FINIS.

It is now seen what theSUBJECTof this bold proposition is: namely,tropical or figured language, in general. This figured language, as it is a deviation from the principles of metaphysics and logic, is frequentlyvicious; i. e. is an acknowledged vice or fault in composition, as such. We now then see the force of thePredicate.

Well; but if this figured language “be viciousasit is,i. e.because,quatenus, it is such a deviation, it must not only befrequently, butalwaysvicious.” The premises are general and unlimited: so must, likewise, be the conclusion. What sense, then, is there in the word,frequently? or what room, for that qualification?

See, what it is to be a great proficient in logic, before one has well learnt one’s Grammar! As, i. e.because,quatenus, say you. How exactly and critically the English language may be studied inDublin, I pretend not to say: But we inEnglandunderstand theparticle as, not only in the sense ofbecause,quatenus, but also, and, I think, more frequently, in the sense ofin proportion as,according as, or, if you will needs have a Latin term to explain an English term,prout, perinde ac. So that the proposition stands thus:These tropes and figures,ACCORDING ASthey are a deviation from the principles of metaphysics and logic, are frequently vicious. The premises, you now see, are qualified, as well as the conclusion. Figured language,WHENit deviates from the principles of metaphysics and logic, is—what?alwaysvicious? But the Bishop did not say, that figured language isalwaysa deviation from those principles. He only says,whenit so deviates, it is vicious. It is implied in the expression that figured language at leastsometimesdeviates from those principles, and the Bishop, as appears, is of opinion that itfrequentlydeviates: He therefore says, consistently with his premises, and with his usual accuracy, It isfrequentlyvicious.

In short, the Bishop’s argument, about which you make so much noise, if drawn out in mood and figure, would, I suppose, stand thus—“Tropical and figured language,WHENit deviates from the principles of metaphysics andlogic, is vicious—Tropical and figured languageFREQUENTLYdeviates from those principles—Therefore tropical and figured language isFREQUENTLYvicious.” And where is the defect of sense or logic, I want to know, in this argumentation? But you impatiently ask, Aremetaphors, allegories, and comparisonsthen included in thisfigured language, which is pronouncedvicious? To this question I can only reply, That I know not whethermetaphors, allegories, and comparisons, are, in the Bishop’s opinion,deviationsfrom the principles of metaphysics and logic; for I cannot find that he says any thing, inparticular, of this kind of tropes and figures. But if you, or any one for you, will shew clearly, thatmetaphors, allegories, and comparisonsare suchdeviations, the Bishop, for any thing I know, might affirm, and might be justified in affirming, that they were in themselvesvicious. But be not too much alarmed for your favourites, if he should: They would certainly keep their ground, though convicted of suchvice; at least unless the Rhetoricians of our time should be so dull as not to be able to find out whatQuinctiliancallsprobabile aliquid, some probable pretext to justify or excuse them.

But, instead of troubling ourselves to guess what the Bishopmightsay on a subject on which he has said nothing, it is to better purpose to attend to what hehassaid, on the subject in question. The Bishophassaid,That tropical and figured language is frequently vicious. You ask when? He replies,When it deviates from the principles of metaphysics and logic. But in what particular instances does this appear? He tells you this too. He gives you instances enough, to justify his affirmation, that tropical and figured language isfrequentlyvicious; for he exemplifies his affirmation inONE WHOLEclass of such figured speech, as deviates from the principles of metaphysics and logic, and is therefore vicious, namely,in the class of verbal figures. ‘This, [i. e.the truth of the affirmation, That figured language, according as it is found to be a deviation from the principles of metaphysics and logic, is frequently vicious] the great master,Quinctilian, freely confesseth, where, speaking of that ornamented speech, which he calls σχήματα λέξεως, he makes the following confession and apology—esset enim omne schemaVITIUM, si non peteretur, sed accideret. Verum auctoritate, vetustate, consuetudine, plerumque defenditur, sæpe etiamRATIONE QUADAM. Ideoque cum sit à simplicirectoque loquendi genere deflexa,virtus est, si habetPROBABILE ALIQUIDquod sequatur[159].’

The difficulty, I trust, now begins to clear up. Figured language, is frequently vicious. Of this we have an instance given in one entire species of figured or ornamented speech, namely σχήματα λέξεως, orverbal figures. Can any thing be clearer and plainer? Yet, because you had taken it into your head that bytropes and figures of compositionthe Bishop understood, nay could only understand,metaphors, allegories, and comparisons, you dreamt of nothing, here, but the same fine things. And thoughQuinctilianlay before the Bishop, when he quoted these words, though the Bishop’s own express words shew the contrary, for he speaks not of tropes and figures in general, much less of such tropes and figures as you speak of, but solely ofthat ornamented speech, called σχήματα λέξεως, you will needs have him quoteQuinctilianin this place as speaking ofRhetorical figures. But let us attend toQuinctilian’swords.Esset omne schema vitium, si non peterentur, sed acciderent.What! Shall we think the Bishop could mean to affirm ofrhetorical figures, that they wouldalways be vicious, if theywere notsought for, but occurred of themselves? For that, I think, is the translation of—si non peterentur, sed acciderent. Surely one way, and that the chief, in whichrhetorical figures, metaphors, allegories, and comparisons, become vicious, is, when theyAREsought for, sollicitously hunted after, and affectedly brought in. The very contrary happens with regard to these verbal figures: they are vicious, when theyareNOTsought for and purposely affected. I conclude then, that his Lordship, who surely does not want common sense, and, I think, understands Latin, did not, and could not intend to exemplify his observation in the case ofrhetorical figures.

Still you are something puzzled and perplexed by the Bishop’s observation. Admitting him to mean, as his author does,verbal figures, how can these be consideredas a deviation from the principles of metaphysics and logic? How? Why, has not the Bishop told us, or, if he had not, is it not certain in itself, thatto give a language clearness is the office of philosophy; and that Definition, a part of Logic, performs that service by a resolution of the ideas, which make up the terms? But these verbal figures are often a deviation from, nay a willful defiance of,all logical definition.Witness the very instance you andQuinctiliangive us, inVirgil’stimidi damæ. Logic definesDamæto be thefemalesof that species of animals calledDeer. The figurativeVirgilconfounds this distinction by using this term for themales, as well as females. But, universally,Grammaritself, whose peculiar office is togive precision to language, is a part of logic: the Bishop says,its rules are conducted on the principles of Logic. Butverbal figures, even when they do not offend against the strictness of definition, are universally violations, in some degree or other, ofGrammar, i. e. ofLogic. Yet these violations ofLogical Grammar,Quinctiliantells us, may be allowed,si habent probabile aliquid quod sequantur; that is, for some fantastical reason or other, by which the masters of Rhetoric are pleased to recommend them to us.

And now, Sir, let me ask, what becomes of your fine comment onQuinctilian’schapter concerningverbal figures, and, particularly, of your nice distinction between these, andrhetorical figures, which the Bishop, no doubt, wanted to be informed of? The issue of your exploits in Logic and Criticism is now seen to be this, That you have grossly misrepresented the Bishop; and needlessly, at least, explainedQuinctilian.First, you make the Bishop talk ofrhetorical figuresONLY, in thespecificsense of these terms, when his Lordship was all the while speaking offigured language, in general.Next, you make him deliver a bold position concerning rhetorical figures, as beingfrequentlyvicious, becausealwaysdeviations from the principles of metaphysics and logic; when all he maintains, is, That figured language isFREQUENTLYvicious, according as it deviates from those principles; and, in particular, thatthatpart of figured speech, called grammatical or verbal figures, isALWAYSvicious.

To conclude, if you had shewn any compunction, or even common respect in exposing what you took to be the Bishop’s absurdities on this subject, I should have made a conscience of laying you open on this head ofRhetorical and Grammatical figures. As it is, your unmerciful triumph over the poor Bishop makes it allowable for me to lay your dealing with him before the reader in all its nakedness; and, after what has been said, I cannot do it better than by letting him see how the Bishop’s argumentation is represented by you, as drawn out in your own words, and that in full mood and figure.

“I should by no means,” say you, “willingly misrepresent the argument of my Lord Bishop; but upon repeated examination of the passage here quoted, I must state it thus:

“Quinctilian declares, that what are called grammatical figures are really no more than faulty violations of grammatical rules, unless when purposely introduced upon some reasonable or plausible grounds.”

Therefore,

“He confesses that tropes and figures of composition, as they are a deviation from the principles of metaphysics and logic, are frequently vicious.”

You add, “If this be a fair representation, it were to be wished that the learned authorhad so far condescended to men of confined abilities, as to explain the connexion between these two propositions[160].”

As thelearned author, I guess, may be better employed than in this unnecessary task, which youwishto impose upon him, I have takenupon me to discharge that office, with less able hands; and, yet, haveexplained the connexion between these two propositionsin such sort, that, if I mistake not, we shall never hear more from you, of any inconsistency between them.

I haveNOW, Sir, gone through the several particulars of your Dissertation, and have shewn, I think, clearly and invincibly, that all your objections to the Bishop’s paradoxical sentiments on the subject of Eloquence are mistaken and wholly groundless.

TheTWOpropositions his Lordship took upon him to confute, 1.That an inspired language must needs be a language of perfect eloquence; and, 2.That eloquence is something congenial and essential to human speech, and inherent in the constitution of things: These two propositions, I say, are so thoroughly confuted by the Bishop, that not one word of all you say in any degree affects his reasoning, or supports those two propositions against the force of it. I am even candid enough to believe that, on further thoughts, you will not yourself be displeased with this ill success of your attack on the learned Prelate’sprinciples; which are manifestly calculated for the service of religion and the honour of inspired scripture. For, though you attemptto shew us in your two last chapters, how the honour of inspired scripture may be saved onother principles, yet allow me to say that, for certain reasons, I much question the validity of those principles; at least, that the persons, most concerned in this controversy, will by no means subscribe to them. If there be an Archetype of eloquence in nature, ‘one should be apt enough, as the Bishop says, to conclude, that when the Author of nature condescended to inspire one of these plastic performances of human art, he would make it by the exactest pattern of the Archetype[161].’ Or, whatever you and I and the Bishop might conclude, assure yourself that the objectors to inspired scripture will infallibly draw that conclusion. And, when they do so, and fortify themselves, besides, with the authority of so great a master of eloquence, as yourself, it will be in vain, I doubt, to oppose to them your ingenious harangues and encomiums on the eloquent composition of the sacred scriptures. Nay, it would give you, no doubt, some pain to find that, though they should accept your authority for the truth of their favourite principle of there beingan Archetype in nature of perfect eloquence, they would yet reject yourharanguesand encomiumswith that disdain which is so natural to them. The honour of sacred scripture will then hang on a question ofTaste: and unluckily the objectors are of such authority in that respect, that there is no appeal from their decisions of it.

