either of his adversaries, or of the general observers of the controversy; and it thus became almost an universal opinion, that his "Free Enquiry" was virtually, and perhaps intentionally, an attack upon all miracles, and through them, on christianity itself.

"Doctor Middleton's undertaking," says Mr. Chalmers in his Biographical Dictionary, "justly "alarmed the clergy, and all friends to religion; "since it was impossible to succeed, without tainting, in some degree, the scripture miracles. They thought, too, that even the canon of scripture "must not be a little affected, if the fathers, on "whose credit the authenticity of its books in some "measure depended, were so utterly despised."

It is true that doctor Middleton might have answered, that the difference between the apostolic writers, so far at least as the case rested between the writers of the New Testament, and the writers in after-times, was, that the former were inspired; and that all they related was, therefore, necessarily true. But this answer would only have removed the difficulty by a single step. In reply to it, the doctor's adversaries would have asked,-On what he considered the evidence of the inspiration of the New Testament, or even the evidence of the authenticity of a single copy of it to rest? -To this question, doctor Middleton must have answered, on human testimony. The overwhelming question would then have immediately followed, What right to credit does the testimony for it possess, upon your principles, that is not pos

sessed, in an equal degree, by the testimony in favour of the miracles of every age?-in favour even of some which you so superciliously reject? To this question doctor Middleton could have made no reply.

Such was the result of this celebrated controversy. It produced a great sensation, and made impressions which have not been obliterated.

In general, roman-catholics kept aloof from it. They perceived how greatly it served their cause. They thought it clear, that,--when doctor Middleton proved, against his antagonists, that the evidence brought by them in support of the miracles, which they allowed was not greater than the evidence produced for the miracles which they rejected,-he completely established the roman-catholic doctrine of the uninterrupted succession of miracles in their church: and that, on the other hand,-when the adversaries of doctor Middleton proved against him, that the inspiration of the New Testament, and even the authenticity of its text, could only be proved by testimony,-they completely established the roman-catholic doctrine of tradition.

It does not appear from the "Book of the Church," whether, in respect to the point under consideration, we should class you with doctor Middleton, or with doctor Middleton's antagonists. If with the former, we wish you to explain, in some future edition of your work, in what manner, without resorting to tradition, it can be proved that the sacred writings are inspired; and, therefore, entitled to the superior credit which doctor Middleton

claimed for them:-If with the latter, we wish to see your reasons for preferring the miracles, which preceded the period assigned by the antagonists of the doctor for the cessation of miracles, to those which followed that period.

But, while the roman catholics assert, that it has pleased Almighty. God to work in every age, from the first preaching of the gospel to the present time, many and incontestible miracles in favour of his church and her doctrines, they admit, without qualification, that no miracles, except those which are related in the Old or the New Testament, are articles of faith; that a person may disbelieve every other miracle, and may even disbelieve the existence of the persons, through whose intercession they are related to have been wrought, without ceasing to be a roman-catholic. This is equally agreeable to religion and common sense; for all miracles, which are not recorded in holy writ, depend on human reasoning: now, human reasoning being always fallible, all miracles depending on it rest on fallible proof; and, consequently, may be untrue. Hence the divines of the roman-catholic church never impose the belief of particular miracles, either upon the body of the faithful or upon individuals; they only recommend the belief of them; nor do they recommend the belief of any, the credibility of which does not appear to them to be supported by evidence of the very highest nature; and, while they contend that the evidence is of this description, and cannot, therefore, be rationally disbelieved, they admit that it is still no more than

human testimony, and therefore liable to error. Doctor Milner rejects*, in the wholesale, the miracles related in the "Golden Legend" of Jacobus de Voragine; those related in the "Speculum" of Vincentius Belluacensis; and those related in the "Saints Lives" of the patrician Metaphrastes: no roman-catholic gives credit to those which rest on Surius, or Monbritius. Doctor Lingard† calls Osbert, the biographer of St. Dunstan, and the writer of his life, "an injudicious biographer, whose "anile credulity collected and embellished every "fable." Doctor Lingard, also, while he asserts‡ that there are many miracles in the Anglo-Saxon times, which it would require no small ingenuity to disprove, and incredulity to discredit, admits that "there are also many which must shrink from the "frown of criticism; some, which may have been "the effect of accident or imagination; some, that 66 are more calculated to excite the smile than the "wonder of the readers; and some, which, on what"ever ground they were originally admitted, depend, at the present, on the distant testimony of writers, not remarkable for sagacity or discrimi"nation. It was their misfortune," says the same excellent writer, "that the knowledge of these "writers of miracles was not equal to their piety. "Of their censors, it may sometimes be said, that "their piety was not equal to their knowledge.

66

This exposition of the roman-catholic doctrine

* End of Controversy, Letter xxiv.

+ Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, c. xii. n. 6. + Ibid. c. ix.

respecting miracles has been often given. May I not ask, if it be either JUST or GENEROUS to harass the present catholics with the weaknesses of the antient writers of their communion; and to attempt to render their religion and themselves odious by these unceasing and offensive repetitions?

In a sermon, preached before queen Elizabeth, doctor Jewell," the learned, venerated, and autho"rized organ of the protestant church," as he is called by the bishop of St. David's, represented to her majesty, that "witches and sorcerers won"derfully increased;" that "her majesty's sub

jects pined away until death;" that "their "colours faded, their flesh rottened, their speech "was removed, and their senses bereft." In consequence of this representation, her majesty and the lords spiritual and temporal, in parliament assembled, made witchcraft felony. Numbers suffered upon it in that and subsequent reigns. What would a protestant think of a roman-catholic who should now revile the church of England, on account of this sermon, and the act of parliament which followed it; and should attempt to identify them with the actual doctrines of the established church? By parity of reason, may not a roman-catholic justly complain, when you bring forward the miserable story of St. Dunstan pinching the devil's nose, and other tales of this sort; and represent them as forming part of the faith or doctrines of the catholic church?

Surely it is time that this kind of contention should cease. If there must be controversy between