Koyov" And this voice which came from heaven we heard, being with him in the holy mount, and have the word of prophecy more sure." From which it is plain that the apostle declared not that the prophecy was surer than the miracle, but that in consequence of the miracle they had the prophecy more sure.* Finally, if it be asked why the primitive Christians appear to have laid comparatively little stress upon miraculous testimony, the answer is obvious; though, I cannot but think, a different one from that which Mr. English suggests; "It is a striking circumstance,' says he, "that the earliest apologists for Christianity laid little stress upon the miracles of its Found ́er;" and then adduces Justin, who flourished in the year 140, Jerome 392, Lactantius 306, Celsus 160, and Tertullian 200. In a question of such consequence, more fulness as well as method would have been acceptable. More sobriety too, and correctness in adducing these testimonies would have been becoming. "Justin Martyr," says he, "in his apology is very shy of appealing to the miracles of Jesus, in confirmation of his pretensions; he lays no stress upon them, but relies entirely upon the prophecies he quotes as in his favour." If the implication here is, as who cannot see that it is, that Justin did not insist upon the truth of the miraculous accounts, it is incorrect. If the implication is, that granting them to be true, • Middleton on the Greek Article, p. 338, Ed. Amer. Grounds of Christianity examined, p. 9. n. they did not affect the question of the pretensions of him, who wrought them, this also is erroneous. These are his words, which I cannot but regret that Mr. English did not give, rather than his own digest of their import a "But lest any one should object that nothing hinders but that he, whom we call Christ, being a man, and descended of men, wrought the miracles of which we speak, by magick art, and was held on that account the Son of God, I shall commence a demonstration, not upon the authority of contemporary witnesses, but of prophets, who foresaw events, the comple.. tion of which we have seen and see; a demonstration which as I think will appear most solid and true, even to yourselves."* There is also a passage in his dialogue with Trypho, which as Mr. English does not pro-duce it, may be given here. "Healing the deaf and lame, and opening the eyes of the blind, and raising the dead, he brought by the force of these miracles the men of that age to notice him. They indeed, seeing these things done, declared that it was by means of the magick art, and denounced him as a magician, and a seducer of the people."+ Now to use the words of Dr. Paley, who quotes also these passages, "this reason meets the very point of the objection." Whether Justin believed or not in the powers of demons Justini Apol. prim. Ed. Thirlbii, p. 48. and the arts of divination, it is of no consequence to inquire. Of course he did. This however is certain, that he shared the belief with all around him, and that it was a highly satisfactory reason for not insisting upon miraculous evidence. To what purpose would it have been to press the heathen with miracles, and make out from them a demonstration of the truth of Christianity, when the single reply that these were the arts of magicians, soothsayers, and impostors would have made their labour of no effect.* That the early apologists gave an historical testimony to the truth of the miracles is not only most certain, but it is all we need prove. The use they made of them concerns not us. We live in a different age, and can apply them in a different manner. Should it be asked whether this circumstance does not lessen the value of the testimony of the Christians and the assent of the heathens, to the reality of the miracles, because no pains would have been taken by either party to examine into the truth of miraculous accounts which, if true,would not decide the question of the claims of the religion, I answer, no; for though the truth of the miraculous accounts would not prove the truth of the religion, (to those who believed the power of demons,) yet the falsehood of these accounts would prove the falsehood of the religion. Men who should go forth into the world proclaiming a religion, and pretending miracles in its support, would, if it appeared that no. miracles had been wrought, be unanimously denounced as impostors. Therefore it was the interest of the Christians strictly to prove, and of the heathen strictly to scrutinize the truth of the miraculous accounts, as much as if no such ideas of the power of demons prevailed. Because, however little or great the force of the miracles as proofs of the gospel; they were a part of its historical facts, and so large a part, as that the truth of the gospel though it might not stand, would fall with them. Next to Justin of the second century, Mr.. English quotes Jerome, who lived in the fifth, to show that the earliest apologists laid little stress upon miracles. The error which he made of quoting the words of Porphyry as those of Jerome, who adduces them in his comment upon the eighty-first Psalm, is corrected in the letter to Mr. Cary.* But the correction is as hasty as the mistake. After mentioning the mistake, he says, "that he must therefore give up Jerome as favouring his opinion with regard to miracles." But the truth is, though Mr. English was so very careless as to give the words of Porphyry as Jerome's, this father does yet maintain, and in the context where the quotation from Porphyry stands, the very same opinion.† And this double error is a striking commendation of the excellence of a habit which some writers have neglected, that of looking at an authority before it is quoted. That Jerome acknowledged the reality of the miracles it would be an useless point indeed to labour. And his testimony to this is all we ask. Next Mr. English adduces Lactantius, Div. Inst. v. 3. "as seeing so little force in the mir *Letter to Mr. Cary, p. 126. †So popular a work as Farmer's ought to have been a protection from this mistake. He says, "And Jerome, or whoever is the author of the Breviary upon the Psalter, Apud Heiron, t. ii. 534, 335, makes no difficulty of allowing to Porphyry, that the magicians of Egypt, Appollonius, and an infinite number of other persons, wrought miracles. "Non est autem grande facere signa," seems to have been a principle common both to Porphyry and Jerome." Farmer, p. 80. acles of Christ exclusive of the prophecies, that he does not hesitate to affirm their utter inability to support the Christian religion by themselves." As I find no such passage as this in the work to which Mr. English refers; as he appeals to Huet in his letter to Mr. Cary for more of these testimonies, and his reference, Inst. v. 3. is that of Huet, in his demonstration, p. 339; it is fair to conclude that he meant to borrow it from him.* The reader will be surprised to find the following to be the real passage which Mr. English quotes: "Understand therefore, if you have any ingenuousness, that Christ is believed by us to be God, not merely because he wrought miracles, but because we see in him the fulfilment of all things foretold by the prophets.' And again," his divinity is believed not upon his own testimony, (for no man's testimony of himself avails,) but upon the testimony of the prophets, who foretold all which he did and suffered." It need hardly be said that the first of these passages sets forth no more than that miracles are not the only proof of Christ's divinity, and the second has nothing to do This is the passage of Huet, Aliter sentiebat Lactantius cum sic quendam Christianæ religionis adversarium alloquuitur. "Disce igitur si quid tibi cordis est non solum idcirco a nobis Deum creditum Christum quia mirabilia fecit, sed quia vidimus in eo facta esse omnia quæ nobis annuntiata sunt vaticinio prophetarum." Et rursus; "Non igitur suo testimonio (cui enim de se dicenti potest credi sed prophetarum testimonio, qui omnia quæ fecit ac passus est, multo ante cecinerant, fidem divinitatis accepit. Huet, Dem. Ev. p. 333. |