whether, since that time, any heresiarch whatever, any founder of a new sect, or publisher of a new system, has pretended to miraculous powers. If the essayist had known of any such pretender, he surely would have mentioned him. But as he has not afforded us any light on this subject, I shall just recal to the remembrance of my reader, those persons who, either as innovators or reformers, have made some figure in the church. They were the persons from whom, if from any, a plea of this kind might naturally have been expected; especially at a time when Europe was either plunged in barbarism, or but beginning to emerge out of it.

Was ever then this high prerogative, the power of working miracles, claimed or exercised by the founders of the sects of the Waldeness and Albigenses? Did Wickliff in England pretend to it? Did Huss or Jerom in Bohemia? To come nearer modern times, Did Luther in Germany, Zuinglius in Switzerland, Calvin in France, or any other of the reformers, advance this plea? Do such of them as are authors, mention in their writings any miracles they performed, or appeal to them as the evidences of their doctrine? Do contemporary historians allege, that they challenged the faith of their auditors, in consequence of such supernatural powers? I admit, if they did, that their miracles might be ascribed to a new system. For though they pretended only to re-establish the Christian institution, in its native purity, expunging those pernicious interpolations, which a false philosophy had foisted into the doctrinal part, and Pagan superstition into the moral and the ritual; yet as the religion they inculcated greatly differed from the faith and worship of the times, it might, in this respect, be denominated a new system; and would be encountered by all the violence and prejudice, which novelties in religion never fail to excite: Not that the want of real miracles was a presumption against the truth of their doctrine. The God of nature, who is the God of Christians, does nothing in vain. No new revelation was pretended to; consequently there was no occasion for such supernatural support. They appealed to the revelation formerly bestowed, and by all parties acknowledged, as to the proper rule in this controversy: they appealed to the reason of mankind as the judge; and the reason of

mankind was a competent judge of the conformity of their doctrine to this unerring rule.

But how, upon the author's principles, shall we account for this moderation in the reformers? Were they, in his judgment, calm inquirers into truth? Were they dispassionate reasoners in defence of it? Far otherwise. He tells us, They may

safely be pronounced to have been universally inflamed with the highest enthusiasm *. And doubtless we cannot expect from this hand a more amiable picture of their disciples. May not we then, in our turn, safely pronounce, this writer himself being judge, that for a man to imagine he sees what has no reality, to impose in this manner not only on his own understanding, but even on his external senses, is a pitch of delusion higher than the highest enthusiasm can produce, and is to be imputed only to downright frenzy †?

* History of Great Britain, James I. chap. 1.

Perhaps it will be pleaded, that the working of miracles was considered by the leaders in the reformation as a Popish artifice, and as therefore worthy of being discarded with the other abuses which Popery had introduced. That this was not the light in which miracles were viewed by Luther, who justly possesses the first place in the list of reformers, is evident from the manner in which he argues against Muncer, the apostle of the Anabaptists. This man, without ordination, had assumed the office of a Christian pastor. Against this conduct Luther remonstrates, as being, in his judgment, an usurpation of the sacred function. 'Let him be asked,' says he, Who made him a teacher of religion? If he answers, God; let him prove it by a visible miracle: for it is by such signs that God declares himself, when he gives an extraordinary 'mission.' When this argument was afterwards retorted on himself by the Romanists, who desired to know how his own vocation, originally limited and dependent, had become not only unlimited, but quite independent of the hierarchy, from which he had received it; his reply was, That the intrepidity, with which he had been enabled to brave so many dangers, and the success with which his enterprise had been crowned, ought to be regarded as miraculous: And indeed most of his followers were of this opinion. But whether this opinion was erroneous, or whether the argument against Muncer was conclusive, it is not my business to enquire. Thus much is evident from the story: first, That this reformer, far from rejecting miracles as a Romish trick, acknowledged that in some religious questions, they are the only medium of proof; secondly, That notwithstanding this, he never attempted, by a show of miracles, to impose on the senses of his hearers; (if they were deceived in thinking that his success and magnanimity were miraculous, it was not their senses, but their understanding that was deceived;) lastly, That the Anabaptists themselves, though perhaps the most outrageous fanatics that ever existed, did not pretend to the power of

Since the world began, there hath not appeared a more general propension to the wildest fanaticism, a greater degree of credulity in every claim that was made to the illapses of the Holy Spirit, or a more thorough contempt of all established modes of worship, than appeared in this island about the middle of the last century. It is astonishing, that when the minds of men were intoxicated with enthusiasm; when every new pretender to divine illumination was quickly surrounded by a crowd of followers, and his most incoherent effusions greedily swallowed as the dictates of the Holy Ghost; that in such a Babel of sectaries, none are to be found, who advanced a claim to the power of working miracles; a claim which, in the author's opinion, though false, is easily supported, and wonderfully successful, especially among enthusiasts. Yet to Mr. Hume himself, who has written the history of that period, and who will not be accused of neglecting to mark the extravagancies effected by enthusiasm, I appeal whether this remark be just.