The contemplation of theseinconveniencies, together with thelove of truth, determined me to hazard this address to you. I will not deny, besides, that the merejusticedue to a great character, whom I found somewhat freely, not to say injuriously treated by you, was also,onemotive with me. If I add stillanother, it is such as I need not disown, and which you, of all men, will be the last to object to, I mean a motive ofCharitytowards yourself.

I am much a stranger to your person, and, what it may perhaps be scarce decent for me to profess to you, even to your writings. All I know ofYOURSELF, is, what your book tells me, that you are distinguished by an honourable place and office in the University ofDublin: and what I have heared of yourWRITINGS, makes me think favourably of a private scholar, who, they say, employs himself in such works of learning and taste, as are proper to instill a reverence into young minds for the best modelsof ancient eloquence. While you are thus creditably stationed, and thus usefully employed, I could not but feel some concern for the hurt you were likely to do yourself by engaging in so warm and so unnecessary an opposition to awriter, as you characterize him,of distinguished eminence[162]. Time was, when even with us on this side the water, the novelty of this writer’s positions, and the envy, which ever attends superior merit, disposed some warm persons to open, and prosecute with many hard words, the unpopular cry against him, of his being a bold andPARADOXICALwriter. But reflexion and experience have quieted this alarm. Men of sense and judgment now consider his Paradoxes as very harmless, nay as very sober and certain truths; and even vye with each other in their zeal of building upon them, as the surest basis, on which a just and rational vindication of our common religion can be raised. This is the present state of things with us, and especially, they say, in the Universities of this kingdom.

It was, therefore, not without some surprize, and, as I said, with much real concern, that I found a gentleman of learning and education revive, at such a juncture, that stale and worn-out topic, and disgrace himself by propagating thisclamour, of I know not whatparadoxical boldness, now long out of date, in the much-approved writings of this great Prelate. Nor was the dishonour to yourself, the only circumstance to be lamented. You were striving, with all your might, to infuse prejudices into the minds of many ingenious and virtuous young men; whom you would surely be sorry to mislead; and who would owe you little thanks for prepossessing them with unfavourable sentiments of such a man and writer, as the Bishop ofGloucester, they will find, is generally esteemed to be.

These, then, were the considerations, which induced me to employ an hour or two of leisure in giving your book a free examination. I have done it in as few words as possible, and in amannerwhich no reasonable and candid man, I persuade myself, will disapprove. I know what apologies may be requisite to the learned Bishop for a stranger’s engaging in this officious task. But to you, Sir, I make none: It is enough if any benefits to yourself or others may be derived from it.

I am, with respect, &c.

Printed by J. Nichols and Son,Red Lion Passage, Fleet Street, London.

