Essay II.  The Miracles of Early Ecclesiastical History,  Compared with those of Scripture,  as regards  Their Nature, Credibility, and Evidence

Chapter 1. Introduction

 1. S ACRED History is distinguished from Profane by the nature of the facts which enter into its composition, and which are not always such as occur in the ordinary course of things, but are extraordinary and divine. Miracles are its characteristic, whether it be viewed as biblical or ecclesiastical: as the history of a reign or dynasty more or less approximates to biography, as the history of a wandering tribe passes into romance or poetry, as a constitutional history borders on a philosophical dissertation, so the history of Religion is necessarily of a theological cast, and is occupied with the supernatural. It is a record of "the kingdom of heaven," a manifestation of the Hand of God; and, "the temple of God being opened," and "the ark of His testament," there are "lightnings and voices," the momentary yet recurring tokens of that conflict between good and evil, which is waging in the world of spirits from age to age. This supernatural agency, as far as it is really revealed to us, is from its very nature the most important of the characteristics of sacred history, and the mere rumour of its manifestation excites interest in consequence of the certainty of its existence. But since the miraculous statements which are presented to us are often not mere rumours or surmises, but in fact essential to the narrative, it is plain that to treat any such series of events, (for instance, the history of the Jews, or of the rise of Christianity, or of the Catholic Church,) without taking them into account, is to profess to write the annals of a reign, yet to be silent about the monarch, to overlook, as it were, his personal character and professed principles, his indirect influence and immediate acts.

 2. Among the subjects, then, which the history of the early centuries of Christianity brings before us, and which are apt more or less to startle those who with modern ideas commence the study of Church History generally, (such as the monastic rule, the honour paid to celibacy, and the belief in the power of the keys,) it seems right to bestow attention in the first place on the supernatural narratives which occur in the course of it, and of which various specimens will be found in any portion of it which a reader takes in hand. It will naturally suggest itself to him to form some judgment upon them, and a perplexity, perhaps a painful perplexity, may ensue from the difficulty of doing so. This being the case, it is inconsiderate and almost wanton to bring such subjects before him, without making at least the attempt to assist him in disposing of them. Accordingly, the following remarks have been written in discharge of a sort of duty which a work of Ecclesiastical History involves [ n. ], not indeed without a deep sense of the arduousness of such an essay, or of the incompleteness and other great defects of its execution, but at the same time, as the writer is bound to add, without any apology at all for discussing in his own way a subject which demands discussion, and which, if any other, is an open question in the English Church, and has only during the last century been viewed in a light which he believes to be both false in itself, and dangerous altogether to Revealed Religion.

 3. It may be advisable to state in the commencement the conclusions to which the remarks which follow will be found to tend; they are such as these: that Ecclesiastical Miracles, that is, Miracles posterior to the Apostolic age, are on the whole different in object, character, and evidence, from those of Scripture on the whole, so that the one series or family ought never to be confounded with the other; yet that the former are not therefore at once to be rejected; that there was no Age of Miracles, after which miracles ceased; that there have been at all times true miracles and false miracles, true accounts and false accounts; that no authoritative guide is supplied to us for drawing the line between the two; that some of the miracles reported were true miracles; that we cannot be certain how many were not true; and that under these circumstances the decision in particular cases is left to each individual, according to his opportunities of judging.

Notes

 [The occasion of this Essay was the publication of a portion of Fleury's Ecclesiastical History in English.]

 Chapter 2. On the Antecedent Probability of the Ecclesiastical Miracles

 4. A FACT is properly called "improbable," only when it has some quality or circumstance attached to it which operates to the disadvantage of evidence adduced in its behalf. We can scarcely avoid forming an opinion for or against any statement which meets us; we feel well-disposed towards some accounts or reports, averse from others, sometimes on no reason whatever beyond our accidental frame of mind at the moment, sometimes because the facts averred flatter or thwart our wishes, coincide or interfere with the view of things familiar to us, please or startle our imagination, or on other grounds equally vague and untrustworthy. Such anticipations about facts are as little blameable as the fancies which spontaneously rise in the mind about a person's stature and appearance before seeing him; and, like such fancies, they are dissipated at once when the real state of the case is in any way ascertained. They are simply notional; and form no presumption in reason, for or against the facts, or the evidence of the facts, to which they relate.

 5. An antecedent improbability, then, in certain facts, to be really such, must avail to prejudice the evidence which is offered in their behalf, and must be of a nature to diminish or destroy its force. Thus it is improbable, in the highest degree, that our friend should have done an act of fraud or injustice; and improbable again, but in a slight degree, that our next-door neighbour should have been highly promoted, or that he should have died suddenly. We do not acquiesce in any evidence whatever that comes to hand even for the latter occurrence, and in none but the very best for the former. Again, there is a general improbability attaching to the notion that the members of certain sects or of certain political parties should commit themselves to this or that cast of opinions, or line of conduct; and, on the other hand, though there is no general improbability that individuals of the poorest class should make large fortunes, yet a strong probability may lie against certain given persons of that class in particular.

 6. Now it may be asserted that there is no presumption whatever against miracles generally in the ages after the Apostles, though there may be and is a certain antecedent improbability in this or that particular miracle.

 There is no presumption against Ecclesiastical Miracles generally, because inspiration has stood the brunt of any such antecedent objection, whatever it be worth, by its own supernatural histories, and in establishing their certainty in fact, has disproved their impossibility in the abstract. If miracles are antecedently improbable, it is either from want of a cause to which they may be referred, or of experience of similar events in other times and places. What neither has been before, nor can be attributed to an existing cause, is not to be expected, or is improbable. But Ecclesiastical Miracles are occurrences not without a parallel; for they follow upon Apostolic Miracles, and they are referable to the Author of the Apostolic as an All-sufficient Cause. Whatever be the regularity and stability of nature, interference with it can be, because it has been; there is One who both has power over His own work, and who before now has not been unwilling to exercise it. In this point of view, then, Ecclesiastical Miracles are more advantageously circumstanced than those of Scripture.

 7. What has happened once, may happen again; the force of the presumption against Miracles lies in the opinion entertained of the inviolability of nature, to which the Creator seems to "have given a law which shall not be broken." When once that law is shown to be but general, not necessary, and (if the word may be used) when its prestige is once destroyed, there is nothing to shock the imagination in a miraculous interference twice or thrice, as well as once. What never has yet happened is improbable in a sense quite distinct from that in which a thing is improbable which has before now happened; the improbability of the latter class of facts may be greater or less, it may be very great; but whatever the strength of the improbability, it is different in kind from the improbability attaching to such as admit of being called impossible by those who reject them.

 8. It may be urged in reply, that the precedent of Scripture is no special recommendation of Ecclesiastical Miracles; for the abstract argument against miracles, as such, has little or no force, as soon as the mere doctrine of a Creator and Supreme Governor is admitted, and even prior to any reference to inspired history; that there is no question among religious men of the existence of a Cause adequate to the production of miracles anywhere or at any period; the question rather is whether He will work them; whether the Ecclesiastical Miracles themselves, being what and when they were, are probable, not whether there is a general presumption against them all simply as miracles ; on the other hand, that while the Scripture Miracles avail little as a precedent for subsequent miracles, as miracles, for no precedent is wanted, they do actually tend to discredit them, as being subsequent, for from the nature of the case irregularities can be but rarely allowed in any system. It is at first sight not to be expected that the Author of nature should interrupt His own harmonious order at all, though He is powerful to do so; and therefore the fact of His having done so once makes it only less probable that He will do so again. Moreover, if any recurrence of miraculous action is to be anticipated, it is the recurrence of a similar action, not a manifestation of power, ever so different from it; whereas the miracles of the ages subsequent to the Apostles are on the whole so very unlike those of which we read in Scripture, in their object, circumstances, nature, and evidence, as even to be disproved by the very contrast. This is what may be objected.

 9. Now as far as this representation involves the discussion of the special character and circumstances of the Ecclesiastical Miracles, it will come under consideration in the next Chapter; here we are only engaged with the abstract question, whether the fact that miracles have once occurred, and that under certain circumstances and with certain characteristics, does or does not prejudice a proof when offered, of their having occurred again, and that under other circumstances and with other characteristics.

 10. On this point many writers have expressed opinions which it is difficult to justify. Thus Bishop Warburton, in the course of some excellent remarks on the Christian miracles, is led to propose a certain test of true miracles, founded on their professed object, and suggests that this will furnish us with means of drawing the line of supernatural agency in the early Church. "If [the final cause ]," he says, "be so important as to make the miracle necessary to the ends of the dispensation, this is all that can be reasonably required to entitle it to our belief;" so far he is vindicating the Apostolic Miracles, and his reasoning is unexceptionable; but he adds in a note, "Here, by the way, let me observe, that what is now said gives that criterion which Dr. Middleton and his opponents, in a late controversy concerning miracles, demanded of one another, and which yet both parties, for some reasons or other, declined to give; namely, some certain mark to enable men to distinguish, for all the purposes of religion, between true and certain miracles, and those which were false or doubtful." [n. 1 ] He begins by saying that miracles which subserve a certain object deserve our consideration, he ends by saying that those which do not subserve it do not deserve our consideration, and he makes himself the judge whether they subserve it or not.

 11. Bishop Douglas, too, after observing that the miracles of the second and third centuries have a character less clearly supernatural and an evidence less cogent than those of the New Testament, and that the fourth and fifth are "ages of credulity and superstition," and the miracles which belong to them are "wild and ridiculous," proceeds to lay down a decisive criterion between true miracles and their counterfeits, and this criterion he considers to be the gift of inspiration in their professed workers. "Though it may be a matter more of curiosity than of use, to endeavour to determine the exact time when miraculous powers were withdrawn from the Church, yet I think that it may be determined with some degree of exactness . The various opinions of learned Protestants, who have extended them at all after the Apostles, show how much they have been at a loss with regard to this, which has been urged by Papists with an air of triumph, as if, Protestants not being able to agree when the age of miracles was closed, this were an argument of its not being closed as yet. If there be anything in this objection, though perhaps there is not, I think I have it in my power to obviate it, by fixing upon a period, beyond which we may be certain that miraculous powers did not subsist." Then he refers to his argument in favour of the New Testament miracles, that "what we know of the attributes of the Deity, and of the usual methods of His government, inclines us to believe that miracles will never be performed by the agency and instrumentality of men, but when these men are set apart and chosen by God to be His ambassadors, as it were, to the world, to deliver some message or to preach some doctrine as a law from heaven; and in this case their being vested with a power of working miracles is the best credential of the divinity of their mission." So far, as Warburton, this author keeps within bounds; but next he proceeds, as Warburton also, to extend his argument from a defence of what is true to a test of what is false. "If we set out with this as a principle, then shall we easily determine when it was that miracles ceased to be performed by Christians; for we shall be led to conclude that the age of Christian miracles must have ceased with the age of Christian inspiration. So long as Heaven thought proper to set apart any particular set of men to be the authorized preachers of the new religion revealed to mankind, so long, may we rest satisfied, miraculous powers were continued. But whenever this purpose was answered, and inspiration ceased to be any longer necessary, by the complete publication of the Gospel, then would the miraculous powers, whose end was to prove the truth of inspiration, be of course withdrawn." [n. 2 ]

 12. Here he determines à priori in the most positive manner the "end" or object of miracles in the designs of Providence. That it is very natural and quite consistent with humility to form antecedent notions of what is likely and what not likely, as in other matters, so as regards the Divine dealings with us, has been implied above; but it is neither reverent nor philosophical in a writer to "think he has it in his power" to dispense with good evidence in behalf of what professes to be a work of God, by means of a summary criterion of his own framing. His very mode of speech, as well as his procedure, reminds us of Hume, who in like manner, when engaged in invalidating the evidence for all miracles whatever, observes that "nothing is so convenient as a decisive argument," (such as Archbishop Tillotson's against the Real Presence,) "which must at least silence the most arrogant bigotry and superstition, and free us from their impertinent solicitations," and then " flatters himself that he has discovered an argument of a like nature, which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and, consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures."

 13. It is observable that in another place Douglas had said, that "though we may be certain that God will never reverse the course of nature but for important ends, (the course of nature being the plan of government laid down by Himself,) Infinite Wisdom may see ends highly worthy of a miraculous interposition, the importance of which may lie hid front our shallow comprehension . Were, therefore, the miracles, about the credibility of which we now dispute, events brought about by invisible agency, though our being able to discover an important end served by a miracle would be no weak additional motive to our believing it; yet our not being able to discover any such end could be no motive to induce us to reject it, if the testimony produced to confirm it be unexceptionable." [n. 3 ] The author is here speaking of the miracles of the Old and New Testaments, which he believes; and, like a religious man, he feels, contrariwise to Hume, that it is not "convenient," but dangerous, to allow of an antecedent test, which, for what he knows, and before he is aware, may be applied in disproof of one or other instance of those gracious manifestations. But it is far otherwise when he comes to speak of Ecclesiastical Miracles, which he begins with disbelieving without much regard to their evidence, and is engaged, not in examining or confuting, but in burdening with some test or criterion which may avail, in Hume's words, "to silence bigotry and superstition, and to free us from their impertinent solicitations." He acts towards the miracles of the Church, as Hume towards the miracles of Scripture.