Will it be alleged as an exception, that one or two frantic people among the Quakers, not the leaders of the party, did actually pretend to such a power? Let it be remembered, that this conduct had no other consequences, but to bring upon the pretenders such a general contempt, as in that fanatical and gloomy age, the most unintelligible jargon or glaring nonsense would never have been able to produce.

Will it be urged by the essayist, that even in the beginning of the present century, this plea was revived in Britain by the French prophets, a set of poor visionaries, who, by the barbarity with which they had been treated in their own country, had been wrought up to madness, before they took refuge in this? I must beg leave to remind him, that it is manifest, from the history of those delirious and unhappy creatures, that by no part of their conduct did they so effectually open the eyes of mankind naturally credulous, discredit their own inspirations, and ruin their cause, as by this, not less foolish than presumptuous pretence. Accordingly they are perhaps the only sect, which has sprung up so lately, made so great a bustle for a working miracles.

-Sleidan, lib. 5. Luth. De votis monast. &c. Epist. ad Frid. Sax. Ducem, ap Chytræum.-See Preface.

while, and which is nevertheless at this day totally extinct. It deserves also to be remarked concerning this people, that though they were mad enough to imagine that they could restore a dead man to life; nay, though they proceeded so far, as to determine and announce before-hand the day and the hour of his resurrection; yet none of them were so distracted as to imagine, that they had seen him rise; not one of them afterwards pretended, that their prediction had been fulfilled. Thus even a frenzy, which had quite disordered their intellects, could not in this instance overpower their senses.

UPON the whole, therefore, till some contrary example be produced, I may warrantably conclude,-that the religion of the BIBLE is the only religion extant, which claims to have been recommended by the evidence of miracles-that though, in different ages and countries, numberless enthusiasts have arisen, extremely few have dared to advance this plea ;—that wherever any have had the boldness to recur to it, it has proved the bane, and not the support, of their cause. Thus it has been evinced, as was proposed, that there is no presumption arising from the history of the world, which can in the least invalidate the argument from miracles, in defence of Christianity.

SECTION III.

No miracles recorded by historians of other religions are subversive of the evidence arising from the miracles wrought in proof of Christianity, or can be considered as contrary testimony.

C

WHY is a miracle regarded as evidence of a religious doctrine? Or, What connection is there between an act of power 'admitted to be supernatural, and the truth of a proposition 'pronounced by the person who exerts that power? These are questions, which some of our infidels have exulted in as unanswerable: And they are questions which it is proper to examine a little; not so much for their own sake, as because a

satisfactory answer to them may throw light on the subject of this section.

It

A man, I suppose, of an unblemished character, advances doctrines in religion unknown before, but not in themselves apparently impious or absurd. We interrogate him about the manner wherein he attained the knowledge of those doctrines. He affirms, That by no process of reasoning, nor in any other natural way, did he discover them; but that they were revealed to him by the Spirit of God. It must be owned, there is a very strong presumption against the truth of what he says; and it is of consequence to inquire, whence that presumption arises. It is not primarily from any doubt of the man's integrity. If the fact he related were of an ordinary nature, the reputation he has hitherto maintained would secure him from being suspected of an intended deceit. It is not from any absurdity or immoral tendency we perceive in the doctrine itself. arises principally, if not solely, from these two circumstances, the extreme uncommonness of such a revelation, and the great facility with which people of strong fancy may, in this particular, impose upon themselves. The man, I suppose, acquaints us farther, that God, when he communicated to him the truths he publishes, communicated also the power of working miracles, such as, of giving sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf, of raising the dead, and making whole the maimed. It is evident, that we have precisely the same presumption against his being endued with such a power, as against his having obtained such a revelation. Two things are asserted: There is one presumption, and but one, against them; and it equally affects them both. Whatever proves either assertion, removes the only presumption which hinders our belief of the other. The man, I suppose, lastly, performs the miracles before us, which he said he was commissioned to perform. We can no longer doubt of a supernatural communication. We have now all the evidence which the integrity of the person could give us, as to any ordinary event attested by him, that the doctrine he delivers as from God, is from God, and therefore true.

Nay, we have more evidence than for any common fact, youched by a person of undoubted probity. As God is both almighty and all-wise, if he has bestowed on any so uncommon

F