitude would bear. There-
' fore the Miracles reported to have been done in
c thofe former Times, muft be Impoftures like-
« wife*." But it is to be noted, that the Introductory Dif-
coiltfe does not conclude, that therefore the Mira
cles reported of the former Times muft 'be Im
poftures likewife; but only, that it is natural t&
fufpetf it* -, Which' is a very different' Thing : And"
therefore the Reader is defired' to bear in Mind,
that the Introductory Difcourfe does not give' the
Argument as a direct Conclufive, but only as a
prefumptive Argument ; and confequently, that the
Obferver has mifreprefented it. — This .Remark will
be of ufe prefently. —Now let us hear His Ob-
fervation. 'Let me afk this Reafbrier ' (fays the Obferver)
' fuppofe it can be fhewn, as it is very eafy to be
' fhewn, that the Fathers of the fecond and third
' Centuries have reported, as He will fay falfe,
' Miracles as done in Their Times, with the fame
' Confidence, that the Fathers of the fourth Cen-
' tury have reported them as done in Theirs ;
' will it not follow by His Logic, that in like
* manner . as the fourth Century was prepared to
* receive the Impoftures of that Age, by the Im-
I ' poftures
, . z Obferv* p. 17. a Vid. Introd. Difc. p. 36.

5 8 . View of the Controverfy
' poftures of the fecond and third ; fo the fecond.
' and third Centuries were alfo prepared to admit
' the Impoftures of thofe Ages, by the Im
poftures of the firft b\  But in order to
make this Queftion pertinent; the Obferver muft
fhew, not only that the Fathers of the fecond and
third Centuries have reported tbe falfe Miracles
which They have reported, with the fame Confi
dence that the Fathers of the fourth Century have
reported the falfe Miracles which They have reported ;
which may perhaps be very eafy to fhew, but
comes not up to the Point : But He muft fhew
alfo, in order to make the Confidence the fame upon
the Whole, fo as to affect this Argument — He
muft fhew, that the Miracles reported by the Fa
thers of the fecond and third Centuries are as nu
merous, as abfurd, as ridiculous and incredible (which
it is not very eafy to fhew) as thofe reported by the
Fathers of the fourth Century. — 'Till the Obferver
has fhewn This, He cannot fay (at leaft He cannot
prove) that the Fathers of the fecond and third Ages
appear to have the fame Confidence, uppn the Whole,
as Thofe of the Fourth : And therefore, fuch an
Argument, from the fecond and third Ages, to the
firft; has not the fame Foundation to procede
upon, as the Argument from the fourth Age, to
the fecond and third.
In the fourth Century, the Miracles reported are
fo numerous and ridiculous, fo ill attefted; fo mani-
feftly fictitious and incredible; that they prove, be
yond Contradiction, that an Attempt to impofe
them upon the People, muft fuppofe the Confidence
and Security of the Fathers to have arifen to zfup-
6 Obferv. p. 17, 1 8. prizing

concerning Miraculous Powers. 59
prizing Heigth. This Heigth of Confidence and
Security We cannot fuppofe the Fathers to. have
arrived' at, or that They ventured upon fuch
Practice, all at once ; but that They preceded gra
dually and took Time in making Their Advances ;
which prefumptively. infers fome Degree of the like
Practice of tampering with falfe Miracles, fome
Example in the Ages preceding ; that the Attempt
had been made by Their Predeceffors ; and that,
from the Example bf former Fathers, Who had
found Succefs in Their Times, through the Super
ftition and Credulity of the Multitude, the later
Fathers now ventured to procede farther ; Their
Confidence arofe to an higher Degree, as They ob
ferved, from fuch former Examples, What Su^
perftition and Credulity in the People had born ;
on which Foundation They advanced farther and
farther, 'till Their Confidence and Security arofe to
that furprizing Heigth, vifible in, the numerous
and incredible Fictions of the fourth Century ;
Which, without thus fuppofing fome Degree of the
like Pradice in the Ages preceding, is not to be
accounted for. — And thus the falfe Miracles of
the fourth Age, infer prefumptively the falfe Mi
racles of the fecond and third.
But now the fame way of Reafoning will not
take place, from the fecond and third Centuries,
to the firft.
Whatever later Writers may have done, as
Ruffinus, Gregory of Tours, Metaphraftes, Cedre
nus, Sigebertm, Nicephorus, and Others, and per-
I 2 haps

60 View of the Controverfy
haps even Eufebius " ; We do not find the Fathers
Themfelves of the fecond or third Century, report
ing fuch Miracles, neither as to Number, or
Kind ; nor laying Claim to fuch miraculous
Powers ; as We find in the Fathers of the fourth,,
and following Ages.
If Origen d be frequently difplaying upon th§
T6£$Jsw, vifible among the Chriftians of His Time *
We fhall find that they are the Power of Exorcifm*
of curing Difeafes, by the Impofition of Hands
and Prayer, of Prophecy, or the like. The fame
may be faid of Jufiin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenceus,
Minutius Felix, , Cyprian, &c. — We do not hear,
'in thofe Ages, of the daily Miracles wrought by
fhe Reliques of Martyrs, as St. Chryfoftom reports
of His Times e ; nor_Juch Stories as He and
St. Auftin,
OcNutatquando'q; ilia [Fides fcil.] Eufebianarum Namtionum,
•faspe dubiisTeftibus, fepeVulgi Rumoribus ni^a : Quale illud da
rniraculofis Sanationibus, quae fierent Cafarege Philippi, ex Uf«
Herba cujufdam, ad Pedes Statya Phriftpi fcilicet confecratgB
fuccrefcentis,' nempe ai %h$y>v ut ferebant Hift. ]. vii. c. xvii}.
"Adde Hiftoriolam de Afturio, c. xvii. prsecedente, & id genus
'quafdam alias. — F. Spanbem. Introd. ad Chronol. & Hift. Sacr-
Tom. i. p. 347. . ,
- The Story which Eufebius relates of this Aflurius is, that
yie brought up to the Top of the Water, and there made it
float, the Carcafs of a Viftim which the Heathens ufed, at a
pertain Annual Ceremony, to throw into the Fountains which
Supplied the River Jordan; and which the Devil ufed, 'tjll
that Time, to caufe to difappear ; but could never after repeat
the Illufion.
d Contra Celfum. paffim.
'--.e — T*' }&$' Ii&shv ifU^iv \stsi iwv (Mpnlpov yvaidfia. Ifati-
fWTW. — Cbryfojl, Op. T. ii. p.' 555. Ed. Bened.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 6 1
St. Auftin, St, Ambrofe, and Others ( Writers of
the fourth Century) have related. We do not
hear, in the fecond or third Centuries, of the Sign
of the Crofs throwing open Gates, as St. Chryfoftom
relates f; nor of Any -one being faved from drown
ing in a Shipwreck, by tying the Myfteries ofthe
Sacrament about his Neck, as St. Ambrofe reports s.
¦=-The Author of the Examination mentions the
Cure performed by Oil, upon the Emperor Sep-
timius Severus, by one Proculus, in the Beginning
of the third Century ; as the Story is told by Ter
tullian h. The Ewminer fays, ' It is very well
* worth Observation, that Tertullian in His' Addrefs
* to . Scapula, the cruel Prefident of Afric, infills
* Jnuch upon Severus's Kindnefs to a Chriftian,
s Who had miracukufly cured Him with the Sacred
' Oil Now it cannot be fuppofed that Tertullian
' would have infifted upon this Miracle, had it not
' been a Fact certain beyond Difpute, and Which
' Scapula Himfelf was not unacquainted with ; or
' at kaft What He might eafily be made acquainted
' with. Becaufe otherwife, the infilling on this
' Miracle might b% very dangerous, or at leaft Of
' np Ufe '". — This, Gentleman takes it for granted,
that this Cure was miraculous, or performed by
the Sacred Oil. — I know indeed that it is generally
fo taken k : But Tertullian does not fay fo ; Nor do
f T$T0 TB MlltoOV ^ iVH TUV ZS&foaV KufllFy £) VUV, $U£$.S
dviq& yjxOKwiiM^i.  Tom. vii. p. 552.
* De exceffu Satyri. L. i. J. 43, 44. p. 1125. Op. T. z.
Ed. Bened.
B Ad Scap. c. iv. 'x Mr. Comber's Examination, p. 38.
* Vid- Deytingii Obferv. Sacr. Tom. iii. p. 485.

6 2 View of the Controverfy
do His Words neceflarily infer it.'— ' Ipfe etiam.
' Severus Pater Ant°nin'> Chriftianorum memor
' fuit. Nam & Proculum Chriftianum, Qui Tor-
' pacion cognominabatur, Euhodjae Procuratorem,
' Qui Eum per Oleum aliquando curaverat, requi-
' fivit, & in Palatio fuo habuit ufque ad Mortem
' ejus'. — Where is any thing faid of a Miracle,
or Sacred Oil ? It is well known that there were a
Sort of Perfons called Iatralipta, Who ufed to
perform Cures by means of Oils and Unguents.,
This was a very ancient' Method of Cure; and
Oil is known to be of excellent Ufe in many Cafes ;
and it has been thought that no more can be fairly
concluded from the Words of Tertullian, than that
Prdculus, Who might probably be One of this
Sort of Phyficians, had cured the Emperor in this
manner ; on which Account He was afterwards,
though then a Chriftian, fent for to Court, and
from thenceforward entertained in the Palace by
Severus ; either out of Gratitude, or for the Sake
of this medicinal Art1. — ' Proculum Chriftianum,
* Qui Eum aliquando curaverat, requifivit'. — It
does not appear therefore, that Tertullian did infift
on This as a Miracle; but only as a Reafon of
Severus's taking notice of Proculus, though a Chri
ftian. Nor does it appear but that Proculus -
might have performed this Cure before He was a
Chriftian : But if it was performed when He was
a Chriftian, it does not follow that the Cure muft
have been miraculous ; nor can it be proved (as I
have
1 Conf. Van Dale. Antiq. Diflert. viii. c. 8.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 63
have fhewn) from Tertullian's Words, that He in
tended to relate it as fuch. — But Whatever was the
Opinion and Practice in regard to Unclion with
the Sacred Oil, in Tertullian's Time ; We do not
hear, * in thofe Days, of Perfons reftored from
Death to Life, by the Oil of the Martyrs' Lamps ;
as St. Auftin tells Us there were in the fourth Cen
tury m. N
Much lefs do We hear of fuch incredible Fic
tions, as adorn the Writings of the fifth and fixth
Centuries , particularly the Dialogues under the
Name of Gregory the Great ; oi Perfons reftored
to Sight and Life, by the Touch of Italian Monks ;
of Their walking upon < Water-; oi Rivers changing
their Courfe,. and following Them into new Chan
nels, which They traced out to them ; of Water
rifing up almoft to the Roofs of Churches, without
entring the Doors, which yet at the fame Time
flood open ; and of Pieces of Gold dropt from Hea
ven". Thefe, with numberlefs other Stories of
the like Stamp, which You may read in this Au
thor, as alfo in Evagrius, and Gregory of Tours,
are fufficient to fhew the Character and Genius oi
thefe Ages °.
Two
m De Civit. Dei. L. 22. C. viii. §. 18.
» Yid. Introd. Difc. p. 32.
0 Gregorii Turonenfts Hiftoriis, adde Narrationes bene multas
apud Evogrium  et Dialogos fub Gregorii M. Nomine, de
Vita et Miraculis Sanftorum. .atque intelliges Conditionem
Temporum, inveftamque turn in Ecclefiam, ut paffim Barba
riem, fie Superftitionem quandoque Gentili fcediorem. '-F.
'<em. Introd. &c. Tom. I. p. 576.

64 View of iheContrvoerJjf
Two moft ridiculous Stories there are, related of
the third Century. That of the Seven Sleepers,
Who are faid to have flep^ in a Cave from the
Time of Deciys, to Theodofius junior, about two
hundred Years ; and That of the Britifh Urfula,
with Her eleven thoufand Virgins, Who fuffered
Martyrdom for Their Faith and Virginity, among
the Ubii in Germany.
But as to the former, the Account is not given
by any contemporary Writers, Who are All filent ;
and the Firft Who tells the Story is Gregory of Tours,
in the Sixth Century. — A Man of no great Judg
ment or Sagacity p.
As to the other Story, the Legendary Writers,
from Whom the Account comes, contradict One
Another as to the Date of the Transaction ; Some
referring it to the fourth, Others to the fifth Cen
tury ; nor is there a greater Agreement among
Them in the othenCircumftances of the Story q. —
'Tis pleafant to hear Baronius telling Us, deperditdH-
effe earum Virginum veram germanafnqUe Hiftoriarttl
Numerous indeed are the Miracles reported of
Gregory of Neoccefarea (commonly called ThaMmA-o .
turgus) of the third Century : But they ftand chiefly
upon the Credit ofthe two Brothers, Bafil and-
Gregory •'.
t Vir erat pro Saeculo, quo vixit, non ineruditus: Sed in
Quo Judicium et Acumen non immerito defideres., « iCav. -
Hift. Liter. Vol. I. , p. 535.
j The Character given him by Hilduintts the Abbat of the
ninth Century is — Parcendum eft fimplicitati viri religion ; Qui
multa aliter, quam fe Veritas habeat, sftirhafts, non Callidita-
tis aftu, fed Benignitatis ac Simplicitatis Voto,' Literis com-
mendavit. — Epifl. ad Ludov. Imp.
1 Vid. F. Spanhem. Introd. &c. Torn. 1. p. 349.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 65
Gregory Nyffen, of the fourth' Century, Who had
them (Dr. Caw fays) from Their Grandmother1.
— I need make no Remark therefore upon what
Sort of Credit thefe Miracles are referred to the third
Century. : TnovGH.fome Degree of Confidence therefore,
and a Degree of the like Practice of falfly claiming
Miraculous Powers, be fuppofed in ¦ the fecond and
third Centuries ; yet This will not infer the like
Practice in the Ages before them ; or that the Mi
racles of the firft Age were Impoftures alfo ; as the
Impoftures oi the fourth Age have been fhewn to in
fer the Impoftures of the fecond and third : Becaufe,
the Argument drawn from the Character proper to
the fourth, and fucceeding Ages, ceafes in they*-
cond and third, and therefore reaches not to thofe
above them.
The Nature, and Number of the Miracles really
recorded by the Writers of the fecond and third,
Centuries, are fuch as, though fuppofed to be Im
poftures, it may be thought that the Fathers of thofe
Ages might venture upon, in Imitation of the true
Miracles of the firft Age ; and that the Confidence
ofthe Fathers herein, is no greater, than what may
be confiftent with fuppofing the Practice to have
been then in it's Infancy ; and fuch as may be fuf
ficiently accounted for, admitting the Miracles of
the firft, or Apoftolic Age, to have been (as they
undoubtedly were) true and genuine ; which cannot
be faid of that high Degree of Confidence and Secu
rity, which appeared in the Fathers of the fourth,
K and
* Life of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. Se&. xiii.

6*3 View of the Controverjy
and; fucceding Ages, by Their rpauronizing fuch a.
Number oi ridiculous, incredible Fictions-, as We
find recorded, and vouched, by the Writers of
thofe Times refpect ively.
TRUE Miracles, in the Apoftolic Age, might-
give a Foundation for imitating them in the next :
But true Miracles in any Age^ can never afford a
Foundation fufficient for any Perfon's prefumingy
or venturing, to propagate fuch a Number of ab-
furd and mohftrms Stories, as We read in the Au
thors oi the- fourth Century, and downwards ; an
Heigth of Confidence and Security, which muft flip*
pofe fome Degree of the like in the Ages before
them.— The Origin of this Practice muft have been
fomewhere ; arid We have Reafon to think that it
could not have been in the fourth Century, becaufe
in that Age the Practice was as it were at Matu
rity : But it does not therefore follow, that xheOrigin
could not have been in the fecond' Century, when the
Practice was not at Maturity. — The Obferver'sCoa-
fequence therefore, ' that the fame Way of rea-
' foning will hold from the fecond, and third Ages^
' to the firft ; which the Author of the IntroduClo-
i ry Difcourfe makes ufe of from the fourth Agfy
* to the fecond and third ¦' falls to the Ground :
And This Obfervation, which He feems to think
of fuch Force as to overturn the prefent Argu*
ment, the Reader, I believe, fees by this Time,
has no great Matter in it. — It may indeed be as
plaufibly faid, as fome Things have been before its
Which may ferve for an Example to Us, that
plztufible Things, though coming from the Pens of
eminent

concerning Miraculous Powers. 6 7
eminent Writers, may fometimes happen, never-
thelefs, to be attended with the Misfortune, of being
very little to tbe Purpofe.
If it be faid, that the high Degree of Superfti
tion and Credulity in the Multitude of the fourth
Age, may account for die high Degree of Confi
dence and Security in the Fathers of that Age ;
without fuppofing any Thing of the like in the
Ages preceding ; I anfwer —
Whatever Degree of Credulity and Superftir
tion be fuppofed in the Multitude of the fourth
Century ; the Fathers could not know, from that
-Age, What it was, nor how much it would bear,
'till They had tried it : But it is not reafonable to
fuppofe, that They would have ventured to have
begun their Pradice upon it, and tried it, as it were
at once, with fuch a Number oi incredible Fictions ;
unlefs They had fome Authority to venture fp
iar, from Something of tbe like Practice having
been already begun in former Ages ; which
They might reafonably prefume would take off
the Novelty of the Thing ; and the Tafte of the
Miraculous, which from Time to Time the People
had been accuftomed to, from the fecond, through
the third Century, might be fuppofed to have pre
pared the Stomachs of the fourth, for the more eafy
fwallowing, What They now therefore thought
'They might venture to dofe them with. So that,
tho' a high Degree of Superftition and Credulity m
*ke, Multitude oi the, fourth Century, may account
for ihe Confidence ' and Security of the Fathers, in
reporting falfe Miracles, arifing at Length, to a
K 2 greater

68 .View of the Controversy ^ .
greater Heigth than they otherwife might have
done ; yet We cannot from thence alone account
for Their venturing to practice upon the fourth
Age, with thz.tfurprifing Degree of Confidence and
Security, from the Beginning,, in the incredible
Fictions They reported ; unlefs We alfo fuppofe
fome Precedent or Example of the like Practice in
the Ages before : Becaufe They could not know
What the high Degree of Superftition and Credulity
in this Age would bear ; if They had not firft had
the furprifing Degree of Confidence to try it. This
therefore rnuft have been arrived at gradually, and
from the Examples and Precedents of the Trade of
Miracle- making, though in a lower Degree, in
the foregoing Centuries ofthe Church.
But let it be alfo farther confidered, that if Su
perftition and Credulity were at/o great a Heigth, as
indeed they were, throughout the fourth Century ;
then this high Degree of them in the fourth Cen
tury, muft fuppofe fame Degree of both in the Ages
preceding ; And That 'Being a good Ground for the
Fathers of thofe Ages to work upon, no doubt but
They took Care to cultivate it as much as it would
bear ; and fo the high Degree of Superftition and
Credulity in the Populace of the fourth Century,
will ftrengthen the Argument drawn from the high
Degree of Confidence and Security in the Fathers of
that Age, for the Impofitions and falfe Miracles of
the fecond and third Centuries. ;
But neither here again will the like way of ar
guing hold, from the fecond and third Age to the
firft ; Becaufe the Superftition and Credulity of the
fecond

concerning Miraculous Powers. 6 g
fecond and third Ages were not in fo high a Degree,
(in the Multitude, whatever they were in the Fathers}
as to infer the like in the Age before them, as was
the Cafe of the fourth Century.
I know that the Author of the Introductory Dif>
courfe fuppofes Credulity to be Part of the diftinr
guifhing Character of the early Ages after the
Apoftles ; and that even the Fathers of thofe Age?
were more credulous than Thofe of The fourth,
p. 4.2. 37. But I muft own, it feems to me more
reafonable to fuppofe, that in the fecond and third
Age, the Converts to a Religion, as yet new and
unfettled, tho' They might be fo credulous as to
admit fome Fictions and Impofitions, fome extra
ordinary Claims to Miraculous Powers ; yet were
at firft more cautious, and upon Their Guard, than
to give Credit to the moft ridiculous and monftrous
Stories ; If their Teachers had ventured, either
from Credulity or Fraud, to have propofed fuch to
them : And therefore that the State of Credulity,
in the Multitude, in the fecond and, third Ages, was
not in that Degree, as to be inconfiftent with fup-
pofing it then in its Beginning -, and fo not to infer
any Thing ofthe Age before it, the Age of Chrift
and His Apoftles. But as the Religion took deeper
Root in the Minds of the People, and as They
gave Themfelves up more and more, implicitly,
to the Guidance of their Teachers ; They ran by
Degrees into the other Extreme of Credulity and
Superftition; which in the fourth Century We find at
fuch a Heigth, as plainly to fhew that the Beginning
of them could not be in that Age ; but muft have been