 14. And surely with less reason than Hume, from a consideration already suggested; because, in being a believer in the miracles of Scripture, he deprives himself of that strong antecedent ground against all miracles whatever, both Scriptural and Ecclesiastical, on which Hume took his stand. Allowing, as he is obliged to allow, that the ecclesiastical miracles are possible, because the Scripture miracles are true, he rejects ecclesiastical miracles as not subserving the object which he arbitrarily assigns for miracles under the Gospel, while he protects the miracles of Scripture by the cautious proviso, that "Infinite Wisdom may see ends" for an interposition, "the importance of which may lie hid from our shallow comprehension." Yet it is a fairer argument against miraculous agency in a particular instance, before it is known in any case to have been employed, that its object is apparently unimportant, than after such agency has once been manifested. What has been introduced for greater ends may, when once introduced, be made subservient to secondary ones. Parallel cases are of daily occurrence in matters of this world; and if it is allowable, as it is generally understood to be, to argue from final causes in behalf of the being of a God that is, to apply the analogy of a human framer and work to the relation subsisting between the physical world and a Creator surely it is allowable also to illustrate the course of Divine Providence and Governance by the methods and procedures of human agents. Now, nothing is more common in scientific and social arrangements than that works begun for one purpose should, in the course of operation, be made subservient, as a matter of course, to lesser ones. A mechanical contrivance or a political organization is continued for secondary objects, when the primary has been attained; and thus miracles begun either for Warburton's object or Douglas's may be continued for others, "the importance of which," in the language of the latter, "may lie hid from our shallow comprehension."

 15. Hume judges of professedly Divine acts by experience ; Bishops Warburton and Douglas by the probable objects which a Divine Agent must pursue. Both parties draw extravagant conclusions, and that unphilosophically; but surely we know much less of the designs and purposes of Divine Providence, on which Warburton and Douglas insist, than we know of that physical course of things on which Hume takes his stand. Facts actually come before us; the All-wise Mind is hidden from us. We have a right to form anticipations about facts; we may not, except very reverently and humbly, attempt to trace, and we dare not prescribe, the rules on which Providence conducts the government of the world. The Apostle warns us, "Who hath known the mind of the Lord? and who hath been His counsellor?" And surely, a fresh or additional object in the course of Providence presents a less startling difficulty to the mind than an interposition in the laws of nature. If we conquer our indisposition towards the news of such an interposition by reflecting on the Sovereignty of the Creator, let us not be religious by halves, let us submit our imaginations to the full idea of that inscrutable Sovereignty, nor presume to confine it within bounds narrower than are prescribed by His own attributes.

 16. This, then, is the proper answer to the objection urged against the post-apostolic miracles, on the ground that the first occurrence of miracles does in itself discredit their recurrence, and that the miracles subsequent to those of Scripture differ, in fact, from the Scripture miracles in their objects and circumstances. The ordinary Providence of God is conducted upon a system ; and as even the act of creation is now contemplated by some philosophers as possibly subject to law, so it is more probable than not that there is also a law of supernatural manifestations. And thus the occurrence of miracles is rather a presumption for than against their recurrence; such events being not isolated acts, but the indications of the presence of an agency. And again, since every system consists of parts varying in importance and value, so also as regards a dispensation of miracles, "God hath set every one of them in the body as it hath pleased Him;" and even "those members which seem to be more feeble" and less "comely" are "necessary," and are sustained by their fellowship with the more honourable.

 17. It may be added that Scripture, as in Mark xvi. 17, 18, certainly does give a primâ facie countenance to the idea that miracles are a privilege accorded to true believers, and that where is faith, there will be the manifested signs of its invisible Author. Hence it was the opinion of Grotius [n. 4 ], who is here quoted from his connection with English Theology, and of Barrow, Dodwell, and others, that miracles are at least to be expected as attendants on the labours of Missionaries. Now this Scripture intimation, whether fainter or stronger, does, as far as it goes, add to the presumption in favour of the miracles of ecclesiastical history, by authoritatively assigning them a place in the scheme of Christianity. But this subject, as well as others touched upon in this Chapter, will more distinctly come into review in those which follow.

Notes

 1. Div. Leg. ix. 5.

 2. Pp. 239-241, Edit. 4.

 3. Page 217.

 4. On Mark xvi. 17, Grotius avows his belief in the continuance of a miraculous agency down to this day. He illustrates that text from St. Justin, St. Irenæus, Origen, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, and Lactantius, as regards the power of exorcism, and refers to the acts of Victor of Cilicia in the Martyrology of Ado, and to the history of Sabinus, Bishop of Canusium, in Greg. Turon., for instances of miraculous protection against poison. As to missions, he asserts that the presence of miraculous agency is even a test whether the doctrine preached is Christ's. "Si quis etiam nunc gentibus Christi ignaris, (illis enim proprie miracula inserviunt, 1 Cor. xiv. 22), ita ut ipse annunciari voluit, annunciat, promissionis vim duraturam arbitror. Sunt enim [ ametamel e ta tou theou d o ra ]. Sed nos, cujus rei culpa est in nostra ignaviâ aut diffidentiâ, id solemus in Deum rejicere." Elsewhere he professes his belief in the miracle wrought upon the Confessors under Hunneric, who spoke after their tongues were cut out; and in the ordeals of hot iron in the middle ages (De Verit. i. 17); and in the miracles wrought at the tombs of the Martyrs. Ibid. iii. 7, fin. Vide also De Antichr. p. 502, col. 2.

 Chapter 3. On the Internal Character of the Ecclesiastical Miracles

 18. T HE miracles wrought in times subsequent to the Apostles are of a very different character, viewed as a whole, from those of Scripture viewed as a whole; so much so, that some writers have not scrupled to say that, if they really took place, they must be considered as forming another dispensation [n. 1 ]; and at least they are in some sense supplementary to the Apostolic. This will be evident both on a survey of some of them, and by referring to the language used by the Fathers of the Church concerning them.

 1.

 19. The Scripture miracles are for the most part evidence of a Divine Revelation, and that for the sake of those who have not yet been instructed in it, and in order to the instruction of multitudes: but the miracles which follow have sometimes no discoverable or direct object, or but a slight object; they happen for the sake of individuals, and of those who are already Christians, or for purposes already effected, as far as we can judge, by the miracles of Scripture. The Scripture miracles are wrought by persons consciously exercising under Divine guidance a power committed to them for definite ends, professing to be immediate messengers from heaven, and to be evidencing their mission by their miracles: whereas Ecclesiastical miracles are not so much wrought as displayed, being effected by Divine Power without any visible media of operation at all, or by inanimate or material media, as relics and shrines, or by instruments who did not know at the time what they were effecting, or, if they were hoping and praying for such supernatural blessing, at least did not know when they were to be used as instruments, when not. The miracles of Scripture are, as a whole, grave, simple, and majestic: those of Ecclesiastical History often partake of what may not unfitly be called a romantic character, and of that wildness and inequality which enters into the notion of romance. The miracles of Scripture are undeniably beyond nature: those of Ecclesiastical History are often scarcely more than extraordinary accidents or coincidences, or events which seem to betray exaggerations or errors in the statement. The miracles of Scripture are definite and whole transactions, drawn out and carried through from first to last, with beginning and ending, clear, complete, and compact in the narrative, separated from extraneous matter, and consigned to authentic statements: whereas the Ecclesiastical, for the most part, are not contained in any authoritative form or original document; at best they need to be extracted from merely historical works, and often are only floating rumours, popular traditions, vague, various, inconsistent in detail, tales which only happen to have survived, or which in the course of years obtained a permanent place in local usages or in particular rites or on certain spots, recorded at a distance from the time and country when and where they profess to have occurred, and brought into shape only by the juxta-position and comparison of distinct informations. Moreover, in Ecclesiastical History true and false miracles are mixed: whereas in Scripture inspiration has selected the true to the exclusion of all others.

 2.

 20. The peculiarity of these miracles, as far as their nature and character are concerned, which is the subject immediately before us at present, will be best understood by an enumeration of some of them, taken almost at random, in the order in which they occur in the authors who report them.

 The Life of St. Gregory of Neocæsarea in Pontus ( A.D . 250), is written by his namesake of Nyssa, who lived about 120 years after him, and who, being a native and inhabitant of the same country, wrote from the traditions extant in it. He is called Thaumaturgus, from the miraculous gift ascribed to him, and it is not unimportant to observe that he was the original Apostle of the heathen among whom he was placed. He found at first but seventeen Christians in his diocese, and he was the instrument of converting the whole population both of town and country. St. Basil ( A.D . 370), whose see was in the neighbourhood, states this circumstance, and adds, "Great is the admiration which still attends on him among the people of that country, and his memory resides in the Churches new and ever fresh, impaired by no length of time. And therefore no usage, no word, no mystic rite of any sort, have they added to the Church beyond those which he left. Hence many of their observances seem imperfect, on account of the ancient manner in which they are conducted. For his successors in the government of the Churches did not endure the introduction of anything which has been brought into use since his date." [n. 2 ]

 21. St. Gregory of Nyssa tells us that, when he was first coming into his heathen and idolatrous diocese, being overtaken by night and rain, he was obliged, with his companions, to seek refuge in a temple which was famous for its oracles. On entering he invoked the name of Christ, and made the sign of the cross, and continued till morning in prayer and psalmody, as was his custom. He then went forward, but was pursued by the Priest of the temple, who threatened to bring him before the magistrates, as having driven the evil spirit from the building, who was unable to return. Gregory tore off a small portion of the book he had with him, and wrote on it the words, "Satan, enter." The Priest, on returning, finding that the permission took effect as well as the former prohibition, came to him a second time, and asked to be instructed about that God who had such power over the demons. Gregory unfolded to him the mystery of the Incarnation; and the pagan, stumbling at it, asked to see a miracle. Nyssen, who has spoken all along as relating the popular account, now says that he has to relate what is "of all the most incredible." A stone of great size lay before them; the Priest asked that it might be made to move by Gregory's faith, and Gregory wrought the miracle. This was followed by the Priest's conversion, but not as an isolated event; for, on his entry into the city, all the inhabitants went out to meet him, and enough were converted on the first day by his preaching to form a church. In no long time he was in a condition to call upon his flock to build a place of worship, the first public Christian edifice on record; which remained to Nyssen's time, in spite of the serious earthquakes which had visited the city.

 22. St. Gregory's fame extended into the neighbouring districts, and secular causes were brought for his determination. Among those who came to him were two brothers, who had come into their father's large property, and litigated about the possession of a lake which formed part of it. When his efforts to accommodate their difference failed, and the disputants, being strong in adherents and dependants, were even proceeding to decide the matter by force of arms, Gregory the day before the engagement betook himself to the lake, and passed the night there in prayer. The lake was dried up, and in Nyssen's time its bed was covered with woods, pasture and corn land, and dwellings. Another miracle is attributed to him of a similar character. A large and violent stream, which was fed by the mountains of Armenia, from time to time broke through the mounds which were erected along its course in the flat country, and flooded the whole plain. The inhabitants, who were heathen, having heard the fame of Gregory's miracles, made application to him for relief. He journeyed on foot to the place, and stationed himself at the very opening which the stream had made in the mound. Then invoking Christ, he took his staff, and fixed it in the mud; and then returned home. The staff budded, grew, and became a tree, and the stream never passed it henceforth: since it was planted by Gregory at the very time when the mound had burst, and was appealed to by the inhabitants [n. 3 ], who were converted in consequence, and was still living in Nyssen's time, it became a sort of monument of the miracle. On one of his journeys two Jews attempted to deceive him; the one lay down as if dead, and the other pretended to lament him, and asked alms of Gregory for a shroud. Gregory threw his garment upon him, and walked on. His companion called on him to rise, but found him really dead. One day when he was preaching, a boy cried out that some one else was standing by Gregory, and speaking instead of him; at the end of the discourse Gregory observed to the bystanders that the boy was possessed, and taking off the covering which was on his own shoulders, breathed on it, and cast it on the youth, who forthwith showed all the usual symptoms of demoniacs. He then put his hand on him, and his agitation ceased, and his delusion with it.