FOOTNOTES:1Prov. xvi. 7.2Isaiah, xxvi. 9.3Rev. ii. 4, 5.4Eph. i. 7.5John i. 1.6Col. i. 17.7Rev. i. 17. xxii. 13.8Heb. i. 8.9Micah v. 2.10Rev. i. 8.11John xvii. 5.12Ps. iii. 2.13Eph. iii. 9, 10, 11.14Eph. iii. 18, 19.15Acts x. 18.16Eph. iii. 21.171. Pet. i. 12.18Eph. i. 10.19Rev. xiv. 6.20Gal. i. 6.21Rom. x. 18.22Col. xi. 10.23Matth. xxviii. 19.242 Cor. i. 12.252 Cor. xii. 9.261 Cor. vii. 21-24.27John xv. 16.281 Tim. iv. 16.29Phil. i. 10, 11.30Archbishop’s Injunctions, S. xi.31Canon LXXV.32Phil. i. 9-11.33Rom. xii. 16.34Erasmi in Evang. Joannis Paraphrasis, cap. i.351 Cor. ii. 14.361 Cor. ii. 14.372 Tim. iv. 2.38Lord Bacon, A. L. B. i. p. 417.39Fiduciamorator præ se ferat, semperque ità dicat tanquàm de causâ optimè sentiat. Quint. l. v. c. 13, p. 422.40Matth. vii. 29.41Matth. xv. 6.42“In omnibus quæ dicit tanta auctoritas inest, ut dissentire pudeat; nec advocati studium, sed testis aut judicis afferat fidem.” Said of Cicero by Quintilian. The Roman orator acquired this praise by consummate art and genius. The plainest Christian homilist, who does his duty inspeaking as the oracles of God, attains it with ease, and deserves it much better. Such is the pre-eminence of what the Apostle callsthe foolishness of preaching!43Tanta in oratione auctoritas, utprobationislocum obtineat. Quintil. p. 422.44Bishop Stillingfleet, Sermon IV.45Afficiamur, antequam afficere conemur. Quint. p. 461.moveamuripsi. Ib.46If I mention the names of the BishopsBeveridgeandBlackall, it is not in exclusion of many others, but because I suspect they are less known to the younger clergy than they deserve to be.47Matth. xxviii. 20.48“Parentes et Pædagogi pueros olim cum primum per ætatem sapere, et intelligere cœpissent, primis Christianæ religionis rudimentis diligenter instituebant, ut pietatem unà penè cum lacte nutricis imbiberent, et à primis statim cunis, virtutis incunabilis ad vitam illam beatam alerentur. Quem etiam ad usum breves libri, quosCatechismosnostri appellant, conscribebantur.”Noelli Catechismus de Baptismo.492 Cor. xiii. 14.50W. Weston, B. D. Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge; and vicar of Campden, Gloucestershire. Camb. 1746.51Pref. p. ii.52Pref. p. ii.53Ded. p. iv.—“The best compliment I can make your Lordship on the occasion is the true one,that I have a good opinion of the present performance myself,” &c.54Pref. p. iii.55Pref. p. iii.56Pref. p. ii.57The following passages brought to confirm thisfactare so well known, that, if there was not something uncommonly strong, and subversive of the writer’s objection in the very turn of expression, I should scarce think myself at liberty to transcribe them.—Visa est mihi res digna consultatione, maximè propter perielitantiumnumerum. Multi enimomnis ætatis, omnis ordinis, utriusque sexûs etiam vocantur in periculum et vocabuntur. Neque enim civitates tantum, sed vicos etiam atqueagrossuperstitionis istius contagio pervagata——propè jam desolata templa,——sacra solemnia diu intermissa.—Plin.58Hesterni sumus, etvestra omnia implevimus, urbes, insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, castra ipsa, tribus, decurias, palatium, senatum, forum; sola vobis relinquimus templa. Tertull. Apol. c. 37. And before speaking of the heathens,Obessam vociferantur civitatem, in agris, in castellis, in insulisChristianos,omnem sexum, ætatem, conditionem & dignitatemtransgredi ad hoc nomen quasi detrimento mærent. c. i. See also Arnobius, contr. Gentes, insisting on the same fact.—Vel hæc saltem fidem vobis faciunt argumenta credendi, quod jam peromnes terrasintam brevi tempore et parvo immensi nominis hujus sacramenta diffusa sunt? &c. L. ii. sub fin.59Pref. p. iii.60Chap. iii. p. 38.61Speaking of I know not whatsour and dogmaticaldivines, “I am not sure (says he) that I shall escapetheir anathema; since it is their custom generally to be displeased with every thing that does not fall in with theirfixed and settled sentiments; and every defence of religion that isout of their waywants another to support it.” Pref. p. viii. And again: “With some, I suppose, thenoveltyof this matter will be for ever a bar to its reception.” P. 370.62The reader sees I complaisantly allow the writer’s representation of the cases both ofPilate and Gallio; though much might, with good reason, be objected to each of them. For, 1. If I should lay any stress on theacts of Pilate, which, he owns, if admitted, would overturn the whole use of his evidence, I should but follow in this the best authorities, and those too supported by such reasonings as the Inquirer would find it difficult to confute. And, 2. As to Gallio’s case, however inattentive he might be to the fame of Paul’s miracles, the passage alledged is certainly insufficient to prove it. Acts, chap. xviii. 17. For, indeed, the Inquirer did not so much as apprehend the purpose of the sacred writer in that whole narration; which manifestly was not to signify to us Gallio’s inattention to the Apostle’s miracles, but his candour, and prudent conduct in refusing to interfere in religious matters, and in chusing rather to overlook an act of violence done in his presence (which, though strictly speaking illegal, he might probably think not altogether undeserved of the malicious intolerating Jew), than gratify the complainant’s passion in punishing either Paul or his heathen advocates. For this is the sense of those words,He cared for none of these things; which the writer ought to have seen is so far from proving Gallio’s disregard of miracles, that, had he been Paul’s convert, the very same thing had been observed of him.63Aristeas.—The writers referred to in the margin areStrabo,Maximus Tyrius,Pliny, andHerodotus. Of these, the three first mention Aristeasoccasionallyonly; and yet Strabo calls him ανηρ γοης ει τις αλλος; andMax. TyriusandPliny, though they explode miracles, yet plainly enough declare the common creed to run in his favour. Max. Tyrius in particular, after having given us his opinion of his miracles, together with his reasons for pretending to them, adds,And Aristeas gained more credit by this pretension to wonders and supernatural communications, than Xenagoras, Xenophanes, or any other philosopher could have acquired by relating the plain truth. Και ην πιθανωτερος ταυτα λεγων ὁ Αριστεας η ὁ Ξεναγορας η Ξενοφανης, η τις αλλος των εξηγησαμενων τα οντα ὡς εχει. Lastly, the account Herodotus gives us is so much to the credit of his miracles, that one cannot imagine how the writer should think it to his purpose to refer to him. For hewas, indeed, delivering the popular history of Aristeas; and therefore did, as might be expected, represent him, not only as a worker of miracles, but as much reverenced andesteemedfor them. This he attests upon his own knowledge of several cities, all concurring in the firm belief of his miracles; and one of them in particular transported by so religious a veneration of him, as to erect a statue to his memory; which they also caused to be set up in the most public part of their city, and even close to one they had at the same time decreed to Apollo. And for the historian himself, though in truth the story be even foolish enough, yet so far is he from speaking of it with disregard, that I am not certain if he did not believe it, at least that part which relates to the Metapontini; which, after the mention of some other things from hearsay only, he introduces in the following assured manner: “Thus far the report of these cities: But what I am now going to relate, Icertainly knowto have happened to the Metapontini in Italy, &c.” Ταυτα μεν αἱ πολεις αὑται λεγουσι, τα δε οιδα Μεταποντινοισι εν Ιταλιη συγκυρησαντα, &c. L iv. 15; and then mentions the affair which gave occasion to the statue; which, he tells us, he saw himself, placed, as I have said, and inscribed to the memory of Aristeas.64The other impostors mentioned as not much esteemed for their miracles arePythagoras,Jamblichus, andAdrian; though it is certain the writers of their lives lay great stress upon them.JamblichusandPorphyry, after enlarging on several of Pythagoras’s miracles, which drew the applause and admiration of his followers, appeal to current fame for the credit of these, and of other stilldiviner miracles, which, say they,are related of him with an uniformand constant belief, μυρια δ’ ἑτερα θαυμαστοτερα και θειοτερα περι τ’ ανδρος ὁμαλως και συμφονως ειρηται. (Porph.S. 28 and to the same purpose, and nearly in the same words,Jambl.S. 135). Jamblichus even goes so far, in speaking of the Pythagorean fondness for miracles, as to assure us, that they were conceived to prove thedivinityof their authors, and by that means to give a sanction to theiropinions and doctrines. την πιστιν των παρ’ αυτοις ὑποληψεων ἡγουνται ειναι ταυτην, &c. S. 140.They conceive it, says he, to add aCREDITand authority to their doctrines, that the author of them was aGOD;and therefore to the question, Who was Pythagoras? their answer was, The hyperborean Apollo; and in proof of this they alledge the miracle of his golden thigh. And yet, says the Inquirer,Pythagoras was not much more esteemed for his thigh of gold than one of flesh. What pity is it, the wit of this antithesis should be no better supported!As forEunapius, though he plainly disbelieved the silly tale of the two boys of Gadara, yet, in relating it circumstantially as he does, he clearly enough expresses his own opinion of miracles, and acknowledges thereby the credit they would bring his master, were they better attested, or but fairly received.The miracles of the emperors are well known. And as their manifest intent was, of the one of them, to add a credit, or, as Suetonius more strongly expresses it, anauthority, and certain awfulness, befitting majesty, to the person ofTrajan, and of theother, to inspire the hopes of recovery intoAdrian, so the relation of them by their historians, as useful and subservient to those ends, is a thorough confutation of what the author pretends about the little regard paid to them. And here it may be proper to observe, once for all, that the frequent narrations of prodigies and miracles, of which all Pagan story and antiquity is full, is infinitely a stronger argument for the high credit of miracles amongst the heathens in general, than any pretendedcoolness, tranquillity, and indifference, which the writer’s warmth, in the prosecution of his favourite novelty, leads him to imagine in the narrations themselves, is, or can be, for the contrary opinion. Sincethiscould only shew the incredulity of the relaters; whilst therelatingthem at all demonstrates the general good reception they met with from the people.65This miracle was that of the fiery eruptions which hindered the building of the temple at Jerusalem byJulian; and which, falling into the hands ofMarcellinus, might be expected to be spoken of as a natural event. But this is all: for, as to thatwonderful coolness and tranquillity, which the writer pretends to have discovered in the narration, it is so far from appearing to me, that, on the contrary, I see not how the historian could have expressed himself with more emotion, without directly owning the miracle. His words are these: Quum itaque rei fortiter instaret Alypius, juvaretque provinciæ rector,metuendi globi flammarum prope fundamenta crebris assultibus erumpentes, fecere locum, exustis aliquoties operantibus, inaccessum: hoc modo elemento destinatius repellente cessavit Inceptum.66Pp. 40, 54, 57.67Epicurus, Democritus, &c. p. 58.68For the passage referred to (Orig. contr. Cels. l. 8) is in answer to an harangue of Celsus, wherein he had expatiated largely on the heathen miracles, and opposed them with great confidence to the Christian. Upon which the excellent Father observes with much force, “I know not how it is that Celsus thinks proper to alledge the heathen miracles as incontestably evident, and undoubted facts; and yet affects to treat the Jewish and Christian miracles recorded in our books as mere fables. For why should not ours rather be thought true, and those which Celsus preaches up fabulous? Especially, since those were nevercreditedby their own philosophers, such asDemocritus,Epicurus, andAristotle; who yet, had they lived with Moses or Jesus, on account of the exceeding great clearness and evidence of the facts, δια την εναργειαν, would in all probability have believed ours.” Having thus fairly laid the passage before the reader, it is submitted to his judgment with what colour of reason the learned writer could think of deducing a proof of thelow opinion of miracles in general amongst the philosophersfrom it.69P. 62.70P. 63. Philost. L., v. c. 15.71P. 64.72This was remarkably the case of Mahomet and Numa; the former of whoseconverse with the angel Gabriel, his journey to heaven, and the armies of angels attending on his battles—as well as the other’s pretendedintercourse with the goddess Egeria, is well known.73It may seem odd that any of the Fathers of the Church should retain such a strong tincture of thisevil principle; yet this, &c. p. 66.74Matthew, xxiv. 24. For there shall arise false Christs and false Prophets, and shall shewgreat signs and wonders, insomuch that (if it were possible) they shall deceive the very Elect.75Our evidence is still increasing, and is in the next place confirmed even by Divine authority. P. 70.76But I could not lay too great a stress on the authority of the Jews, because itneither properly belongs to the present case, nor, &c. P. 74.77For this would shew that theheathenrejection of miraclesmightnot be owing to any contempt of them assuch, since theJewishwas plainly owing to a very different reason.781 Cor. i. 22. The Jews require asign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom, &c.79V. 17.80V. 19.81V. 20, 21, 22.82It is remarkable that Maimonides pushes this prejudice so far as to deny that the true Messiah was to work any miracles at all, except that of restoring the temporal dominion of Israel.If he(the person pretending to be the Messiah)PROSPERSin what he undertakes, and subdues all the neighbouring nations round him, and rebuilds the Sanctuary in its former place, and gathers together the dispersed of Israel, thenhe is for certain the Messiah. Maimon. in Yad Hachazekah Tract. de Reg. et Bell. eorum. c. 11. s. 4.83The right understanding of what is meant by the Jewsrequiring a signis of such importance to the perfectly comprehending several parts of the Gospel history, that I shall be allowed to justify and illustrate the interpretation here given by some further considerations. And,1. If by σημειον is to be understood simply amiracle, then it is not true that Jesus, whom Paul preached, was or could be on that account astumbling blockto the Jews, it being allowed on all hands that many and great miraclesdid shew forth themselves through him. See John vii. 31. xi. 47. But,2. Notwithstanding this, and though it was owned in the fullest manner by the chief priests and Pharisees themselves, yet we find them very pressing for asign, σημειον [Matth. xii. 38. xvi. 1. Luke xi. 29.] and that too (which is very remarkable) at the instant our Saviour had been working a miracle before them; a degree of perversity not rashly to be credited of the Jews themselves.It is true thissignis sometimes called σημειον απο του ουρανου,a sign from Heaven; which, if meaning any thing more than σημειον, as explained above, i. e. atestor credential of his heavenly or divine mission (and what can be more natural than that the Jews should express by this name theonlymark they would admit of the Messiah’s coming from Heaven?) I say, if any thing further be intended in it, it must be either, 1. An outward, sensible display of the Divine power,indicating, by some prodigious and splendid appearance in the heavens, or actuallyinterposing, in some signal way, toaccomplishthe deliverance of Israel; and then either way it falls in with and includes the interpretation here given. Or else, 2. It must mean amereprodigy, asked out of wantonness, and for no other end than to gratify a silly curiosity in beholding a wondrous sight from Heaven: an interpretation, which, though maintained by some good writers, is utterly unsupported by the sacred accounts, calling it σημειον indiscriminately, without as with the addition of του ουρανου; and shocking to common sense, which makes it incredible that so frivolous a reason as the being denied asign, thus understood, could be, as St. Paul asserts it was,the stumbling-blockof infidelity to the Jewish nation.3. But what above all confirms and fixes this interpretation is the tenor of our Saviour’s answer to the question itself. For, upon the inquiry,Master, shew us a sign, &c. his constant reply was,A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given them but that of the prophet Jonas: For, &c. As though he had said, “A perverse and degenerate people, disregarding the wisdom of my doctrines, and the power of my miracles—the genuine marks and characteristics of the Messiah—are yet crying out for thetest, σημειον, of my coming. I know the proud and ambitious sentiment of your heart: but assure yourselves, God will not accommodate his proceedings to your fond views and prejudices. No suchtestshall be given you. One sure and certainTESTindeed there shall be, over and above what has yet been afforded; but to shew you how widely different the Divine conduct is from your prescriptions, it is such a one as ye shall least expect; the very reverse of your hopes and expectations. It shall be that of the prophetJonas.For, as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall Christ (sad contradiction to your conceit of temporal dominion!) be put to death by the Jews, andlie three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. And this event, so degrading of my character with you, and so repugnant to your wishes, shall, I readily foresee, so scandalize you, that, though my return from the grave, like that ofJonasfrom the whale, shall be in the demonstration of power, yet shall ye, through the inveteracy of that prejudice, be so hardened, as not to be convinced by it.”The answer of our Saviour is related byMatthewandLukewith some addition, but such as is further favourable to this interpretation. For, upon their asking a sign, it is plain he understood them to mean not amiracle, but aTEST, by the question immediately put to them:When it is evening, ye say it will be fair weather; for the sky is red. And in the morning, it will be foul to-day; for the sky is red and lowering. O! ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky, but can ye not discern the face of the times?“Are the appearances which, in the order and constitution of nature, precede the changes of weather, a sign or test to you of those changes? And are ye stupid and perverse enough to neglect those which, by the Divine appointment, are made thesignortestof theTIMES, of the change of the Mosaic for the Christian dispensation? How is it that ye do not collect this from mymiraclesanddoctrine, the ordinary and stated marks of this change, but ye must perversely demand atestof it, which the Scriptures nowhere promise, and the order and course of God’s Providence disclaim?”If, after all this, there can yet remain any doubt of the truth of this comment, it will be effectually removed by an authority or two from the other Evangelist, which the reader will indulge me in just mentioning. In our Saviour’s exerting an act of civil power, in scourging and driving the money-changers out of the temple, the Jews require him to shew the credentials of his authority,What sign shewest thou that thou doest these things?The asking a miracle in this case were impertinent; for that, how extraordinary soever, could never prove to the Jews that he came invested with the powers of the civil magistrate. The sign they expected, then was evidently of another kind: an express declaration, or open display, of the regal character and office, evidencing his commissionto do such things. Accordingly, the reply of our Saviour was to the same effect as before.Jesus said unto them, destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up; for he spake, we know,of the temple of his body. c. ii.The next authority is in the sixth chapter, where we have an account of the miracle of feedingthe five thousand. Upon the multitude’s following him after this, our Saviour objects to them their neglect of miracles, which he presses upon them as motives to their belief.Ye seek me not, because ye saw the miracles, &c. Now what do the Jews return to this charge? Why, they fairly own it to be just, and, what is more, give a reason for their conduct. Their answer is to this effect: “Wherefore do you urge your miracles thus constantly to us, as motives for our belief? If you would have us trust and confide in you as the Messiah,Where is the sign?For, as to your miracles so often insisted on by you, we cannot admit them as proper evidences of your commission. And indeed how should we? for Moses wrought as great, if not greater wonders than you. To confront your late boasted miracle of feedingthe five thousand with five loaves, did not he, as it is written,give our fathers bread from heaven? What miracle of yours can be more extraordinary? YetMosescould do this. The Messiah, therefore, of whom greater things are promised, we expect to becharacterizedby othersigns. What work takest thou in hand, τι εργαζη?” Here, at last, we see (and the reader will forgive the length of the note for the sake of so clear conviction) that thesignasked for, of what kind soever it might be, neitherwasnorcouldbe a miracle, since all suchsignswere rejected by these inquirers uponprinciple.84I have now done with this head [the low opinion of miracles in the heathen world] and am not aware that any reasonable exceptions can be made to the testimonies which have been brought to confirm it; but if any one should think otherwise, and maintain that something else is necessary for the establishment of sosingularan opinion, he will begratify’din his expectations, as wego along; and will find the principles and practices of much the greater part of the heathens on this pointstrengthening and confirmingeach other. P. 77.85For this he must say, and not that the credit of miracles would hereby be something weakened: a point, that, as we shall see hereafter, may be allowed, and yet be of no manner of service to his conclusion.86I have saidbad Dæmons; for miracles wrought by the assistance ofgood Dæmonswere, as the Inquirer observes, p. 247, in great repute.87For that this was the obvious and essential difference betwixt the genuine miracles of the gospel, and the tricks of magic, is apparent from many strong expostulations of the Christian apologists, who, when encountered with this frivolous, butmaliciousobjection, used to exclaim:Potestis aliquem nobis designare, monstrare ex omnibus illis magis, Qui unquam fuere per sæcula, consimile aliquid Christo millesimâ ex parte qui fecerit? QuiSINE ULLA VI CARMINUM SINE HERBARUM AUT GRAMINUM SUCCIS, SINE ULLA ALIQUA OBSERVATIONE SOLLICITA SACRORUM, LIBAMINUM, TEMPORUM? &c. Arnob. contr. Gen. L. i. And again, ibid. Atqui constitit ChristumSINE ULLIS ADMINICULIS RERUM,SINE ULLIUS RITUS ORSERVATIONE TEL LEGE,omnia illa, quæ fecit, nominis sui possibilitate fecisse; et quod proprium, consentaneum, Deo dignum fuerat vero, nihil nocens, aut noxium, sedOPIFERUM, SED SALUTARE, SED AUXILIARIBUS PLENUM BONISpotestatis munificæ liberalitate donâsse.88Acts, C. viii. and xix.89For as to the remaining chapters on theidolatry of the Heathens, the parallel betwixt the Heathen and Protestant rejection of miracles, and his Conclusion, they seem very little to concern either him, or me. For, 1. The influence of idolatry is urged to prove, that thereligion, notmiracles, of Jesus,was hard to be admitted(p. 352); which, though true, has nothingnewin it, and is, besides, intirely foreign, if not contradictory, to his purpose. 2.The parallel betwixt the Heathen and Protestant rejection of miraclesderives all its little illustrative force from this poor presumption, already confuted, that the Heathens had universallya contempt of miracles. I said the parallel drew its whole force from this fact, for unless it be true that the Heathens universally disbelieved all miracles said to be wrought amongst them, the case of their rejection of Christian miracles, the reader sees, is widely different from that of the Protestant rejection of the Popish. This one circumstance then, to mention no others, overturns the whole use of his parallel. But, 3. As to his conclusion, the design and business of that is, I allow, something extraordinary. It is to shew us, that his whole force was not spent in this wearisome Inquiry, but that, was he disposed for it, hecouldgo on to answer other objections against miracles (p. 408-9) and our common Christianity, which had been already confuted to his hands. For, having shewn us what hecould notdo with an argument of hisown, he was willing, it seems, to shew us what hecoulddo with those ofother writers. For which meritorious service he has my compliments and congratulations:Labore alieno magno, partam GloriamVerbis sæpè in se transfert, qua sal habet,Quod in TE est.90Page 348, and in another place he says, it has been fairly shewn fromtheir own accounts, and fromTHE NATURE OF THEIR PRINCIPLES, that the Heathens neitherhad, norcouldhave an high opinion of miracles. P. 383.91Matth. xi. 20. Luke x. 13.92Page 172.931 Cor. i. Col. ii. 8.94Rom. i. Eph. v. and elsewherepassim.95Mr. Addison of the Christian Religion, S. 1.96Lord Chancellor Hardwicke.97Page 70.98Page 12.99Or, byjudicio suomay be understood that the Chancellor is impowered to inflict which of the several censures mentioned in the Statute he shall think fit, on offenders. The words areignavos, &c. suspensione graduum, carcere, aut alio leviore supplicio,JUDICIO SUOcastigandos. And the same is the meaning ofPRO ARBITRIO SUOin the Statutede Officio Procuratorum; on which theInquireraffects to lay some stress (p. 32). “Eum, qui deliquerit, primò pecuniâ præfinitâ mulctabit; iterum delinquenti duplicabit mulctam; tertiò verò si deliquerit, gravius, proARBITRIO SUO, coercebit.” But take it in which sense you will, either ofpassing sentence by his single authorityordetermining the kind of punishment at his discretion, neither way can this expression be made to serve the cause in hand. No art of construction can pick, out of the wordsjudicio suo, the sense offinal determination.100Lord Chancellor Hardwicke.101The ignorance of theInquirer, who assertsthat the University has nothing to do with ecclesiastical censures, and thatsuspensionfrom degrees, in particular,is a punishment merely academical(p. 26), is amazing. Had he been in the least qualified to treat the matter he has undertaken, he would have known thatsuspensionis not merely an usage of the University Court, as such, but was practised by the Ecclesiastical Court of the Bishops or Archbishops, as long as they had jurisdiction in the University. To let in one ray or two of light, in mere compassion, on that utter darkness which environs him, and shuts out all law,canonas well ascivil, I will just refer him toArundel’s Constitutionsin a provincial Council; where Members of the University offending in the premisses are declaredsuspended,ab omni actu scholastico, anddeprived,ab omni privilegio scholastico. [Lyndwood, deHæret.cap.Finaliter.] And the same appears in a Constitution of ArchbishopStratford. [Ib.De Vit. & Honest. Clericorum, cap.Exterior.]102So Mr. Attorney GeneralYorke, in hisArgument for the University in Dr.Bentley’sCase,—“The congregation are to be considered as the judges of the Court, and theVice-chancelloras theirofficial.” TheInquirerhath himself desired the reader to observe (p. 10) that theV. C.in the absence of theChancellor, hath all the power which the University delegates to this great officer.103That his Court was directed by this law, appears from a determination of Delegates, concerningsecond Appeals in the same cause, which I will take the liberty to transcribe.De Appellationibus à Delegatis.In Dei nomine, Amen. Nos D. Buckmaister, Inceptor Dakyns, M’ri Myddylton, Longforth, et Pomell, authoritate nobis ab Universitate commissâ, decernimus ac pro firmâ sententiâ determinamus, quòd liceat unicuique in suâ causâ appellare à judicibus delegatis per Universitatem ad eandem Universitatem, modò id fiat juxta juris exigentiam, hoc est, si antea ab eodem secundâ vice in eâdem causâ appellatum non fuerit. Quod si anteà bis appellaverit, neutiqùam tertiò appellare licebit, quum id prorsus sit vetitumtam per jus civile quàm canonicum: Cæterum unicuique tam actori quàm reo maneat sua libertas appellandi in suâ causâ à judicibus delegatis per Universitatem modo supradicto et à jure præscripto. [Lib. Proc. Jun. fol.132.]104See old StatutesDe Judiciis et Foro scholarium;De pœnis Appellantium;De tempore prosequendi Appellationes.105SeeDetermination of Delegates, before cited, p. 25.106P. 26.107P. 1.108P. 62.109Delegatesare nominated by theCaput; and the Caput is, in effect, appointed by the Vice-chancellor and Heads of Colleges, who are commonly parties in all appellations. [See Stat.De capite Eligendo.] So (as the University complained, in their remonstrance against this very Statute of Q.Elizabeth) “when they [the V. C. and Masters of Houses] offer wrong, and themselves appoint judges to redress that wrong; it is too true, whichLivywriteth in the state ofDecemvira, siquis Collegam appellaverit, (meaning Appius’s judgment),ab eo, ad quem venerit, ità discessurum, tanquam pæniteret prioris decreto non stetisse.” [C. C. C. MSS.] So little reason is there on the part of the Vice-chancellor, to fear any thing frompartial Delegates!110TheInquirerhath even had the hardiness to advance this in the plainest terms. He harangues at large from p. 9. to 13. on the impropriety of appealing from thedetermination of a superior to an inferior; and, in another place, p. 39. derides the notion ofciting the supreme Magistrate before more supreme Delegates. But how different were the sentiments of a late learned Civilian on this head, from those of thislittle academical Lawyer! Speaking of Mr.Campbell’scase, in 1725. “There is, says he, a subordination of jurisdiction in the University. The Vice-chancellor’s jurisdiction isinferiorto that of the Senate; and upon Mr.C—’ssaying, that he appealed to the University, theinferior jurisdictionceased and devolved to the Senate, even before the inhibition. And, afterwards in considering the proctor’s inhibition;upon the Appeal, the Proctors represent the University, and are in that case superior to the Vice-chancellor.—And I am of opinion, that the Delegates in Mr.C—’scause may, upon the Proctor’s applying to them,primo et ante omniareverse the whole proceedings against him, in the V. C’s court,as an attentat upon the University’s jurisdiction; and may likewise inflict such censures, as the Statutes impower them to make use of, for the breach of the inhibition; all inhibitions being by Law,sub pænâ juris et contemptûs.” Dr.Andrews.111P. 70.112We have this confession from the candid writer ofConsiderations on the late Regulations, &c.“I must enter, says he, upon this subject with acknowledging, as I do with equal truth and pleasure, that there never was, within my remembrance, nor, I believe, within any one’s memory, a set of more able and industrious tutors than we have at present; more capable of discharging that useful office, or more diligent and careful in the discharge of it,” p. 12. And, again, “I think there prevails in general and through all degrees among us, a great disposition to sobriety and temperance,” p. 14.113P. 64.114P. 13.115P. 65.116“You will urge—that, as a previousoathmust be taken by the tutor, that he believesin his consciencethat his pupil has a just cause of appeal, all Appeals would by this means be prevented, but such as were founded upon good reasons. But the force of this argument will not be thought very great, if,&c.”Reader, I can easily guess the sentiments which must arise in thee, at the sight of this shocking paragraph. But think not I have abused thee in this citation. They are the author’s own words, as they lie in p. 65 of theInquiry. Well, but his reason? Why, “if it be remembered, that, though oaths of this kind were exacted in order to prevent the frequency of Appeals, they by no means had their proper effect, the same number having been commenced for the three years next after this regulation, as in that towards the close of which it was first made.” This provision ofoaths had not, he says,its proper effect. And how does this appear? Why,because Appeals were as frequent afterwards as before. Now, any other man would, surely, have inferred from hence, that “therefore the Appeals made were not without good reason.” Not so theInquirer. He is of another spirit. Rather than give any quarter toAppeals, let every tutor in the University be an abandoned perjured villain. In very tenderness to this unhappy writer, whoever he be, I forbear to press him farther on such a subject.117P. 66.118Diss. VI. p. 259.119Diss. VI. p. 251.120Hodges, Garnet, Chappelow.121P. 296.122P. 255.123P. 296.124Dr. Lowth.125Page 261.126Page 253.127Page 269.128Page 293.129Julian, p. 316.130Essay on the Gift of Tongues, Works, vol. ii. p. 91.131Doctrine of Grace, b. i. c. viii. p. 41. 2ᵈ Ed. 8ᵛᵒ.132Ib.133D. G. p. 51.134P. 41, 42.135From p. 42 to p. 45.136Dissertation, p. 82.137Dissert. p. 82.138Dissert. p. 86.139Doctrine of Grace, p. 41.140Doctrine of Grace, p. 45.141Doctrine of Grace, p. 43.142Dissert. p. 88.143Doctrine of Grace, p. 52, 53.144Doctrine of Grace, p. 55, 56.145Dissert. p. 19.146Dissert. p. 4.147Doctrine of Grace, p. 52.148Dissert. p. 41.149Dissert. p. 45.150Doctrine of Grace, p. 53.151Dissert. p. 58.152Dissert. p. 80, n.153Doctrine of Grace, pp. 56, 57.154Dissert. p. 20.155Dissert. p. 80. n.156Doctrine of Grace, p. 58.157Dissert. p. 24.158Dissert. p. 25.159Quinct.l. ix. c. 3.160Dissert. p. 34.161Doctrine of Grace, p. 52.162Adv. to the Dissert.