70 View of the Controverfy
been growing by' Degrees, and infer therefore fome
Degree ofthe like, in the Ages before. From hence
downwards We ftill find the fame Qualities in-
creafing, 'till the Church was at laft clouded over
with all the Superftition ofthe Church of Rome ;
which continued, 'till the Reformation ftruck a
hew Light into Men's Minds, and brought Them
again to their fober Senfes ; and (tho' Some may
pay perhaps too great a Veneration to the Fathers,
yet upon the whole) 1 wifh We are npt how going on
to the next Stage of Libertinifm, and fo running the
Circle mio the Infidelity again ofthe firft Ages.
It appears therefore, by What has been faid,
that the Obferver is miftaken in imagining that the
fame Method of arguing, which the Introductory
Difcourfe employs, to infer the falfe Miracles of
the fecond and third Ages", from ' thofe oi the fourth ;
will hold equally from the fecond and third Ages, to
ihe firft. — I need not repeat.— -The Reader fees
that the Character proper to the fourth sndfucced-
ing Ages, which infers the falfe Miracles oi the
fecond and third ; is not applicable to thefe Centu
ries, and therefore affects not the Age above them.
But Now,
Secondly,— Let the Reader recollect, What
I mention'd at the Entrance of this Head, viz.
that the Argument ufed by the Author of the In
troductory Difcourfe, is not defigned to be a direU
\conclufiv.e, but only a preemptive Argument.
And now, to ufe the Obferver 's Words in an
other Place — f a Prefumption, however, muft
' give Way to plain Evidence on the other Side, < if

concerning Miraculous Powers. 7 1
* if filch Evidence fhould be found V --To this >
We agree,, and notwithftandiog this Argument,
from thetiighSegree of Confidence and Security
it* the Fathers of the fmrtb Age, in forging, or
reporting- Miracles knowing them to be forged*,
will infer, preemptively* fome Degree of the lijse
Practice in thejeeond and third Ages ; yet We ad
mit, that* if there fhould be found phin, Evidence
notwithftanding, for the Truth of thp Miracles re
ported! in the feoond and third Ages ; then, this
Preftmf&iw muft give way to the plain Evidence,
and the Tmtb of fuch- Miracles muft be admitted.
- — —But the- Cafe is, that no fuch plain Evidence
doth appear, even for the Miracles of the fecond
and third Centuries ; and therefore the Prefumptive
Argument "ftands jgood~ againft them .
Bur with Regard -to the firft Century, or Apo
ftolic Age j though We fhould fuppofe that the
Degree of Confidence (whatever it was) in forg
ing, or reporting Miracles, knowing them to be
forged, in the fecond and third Centuries, was
otherwife foffieient, in, like Manner, to infer pre
fumptively fomething of the like Practice in that
firft Age ; yet, fince it is-agreed that a prefump
tive Argument muft give Way to plain Evidence ;
and it being alfo agreed, that there is fuch plain
Evidence for. the Truth of the Apoftolic Miracles ;
here the prefumptive Argument, which had force
before, ceafes.— The Cafe is not the fame in the
Miracles of the firft, and thofe of the fecond and
third Ages. The former ftand upon good Evi
dence ,;
I Obferv, p, 14.

72 . View of the Qontrov&rfyt.
dence;'-the latter, upon Evidence not to bede-1
pended . on.  Therefore, though- a<- prefiapptivt
Argument be good againft the one, i it does not1
follow that it muft: be- equally good againft the
other.-r^ii We were even to fuppofe as great' a De
gree of Confidence and Security in the Fathers, and
as- great & Degree of Superftition and Credulity in
fhe Multitude, of the fec'on d and third- Centuries, as
We fuppofe in Thofe ofthe fourth:; Yet ftiH> a
Prefurhption- from thence will not lie iagainft the
plain Evidence, which 'is fuppofed for the Truth of
the Miracles of the firft Age ; As it lies from the
fourth Age againft the fecond and third,, where no-
fuch plain Evidence is fuppofed — Much lefs will the
Prefumption lie from that leffirD'egree of the afore--
faid Qualities, which We have juftly- fuppofed ih
the Character of the fecond and third Ages.- — And-
therefore by this Time, ;L believe, that the unpre
judiced Reader fees how little Force there is in the
Obferver' s formidable Exception to the Argument
of the Introductory Difcourfe ; And that there is no
manner of Confequence, that becaufe the great
Trade' oi falfe Miracles in the fourth Century, will
infer, prefumptively, fomething of the like Kind
in the fecond and third,' where there is no fufficient
Evidence oi the Truth of the' Miracles reported
in thofe Ages ; therefore the falfe Miracles of
thofe fecond and third Ages, will infer the Falfhood
ofthe Miracles ofthe firft Age, which ftand upon
plain and undoubted Evidence.
The Obferver fays  ' If the Author can
* fee any Diftinction in the two Cafes, I defire Him to

concerning Miraculous Powers, j 3
c to fhew What it is. If there is none, He has
c but one Choice in the Conclufion. He muft re-
* nounce His Argument, or He muft rejeict the
* Gofpel, Which, after having flood the Teft df
* fo many Ages, I truft is not to be fhaken by
4 better Arguments than This '.'—Had this for
midable Sentence flood at the Head of His Obfer-
vation ; How muft it have terrified the Author of
the Introductory Difcourfe, with the Apprehenfion
ef What might follow after !— * He has but one
* Choice in the Conclufion.*— He muft renounce
* His Argument, or He mtrft reject the Gofpel !*
But it is a Comfort, that it comes not 'till the Ob-
fervation has appeared at full Length, and out-
Author haply efcaped from the Alternative, to
Which the Obferver imagined He had reduced Him.
It turns out, that Chriftianity is fafe; and
yet that the Argument ftands good ; Neither of
which, I believe, are to be fhaken by better Argu
ments than have yet appeared againft them. But
the next Obfervation, is an Obfervation indeed !— *
* If the Argument proves any Thing, it is This;
' that falfe Miracles never could have had a JBe*.
* ginning in any Age ; For to fay that they had a
' Beginning, fuppofes a Period antecedently to
' Which they were not ; Which yet is impoflible to
* be fuppofed, if there is no Reafon in fuppofing
' that an Impoftor fhould give out Reports of
' fuch Miracles, unlefs He has had the £x-
' ample of former Times, to fhew Him how
' much the Credulity and Superftition ofthe Mul-
L titude
1 Obferv. p. 18.

74 View of the Controverfy
' titude will bear".' — But the Argument does
not procede upon a Suppofition (as here repre
fented) that there is no Reafon to think an Impoftor
would report falfe Miracles ; that there could not
be any reporting falfe Miracles, any fuch Confi
dence at all in one Age, unlefs there had been the
fame in the preceding ; but that there could not be
fuch furprifing Confidence and Security, fuch an
high Degree oi thefe, as We fee there was in one
Age, without Something of the like Kind prepa
ratory in the Age before ; Becaufe it is as abfurd to
fuppofe they could arrive at that Height all at
once, without having been, in fome Degree, in the
Ages before ; as it would be to fuppofe any Perfon
to have arrived at Manhood, without ever having
been a Child.-  But will the Argument hold, that
therefore We cannot fuppofe His Childhood to have
had a Beginning ? — e Nemo repente fuit turpiffimusl
is an old Proverb, and an older Truth : No Man
ever arrived at the higheft Degree of Infamy or
Wickednefs at once : But does it therefore follow,
that His Wickednefs never had any Beginning at
all ? — The prefent Perfection of Arts and Sciences,
fuppofes that Arts and Sciences were in fome Degree
in Times preceding, and that their prefent Improver
ment is owing to the Examples in former Ages.— •
But now, to argue as the Obferver does — ' Arts and
* Sciences therefore could never have a Beginning
* in any Age ; For to fay they had a Beginning
* fuppofes a Period antecedent to Which they were
* not ; Which yet is impoflible tp be fuppofed, if
* there
° Obferv. p. 17.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 75
c there be no Reafon to expect, that there
* would have been any Attempt to improve them,
* unlefs they had the Example of former Times.'
And fo the Obferver's notable Argument,
if it prove any Thing againft the Principle of
the Introductory Difcourfe, will prove equally
againft the Origin of Arts and Sciences ; And
therefore I believe I may be excufed from having
any farther Concern with it. — I have taken the
Freedom of borrowing it for a Moment, and now
return it to Him again fafe and found ; and (as
Mr. Boyle told Dr. Bentley upon a like Occafion)
with a Promife never to ufe it again.
' There is Something curious (fays He) in the
* Author's Argument w.'  The Reader, I be
lieve, will think that there is Something quite as
curious in the Anfwer to it. —The Argument fays,
that the furprizing Degree of Confidence in the
fourth Century, fuppofes the Beginning of it not
to have been in that Age.- -The Anfwer fays,
that therefore, any Degree of it in any Age, fup
pofes that it had no Beginning at all : That is ; Be
caufe the Cupola of St. Paul's, fuppofes the Foun
dation-Stone ; therefore the Foundation- Stone fup
pofes, that there was no Foundation at «//.—

The next Paffage quoted from the Introductory
Difcourfe, for the Obferver's Animadverfion, is
This. ' If We compare the principal Fathers of
L 2 the
* Obferv. p. 1 7.

76- View of the Controwrfy -
'-.. the fourth, with Thefe of the earlier Ages; We
*, fhall obferve the fame Characters of Zeal and
" Piety in Them All ; but more Learning, more.
' Judgment, and lefs Credulity in the later Fa-
* thers. If Thefe then be fouDd, either to have
'- fonged Miracles, i3c— It will naturally excite
' in Us the fame Sufpieion of Their Predeceflbrs ;
\ Who, in the fame Caufe, and with the fame
c- Eeal, were.lefe teamed, and more credulous, awl
*¦ in greater Need of fuch Arts for Their Defejaee
'< and Security V
; The Author oi the Introductory Difcourfe hwi.
before called the. Report which the Fathers of the
fourth Century have made, of Miracles Which
They either forged Themfelves, or knew to be-
forged, a bold Defiance of Sacred Truth y ; yet here;
He fays, that there was the fame Character of
Piety in Them All, — The Charge therefore brought.
againft the Author by the Obferver, is,—' I can-
' not eafily underftand how Piety, and a bold Be-.
*- fiance of Sacred Truth can ftand together in the
'- fame Character V
- Whether the Author of the Introductory Difr
courfe may, or may not, be follicitous about the
Piety of thefe Fathers. ; and Whatever the Obferver
can, or cannot, eafily underftand; What the Former
hath faid, concerning the Fathers' Report of falfe
Miracles as true, Which, 'tis fuppofed, They ei
ther-forged, or knew to be forged ; is- not fo in-
cmfiftent.
* Obferv. p. 18. Introd. Difc. p. 37.
J, Introd. Difc. p. 36.
? Obferv. p. 18.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 77
confiftent with the Charter- of Piety, as it may at
firft View appear to be.
The Author of the Introductory Difcourfe ia
perhaps too ftiong in His Expreffion, in calling
this Practice of the Fathers (fuppofing it fo) a bold
Defiance of Sacred Truth ; fince it might procede
from Ignorance tnAMiftafce as to the Innocence and
Lawfulnefs of : it ; and fo, tho' a ContradWha of
Truth, ye? not, properly, . a Defiance of Truth ;
much lefs a bold Defiance : But, as all Falfhood,
every known Deviation from. Truth, may becalled,
fo far, and as fuch, (tho*, if preceding from Mi
ftake. as to the Lawfulnefs of it in fome particular
Cafes, it will be in an improper Senfe) a De
fiance of Saered Truth; in thia Senfe, to forge Mi
racles, or to report them as true, knowing them to
be forged, is, a Deviation from, and, fo -far, a
Defiance of Saered Truth. — Now I admit alfo, that
a Defiance of Sacred Truth in general, cannot ftand
with the Character of Piety ia general; or that z De
fiance of Sacred Truth in general, cannot eafily ftand
with Piety in a particular Inftance : But it is not
fo clear, that fuch a Deviation from Sacred Truth
(as the Cafe in queftion) in one fingle Practice,
cannot ftand, either with Piety in general, or with
Piety in other Inftances, or even in that very fame
Inftance. Whether thefe Fathers did, or did not, forge
fome Miracles ; or report them as true, knowing
them to be forged ; I do not take upon Me to de
termine. It is not impoflible that the Whole might
be owing to Their Credulity, Superftition, and an
over-

7 8 View of the Controversy
Over-heated Zeal v though I muft confefs, it is
difficult to reconcile This, with the Character of
Learning, Prudence, and Judgment. And, con
fidering the Ridiculoufnefs, and Incredibility of
many of the Stories, a Prefumption feems to lie
againft Them, as not wholly ignorant of the
Fraud. But, fuppofing it can be proved, that
They were guilty of this Practice ; I cannot think
This to be abfolutely irreconcileable with Their Cha
racter of Piety.
For fuppofing the Fathers, here accufed,
to have had defervedly the general Character oi-
pious, good Men ; does the Obferver think it
difficult to fuppofe, thztpious and good Men may
be miftaken? — The Fathers were not very difiin-.
gaijhing Cafuifts, nor have They performed any
great Matters in Moral theology. — The Fathers of
the fecond and third Centuries, being chiefly en
gaged with Jews and Gentiles on the one hand, and
with Heretics on the other ; it is no Wonder that
They have not written much, profefledly, upon
this Subject ; and where They have occafionally de
livered any Thing of this Kind, They have not
been free from Error and Miftake.— The Fathers
of the fourth and fifth Centuries, will indeed fur-
nifh Us with more on this Topic ; But have yet
left Nothing accurate, or clear upon the Subject,
or reduced into any allowed Syftem ; nor, in What
They have done, were They without Their Mi-
ftakes and Blemifhes, as might be eafily fhewn. —
In the Writings of the fixth, and following Ages,
the Decreafe of Purity in DoClrine, as well as in
Learning,

concerning Miraculous Powers. 79
Learning, is very vifible, particularly in thofe of
the Schoolmen ; nor did Moral Divinity appear with
any Advantage, 'till fince the Reformation. Mr.
Barbeyrac, in the Preface to his French Edition of
Puffendorfde Jure Natur. et Gent, wherein He hath
treated largely of the Moral Theology ofthe Fathers,
hath noted Their Errors, and fometimes perhaps
too feverely * ; in which indeed He is oppofed by
Remigius Ceillier b : But Buddeus, a moderate Man,
agrees with Barbeyrac in the main Point, viz. that
the Fathers, as in other Things, fo alfo in Their
Moral Theology, were not free from Errors* ; nor
have given us any methodical, clear, or accurate
Syflem of Morals d.
Is it ftrange then to fuppofe, that Some of the
Fathers in the Primitive Ages, in thefe Circum
ftances, when Moral Theology was reduced to no
regular, allowed Syftem, nor any Thing clearly
and accurately fetded upon the Subject, might
(tho' ever fo good and pious) miftake as to the
Lawfulnefs of the Practice under Confederation ? —
Is it ftrange to fuppofe that, in Support of a Reli
gion in Which They were well affured of the
Truth,
• i IX. feq.
b Apologie de la Morale des Peres de l'Eglife, contre les in-
juftes Accufations du Sietir Jean Barbeyrac. Parii. 171 8. -4.10*
c Ego quidem in eo, quod Caput. Caufas eft, cum Barbeyra-
cio, Viro eruditiffimo, confentio, Patres, ut in aliis, ita et in
Dollrina morali, N&vorum non effe expertes j lubenfque fateor,
multa melius, re&iufque hodie tradi poffe, traditaque effe,
quam ab Eis fa&um. — Ifagog. ad Theolog. Tom. 1. p 554.
pdit. Lipf. 1730.
4 Lubens fateor, anteaque faffus fnm, earn, quae in Methodo
traftandl hodie obfervari folet, etVf //3«a? a Patribus expedtari
non poffe.— Ibid. p. 556. Vide etiam, p. 559. 562.

80 View of the Controverfy
Truth, They might miftake as to the Innocence of
the Means They might make Ufe of in fuch Sup
port ; and fo might venture to relate as true, Mi
racles Which They might fufpect, or know to be
falfe ; believing, that, as they appeared to be in
themfelves innocent, were not injurioufty deceit
ful (Which is the noxious Compofition of a Lie, )
and were at the fame Time (as They thought) ufe-
fulin the Support and Propagation of a Religion
Which They knew to be divine ; They might in
nocently venture upon fuch a Practice ? They
were Men, pious in general ; pious in the Work
of fupporting and fpreading Chriftianity, Which
They knew to be true ; pious even in this parti
cular Inftance ; pious in the End, though They
might be miftaken as to the Innocence and Lawful
nefs ofthe Means They ufed.— Such Conduct may
indeed impeach Them of Ignorance, but not of
Impiety. — I do not undertake to fhew, that Their
Ignorance and Miftake (fuppofing Them guilty
of the Charge) will juftify the Rectitude of Their
Conduct ; But that they may yet be fo far pleaded
in Excufe, as to clear Them from Impiety therein..
In that famous trite Cafe, of an innocent Man pur-
fued by a Murderer, and aTraveller, knowing the In
tent, mifdireCling or mifinforming the Purfuer— I
would afk, is not the Fatflmdin this Cafe, as fuch,and
in the improper Senfe before-mentioned, a Defiance of
Sacred Truth ? But is the mifdireCling Traveller
guilty, for that Reafon, of Impiety therein ? — I do
not mention-this Falfhood, as parallel in its Nature,
with That oi forging a Miracle, or relating a Miracle as

concePnitigMiraCuhui Powers. 8-*'
aStrue, knowing it to be forged \ But as parallel
fo far only ; as to fhew that Piety, and a Defiance
of, or Deviation from Sacred Truth, are not, in all
Cafes, incompatible to the fame Character : And
thlis far the two Cafes are parallel ; fince the De
fiance of Sacred Truth, is, as fuch, (as a known
Deviation frpm, therefore, in the improper ^Senfe
before-mentioned, a Defiance of, Truth) equal in
both Cafes.
If the Obferver does not like this Inftance* I
will give Him another.— He tells Us, that Hefty*
cbit/s, a holy Man, ventured His. Life to fleal the
Body oiHilarion the Monk, from the Place where it
had been buried '—That theObferver, and Dr. Cla
get look upon This to have been a Crime in Hefy
chius, is plain from the Quotation from Dr. C/a«
get, adopted by the Obferver ; viz. that ' God
* did not intend, by the, Miracles done, if any
' were done, to demonftrate the Clearnefs of He-
* fycbius*.' And indeed, it was always looked
upon, both by Heathens and Chriftians, as a very
great Crime, and Impiety, to difturb, on any
Account, the A flies of the Dead ; againft Which
the Severity of the old Roman Laws was remark
able ; and continued fo, for the moft part, under
the Chriftian Emperors 8. And as to the Plea of
taking away the Bodies of the Dead, to preferve
them as ReliqUes-; This was fo far from juftifyirrg
fuch Violation ; that the very Thing itfelf was
M . . pro-
« Obferv. p. Ii. f Ibid. p. 12.
« Vid. Pingham. Qrig, Ecclef. B. xxiii. C. iv. Seft. i.. a.