 23. Now, concerning these and similar accounts, it is obvious to remark, on the one hand, that the alleged miracles were wrought in order to the conversion of idolaters; on the other hand, when we read of stones changing their places, rivers restrained, and lakes dried up, and, at the same time, of buildings remaining in spite of earthquakes, we are reminded, as in the case of the Scripture miracle upon the cities of the plain, that a volcanic country is in question, in which such phenomena are to a great extent coincident with the course of nature. It may be added, that the biographer not only is frequent in the phrases "it is said," "it is still reported," but he assigns as a reason for not relating more of St. Gregory's miracles, that he may be taxing the belief of his readers more than is fitting, and he throughout writes in a tone of apology as well as of panegyric.

 24. Next, let us turn to St. Athanasius's biographical notice of St. Antony, who began the solitary life A.D . 270. Athanasius knew him personally, and writes whatever he was able to learn from himself; for "I followed him," he says, "no small time, and poured water upon his hands;" and he adds, that "everywhere he has had an anxious regard to truth." The following are some of the supernatural or extraordinary portions of his narrative. He relates that the enemy of souls appeared to Antony, first like a woman, then like a black child, when he confessed himself to be the spirit of lewdness, and to have been vanquished by the young hermit. Afterwards, when he was passing the night in the tombs, he was attacked by evil spirits, and so severely stricken that he lay speechless till a friend found him next day [n. 4 ]. When he was on his first journey into the desert, a large plate of silver lay in his way; he soliloquized thus, "Whence this in the desert? This is no beaten path, no track of travellers; it is too large to be dropped without being missed; or if dropped, it would have been sought after and found, for there is no one else to take it. This is a snare of the devil; thou shalt not, O devil, hinder thus my earnest purpose; unto perdition be it with thee!" As he spoke, the plate vanished. He exhorted his friends not to fear the evil spirits: "They conjure up phantoms to terrify cowards; but sign yourselves with the cross, and go forth in confidence." "Once there appeared to me," he says, on another occasion, "a spirit very tall, with a great show, and presumed to say, 'I am the Power of God,' and 'I am Providence; what favour shall I do thee?' But I the rather spit upon him, naming the Christ, and essayed to strike him, and I think I did; and straightway this great personage vanished with all his spirits at Christ's name. Once he came, the crafty one, when I was fasting, and as a Monk, with the appearance of loaves, and bade me eat: 'Eat, and have over thy many pains; thou too art a man, and art like to be sick;' I, perceiving his craft, rose up to pray. He could not bear it, but vanished through the door, like smoke. Listen to another thing, and that securely and fearlessly; and trust me, for I lie not. One time some one knocked at my door in the monastery; I went out, and saw a person tall and high. 'Who art thou?' says I; he answers, 'I am Satan.' Then I asked, 'Why art thou here?' He says, 'Why do the Monks, and all other Christians, so unjustly blame me? Why do they curse me hourly?' 'Why troublest thou them?' I rejoin. He, 'I trouble them not; they harass themselves; I have become weak. I have no place left, no weapon, no city. Christians are now everywhere; at last even the desert is filled with Monks. Let them attend to themselves, and not curse me, when they should not.' Then I said to him, admiring the grace of the Lord, 'A true word against thy will, who art ever a liar, and never speakest truth; for Christ hath come and made thee weak, and overthrown thee and stripped thee.' At the Saviour's name he vanished; it burned him, and he could not bear it."

 25. Once, when travelling to some brethren across the desert, water failed them; they sat down in despair, and let the camel wander. Antony knelt down and spread out his hands in prayer, when a spring of water burst from the place where he was praying. A person came to him, who was afflicted with madness or epilepsy, and begged his prayers; he prayed for him, and then said, "Go, and be healed." The man refusing to go, Antony said, "If thou remainest here, thou canst not be healed; but go to Egypt, and thy cure shall be wrought in thee." He believed, went, and was cured as soon as he got sight of Egypt. At another time he was made aware that two brothers were overtaken in the desert by want of water; that one was dead, and the other dying; he sent two Monks, who buried the one and restored the other. Once, on entering a vessel, he complained of a most loathsome stench; the boatmen said that there was fish in it, but without satisfying Antony, when suddenly a cry was heard from a youth on board, who was possessed by a spirit. Antony used the name of our Lord, and the sick person was restored. St. Athanasius relates a similar instance of Antony's power, which took place in his presence. When the old man left Alexandria, whither he had gone to assist the Church against the Arians, Athanasius accompanied him as far as the gate. A woman cried after him, "Stop, thou man of God; my daughter is miserably troubled by a spirit." Athanasius besought him too, and he turned round. The girl, in a fit, lay on the ground; but on Antony praying, and naming the name of Christ, she rose restored. It should be observed, that Alexandria was at this time still in a great measure a heathen city. Athanasius says that, while Antony was there, as many became Christians in a few days as were commonly converted in the course of the year. This fact is important, not only as showing us the purpose which his miracles answered, but as informing us by implication that pretensions such as Antony's were not of every day's occurrence then, but arrested attention and curiosity at the time.

 26. We have a similar proof of the comparative rareness of such miraculous power in St. Jerome's Life of Hilarion. When the latter visited Sicily, one of his disciples, who was seeking him, heard in Greece from a Jew that "a Prophet of the Christians had appeared in Sicily, and was doing so many miracles and signs, that men thought him one of the old Saints." Hilarion was the first solitary in Palestine, and a disciple of St. Antony. St. Jerome enumerates various miracles which were wrought by him, such as his giving sight to a woman who had been ten years blind, restoring a paralytic, procuring rain by his prayers, healing the bites of serpents with consecrated oil, curing a dropsy, curbing the violence of the sea upon a shore, exorcising the possessed, and among these a camel which had killed many persons in its fury. When he was solemnly buried, ten months after his death, his Monk's dress was quite whole upon him, and his body was entire as if he had been alive, and sent forth a most exquisite fragrance.

 27. Sulpicius gives us an account of his master St. Martin's miracles, which encountered much incredulity when he first published it. "I am shocked to say what I lately heard," says his friend to him in his Dialogues; "but an unhappy man has asserted that you tell many lies in your book." As St. Martin was the Apostle of Gaul, the purpose effected by his miracles is equally clear and sufficient, as in the instance of Thaumaturgus; and they are even more extraordinary and startling than his. Sulpicius in his Dialogues solemnly appeals to our Lord that he has stated nothing but what he saw himself, or knew, if not on St. Martin's own word, at least on sure testimony. He also appeals to living witnesses. The following are instances taken from the first of his two works.

 28. Before Martin was a Bishop, while he was near St. Hilary at Poictiers, a certain Catechumen, who lived in his monastery, died of a fever, in Martin's absence, without baptism. On his return, the Saint went by himself into the cell where the body lay, threw himself upon it, prayed, and then raising himself with his eyes fixed on it, patiently waited his restoration, which took place before the end of two hours. The man, thus miraculously brought to life, lived many years, and was known to Sulpicius, though not till after the miracle. At the same period of his life he also restored a servant in a family, who had hung himself, and in the same way. Near Tours, which was his See, a certain spot was commonly considered to be the tomb of Martyrs, and former Bishops had placed an altar there. No name or time was known, and Martin found reason to suspect that the tradition was unfounded. For a while he remained undecided, as being afraid of encouraging either superstition or irreverence; at length he went to the tomb, and prayed to Christ to be told who was buried there, and what his character. On this a dismal shade appeared, who, on being commanded to speak, confessed that he was a robber who had been executed for his crimes, and was in punishment. Martin's attendants heard the voice, but saw nothing. Once, when he was on a journey, he saw at a distance a heathen funeral procession, and mistook it for some idolatrous ceremonial, the country people of Gaul being in the practice of carrying their gods about their fields. He made the sign of the cross, and bade them stop and set down the body; this they were constrained to do. When he discovered their real business, he suffered them to proceed. At another time, on his giving orders for cutting down a pine to which idolatrous honour was paid, a heathen said, "If thou hast confidence in thy God, let us hew the tree, and do thou receive it as it falls; if thy Lord is with thee, thou wilt escape harm." Martin accepted the condition, and when the tree was falling upon him, made the sign of the cross; the tree reeled round and fell on the other side. This miracle converted the vast multitude who were spectators of it [n. 5 ]. About the same time, when he had set on fire a heathen temple, the flames spread to a house which joined it. Martin mounted on to the roof of the building that was in peril, and by his presence warned off the fire, and obliged it to confine itself to the work intended for it. At Paris a leper was stationed at the gate of the city; Martin went up and kissed and blessed him, and his leprosy disappeared.

 29. St. Augustine, again, enumerates at the end of his De civitate Dei, certain miracles which he himself had witnessed, or had on good authority, such as these. An actor of the town of Curulis was cured of the paralysis in the act of baptism; this Augustine knew, on what he considered the best authority. A person known to Augustine, who had received earth from the Holy Sepulchre, asked him and another Bishop to place it in some oratory for the profit of worshippers. They did so, and a country youth, who was paralytic, hearing of it, asked to be carried to the spot. After praying there, he found himself recovered, and walked home. By the relics of St. Stephen one man was cured of a fistula, another of the stone, another of the gout; a child who had been crushed to death by a wheel was restored to life; also a nun, by means of a garment which had been taken to his shrine and thrown over her corpse; and another female by the same means; and another by the oil used at the shrine; and a dead infant who was brought to it. In less than two years even the formal statements given in of miracles wrought at St. Stephen's shrine at Hippo were almost seventy.

 3.

 30. These miracles are recorded by writers of the fourth century, though they belong, in one case wholly, in another partially, to the history of the third. When we turn to earlier writers, we find similar assertions of the presence of a miraculous agency in the Church, and its manifestations have the same general character. Exorcisms, cures, visions, are the chief miracles of the fourth century; and they are equally so of the second and third, so that the former have a natural claim to be considered the continuation of the latter. But there are these very important differences between the two, that the accounts in the fourth century are much more in detail than those of the second and third, which are commonly vague and general; and next, that in the second and third those kinds of miraculous operations which are the most decisive proofs of a supernatural presence are but sparingly or scarcely mentioned.

 31. Middleton's enumeration of these primitive miracles, which on the whole may be considered to be correct, is as follows: "The power of raising the dead, of healing the sick, of casting out devils, of prophesying, of seeing visions, of discovering the secrets of men, of expounding the Scriptures, of speaking with tongues." [n. 6 ] Of these the only two which are in their nature distinctly miraculous are the first and last; and for both of these we depend mainly on the testimony of St. Irenæus, who lived immediately after the Apostolical Fathers, that is, close upon the period when even modern writers are disposed to allow that miracles were wrought in the Church. Douglas observes, "If we except the testimonies of Papias and Irenæus, who speak of raising the dead, and I can find no instances of miracles mentioned by the Fathers before the fourth century, as what were performed by Christians in their times, but the cures of diseases, particularly the cures of demoniacs, by exorcising them; which last indeed seems to be their favourite standing miracle, and the only one which I find (after having turned over their writings carefully, and with a view to this point,) they challenged their adversaries to come and see them perform." [n. 7 ]

 32. It must be observed, however, that though certain occurrences are in their character more miraculous than others, yet that a miracle of degree may, in the particular case, be quite as clearly beyond the ordinary course of nature. Imagination can cure the sick in certain cases, in certain cases it cannot; and we shall have a very imperfect view of the alleged miracles of the second and third centuries, if, instead of patiently contemplating the instances recorded, in their circumstances and details, we content ourselves with their abstract character, and suffer a definition to stand in place of examination. Thus if we take St. Cyprian's description of the demoniacs, in which he is far from solitary [n. 8 ], we shall find that while it is quite open to accuse him and others of misstatement, we cannot accept his description as it stands, without acknowledging that the conflict between the powers of heaven and the evil spirit was then visibly proceeding as in the time of Christ and His Apostles. "O would you listen to them," he says to the heathen Demetrian, "and see them, when they are adjured and tormented by us with spiritual lashes, hurled with words of torture out of bodies they have possessed, when shrieking and groaning at a human voice, and beneath a power divine laid under lash and stripe, they confess the judgment to come. You will find that we are entreated of them whom you entreat, feared by them whom you fear, and whom you adore. Surely thus, at least, will you be brought to confusion in these your errors, when you behold and hear your gods at once, upon our questioning, betraying what they are, and unable, even in your presence, to conceal their tricks and deceptions." [n. 9 ] Again, "You may see them by our voice, and through the operation of the unseen Majesty, lashed with stripes, and scorched with fire; stretched out under the increase of their multiplying penalty, shrieking, groaning, entreating, confessing from whence they came, and when they depart, even in the hearing of their own worshippers; and either leaping out suddenly, or gradually vanishing, as faith in the sufferer aids, or grace in the curer conspires." [n. 10 ] Passages equally strong might be cited from writers of the same period.

