AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 459 



busied in building their dogmatic bouse on tbe sands of early 

 churcb bistory. If, as tbe Eomanists maintained, an unbroken 

 series of genuine miracles adorned tbe records of tbeir Cburcb, 

 tbrougbout tbe wbole of its existence, no Anglican could ligbtly 

 venture to accuse tbem of doctrinal corruption. Hence, tbe An- 

 glicans, wbo indulged in sucb accusations, were bound to prove 

 tbe modern, tbe mediaeval Roman, and tbe later patristic miracles 

 false ; and to sbut off tbe wonder-working power from tbe Cburcb 

 at tbe exact point of time wben Anglican doctrine ceased and 

 Roman doctrine began. With a little adjustment — a squeeze bere 

 and a pull tbere — tbe Cbristianity of tbe first tbree or four centu- 

 ries migbt be made to fit, or seem to fit, pretty well into tbe An- 

 glican scbeme. So tbe miracles, from Justin say to Jerome, migbt 

 be recognized ; wbile, in later times, tbe Cburcb baving become 

 " corrupt " — tbat is to say, baving pursued one and tbe same line 

 of development furtber tban was pleasing to Anglicans — its 

 alleged miracles must needs be sbams and impostures. 



Under tbese circumstances, it may be imagined tbat tbe estab- 

 lishment of a scientific frontier, between tbe earlier realm of sup- 

 posed fact and tbe later of asserted delusion, bad its difficulties ; 

 and torrents of tbeological special pleading about tbe subject 

 flowed from clerical pens ; until tbat learned and acute Anglican 

 divine, Conyers Middleton, in bis " Free Inquiry," tore tbe sophist- 

 ical web tbey bad laboriously woven to pieces, and demonstrated 

 tbat tbe miracles of tbe patristic age, early and late, must stand 

 or fall together, inasmuch as tbe evidence for tbe later is just as 

 good as the evidence for tbe earlier wonders. If the one set are 

 certified by contemporaneous witnesses of high repute, so are the 

 other ; and, in point of probability, there is not a pin to choose 

 between the two. That is the solid and irrefragable result of 

 Middleton's contribution to tbe subject. But the Free Inquirer's 

 freedom had its limits ; and he draws a sharp line of demar- 

 kation between the patristic and the New Testament miracles — on 

 the professed ground that the accounts of the latter, being in- 

 spired, are out of the reach of criticism. 



A century later, the question was taken up by another divine, 

 Middleton's equal in learning and acuteness, and far his superior 

 in subtlety and dialectic skill ; who, though an Anglican, scorned 

 the name of Protestant ; and, while yet a Churchman, made it his 

 business to parade, with infinite skill, the utter bollowness of the 

 arguments of those of his brother Churchmen who dreamed that 

 they could be both Anglicans and Protestants. The argument of 

 tbe " Essay on tbe Miracles recorded in the Ecclesiastical History 

 of the Early Ages," * by the present Roman cardinal, but then 



* I quote the first edition (1843). A second edition appeared in 18T0. Tract 85 of 

 the " Tracts for the Times " should be read with this " Essay." If I were called upon to 



