lowed as a matter of course, that the first teachers were commissioned to tell mankind what those revealed doctrines were. It also inevitably followed that wherever a miracle was proved to exist, the consequence would be the same. Thus the great difficulty which Paley had to encounter presented itself in the fact that the doctrines of Popery as he was pleased to call them, were supported by the very same evidence by which he established the truth of Christianity. And until he could get rid of this difficulty, Popery and Christianity must stand or fall together. From the earliest days of the Church, and through every age, Roman Catholics have constantly adduced this proof. We shall exhibit in our Church, miracles; the author of our religion has declared that miracles would continue amongst the believers in his revelation, therefore either the whole system of Christianity is a delusion; or we are the true believers.

The archdeacon takes the most compendious mode of evading the difficulty; for he never alludes to the declaration, and he boldly denies truth of the fact. Now if Mr. White had paid the least attention to his theological studies, he must have seen that the facts which archdeacon Paley denied were in several instances true, and that those whose truth might be denied had no influence or bearing on the question at issue. I shall exhibit to you those parts of Paley's dissertation to which I allude.

Part I, prop. ii, section 1: he states that he may omit as unworthy of examination so far as regards proof of doctrine "such accounts of supernatural events as are found only in histories by some ages posterior to the transaction, and of which it is evident the historian could know little more than his reader." With this principle I fully concur. Amongst the exemplifications, he classes "a great part of the legendary history of Popish saints, the very best attested of which is extracted from the certificates that are exhibited during the process of their canonization, a ceremony which seldom takes place till a century after their deaths." This is properly divisible into two parts, 1st, his general proposition: "a great part of the legendary history of Popish saints," has been written long after they died: and 2d, "the best attested miracles of those saints are extracted from certificates exhibited at their canonization, which seldom takes place till after the lapse of a century." Suppose I were to grant the truth of his first proposition its extent is only to a great part but not to the whole of his legendary history. Now if even any part of the history of miracles is true, it is true that miracles have been wrought in the Popish Church, and therefore Popery stands upon the same grounds as far as regards miracles, as does Christianity itself. The arch

deacon's argument will be perfectly valueless if he admits even one substantial miracle for Popery; because, if one miracle can be wrought in support of error, a miracle ceases to be an infallible test of truth; if a miracle be not an infallible evidence of truth, we have no certainty of the Christian doctrine being a divine revelation: the archdeacon dared not to assert openly that no one of the miracles wrought in the Popish Church was evident: but he used that stratagem, which must be the refuge of a bad cause; by equivocal and vague propositions, he endeavored to approximate insensibly to his menacing position.

His next assertion is an exhibition of disingenuity. He does not state an open falsehood, but he artfully constructs his sentence, so as to convey to the reader an untruth which he does not plainly write. A cursory view of his sentence would lead his reader to believe that the first time the certificate of the truth of miracles was submitted to public and solemn investigation, was not until a century after the alleged occurrence: that such an assertion was necessary to render his argument of any avail is plain, when we look to the principle, which asserts that proof to be insufficient which is only adduced ages posterior to the transaction. Now the archdeacon knew, and if Mr. White did not know he ought to have known, that the substantiated and sworn and sifted history was contained in the certificate drawn up at the time of the occurrence, although it was only produced at the process which preceded the canonization. If the certificate was the official attestation of the result of a public and strict inquiry, at the time and on the spot, where the transaction occurred, it became a history, whose true date was the period of its formation, not that of its production. As well might Doctor Paley be told "Sir, you ask me to believe the truth of a miraculous occurrence which you say took place eighteen centuries ago, you produce a book which contains the account: why did you not ask me to examine it in Judea at the time of its occurrence?" The doctor would answer, that the transactions testified were examined by competent witnesses at the time, and place, and that these books were the certificates which contained the result of the examination. Such is my answer to the doctor. By your looking to his phraseology, you will find he does not state that the certificate was framed during the process of canonization, but was exhibited at that time. Now the doctor's principle cannot bear upon the fact, if the certificate was "cotemporary history," for he distinguishes the proofs "which are found only in history by some ages posterior to the transaction," and which he deems insufficient, with what he calls sufficient, and what supported Christianity: this he describes [in the sentence] "ours is cotemporary history." If then the certificates which are exhibited be co

temporary history, Doctor Paley's reasoning is bad, and he is disingenuous. But the certificates are "cotemporary history," as I have shewn.

A plain principle of common sense and of common law is, that no person can testify any thing but what he has observed: a hearsay witness can only testify that an assertion has been made, but as several false assertions are made, our knowledge of the assertion is not knowledge of its truth. Thus a certificate of hear-say is no evidence: nor is a certificate of a fact evidence of the fact, unless in the same manner that history would be evidence thereof. It will be necessary to digress a little, by way of historical inquiry, in order to shew the value of Dr. Paley's assertion.