 33. And there are other occurrences of a distinctly miraculous character in the earlier centuries, which come under none of Middleton's or Douglas's classes, but which ought not to be overlooked. For instance, a fragrance issued from St. Polycarp when burning at the stake, and on his being pierced with a sword a dove flew out. Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem, about the end of the second century, when oil failed for the lamps on the vigil of Easter, sent persons to draw water instead; which, on his praying over it, was changed into oil. Eusebius, who relates this miracle, says that small quantities of the oil were preserved even to his time. St. Cyprian speaks of a person who had lapsed in persecution, attempting to communicate; when on opening the arca, or receptacle in which the consecrated Bread was reserved, fire burst out from it and prevented her. Another, on attending at church with the same purpose, found that he had received from the priest nothing but a cinder.

 34. Lastly, in this review of the miracles belonging to the early Church, it will be right to include certain isolated ones which have an historical character, and are accordingly more celebrated than the rest. Such is the miracle of the thundering Legion, that is, of the rain accorded to the prayers of Christian soldiers in the army of Marcus Antoninus, when they were perishing by thirst; the appearance of a Cross in the sky to Constantine's army, with the inscription, "In hoc signo vinces;" the sudden death of Arius, close upon his proposed re-admission into the Church, at the prayers of Alexander of Constantinople; the discovery of the Cross, the multiplication of its wood, and the miracles wrought by it; the fire bursting forth from the foundations of the Jewish temple, which hindered its rebuilding; the restoration of the blind man on the discovery of the relics of St. Gervasius and St. Protasius; and the power of speech granted to the African confessors who had lost their tongues in the Vandal persecution [n. 11 ]. These and other such shall be considered separately, before I conclude.

 35. Imperfect as is this survey of the miracles ascribed to the ages later than the Apostolic, it is quite sufficient for the purpose for which it has been made; viz., to show that those miracles are on the whole very different in their character and attendant circumstances from the Gospel miracles, which certainly are very far from preparing us for them, or rather at first sight indispose us for their reception [n. 12 ].

 4.

 36. And in the next place this important circumstance must be considered, which is as clear as it is decisive, that the Fathers speak of miracles as having in one sense ceased with the Apostolic period; that is to say, whereas they sometimes speak of miracles as existing in their own times, still they say also that Apostolic miracles, or miracles like the Apostles', whether in their object, cogency, impressiveness, or character, were no longer of occurrence in the Church; an interpretation which they themselves in some passages give to their own testimony. "Argue not," says St. Chrysostom, "because miracles do not happen now, that they did not happen then ... In those times they were profitable, and now they are not." He proceeds to say that, in spite of this difference, the mode of conviction was substantially the same. "We persuade not by philosophical reasonings, but from Divine Scripture, and we recommend what we say by the miracles then done. And then, too, they persuaded not by miracles only, but by discussion." And presently he adds, "The more evident and constraining are the things which happen, the less room there is for faith." [n. 13 ] And again in another passage, "Why are there not those now who raise the dead and perform cures? I will not say why not; rather, why are there not those now who despise the present life? why serve we God for hire? When, however, nature was weak, when faith had to be planted, then there were many such; but now He wills not that we should hang on these miracles, but be ready for death." [n. 14 ]

 37. In like manner St. Augustine introduces his catalogue of contemporary miracles, which has been partly given above, by stating and allowing the objection that miracles were not then as they had been. "Why, say they, do not these miracles take place now, which, as you preach to us, took place once? I might answer that they were necessary before the world believed, that it might believe." [n. 15 ] He then goes on to say that miracles were wrought in his time, only they were not so public and well-attested as the miracles of the Gospel.

 38. St. Ambrose, on the discovery of the bodies of the two Martyrs, uses the language of surprise; which is quite in accordance with the feelings which the miracles of Antony and Hilarion seem to have roused in Alexandria and in Sicily. "You know, you yourselves saw, that many were cleansed from evil spirits; very many, on touching with their hands the garment of the Saints, were delivered from the infirmities which oppressed them. The miracles of the old time are come again, when by the advent of the Lord Jesus a fuller grace was shed upon the earth." Under a similar feeling [n. 16 ] he speaks of the two corpses, which happened to be of large size, as "miræ magnitudinis, ut prisca ætas ferebat." [n. 17 ]

 39. And Isidore of Pelusium, after observing that in the Apostles holiness of life and power of miracles went together, adds, "Now, too, if the life of teachers rivalled the Apostolic bearing, perhaps miracles would take place; though if they did not, such life would suffice for the enlightening of those who beheld it." [n. 18 ]

 40. The doctrine, thus witnessed by the great writers of the end of the fourth century, is supported by as clear a testimony two centuries before and two centuries after. Pope Gregory, at the end of the sixth, in commenting on the text, "And these signs shall follow those that believe," says, "Is it so, my brethren, that, because ye do not these signs, ye do not believe? On the contrary, they were necessary in the beginning of the Church: for, that faith might grow, it required miracles to cherish it withal; just as when we plant shrubs, we water them till they seem to thrive in the ground, and as soon as they are well rooted we cease our irrigation. This is what Paul teaches, 'Tongues are a sign, not for those who believe, but for those who believe not;' and there is something yet to be said of these signs and powers of a more recondite nature. For Holy Church doth spiritually every day, what she then did through the Apostles, corporally. For when the Priests by the grace of exorcism lay hands on believers, and forbid evil spirits to inhabit their minds, what do they but cast out devils? And any believers soever who henceforth abandon the secular words of the old life, and utter holy mysteries, and rehearse, as best they can, the praise and power of their Maker, what do they but speak with new tongues? Moreover, while by their good exhortations they remove evil from the hearts of others, they are taking up serpents, etc.; ... which miracles are the greater, because they are the more spiritual: the greater, because they are the means of raising, not bodies, but souls; these signs, then, dearest brethren, by God's aid, ye do if ye will." [n. 19 ] And St. Clement of Alexandria, at the end of the second century: "If it was imputed to Abraham for righteousness on his believing, and we are the seed of Abraham, we too must believe by hearing. For Israelites we are, who are obedient, not through signs [n. 20 ], but through hearing." [n. 21 ]

 5.

 41. What the distinctions are between the Apostolic and the later miracles, which allow of the Fathers saying in a true sense that miracles ceased with the first age, has in many ways appeared from what has already come before us. For instance, it has appeared that the Ecclesiastical Miracles were but locally known, or were done in private; or were so like occurrences which are not miraculous as to give rise to doubt and perplexity, at the time or afterwards, as to their real character; or they were so unlike the Scripture Miracles, so strange and startling in their nature and circumstances, as to need support and sanction rather themselves than to supply it to Christianity; or they were difficult from their drift, or their instruments or agents, or the doctrine connected with them. In a word, they are not primarily and directly evidence of Revelation, though they may become so accidentally, or to certain persons, or in the way of confirmation. That they are not the direct evidence of revealed truth, is fully granted by St. Augustine in the following striking passage from one of his works against the Donatists:

 42. "Let him prove that we must hold to the Church in Africa only, to the loss of the nations, or again that we must restore and complete it in all nations from Africa; and prove it, not by saying 'It is true, because I say it,' or 'because my associate says it,' or 'my associates,' or 'these our Bishops,' 'Clerks,' or 'people;' or 'it is true because Donatus, or Pontius, or any one else, did these or those marvellous acts,' or 'because men pray at the shrines of our dead brethren, and are heard,' or 'because this or that happens there,' or 'because this brother of ours,' or 'that our sister,' 'saw such and such a vision when he was awake,' or 'dreamed such and such a vision when he was asleep.' Put away what are either the fictions of men who lie, or the wonders of spirits who deceive. For either what is reported is not true, or, if among heretics wonders happen, we have still greater cause for caution, inasmuch as our Lord, after declaring that certain deceivers were to be, who should work some miracles, and deceive thereby, were it possible, even the elect, added an earnest charge, in the words, 'Behold, I have told you before.' Whence also the Apostle warns us that 'the Spirit speaketh expressly, in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.' Moreover, if any one is heard who prays at the shrines of heretics, what he receives, whether good or bad, is consequent not upon the merit of the place, but upon the merit of his own earnest desire. For 'the Spirit of the Lord,' as it is written, 'hath filled the whole world,' and 'the ear of His zeal heareth all things.' And many are heard by God in anger; of whom saith the Apostle, 'God gave them up to the desires of their own hearts.' And to many God in favour gives not what they wish, that He may give what is profitable ... Read we not that some were heard by the Lord God Himself in the high places of Judah, which high places notwithstanding were so displeasing to Him, that the kings who overthrew them not were blamed, and those who overthrew them were praised? Thus it appears that the state of heart of the suppliant is of more avail than the place of supplicating.

 43. "Concerning deceitful visions, they should read what Scripture says, that 'Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light,' and that 'dreams have deceived many.' And they should listen, too, to what the Pagans relate, as regards their temples and gods, of wonders either in deed or vision; and yet 'the gods of the heathen are but devils, but it is the Lord that made the heavens.' Therefore many are heard and in many ways, not only Catholic Christians, but Pagans and Jews and heretics, involved in various errors and superstitions; but they are heard either by seducing spirits, (who do nothing, however, but by God's permission, judging in a sublime and ineffable way what is to be bestowed upon each;) or by God Himself, whether for the punishment of their wickedness, or for the solace of their misery, or as a warning to them to seek eternal salvation. But salvation itself and life eternal no one attains, unless he hath Christ the Head. Nor can any one have Christ the Head, who is not in His body, which is the Church; which, as the Head Himself, we are bound to discern in holy canonical Scripture, not to seek in the various rumours of men, and opinions, and acts, and sayings, and sights.

 44. "Let no one therefore object such facts who is prepared to answer me; for I too am far from claiming credit for my position, that the communion of Donatus is not the Church of Christ, on the ground that certain bishops in it are convicted, in records ecclesiastical, and municipal, and judicial, of burning the sacred books, ... or that the Circumcelliones have committed so much evil, or that some of them cast themselves down precipices, or throw themselves into the fire,  ... or that at their sepulchres herds of strollers, men and women, in a state of drunkenness and abandonment, bury themselves in wine day and night, or pollute themselves with deeds of profligacy. Let all this be considered merely as their chaff, without prejudice to the Church, if they themselves are really holding to the Church. But whether this be so, let them prove only from canonical Scripture; just as we do not claim to be recognized as in the Church of Christ, because the body to which we hold has been graced by Optatus of Milevis or Ambrose of Milan, or other innumerable Bishops of our communion, or because it is set forth in the Councils of our colleagues, or because through the whole world in holy places, which are frequented by our communion, so great marvels take place, whether answers to prayer, or cures; so that the bodies of Martyrs, which had lain concealed so many years, (as they may hear from many if they do but ask,) were revealed to Ambrose, and in presence of those bodies a man long blind and perfectly well known to the citizens of Milan recovered his eyes and sight; or because one man has seen a vision, or because another has been taken up in spirit, and heard either that he should not join, or that he should leave, the party of Donatus. All such things which happen in the Catholic Church, are to be approved because they are in the Catholic Church; not she manifested to be Catholic, because these things happen in her." [n. 22 ]

 6.

 45. So far St. Augustine; it being granted, however, that the object of Ecclesiastical Miracles is not, strictly speaking, that of evidencing Christianity, still they may have other uses, known or unknown, besides that of being the argumentative basis of revealed truth; and therefore it does not at once destroy the credibility of such miraculous narratives, vouched to us on good authority, that they have no assignable object, or an object different from those which are specified in Scripture, as was observed in the foregoing Chapter.

 46. Here we are immediately considering the internal character of the miracles later than the Apostolic period: and what real prejudice ought to attach to them from the dissimilarity or even contrariety of many of them to the Scripture Miracles will be best ascertained by betaking ourselves to the argument from Analogy, and attempting to measure these occurrences by such rules and suggestions as the works of God, brought before us whether in the visible creation or in Scripture, may be found to supply. And first of the natural world as it meets our senses:

 47. "All the works of the Lord are exceeding good," says the son of Sirach; "a man need not to say, What is this? Wherefore is that? for He hath made all things for their uses." Yet an exuberance and variety, a seeming profusion and disorder, a neglect of severe exactness in the prosecution of its objects, and of delicate adjustment in the details of its system, are characteristics of the world both physical and moral, and characteristics of Scripture also; but still the Wise Man assures us, that the purposes of the Creator are not forgotten by Him, or missed because they are hidden, or the work faulty because it is subordinate or incomplete. All things are not equally good in themselves, because they are diverse, yet everything is good in its place. "All the works of the Lord are good, and He will give every needful thing in due season. So that a man cannot say, This is worse than that; for in time they shall all be well approved." [n. 23 ] To persons who have not commonly the opportunity of witnessing for themselves this great variety of the Divine works, there is something very strange and startling, it may even be said, unsettling in the first view of nature as it is. To take, for instance, the case of animal nature, let us consider the effect produced upon the mind on seeing for the first time the many tribes of the animal world, as we find them brought together for the purposes of science or exhibition in our own country. We are accustomed, indeed, to see wild beasts more or less from our youth, or at least to read of them; but even with this partial preparation, many persons will be moved in a very singular way on going for the first time, or after some interval, to a menagerie. They have been accustomed insensibly to identify the wonder-working Hand of God with the specimens of its exercise which they see about them; the forms of tame and domestic animals, which are necessary for us, and which surround us, are familiar to them, and they learn to take these as a sort of rule on which to frame their ideas of the animated works of the Creator generally. When an eye thus habituated to certain forms, colours, motions, and habits in the inferior animals, is suddenly brought into the full assemblage of those mysterious beings, with which it has pleased Almighty Wisdom to people the earth, a sort of dizziness comes over it, from the impossibility of our reducing all at once the multitude of new ideas poured in upon us to the centre of view habitual to us; the mind loses its balance, and it is not too much to say, that in some cases it even falls into a sort of scepticism. Nature seems to be too powerful and various, or at least too strange, to be the work of God, according to that Image which our imbecility has set up within us for the Infinite and Eternal, and as we have framed to ourselves our contracted notions of His attributes and acts; and if we do not submit ourselves in awe to His great mysteriousness, and chasten our hearts and keep silence, we shall be in danger of losing our belief in His presence and providence altogether.