8a Vkw of the Controvert .w
prohibited h; and inftead of being, efteemed as
any Mark oi Holinefs ; It was then' looked upon as
no better than a Sacrilegious Robbing of Graves »,
and a f)ifturbance oi thofe Reliques, Which ought
to. be permitted to lie quiet in their laft Retreat.—
•^—^paree Sefputfo I
Parce pia's feeler are Manus ! Mneid. III.
W!ell therty Hefychius, a holy Man, ftole-the
'Bbdy of Hila'ribn out of His Grave : — And when
the Obferver will fet- Us into the Secret, how He
accounts for the Cohfiftehcy of the Character of
Hefychius ; He Will help Us o\!it in accounting for
That ofthe Fathers', ih the laft -Article of His
Charge againft Them.—- *— — «
• VL
¦ * Nor can I fee, '(fay's the . Obferver) fuffietent
* Ground to fay j that che Fathers bf'the fecond
* and third Centuries were more credulous than
* the Fathers, of the fourth. But This I fee, -that
* Thofe who are thus -perfuaded, may as eafily
* fancy that the Fathers of the firft Century Were
' mtire credulous thafa All of Them ; and the Infe-
* rences Which may be drawn from thence in De-
,J rogation of the Authority of the Miracles, re-

•>' Humatum Corpus Nerrio' ad alium Locum transferal,
Nemo Martyrero diftrahat, Nemo mercetur.— Cid. Tb. L. <)<
Tit. 7. de Sepulc'b'ru vial'ftt. Leg. 7.
" * fcirrg.^Offe.^cetefi -fc. J^xiii. C. iv. Sect. '7.

conc^erHMg Miraculous Powers. Sj
* Oojftedto hav6.beeh wrought by Chrift; and His
'Apoftles, arevery obvious V
*' This Gentleman may be better skill'd in draw
ing Inferences, than I pretend to be ; But fometimes,
I think, He attempts to draw Inferences', Which
are a little too ftubborn to follow. —Whether the
Fathers of the: fecond and third Centuries were, or
were not, more credulous than Thofe of the fourth,'
I yill not here enquire : But I ani not quite fo'
clear-fighted as to fee, (What the Obferver fees),
that We rqay as eafily fancy that the Fathers of"
the firft Century were more credulous than^ All the
fucc^'eding Fathers ; as eafilyikncy This, as that
the Fathers of the fecond and third Centuries, were
more Credulous than the Fathers of the fourth -, of
that any Inferences can be drawn here, in Derogation
from the. Authority of the Miracles of Chrift and*
His Apoftles.
\ would. afk Him — Do the Miracles ofthe
firft Age of the Church, oi Chrift' and His Apo
ftles, ftand upon no better Evidence than the Mira
cles of the fecond^ third, and fourth Centuries ? —
If they do npt, then indeed there may he room
for the Obferver'^ as eafily fancying, that All the
Fathers were credulous alike. But This, I fup
pofe, He will not venture to affert.— If the Mi
racles of Chrift and His Apoftles, on the contrary,
do fland upon better Evidence than the Miracles
of the fecond, third, and fourth Centuries ; then,
Nothing can be ihfer'd in Derogation from the
Authority of the former, by any Thing which
M 2 may
k Obferv. p. 18.

84 View of the Controverfy
may be faid ofthe latter.— Now This is the Cafe..
—The Miracles of Chrift and His Apoftles, ftand.
upon- unexceptionable Evidence, upon Evidence Ad
mitted on both Sides to be fufficient, and fuperior to
any fuppofeable Credulity in that Age. There
fore,. - - ¦¦--',-',.
Firfi. It does not follow, that We may as
eafily fancy the Writers of the firft Age, Who re
port Miracles which, .We agree, ftand upon unex-,
ceptionable Evidence, to be more credulous than A 11
Thofe Who. report Miracles which do not fland
upon fuch Evidence ; though, among Thofe Who
report Miracles which do not fland upon fuch Evi
dence, We may have Reafon for fuppofing one Cen
tury more credulous than another.
Secondly, Therefore, although the Fathers,
of the fecond and third, Centuries, be fuppofed
more credulous than Thofe of the fourth, -Who All
report Miracles, Which, by Thofe Who fuppofe
This, are not thought to ftand upon fufficient Evi
dence ; it does not follow, that They may as eafily
fancy that that the Writers of the firft Age, Whofe
Authority, and the Evidence of Whofe Miracles are,
on both Sides, fuppofed unexceptionable, were more
credulous than All the Others.
The Obferver then either muft fay, that the
Miracles of Chrift and His Apoftles ftand upon no
better Evidence, or Authority than, and are of
the fame Kind and Nature as, thofe of the fecond,
third, and fourth Centuries : — Qr elfe He muft ad
mit, in Contradiction to What He has afferted,
that it is not as eafy to fancy, that the Fathers of
the firft Age of the Church, were more credulous than

concerning •, Miraculous Powers. 85
than Thofe. of. the fecond, third, and fourth Centu
ries ; as that the Fathers of the fecond and third
Centuries:; were more credulous than Thofe of the
fourth : And ttiuft admit, that it does not follow,
that any Inferences may be, drawn in Derogation
from the Authority oi the Mracles of Chrift and
His Apoftles, Which ftand upon Evidence admitted
as fufficient on both Sides ; becaufe the Authority of
the Miracles of the fecond, third, and fourth Cen
turies are affected by the Credulity of thofe Ages.
The; "Obferver, in another Place, fays — ' pf here
£ is a great Difference between the Miracles wrought
' by Chrift and His. Apofttes, and the Miracles of
£ later Ages; as fn Point oflmportan.ee, fo alfo
* in Point of Evidence i : ^— -r- Is there fo ? Why
then, if there is fo great a Difference, in Point of
Evidence ; how will it follow, that any Thing faid
in Derogation from the latter, muft therefore af
fect the former ? — So again He owns that — ' fay
' the very worft you can fay— that there is not fo
' much as one Miracle upon Record fince the
' Days, of the Apoftles, that is fufficiently atteft-
' ed ; What has Chriftianity to do with this ? No-
' thing ; For Chriftianity ftands not upon new Mi-
« racles, but upon the old ones™ .' — If Chriftianity
has nothing to do with the Queftion, ' whether
' there were, or were not, any one Miracle after
' the Days of the Apoftles ;' can any Thing faid
in Derogation from the Miracles oitheAges fucceding,
bear hard upon the Miracles of the Apoftles, with
Which, 'tis owned, they have nothing to do ? — Yes, fays
l Obferv. p. 30. m Obferv. p. 32.

86 r~ View of fhe Controvert
fays He'; * Becaufe We' may fuPP9fe Them ." mote
' credulous tl^an All the' reft.* — We may fuppofe
Them ? — - Why ? have We the fame, jpr . as. good,
Reafon ? —Will the: Obferver fay We'have?— If
not, ymefe js His Confequence ?— Chriftianity (He
pwn.s) ftands not upon" new Miracles, but the old.
— If fo, then difcrediting the sewx doe's not affect
Chriftianity^ Which ftands not upon, the new Mi
racles, but the old,. Which ire admitted, on both
Sides, p be founded1 upon much better ^Evidence
than the new, fuperior to any fuppofeable Creduli^
ty in the firft Age.
What then is become of the Obferver' s Ob fer-,
vafion ?-^r t They, Who fuppofe that the Fathers, pf
* the fecond and third Centuries were mpre credtj-
* lous than the Fathers pf fhe fourth, may as eafi-
* ly fancy that the Fathers of the firft Age were
* more credulous than All of Them '—Which can
ftand' only upon this Aflertion, that the Writer? of
tinefeconjf, third, fourth, and firft Age, are All of
equal Credit, Character, and Authority, ; and thaf
thp Miracles of the firft Age, of Chrift and His
Apoftles, have no better Evidence, than the Miracles
oi the fecond, third, znd fourth Centurie?— Whicji
He himfelf contradicts (and therefore contradicts
Himfelf) when He fays, that then 'is a great Dif
ference between them, in point of Evidence. — Now
then let the Obferver take H'js Choice, 'What Hp
will ftand by ¦¦> whether, that the Mirac|es pf the
firft Age do, or do not, ftand upon better Evidence
than thofe of the fecond, third, and fourth Centu
ries. — If He ehufes the firft, What becomes of
His

concBfpi^ Miraculous Pj>w$rs. 87;
His Inferences? if the latter, What of Htq-G&ft-
fiianity P — — VII.
Hfe proceeds tb another Obfervation. — ' I aitt
' furpriied at the 'Author^, Pretention, th^t tht
* Fathers of the earlier Ages had greater fytfiof
* -the Arts of falfe Miracles for Their Defente^atd
* Security, than the later Fathers had. They had,
* if you pleafe, greater need of true Miracles to
* fupport the Credit ofthe Gofpel ; which Ctittim-
k ftaricfe may be admitted ssftrehgihening the Cre-
4 dib'iiity of any proper Evidence,Which appears
* in the Records of thofe Times, to prove that
' Miracles really vete wrought. But it tan aflfbrd
x ho fort of Prfefurnption, "that the Chriftians of
c thofe Times /Mg«3 -Miracles'"*
* THEt had, if you pleafe, greater need oftfrue
* Miracles, to fupport the Credit of the Gbfpel>
— But will hot the fame Rtafons, Which ate ft'efre
alledged to fhew that They had greater need of mtt
Miracles, fheW equally that They might fuppofe
'(however errbrreOufly) that They had greater need
of falfe Ones, to fupply the Place of the true ?
Forthough the Miracles, Which They spotted or
argued "upon, v/ertfdlfe; yet 'They teporred ana.
argued upon them as true Mrracles.-^-To fliy thefre^
Tore (as the Obferver dots) thftt They had greater
nted of true Miracles, is admitting that They 'might
•' think
*" Obfetv. 'p. 18, tj. :

88" ViewoftheCohtroverJy
think They had greater need of falfe Ones : And'
if They thought that They had greatefheed oifalfi-
Miracles; it is the fame. Thing, in the prefent
Queftion, as if They really <' 'had fuch need of them ;
as being What is fufficient to account for Their
forging,, or propagating them ; And that They
might think They had greater need joi falfe Mira
cles, is fhewn by the fame Reafons, Which are urg
ed to prove, that They -had greater need of true
ones. Why is it faid that They had greater" need of
true, Miracles ? — The Obferver tells you, it was to
fupport the. Credit of tbe Gofpel. —Well ? and will
not the iameEnd account for Their imitating, What
is; thought thus ufeful tp fupport the Credit of the,
Gofp4, ? — If Numa, Solon, .and Lycurgus, pre
tended to Infpiration, ¦ to fupport the, Credit, .of
Their Laws or Religion, at Rome, Athens, and
Sj>a?t# ; was it not becaufe true Infpiration would
have been a Support to them ? — The Ufefulnefs of
the. Original, infers the Ufefulnefs of tlie Copy, or
Counterfeit; fo long as.it does not appear to be a
Counterfeit, but tlie Original ; for they are identi
cal Proppfitions.
* What (fays the Obferver) fhould They forge
' Miracles for ?' — I afk Him, , in return,— What
ihould They. have ufed true Miracles for? — When
He anfwers My Queftion, He will anfwer His
own.-*— But hear Him. — ' What ihould They forge
'them for? Why, to make Profelytes to that
* Faith which expafed Them to all Their Suffer-
' ings.'

concerning Miraculous Powers. 89
* ings0.* Now, though the Obferver does not
feem to be aware of it ; This, if it be any Argu
ment againft Their making ufe of falfe Miracles,
is equally fo againft making ufe of true ones, and
even againft the preaching and Profeffion of Chri
ftianity at all. For, if the Fear of the Sufferings,
attendant upon the preaching and Profeffion of
Chriftianityi would have deterred Them from
making ufe of falfe Miracles ; there was the fame
Fear to'deter Them from making ufe of true Ones,
and from preaching and profefling Chriftianity at
all ; fince the fame Sufferings, from the ftrong Pre
judices oi the Heathens againft Chriftianity, would
have attended that Religion, however propagated,
whether by falfe Miracles, or true. But if Their
Affurance of the Truth of Chriftianity, was fuffici
ent to enable Them to go on, notwithftanding the
Terrors of Perfecution ; the. fame Faith would be
fufficient to "fupport Them in propagating it, though
by falfe Miracles : Becaufe, though the Miracles
•were falfe, They knew the Religion itfelf to be true;
and Their Faith in That, being the fame in both Ca
fes, would, in both Cafes, be equally a fufficient
Motive. The Obferver adds — ' Common Senfe would
' rather leadUs fo argue thus'; that as the Chrift i-
* ans in thefe Ages, gave (or were ready to give)
' the fame Evidence of Their fteady Adherence to
' the Truth, that Chrift and His Apoftles. gave ; —
' furely it ought to fecure fuch Reporters from the
N ' Charge
° Obferv. p. 19.

90 V?ew of the Gontrov$r(y
' Charge of Fraud and Impofture p ..? '-r-Tnae ; but
from Fraud and Impofture in Whqt ? <— As thefe
Chriftians were ready to fuffer Martyrdom,, in
Evidence of Their fteady Adherence to the Truth
pf Chriftianity \. Npthing more can be concluded
from this common- Senfe Argument, th$n that This
will fecure Them frpm the Charge, of FrquA and
Impofture, in That to the Truth of Which They
were ready, to give this Evidence ai Their fteady
Adherence ; and That is, to the Truth of Cbrift&h
nity, or Their Religion in general : But it does not
follow, that This will fecure Them from the
Charge of Fraud and Impofture in the Mems They
made ufe of, in Support of this true Religipn ; a
Gpnefofion, Which the Premifes will not warrant.
— If the Obferver can fhew, that They were rea
dy to give the fame Evidence to the Truth of
thefe Miracles ; He will fay Something : But Efje
Himfelf has afked, in another Place-*-' Who laid
' down His Life in Teftimony to any Miracles
' wrought in After-ages ?' And He anfwers,*-''
' No-body. Martyrs there were in After-agjss i
' But They were not Martyrs to new Miracles, b$l;
' to the Christian Faith, as it flood upon the 'Mir
' jracfes wrought by Chrift and His A$?°fth?8 V—
Which is therefore a fufficient Anfwer, at the fame
time, to all He has now faid.
VIH. The
t Obferv. p. 19. fl Obferv. p. 31.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 9 1

VIII.
Tns InMin&ory Dijtourfe had argued, that ' no
*• Man fofely can doubt, but that Thofe, Who
1 Would either forge, or make ufe of forged Books,
' would in tke fame Caufe, and for the fame Ends,
' make ufe of forged Miracles'/ — To This the
Qjtfifver anfwers : — ' Be k granted, for Argu-
* merit's fake, {hat as They admitted fome Books as
c genuine, Which, upon ftrifcter Search, were
* fognd to he furious j fo They alfo admitted
* fome Miracles, Which were not fufficiently well
' attefted. fftew will This help to fbpport His
' general ConduSon, that n © Miracles were
• wrought in thofe Ages ' P
But W^oie Argument is This?— Is the Author
•f the JntrsduBtory Difeourfe Werritog, that no red-
Mcrncles were weeugtot, from Their admitting/«H«
fpurious ones 4 or from Their admitting feme fpuri-
ous Booh ? —. No : The Argument i* *w> *"Ofe than
ThSs-i-that*? Max can doubt, but -chat They, Who
jweuld ieicher forge, or make ufe of forged Books ;
would alfo make ufe, for the fame Ends, oi forged
Mirgdet. .-?— The Argument is, that Their malting
**fe of forge^ Batks, is Reafon fufficient to jufiify
fhe fuppofing^ flhatftlhey yowldwt fimple to make
yk*iiforg?4 Afyadef.~H0w.foe9 the Obferver aar
XBer This,? Why* ^ n^rrjk (fays He) that They
zltfed Jeme/pftrws Mr&fcj* it does not follow
N" * that
T Introd. Difc, p. 58. * Obferv, p. 21.