1Prov. xvi. 7.

2Isaiah, xxvi. 9.

3Rev. ii. 4, 5.

4Eph. i. 7.

5John i. 1.

6Col. i. 17.

7Rev. i. 17. xxii. 13.

8Heb. i. 8.

9Micah v. 2.

10Rev. i. 8.

11John xvii. 5.

12Ps. iii. 2.

13Eph. iii. 9, 10, 11.

14Eph. iii. 18, 19.

15Acts x. 18.

16Eph. iii. 21.

171. Pet. i. 12.

18Eph. i. 10.

19Rev. xiv. 6.

20Gal. i. 6.

21Rom. x. 18.

22Col. xi. 10.

23Matth. xxviii. 19.

242 Cor. i. 12.

252 Cor. xii. 9.

261 Cor. vii. 21-24.

27John xv. 16.

281 Tim. iv. 16.

29Phil. i. 10, 11.

30Archbishop’s Injunctions, S. xi.

31Canon LXXV.

32Phil. i. 9-11.

33Rom. xii. 16.

34Erasmi in Evang. Joannis Paraphrasis, cap. i.

351 Cor. ii. 14.

361 Cor. ii. 14.

372 Tim. iv. 2.

38Lord Bacon, A. L. B. i. p. 417.

39Fiduciamorator præ se ferat, semperque ità dicat tanquàm de causâ optimè sentiat. Quint. l. v. c. 13, p. 422.

40Matth. vii. 29.

41Matth. xv. 6.

42“In omnibus quæ dicit tanta auctoritas inest, ut dissentire pudeat; nec advocati studium, sed testis aut judicis afferat fidem.” Said of Cicero by Quintilian. The Roman orator acquired this praise by consummate art and genius. The plainest Christian homilist, who does his duty inspeaking as the oracles of God, attains it with ease, and deserves it much better. Such is the pre-eminence of what the Apostle callsthe foolishness of preaching!

43Tanta in oratione auctoritas, utprobationislocum obtineat. Quintil. p. 422.

44Bishop Stillingfleet, Sermon IV.

45Afficiamur, antequam afficere conemur. Quint. p. 461.moveamuripsi. Ib.

46If I mention the names of the BishopsBeveridgeandBlackall, it is not in exclusion of many others, but because I suspect they are less known to the younger clergy than they deserve to be.

47Matth. xxviii. 20.

48“Parentes et Pædagogi pueros olim cum primum per ætatem sapere, et intelligere cœpissent, primis Christianæ religionis rudimentis diligenter instituebant, ut pietatem unà penè cum lacte nutricis imbiberent, et à primis statim cunis, virtutis incunabilis ad vitam illam beatam alerentur. Quem etiam ad usum breves libri, quosCatechismosnostri appellant, conscribebantur.”Noelli Catechismus de Baptismo.

Noelli Catechismus de Baptismo.

492 Cor. xiii. 14.

50W. Weston, B. D. Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge; and vicar of Campden, Gloucestershire. Camb. 1746.

51Pref. p. ii.

52Pref. p. ii.

53Ded. p. iv.—“The best compliment I can make your Lordship on the occasion is the true one,that I have a good opinion of the present performance myself,” &c.

54Pref. p. iii.

55Pref. p. iii.

56Pref. p. ii.

57The following passages brought to confirm thisfactare so well known, that, if there was not something uncommonly strong, and subversive of the writer’s objection in the very turn of expression, I should scarce think myself at liberty to transcribe them.—Visa est mihi res digna consultatione, maximè propter perielitantiumnumerum. Multi enimomnis ætatis, omnis ordinis, utriusque sexûs etiam vocantur in periculum et vocabuntur. Neque enim civitates tantum, sed vicos etiam atqueagrossuperstitionis istius contagio pervagata——propè jam desolata templa,——sacra solemnia diu intermissa.—Plin.

58Hesterni sumus, etvestra omnia implevimus, urbes, insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, castra ipsa, tribus, decurias, palatium, senatum, forum; sola vobis relinquimus templa. Tertull. Apol. c. 37. And before speaking of the heathens,Obessam vociferantur civitatem, in agris, in castellis, in insulisChristianos,omnem sexum, ætatem, conditionem & dignitatemtransgredi ad hoc nomen quasi detrimento mærent. c. i. See also Arnobius, contr. Gentes, insisting on the same fact.—Vel hæc saltem fidem vobis faciunt argumenta credendi, quod jam peromnes terrasintam brevi tempore et parvo immensi nominis hujus sacramenta diffusa sunt? &c. L. ii. sub fin.

59Pref. p. iii.

60Chap. iii. p. 38.

61Speaking of I know not whatsour and dogmaticaldivines, “I am not sure (says he) that I shall escapetheir anathema; since it is their custom generally to be displeased with every thing that does not fall in with theirfixed and settled sentiments; and every defence of religion that isout of their waywants another to support it.” Pref. p. viii. And again: “With some, I suppose, thenoveltyof this matter will be for ever a bar to its reception.” P. 370.

62The reader sees I complaisantly allow the writer’s representation of the cases both ofPilate and Gallio; though much might, with good reason, be objected to each of them. For, 1. If I should lay any stress on theacts of Pilate, which, he owns, if admitted, would overturn the whole use of his evidence, I should but follow in this the best authorities, and those too supported by such reasonings as the Inquirer would find it difficult to confute. And, 2. As to Gallio’s case, however inattentive he might be to the fame of Paul’s miracles, the passage alledged is certainly insufficient to prove it. Acts, chap. xviii. 17. For, indeed, the Inquirer did not so much as apprehend the purpose of the sacred writer in that whole narration; which manifestly was not to signify to us Gallio’s inattention to the Apostle’s miracles, but his candour, and prudent conduct in refusing to interfere in religious matters, and in chusing rather to overlook an act of violence done in his presence (which, though strictly speaking illegal, he might probably think not altogether undeserved of the malicious intolerating Jew), than gratify the complainant’s passion in punishing either Paul or his heathen advocates. For this is the sense of those words,He cared for none of these things; which the writer ought to have seen is so far from proving Gallio’s disregard of miracles, that, had he been Paul’s convert, the very same thing had been observed of him.

63Aristeas.—The writers referred to in the margin areStrabo,Maximus Tyrius,Pliny, andHerodotus. Of these, the three first mention Aristeasoccasionallyonly; and yet Strabo calls him ανηρ γοης ει τις αλλος; andMax. TyriusandPliny, though they explode miracles, yet plainly enough declare the common creed to run in his favour. Max. Tyrius in particular, after having given us his opinion of his miracles, together with his reasons for pretending to them, adds,And Aristeas gained more credit by this pretension to wonders and supernatural communications, than Xenagoras, Xenophanes, or any other philosopher could have acquired by relating the plain truth. Και ην πιθανωτερος ταυτα λεγων ὁ Αριστεας η ὁ Ξεναγορας η Ξενοφανης, η τις αλλος των εξηγησαμενων τα οντα ὡς εχει. Lastly, the account Herodotus gives us is so much to the credit of his miracles, that one cannot imagine how the writer should think it to his purpose to refer to him. For hewas, indeed, delivering the popular history of Aristeas; and therefore did, as might be expected, represent him, not only as a worker of miracles, but as much reverenced andesteemedfor them. This he attests upon his own knowledge of several cities, all concurring in the firm belief of his miracles; and one of them in particular transported by so religious a veneration of him, as to erect a statue to his memory; which they also caused to be set up in the most public part of their city, and even close to one they had at the same time decreed to Apollo. And for the historian himself, though in truth the story be even foolish enough, yet so far is he from speaking of it with disregard, that I am not certain if he did not believe it, at least that part which relates to the Metapontini; which, after the mention of some other things from hearsay only, he introduces in the following assured manner: “Thus far the report of these cities: But what I am now going to relate, Icertainly knowto have happened to the Metapontini in Italy, &c.” Ταυτα μεν αἱ πολεις αὑται λεγουσι, τα δε οιδα Μεταποντινοισι εν Ιταλιη συγκυρησαντα, &c. L iv. 15; and then mentions the affair which gave occasion to the statue; which, he tells us, he saw himself, placed, as I have said, and inscribed to the memory of Aristeas.