 48. We have hitherto known enough of Him for our personal guidance, but we have not understood that only thus much has been the extent of our knowledge of Him. Religion we know to be a grave and solemn subject, and some few vague ideas of greatness, sublimity, and majesty, have constituted for us our whole image of Him whom the Seraphim adore. And then we are suddenly brought into the vast family of His works, hardly one of which is a specimen of those particular and human ideas with which we have identified the Ineffable. First, the endless number of wild animals, their independence of man, and uselessness to him; then their exhaustless variety; then their strangeness in shape, colour, size, motions, and countenance; not to enlarge on the still more mysterious phenomena of their natural propensities and passions; all these things throng upon us, and are in danger of overpowering us, tempting us to view the Physical Cause of all as disconnected from the Moral, and that, from the impression borne in upon us, that nothing we see in this vast assemblage is religious in our sense of the word "religious." We see full evidence there of an Author, of power, wisdom, goodness; but not of a Principle or Agent correlative to our religious ideas. But without pushing this remark to an extreme point, or dwelling on it further than our present purpose requires, let two qualities of the works of nature be observed before leaving the subject, which (whatever explanation is to be given of them, and certainly some explanation is not beyond even our limited powers) are at first sight very perplexing. One is that principle of deformity, whether hideousness or mere homeliness, which exists in the animal world; and the other (if the word may be used with due soberness) is the ludicrous ; that is, judging of things, as we are here judging of them, by their impression upon our minds.

 49. It is obvious to apply what has been said to the case of the miracles of the Church, as compared with those in Scripture. Scripture is to us a garden of Eden, and its creations are beautiful as well as "very good;" but when we pass from the Apostolic to the following ages, it is as if we left the choicest valleys of the earth, the quietest and most harmonious scenery, and the most cultivated soil, for the luxuriant wildernesses of Africa or Asia, the natural home or kingdom of brute nature, uninfluenced by man. Or rather, it is a great injustice to the times of the Church, to represent the contrast as so vast a one; and Adam might much more justly have been startled at the various forms of life which were brought before him to be named, than we may rationally presume to decide that certain alleged miracles in the Church are not really such, on the ground that they are unlike those to which our eyes have been accustomed in Scripture. There is far greater difference between the appearance of a horse or an eagle and a monkey, or a lion and a mouse, as they meet our eye, than between even the most august of the Divine manifestations in Scripture and the meanest and most fanciful of those legends which we are accustomed without further examination to cast aside. Such contrary properties, or rather such impressions of them on our minds, may be the necessary consequence of Divine Agency moving on a system, and not by isolated acts; or the necessary consequence of its deigning to work with or through the eccentricities, the weaknesses, nay, the wilfulness, of the human mind. As, then, birds are different from beasts, as tropical plants differ from the productions of the north, as one scene is severely beautiful, and another rich or romantic, as the excellence of colours is incommensurate with excellence of form, as pleasures of sight have nothing in common with pleasures of scent, except that they are pleasures; so also in the case of those works and productions which are above or beside the ordinary course of nature, in spite of their variety, "to every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven," and "He hath made every thing beautiful in His time." And, as one description of miracles may be necessary for evidence, viz., such as are at once majestic and undeniable, so for those other and manifold objects which the economy of the Gospel kingdom may involve, a more hidden and intricate path, a more complex exhibition, a more exuberant method, a more versatile rule, may be essential; and it may be as shallow a philosophy to reject them merely because they are not such as we should have expected from God's hand, or as we find in Scripture, as to judge of universal nature by the standard of our own home, or again, with the ancient heretics, to refuse to admit that the Creator of the physical world is also the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 50. Nay, it may even be urged that the variety of nature is antecedently a reason for expecting variety in a supernatural agency, if such be introduced; or, again, (as has been already observed,) if such agency is conducted on a system, it must even necessarily involve diversity and inequality in its separate parts; and, granting it was intended to continue after the Apostolic age, the want of uniformity between the miracles first wrought and those which followed, as far as it is found, might have been almost foretold without the gift of prophecy in that age, or at least may be fully vindicated in this, nay, even the inferiority of the Ecclesiastical Miracles to the Apostolic; for, if Divine Wisdom had determined, as is not difficult to believe, that the wonderful works which illuminate the history of the first days of the Church should be the best and highest, what was left to subsequent times, by the very terms of the proposition, but miracles which are but second best, which must necessarily have belonged to some other and independent system if they too were the best, and which admit of belonging to the same system for the very reason that they are not the best?

 7.

 51. So much, then, on the general correspondence between the works of nature, on the one hand, and the Miracles of sacred history, whether Biblical or Ecclesiastical, viewed as one whole, on the other. And while the physical system bears such an analogy to the supernatural system, viewed in its Biblical and Ecclesiastical portions together, as forms a strong argument in defence of the supernatural, it is, on the other hand, so far unlike the Biblical portion of that supernatural, when that portion is taken by itself, as to protect the portion not Biblical from objections drawn from any differences observable between it and the portion which is Biblical. If it be true that the Ecclesiastical Miracles are in some sense an innovation upon the idea of the Divine Economy, as impressed upon us by the Miracles of Scripture, it is at least equally true that the Scripture Miracles also innovate upon the impressions which are made upon us by the order and the laws of the natural world; and as we reconcile our imagination, nevertheless, to such deviation from the course of nature in the Economy of Revelation, so surely we may bear without impatience or perplexity that the subsequent history of Revelation should in turn diverge from the path in which it originally commenced [n. 24 ].

 52. Hume argues against miracles generally, "Though the Being to whom the miracle is ascribed be, in this case, Almighty, it does not, upon that account, become a whit more probable; since it is impossible for us to know the attributes or actions of such a Being, otherwise than from the experience which we have of His productions in the usual course of nature." [n. 25 ] And elsewhere he says, "The Deity is known to us only by His productions ... As the universe shows wisdom and goodness, we infer wisdom and goodness. As it shows a particular degree of these perfections, we infer a particular degree of them, precisely adapted to the effect which we examine. But further attributes, or further degrees of the same attributes, we can never be authorized to infer or suppose, by any rules of just reasoning." [n. 26 ] And in a note he adds, "In general, it may, I think, be established as a maxim, that where any cause is known only by its particular effects, it must be impossible to infer any new effects from that cause ... To say that the new effects proceed only from a continuation of the same energy, which is already known from the first effects, will not remove the difficulty. For even granting this to be the case, (which can seldom be supposed,) the very continuation and exertion of a like energy, (for it is impossible it can be absolutely the same,) I say, this exertion of a like energy, in a different period of space and time, is a very arbitrary supposition, and what there cannot possibly be any traces of in the effects, from which all our knowledge of the cause is originally derived. Let the inferred cause be exactly proportioned, as it should be, to the known effect; and it is impossible that it can possess any qualities, from which new or different effects can be inferred."

 53. This is not the place to analyze a paradox which is sufficiently refuted by the common sense of a religious mind; but the point which concerns us to consider is, whether persons who, not merely question, but prejudge the Ecclesiastical Miracles on the ground of their want of resemblance, whatever that be, to those contained in Scripture, as if the Almighty could not do in the Christian Church anything but what He had already done at the time of its foundation, or under the Mosaic Covenant, whether such reasoners are not siding with the sceptic who in the above passages denies that the First Cause can act supernaturally at all, because in nature He can but act naturally, and whether it is not a happy inconsistency by which they continue to believe the Scripture record, while they reject the records of the Church.

 54. Indeed, it would not be difficult to show that the miracles of Scripture are a far greater innovation upon the economy of nature than the miracles of the Church upon the economy of Scripture. There is nothing, for instance, in nature at all to parallel and mitigate the wonderful history of the assemblage of all animals in the Ark, or the multiplication of an artificially prepared substance, such as bread. Walking on the sea, or the resurrection of the dead, is a plain reversal of its laws. On the other hand, the narrative of the combats of St. Antony with evil spirits is a development rather than a contradiction of Revelation; viz., as illustrating such texts as speak of Satan being cast out by prayer and fasting. To be shocked then at the miracles of Ecclesiastical History, or to ridicule them for their strangeness, is no part of a scriptural philosophy.

 55. Nor can the argument from à priori ideas of propriety be made available against Ecclesiastical Miracles with more safety than the argument from experience. This method of refutation, as well as the other, (to use the common phrase,) proves too much. Those who have condemned the miracles of the Church by such a rule, have before now included in their condemnation the very notion of a miracle altogether, as the creation of barbarous and unphilosophical minds, who knew nothing of the beautiful order of nature, and as unworthy to be introduced into our contemplation of the providences of Divine Wisdom. A miracle has been considered to argue a defect in the system of moral governance, as if it were a correction or improvement of what is in itself imperfect or faulty, like a patch of new cloth upon an old garment. The Platonists of old were influenced by something like this feeling, as if none but low and sordid persons would either attempt or credit miracles truly such, and none but quacks and impostors would profess them. The only true miracles, in the conception of such a school, are miracles of knowledge; words or deeds which are the result of a greater insight into, or foresight of, the course of nature, and are proofs of a liberal education and a cultivated and reflective mind [n. 27 ]. It is easy to see how a habit of this sort may grow upon scientific men, especially at this day, unless they are on their guard against it. There is so much beauty, majesty, and harmony in the order of nature, so much to fill, satisfy, and tranquillize the mind, that by those who are accustomed to the contemplation, the notion of an infringement of it will at length be viewed as a sort of profanation, and as even shocking, as the mere dream of ignorance, the wild and atrocious absurdity of superstition and enthusiasm, (if it is right to use such language even in order to describe the thoughts of others,) and as if analogous, to take another and less serious subject, to some gross solecism, or indecorum, or wanton violation of social usages or feelings. We should be very sure, if we resolve on rejecting the Ecclesiastical Miracles, that our reasons are better than that false zeal for our Master's honour, which such philosophers express for the honour of the Creator, and which reminds us of the exclamation, "Be it far from Thee, Lord: this shall not be unto Thee!" as uttered by one who heard for the first time that doctrine which to the world is foolishness.

 8.

 56. The question has hitherto been argued on the admission, that a distinct line can be drawn in point of character and circumstances between the Miracles of Scripture and those of Church History; but this is by no means the case. It is true, indeed, that the Miracles of Scripture, viewed as a whole, recommend themselves to our reason, and claim our veneration, beyond all others, by a peculiar dignity and beauty; but still it is only as a whole that they make this impression upon us. Some of them, on the contrary, fall short of the attributes which attach to them in general, nay, are inferior in these respects to certain ecclesiastical miracles, and are received only on the credit of the system, of which they form part. Again, specimens are not wanting in the history of the Church, of miracles as awful in their character and as momentous in their effects, as those which are recorded in Scripture. The fire interrupting the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, and the death of Arius, are instances, in Ecclesiastical History, of such solemn events. On the other hand, difficult facts in the Scripture history are such as these: the serpent in Eden, the Ark, Jacob's vision for the multiplication of his sheep, the speaking of Balaam's ass, the axe swimming at Elisha's word, the miracle on the swine, and various instances of prayers or prophecies, in which, as in that of Noah's blessing and curse, words which seem the result of private feeling are expressly or virtually ascribed to a Divine suggestion.