9 2 View of the Controterfy
c that there were none true.''— Onr Author con'
eludes, from Their making ufe of forged Books,
that They would not fcruple to make ufe oi forged
Miracles; And the Obferver tells Him, that He
cannot conclude, from Their nimgfome fpurious
Miracles, that there were no true Miracles ; Which
it is Their Bufinefs to anfwer, Who reafon in that
manner —Our Author has Nothing to do with it.
The Obferver afks— >* Why, if (the Corrupt
' tions of the Age notwithftanding) among thefe
' fovged Books there were fome genuine Pieces ; is it
' not as natural to fuppofe, that among thefe juggling
' Tricks, as He [the Author of the Introductory
' Difcourfe'] calls them, there might have been
' fome real Miracles « ?'-^There might have been
real Miracles among falfe Ones ?— »Undoubtedly,
there might have been. Our Author pretends to
no Reafons a priori about them. If the Obferver
will pleafe to point them out, and fhew as good
Reafon and Evidence, whereby to diftinguifh the
true Miracks from the falfe, as We haveto diftin
guifh the genuine from thefpurious Pieces ; I fup
pofe the Author will be as ready to admit the one,
as the other.
- But I would afk the Obferver^ in my turn-
Does it follow, that, becaufe among the Books
¦there were fome genuine, as well as fpurious Pieces ;
-Therefore among the Miracles ther* muft alfo have
been fome real, as well as fome falfe Ones?—
If not, to what Purpofe is it- to fay, that there
might have been. Our Author (as I obferved be-
- '-; -¦•:•>: . fore}
* Obferv. p. 22.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 93
fore) is not arguing, that, becaufe there were fome
fpurious Miracles, therefore aU were fo ; any more
than He would argue, that, becaufe there were
fome fpurious Books, therefore all were fuch. The
only Thing defign'd to be infer'd here is, that
They who would make nie oi forged Books, would
not fcruple to make nie oi forged Miracles. There
might, indeed have been (for any Thing intended to
be deduced from this Argument to the Contrary) a
Mixture of falfe and true,, in both Cafes : But then,
having proved from this Argument, that it is rea
fonable to fuppofe, that there were fome falfe Mi
racles ; the Queftion will be, not whether there
might not have been fome true Miracles alfo ; but,
whether there . is fufficient Authority to believe
there were, or not.—
For, to take the Obferver in his own Way, I
will juft remind Him, that there is not the fame
Reafon to fuppofe, that (to ufe the Qbferver*s Lan
guage) there were real Miracles among the falfe ;
as there isto fuppofe, that there were iome genuine
•Pieces among the forged Books ; and that the Cafes
are therefore by no means Parallel ; Which, to
fay the Truth, are Things, the Obferver does not
feem to be very happy in drawing. — For the ge
nuine, and fpurious Pieces,^ ftand upon Evidence of
different Value ; between Which, by their proper
Notes and Characters, true Critique is able rxTdi-
ftinguifh.— If the Cafe has been, or can be the
fame, in Refpe6l to the Miracles We are fpeaking
of; the .Obferver may pleafe to fhew it: But 'till
He has done- fo, He muft be' contented to own^ that,

9^ View ef tin CsntrpQerfp
thai;, <&*g& it he reafonable to believe, that, in
theidps, We are treating ©f, there wend fome £*-
Kuine, as well as fpurioits Books ; in does not fol
low, thai: It is thereon, reafonable to believe alfo,
that there were fome. rest, as well as fatfe Mr asks %
—•Whatever thetie w^jtfhavefoaen :— Of whichgreat
Confolation I fhall not attempt to deprive Any
one ; Since the Queftion is not, What there might,
qr might mt have been ; but What there was.
TftftT the Fathers oi thofe Ages forged, or
made ufe of forged Books, was properly alledged by
thfi bfttoduGtory Difem-fe, to fhew that there is
Reafon to fappofe, that the yfece* Fathers would not
fcruple to make ufe ot forged Mr odes ; Which was
all intended in the Argument/*— Bat, as the Words
have been now fhuffled ; that, ' as They ofed fome
* fi?BriouB Bosks, j& They ufed fome fpurious Mi-
' racles ; and that as there were fome genu ine Pie-
' ces among the fpurious, fo there might have been
* jfome real Miracles fluaiong the i&Ife'-r^All T*«s,
as it *s only a Parcel of Words, with am Af/pew*
ranee oi Something, without being any Thing ; fir the
Reader, I believe, <wo*fld look iupon it, (in Any*
ope im the Author of ike GbfervatiAMs) to be at
iwft,i*it»jfiggfeff 2>fr*. ' *&•
Tjf e fatnodufhry Bifimrfe had &&•****•' Ifo
c great Fame.«nd Sttcqefls of Jhe Apoftelic Maa-
* «tes, would uataraHy ,«g&e Some idfo of ihe
*¦- ifho&Cfa&y, when the Apoftles Themfelwes wees
' dead, tp attempt fome juggling Tricks in I mi-
' tation

wioernhkg Mlrocuhus Pmers. 9 5
* tation of xh^m "*V-C Jr is ^orth remarkvigt
* (&ys|h$ Qbfmar) $bat rhn> Paffage abfolutely
* deftroys His Argument, hy which He endea*
' vours to difgrace the Miracles of the ; earlier
< Agesy frQm the fuppofed. Forgeries of the fourth
' Qentijry.':— $pw fo?— Why, i We have afore
* been tpld, that the Forgeries of ths. fourth Cen»
f; tury could never have had a Being, if the World
* had not been prepared for them by the Forgeries
' of th& preceding Ages. ; But norm} — What ?—
Why, * Nam it feems, He has found out, that an
* Agfeof Itltp$#ires, may arife .mmdmielyxm. of
* an Age of trne Miracles, by way -if. Imita-
« Hon".'— The Author of the Introductory Difcourfe fays
only, ' that 5m»* of the *»<?/? «"«/(y, in the Age
' fucceeding the Apoftles, might attempt fome
' jtJgglihg Tricks, in Imitation Of the Miracles' of
' the AjwMes ;' AU Which may be accounted fori
fuppefingno Age of Impoftufe before it : • But dlpes
it itherfefom. follow, that We may equally ftipp&fe;
that the totmerms Impbfturfes oilhefounth Century ;
Which, by their Abfitrdity arid IneredtWity, fheW
the GmluUiy of the People^ and the Affur ance ahd
Seearityvi the Fathers, to hive arifen to fhch a
fwriptifing Heigth as to be inconfiftent with fup-
. pofirig the Trade to begin in that Age ; does it
tiitrefore foUow* that We may equally fuppofe jfcch
amAgJe of Mpoftures (asThte may indeed be calkd)
to arife immediately out of an Age of true Mira
cles? Our Author fuppofes the firft Cafe to be pro
bable,
u Introd. Difc. p. 42. w Obierv. p. t'z.

96 View of the Controverff
bable, the latter to be improbable : And where is
the olnconfiftency oi This, Which the Obferver is id
hafty to fix upon' Him ?— Yet, upoh the Credit
of having thus absolutely defiroyed the Author's Ar
gument, Which, "the Obferver fays, is gone; He
ventures to aiffert, that ' it is juft" as natural to
' fuppofe, that the Fame and Succefs of true Mi-
' racles in the third Century,; might give rife td
' the Impoftures of the fourth;1 as that the Fam£
' and Succefs of true Miracles in the firft Century J
' gave rife to the Impoftures oi the fecond*? — lam
forry to remind the Reader of Parallels again !—
But the!Difierence! of the two Cafes hath been fuf
ficiently fhewn. X.
*. Since He has thought fit (fays'the,0^rew-)
* to offer His Sufpicionsloh one Side of the Que-
' ftion, I may have Liberty, I hope, to offer one
' Prefumption on the other :' — And then He cites
Mark xvi. 1 7. And thefe. Signs fhall follow Them
that, believe, &c. Upon which He remarks-^
' It will be obferved, that this Promife was not
' made to the Apoftles perfonally, but to Them
' that fhould believe ; through . Their preaching,
* without any Limitation oi the Time for the Con-
' tinuance of thefe Powers to Their Days. And
' when it is confidered, how great a Part of the
' Heathen World remained unconverted after Their
' Days, it is no unreafonable Suppofition, that
thefe
* Obferv. p. 22.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 9 7
c thefe Powers did not expire with the Apoftles,
' but were continued to Their Succeflbrs in the
c Work of propagating the Gofpel V
As my only Intention, in thefe Papers, is to
fhew, that the Obferver'i Exceptions to the Argu
ments of the Introductory Difcourfe, are of no
Force ; I fhall not take upon Me farther to
enter into the Merits of the Caufe, whether there
were or were not Miracles after the Age of the
Apoftles. — I fhall only remark, that the Ob-
ferver's Prefumption for the Continuance of Mi
racles after the Days of the Apoftles ; will equally
be a Prefumption for the Continuance of Miracles to
the Prefent Age. — May We not ftill argue (in the
fame manner as He does) ' that the Promife was
' not made to the Apoftles perfonally, but to Thofe
'¦ Who fhould believe, without any Limitation of
* the Time to Their Days. And when We con-
' fider, how great a Part of the Heathen- World
' remains ftill unconverted, it is no unreafonable
' Suppofition, that thefe Powers did not expire
' with the Apoftles, but were continued to Their
'Succeflbrs, in the Work of the Miniftry, even
1 to our own Days.'  The Obferver indeed puts
it — ' that the Promife was made to Thofe Who
' fhould believe through the Apoftles' preaching ;'
But if That makes any Difference between His
Argument and Mine ; it will, at the fame Time,
confine thefe miraculous Powers to the immediate
Difciples of the Apoftles ; Which yet, I fuppofe, He
does not intend to do. Befides, whatever His
O Words
y Obferv. p. 24, 25,

9 3 View of the Goxttrcwrfy
Words do, His Argument will extend farther1;
Since io great a Part ofthe Heathen-World remained*
ftill unconvertedt in all the fuc ceding Genfiurie?;
Whiph is What His Argument is? founded upon.—
If the Obferver' s Prefumption then be good for any
Thing,, it may as well; be applied to prove the Co»»
t'muance of Mratfes, to the Prefent Agt> as to any
Age beyond, at leaft, That -of the. immediate D^
pies of the Apoftles : -^-But if no Miracles, arc con
tinued, notwithftanding this Prefumption.; itmuifc,
follow that the Prefumption is good* for nothing,-*^
He muft then either gjve up His Argument for Mi
racles, at leaft beyond- the immediate:: Difciples of
the Apoftles ; or elfe He mufl? contend alfo, upon,
the fame Principles, for the Continuance of Miracles
ftill. — He will exqufe Me- if I fay, that a Writpr,
Who is fo ready to accufe our Author-,, without?
any good Reafon, of putting Popery in- Poffeffion of
Antiquity, fhoujd have been a little more cautious-
Himfelfj, to have avoided, the- Charge He juftjy
incurs, of putting, Popery in Poffeffion of an Argu
ment, Which, if conelufive (and: it: is. as conclufive
to the Times of Popery, as to the Time* H& makes'
ufe of it for) would do it mpre Setyicej than ( all'
the Antiquity our Author has given i it.

XL

'- How long they, were continued-(adds.He) I; fay)
not, and perhaps there is not Light;eflough left.
in Hiftory to fettle this Point-; as indeed: it no
thing concerns Us. But the earlieft Fathers una-
' nimoufly

con&rning Miraculous Bowers. 99
4 nimoufly affirttt, that thefe Powers fubfifted in
' the Church in Their Times., and why They are
* hot to be believed) it b the Author's Bufinefs to
' fhew V— It is fo ; and let the FacT: be tried ;
But this Point We have now gained, by the Obfer-
vir*% own Confeffion ; that How kng thefe Powers
fubfifted in the Church after the Days of the Apo-^
ftfes, nothing concerns Us : But if not ; then it no
thing concerns Us, whether they ceafed in the fourth,
Or in the third, er in the fecond Century : And if
not ; let Him fhew that it more concerns Us (in
His Scheme) whether they ceafed or not in the
firft.^&at then, if all This nothing concerns Us \
Why has He been at the Pains of writing a Pam
phlet* to alarm the Public, as if the Introductory Dif
courfe was a Book of a bad Tendency, and the Doc
trine of it attended with ill Confequences? — Since it
now turns out, that, whether it be true or falfe,
it nothing at all concerns Us.
XII.
The Obferver afks-^-' Oi what Service it can
* be to the Proteftant Caufe, to take fo much Pains
' as the Author of the Introductory Difcourfe has
* taken to leffen the Credit of Primitive Antiquity,
* and to put Popery in Poffeffion of as muchoi it as
' poffibly He could, and more, perhaps, than Po-
* pry can in Juftice challenge a.'
The only Queftion is, whether the FacT: be
true ; That the Miracles pretended to in Primitive
O 2 Antiquity,
? Obferv. p. 23. * Ibid. p. 26.

i oo View of the Controversy,
Antiquity, after the Days of the Apoftles, are
fuch as Popery may appeal to ?— If pThis be true ; it
can do no Differvice to the Proteftant Caufe, to leffen
the Credit of Primitive Antiquity in this Particular.
— Again : If the Fa<5t be true, that no Miracles
really were wrought, after the Times of the Apo
ftles ; it can do no Differvice to the Proteftant
Caufe, to leffen the Credit of Primitive Antiquity
herein : Becaufe Truth can never be, in the laft
Refult, of Differvice to any good ¦ Caufe, or to
true Religion ; For That would be to make Truth
deftruClive of itfelf. The only Queftion is, What
the Truth is ? For wherever it is found, No Man
need be afraid of aflerting, or defending it.
H o w He puts Popery, in Poffeffion of Antiquity,
I own I am at a lofs to underftand ; unlefs,, to
wreft from Popery, the Authority of thofe Mira
cles, Which it may otherwife plead in Support
of the Antiquity of it's falfe Doftrine and Supert
ftition ; be to put it in Poffeffion of that Autho
rity. — To fhew the Miracles, Which the Romanifts
may appeal to in Antiquity, to be fpurious Mira
cles ; is no more a putting Them in Poffeffion of
.Antiquity ; than it would be fo, to fhew any ancient
Books, Which They might appeal to, to be fpurious
Books. — But, ' The Papifts (He fays) will think
* it for Their Advantage to accept .of the high
* Rank He has given Them in Ecclefiaftical Anti-
' quity, without troubling Themfelves about His
' Cenfures of the Fathers'*.' The high Rank
Which He has given the Papifts in Ecclefiaftical Antiquity,
b Obferv. p. 29.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 101
Antiquity, is That of pleading falfe Miracles, in
Support of Their falfe Dodrine s; Which is a Rank,
I fuppofe, ; They are welcome to accept of: For if
it can be proved, that- fuch Miracles are falfe,
(Which is the Prime Point to be debated) whether
They trouble Themfelves about His Cenfures, or not,
will be of as little Confequence ; as whether They
trouble Themfelves about .other Cenfures, Which are
juftly and truly laid upon Their Church. — But it
may be a Queftion worth afking, — Who gives
Them the higher Rank in Antiquity ? They Who
deny all Miracles to which They do or may appeal,
in Support of Their Corruptions, after the Days of
the Apoftles ; or They Who admit fuch Miracles
up to the fecond Century ?•  Surely, the Latter
put Popery in Poffeffion of much higher Antiquity,
than the Former.
The Introductory Difcourfe fays—' Our Difpute
' with the Romanifts is, not how ancient, but how
' true Their Doctrines and Practices areV — To
Which the Obferver anfwers — ' If it could be made
* appear that the Popifih Senfe, of ' Tranfubftantiation
' [of thofe Words, This is my Body, and This
' is my Blood] was the unanimous, current, DocA-WiX-
' of the fecond Century, it could fcaree be doubted,
* but it was the Doctrine alfo of the firft ; and it
' would be more natural for Unbelievers to lay hold
' of This, as an Objection againft the Gofpel,
' than eafy for Us to anfwer it V — For Us ? — For
Whom ?— -Not very eafy indeed for Thofe to an
fwer it, Whd are of Opinion, that any DocTrine, however
« Introd. Difc. p. 22. 4 Obferv. p. 27.

102 View of tfo €onff®mf$ ^
however abfurd and impojfible, ii it were tht Doc
trine of the fecond Age, muft -thefefprb have been
the Doctrine of the firft alfo 3 of Chrift and His
Apoftles :: But it would, not be difficult for Others
to anfwer it, Who go more rationally to work j
and are not of Opinion, that the Doctrine of the
fecond Century, however unanimous and current, can
rationalize an Abfurdity, or verify a Contradic
tion. — If it : could be made appear, that the Popifb
Senfe-) of TranfubftMtiQtioh. really was th^" unani
mous and current Senfe of the fecond Century ;—
What would a rational, fenfible, honeft Chriftian
infer?— Certainly, that the fecond Century were u-
nanimoufly and currently, miftakens— To reafon o-
rherwife, would be to pay a greater Honour to
the Underftanding of the Fathers oi the fecond Cen
tury, than to That of Chrift and His Apoftles;
and a greater Deference to the Writers of that' Age,
th|n to the Writers of the Bible. — Thither let us
go ; and if We can fuppofe Ourfelves competently
fkill'd tp underftand the Language of a Metaphor ;
furely We are not, upon the Credit even of the
fecor$ Century, to have fo much Faith, as to give
up the Truth arid Wifdom of Chrift and His Apo
ftles, to be, determm'd hy the Opinion of that Age |
and tp compliment Them with the Evidence of our
Sgpfgg^-to beheve, that if Contradiction and Ab
furdity were the Doctrine of the. fecond Century \
therefore it cannot be doubted, that they were the
Do&rioe of the firft alfo.— This is a Stretch of Faith
not to be found, no not in Ifrael ; and if it be
not fufficient to remove a Mountain, it is fufficient however

conc&mmg Miraculous Powers. 103'
however, to r**f* one, thatmighc overwhelm Chri
ftianity.— It. ftill therefore reanains- true,; notwith
standing, thes Qbfervef* Inftaftce of Tr&nfubftaritia-
t'mv «hat our Difpute with the Rotmniftst is-,, or
ought to be, not how- ancient, but how- true, Their
Do&rines and Pra<9flce& are e :* And 1 think We
need not a. rietter Confutation of the Obferver' s. Ar
gument ; tfian that the fame Argument might ' prove,?
by' His own Confeffion^ that Trmfubftanti'ation was>
the BoCfrim of Chrift and His Apoftles- ; Which (as
Tjlbtfm-fay& Of it with Refpe&. to Popery) will be
&.Mffl-§t<me about the Nedkf of this Argument.
XIII.
The Obferver now draws near a Conclufion, arid
tells Us, that He fhall difmifs the Reader with- a
few ReftMiom.
The firft is — ' There is a great Difference be-
' tween the Miracles wrought by Chrift and His
' Apoftles, and the Miracles of later Ages-; as in
' Point of Importance^- fo alfo in Point oi'Evi-
' dence. The firft were to be the Foundation oi
* the Faith of «//¦ Ages, and therefore the- Provi-
' dance of God hath provided that they fhould ba-
' recorded to Us, under the ftrongeft Circum-,
' fiances of Credibility, in the Writings of the A-
« pottles.- The laft, &c— When the Apoftles ' died,
tiuSv ^ <&fyetv i hoy©- \astt.y>fa>si, impg.nviM-ti JtEait'Tm-
Xcuovi%cm>hvll£v, a.v $o.Zmu 3m. — J»ft- Mart. Apolog.
prim. §. £'. p. 3. Edit. Grab.