64The other impostors mentioned as not much esteemed for their miracles arePythagoras,Jamblichus, andAdrian; though it is certain the writers of their lives lay great stress upon them.JamblichusandPorphyry, after enlarging on several of Pythagoras’s miracles, which drew the applause and admiration of his followers, appeal to current fame for the credit of these, and of other stilldiviner miracles, which, say they,are related of him with an uniformand constant belief, μυρια δ’ ἑτερα θαυμαστοτερα και θειοτερα περι τ’ ανδρος ὁμαλως και συμφονως ειρηται. (Porph.S. 28 and to the same purpose, and nearly in the same words,Jambl.S. 135). Jamblichus even goes so far, in speaking of the Pythagorean fondness for miracles, as to assure us, that they were conceived to prove thedivinityof their authors, and by that means to give a sanction to theiropinions and doctrines. την πιστιν των παρ’ αυτοις ὑποληψεων ἡγουνται ειναι ταυτην, &c. S. 140.They conceive it, says he, to add aCREDITand authority to their doctrines, that the author of them was aGOD;and therefore to the question, Who was Pythagoras? their answer was, The hyperborean Apollo; and in proof of this they alledge the miracle of his golden thigh. And yet, says the Inquirer,Pythagoras was not much more esteemed for his thigh of gold than one of flesh. What pity is it, the wit of this antithesis should be no better supported!As forEunapius, though he plainly disbelieved the silly tale of the two boys of Gadara, yet, in relating it circumstantially as he does, he clearly enough expresses his own opinion of miracles, and acknowledges thereby the credit they would bring his master, were they better attested, or but fairly received.The miracles of the emperors are well known. And as their manifest intent was, of the one of them, to add a credit, or, as Suetonius more strongly expresses it, anauthority, and certain awfulness, befitting majesty, to the person ofTrajan, and of theother, to inspire the hopes of recovery intoAdrian, so the relation of them by their historians, as useful and subservient to those ends, is a thorough confutation of what the author pretends about the little regard paid to them. And here it may be proper to observe, once for all, that the frequent narrations of prodigies and miracles, of which all Pagan story and antiquity is full, is infinitely a stronger argument for the high credit of miracles amongst the heathens in general, than any pretendedcoolness, tranquillity, and indifference, which the writer’s warmth, in the prosecution of his favourite novelty, leads him to imagine in the narrations themselves, is, or can be, for the contrary opinion. Sincethiscould only shew the incredulity of the relaters; whilst therelatingthem at all demonstrates the general good reception they met with from the people.

As forEunapius, though he plainly disbelieved the silly tale of the two boys of Gadara, yet, in relating it circumstantially as he does, he clearly enough expresses his own opinion of miracles, and acknowledges thereby the credit they would bring his master, were they better attested, or but fairly received.

The miracles of the emperors are well known. And as their manifest intent was, of the one of them, to add a credit, or, as Suetonius more strongly expresses it, anauthority, and certain awfulness, befitting majesty, to the person ofTrajan, and of theother, to inspire the hopes of recovery intoAdrian, so the relation of them by their historians, as useful and subservient to those ends, is a thorough confutation of what the author pretends about the little regard paid to them. And here it may be proper to observe, once for all, that the frequent narrations of prodigies and miracles, of which all Pagan story and antiquity is full, is infinitely a stronger argument for the high credit of miracles amongst the heathens in general, than any pretendedcoolness, tranquillity, and indifference, which the writer’s warmth, in the prosecution of his favourite novelty, leads him to imagine in the narrations themselves, is, or can be, for the contrary opinion. Sincethiscould only shew the incredulity of the relaters; whilst therelatingthem at all demonstrates the general good reception they met with from the people.

65This miracle was that of the fiery eruptions which hindered the building of the temple at Jerusalem byJulian; and which, falling into the hands ofMarcellinus, might be expected to be spoken of as a natural event. But this is all: for, as to thatwonderful coolness and tranquillity, which the writer pretends to have discovered in the narration, it is so far from appearing to me, that, on the contrary, I see not how the historian could have expressed himself with more emotion, without directly owning the miracle. His words are these: Quum itaque rei fortiter instaret Alypius, juvaretque provinciæ rector,metuendi globi flammarum prope fundamenta crebris assultibus erumpentes, fecere locum, exustis aliquoties operantibus, inaccessum: hoc modo elemento destinatius repellente cessavit Inceptum.

66Pp. 40, 54, 57.

67Epicurus, Democritus, &c. p. 58.

68For the passage referred to (Orig. contr. Cels. l. 8) is in answer to an harangue of Celsus, wherein he had expatiated largely on the heathen miracles, and opposed them with great confidence to the Christian. Upon which the excellent Father observes with much force, “I know not how it is that Celsus thinks proper to alledge the heathen miracles as incontestably evident, and undoubted facts; and yet affects to treat the Jewish and Christian miracles recorded in our books as mere fables. For why should not ours rather be thought true, and those which Celsus preaches up fabulous? Especially, since those were nevercreditedby their own philosophers, such asDemocritus,Epicurus, andAristotle; who yet, had they lived with Moses or Jesus, on account of the exceeding great clearness and evidence of the facts, δια την εναργειαν, would in all probability have believed ours.” Having thus fairly laid the passage before the reader, it is submitted to his judgment with what colour of reason the learned writer could think of deducing a proof of thelow opinion of miracles in general amongst the philosophersfrom it.

69P. 62.

70P. 63. Philost. L., v. c. 15.

71P. 64.

72This was remarkably the case of Mahomet and Numa; the former of whoseconverse with the angel Gabriel, his journey to heaven, and the armies of angels attending on his battles—as well as the other’s pretendedintercourse with the goddess Egeria, is well known.

73It may seem odd that any of the Fathers of the Church should retain such a strong tincture of thisevil principle; yet this, &c. p. 66.

74Matthew, xxiv. 24. For there shall arise false Christs and false Prophets, and shall shewgreat signs and wonders, insomuch that (if it were possible) they shall deceive the very Elect.

75Our evidence is still increasing, and is in the next place confirmed even by Divine authority. P. 70.

76But I could not lay too great a stress on the authority of the Jews, because itneither properly belongs to the present case, nor, &c. P. 74.

77For this would shew that theheathenrejection of miraclesmightnot be owing to any contempt of them assuch, since theJewishwas plainly owing to a very different reason.

781 Cor. i. 22. The Jews require asign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom, &c.

79V. 17.

80V. 19.

81V. 20, 21, 22.

82It is remarkable that Maimonides pushes this prejudice so far as to deny that the true Messiah was to work any miracles at all, except that of restoring the temporal dominion of Israel.If he(the person pretending to be the Messiah)PROSPERSin what he undertakes, and subdues all the neighbouring nations round him, and rebuilds the Sanctuary in its former place, and gathers together the dispersed of Israel, thenhe is for certain the Messiah. Maimon. in Yad Hachazekah Tract. de Reg. et Bell. eorum. c. 11. s. 4.

83The right understanding of what is meant by the Jewsrequiring a signis of such importance to the perfectly comprehending several parts of the Gospel history, that I shall be allowed to justify and illustrate the interpretation here given by some further considerations. And,1. If by σημειον is to be understood simply amiracle, then it is not true that Jesus, whom Paul preached, was or could be on that account astumbling blockto the Jews, it being allowed on all hands that many and great miraclesdid shew forth themselves through him. See John vii. 31. xi. 47. But,2. Notwithstanding this, and though it was owned in the fullest manner by the chief priests and Pharisees themselves, yet we find them very pressing for asign, σημειον [Matth. xii. 38. xvi. 1. Luke xi. 29.] and that too (which is very remarkable) at the instant our Saviour had been working a miracle before them; a degree of perversity not rashly to be credited of the Jews themselves.It is true thissignis sometimes called σημειον απο του ουρανου,a sign from Heaven; which, if meaning any thing more than σημειον, as explained above, i. e. atestor credential of his heavenly or divine mission (and what can be more natural than that the Jews should express by this name theonlymark they would admit of the Messiah’s coming from Heaven?) I say, if any thing further be intended in it, it must be either, 1. An outward, sensible display of the Divine power,indicating, by some prodigious and splendid appearance in the heavens, or actuallyinterposing, in some signal way, toaccomplishthe deliverance of Israel; and then either way it falls in with and includes the interpretation here given. Or else, 2. It must mean amereprodigy, asked out of wantonness, and for no other end than to gratify a silly curiosity in beholding a wondrous sight from Heaven: an interpretation, which, though maintained by some good writers, is utterly unsupported by the sacred accounts, calling it σημειον indiscriminately, without as with the addition of του ουρανου; and shocking to common sense, which makes it incredible that so frivolous a reason as the being denied asign, thus understood, could be, as St. Paul asserts it was,the stumbling-blockof infidelity to the Jewish nation.3. But what above all confirms and fixes this interpretation is the tenor of our Saviour’s answer to the question itself. For, upon the inquiry,Master, shew us a sign, &c. his constant reply was,A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given them but that of the prophet Jonas: For, &c. As though he had said, “A perverse and degenerate people, disregarding the wisdom of my doctrines, and the power of my miracles—the genuine marks and characteristics of the Messiah—are yet crying out for thetest, σημειον, of my coming. I know the proud and ambitious sentiment of your heart: but assure yourselves, God will not accommodate his proceedings to your fond views and prejudices. No suchtestshall be given you. One sure and certainTESTindeed there shall be, over and above what has yet been afforded; but to shew you how widely different the Divine conduct is from your prescriptions, it is such a one as ye shall least expect; the very reverse of your hopes and expectations. It shall be that of the prophetJonas.For, as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall Christ (sad contradiction to your conceit of temporal dominion!) be put to death by the Jews, andlie three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. And this event, so degrading of my character with you, and so repugnant to your wishes, shall, I readily foresee, so scandalize you, that, though my return from the grave, like that ofJonasfrom the whale, shall be in the demonstration of power, yet shall ye, through the inveteracy of that prejudice, be so hardened, as not to be convinced by it.”The answer of our Saviour is related byMatthewandLukewith some addition, but such as is further favourable to this interpretation. For, upon their asking a sign, it is plain he understood them to mean not amiracle, but aTEST, by the question immediately put to them:When it is evening, ye say it will be fair weather; for the sky is red. And in the morning, it will be foul to-day; for the sky is red and lowering. O! ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky, but can ye not discern the face of the times?“Are the appearances which, in the order and constitution of nature, precede the changes of weather, a sign or test to you of those changes? And are ye stupid and perverse enough to neglect those which, by the Divine appointment, are made thesignortestof theTIMES, of the change of the Mosaic for the Christian dispensation? How is it that ye do not collect this from mymiraclesanddoctrine, the ordinary and stated marks of this change, but ye must perversely demand atestof it, which the Scriptures nowhere promise, and the order and course of God’s Providence disclaim?”If, after all this, there can yet remain any doubt of the truth of this comment, it will be effectually removed by an authority or two from the other Evangelist, which the reader will indulge me in just mentioning. In our Saviour’s exerting an act of civil power, in scourging and driving the money-changers out of the temple, the Jews require him to shew the credentials of his authority,What sign shewest thou that thou doest these things?The asking a miracle in this case were impertinent; for that, how extraordinary soever, could never prove to the Jews that he came invested with the powers of the civil magistrate. The sign they expected, then was evidently of another kind: an express declaration, or open display, of the regal character and office, evidencing his commissionto do such things. Accordingly, the reply of our Saviour was to the same effect as before.Jesus said unto them, destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up; for he spake, we know,of the temple of his body. c. ii.The next authority is in the sixth chapter, where we have an account of the miracle of feedingthe five thousand. Upon the multitude’s following him after this, our Saviour objects to them their neglect of miracles, which he presses upon them as motives to their belief.Ye seek me not, because ye saw the miracles, &c. Now what do the Jews return to this charge? Why, they fairly own it to be just, and, what is more, give a reason for their conduct. Their answer is to this effect: “Wherefore do you urge your miracles thus constantly to us, as motives for our belief? If you would have us trust and confide in you as the Messiah,Where is the sign?For, as to your miracles so often insisted on by you, we cannot admit them as proper evidences of your commission. And indeed how should we? for Moses wrought as great, if not greater wonders than you. To confront your late boasted miracle of feedingthe five thousand with five loaves, did not he, as it is written,give our fathers bread from heaven? What miracle of yours can be more extraordinary? YetMosescould do this. The Messiah, therefore, of whom greater things are promised, we expect to becharacterizedby othersigns. What work takest thou in hand, τι εργαζη?” Here, at last, we see (and the reader will forgive the length of the note for the sake of so clear conviction) that thesignasked for, of what kind soever it might be, neitherwasnorcouldbe a miracle, since all suchsignswere rejected by these inquirers uponprinciple.