 57. And thus, it would seem, there exists in matter of fact that very connection and intermixture between ecclesiastical and Scripture miracles, which, according to the analogy suggested in a former page, the richness and variety of physical nature rendered probable. Scripture history, far from being broadly separated from ecclesiastical, does in part countenance what is strange in the miraculous narratives of the latter, by affording patterns and precedents for them itself. It begins a series which has, indeed, its higher specimens and its lower, but which still proceeds in the way of a series, with a progress and continuation, without any sudden breaks and changes, or even any exact law of variation according to the succession of periods. As in the natural world the animal and vegetable kingdoms imperceptibly melt into each other, so are there mutual affinities and correspondences between the two families of miracles as found in inspired and uninspired history, which show that, whatever may be their separate peculiarities, yet as far as concerns their internal characteristics, they admit of being parts of one system.

 58. For instance, there is not a more startling, yet a more ordinary gift in the history of the first ages of the Church than the power of exorcism; while at the same time it is open to much suspicion, both from the comparative facility of imposture and the intrinsic strangeness of the doctrine it inculcates. Yet, here Scripture has anticipated the Church in all respects, even going the length of testifying to the diabolical possession of brutes, which appears so extravagant when introduced, as instanced above, into the life of Hilarion by St. Jerome. Again, that relics should be the instruments of exorcism is an aggravation of a doctrine already difficult; yet we read in Scripture, "And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them." [Acts xix. 11, 12.]

 Similar precedents for a supernatural presence in things inanimate are found in the miracles wrought by the touch of our Saviour's garments, not to insist on what is told us about St. Peter's shadow. Again, we have to take into account the resurrection of the corpse which touched Elisha's bones, a work of Divine Power, which, whether considered in its appalling greatness, the absence of apparent object, and the means through which it was accomplished, we should think incredible, with the now prevailing notions of miraculous agency, were we not familiar with it. Elijah's mantle is another instance of a relic endued with miraculous power. Again, the multiplication of the wood of the Cross (the fact of which is not here determined, but must depend on the testimony and other evidence producible) is but parallel to Elisha's multiplication of the oil, and of the bread and barley, and to our Lord's multiplication of the loaves and fishes. Again, the account of the consecrated host becoming a cinder in unworthy hands is not so strange as the very first miracle wrought by Moses, the first evidential miracle recorded in Scripture, when his rod became a serpent, and then a rod again; nor stranger than our Lord's first miracle, when water was turned into wine. When the tree was falling upon St. Martin, he is said to have caused it to whirl round and fall elsewhere by the sign of the Cross; is this more startling than Elisha's causing the iron axe-head to swim by throwing a stick into the water?

 59. It is objected by Middleton, that after the decree of the Council of Laodicea, restricting exorcism to such as were licensed by the Bishop, the practice died away [n. 28 ]; this, indeed, implies a very remarkable committal or almost abandonment of a Divine gift, supposing it such, to the discretion of its human instruments; but how does it imply more than we read of in the Apostolic history of the Corinthian Christians, who had so absolute a possession of their supernatural powers that they could use them disorderly, or pervert them to personal ends? The miracles in Ecclesiastical History are often wrought without human instruments, or by instruments but partially apprehensive that they are such; but did not the rushing mighty wind, at Pentecost, come down "suddenly" and unexpectedly? and were not the Apostles forthwith carried away by it, not in any true sense using the gift, but compelled to speak as the Spirit gave them utterance? It is objected that ecclesiastical miracles are not so distinct and unequivocal as to have a claim to be accounted true, but admit of being plausibly attributed to fraud, collusion, or misstatement in narrators; yet, in like manner, St. Matthew tells us that the Jews persisted in maintaining that the disciples had stolen away our Lord's Body, and He did not show Himself, when risen, to the Jews; and various other objections, to which it is painful to do more than allude, have been made to other parts of the sacred narrative. It is objected that St. Gregory's, St. Martin's, or St. Hilarion's miracles were not believed when first formally published to the world by Nyssen, Sulpicius, and St. Jerome; but it must be recollected that Gibbon observes scoffingly, that "the contemporaries of Moses and Joshua beheld with careless indifference the most amazing miracles," that even an Apostle, who had attended our Lord through His ministry, did not believe his brethren's report of His resurrection, and that St. Paul's supernatural power of punishing offenders was doubted at Corinth by the very parties who had seen his miracles and had been his converts. That alleged miracles, then, should admit of doubt, or be what is called "suspicious," is not at all inconsistent with their title to be considered the immediate operation of Divine Power.

 60. It is observable also, that this intercommunion of miracles, if the expression may be used, which exists between the respective supernatural agencies contained in Scripture and in Church history, is seen also in the separate portions of Scripture history. The miracles of Scripture may be distributed into the Mosaic, the Prophetical, and the Evangelical; of which the first are mainly of a judicial and retributive character, and wrought on a large field; the last are miracles of mercy; and the intermediate are more or less of a romantic or poetical cast. Yet, among the Mosaic we find the changing of the rod into a serpent, and the sweetening of the water by a branch, which belong rather to the second period; and among the Christian are the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira, which resemble the awful acts of the first; while Philip's transportation by the Spirit, and the ship's sudden arrival at the shore, might be ranked among those of the second.

 9.

 61. And moreover this circumstance is worth considering, that a sort of analogy exists between the Ecclesiastical and Evangelical histories, and the Prophetical and Mosaic. The Prophetical and Ecclesiastical are, each in its place, a sort of supplement to the supernatural manifestations with which the respective Dispensations open, and present to us a similar internal character. And, whereas there was an interval between the age of Moses and the revival of miraculous power in the Prophets, though extraordinary providences were never wholly suspended, so the Ecclesiastical gift is restricted in its operation in the first centuries compared with the exuberant exercise recorded of it in the fourth and fifth; and as the Prophetical miracles in a great measure belong to the schools of Elijah and Elisha, so the Ecclesiastical have a special connection with the ascetics and solitaries, and the orders of families of which they were patriarchs, with St. Antony, St. Martin, and St. Benedict, and other great confessors or reformers, who are the antitypes of the Prophets. Moreover, much might be said concerning the romantic character of the Prophetical miracles. Those of Elisha in particular are related, not as if parts of the history, but rather as his "Acta;" as illustrations indeed of that double portion of power gained for him by Elijah's prayer, and perhaps with some typical reference to the times of the Gospel, but still with a profusion and variety very like the luxuriance which offends us in the miraculous narratives of ecclesiastical authors. Elisha begins by parting Jordan with Elijah's mantle; then he curses the children, and bears destroy forty-two of them; then he supplies the kings of Judah, Israel, and Edom with water in the wilderness, and gives them victory over Moab; then he multiplies the oil; then he raises the Shunammite's son; then he renders the poisonous pottage harmless by casting meal into it; then he multiplies the bread and barley; then he directs Naaman to a cure of his leprosy; then he reads Gehazi's heart, follows him throughout his act of covetousness, and inflicts on him Naaman's leprosy; then he makes the iron swim; then he reveals to the king of Israel the counsels of Syria, and casts an illusion before the eyes of his army; then he prophesies plenty in the siege; then he foretells Hazael's future course. These wonderful acts are strung together as the direct and formal subjects of the chapters in which they occur: they have no continuity; they carry on no action or course of Providence. At length Elisha falls sick, and, on the king's visiting him, promises him a series of victories over the Syrians; then he dies and is buried, and by accident a corpse is thrown into his grave; and "when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet." [2 Kings xiii. 21.] Surely it is not too much to say, that after this inspired precedent there is little in ecclesiastical legends of a nature to offend as regards their matter; their credibility turning first on whether they are to be expected at all, and next whether they are avouched on sufficient evidence.

 62. Or take again the history of Samson; what a mysterious wildness and eccentricity is impressed upon it, upon the miracles which occur in it, and upon its highly favoured though wayward subject! "At this juncture," says a recent writer, speaking of the low estate of the chosen people when Samson was born, "the most extraordinary of the Jewish heroes appeared; a man of prodigious physical power, which he displayed, not in any vigorous and consistent plan of defence against the enemy, but in the wildest feats of personal daring. It was his amusement to plunge headlong into peril, from which he extricated himself by his individual strength. Samson never appears at the head of an army, his campaigns are conducted in his own single person. As in those of the Grecian Hercules and the Arabian Antar, a kind of comic vein runs through the early adventures of the stout-hearted warrior, in which love of women, of riddles, and of slaying Philistines out of mere wantonness, vie for the mastery. Yet his life began with marvel, and ended in the deepest tragedy." [n. 29 ] The tone of this extract cannot be defended; yet what else has the writer done towards the inspired narrative, but invest it in those showy human colours which legendary writers from infirmity, and enemies from malice, have thrown over the miracles of the Church? There is certainly an aspect of romance in which Samson may be viewed, though he was withal the instrument of a Divine Presence; and so again there may have been a divinity in the acts and fortunes, and a spiritual perfection in the lives, of the ancient Catholic hermits and missionaries, in spite of whatever is wild, uncouth, and extravagant in their personal demeanour and conduct, or rather in the record of them. Once more; the books of Daniel and Esther are very different in composition and style from the earlier portions of the sacred volume, and present a view of the miraculous dealings of the Almighty with His Church, very much resembling what we disparage in ecclesiastical legends, or again in the historical portions of the so-called Apocrypha, as if poetical or dramatic.

 63. The two Economies then, the Prophetical and the Ecclesiastical, thus resembling each other in their character as well as their position in their two Covenants respectively, should any one urge, as was stated in a former place [n. 30 ], that the Ecclesiastical Miracles virtually form a new dispensation, we need not deny it in the sense in which the Prophetical Miracles are distinct from the Mosaic; that is, not as if the Law was in any respect or in any part repealed by the Prophetical Schools, but that they, as well as other works of God, had a character of their own, and, as in other things, so in their miracles, were a new exhibition of that Supernatural Presence which over-shadowed Israel from first to last. And it may be added, that, as a gradual revelation of Gospel truth accompanied the miracles of the Prophets, so to those who admit the Catholic doctrines as enunciated in the Creed, and commented on by the Fathers, the subsequent expansion and variation of supernatural agency in the Church, instead of suggesting difficulties, will seem to be in correspondence, as they are contemporaneous, with the developments and additions in dogmatic statements which have occurred between the Apostolic and the present age, and which are but a result and an evidence of spiritual life.

 10.

 64. Nor, lastly, is it any real argument against admitting the Ecclesiastical Miracles on the whole, or against admitting certain of them, that certain others are rejected on all hands as fictitious or pretended. It happens as a matter of course, on many accounts, that where miracles are really wrought, miracles will also be attempted, or simulated, or imitated, or fabled; and such counterfeits become, not a disproof, but a proof of the existence of their prototypes, just as hypocrisy and extravagant profession are an argument for, and not against, the reality of virtue [n. 31 ]. It is doubtless the tendency of religious minds to imagine mysteries and wonders where there are none; and much more, where causes of awe really exist, will they unintentionally misstate, exaggerate, and embellish, when they set themselves to relate what they have witnessed or have heard [n. 32 ]. A fact is not disproved because the testimony is confused or insufficient; it is only unproved. And further, the imagination, as is well known, is a fruitful cause of apparent miracles [n. 33 ]; and hence, wherever there are works wrought which absolutely surpass the powers of nature, there are likely to be others which surpass its ordinary action. It would be no cause for surprise if, as the destruction of Sodom is said to have arisen from volcanic influence, so in the multitude of cures which the Apostles effected some were solely attributable to natural, but unusual, effects of faith. And if Providence sometimes makes use of natural principles even when miracles seem intended as evidence of His immediate presence, much more is He likely to intermingle the ordinary and the extraordinary, when His object is not to prove a revelation, to accredit a messenger, or to certify a doctrine, but to confirm or encourage the faithful, or to rouse the attention of unbelievers. And it will be impossible to draw the line between the two; and the possibility of explaining some of them on natural principles will unjustly prejudice the mind against accounts of those which cannot be so explained.

 65. Moreover, as Scripture expressly shows us, wherever there is miraculous power, there will be curious and interested bystanders who would fain "purchase the gift of God" for their own aggrandisement, and "cast out devils in the Name of Jesus," and who counterfeit what they have not really to exhibit, and gain credit and followers among the ignorant and perverse. The impostures, then, of various kinds which from the first hour abounded in the Church [n. 34 ] prove as little against the truth of her miracles as against the canonicity of her Scriptures. Yet here too pretensions on the part of worthless men will be sure to scandalize inquirers, and the more so if, as is not unlikely, such pretenders manage to ally themselves with the Saints, and have an historical position in the fight which is made for the integrity or purity of the faith; yet, St. Paul was not less an Apostle, nor have Confessors and Doctors been less his successors, because "as they have gone to prayer" a spirit of Python has borne witness to them as "the servants of the most high God," and the teachers of "the way of salvation."

