in that additional consideration, that this is not a concern of a private nature, rather is it not a common cause?

If the dams are once broken down, if you tamely give up the fundamental laws of your country, if these are openly violated in the case of your fellow-subjects, how soon may the case be your own. For what protection then have any of you left, for either your liberty or property? What security for either your goods or lives, if a riotous mob is to be both judge, jury, and executioner ?

16. Protestants, what is become of that liberty of conscience for which your forefathers spent their blood? Is it not an empty shadow, a mere unmeaning name, if these things are suffered among you? Romans, such of you as are calm and candid men, do you approve of these proceedings? I cannot think you yourselves would use such methods of convincing us, if we think amiss. Christians of all denominations, can you reconcile this to our royal law,

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself?' O 'tell it not in Gath! Let it not be named among those who are enemies to the Christian cause! Lest that worthy name whereby we are called, be still more blasphemed among the Heathen!

1. IN your late Inquiry, you endeavour to prove, first, That there were no miracles wrought in the primitive church; secondly, That all the primitive Fathers were fools or knaves, and most of them both one and the other. And it is easy to observe, the whole tenor of your argument tends to prove; thirdly, That no miracles were wrought by Christ or his apostles; and, fourthly, That those too were fools or knaves, or both.

2. I am not agreed with you on any of these heads. My reasons I shall lay before you, in as free a manner (though not in so smooth or laboured language) as you have laid yours before the world.

3. But I have neither inclination nor leisure to follow you step by step through three hundred and seventy-three quarto pages. I shall therefore set aside all I find in your work which does not touch the merits of the cause and likewise contract the question itself to the three first cen

turies. For I have no more to do with the writers or miracles of the fourth, than with those of the fourteenth century.

4. You will naturally ask, 'Why do you stop there? What reason can you give for this? If you allow miracles before the empire became Christian, why not afterwards too? I answer, because "After the empire became christian," (they are your own words,) "a general corruption both of faith and morals infected the Christian church: which by that revolution, as St. Jerome says, 'lost as much of its virtue, as it had gained of wealth and power,' (p. 123.) And this very reason St. Chrysostom himself gave in the words you have afterwards cited; There are some who ask, Why are not miracles performed still? Why are there no persons who raise the dead, and cure diseases?' To which he replies, "That it was owing to the want of faith, and virtue, and piety in those times.'

1. You begin your preface by observing, that "the inquiry was intended to have been published" some time ago; but upon reflection, you resolved to "give, out first some sketch of what you were projecting:" (preface, p. 1) and accordingly,"published the introductory discourse" by itself, though "foreseeing it would encounter all the opposi tion, that prejudice, bigotry, and superstition, are ever prepared to give to all inquiries" (p. 2) of this nature. But it was your "comfort, that, this would excite candid inquirers to weigh the merit and consequences of it," p. 3.

f

2. The consequences of it are tolerably plain, even to free the good people of England from all that "prejudice, bigotry, and superstition," vulgarly called Christianity. But it is not so plain, that "this is the sole expedient which can secure the Protestant religion against the efforts of Rome," (ibid.) It may be doubted, whether, deism is the sole expedient to secure us against Popery. For some are of opinion, there are persons in the world who are neither Deists nor Papists.

3. You open the cause artfully enough, by a quotation from Mr. Locke, (p. 4.) But we are agreed to build our

faith on no man's authority. His reasons will be considered in their place.

"Those who have written against his and your opinion," you say, "have shewn great eagerness, but little knowledge of the question: urged by the hopes of honours, and prepared to fight for every establishment, that offers such pay to its defenders," (p. 5.) I have not read one of these: yet I would fain believe, that neither the hope of honour, nor the desire of pay, was the sole or indeed the main motive that urged either them or you to engage in writing.

But I grant, they are overseen, if they argue against you, by citing "the testimonies of the ancient Fathers :". (p. 6.) seeing they might easily perceive you pay no more regard to these than to the evangelists or apostles, Neither do I commend them if they “insinuate jealousies of consequences dangerous to Christianity." (ibid.) Why they should insinuate these, I cannot conceive: I need not insinuate, that the sun shines at noon-day. You have "opened too great a glare to the public," (p. 7,) to leave them any room for such insinuation. Though (to save appearances) you gravely declare still, "Were my argument allowed to be true, the credit of the gospel-miracles could not in any degree be shaken by it." p. 6, la

4. So far is flourish. Now we come to the point. "The present question," you say, "depends on the joint credibility of the facts, and of the witnesses who attest them, especially on the former. For if the facts be incredible, no testimony can alter the nature of things." (p. 9.) All this is most true. You go on, "The credibility of facts lies open to the trial of our reason and senses. But the credi bility of witnesses depends on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us. And though in many cases it may reasonably be presumed, yet in none can it be certainly known." (p. 10.) Sir, will you retract this or defend it? If you defend, and can prove, as well as assert it, then farewell the credit of all history, not only sacred but profane. If "the credibility of witnesses" (of all witnesses; for you make no distinction) depends, as you peremptorily

:

affirm, on a variety of principles "wholly concealed from us;" and consequently, though it may be presumed in many cases, yet can be certainly known in none: then it is plain, all the history of the Bible is utterly precarious and uncertain then I may indeed "presume," but cannot "certainly know," that Jesus of Nazareth ever was born; much less that be healed the sick, and raised either Lazarus or himself from the dead. Now, Sir, go and declare again, how careful you are, for "the credit of the gospel-miracles!"

5. But for fear any (considering how "frank and open" your nature is, and how "warmly disposed to speak what you take to be true," (p. 7,) should fancy you meant what you said in this declaration, you take care to inform them soon after: "The whole which the wit of man can possibly discover, either of the ways or will of the Creator, must be acquired by attending seriously," (To what? To the Jewish or Christian revelation? No: but) "to that reve Jation which he hath made of himself from the beginning, in the beautiful fabric of this visible world." p. 22.

6. I believe your opponents will not hereafter urge you, either with "that passage from St. Mark," or any other from Scripture. At least I will not; unless I forget myself; as I observe you have done just now. For you said but now, "Before we proceed to examine testimonies for the decision of this dispute, our first care should be, to inform ourselves of the nature of those miraculous powers, which are the subject of it, as they are represented to us in the history of the gospel." (p. 10.) Very true; "This should be our first care." I was therefore all attention to hear your account of "the nature of those powers, as they are represented to us in the gospel." But, alas! You say not a word more about it; but slip away to those "zealous champions who have attempted" (bold men as they are) " to refute the introductory discourse.":

Perhaps you will say, "Yes, I repeat that text from St. Mark." You do; yet not describing the nature of those powers; but only to open the way to "one of your