Wesley Corpus

But to the point: let us see how you will set about it. Why, thus: 'The tongue' (as you justly though keenly observe) 'has generally been considered as absolutely necessary to the use of speech; so that to hear men talk without it might easily pass for a miracle in that credulous age. Yet there was always room to doubt whether there was anything miraculous in it or not. But we have an instance in the present century which clears up all our doubts and entirely decides the question: I mean the case of a girl, born without a tongue, who talked as easily and distinctly as if she had had one; an account of which is given in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences at Paris.' (Ibid.) 14. And can you really believe this, that a girl 'spoke distinctly and easily' without any tongue at all And after avowing this belief, do you gravely talk of other men's credulity I wonder that such a volunteer in faith should stagger at anything. Doubtless, were it related as natural only, not miraculous, you could believe that a man might see without eyes. Surely there is something very peculiar in this--something extraordinary, though not miraculous--that a man who is too wise to believe the Bible should believe everything but the Bible I should swallow any tale, so God be out of the question, though ever so improbable, ever so impossible! 15. 'I have now,' you say, 'thrown together all which I had collected for the support of my argument' (page 187); after a lame recapitulation of which, you add with an air of triumph and satisfaction: 'I wish the Fathers the ablest advocates which Popery itself can afford; for Protestantism, I am sure, can supply none whom they would choose to retain in their cause--none who can defend them without contradicting their own profession and disgracing their own character, or produce anything but what deserves to be laughed at rather than answered' (pages 188-9).