 66. Nor is it any fair argument against Ecclesiastical miracles, that for the most part they have a legendary air, while the miracles contained in Scripture are on the contrary so soberly, so gravely, so exactly stated; unless indeed it is an absurdity to contemplate a gift of miracles without an attendant gift of inspiration to record them. Were it not that the Evangelists were divinely guided, doubtless we should have in Scripture that confused mass of truth and fiction together, which the Apocryphal Gospels exhibit, and to which St. Luke seems to allude. I repeat, the character of facts is not changed because they are incorrectly reported; distance of time and place only does injury to the record of them. The Scripture miracles were in themselves what they are to us now, at the very time that the world was associating them with the prodigies of Jewish strollers, heathen magicians and astrologers, and idolatrous rites; they would have been thus associated to this day, had not inspiration interposed; yet, in spite of this, they would have been deserving our serious attention as now, so far as we were able to separate the truth from the falsehood. And such is the state in which Ecclesiastical miracles actually do come to us, because inspiration was not continued; they are dimly seen in twilight and amid shadows; let us not, then, quarrel with them on account of a characteristic which is but the necessary consequence of external circumstances.

Notes

 1. Vide Middleton's Inquiry, p. 24. et alib. Campbell on Miracles, p. 121.

 2. De Spir. S. 74.

 3. [ Mechri tou nun tois hepich o riois theama ginetai to phuton kai di e g e ma and onoma de mechri tou nun hesti t o dendr o i h e bact e ria, mn e mosunon t e s Gr e goriou charitos kai duname o s, tois ench o riois hen panti t o chron o s o zomenon ]. T. ii. pp. 991, 992.

 4. Eusebius relates of one Natalis, a Confessor of the end of the second century, that he fell into the heresy of Theodotus, a sort of Unitarianism, and was warned by our Lord in visions. On neglecting these, he was severely scourged by angels all through the night. Hist. v. 28. Vide Hieron. adv. Rufin. p. 414.

 5. Sulpicius adds, "Et vere ante Martinum pauci admodum, imo pæne nulli, in illis regionibus Christi nomen receperant; quod adeò virtutibus illius exemploque convaluit, ut jam ibi nullus locus sit, qui non aut ecclesiis frequentissimis aut monasteriis sit repletus." V. Mart. 10.

 6. Page 72.

 7. Page 232.

 8. For ancient testimonies to the power of exorcism, vid. Middleton, pp. 80-90. Douglas's Criterion, p. 232, Note 1. Farmer, On Miracles, pp. 241, 242. Whitby's Preface to Epp. § 10.

 9. Treat. viii. 8. Oxford tr.

 10. Treat. ii. 4. Oxford tr.

 11. For other ancient testimonies to the ecclesiastical miracles, vid. Dodwell. Dissert. in Irenæum. ii. 41-60. Middleton's Inquiry, pp. 2-19. Brook's Defens. Miracl. Eccl. pp. 16-22. Mr. Isaac Taylor's Anc. Christ. part 7.

 12. On the difference between the miracles of Scripture and of Ecclesiastical History, vid. Douglas's Crit. pp. 221-237. Paley's Evidences, Part i. Prop. 2. Middl. pp. 21-26, 91-96, etc. Bishop Blomfield's Sermons, note p. 82. Dodwell attempts to draw a line between the Ante-Nicene and the later miracles, in favour of the former (Dissert. in Iren. ii. 62-66), as regards testimony, nature, instrument, and object.

 13. Hom. in 1 Cor. vi. 2 and 3.

 14. Hom. 8, in Col. § 5.

 15. De Civ. Dei, xxii. 8, § 1.

 16. Ep. i. 22, § 9. The same feeling of reverence for times past must be taken partly to account for the expressions [ ichn e ] and [ hypoleleiptai ] in Origen, Eusebius, etc., below note a [n. 21 ] .

 17. Ibid. § 2.

 18. Ep. iv. 80.

 19. In Evang. ii. 29.

 20. Strom. ii. 6, p. 444. So Mr. Osburn, (Errors Apost. Fathers, p. 12,) and I think rightly. The Bishop of Lincoln, however, observes, "I find only one passage in the writings of Clement which has any bearing on the question of the existence of miraculous powers in the Church;" and proceeds to refer to the Extracts from the writings of Theodotus. Kaye's Clement, p. 468. The Bishop argues, in his work upon Tertullian, that miracles had then ceased, from a passage in the De Pudicitiâ, in which, after saying that the Apostles had spiritual powers peculiar to themselves, Tertullian adds, "Nam et mortuos suscitaverunt, quod Deus solus; et debiles redintegraverunt, quod nemo nisi Christus; immo et plagas inflixerunt, quod voluit Christus." c. 21.

 21. The following passages will be found to testify to the same general fact, that the special miraculous powers possessed by the Apostles did not continue in the Church after them. Eusebius says that, according to St. Irenæus, instances of miraculous powers, [ en ekkl e siais tisin hypoleleipto ], Hist. v. 7. [ ichn e ], of the miracles still remain, says Origen contra Cels. i. 2, fin. [ ichn e, kai tina ge meizona ]. Ibid . ii. 8. [ ichn e par holigois ]. Ibid . vii. 8, fin. In two of these passages the gift is connected with holiness of life, a doctrine which Dodwell denies to have existed till the middle ages, Dissert. in Iren. ii. 64, though he is aware of these passages. [ oude ichnos upoleleiptai ], Chrysost. de Sacerd. iv. 3, fin. [ oi de nun pantes omou ] cannot do as much as St. Paul's handkerchiefs. Ibid . iv. 6. He implies that the dead were not raised in his day. "If God saw that the raising of the dead would profit the living, He would not have omitted it." De Lazar. iv. 3. "Where is the Holy Spirit now? a man may ask; for then it was appropriate to speak of Him, when miracles took place, and the dead were raised, and all lepers were cleansed; but now," etc. De Sanct. Pent. i. 3. He adds that now we have the sanctifying gifts instead. So, again, "The Apostles indeed enjoyed the grace of God in abundance; but if we were bid raise the dead, or open the eyes of the blind, or cleanse lepers, or straighten the lame, or cast out devils, and heal the like disorders," etc. Ad Demetr. i. 8. "When the knowledge of Him as yet was not spread abroad, then miracles used to take place; but now there is no need of that teaching, the facts themselves proclaiming and manifesting the Lord." In Psalm cxlii. 5. Vid. also Inscript. Act. ii. 3. Speaking of the miracles in the wilderness, he says, "In our case also, when we came out of error, many wonders were displayed; but after that they stopped, when religion was planted everywhere. And if subsequently they happened [to the Jews], they were few and scattered, as when the sun stood, etc., and this too has appeared in our case;" and then he goes on to mention the "fiery eruption at the temple," etc., in Matth. Hom. iv. i. And ibid. Hom. xxxii. 7, after mentioning the Apostolic miracles of cleansing lepers, exorcising spirits, and raising the dead, he says, "This is the greatest proof of your nobleness and love, to believe God without pledges; for this is one reason, among others, why God ceased miracles ... Seek not miracles, then, but health of soul." And then he contrasts with visible miracles the "greater" ones of beneficence, self-command, etc., to the end of the Homily. And in Joan. "Now, too, there are those who seek and say, Why are there not miracles now? If thou art faithful as behoveth, and love Christ as thou shouldest, miracles thou needest not." Hom. xxiv. 1. Elsewhere, after speaking of the gift of the Spirit dwelling in us, he adds, "Not that we may raise the dead, nor cleanse lepers, but that we show forth the greatest miracle of all, charity," in Rom. Hom. viii. 7. After quoting the text, "We are changed into the same image from glory to glory," he adds, "This was shown more manifestly when the gifts of miracles were in operation; but even now it is not difficult to discern it when a man has believing eyes," etc., in 2 Cor. Hom. vii. 5. In like manner, St. Augustine, after mentioning the Apostolic miracles, "Sanati languidi, mundati leprosi, incessus claudis, cæcis visus, surclis auditus est redditus," and the changing of water into wine, the multiplication of the loaves, etc., continues, "Cur, inquis, ista modò non fiunt? quia non moverent, nisi mira essent: at si solita essent, mira non essent." De Util. cred. 16. He adds, in his Retractations, "Hoc dixi, quia non tanta, nec omnia modo, non quia nulla fiunt etiam modo." Again, "Cum Ecclesia Catholica per totum orbem diffusa atque fundata sit, nec miracula illa in nostra tempora durare permissa sunt, ne animus semper visibilia quæreret," etc. De Ver. Rel. 25. He adds, in his Retractations, "Non sic accipiendum est quod dixi, ut nunc in Christi nomine fieri miracula nulla credantur. Nam ego ipse, quando istum ipsum librum scripsi, ad Mediolanensium corpora Martyrum in eâdem civitate cæcum illuminatum fuisse jam noveram," etc. Vid. also Pope Greg. Mor. xxvii. 18.

 22. De Unit. Eccl. 49, 50.

 23. Ecclus. xxxix. 16-35.

 24. This is Middleton's ground in the following passage, with which should be compared the passages from Hume in the text: "The present question concerning the reality of the miraculous powers of the primitive Church depends on the joint credibility of the facts, pretended to have been produced by those powers, and of the witnesses who attest them. If either part be infirm, their credit must sink in proportion; and if the facts especially be incredible, must of course fall to the ground, because no force of testimony can alter the nature of things. The credibility of facts lies open to the trial of our reason and senses, but the credibility of witnesses depends on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us; and though in many cases it may reasonably be presumed, yet in none can it certainly be known. For it is common with men, out of crafty and selfish views, to dissemble and deceive; or out of weakness and credulity to embrace and defend with zeal what the craft of others had imposed upon them; but plain facts cannot delude us cannot speak any other language, or give any other information but what flows from nature and truth. The testimony, therefore, of facts, as it is offered to our senses in this wonderful fabric and constitution of worldly things, may properly be called the testimony of God Himself, as it carries with it the surest instruction in all cases, and to all nations, which in the ordinary course of His providence He has thought fit to appoint for the guidance of human life." Pp. ix. x.

 Again, "Our first care should be to inform ourselves of the proper nature and condition of those miraculous powers, ... as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel; for till we have learned from those sacred records what they really were, for what purposes granted, and in what manner exerted by the Apostles and first possessors of them, we cannot form a proper judgment on those evidences which are brought either to confirm or confute their continuance in the Church, and must dispute consequently at random, as chance or prejudice may prompt us, about things unknown to us." P. xi.

 Again, "The whole which the wit of man can possibly discover either of the ways or will of the Creator, must be acquired and not by imagining vainly within ourselves what may be proper or improper for Him to do, but by looking abroad and contemplating what He has actually done; and attending seriously to that revelation which He made of Himself from the beginning, and placed continually before our eyes, in the wonderful works and beautiful fabric of this visible world." P. xxii.

 25. Essay on Miracles, Part ii. circ. fin.

 26. Essay on Providence.

 27. Hence the charge against the Christians of magic, or [ go e teia ]. Tertull. Apol. 23. Origen in Cels. i. 38, ii. 9. Arnob. contr. Gent. i. Euseb. Dem. Ev. iii. 5 and 6, pp. 112, 130. August. Serm. xliii. 4, contr. Faust. xii. 45, Ep. cxxxviii. fin. Julian calls St. Paul the greatest of rogues and conjurors, [ ton pantas pantachou tous p o pote go e tas kai apate o nas hyperballomenon Paulon ]. Ap. Cyr. iii. p. 100. Apollonius professed a knowledge of nature as the secret of his miracles. Vid. Philostr. Vit. Ap. v. 12. Also Quæst. ad Orthod. 24, where Apollonius is said to have done his miracles [ kata t e n epist e m e n t o n physik o n duname o n ], not [ kata t e n theian authentian ]. Philostratus illustrates this when he seems to doubt whether the young woman was really dead, whom Apollonius raised, iv. 45. [Vid. Kortholt. de Vit. et Mor. Christ. c. 3, 4.]

 28. Inquiry, pp. 95, 96.

 29. Milman's History of the Jews, vol. i. p. 204.

 30. Supra, p. 115.

 31. Douglas' Crit. p. 19.

 32. Camp. Miracl. p. 122. Jenkins' Christ. Rel. vol. ii. p. 455.

 33. Le Moyne Miracl. pp. 486, 502. Douglas' Crit. p. 93, etc.

 34. Vid. Acts viii. 9; xvi. 17; xix. 13. Vid. Lucian. Peregr. etc. ap. Middlet. Inqu. p. 23.

 Chapter 4. On the State of the Argument in behalf of the Ecclesiastical Miracles

 67. V ARIOUS able writers, Leslie, Paley, and Douglas, have laid down certain tests or criteria of matters of fact, which may serve as guarantees that the miracles really took place which are recorded in Scripture. They consider these criteria to be of so rigid a nature that an alleged event which satisfies them must necessarily have occurred, and that, as their argument seems to imply, however great its antecedent improbability. Thus they reply to objections such as Hume's drawn from the uniformity of nature; not meeting them directly, but rather superseding the necessity of considering them; for what is proved to be true, need not be proved to be possible. Hume scruples not to use "miracle" and "impossibility" as convertible terms [n. 1 ]; Leslie before him, Douglas after him, seem to answer, "Would you believe a miracle if you saw it? Now we are prepared to offer evidence, if not as strong, still as convincing, as ocular demonstration." Thus they escape from the abstract argument by a controversial method of a singularly practical, and as it may be called, English character.