Roman Catholics believe that it is now equally in the power of God to work a miracle as it was at any former period, and if there exists evidence of a miracle having been performed at any time, it ought to be believed: the archdeacon himself will not object to this principle. Roman Catholics have regulated that the proper judges officially to examine and to decide upon the truth of the fact, and of its nature, are the Bishops, and those men of prudence and piety and science whom they may call upon. When miracles were said to have occurred, the Bishops, so aided, examined upon the spot, publicly, and proclaimed their judgment. The proofs required for the pious belief of any person's being a saint after death, were extraordinary sanctity of life, and repeated miracles performed, especially by occasion of the person, at or about or even after death. The Bishops after diligent inquiry upon the spot, at the time, frequently found those proofs, and publicly proclaimed their belief and judgment. It was complained of, that sometimes this examination was not as rigorous as it ought to have been, and precautions were taken to guard against partiality and precipitancy. By an ordinance of the Council of Trent, passed in the 25th session, on the 3d of December, 1563, the Bishops were directed to have as their council in the examination of alleged miracles, learned theologians, and other proper persons; and when they [have] made diligent inquisition by sworn witnesses, upon the spot: and those witnesses separately examined, and their depositions separately drawn up: and all hear-say excluded; no deposition. being allowed to contain any but direct testimony of what fell under the senses of the witness: and proper persons skilled in the natural philosophy having been consulted: if, upon a review of the whole case deliberately made, the Bishop should be satisfied of the truth of the facts and of their miraculous nature, he transmits a certified copy of the process and depositions to the Holy See for more full examination. In Rome, it is laid before the Congregation of Cardinals specially appointed for such examination, having attached to them one or more lawyers and phy

sicians, whose duty it is by the closest scrutiny to try whether there be any defect in the evidence as to the fact, or whether, the facts being admitted, their truth will admit of any explanation that will destroy their miraculous character. Should they pass this ordeal, the depositions are sealed up, and kept together with the certificates of the two tribunals, and at the end of fifty or of one hundred years, they are opened and laid, together with any additional evidence which might have been procured, for or against the facts, and examined with equal scrutiny by a tribunal of persons who without the heat of enthusiasm, the partiality of a former expression of opinion, or any other undue motive to sway them, now calmly review the two former examinations, hearing all the arguments of ingenious counsel against the facts, and having for their light the aid of any progress which might in the interval have been made in science, and they pronounce before God, as they will answer to him, a solemn final judgment upon the case. It is true then, as Doctor Paley wrote that "the very best attested of our Popish miracles are extracted from the certificates that are exhibited during the process of the canonization of our saints, a ceremony which seldom takes place till a century after their deaths," but it is not true as he insinuates, that those certificates are not "cotemporary history;" they are cotemporary history of the best kind. Thus the doctor taught falsehoods whilst he wrote disguised truth, and in the support of his second proposition of his first part, he has all through exhibited the most ingenious ability in the perversion of truth, to avoid a formidable difficulty.

I shall now examine a few of the special examples brought by Doctor Paley to illustrate his principle. He says the principle "applies also with considerable force to some of the miracles of the third century." To make his argument conclusive, he ought to have written all the miracles, for if any one of them is proved, the proof of that one will suffice: thus his disproving twenty would not destroy our position, provided we should succeed in proving the truth of even one, for we could argue thus, upon the doctor's own principle. The working of a miracle is evidence of God's commission for the revelation or the confirmation of truth. But here is the plain proof that a miracle has been wrought. Therefore, here is plain proof of God's testimony, for revelation or confirmation. Thus, although the proof of several might be defective, the proof of one will be sufficient. The archdeacon proceeds: "especially to one extraordinary instance, the account of Gregory, Bishop of Neocæsarea, called Thaumaturgus, delivered in the writings of Gregory of Nyssen, who lived one hundred and thirty years after the subject of his panegyric."

Now I would merely remark, that if the question was, whether upon

the evidence which we now possess, of the miracles wrought by the Bishop of Neocæsarea, taken in a sole and isolated way, we were called upon to determine the truth or falsehood of the doctrines of our Church, perhaps that proof would not be fully sufficient. But such is not the case: we do not claim that our doctrines are true because they are supported by the testimony of God manifested only in the miracles of this holy man and of others having no better proof. We will give them up, and also those of hundreds of others, and still we will have hundreds not liable to this objection, nor to any other objection of any weight: and upon those we will found one of our arguments, that if miracles prove the truth of Christianity, they also prove the truth of our Church.

But it will not be the loss of time to examine the archdeacon's assertions somewhat more closely.-1st. St. Gregory of Neocæsarea died in 271; Gregory of Nyssa was chosen Bishop of his see in 372, after having assisted his brother, St. Basil, who was Archbishop of Cæsarea; Basil was born in the year 329, between Basil and Gregory was a brother named Naucratius; probably Gregory was not less than forty years of age when he was chosen bishop; thus between the death of one Gregory and the birth of the other, there did not intervene half the period of one hundred and thirty years. The latter Gregory was born in Cæsarea of Cappadocia, between which place and Neocæsarea in Pontus there was no extraordinary distance: and his father's family were living in Pontus: Nyssa, not Nyssen, of which he was bishop, was in Cappadocia; thus between the time and place of the residence of Thaumaturgus and his panegyrist, there was no extraordinary distance. Gregory Thaumaturgus was no obscure personage. His parents were eminent for their rank and fortune in the city of Neocæsarea; they were not Christians; their daughter being married to the assistant governor of Cæsarea in Palestine, Gregory and his brother Athenodorus, went to stay with her for a time; they attended a famous school of Roman law in the neighborhood of Berytus, and were subsequently disciples of the famous Origen, during his sojourn in Cæsarea; Gregory also studied Platonic philosophy and physics at Alexandria in Egypt, and upon his return to Pontus, he not only was a Christian, but eminent for piety. Phedimus, archbishop of Amasea and metropolitan of Pontus, prevailed upon him to undertake the episcopal charge of his native city, in which there were only, as we are informed, seventeen believers. A vast number of miracles are said to have been wrought by him: and the public statements were, that their evidence was so great, that it was the principal cause of the conversion of the whole city and its vicinity. The fact of the conversion is not contested, nor is it contested, that the public testimony was, that the con