1. If by σημειον is to be understood simply amiracle, then it is not true that Jesus, whom Paul preached, was or could be on that account astumbling blockto the Jews, it being allowed on all hands that many and great miraclesdid shew forth themselves through him. See John vii. 31. xi. 47. But,

2. Notwithstanding this, and though it was owned in the fullest manner by the chief priests and Pharisees themselves, yet we find them very pressing for asign, σημειον [Matth. xii. 38. xvi. 1. Luke xi. 29.] and that too (which is very remarkable) at the instant our Saviour had been working a miracle before them; a degree of perversity not rashly to be credited of the Jews themselves.

It is true thissignis sometimes called σημειον απο του ουρανου,a sign from Heaven; which, if meaning any thing more than σημειον, as explained above, i. e. atestor credential of his heavenly or divine mission (and what can be more natural than that the Jews should express by this name theonlymark they would admit of the Messiah’s coming from Heaven?) I say, if any thing further be intended in it, it must be either, 1. An outward, sensible display of the Divine power,indicating, by some prodigious and splendid appearance in the heavens, or actuallyinterposing, in some signal way, toaccomplishthe deliverance of Israel; and then either way it falls in with and includes the interpretation here given. Or else, 2. It must mean amereprodigy, asked out of wantonness, and for no other end than to gratify a silly curiosity in beholding a wondrous sight from Heaven: an interpretation, which, though maintained by some good writers, is utterly unsupported by the sacred accounts, calling it σημειον indiscriminately, without as with the addition of του ουρανου; and shocking to common sense, which makes it incredible that so frivolous a reason as the being denied asign, thus understood, could be, as St. Paul asserts it was,the stumbling-blockof infidelity to the Jewish nation.

3. But what above all confirms and fixes this interpretation is the tenor of our Saviour’s answer to the question itself. For, upon the inquiry,Master, shew us a sign, &c. his constant reply was,A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given them but that of the prophet Jonas: For, &c. As though he had said, “A perverse and degenerate people, disregarding the wisdom of my doctrines, and the power of my miracles—the genuine marks and characteristics of the Messiah—are yet crying out for thetest, σημειον, of my coming. I know the proud and ambitious sentiment of your heart: but assure yourselves, God will not accommodate his proceedings to your fond views and prejudices. No suchtestshall be given you. One sure and certainTESTindeed there shall be, over and above what has yet been afforded; but to shew you how widely different the Divine conduct is from your prescriptions, it is such a one as ye shall least expect; the very reverse of your hopes and expectations. It shall be that of the prophetJonas.For, as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall Christ (sad contradiction to your conceit of temporal dominion!) be put to death by the Jews, andlie three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. And this event, so degrading of my character with you, and so repugnant to your wishes, shall, I readily foresee, so scandalize you, that, though my return from the grave, like that ofJonasfrom the whale, shall be in the demonstration of power, yet shall ye, through the inveteracy of that prejudice, be so hardened, as not to be convinced by it.”

The answer of our Saviour is related byMatthewandLukewith some addition, but such as is further favourable to this interpretation. For, upon their asking a sign, it is plain he understood them to mean not amiracle, but aTEST, by the question immediately put to them:When it is evening, ye say it will be fair weather; for the sky is red. And in the morning, it will be foul to-day; for the sky is red and lowering. O! ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky, but can ye not discern the face of the times?“Are the appearances which, in the order and constitution of nature, precede the changes of weather, a sign or test to you of those changes? And are ye stupid and perverse enough to neglect those which, by the Divine appointment, are made thesignortestof theTIMES, of the change of the Mosaic for the Christian dispensation? How is it that ye do not collect this from mymiraclesanddoctrine, the ordinary and stated marks of this change, but ye must perversely demand atestof it, which the Scriptures nowhere promise, and the order and course of God’s Providence disclaim?”

If, after all this, there can yet remain any doubt of the truth of this comment, it will be effectually removed by an authority or two from the other Evangelist, which the reader will indulge me in just mentioning. In our Saviour’s exerting an act of civil power, in scourging and driving the money-changers out of the temple, the Jews require him to shew the credentials of his authority,What sign shewest thou that thou doest these things?The asking a miracle in this case were impertinent; for that, how extraordinary soever, could never prove to the Jews that he came invested with the powers of the civil magistrate. The sign they expected, then was evidently of another kind: an express declaration, or open display, of the regal character and office, evidencing his commissionto do such things. Accordingly, the reply of our Saviour was to the same effect as before.Jesus said unto them, destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up; for he spake, we know,of the temple of his body. c. ii.

The next authority is in the sixth chapter, where we have an account of the miracle of feedingthe five thousand. Upon the multitude’s following him after this, our Saviour objects to them their neglect of miracles, which he presses upon them as motives to their belief.Ye seek me not, because ye saw the miracles, &c. Now what do the Jews return to this charge? Why, they fairly own it to be just, and, what is more, give a reason for their conduct. Their answer is to this effect: “Wherefore do you urge your miracles thus constantly to us, as motives for our belief? If you would have us trust and confide in you as the Messiah,Where is the sign?For, as to your miracles so often insisted on by you, we cannot admit them as proper evidences of your commission. And indeed how should we? for Moses wrought as great, if not greater wonders than you. To confront your late boasted miracle of feedingthe five thousand with five loaves, did not he, as it is written,give our fathers bread from heaven? What miracle of yours can be more extraordinary? YetMosescould do this. The Messiah, therefore, of whom greater things are promised, we expect to becharacterizedby othersigns. What work takest thou in hand, τι εργαζη?” Here, at last, we see (and the reader will forgive the length of the note for the sake of so clear conviction) that thesignasked for, of what kind soever it might be, neitherwasnorcouldbe a miracle, since all suchsignswere rejected by these inquirers uponprinciple.

84I have now done with this head [the low opinion of miracles in the heathen world] and am not aware that any reasonable exceptions can be made to the testimonies which have been brought to confirm it; but if any one should think otherwise, and maintain that something else is necessary for the establishment of sosingularan opinion, he will begratify’din his expectations, as wego along; and will find the principles and practices of much the greater part of the heathens on this pointstrengthening and confirmingeach other. P. 77.

85For this he must say, and not that the credit of miracles would hereby be something weakened: a point, that, as we shall see hereafter, may be allowed, and yet be of no manner of service to his conclusion.

86I have saidbad Dæmons; for miracles wrought by the assistance ofgood Dæmonswere, as the Inquirer observes, p. 247, in great repute.

87For that this was the obvious and essential difference betwixt the genuine miracles of the gospel, and the tricks of magic, is apparent from many strong expostulations of the Christian apologists, who, when encountered with this frivolous, butmaliciousobjection, used to exclaim:Potestis aliquem nobis designare, monstrare ex omnibus illis magis, Qui unquam fuere per sæcula, consimile aliquid Christo millesimâ ex parte qui fecerit? QuiSINE ULLA VI CARMINUM SINE HERBARUM AUT GRAMINUM SUCCIS, SINE ULLA ALIQUA OBSERVATIONE SOLLICITA SACRORUM, LIBAMINUM, TEMPORUM? &c. Arnob. contr. Gen. L. i. And again, ibid. Atqui constitit ChristumSINE ULLIS ADMINICULIS RERUM,SINE ULLIUS RITUS ORSERVATIONE TEL LEGE,omnia illa, quæ fecit, nominis sui possibilitate fecisse; et quod proprium, consentaneum, Deo dignum fuerat vero, nihil nocens, aut noxium, sedOPIFERUM, SED SALUTARE, SED AUXILIARIBUS PLENUM BONISpotestatis munificæ liberalitate donâsse.

88Acts, C. viii. and xix.

89For as to the remaining chapters on theidolatry of the Heathens, the parallel betwixt the Heathen and Protestant rejection of miracles, and his Conclusion, they seem very little to concern either him, or me. For, 1. The influence of idolatry is urged to prove, that thereligion, notmiracles, of Jesus,was hard to be admitted(p. 352); which, though true, has nothingnewin it, and is, besides, intirely foreign, if not contradictory, to his purpose. 2.The parallel betwixt the Heathen and Protestant rejection of miraclesderives all its little illustrative force from this poor presumption, already confuted, that the Heathens had universallya contempt of miracles. I said the parallel drew its whole force from this fact, for unless it be true that the Heathens universally disbelieved all miracles said to be wrought amongst them, the case of their rejection of Christian miracles, the reader sees, is widely different from that of the Protestant rejection of the Popish. This one circumstance then, to mention no others, overturns the whole use of his parallel. But, 3. As to his conclusion, the design and business of that is, I allow, something extraordinary. It is to shew us, that his whole force was not spent in this wearisome Inquiry, but that, was he disposed for it, hecouldgo on to answer other objections against miracles (p. 408-9) and our common Christianity, which had been already confuted to his hands. For, having shewn us what hecould notdo with an argument of hisown, he was willing, it seems, to shew us what hecoulddo with those ofother writers. For which meritorious service he has my compliments and congratulations:Labore alieno magno, partam GloriamVerbis sæpè in se transfert, qua sal habet,Quod in TE est.

Labore alieno magno, partam GloriamVerbis sæpè in se transfert, qua sal habet,Quod in TE est.

90Page 348, and in another place he says, it has been fairly shewn fromtheir own accounts, and fromTHE NATURE OF THEIR PRINCIPLES, that the Heathens neitherhad, norcouldhave an high opinion of miracles. P. 383.