1 04- View of the CoMroverfy'
c died, the whole Syftem of Faith was fettled up as
' compleat and perfect ; and as no other Faith was
' afterwards to be admitted ; fo, if no Miracles
1 had afterwards been wrought, the Foundation
' would have been equally fecure. The old Mra-
c cles are fufficient for the old Doctrines.— Confider
* now the Difparity of Evidence. Chrift confirmed
* all His Miracles, by that one great Miracle of
' all, His riling from the Dead. Of this Fact the
' Apoftles were Eye-Witnefles, and were to tefti-
' fy it throughout the World ; and They did fo,
« at the Peril of Their Lives, Which is the greateft
• Pledge that human Faith can give ; God alfo
* confirming their Teftimony, by the Signs and
' Wonders Which He wrought by Their Hands.
' But Who laid down His Life in Teftimony to
' any Miracle wrought in after Ages ? No-body.
' Martyrs there were in after Ages ; But They
' were not Martyrs to new Miracles, but to the
* Chriftian Faith, as it flood upon the Miracles
' wrought by Chrift and His Apoftles.-r«Say the
' very worft you can fay — that there is not fo
* much as one Miracle upon Record fince the Days
« of the Apoftles, that is fufficiently attefted ;
« What has Chriftianity to do with This ? No-!
' thing ; For Chriftianity ftands not upon new Mi-
' racles, but upon the old ones f.'
The Obferver could not, I think, have difmifs'd
the Reader with any Thing more in Defence of our
Author's Performance, or in Confutation of His
own.— For , What has He been doing ? — A great
Clamour
* Obferv. p. 30—32.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 105
Clamour and Outcry hath been raifed againft the
Introductory Difcourfe, as a Book of an ilF Afpect,
and a bad Tendency— »that the Evidence and Sup
port of Chriftianity are in Danger. We have heard
of obvious Inferences 'to be drawn, in Derogation
from the Authority of the Miracles of Chrift and
His Apoftles; oi Something lying at Bottom, &c. —
But now at length, the Obferver, it feems, hath
found out, that all This was Nothing but a Panic;
and acknowledges— that no Inferences are to
be drawn from the Miracles recorded of later
Ages, in Derogation from the Authority of the
Miracles of Chrift and His Apoftles ; Since there
is a great Difference between the - Miracles of
Chrift and His Apoftles, and the Miracles of later
Ages, as in Point of Importance, fo alfo in
Point of Evidence : — that the Evidence and Sup
port of Chriftianity are not endanger'd by the Ar
gument of the Introductory Difcourfe ; For, if no
Miracles had afterwards been wrought, the Founda
tion would have been equally fecure : — that the Au
thor neither does, nor can do any Prejudice to Chri
ftianity, by afferting, or proving, that ' We have
' no fufficient Reafon to believe, that miraculous
1 Powers were continued to the Church, after the
' Days of the Apoftles ;' Becaufe, Say the very
worftyou can fay, that there is not fo much as one
Miracle upon Record fince the Days of the Apoftles,
that is fufficiently attefted, Chriftianity has nothing to
do with it ; For Chriftianity ftands not upon new Mi
racles, but upon the old ones ; and the. Old Mira
cles are fufficient for the Old Doclrines. —And fo
P the

1 06 View of the Controverjy
the Obferver has been writing a Pamphlet, and, a-*
larming the Public, with Apprebenftons for GW*
ftianity, from the. Attempt of. the Introductory Dif
courfe ; and after thirty Pages, employed in endea
vouring to fhew, that the Author's Arguments dd
not flop with the Fathers, but impeach Chrift and His
Apoftles e ; and, • if admitted, may weaken the Sup
port of Chriftianity-r* After all This, He own$
and acknowledges, in the ConQlufion (as Truth will
out) that this fame, once formidable, Introductory,
Difcourfe, is now, in the main Argument, become
innocent and harmlefs ; and that, fuppofing What
it teaches, to be true, Chriftianity hath nothing to do
•with it. — Or, in other Words, it appears, that
the Obferver has been doing in this Controverfy^
What perhaps He never did in any other, giving
Himfelf a great deal of Trouble,, to very little Pur*
pofe. But, however, the Author oi the. Introductory^,
Difcourfe is not to come off fo. — — There re
main fome incidental Confequenc.es, for Which He
.muft ftill be called to an Account ; for the Ob-
ferver's laft Reflection is —
XIV.
' There is one Senfe, in Which -Chriftianity;
' may be affected by this Difpute ; Which is, as
' the Credit Of the ancient Fathers may be affected.
' by it. If You fuppofe Them to have been only,
' hafty and credulous in thefe Reports, it will come
¦'¦..._ 'to
8 Obferv. p. 24-

concerning Miraculous Powers. 107
' to but little ; becaufe They may yet competent-
* ly ferve for all the Ufes for Which We want
' Them. And let it be remembered, that We
' Want not Their Judgment, but Their Integrity.
' We admit Them, not as Authoritative Teachers,
' but as faithful Witneffes ; and This They may be,
* though in fome Points fuperftitious, and too eafy
' of Belief; For if every Hiftory is to be rejected
' as to the main Body and Subftance of it, Which
' reports fome Facts of doubtful Authority, I know
' not what Hiftory can ftand.— But if it could
' be proved, that the Fathers were Impoftors and
' Forgers of Lies, the Confequences may go a great
' Way V
The learned Author of the Jefuit-Cabal farther
opened, propofes alfo this Ottuery. — ' What Sort of
' Evidence or Authority will be left by this Sehe-
' mift, in the Ifllie of His Argument, to the New
' Teftament itfelf"? The only authentic Teftimony
' that We have to the Gofpels and Epiftles, in that
' Volume, is the Teftimony of the Primitive
,l Chriftian Writers. The Primitive Chriftian
' Writers, by this Author's Account, were fo
' credulous and fo fraudulent together, that You
' cannot truft Them for the Truth of one Miracle
' They report of Their own Times, though per-
' formed, as They fay, to Their own Know-
' ledge, &c. — What then is to become of Their
« Credit, by this Author's Syftem, in attefting our
' Gofpels and Epiftles of the Teftament, &c—
' What authentick Teftimony m\\ He leave Us at
p 2 ' hift
l> Obferv. p. 32, 3 J-

1 08 View of the Controverfy
' laft for the Miracles even of Chrift and His
' Apoftles, when He has left us fuch unauthentic
' Teftimonies to the Records themfelves of thofe
'Miracles'1?' Here, it muft be acknowledged, is fome Dif
ficulty — How far the Hiftorical Credit of the Fa
thers, in other Matters, may be affefted by Their
fuppofed Credulity in, or Forgery of, the Miracles
Which They have related as true, after the Apo
ftolic Age : And, how far the Evidence for the
Truth of Chriftianity, and the Authenticity of tbe>
Scriptures, may be eventually weakened thereby.—
This indeed feems to be the only Matter of real
Weight in this Controverfy ; and deferves a care
ful and critical Examination.
1.— As to Credulity, li an Hiftorian be found
to be fuperftitious, or credulous, in Things of a
certain Nature ; may I not difcredit fuch Things, ii
I have fufficient Reafon for it ; and yet believe
Him in other Matters, or in the main Subftance oi
the Hiftory, which I have not fuch Reafon to dip
credit? — But the Obferver Himfelf fays, that, 'if
' every Hiftory is to be rejected, as to the main
' Body or Subftance of it, Which reports fome-
' Facts of doubtful Authority, I know not what
' Hiftory can ftand.' Nor do I know therefore,
how this Conceffion can ftand .with the Obferver's
Charge upon the Author of the Introductory Dif
courfe ; Who, becaufe He does not believe the Re
port pf Miracles after the Days' of the Apoftles
(Which certainly are of doubtful Authority) is ac^
cufed,
I Page 45. See alTo Comber's Examination, p. 67.

concerning Miraculous Powers. 109
cufed, for that Reafon, oi fetting all Chriftian Wri
ters, both ancient and modern, at abfolute Defiance,
However, the Obferver now gives up the Article
of Credulity, as not affefling the Hiftorical Credit
oi the Fathers in other Points ; and therefore I
fhall only obferve, with regard to the Opener of
the Jefuit-Cabal — that Superftition and Credulity a-
lone, though they may invalidate the Teftimony
of the Reporters, in refpect of the Miracles Which
They relate after the Days of the Apoftles ; will
yet not equally render thefe Writers incompetent
Witneffes as to the Reception of the Books of Scrip
ture : Becaufe, tho' They may be thought to be
capable of being impofed upon by a pretended Mi
racle ; We cannot conclude that, for that Reafon,
They muft be equally capable of being fo far
impofed upon, as to believe that the Books of
Scripture were received as genuin in all Churches,
if they were not fo received.— The Notoriety in
the Nature of fuch a Fad will not permit the Sup
pofition. II. — As to Forgery. Suppofing the Fathers,
here accufed, to have really forged the Miracles
Which They relate as true ; or knew them to be'
forged :— I would afk, Whether, though a Writer
be known to have forged fome Stories ; or to have
related them as true, knowing them to be forged ;
I would afk, ' Whether We are obliged, for that
Reafon, to reject His Authority in all other Things,
or in the main Body of His Hiftory ? — May I not
believe Him in Things Which I have no Reafon to
think He does forge, or Which 1 have Reafon to
think

1 1 o View of the Controverfy
think He does not forge ; becaufe I reject What I
have Reafon to think, notwithftanding, that He
does forge? — If I reject the Authority of a Wri
ter in Part of His Hiftory, Which I have Reafon
to think He has forged ; am I obliged therefore
to reject His Authority in the Whole, Which I
have not equal Reafon for ?— Does the Obferver be
lieve all the Romantic Adventures and Forgeries,
Which the Roman Hiftorians have adorned Their
Narrations with, in the firft Ages of Rome ; or all
the Forgeries of fome modern Travellers ? I fup
pofe His Faith does not go fo far: But does He
therefore fet all thefe Hiftorians, both ancient and
modern, at abfolute Defiance ; reject Their Autho
rity in all Parts, or in the main Body oi Their
Hiftory or Travels, and believe Them in Nothing ?
— If a great fat Man (for Inftance) fhould telj
Me, that He paffed with Eafe through a narrow
Paffage in one of the ASgyptian Pyramids, through
Which, I know at the fame Time, that a little
thin Man could fcaree with difficulty creep ; I
fhould cerrainly reject this Story as a Forgery : But
muft I alfo, for that Reafon, difbelieve that He
went into, or faw the Pyramids at all ? — In a
Word, may I not reject any Writer's Authority,
in Matters Which do not appear to be attended with
fufficient Reafons of Credibility ; and yet believe
other Matters, upon His Authority, Which, up
on the whole, do appear with fuch concurrent
Reafons of Credibility? — Will a Forgery, of a
certain particular Kind, in one Part of a Hiftory,
To abfolutely invalidate the Hiftorian's Authority ;
that

concerning Mifaculdtis Powers, in
that no. Reajons can authenticate it in another inde
pendent ¥&%} •-<  But to be more particular...
i. If the 'Truth and Credibility of the G^f/
Hiftory^ and that the itocfo qf Scripture are the /Fri-
//^•j of Thofe Whofe Names they bear, and have been
genuinty delivered down to Us ; if thefe Things do
not depend folely upon thofe Fathers Who are fup
pofed to have forged, or related as true knowing
them to be forged, Miracles after the Days of th<*
Apoftles ; then this Accufation, fuppofing it to be
made good, and to weaken Their Credit ; will not
yet deftroy our Evidence for the Truth and Credi
bility oi the Gofpel- Hiftory. — If thefe Gentlemen
can fhew that it will, They muft therefore at the
fame Time fhew, that the Truth and Credibility
of the Gofpel- Hiftory, does folely depend upon the
Teftimony of Thofe Fathers Who lie under the pre
fent Accufation. But This, I think, They will
not, for Their own Credit, or for the Intereft of
Chriftianity (upon Their Scheme) attempt. For
then, if it fhould chance to turn out, that the Fathers
have related any Miracles as true, knowing them
to be falfe ; the Confequence will be, upon thefe
Gentlemen's Scheme, that We have no fufficient
Authority for the Truth and Credibility of the
Gofpel, ,
But whether They fhall pleafe to attempt This
or not ; it, does not appear to be the Truth of the
Cafe. — 'TheTruth and Credibility of the Gofpel-
Hiftory do not reft upon the mere independent
Teftimony and Authority of the Fathers in gene
ral ; much lefs upon any One, or All of Thofe Whp may

1 12 View of the Controverfy
may be fuppofed to lie under the prefent Accufa
tion. — It depends upon the internal, external, and
collateral Evidences, taken together ; Upon all the
concurrent Proofs ; not upon any Jingle' one alone. —
It depends upon the united Voice of all Eccleftafti-
cal Antiquity, confirmed, in a Variety of Inftan-
ces, by Prophane. — Shall We confine the Eviden
ces of Chriftianity to a narrower Compafs, than
We have any Occafion to do ? Or, when Providence
hath fupplied Us with a Cloud of Witneffes, fhall
We be for contenting Ourfelves with placing it
upon the Faith and Credit of one Kind only ?
A s to the Authenticity of the Scriptures in parti
cular ; This does not ftand merely upon the bare
Teftimony and Authority of Thofe,. Who are fup
pofed to have related as true, Miracles Which They
knew to be falfe: But is attefted by the united
Voice of All ; of Thofe Who do not, as well as of
Thofe Who do, lie under the prefent Accufation ;
as received by all Ages, the pure and the corrupt,
the learned as well as the unlearned ; as tranflated
into all Languages, and received by all Churches as
genuin. Hath it been faid that All the Fathers
have thus tamper' d with falfe Miracles? But All
witnefs to the Authenticity of Scripture. Hath it
been faid that whole Churches have forged Miracles,
or attefted them as true, knowing them to be
forged ; much lefs all the Churches ? Yet all re
ceived the Scriptures, and ftand Evidences for
them. But, fays the Opener, this * very Notoriety of
' the Thing, and the general Reception of thofe
' Books

concerning Miraculous Powers. 113
* Books in all Churches from the firft Publica-
' tion, is known to Us only by the Relations of
' the fame Primitive Writers.' — So again — The
' only authentic Teftimony that We have to the
* Gofpels and Epiftles in the New Teftament, is
' the Teftimony of the Primitive Chriftian Wri-
c ters V — But will this Author undertake to
prove, that the only authentic Teftimony that We
have to thefe Gofpels and Epiftles, is the Tefti
mony only of Thofe particular Primitive Chriftian
Writers, Who are here fuppofed to have forged,
or related as true, Miracles which They knew to
be forged ? Will He undertake to prove, that the
Notoriety of the Thing, and the Reception of the
Scriptures in all Churches, from the firft Publica
tion, ftand merely upon the Teftimony of Thofe
Same Primitive Writers, Who may have been
guilty of the Practice aforementioned ? — If He
cannot prove This ; His talking of the Reception
of the Scriptures depending upon the Evidence of
Primitive Writers in general, will fall fhort of the
Point. The Truth of the Fails relating to the Gofpel-
Hiftory, and the Reception of the Books of Scripture,
depend not merely on the Teftimony of thefe Fa
thers ; but upon That of All the Primitive Chri
ftian Writers, and upon the Non- contradiction of
Heretics and Infidels, and Perfecuters of the Chri
ftian Name, Jews and Gentiles, from the Time of
their firft Publication ; Who were capable of exa-
n mining
k Jefuit- Cabal, p. 4.5, 46.

ii4 View of the Controverfy
mining into the Truth, and wanted not Prejudice,
or Malice, fufficient to have inclined Them to de-
ny thefe Matters of Fact, and to have left upoi\
Record the Detection of thefe Frauds, if they had
been Frauds. But, on the contrary, All ThefeK
either by confefling, or not contradicting the Facts,
where it was Their Bufinefs, and for the Intereft
of Their Caufe to have done it, become Evidences
for them. If the Scriptures had not been received
as genuin ; this Pretence could not have been car
ried through fo many fucceffive Ages : For as, on,
one hand, We may reafonably fuppofe, that
They Who were zealous for the Truth oi genuin,,
Chriftianity, would have taken Care to have pre?
ferved, and propagated the Truth as to this Point ^
fo, on the other hand, the various Heretics, and
Enemies of Chriftianity were watchful for every
Objection againft it ; and would, no doubt, have ta
ken Care, that We fhould have heard of This a-
mongft the reft : And, though They might npt
have been able to have confuted every Pretence /,<?
Miraculous Powers ; could not have failed of
knowing the Truth of this Fact, from the Nloto-
riety in the Nature of it ; Whether the Chriftian
Churches received thofe Books Which contained the
Chriftian Religion, or not. Was it ever pretends
ed that this Fraud was detected ? which certainly
would have been attacked, had the Fact flood on
ly upon the Credit of Some of the Fathers Who
wrote in the Ages after the Apoftles, ; and Whq
might (according to the Hypothefis of the Intro
ductory Difcourfe) have been accufed of tampering with

concerning Miraculous Powers. 115
with falfe Miracles.— On the contrary, They were
forced to take the Scriptures as They found them,
and to try Only if They could turn them to Their
own Senfe Pr Advantage. — If therefore the Scrip-
ttir'es, delivered dbwn through the feveral fuccef
five Ages of the Church as pure and genuin, had
not been ib, and really received as fuch, by all
Churches ; We muft have heard of it, either from
Friends or Enemies ; unlefs We will fuppofe that
all Books paffed through the Hands of the Fathers
here accufed ; and that it was in Their Power to
,fupprefs, and, with a Kind of Turkifh Barbarifm,
to have deftroyed all Learning but Their own. —
But when We confider the Univerfality of the
Scriptures, their Tranflation into all Languages,
and the Care with Which every Church and Nation
were naturally concerned to preferve, and deliver
them down genuine and uncorrupt ; We cannot
fuppofe that any Attempt to the contrary could
haVe met with Succefs ; or that the Account of the
Fraud would not, from fome Hand or other, have
come down to Us, as well as the Fraud itfelf1.
But fure I need not remind thefe Gentlemen how
many Sorts of Proof are to be produced in Evidence
Q^2 for
1 Volnmifia Divina, longe majori Studio, quam ulla alia in
Ecclefia affervata, apud omnes Nationes Memoriae mandata, in
oinnes Lingua's transfufa, ab omnibus Seftis, orthodoxis &' hje-
reticis,- Catholfcis & Schifmaticis, Graecij & Latinis, Sarmatis
& iEthiopibus recepta fcterint, aliis aliorum Oculos & Mnnus
aiceurate pbfervaritibiis, ita nt ne minima quidem, qua ullius
eflet Moment!, Depravatio accidere potuerit, quin, ut ita di-
cam, univerfus infurgeret orbis, & de illata Injuria apud Om-
litS ubfqne quereretu'r. — Ball, de afu Patr. c. iv. p. 61. Ed.
Lat. Genev. 16S6*

1 1 6 View of the Controverfy
for the Truth and Credibility of Chriftianity ? Let
Them only recollect a little, what Anfwer They
would give to any of our modern Infidels, Who
fhould object to Them, What They Themfelves
feem to fay, viz. that the Truth and Credibility
of the Gofpel - Hiftory of Chriftiapity, depend
merely upon the Evidence of Thofe Primitive Chri
ftian Writers, Whom the Introductory Difcourfe
hath charged with forging, or relating as true,
Miracles Which They knew to be forged — that the
only authentic Teftimony to our Gofpels and Epiftles
are the Teftimony of Thefe Fathers — that the Re
ception of the Scriptures as genuin, is known only
by the Relations of Thefe Writers -* nay, that there
is no authentic Teftimony, but That of Thefe Fa
thers, for the Miracles of Chrift and His Apoftles m.
— Let Them confider how They would anfwer any
One, Who fhould affert What They now do ; and
the fame Anfwers will ferve for Themfelves. — In
the. mean while, I muft obferve, that, furely, if
any obvious Inferences are to be drawn, in Prejudice
to the Miracles of Chrift and His Apoftles, they may
be drawn from fuch Principles as thefe. — But as
the Truth of Chriftianity had really no Neceflity
for the fraudulent Arts oi falfe Miracles for its firft
Propagation and Eftablifhment ; fo neither hath it
now for the patronizing fuch Arts ; and it will be
found, that the real Harm to original Chriftianity,
is done, not by Thofe Who prudently reject the
Impoftures of After-ages ; but by Thofe Who, inju-
dicioufly, defend them. 2. But
m Jefuit-Cabal, p. 4;.

concerning Miraculous , Powers. 117
2. But now We will fuppofe (What yet is not
the Truth of the Cafe) that the Truth and Credibi
lity of Chriftianity, and the Authenticity of the Books of
Scripture, do really depend, folely and merely, up
on the Authority and Teftimony of the Fathers
Who fucceded the Apoftles ; and that They may
be generally fuppofed, either to have forged the
Miracles Which They have recorded of thofe Days ;
or to have related them as true, knowing them to
be fo forged.
And I fhall venture to fay, that even in this
Cafe, I do not at prefent fee, that, altho' I fhould
difcredit fuch Relations of Miracles ; I fhould, for
that Reafon, be alfo obliged to reject the Autho
rity of Thefe PrimitiveWriters in the main Body of
Their Hiftory of Chriftianity ; or, as to the Authen
ticity of the Books of Scripture ;
Firft, If, notwithftanding it be fuppofed, that
Thefe Writers would not falfify in the main Body of
Their Hiftory ; or in afferting the Truth of, or in
delivering down as genuin and univerfally received,
the Books of Scripture ; We may yet, at the fame
Time, account confidently for Their fuppofed Con-
duel in relation to Miracles.
Now, the Propagation of Chriftianity, the Re
ligion of the Fathers, is fuppofed to be the End
and Defign of Their preaching and writing. The
Books of Scripture are fuppofed to contain the origi
nal Hiftory, and Evidences of it. Among the
Means of propagating Thefe, a Pretence to the
Continuation of Miracles might be efteemed as one.
From hence We may account for Their Conducl in
refpect

