runs, however, through the whole of these, ridiculous comparison betwixt the mi

a

little to his purpose, and he makes as little use of them. But is not this want richly supplied in S'. Cudbert, St. Edildride, St. Willibrord, S'. Baudri, and five hundred others of equal note? One thing, however, I would gladly be informed of, being utterly at a loss to ac. count for it. What entitled this author, who seems not to be deficient in a veneration truly catholic for ignorance, superstition, and barbarism, to speak contemptibly of Capgravius, Colganus, and Jacobus de Voragine, author of The Golden Legend? To be plain with him, this is a freedom which doth not at all become him for of the few readers in this age, who happen to be acquainted with the authorities quoted in the Recueil, most, if not all, will, I am afraid, be of opinion, that the writers last mentioned are fully as credible, not less famous, and much more ingenious, than many of those to whom he is so greatly indebted for his most extraordinary narrative. Was it for him then to scandalize these few? It is pity that a writer of such uncommon reading and application, should act so inconsistently, and undermine his own cause. But passing his literature, which is unquestionable, I shall give the reader a specimen of his talent in disputation. To the objection that had been made, that the miracles of the deacon were gradual, he replies, "So was the creation, "the first of miracles, which employed no less than six "days." As all that was done in that time, is comprehended under one name, THE CREATION, he concludes very sagely, that it ought to be denominated one miracle. A writer of this stamp would no doubt despise

the

"racles of our Saviour and those of the "Abbé wherein it is asserted, that the evi

the answer which an ordinary reader might make him, -first, That every single production was a perfect miracle secondly, That nothing could be more instantaneous than those productions, God said, Let there be light, and there was light, &c. And, lastly, That the world was not created by the ministration of man, nor in the presence of men, nor in order to serve as evidence of any doctrine. I must be forgiven to remark, that in the whole of this author's reply, he hath unfortunately mistaken the meaning of the objectors, who intend not to say, that God may not perform a miracle gradually, but that what is so performed hath not the same evidence of its being miraculous, as what is done in an instant, and therefore cannot so well serve as evidence of any doctrine. Now that the miracles of Monsieur de Paris were intended as evidence of his doctrine, and consequently of that of the appellants from the bull Unigenitus, he everywhere vehemently maintains. Another specimen of this author's acuteness and ingenuity 1 shall give in a literal translation from his own words: "But, it will be said, in the ear"liest times of the church, miraculous cures were com"monly perfected in an instant. True; and it is this "which confirms my doctrine.

As it was ordinary

"then, to convert great sinners all of a sudden, it was "also ordinary to cure the sick all of a sudden. But "such wonders in both kinds are for the commence"ment of the church, or for the renovation promised "her. In these days, which the French clergy have justly styled the dregs of the ages, it is much that

"dence for the latter is equal to that for "the former."* At first reading, one is

"God convert many sinners, and cure many sick, by slow

degrees, at the same time shat he shows by some more shining examples, that his arm is not shorten"ed."

46

* I am sorry to be again so soon laid under the necessity of observing, that the essayist, by confiding too much in his memory, often injures the writers whom he quotes. It is but doing justice to the author of the Recueil, to observe, that he hath, in no part of his performance, asserted that the evidence for the miracles of Monsieur de Paris is equal to that for the miracles of Jesus Christ. Perhaps my reader will be surprised when I tell him, for I own I was exceedingly surprised when I discovered, that he hath not only in the plainest terms asserted, but strenuously maintained, the contrary. And for this purpose he hath employed no less than twelve pages of his work. He introduces the subject (Discourse 2, part 1), with observing, that he and the rest of his party had been traduced by their adversaries, as equalling the miracles of the deacon to those of our Saviour. The impiety of such a comparison he even mentions with horror, and treats the charge as an absolute calumny. Hence he takes occasion to enumerate those peculiar circumstances in the miracles of our Lord, which gave them an eminent superiority, not only over those of his saint, but over those of every other saint, or prophet whatsoever. To this enumeration he subjoins, Tous ceux qui recourent à Monsieur de Paris ne sont pas guéris, nous dit-on; plusieurs ne le sont qu'en partie, ou d'une maniere lente, et moins

éclatante;

apt, with surprise, to imagine, that the author is going to make some atonement for

éclatante; il n'a point ressuscité de mortis. Que s'ensuit-il de-la, sinon que les miracles que Dieu a opérés par lui sont inférieurs à ceux que nôtre Seigneur a opérés par lui-mme ? Nous l'avouons, nous incolquons cette vérité. "All those, we are told, who recur to "Monsieur de Paris are not cured; several are cured "but in part, or in a slow and less striking manner; " he hath raised no dead. What follows, unless that "the miracles which God wrought by him, are infe"rior to those which our Lord wrought by himself? "We acknowledge, we inculcate this truth." Afterwards, speaking of evidence, he owns also, that the miracles of the deacon are not equally certain with those of Jesus Christ. The latter, he says, are more certain in many respects. He specifies the natural notoriety of some of the facts, the public and instantaneous manner in which most of them were effected, the number, the quality, the constancy of the witnesses, and the forced acknowledgment of his most spiteful enemies. He concludes this subject in these memorable terms: Au reste ce que je viens d'exposer sur la su-peiorité des merveilles opérés par le Sauveur, je l'avois reconnu avec plaisir dans le premier discours. J'y ai dit en propres termes, qu'il y avoit une difference infinie entre les miracles de Jesus Christ et ceux de Monsieur de Paris. J'ai promis de ne jamais oublier cette difference, et j'ai tenu parole. J'ai remarqué, dans le lieu où il convenoit, de le faire, que cette difference infinie regardoit l'evidence des prodiges, aussi bien que leur grandeur; et que les incredules pouvoient nous dire,

་

the tenets of the essay, by turning advocate for the miracles of Jesus Christ; and by shewing, that these are not affected by his doctrine. But on this point we are not long

que ceux que nous produisions n'ont point le même eclat qu'ont eu ceux de nôtre Seigneur. "Finally, "what I have just now evinced on the superiority of "the wonders performed by our Lord, I had acknow. "ledged with pleasure in the first discourse. I said "there, in express terms, that there was an infinite differ"ence between the miracles of Jesus Christ and thofe of Mon"sieur de Paris. I promised never to forget this dif"ference, and I have kept my promise. I remarked "in its proper place, that this infinite difference re"garded the evidence as well as the greatness of the "prodigies; and that the incredulous might object, "that those which we produce, have not the same "lustre with those of our Saviour." I have been the more particular on this point, not so much to vindicate the author of the Recueil as to shew the sense which even the most bigotted partizans of the holy deacon had of the difference between the miracles ascribed to him, and those performed by our Lord. I cannot avoid remarking also another difference, I mean that which appears between the sentiments of this author as expressed by himself, and his sentiments as reported by the essayist. It is indeed, Mr. Hume, a judicious observation yout have given us; that we ought to "lend 66 a very academic faith to every report which favours "the passion of the reporter; in whatever way it strikes "in with his natural inclinations and propensities."

P. 200.