91Matth. xi. 20. Luke x. 13.

92Page 172.

931 Cor. i. Col. ii. 8.

94Rom. i. Eph. v. and elsewherepassim.

95Mr. Addison of the Christian Religion, S. 1.

96Lord Chancellor Hardwicke.

97Page 70.

98Page 12.

99Or, byjudicio suomay be understood that the Chancellor is impowered to inflict which of the several censures mentioned in the Statute he shall think fit, on offenders. The words areignavos, &c. suspensione graduum, carcere, aut alio leviore supplicio,JUDICIO SUOcastigandos. And the same is the meaning ofPRO ARBITRIO SUOin the Statutede Officio Procuratorum; on which theInquireraffects to lay some stress (p. 32). “Eum, qui deliquerit, primò pecuniâ præfinitâ mulctabit; iterum delinquenti duplicabit mulctam; tertiò verò si deliquerit, gravius, proARBITRIO SUO, coercebit.” But take it in which sense you will, either ofpassing sentence by his single authorityordetermining the kind of punishment at his discretion, neither way can this expression be made to serve the cause in hand. No art of construction can pick, out of the wordsjudicio suo, the sense offinal determination.

100Lord Chancellor Hardwicke.

101The ignorance of theInquirer, who assertsthat the University has nothing to do with ecclesiastical censures, and thatsuspensionfrom degrees, in particular,is a punishment merely academical(p. 26), is amazing. Had he been in the least qualified to treat the matter he has undertaken, he would have known thatsuspensionis not merely an usage of the University Court, as such, but was practised by the Ecclesiastical Court of the Bishops or Archbishops, as long as they had jurisdiction in the University. To let in one ray or two of light, in mere compassion, on that utter darkness which environs him, and shuts out all law,canonas well ascivil, I will just refer him toArundel’s Constitutionsin a provincial Council; where Members of the University offending in the premisses are declaredsuspended,ab omni actu scholastico, anddeprived,ab omni privilegio scholastico. [Lyndwood, deHæret.cap.Finaliter.] And the same appears in a Constitution of ArchbishopStratford. [Ib.De Vit. & Honest. Clericorum, cap.Exterior.]

102So Mr. Attorney GeneralYorke, in hisArgument for the University in Dr.Bentley’sCase,—“The congregation are to be considered as the judges of the Court, and theVice-chancelloras theirofficial.” TheInquirerhath himself desired the reader to observe (p. 10) that theV. C.in the absence of theChancellor, hath all the power which the University delegates to this great officer.

103That his Court was directed by this law, appears from a determination of Delegates, concerningsecond Appeals in the same cause, which I will take the liberty to transcribe.De Appellationibus à Delegatis.In Dei nomine, Amen. Nos D. Buckmaister, Inceptor Dakyns, M’ri Myddylton, Longforth, et Pomell, authoritate nobis ab Universitate commissâ, decernimus ac pro firmâ sententiâ determinamus, quòd liceat unicuique in suâ causâ appellare à judicibus delegatis per Universitatem ad eandem Universitatem, modò id fiat juxta juris exigentiam, hoc est, si antea ab eodem secundâ vice in eâdem causâ appellatum non fuerit. Quod si anteà bis appellaverit, neutiqùam tertiò appellare licebit, quum id prorsus sit vetitumtam per jus civile quàm canonicum: Cæterum unicuique tam actori quàm reo maneat sua libertas appellandi in suâ causâ à judicibus delegatis per Universitatem modo supradicto et à jure præscripto. [Lib. Proc. Jun. fol.132.]

103That his Court was directed by this law, appears from a determination of Delegates, concerningsecond Appeals in the same cause, which I will take the liberty to transcribe.

De Appellationibus à Delegatis.

In Dei nomine, Amen. Nos D. Buckmaister, Inceptor Dakyns, M’ri Myddylton, Longforth, et Pomell, authoritate nobis ab Universitate commissâ, decernimus ac pro firmâ sententiâ determinamus, quòd liceat unicuique in suâ causâ appellare à judicibus delegatis per Universitatem ad eandem Universitatem, modò id fiat juxta juris exigentiam, hoc est, si antea ab eodem secundâ vice in eâdem causâ appellatum non fuerit. Quod si anteà bis appellaverit, neutiqùam tertiò appellare licebit, quum id prorsus sit vetitumtam per jus civile quàm canonicum: Cæterum unicuique tam actori quàm reo maneat sua libertas appellandi in suâ causâ à judicibus delegatis per Universitatem modo supradicto et à jure præscripto. [Lib. Proc. Jun. fol.132.]

104See old StatutesDe Judiciis et Foro scholarium;De pœnis Appellantium;De tempore prosequendi Appellationes.

105SeeDetermination of Delegates, before cited, p. 25.

106P. 26.

107P. 1.

108P. 62.

109Delegatesare nominated by theCaput; and the Caput is, in effect, appointed by the Vice-chancellor and Heads of Colleges, who are commonly parties in all appellations. [See Stat.De capite Eligendo.] So (as the University complained, in their remonstrance against this very Statute of Q.Elizabeth) “when they [the V. C. and Masters of Houses] offer wrong, and themselves appoint judges to redress that wrong; it is too true, whichLivywriteth in the state ofDecemvira, siquis Collegam appellaverit, (meaning Appius’s judgment),ab eo, ad quem venerit, ità discessurum, tanquam pæniteret prioris decreto non stetisse.” [C. C. C. MSS.] So little reason is there on the part of the Vice-chancellor, to fear any thing frompartial Delegates!

110TheInquirerhath even had the hardiness to advance this in the plainest terms. He harangues at large from p. 9. to 13. on the impropriety of appealing from thedetermination of a superior to an inferior; and, in another place, p. 39. derides the notion ofciting the supreme Magistrate before more supreme Delegates. But how different were the sentiments of a late learned Civilian on this head, from those of thislittle academical Lawyer! Speaking of Mr.Campbell’scase, in 1725. “There is, says he, a subordination of jurisdiction in the University. The Vice-chancellor’s jurisdiction isinferiorto that of the Senate; and upon Mr.C—’ssaying, that he appealed to the University, theinferior jurisdictionceased and devolved to the Senate, even before the inhibition. And, afterwards in considering the proctor’s inhibition;upon the Appeal, the Proctors represent the University, and are in that case superior to the Vice-chancellor.—And I am of opinion, that the Delegates in Mr.C—’scause may, upon the Proctor’s applying to them,primo et ante omniareverse the whole proceedings against him, in the V. C’s court,as an attentat upon the University’s jurisdiction; and may likewise inflict such censures, as the Statutes impower them to make use of, for the breach of the inhibition; all inhibitions being by Law,sub pænâ juris et contemptûs.” Dr.Andrews.

111P. 70.

112We have this confession from the candid writer ofConsiderations on the late Regulations, &c.“I must enter, says he, upon this subject with acknowledging, as I do with equal truth and pleasure, that there never was, within my remembrance, nor, I believe, within any one’s memory, a set of more able and industrious tutors than we have at present; more capable of discharging that useful office, or more diligent and careful in the discharge of it,” p. 12. And, again, “I think there prevails in general and through all degrees among us, a great disposition to sobriety and temperance,” p. 14.

113P. 64.

114P. 13.

115P. 65.

116“You will urge—that, as a previousoathmust be taken by the tutor, that he believesin his consciencethat his pupil has a just cause of appeal, all Appeals would by this means be prevented, but such as were founded upon good reasons. But the force of this argument will not be thought very great, if,&c.”Reader, I can easily guess the sentiments which must arise in thee, at the sight of this shocking paragraph. But think not I have abused thee in this citation. They are the author’s own words, as they lie in p. 65 of theInquiry. Well, but his reason? Why, “if it be remembered, that, though oaths of this kind were exacted in order to prevent the frequency of Appeals, they by no means had their proper effect, the same number having been commenced for the three years next after this regulation, as in that towards the close of which it was first made.” This provision ofoaths had not, he says,its proper effect. And how does this appear? Why,because Appeals were as frequent afterwards as before. Now, any other man would, surely, have inferred from hence, that “therefore the Appeals made were not without good reason.” Not so theInquirer. He is of another spirit. Rather than give any quarter toAppeals, let every tutor in the University be an abandoned perjured villain. In very tenderness to this unhappy writer, whoever he be, I forbear to press him farther on such a subject.

Reader, I can easily guess the sentiments which must arise in thee, at the sight of this shocking paragraph. But think not I have abused thee in this citation. They are the author’s own words, as they lie in p. 65 of theInquiry. Well, but his reason? Why, “if it be remembered, that, though oaths of this kind were exacted in order to prevent the frequency of Appeals, they by no means had their proper effect, the same number having been commenced for the three years next after this regulation, as in that towards the close of which it was first made.” This provision ofoaths had not, he says,its proper effect. And how does this appear? Why,because Appeals were as frequent afterwards as before. Now, any other man would, surely, have inferred from hence, that “therefore the Appeals made were not without good reason.” Not so theInquirer. He is of another spirit. Rather than give any quarter toAppeals, let every tutor in the University be an abandoned perjured villain. In very tenderness to this unhappy writer, whoever he be, I forbear to press him farther on such a subject.

117P. 66.

118Diss. VI. p. 259.

119Diss. VI. p. 251.

120Hodges, Garnet, Chappelow.

121P. 296.

122P. 255.

123P. 296.

124Dr. Lowth.

125Page 261.

126Page 253.

127Page 269.

128Page 293.

129Julian, p. 316.

130Essay on the Gift of Tongues, Works, vol. ii. p. 91.

131Doctrine of Grace, b. i. c. viii. p. 41. 2ᵈ Ed. 8ᵛᵒ.

132Ib.

133D. G. p. 51.

134P. 41, 42.

135From p. 42 to p. 45.

136Dissertation, p. 82.

137Dissert. p. 82.

138Dissert. p. 86.

139Doctrine of Grace, p. 41.

140Doctrine of Grace, p. 45.

141Doctrine of Grace, p. 43.

142Dissert. p. 88.

143Doctrine of Grace, p. 52, 53.

144Doctrine of Grace, p. 55, 56.

145Dissert. p. 19.

146Dissert. p. 4.

147Doctrine of Grace, p. 52.

148Dissert. p. 41.

149Dissert. p. 45.

150Doctrine of Grace, p. 53.

151Dissert. p. 58.

152Dissert. p. 80, n.

153Doctrine of Grace, pp. 56, 57.

154Dissert. p. 20.

155Dissert. p. 80. n.

156Doctrine of Grace, p. 58.

157Dissert. p. 24.

158Dissert. p. 25.

159Quinct.l. ix. c. 3.

160Dissert. p. 34.

161Doctrine of Grace, p. 52.

162Adv. to the Dissert.

Back to Index Next