1 1 8 View of the Controverfy
refpedt to Miracles, the Means only to the End ;
confidently with fuppofing Their ftridt Regard tO
Truth, in Their Account of the Religion itfelf, with
the original Hiftory arid Evidences of it, Which was
the End. — We may have fufficient Reafon to de
pend upon Their Authority, for the Authenticity
of Their Hiftory in the main Body oi it, in the
main Fails and Subftance, and for the Genuinenefs
of the original Hiftory and Evidences of Chriftianity,
the Point and End ; confidently with fuppofing,
that They might not fpeak Truth concerning fome
particular, extrinfic Circumftances, Which They
Themfelves looked upon merely as Means to the
Propagation of it after the Death of the Apoftles :
And it does not follow, that They, Who might
think it lawful and innocent, to make ufe of fuch
Conduct in regard to the Means of propagating a
Religion in Their own Times ; could not think
This ; unlefs They thought it alfo as lawful and
innocent, to forge the Religion itfelf, or the original
Hiftory and Evidences of it. Or, it does not follow,
that They who would not forge the whole Hiftory,
and original Evidences of the Religion, or the Reli
gion itfelf; would not yet, notwithftanding, make
ufe oi forged Miracles, for the fake oi propagating
that Religion afterwards. And if not ; then it
does not follow, . that if We difcredit Their Autho
rity in fome Fails, Which We fuppofe Them to
look upon only as Means to an End ; We muft
therefore reject Their Authority in the main Fad and
End itfelf.— Means and Fadls, on Which the Truth
oi Chriftianity doth not depend ; and with Which (by

concerning Miraculous Powers. 1 1 9
(by the Obferver' s own Confeffion) Chriftianity
hath really nothing to do. — If the Hiftorians have
forged, or related as true, knowing them to be
forged, fome Circumftances relating to the Educa
tion and Actions pf Romulus, and thp Auguries at
the Foundation of Rome ; may I not here feparate
Truth from Fable ; and believe the Truth of tlie
Foundation of the City, tho' upon the fame Authori
ty Which delivers the other fabulous Part of the Ac-.
count ? Am I obliged to believe, or difbelieve,
Both alike ? No : Becaufe it may be fuppofed,
that die Hiftorians. might, for fome Ends or other,
iorge, or relate as true, knowing them to be forg
ed* fome Circumftances relating to the Foundation
of Rome ; but yet it will be hard to fuppofe, for
that Reafon, that They would, of muft therefore
have done the fame, in refpect to the main Point,
and have falfified in telling Us that there was any
fuch City, or Foundation of a City at all. — We
are npt obliged to This ; Becaufe We can account,
for Their Forgeries in the one Cafe, confiftently with
fuppofing, that They would not forge in the other.
— Qr, fuppofing that They would not falfify in
the main Tranf action ; W e may yet fuppofe con
fiftently, that They might, neverthelefs, falfify in
fome of the Circumftances relating thereto.
The Truth of the prefent Cafe then may be
This. — The Fathers were pious, good Men ; zea
lous for the Propagation of a Religion Which They
believed to be true, and of the Original Hiftory and
Evidences ef it, Which They knew to be divine.
We have Reafon, frpm all Circumftances laid to
gether,

1 20 View of the Controverfy
gether, to believe that They not only have not,;'
but that They neither would, nor could have re-'
ported a Falfhood, in Relation to the original Hi
ftory and Evidences of Chriftianity, and forged the
Whole of the Religion Which They profefled. —
The Means They might make ufe of in the Propa
gation of this Religion after the Death of the A-
poftles, though wrong, might be efteemed to be
otherwife by Them ; as they were looked upon to
be innocent in themfelves, and might ferve to
fpread and eftablifh the Religion, and the Hiftory
of it, Which they knew to be true. Therefore,
though We may have Reafon to think, that They"
have not always fpoken Truth in regard to thefe
Means made ufe of by Themfelves in the Propaga
tion of Their Religion ; it does not follow, that
We muft believe They forged the original Hiftory
and Evidences of it alfo : — Becaufe, fuppofing that
They would not forge or falfify in the original Hi
ftory and Evidences of it ; We may yet, confiftent- '
ly, fuppofe, for the Reafons before given, that
They might allow Themfelves to make ufe of a
different Conduct, in relation to the Means oi pro
pagating it : For the one is confiftent with the
Character of pious (tho' miftaken) Men ; the other is
not. — TheBooks of Scripture are fuppofed to be,and
are delivered down by Them as, the Original Hiftory
and Evidences of Chriftianity ; as Books containing
the Revelation of the true Religion from God Him
felf; as the Life and Actions of that Perfon, Who
was fent immediately from God, and there repre-'
fented as Son of God, the Divine Patron and
Founder

concerning Miraculous Powers. 121
Founder of Their Religion; together with the
Lives and Actipns of Thofe, to Whom He im
mediately delegated His Power and Authority in
the Work of the Miniftry. — Now, We cannot
fuppofe thefe Fathers to have forged fuch Books, or
to have delivered them down as genuin, and as re
ceived by all Churches as fuch Divine Revelation, if
They knew it to be all a Fable ; without imagining
Them to have been the moft abandon' d and impious
Wretches in Nature ; guilty of the moft daring Im
piety ; Which no Error could excufe, no End could
juftify. But, fuppofing the Religion to be true,
and the Profeflbrs to be affured of it, and to be
lieve the Original Hiftory and Evidences of it ;
Their Miftakes or Errors, in regard to the Inno
cence and Lawfulnefs of the Means which They
might make ufe of, for the fake of fpreading and
eftablifhing this true Religion, and its Hiftory ;
upon Which They are fuppofed to believe the Sal
vation of Men depended ; Their Errors and Mi
ftakes bere, though not to be juftified, are yet not
abfolutely irreconcilable with the Character of
Piety. — The Character is here a miftaken Piety, a
Pradice oi wrong Means, through too hafty a Zeal
for obtaining a right End ; Which, though it will
not fandify thofe Means, may yet poflibly preferve
the general Character of the miftaken Perfon from
the Charge oi Impiety, as I have before fhewn n. And
fince We may account for Their Conduct in regard
to Their pretended Miracles, confidently with fup
pofing that They would not falfify in the Cafe be-
R fore-
» vid. p. 76, tn,

122 View of the Controverfy
fore- mention'd ; it follows, that Their Authority fir
Teftimony, though not available in one Cafe, nmy
yet be depended upon in .another.
I f the general Character of Piety and Ho/iefty
in thefe Fathers, be confirmed and eflablifhed, as
well by the Teftimony of Others, as by the inter
nal Marks and Signatures in Their own Writings ;
confirmed by Thofe, againft Whom the Charge of
Forgery does not lie ; then, being thus fecured of
Their Character in general, here will be Reafon
fufficient to give Credit, upon Their Authority, to
the main Body of Their Hiftory, and the Truth pf
Chriftianity ; and yet We may, notwirhftanding,
in fome incidental Particulars, upon Which the
Truth of Chriftianity does not depend, fee Reafqn
to believe that They poffibly might be fo far miftar
ken, through an over-heated Zeal, as to imagine
thofe Means of eftablifhing it to be lawful, Which
were not fo ; and to think, that They might inno
cently make ufe of thofe pious Frauds, for the Sup
port and Intereft of a Religion Which They knew
to be Divine.
I f it fhould be faid, that believing the main
Body of a Hiftory upon the Character of the Hi-
florian, as confirmed by Others ; is believing jt,
not upon His Authority or Credit, but upon the
Authority of Others ; I afk, whether, if a Perfon
be recommended to Me as a Man pf a good Cha
racter ; and He gives Me an Account of fome
Tranfaftion, Which I give Credit to, on Account
of the Character -I have received of Him ; I afk,
"whether I do not believe upon His Authority, be-
.. caufe

concerning Miraculous Powers- 1 23
caufe I take His Character from Others? If not, an
, Hiftorian' s Authority is a very vague Thing in
deed ! — How do I believe any Thing, upon tbe
Authority of any Man, but by believing" it upon
His Character ? And how do I know His Cha
racter (unlefe I know the Man myfelf) but from
the Teftimony of Others ? —If, therefore, believing
an Hiftorian upon His Character, be not believing
the Hiftory upon His Authority ; I know not how
there can be believing upon any Writer's Authority
at aU; fince it is His Character alone Which makes
His Authority.- — If all This be only the Authority
of Him from Whom We take ihe Character ; then,
for the fame Reafon, We may be faid to believe
that. Character given of the Hiftorian, not upoi\
the Authority of the Perfon Who gives it, but upon
the Character Which I receive from Others of Him
alfo, and fo in infinitum. — To believe an Hiftori
an, therefore, upon the Credit of His Character,
is believing upon His Authority. —
Wherefore, upon the Whole, if I believe
the Hiftory of Chriftianity, given by Thofe Whofe
general Character of Piety and Honefty I am fuf
ficiently affured of; I believe it upon Their Autho
rity ; and which Authority, in the main Body and
Subftance of the Hiftory, is not, in this Cafe, in
validated by my feeing Reafon to think, that They
may have- been miftaken in the Liberty They are
'fuppofed to have taken, in Their Ufe of What
They thought innocent Frauds, for' the Support and
-.Propagation of that Religion Which They are de-
slivering down' to Us ; fo long as I am fatisfied,
I R 2 from

12^ View of the Controverfy
from Their general moral Character, that, in the
main Hiftory, in the Religion itfelf, in the End and
Defign of all, They would not deceive ; and fince,
fuppofing This, I can neverthelefs confiftently ac
count for the other Suppofition ; that They might,
notwithftanding, make ufe oi falfe Miracles, to
carry on Their Work.
If it fhould be thought, that the fame Way of
reafoning may be employed to prove, that Thefe
Fathers may alfo have taken the Liberty of falfi-
fying, in delivering down the Gofpel -Hiftory,
with regard to the Miracles of Chrift and His A-
poftles ; or that the Evangelifis Themfelves may
have done the fame ; fince Thefe Miracles alfo (it
may be faid) may be looked on as the Means of
propagating the Religion ; — I anfwer, that . the
Miracles Which are reported by Them, of Chrift
and His Apoftles, are reported as Part of the origi
nal, primary, and fundamental Evidences of Chrifti
anity, upon Which the Truth of it depends ; they
are confidered, not merely as the Means of propa
gating it ; but, as the Foundation upon Which it
was erected. To have forged fuch Miracles, there
fore, or to have delivered them down as genuin,
knowing them to be forged, would have been, in
Effect,, to have forged the Religion itfelf: But
This (as 1 have fhewn) is inconfiftent with the^*-
neral Character of Piety and Honefty. Nor, for
the fame Reafon, can We fuppofe that They would
add any falfe Miracles, as the Miracles of Chrift
and His Apoftles, to Thofe Which were genttin.
For, as all the Miracles Which They have report ed

concerning Miraculous Powers. 1 25
ed of Chrift and His Apoftles, are all equally re
ported by Them as Part of the original, primary,
fundamental Evidences of Chriftianity ; to fuppofe
that They have added falfe Miracles to the genuin,
is equally fuppofing Them to have been guil
ty of the Crime of forging tbe original, primary,
fundamental Evidence: But forging the original,
primary, fundamental Evidence, is forging the Re
ligion itfelf. — But now the Miracles related of the
Times after the Apoftles, when (as the Obferver
rightly fays ) tbe whole Syftem of Faith was fealed
up as compleat and perfect ; thefe pretended Mi
racles (fuppofing them fuch) were, looked upon by
the Fathers, as no more than the Means Which
They thought it was lawful for Them to employ,
in fpreading and propagating the original Hiftory,
the Religion Which They had received ; but on
Which Miracles, wheher true or falfe, the Truth or
Evidence oi Chriftianity could not depend ( the
Miracles of Chrift and His Apoftles, not any in
After-ages, being, as the Obferver admits, the
Foundation of tbe Faith ° ) Chriftianity having No
thing to do with them.
Secondly. Though We reject the Authority ofthe
Fathers, in Their Accounts of Miracles after tbe
Days of the Apoftles ; We fhall not for that Reafon
be obliged alfo to reject Their Authority as to the
original Hiftory and Evidences of Chriftianity, or
Their genuinly delivering down the fame ; unlefs it can
be proved, that an Hiftorian, Who would not falfi
fy in one Hiftory, would not therefore falfify in
another,
• Obferv. p. 30.

156 'View cf the Controverfy
another, on Which the Truth of the fornWr does
not depend; and which Falfhoods are of fuch a
Kind, as not to be inconfiftent with the general Cha
racter oi honeft, but miftaken Men. — I will take it
for granted that This cannot be proved; Becaufe it
muft firft be proved, that an honeft Man cannot
mistake as to the Lawfulnefs or Innocence of a cer
tain Conduct in one Cafe, of Which He fees the
Unlawfulnefs and Impiety in another. — Now, the
prefent Point may be reduced' to the Cafe above-
mentioned. — The original Hiftory and Evidences
of Chriftianity, in the Miracles of Chrift and Flis
Apoftles, is one ; the Hiftory of the Miracles of
the Fathers after the Days of the Apoftles, is an
other ; and therefore, although the Fathers would
not falfify in relation to the former Hiftory, where
They could not but fee the Unlawfulnefs and Im
piety of it ; it cannot be proved, that They would
not falfify in the latter, on Which the Truth of
tlie former does not depend ; and in fuch Particu
lars, where They may be fuppofed not to fee the
Unlawfulnefs or Impiety of fuch Conduct. — And
therefore, the rejecting Their Authority in one Hi
ftory, where We can fuppofe They might falfify ;
will not afford Ground for the Conclufion, that
therefore We muft reject alfo Their Authority in
another Hiftory, in Which We can fuppofe, con
fidently, that They would not make ufe of the like
Conduct. Thirdly. We fhall not be obliged to reject the
Authority of the Fathers as to the original Hiftory
'and Evidences of Chriftianity, as delivered down to

concerning Miraculous Powers, i 27
to Us in the Sacred Writings, though We reject
Their Authority in Their Accounts of Miracles
after the Days of the Apoftles ; if .it appear, that
They Themfelves have given a greater Proof of
Their Sincerity and Truth in refpect to the former,
than They have in regard to the latter. — Now,
that They were fencer e in Their Profeffion of Chri
ftianity, in Their Belief of the original History and
Evidences of it ; They have given fuch Teftimony as
fets Them above all Sufpicion of Fraud or Impofture ;
the greatest Pledge (as the Obferver Himfelf calls
it) that Human Faith can give. — They died in At
testation to the Truth of Christianity -, and to die
Truth of Chriftianity as delivered in the Books of
Scripture, the original Hiftory and Evidence of it.
— Thefe Books They deliver down as fuch. — So that
dying in Teftimony to the Truth of Christianity, is,
in Effect and Reality, dying in Teftimony to the
Authenticity of the Books of Scripture, in Which alone
They profefs this Religion to be contained. But
Who of Them died in Attestation to the Truth of
any Miracle after the Days of the Apostles ? —This
makes a great Difference in the two Cafes, by the
Obferver's own Confeffion. ' Who (fays He) laid
' down His Life in Teftimony to any Miracle
' wrought in After- ages? No-body. Martyrs
' there were in After- ages ; But They were not
' Martyrs to new Miracles, but to the Chriftian
' Faith, as it flood upon the Miracles wrought by
' Christ and His Apostles p.' — Their Authority,
therefore, may be depended upon in one Cafe, tho' it
p Obferv. p. 31.

128 View of the Controverfy
it may not in another. — And no Man can argue,
that We muft, or may reafonably, reject the Au
thority of a Writer, in Things accompanied with
the greateft Pledge that human Faith can give ; be
caufe We reject His Authority in Things Which
have not fuch Testimony to demand Our Affent.
But to conclude this Point — I would afk thefe
Gentlemen — Do They, or do They not, believe
the Truth of all the Miracles, reported by thefe
Fathers as true, after the Days of the Apoftles ? —
If They do not, They muft impute them either to
Credulity, or to Forgery, in the Reporters.— But to
which foever of thefe They fhall impute them, the
Difficulty will lie- upon Themfelves. — For (however
ftrange the Affertion may feem at firft hearing, yet)
I think I may venture to fay, that Superftition and
Credulity will affect (though not the moral Cha
racter, yet) the Credit and Authority of an Hifto
rian, as much, if not more, than Forgery itfelf.
The Hiftorian Who ventures to forge, will,
however, be cautious how He makes ufe of fuch a
Liberty ; and, as He hath His Reafon and Thoughts
about Him, He will do it but fparingly, or now
and then, and in a few particular Inflances; being
fufpicious of being detected, and anxious and provi
dent for the Credit of His Hiftory. But the fit- •
perftitious, credulous Hiftorian is off his Guard:
For, as He believes all Himfelf, He fees no Rea
fon Others fhould not believe too ; and therefore hath
no Scruple of relating Whatever His own Faith ex
tends to, carelefs of the Number or natural Incredi
bility oi His Relations ; and. therefore no wonder, if

concerning Miraculous Powers, i 29
if the Hiftory of a credulous, fuperftitious Man
fhould confift of little dfe but fuch Accounts. —
The Author of the Obfervations, fpeaking of the
Fathers, fays — ' We want not Their Judgment,
' but Their Integrity. We admit Them, not as
c authoritative Teachers, but as faithful Witneffet^
A ftrange Obfervation This, furely ! — What ! is
not Judgment, as well as Integrity, neceffary to the
Credit of a Witnefs even in Matters of Fa<5l ? —
May not a Man have the greateft poffible Integri
ty ; and yet, if He have no Judgment, be deceived
in a thoufand Inftances even of Matters of Fadl ? —
Would not a common Jugler be able with Eafe to
impofe upon a Man of the greateft Integrity ; if He-
were a weak Man, and of little Judgment ? — I muft
therefore take upon Me to afiert, though in Con
tradiction to this Writer, that there is required, in
a credible Witnefs, even to Matters of Fact, the
Qualification of Judgment, as well as. Integrity —
efpecially in Tranfa&ions Which favour ofthe mar
vellous : And therefore, a fuperftitious, credulous
Hiftorian, let Him be of ever fo great Integrity,
wanting Judgment, is no more a credible Witnefs
than the Writer Who is guilty of Forgery. As to
myfelf, I muft own, I do not fee that either Cre
dulity, or Forgery, of a certain Kind, and in
Things of a particular Nature, do fo far affect the
Credibility of an Hiftory, but that it may, never -
thelefs, be depended upon in other Parts, and as to
the main Body of it, upon fufficient Reafons of
S Credi-
5 Obferv. p. 32.

