Martyrs, he makes this reflection upon it, that ́ "if the Author of the Introductory Difcourfe "would have understood those paffages of the Fathers, as they ought to be understood, with "this distinction, he would have spared his un"mannerly reflection. Because it might be "true, that miracles were then wrought by the Sa"craments, though it was not true, that any were "then wrought by the miniftry of living men, as in "the days of the Apoftles [1]." These polemic writers, if they can serve a present turn, and get rid of fome incidental difficulty in a debate, by any quibble of this fort, feldom look forward, or confider, what effect it may have on the main quæftion, or on Chriftianity itself. The prefent diftinction ferves to clear the Fathers from the charge of inconfiftency; and fo far it will be applauded by all the admirers of primitive antiquity; but it has not yet done half its work; for unless the reason, affigned by thofe Fathers, for the cellation of miracles, can be distinguished also away, they must be understood to be fpeaking of an universal ceffation, because, the Church, as they tell us, food no longer in need of them. But here indeed, our Obfervator's diftinction will do moft notable fervice for though the religion of the Gospel, after it had gained an establishment in the world, ftood no longer in need of miracles, wrought by the miniftry of living men, as in the days of the Apoftles, which were neceffary onely to the first [1] Obferv. p. 9. note. plantation plantation of it, yet the new rites and doctrines engrafted upon that Gofpel-religion, with regard to the Sacraments, the reliques of Saints, and Monks, &c. required new miracles of a different kind, to facilitate the establishment also of these; and fince living men were no longer indued with those extraordinary gifts, the inanimate part of the creation was now called up in judgement against the contemners of these rites; and the rotten bones and duft of the Martyrs; or a rag of their old cloaths; a drop of water, or oil; a bit of bread; the chip of an old Cross, or the figure of a new one; in short, every thing which had been touched by a Saint, or confecrated by a Prieft, began to work miracles, and continues to do fo, in the fame manner, from that time to this, through four parts in five of the whole Christian world. Thus we fee, what clear work our Observator's diftinction would make in the prefent quæstion. But there is one unhappy circumstance belonging to it, which he is not perhaps aware of, or willing at leaft to conceal, that it is contrary to fact, and the teftimony of those very Fathers, in whofe defence he now urges it. For though they speak much more frequently of miracles wrought by reliques, and the Sacraments, &c. than of any other kind, yet they speak likewise of several, which they attest to be wrought by boly Monks, then living; by the credit of which, they chiefly established the Monkifh order, though vile and contemptible in the judgement judgement of the wifer and better fort of the Christian laity in those very days. Again, Dr. M—— lays it down for a maxim, in the Introductory Difcourfe, that whenever any facred rite becomes the inftrument of real miracles, we ought to confider that rite, as confirmed by divine approbation: whence he infers, that if we admit the miracles of the fourth Century, we must admit the rites which thofe miracles confirmed, and thofe Fathers practifed. But here again, the Obfervator ftops us short with a distinction, without which, he says, that reafoning cannot be true [1]. The diftinction is this; "that mira ́"cles wrought by the reliques of the Martyrs, or "by the Sacraments, or by holy Monks, cannot "reasonably be interpreted to authorise any fu perftitious practice or doctrine, which pre"vailed in thofe times with regard to reliques, "or the Sacrament, or Monkery, unless there be "fome circumftance in them, which specifies "fuch an interpretation; for otherwise they "must be understood onely, to confirm that religion of the Gospel, for which thofe Martyrs died, and which thofe Monks profeffed." In the fupport of which diftinction, he spends two or three pages, with fome little fubtilty and refinement, but not a grain of sense in them; and ferving onely to illuftrate his own ignorance of the times, and the fubject too, of which he is talking. [1] Obferv. p. 8, 10. For For inftance; it was the principal devotion of the fourth Century, in all cafes of fickness or diftrefs, to fly to the tombs of the Martyrs; grounded on a general perfuafion, that by prostrating themselves before their réliques, and efpecially by touching them, they fhould find present cure and relief: and great numbers are affirmed by the Fathers, to have been cured in this manner of all forts of diseases, and several, to have been raifed even from the dead. Now let him diftinguish here, as much as he pleases, it is certain from the experience of all ages, that the atteftation and belief of fuch miraculous cures never had any other effect, or were understood to have any other meaning, than to imprint an opinion of a divine virtue in the reliques, and confequently, to authorise the worship which was paid to them which began to be paid, from the very moment in which they first began to work miracles, and was foon carried to that extravagance, with which we see it practised at this day, in the Church of Rome. The Obfervator however insists, that if God thinks fit, to work a cure by dead men's bones, it will not follow, that dead men or their bones ought to be worshiped [1]. But the fact is, that the worship of them did immediately follow, and has ever fince followed, and must for ever follow, the belief of fuch cures, to the utter confutation of his filly hypothefis. For in order to defend the authority of the Fathers, he first supposes it true, [1] Obferv. p. 10. that that miracles were really wrought by dead men's bones; and then, in contradiction to their authority, is forced to deny the ufe and end for which the fame Fathers declare them to have been wrought, and which, by the credit of those pretended miracles, gained an establishment through the whole Christian world: whereas the end for which they were wrought, and the effect which they have conftantly produced, ought to have convinced him, and every other Proteftant, that they were all mere fictions. For it is certain, though he does not seem to know it, that all the miracles of this kind were fufpected and contemned, from the very beginning, by the more difcreet and honeft part of the Clergy, who argued, "that figns and wonders "were proper indeed, for the converfion of Hea"thens and unbelievers, whose prejudices were "too ftrong to be over-ruled by the cool argu"ments of reafon; but that miracles wrought by reliques, within the Church and among the "faithful, were of no ufe to the advancement of "the Gospel, but tended to corrupt and debafe «it, by the introduction of paganish supersti"tions into the Chriftian worship [1]." Which controverfy began with the first relique-worship of thofe primitive ages, in the fame manner as it is carried on at this day, between the Proteftants and Papifts, yet the Obfervator fuppofes, that God might be working miracles all the while, by dead men's bones, without intending [1] Vid. Hieron. Op. Tom. IV. par. ii. p. 285. that |