130 'View of the Controverfy
Credibility : But I think Ldo fee, that the Qtefy-
bilityoi an Hiftory may be affected by Superftition
and' Credulity, as much, at leaft, as by Forgery.
N ow therefore I repeat. — Do thefe Writers be
lieve the Truth of all the Miracles reported as true
by thefe Fathers, after the Days of the- Apoftles ; or
do They not believe them ? — If They do no} ;
then, whether They impute them to Forgery or-to
Credulity, the Difficulty Which They Wpuld-fix
upon Others, in relation to the Truth and Credi
bility of the Gofpel- Hiftory, will, ; in Reality,; lie
¦upon Themfelves only.- — For, if They Themfelves
do not believe the Truth of all thefe Miracles, but
impute them to Forgery or Credulity- in thefe-'^a-
tbers ; then, They muft either fay, that the Truth
and Credibility oi the Gofpel- Hiftory, s and Authenti
city of tbe Scriptures, do not depend upon the Au
thority or TeftimOrt'y of Thefe Fathers : or other-
wife, if They will ftand to it, that theTruth-and
Credibility of the Gofpel- Hiftory, ^and Authenti
city of the Books of Scripture, do depend, only up
on thefe fame . Fathers ; and that They are the- only
authentic Teftimony of the Gofpels send- Epiftles (as
the Opener exprefsly aflerts) ; then They muft ei
ther admit, upon Their own Principles, that We
really have no fufficient Authority for the. Reception
of the Scriptures, and the Truth ofthe GafpeUHi-
ftory ; or elfe They muft allow, that difcrediting
the Authority of thefe Fathers, in Their Reports of
Miracles after the Days of the Apoftles (Which is
one Particular of Their Hiftory) if they ftand not
upon fufficient Evidence ; does not fo far invalidate Their

concerning Miraculous Powers. 1 3 1
Their Teftimony, and Authority in other Cafes, but
that They may ftill be efteemed neverthelefs, good
and fufficient Witneffes for. the Truth of the main
Body of Their Accounts ; the Hiftory, in general,
and the genuin Reception of tbe Scriptures. —There
is no Medium. And therefore, if thefe Gentlemen
do not believe all the Miracles reported after
the Days of the Apoftles, They muft anfwer
Thernfehies ; and -if they do believe them, it will not
be worth Any-body's while to anfwer Them at all.
I will only add, that, if What has been faid,
be not fufficient to fhew, that We are not obliged
to diieredit the: main Body oi an Hiftory, on Ac
count of fome Forgeries therein ; it will follow,
that no Hiftory, wherein any falfe Stories are deli-.
vered as true, is to be believed even in the main
Body of it, or ftands upon any credible Authority :
For I have fhewn, that Credulity affefts the Credit
of an Hiftorian,' as much as Forgery, — And what
Deftruction will This make with all Hiltories, an
cient and' modern? — Jofephus's Account of the
Apples of Sodom, and Echard's Story of Oliver
Cromwell and the Devil, will ruin Their Credit, and
-demojifti thofe Hiftories at once. The like may
be faid of moft other Hiftorians ; 'till, in the End,
We muft believe Nothing but what We fee Our
felves ; and the Hiftory of every Man's own Times
(except Bifhop Burnet's) will be the only credible
•Hiftories. I have now gone through the Obferver's Ex
ceptions to the Introductory Difcourfe.—
S 2 As

n

1,5

2 View of the Controverfy
As to the Fail; Whether there be fufficient
Reafon to believe, upon the Authority of the Fa
thers, that Miraculous Powers were continued to
the Church after the Age of the Apoftles ; or Whe
ther there be not ; I do not here take upon Me to
determine, or enquire ; my only Intention being
to fhew, that, fo far as the Obfervations go, and
the Arguments of Thofe Other Writers Whom I
have occafionally examined, the Introductory Dif
courfe is not affected ; and to remove all Prejudices
on both Sides, Which otherwife (as the Obferver
juftly remarks) may with Many predetermine the
Caufe, before it comes to a fair Hearing. — Let the
Fad be fairly tried ; and Where the Truth fhall ap
pear, let it be embraced, without any Regard to
common Opinions, or Prejudices, on one Side or the
other. — Let the Primitive Fathers have all the Ho
nour and Regard paid to Them, due to Their Merit ;
as, in general, and for the moft part, excellent
Men, pious, virtuous, and competently learned for
the Times They lived io. — We fhould, in this
Cafe, procede with Caution. — On the one hand,
We fhould not exaggerate the Faults, or Errors,
of the Fathers. ; nor, on the other, pay fuch a fu
perftitious Veneration to Them, as to look upon
Them to be free from all Vices and Errors ; and
Thrir Writings to be all (as Horace complains the
Verfes of the Primitive Poets, becaufe ancient, were
eftfcemed in His Days to be)

- exailis minimum diftantia.  » The

concerning Miraculous Powers. 133
The middle Way is right — to attribute neither too
much, nor too little to Their Authority j and to be
cautious, that, while We do not throw off all that
proper Regard and Deference to Them, Which is
Their due ; We do not, on the contrary, fo impli
citly rely upon Them, as to do Injury to the Truth,
Which ought to have our principal Veneration, in
Oppofition to all Authority inconfiftent with it r.
A s to the Confequences of the Opinion and Argu
ments of the Introductory Difcourfe to the Difadvan-
tage of the Truth, or Support of Chriftianity, or the
Gofpel-Hiftory ; though the Obferver has, in fome
Parts of His Performance, reprefented them as
admitting of obvious Inferences in Derogation from
the Miracles of Chrift and His Apoftles ; yet, in
other Places, He has given up that Point; by
' confeffing, that He cannot fee that this Queftion
' hath any Thing to do with the Defence of Chri-
* ftianity — and that if there be not fo much as one
' Miracle upon Record, fince the Days of the A-
' poftles, fufficiently attefted, Chriftianity hath
' nothing to do with it — Which ftands not upon
' the new Miracles oi the Fathers oi the fourth, the
' third, or the fecond Century ; but upon the old
' ones
' Tam immutabilis Veritas eft, ut cujufvis Patris Auftoritas
efficere non poffit, ut verum lit id quod falfum eft, & falfum
effe, quod certiffimis Monumentis comprobatur, ut fadlum fit,
quod fa&um non effe ipfis, ut ita loquar, folis radiis demon-
ftratur. Nat. Alexand. Hilt. Ecclefiait. Sac. ii. Differt. i.
Laudanda utique Modeftia, nee omnis erga Veteres iftos Ec-
clefia: Do&ores, quibus multa debemu% abjicienda Veneratio ;
fed adcurate fimul, diligenterque difpiciendum, ne, dum Mo-
defti videri volumus, in Veritatem fimus injurii. — J. F. Bud-
dei Ifagog. ad Theo!og — Tom. 1,. p. 543-

i 3,4 View of the Contr(merJyf
' ones of Chrift and His Apoftles: — And after all-
the Clamour Which hath been raifed, it fobfides in
This only at laft —How far the Suppofition, that
Some of the Primitive- Fathers have cither forged
Miracles, or related them as true knowing them to
be forged, may affect Their Hiftorical Credit in
other Things, as to the main Body of Their Hiftory ;
or,. Whether it can deftroy the Evidence for the
Truth and Credibility of the Gpfpel-Hiftory , and
the Authority of thp Books of Scripture. — If What
hath been faid as to thefe Points in the foregoing
Papers, fhall be thought fufficient, or capable of
being improved upon,, to clear this feeming Diffi
culty ; I fee not What the Obferver can have to ob
jeft to the Author's Attempt ; but only how well,
or how ill, the Truth of His Opinion, as to the
Matter of Fact, may be fupported; after hawing
thus granted (though in Contradiction to Himfelf)
that, as to any ill Confequences, any obvious Infe--
rences Which may follow from the Fact, fuppofing
the Truth of it to be eflablifhed, Chriftianity bath
nothing to do with it.
As to any farther fecret Intention or Defign,
Which the Obferver infinuates to lie at Bottom oi
the Introductory Difcourfe ; I fhall leave it for Thofe
to dive after, Who are fkill'd in that way — and
fhall only fay, that if the Author of the Introducto
ry Difcourfe had any Defign, that His Opinions or
Arguments fhould be extended to the Disadvantage
of Chriftianity ; thefe Papers may be looked upon
as an Anfwer, fo far, to the Introductory Difcourfe ;
by fhewing, that if fuch were the fecret Defign and
Intention

concerning Miraculous Powers. 135
Intention of it, it would really fail of it's End ;
fince the Opinions and Arguments there advanced,
perfued through all their various Conclufions, leave
the Truth and Credibility oi the Gofpel- Hiftory, and
the Teftimony and Authority of the Genuinenefe of
the Books of Scripture, fafe and unaffected. — But if
the Author had no fuch finifter End in View ; then
thefe Papers are a Vindication of the Opinion and
Arguments of the Introductory Difcourfe, from thofe
ill Confequences, Which the Obferver and Others
have charged them with. — They tell Us, that they
are fuch, as may tend to enervate the Evidence for
the Gofpel-Hiftory, and the Authority ofthe Scrip
tures. — I thought fo, 'till I read thefe Gentlemen's
Performances ; But my Doubts leffened with every
Page ; And if They fhould oblige the World again
upon the Subject, No-body perhaps may doubt
any longer about it. — 'Tis the Obfervation of a ce
lebrated Writer, that ' the next Happinefs to being
' very well defended, is That of being very weakly
' oppofed:

eos T

POSTSCRIPT.
I Have juft read over a declamatory Latin Treatife,
intitled, Defenfio Miraculorum, Quce in Eccle-
fia Chriftiana facia effe perhibentur poft Tempora A-
foftolorum a. Which, as far as it relates to Points
confidered in the foregoing Papers, may not be
improper for Me to take notice of.
Defenfio Miraculorum, p. 3.
Against that Principle of the Introductory
Difcourfe, viz. that ' whenever any facred Rite
* becomes the Inftrument of real Miracles, We
' ought to confider that Rite, as confirmed by
' Divine Approbation' — the learned Author fays
—5/ quo Deus voluerit imorobiiiimo Homine uti tan
quam Inftrumento in Rerum Adminiftratione (quod
interdum factum eft) illudne fequitur juftd aliqud
Conclufione Rationis, Deum ob hanc Caufam Pofteri-
tati velle commendare iftius Hominis Improbitatem ? — ¦
This is the fame Jumble of Ideas, or Argument,
commonly fo called, made ufe of by Dr. Claget,
and the Author of the Obfervations ; Which I have
already unravel'd, p. 37, &c. — The Reader has
there feen how it looks in Englifh -, and perhaps
T He
* Quam in Scholij Theologicis Cantabrgise Januarii xxi.
M. DCC. XL. VII. fufcepit, cum pro Gradu Baccalaureatus in
Sacra Theologia folenniter refponderet, Zacharias Brooke,
A. M. Coll. D. Joannis Socius.

,38 POSTSCRIPT.
He will not think that it makes any better Figure
in Latin. — Defenf. p. 3, 4.
He asks— ' Whether, if We fuppofe that God
' permitted the Magicians of Mgypt to work true
' Miracles ; We can thence infer any Confirmatik
' on of Magic Arts ? b ' —
The Queftion in the prefent Debate is; Whe
ther a Divine Miracle, properly fo called, wrought.
through any Rite, by Which God is applied to for
that Purpofe ; and where no Mark is given of His
Difapprobation — Whether a Miracle, fo circum
ftanced, will not infer the Divine Approbationoi the
Rite, fo far as it goes, as innocent and lamfuh
Conf. View, p. 11, 14, 15. But, in the prefent In
ftance, there is not any one of thefe Circumftances.
—The Miracles, though fuppofed to be true 'Mi
racles, were not , properly Divine Miracles ; Mi
racles wrought by the Power of God (any other-
wife than as all Power is from Him) and therefore
cannot infer the Divine Approbation, or Confir
mation of the Lawfulnefs or Innocence of thofe
Rites, or Arts through Which they were wrought.
— The Magicians acknowledged to Pharaoh, that
the. Miracles wrought by Mofes and' Aaron- were tht
, b Si illud etiam ponas (quod quidem videtur non multum
diftare abs Re ipfa atque a Veritate). Deum, quo melius fuam
demonftraret -Poteftatem. permififle olim ut.-a M^gis ^gyptia-
cis coram Mofe ipforumque Principe vera ederentur Miracula ;
num ergo putas Artea Magicas ullo modo indg eonfirroariji BUr
j-orive in Exiftimatione apud Homines debere-efle I

POSTSCRIPT, 139
the Finger of God ; implying Their own to be not
fo. Gen. viii. 19. — Nor were thefe Miracles
wrought by any Rites, through Which Application
was made to God for them ; but ( by Suppofition)
only to Magic Arts, or Evil Spirits : And therefore
the Succefs of thofe Arts, proves only the Divine
Permiffion of that Succefs, in order to fhew forth
His own fuperior Power, in Oppofition thereto.—
For there was, in this Inftance, an evident Mark
of the Divine Difapprobation of the Magicians, and
Their Arts. This learned Author Himfelf takes
notice of a Circumftance, Which is alone a fuffici
ent Reafon, why Nothing, in favour of Magic
Arts, can be concluded from hence, viz. ' that
' God permitted thefe Magic Powers to work Mi-
' racles, in order to manifeft His own fuperior
' Power,' by greater Miracles : The Event of Which
muft be, not the approving or recommending fuch
Arts ; but the confounding, and deftroying their Re
putation ; a plain Mark of His Difapprobation ; as
the Author of the Book of Wifdom exprefsly ob
ferves upon the Cafe. As for the lllufions (fays He)
of Art Magic, they were put down, and their vaunt
ing in Wifdom was reproved with Difgrace. — xvii.
7. — So that this Inftance of the Algyptian Magici
ans, has no manner "of relation to the prefent De
bate ; and therefore I fhall difmifs Them to take
Their Fortune, in proper Company, the Exami-
ftefs Evil Spirits, and My Friend's Witch of Endor.
Let us now fee whether this Author has any
better Luck with His other Inftances. —
T 2 Defenft

140 POSTSCRIPT.
Defenf. p, 4.
H e tells Us of the Perfon thrown into Elifha*s
Sepulchre, and reviving by the Touch of the Bones
of that Prophet c : He mentions the Brazen Serpent,
by looking on Which, the Ifraelites were preferved
in the Wildernefs d ; the Cures which followed
from the Touch of Chrift's Garments c ; and the
Handkerchiefs and Aprons carried from St. Paul's
Body f : He refers to Thofe cured by anointing
with Oil s ; and by the Shadow of St. Peter h. —
And He argues — that fince We credit all thefe
Miracles upon the Authority of Scripture ; and
yet do not pretend that any Rites can from hence
be deduced or inftituted, Which can, with any
Reafon, encourage Superftition ; Why may We not,
in like manner, grant, that in the Ages. fucceding
the Apoftles, Miracles were performed by the ReT
liques of Martyrs, the Sign of the Crofs, and
Unction with Oil; and yet, confiflently, charge
the Romanifts with Superftition, in worfhipping the
Reliques of Martyrs, in Their Ufe of the Sign of
the Crofs, and of Unction ? —Where (fays He) is
the Inconfiftency in This ? '.
—Whether
c 2 Kings xiii. zi. d Numb. xxi. 8,9.
c Math. ix. 20, 22. xiv, 36. f A&s xix. 13.
6 Mark vi. 13. James v. 14, 15. h A&s v. 15, 16.
• " Hifce omnibus Fidem adhibendam effe cenfemus ex Sacra-
rum Literarum Auftoritate; neque tamen judicamus ullos om
nino Ritus ex iftis Rebus deducendos effe inftituendo'fque, qui
aliqua Ratione poffent Superftitionem Vulgi alere & fovere.
Qiiidni igitur concedereraus et iis Temporibus, quas funt Apo*
ftolorum Tempora continuo fubfecuta, per offa Reliquiafque
Jyjartyrum, per Signum CJrucis, per Olei Un£tionem minfi* cam

POSTSCRIPT. 141
¦: —Whether the Worfhip of Reliques, in the
high Senfe of Worfhip, can be inferr'd from Mi
racles admitted to have been wrought by them ; I
have already fhewn has nothing to do with the
Principle, or Argument of the Introductory Dif
courfe. Conf. View, p. 18, 19.
. This therefore being to be thrown out of this
learned Gentleman's Argument, as having nothing
to do in the Debate j the Difference between the
two Cafes He has put is very obviouB — A Diffe
rence, between arguing from the Powers of Chrift
and His Apoftles, to the like Powers in any Other
JPerfom, of any Age whatfoever ; and arguing on
ly, among the Ages after the Apoftles, from one
of thofe Ages to another; where there is no fuch
eminent Diftincl ion between the Dignity and Cha
racter of the Perfons ; as there is between Thofe of
any Age, and Chrift and His Apoftles.
That the Apoftles had. the Powers of working
piracies, exprefsly and immediately given them ;
We know from the Authority of Holy Scripture
(a common Principle, agreed upon by both Sides).
We know This, abftraftedly confidered from the
Miracles themfelves. We know it a priori. There
fore, no Inference will lie, from Thofe Who We
know had thefe Powers exprefsly given Them ; to
Any
cam quandam Potentiam apparuiffe in fanandis .ffigrotationibus,
excitandifque etiam a Morte Hominibus j quidni, inquam, hoc
concederemus, cum tamen iidem illud affirmaremus Romanen-
fes in Reliquiis Martyrum adorandis, in utendo Cruris Signo,
Oleoque adhibendo nimium fuiffe olim & jam etiam effe fuper-
ffiitiofos? Ecqua eft enim iftsc, quam Quidam fufpicantur, no-r
Itrorum Hominum his in Rebus Inconftantia i

i4t POSTSCRIPT.
Any Others, where this Circumftance is either
wanting, or not known.
But, in the other Cafe, We know Nothing of
any exprefs Powers immediately given to Any Per
fons in After-ages. The only Authority for Their
having had fuch Powers, is the Authority of the
Miracles fuppofed to have been wrought by Them.
Here therefore All ftand, fo far, upon a Level:
And therefore, the Inference is more reafonable
¦iroxhany Age after the Apoftles, to another ; as No
thing is neceffary to make Their feveral Pretenfims
to fuch Powers equal, but the Authority of the
Miracles themfelves.
So that the Inconfiftency, Which our learned Au
thor enquires after, is ; the admitting Miracles to
have been wrought by certain Ritesj in feint Ages
of the 'Church, in Which it cannot be proved that
there were any more Reafons a priori to expect Mi
racles from fuch Rites, than in thofe Ages Which fuc-
ceded; and yet charging Others with Superftition,
in the like Ufe of fuch Rites, in thofe fucceding
Ages : And from hence He may eafily find a So
lution of His Difficulty —Why admitting -the
Miracles- of Chrift and His Apoftles will give no
Encouragement to Superftition ; while admitting
the Miracles reported to have been wrought by
Reliques &c. in After-ages, will. — The Difference
of the two Cafes is fo plain, that if Any-one can
not fee it, it will be in vain to apply to Bertrand
for any Spectacles to help His Eye-fight. Defenfi

F09TSCRIPT. 143
Defenfi p. 4, 5.
But the Inftance Which this learned Difputant
feems to be moft fond of, is That of the Brazen
Serpent ; an Inftance, ' than Which He thinks;
4 none can be more in point V — He * defire? His
* Auditors to take notice of it, and confider it '.*
And if They did fo, I dare fey They thought it as
little to the Purpofe, as I do ; and it might not
have been amifs, if He had let us known in the
Margin, (if He could have fpared room)' What the
learned Perfon in, the Divinity Chair had faid to it.
But having difplayed the Hiftory oi it ; He thinks
That Alone fufficient to ftrike All' Adverfaries
dumb at once : For, before- He has faid one fingle
Syllable by way of Argument, or to tell' us What
He would be at ; He calls out upon All Obtreda-
iores, and defies Them to fay a Word againft Him,
or the Brazen Serpent Which He has< fet up ; as
if ohe mere baking upon it, were fufficient to pre
ferve Him now, as it did the Ifraelites formerly. —
Num §fmd eft itaque, quod queant noftronm Homi
num Qbtretlateres in Animum indue ere contra Hcec
qua d Me difpufantur, dicere ? p. 5. And fo,
with great S&lf- Complacency, falutes the Specta
tors, and (with other great Heroes) vanquifhes
All Antagonifts, with the Flourifh of His Weapons.
—But, foft, and fair ! A Triumph makes but a
mean
k JQjja Re Nihil fane eft, quod ad Hoc, de' quo dffporo,
vel Sngi poffit accommodatius, p. 4.
'" > Animadvertite qusefo paulifper, Academic], et cogitate
mecum Serpentis JEny Hiftoriam. ibii.

144 POSTSCRIPT.
mean Appearance, without Captives to grace it.
— French Cuftoms fhould be prohibited as well as
French Merchandize ; and We fhould not be fo
hafty to fing Te Deum, before We are affured that
others will allow Us the Victory, as well as Our
felves.— Let us accept this Gentleman's Challenge.
His whole Force is—' That We fhall deftroy
' the Credit of the Miracles ofthe Brazen Serpent,'
— Why ? — ' Becaufe it was at length fuperftitioufly
honoured m.'
— ImperatorfS Virtuiem noveram, let Vim Militum I
The Argument of the Introductory Difcourfe,
is; ' that, by admitting Miracles to have been
' wrought by Reliques, csV. in the Ages after the
' Apoftles ; We fhall give Advantage to the Su-
' perftition of the Church of Rome: The Principle
to fupport This, is ; that, ' Whenever any Sa-
' cred Rite, or Religious Inftitution, becomes the
* Inftrument of real [Divine] Miracles ; We
' ought to confider that Rite as confirmed by Di-
' vine Approbation? as to the Lawfulnefs and Inno
cence of it; fince This will give fufficient
Advantage to the Church of Rome. Vid. View,
p. 9. 18, 19. ¦  Now it will appear, that,
from this Principle, We fhall be under nO Obliga
tion to deny the Miracles Which this Writer refers
to ; notwithftanding the Rite may have been after
wards abufed to Superftition ; provided, it was
not fuperftitious and unlawful, in it's firft Ufe ;
Which
m Defenf. p. 5.

. POSTSCRIPT. 145
Which is the Circumftance that makes the Diffe
rence (as will be feen) between the Cafe of thefe
Miracles here referr'd to, and That oi the Miracles
admitted after the Days of the Apoftles, as to the
Conclusion to be drawn from thence, to the Advan
tage of the Church of Rome.
Th e Brazen Serpent was erected by Mofes, at
God's Command, for the Prefervation of the If
raelites from a then prefent Calamity. — It was plain
ly inftituted as a mere temporary Rite ; and, ac
cordingly, when the Calamity ceafed, it's Virtue
ceafed with it, and it's Ufe evidently appeared to be
at an End. Therefore, no more can be inferr'd.
from this Inftance, than the then p/efent Innocence
and Lawfulnefs of tbe Rite, as confirmed by Divine
Approbation: And Nothing more, than that the
Rite was confirmed by Divine Approbation, are We
obliged to affert, by our Principle, in admitting
the Miracles; or in fupport of our Argument,
that, ' admitting the Miracles reported of the
« Times after the Apoftles, will give Advantage to
' the Church oi Rome?' For the Reafon why We
cannot extend the Lawfulnefs and Innocence of the
Rite ofthe Brazen Serpent: {as We do the others)
to any After-times, is ; Becaufe it was a temporary
Site only, exprefsly inftituted for, and -appropriated
to, that particular Occafion. — Whereas, the Rites,
by Which Miracles are reported to have been
wrought by Reliques, &c. after the Age of the A-
poftles, were not Rites exprefsly inftituted by God, or
appropriated to any particular, or temporary Occafion -,
but Rites, applied to only from the Religion,
U and

146 POSTSCRIPT.
and mere Motion of the People : And if yet, thefj?
Rites received the Divine approbation by Miracles
then ; ahd were (as the Rite of the Brazen Ser
pent was) lawful and innocent in their firft Ufe j
there was Nothing in the Nature of the Rites them*
felves, to confine the Innocence and Lawfulnefs of
the Ufe of them to thofe particular Times.— 'To urge
the Neceffity or Expediency of them, from the then
State of the Church and Chriftianity, will not do :
Becaufe, if there has not been the fame, or fo great
Neceffity or Expediency fince ; yet, it cannot he
proved, that there has not been any Neceffity or
Expediency, any Ufe fufficient to authorize the
Expectation of Miracles through the fame Rites 5
if We admit Miracles after the Age ofthe Apoftles ;
and there be no other Reafon againft fuch Expecta-r
tion, but the fuppofed Want qf any Expediency ov
Ufe which they might ferve.
¦ If our Adverfaries admit^ that; the RitejS ber$
were (as the Rite of the Brassen Serpent was) in
nocent and lawful in their firft Ufe; thpn.
They will have no Occafion for Their Di
ftinction, oi admitting the Miracles,, and yet deny
ing the Ufe of the Rites to have been confirmed:
thereby as innocent and lawful; but may as well
affert the latter, as admit the former (Conf. View,
p. 21. ) But then, They cannot, confiftenrJy,
charge the Romanifts with Superftition, in the famji
Ufe of fuch Rites 4 and This would be giving up
the Conclufion We contend for. For, if thefe
Rites were lawful in, their firft Ufe,; then, there be
ing Nothing in the Nature of them, or in the Occa fion,

POSTSCRIPT. i47
fiofi, to confine the Lawfulnefs of them to "thofe par-
ikuidr Times ; the Romanifts cahnot.be guilty of Su-
ferjtilidn' in making the fame Ufe of thofe Rites af
terwards, fo far is they went, Which is fufficient to
the Argument. Vid. hew, p. iS, 19. — But if thefe
^Lite's Were not innocent and lawful in their firft Ufe
(as it appears our Adverfaries, by the Nature of
theit Defenfe, muft grant) as the Rite bf the Brazen
Serpent was ; then, the denying the Divine Appro
bation by Miracles, to have been given to the one,
will not oblige Us to deny the fame of the other.
So that the Cafes are, no Way, parallel ; and the
learned Author's Inftance Of the Brazen Serpent, has
iHe fame Fate with his Mgjptiati Magicians, Of being
Nothing to the Purpofe. — He has indeed made a
pompous Shew with His Argument drawn from it ;
Which yet, when examined, -appears to be but a
very poof one ; and while He would extol it, to
be gazed at, and admired by (he Multitude, Tike
the Brazen Serpent He is treating of ; it does, in
Reality, like the real one, only creep upon the
Srbftnd. •
Defenf. P. 23, 24. z€, 27. 36. 41.
He ' wonder's, that there fhould be Any-one,
' Who can think that thefe is fo great a Difference
' between theCredibility or Authority ofthe Mira-
* cles reported by the Primitive Fathers ; and thofe
' of Chriji hnd Ws Apoftles ; For, that He fees nq
* Difference at all*.' And I wonder in my Turn,
V 2 that
» Hie itaque mirarl fads non poffum effe Quenquam, Qui
fibi perfuafleat inter Credibilitaiem Miraculorum quae ab bis
frimwh Scriptoriiui ecclefiaftici* memorantur, eorumque quse
comparer^

148 POSTSCRIPT.
that there can be Any-one, Who would venture to
maintain fuch a Principle. And now We are in
the Way of wondering, I fhall take the Liberty of
one Wonder more : And That is, at this Writer's
odd Method of defending His Opinion. — He fays,
that ' almoft all the Miracles of the Apoftles, de-
' pend upon the Authority of St. Luke only ; and
' Which He had, for the moft Part, only by
' Hear fay from St. Paul : Whereas, the Miracles
' reported by the Primitive Fathers, ftand not upon
' the Teftimony of One, but of Many ; and of
' Such Who had feen them Themfelves ° :' The
Confequence of which Argument is ; not that the
Miracles of the Fathers are as credible, and of as
good Authority, as thofe of the Apoftles : but, that
they are much more credible, and ftand upon much
better, Authority.— I dare fay that every prudent
Man, Who wifhes well to the Caufe of Chri,
ftianity, will hope that there is fome Flaw in this
Argument ; and, indeed, it is Nothing but a
mere Fallacy,
' Most
comparent in Hijtoria Evangelica, Difcrimen effe maximum,
quod Ipfe Ego video plane effe nullum. Vellem equidem ifti
Homines, Qui- noftras Caufas adverfantur, perfeciffent tandem
qucd fe perfeciffe jaftitant, Miracula Cbrijli ejufque Apoftoh-
rum majori nobis commendari Tide atque Auftoritate, quam
Miracula iflorum Patrum primsevorum, Quos antea memoravi-
mus. p. 23, 24.
0 Miracula Apoftolorum fere omnia unius Divi Lucse Aufto
ritate innituptur ; et funt ejufmodi, quae maxima ex Parte ipf^
non viderat, fed qua? ab Apoftolo Paulo Auditione aeceperat.
Miracula autem, quae Patres primaevi Memorise prodiderunt,
non Unius fed Plurium Teftimonio credenda funt, eorumque
quidem Hominum, Qui praefentes ea Ociilis intueba'ntur,
P-?7,

POSTSCRIPT. 149
* Most of the Miracles of tfie Apoftles (fays
' He) depend upon the Authority of St. Luke only*
— Why ?— Becaufe St. Luke only is the Hiftorian.
— Not to infifc here, that Sr. Mark gives His Tefti
mony, in general, to the Miracles of the Apoftles,
C. xvi. 20 ; This Gentleman fhould have remem-
ber'd, that, though St. Luke were the only Hifto
rian ; yet, that the Authority of the Books of
Scripture, of Which This Hiftory is Part, ftands
not upon the Evidence oiOne, but of Many ; and
of Many more than the Miracles of the Primitive
Fathers do. The Teftimony of St. Luke, and the
Credit of His Hiftory, have been witnefTed to, and
authenticated, by having been received as genuin
and unexceptionable, by all Ages, Nations, and
Churches, from the Time of the firft Publication,
down even to the prefent : And therefore, this Hi
ftory ftands not upon the Jingle Authority of St.1
Luke (as this Writer pretends) but upon That of
all fucceding Ages. — Does it appear, that the Mi
racles of tbe Fathers were as univerfally, perpetually,
and unexceptionably received, as St. Luke's Hiftory
of the Miracles ofthe Apoftles ? — If not, How does
this Writer make it out, that the Miracles ofthe
Primitive Fathers, ftand upon more Evidence than
the Miracles of the Apoftles ? — To fay therefore,
that the Miracles of the Apoftles ftand upon the
Evidence of St. Luke only ; and the Miracles of the
Fathers upon the Evidence of Many ; is only en
deavouring to impofe upon Us,, by a Kind of Le
gerdemain.— -But the Trick is found out ; and St.
Lukfs Hiftory being better attefted upon the Whole, and

i $6 POSTSCRIPT;
and Winj| the uninterrupted Evidence 6f all Suc-
cedlhg Ages and Churched; becomes; hot fhe
Evidence of Ofk Perfon My, but tf Many, 'and
ftands upon mdri, ahd better Evidenie than the
Miracles of the Fathers.
But (arid Which is the laft iThlrig I hive occa
fion to take notice of in this GehfJemarfs learned1
Performance) as We are fold by Himj that thi
Miracles of Chrift arid -His Ajtoftles, ire- A« at M
mWe-cftdible than thofe of the Primitive Fathers;
fo, to make all of a Piece, He alfef & alfo; thitf
' theire is nO other way of proving the Truth ina
' Authenticity af the -Booh of Seriptitri, than by*
' the Authority of Thefe Writers ; Wfodrri yet
' We will not believe^ eVen in thofe Things, Of
' Which They affirm Themfelves to haVe been Eye-
' Witnefles.'— that ' the Gofpel- Hiftory ', and the
* Miracles reported of the Primitive Ages of the
'-Church,- depend entirely upon the fame Authority -,'
and. that ' they muft ftand or fall together. p' *
I have already, I hope, fufficiehtfy cleared this
Queftion ; arid fhall content myfelf With referring
to What is there faid, and truft it to the Reader. Vid.
-f ^ec'enim alia quaevis datur prbbaridi Ratio facrbs "hos Co
dices aut veroset germa'nr* effe, aut integros iricorru'ptofque ad
Nos deveniffe, quam horum Scriptbrum Audloritate; Quels
quidem hi Homines contenthint tam pravo tamque imbeciiii
fuiffe Animo, ut omnino efederidi Aon fint vel iftis in Rebus ;
quas oirfni Affeveratiorie affirmant fe vidifie fuo Tempore geftas
effe. p. 36. '
Hiftoria Evangelica et Miraculit, qua m pridribns Ecclefi*
Chriftians fasculis fafta effe perhibentur, omnino pendent ex eo-
rundem Hominum Au&oritate. Neque, &c — Ruere itaque ilia
non poffunt, ut haec utraque'-JScil. Hiftoria Evangelica et Pagi-
nica] non eadem labefa&a motu concidant. p. 41,

POSTSCRIPT- 151
Vii. Mey, p, in— 116. But I cannot let thefe
Principks pafs here, without fome Notice.
The. Obferver fays, ' there is one Senfe in
* Which Chriftianity may be affefted by this Dif-
* pute.' — There is fo indeed : But not fo much,
as the Credit of the Fathers may be affected, by
Our queftipn,iag tfip Truth of Their Miracles (as
He argues);- as that the Credit of the Gofpel- Hi
ftory is diretlly affected, by putting the Credit cf it
upon an Equality wuh thofe Miracle ; as js done by
qur learned Difputant, and the Author of the Jejuit4
Cabal farther opened. -r^Qne would think, that the
Cabal was rather between thefe Gentlemen ; if We
Were to judge only from thefe Principles Which
They patronize : And fhould be apt to imagine,
Uiat if. this Cabal ipere farther opened^ a^ ^vell as
That of the Jefuits, it might appear t^bie a Cabal,
apt indeed againft the Jeroms apd the Auftins ; tyit
ajgajnft Thofe of a much higher, and rn,qre facred
Chara&er, againft St. Lyke and St. Papl, ; againft
Chrift ana* His Apoftles j and th? Audjorjty of Btfb
the Teftaments.
These Writers, I ^m fenfibfe, could have na
fuch Defign ; Who, I dare fay, are fincerely well
affeflgd |p: Chriftianity, .^d the Proteftant Rer
ligion ; ^ut. (to u/e the Obferve r\ fiords) like feme
ojfser great Authors of late, happen to be a little, mi-
ftaken, in Their Method, qf ferving Them.—
To guMhe Truth of tfce Gofpel- Hiftory, aj\d the.
TtuXh of the Miracles reported by the Fathers, Upon.
the fame Footing ; ajxd, tp ad init, nay contend, that
they, muft ftand or fall together ; are Principles in
Support

i$2 POSTSCRIPT.
Support of Chriftianity, Which, I own, I do not
underftand the Force of! — The Obferver is more
cautious, and more prudent, than rafhly to throw
out fuch indefenfible Propofitions ; and to leave all
at flake, and to reft the Iflue upon the Event of
this fingle Enquiry ; ' Whether the Miracles re-
' ported by the Fathers, were true.' — The Obferver
fays only, that ' Chriftianity may be affected
' by this Difpute, as the Credit of the ancient
'Fathers may be affetled by it:' And This,
only upon Suppofition, that the Fathers were
' Impoftors and Forgers of Lies :' For, that
then, ' the Confequences may go a great way :
And He fairly and juftly admits, that ' there is a
* great Difference between the Miracles wrought by
' Chrift and His Apoftles, and the Miracles of later
'- Ages ; as in Point of Importante, fo alfo in Point
' of Evidence \' — The Opener of the Jefuit- Cabal
ventures farther, and aflerts, that the ' only authentic
* Teftimony that We have to the New Teftament^
'is the Teftimony of the Primitive Chriftian
' Writers, Whofe Credit is destroyed by the Syftem
' of the Introductory Difcourfe ; and He infinuates,
' that We fhall have no authentic Testimony left to
the Miracles of Christ and His Aposlles*.'— -But our
learned Difputant here, plunges out of his Depth
at once ; and, with a precipitate Temerity, roundly
aflerts,- ' that the Miracles of Chris! and His Aposlles,
and Thofe reported by the Primitive Fathers, are
equally credible, depend upon the fame Authority,
and musl ftand or fall together.—-
s Obferv. p. 34, 33. and 30.
' Jefuit Cabal, &c. p. 45.

POSTSCRIPT 153
If the Author of the Introductory Difcourfe had
any fuch finifter Defign, as thefe Gentlemen ima
gine ; They may expect to receive His Thanks
for fuch a Conceffion ; and will perhaps be thought,
by the Reft of the World, to have done more
Harm than Good, by fuch an Oppofition. — Had
thefe Principles come from the Tolands and the
Tindals of our Days ; they might have been fmiled
at, and paffed by.— It would have been no more
than might have been expected. --But, when the
fame Principles are fent forth from Lambeth, and a
Univerfity, they become ferious ; and, at the fame
time, give Us no very high Opinion of the Skill
and Abilities of fuch Defenders of the Chriftian
Church: Who, inftead of carrying on the Build
ing, where our great Mafter firft founded it, upon
a Rock; are for removing it, and building it (as
the foolifh <feman is faid to build his Houfe) upon
the Sand. — Or, as if Chriftianity, inftead of being
trailed to the known Impregnability oi its proper
Fortifications ; was, like a Dutch Town, agreed to
be furrender'd to the Enemy, upon Condition, that
They can deftroy but a fingle Out-Work.

Addend.

Addend. fe Emendand.
PAge 60. I 13. Afar —Cyprian, &c— add —
And though Mention be alfo made of fome
Perfons raifed from the Dead in thofe Ages \ as
in Imiatts, 1. 2. adv. Her. i. 56, $j.) yet thefe
Inftances are rare, and afcribed only to Supplica
tion and Fasting : A much more ratipnal Caufe,
than thofe generally affigned to the numerous Mi
racles of the fourth and following Centuries.
P. zo. 1.21. & pafifm, r. fucceding
P. 27. /. 30. r. permitting,
P. 28. /. 28. r. excufable,
P. 39. /. 6. r. to be believed, iic.
P. ibid. I. 25. r. precedes
P. 41. /. 4. r. but, the lawful &V.
P. 54. /. 5. r. and were not intended to be pro
duced in the Introduction, &c.
P. 62. I. 4. r. Euhodes
P. 67. /. 26. r. eafily
P. 69. I. 18. r. Stories, Histc.
P. 71. /. 13. .*". But the Cafe is, that it is not
agreed, in the prefent Debate, that any fuch plain
Evidence &c.
P. ibid. I. 16. r. ftands, fo far, good &c.
P. ibid. 1. laft. r. the former, it is agreed, ftand
upon fufficient Evidence ;
P. 72. /. 1. r. the latter, it is not agreed, ftand
upon Evidence of equal Authority —Therefore,
lie. P. ibid. 111. for plain r. fufficient
P, ibid. I. 14. r. ditto.
P. 72.

Addend, fe Emendand.
P. 72. /. 25. r. where it is not agreed that
there is fufficient i£c.
P. 74. /. 12. r. Heigth
P. 78. /. 9. r. irreconcilable
P. 84- 1.-5. *". fuppofabje
P. ibid. I.22. dele that*.
P. 86. /. 11. r. fuppofable
P. 125. /. 4. r. have here added &c.' .
P. 130. /. 22. r. and that Their Teftimony, is
the only authentic, He.

F I N I S.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08561 2688