 68. It would be well if such writers stopped here, but it was hardly to be expected. Disputants are always exposed to the temptation of being over-candid towards objections which they think they have outrun; they admit as facts or truths what they have shown to be irrelevant as arguments. Thus, even were there nothing of a kindred tone of mind in Hume, who has assailed the Scripture miracles, and in some of our friends who have defended them, it might have been anticipated that the consciousness of possessing an irresistible weapon in the contest would have led us to treat the arguments of our opponents with a dangerous generosity. But, unhappily, there is much in Protestant habits of thought actually to dispose our writers to defer to a rationalistic principle of reasoning, the force of which they have managed to evade in the particular case. Hence, though they are earnest in their protest against Hume's summary rejection of all miraculous histories whatever, they make admissions, which only do not directly tell against the principal Scripture miracles, and do tell against all others. They tacitly grant that the antecedent improbability of miracles is at least so great that it can only be overcome by the strongest and most overpowering evidence; that second-best evidence does not even tend to prove them; that they are absolutely incredible up to the very moment that all doubt is decisively set at rest; that there can be no degrees of proof, no incipient and accumulating arguments to recommend them; that no relentings of mind or suspense of judgment is justifiable, as various fainter evidences are found to conspire in their favour; that they may be scorned as fictions, if they are not to be venerated as truths.

 69. It looks like a mere truism to say that a fact is not disproved, because it is not proved; ten thousand occurrences are ever passing, which leave no record behind them, and do not cease to have been because they are forgotten. Yet Bishop Douglas, in his defence of the New Testament Miracles in answer to Hume, certainly assumes that no miracle is true which has not been proved so, or that it is safe to treat all miracles as false which are not recommended by evidence as strong as that which is adducible for the Miracles of Scripture.

 70. In estimating statements of fact, it is usual to allow that various occurrences may be all true, which rest upon very different degrees of evidence. It does not prove that this passage of history is false and the fabrication of impostors, because that passage is attested more distinctly and fully. Writers, however, like Douglas, are constantly reminding us that we need not receive the Ecclesiastical miracles, though we receive those of the New Testament. But the question is not whether we need not, but whether we ought not to receive the former, as well as the latter; and if it really is the case that we ought not, surely this must be in consequence of some positive reasons, not of a mere inferiority in the evidence. It is plain, then, that such reasoners, though they deny that an à priori ground can be maintained in fact against the miracles of Scripture, still at least agree with Hume in thinking such a ground does exist, and that it is conclusive against ecclesiastical miracles even antecedent to the evidence.

 71. In the title of his Dissertation, Douglas promises us "a criterion by which the true miracles recorded in the New Testament are distinguished from the spurious miracles of the Pagans and Papists;" yet, when he proceeds to state in the body of the work the real object to which he addresses himself, we find that it relates quite as much to the evidence for either class of miracles as to the fact itself of their occurrence. He says, that whereas "the accounts which have been published to the world of miracles in general," are concerned with events which are supernatural either in themselves or under their circumstances, while the latter class can be explained on natural principles, the former " may, from the insufficiency of the evidence produced in support of them, be justly suspected to have never happened." [n. 2 ] But how does insufficiency in the evidence create a positive prejudice against an alleged fact? How can things depend on our knowledge of them? This writer must mean that evidence of an inferior kind is insufficient to overcome a certain pre-existing objection which attaches to the very notion of these miracles; otherwise even slight evidence is sufficient to influence our minds, as Bishop Butler would tell us, so far as it is positive, and evidence of this defective kind may constitute the very trial of our obedience.

 72. Douglas continues: "I flatter myself, that the evidence produced in their support," in support of the miracles of "Pagans and Papists," "will appear to be so very defective and insufficient, as justly to warrant our rejecting them as idle tales that never happened, and the inventions of bold and interested deceivers ." [n. 3 ] There are many reasons to warrant our disbelieving alleged facts, and ascribing them to imposture; for instance, if the evidence is contradictory, or attended by suspicious circumstances; if the witnesses are of bad character, or strong inducements to fraud exist; but it is difficult to see how its mere  insufficiency or defectiveness is a justification of so decided a step. The direct effect of evidence is to create a presumption, according to its strength, in favour of the fact attested; it does not appear how it can create a presumption the other way. The real explanation of this mode of writing certainly must be, that the writer takes it for granted that all miraculous accounts are already in a manner self-condemned, as being miraculous, till they are proved; and that evidence offered for them, which does not amount to a proof, is but involved in that existing prejudice. There is no medium then; the testimony must either prevail or be scouted; it is certainly a fraud, if it is not an overpowering demonstration.

 73. But the author in question scarcely leaves us in doubt of his meaning, when he avails himself of the following maxim of Dr. Middleton's: "I have already observed," he says, "that the testimony supporting [miracles] must be free from every suspicion of fraud and imposture. And the reason is this: the history of miracles (to make use of the words of an author whose authority you will think of some weight) is of a kind totally different from that of common events; the one to be suspected always of course without the strongest evidence to confirm it; the other to be admitted of course without as strong reason to suspect it. So that, wherever the evidence urged for miracles leaves grounds for a suspicion of fraud and imposition,  the very suspicion furnishes sufficient reasons for disbelieving them. And what I shall offer under this head will make it evident, that those miracles which the Protestant Christian thinks himself at liberty to reject have always been so insufficiently attested as to leave full scope for fraud and imposition." [n. 4 ] That is, we may ascribe a story to fraud, whenever it is not absolutely impossible so to ascribe it; we may summarily reject and vilify all evidence up to such evidence as is a moral demonstration, though to such we must immediately yield, because we cannot help it; and this as a matter "of course." All this surely implies the existence of some deep latent prejudice in the writer's mind against miraculous occurrences, considered in themselves; else it is not a reasonable mode of arguing.

 74. The Bishop continues in the same strain to "lay down a few general rules by which we may try those pretended miracles, one and all, wherever they occur, and which may set forth the grounds on which we suspect  them false ." [n. 5 ] And then, "by way of illustration," he selects three, telling us that we suspect them false, or "we may suspect them false," when the existing accounts of miracles were not published till long after the time when, or not at the place where, they are said to have occurred; or, at least, if it seems probable that they were suffered to get into circulation without examination at the time and place. Here of course he does but act up to Middleton's bold principle which he has adopted; he considers himself at liberty to bid defiance and offer resistance to all evidence, till he is fairly subdued by it, till it is impossible to doubt, and no merit to believe; while he would never reject or impute fraud to a record of ordinary events, merely because it was published in a foreign country, or a hundred years after the events in question, however he might justly consider such circumstances to weaken the force of the evidence.

 75. In a subsequent page of his work he speaks still more pointedly: "When the reporters of miracles," he says, "content themselves with general assertions and vague claims to a miraculous power, without ever attempting to corroborate them by descending to particular facts, and leave us strangely in the dark as to the persons by whom, the witnesses before whom, and the objects upon whom these miraculous powers are said to be exercised, omitting every circumstance necessary to be related by them before any inquiry can be made into the truth of the pretension; when miracles, I say, are reported in this unsatisfactory manner, (and instances of miracles reported on the spot by contemporary writers, in such a manner, might be mentioned,) in this case it would be the height of credulity to pay any regard to them in a distant age, because no regard could possibly be paid to them in their own." [n. 6 ] Yet it does not appear how this "unsatisfactory manner" in the report can touch the events reported; if they took place, they were before and quite independent of the evidence at present existing for them, be it greater or less; our knowledge or ignorance does not create or annihilate facts.

 76. Now these passages from Bishop Douglas have been drawn out, not simply with a view of criticising him, but in order to direct attention to the fact which he illustrates, viz., that our feeling towards the Ecclesiastical Miracles turns much less on the evidence producible for them, than on our view concerning their antecedent probability. If we think such interpositions of Providence likely or not unlikely, there is quite enough evidence existing to convince us that they really do occur; if we think them as unlikely as they appear to Douglas, Middleton, and others, then even evidence as great as that which is producible for the miracles of Scripture would not be too much, nay, perhaps not enough, to conquer an inveterate, deep-rooted, and (as it may be called) ethical incredulity.

 77. It shall here be assumed that this incredulity is a fault; and it is the result of a state of mind which has been prevalent among us for some generations, and from which we are now but slowly extricating ourselves. We have been accustomed to believe that Christianity is little more than a creed or doctrine, introduced into the world once for all, and then left to itself, after the manner of human institutions, and under the same ordinary governance with them, stored indeed with hopes and fears for the future, and containing certain general promises of aid for this life, but unattended by any special Divine Presence or any immediately supernatural gift. To minds habituated to such a view of Revealed Religion, the miracles of ecclesiastical history must needs be a shock, and almost an outrage, disturbing their feelings and unsettling their most elementary notions and thoroughly received opinions. They are eager to find defects in the evidence, or appearances of fraud in the witnesses, as a relief to their perplexity, and as an excuse for rejecting, as if on the score of reason, what their heart and imagination have rejected already. Or they are too firmly persuaded of the absurdity, as they consider it, which such pretensions on the part of the Church involve, to be moved by them at all; and they content themselves with coldly demanding to know points which cannot now be known, or to be satisfied about difficulties which never will be cleared up, before they can be asked to take interest in statements which they consider so unreasonable. And certainly they are both philosophical and religious in thus acting, granting that the Lord of all is present with Christians only in the way of nature, as with His creatures all over the earth. On the other hand, if we believe that Christians are under an extraordinary Dispensation, such as Judaism was, and that the Church is a supernatural ordinance, we shall in mere consistency be disposed to treat even the report of miraculous occurrences with seriousness, from our faith in a Present Power adequate to their production. Nay, if we only go so far as to realize what Christianity is, when considered merely as a creed, and what stupendous over-powering facts are involved in the doctrine of a Divine Incarnation, we shall feel that no miracle can be great after it, nothing strange or marvellous, nothing beyond expectation.

 2.

 78. All this applies to the view we shall take of the nature of the facts which are laid before us, as well as of the character of the evidence. If we disbelieve the divinity of the Church, then we shall do our best to deny that the facts attested are miraculous, even admitting them to be true. "Though our not knowing on whom, or by whom, or before whom, the miracles recorded by the Fathers of the second and third centuries were wrought," says Douglas, "should be allowed not to destroy their credit (though this is a concession which very few will make ... ), yet the facts appealed to are of so ambiguous a kind, that, granting they did happen, it will remain to be decided, by a consideration of the circumstances attending the performance of them, whether there was any miracle in the case or no." [n. 7 ] Certainly it is a rule of philosophy to refer effects, if possible, to known causes, rather than to imagine a cause for the occasion; and, on the other hand, to be suspicious of alleged facts for which no cause can be assigned, or which are unaccountable. If, then, there is nothing in the Church more than in any other society of men, it is natural to attribute the miracles alleged to have been wrought in it to natural causes, where that is possible, and to disparage the evidence where it is not so. But if the Church be possessed of supernatural powers, it is not unnatural to refer to these the facts reported, and to feel the same disposition to heighten their marvellousness as otherwise is felt to explain it away. Thus our view of the evidence will practically be decided by our views of theology. There are two providential systems in operation among us, the visible and the invisible, intersecting, as it were, each other, and having a certain territory in common; and in many cases we do not know the exact boundaries of each, as again we do not know the minute details of those facts which are ascribed by their reporters to a miraculous agency. For instance, faith may sometimes be a natural cause of recovery from sickness, sometimes a miraculous instrument; the application of oil may be a mere expedient of medical art, or parallel to the application of water in Baptism. The Martyrs have before now found red-hot iron, on its second application, even grateful to their seared limbs; on the other hand, cases of a similar kind are said to have occurred where religion was not in question, and where a divine interposition cannot be conjectured. Sudden storms and as sudden calms on the lake of Gennesareth might be of common occurrence; yet the particular circumstances under which the waters were quieted at our Lord's word may have been sufficient to convince beholders that it was a miracle. The Red Sea may have been ordinarily exposed to the influence of the East Wind, and nevertheless the separation of its waters, as described in the Book of Exodus, may have required a supernatural influence. In these and numberless other instances men will systematize facts in their own way, according to their knowledge, opinions, and wishes, as they are used to do in all matters which come before them; and they will refer them to causes which they see or believe, in spite of their being referable to other causes about which they are ignorant or sceptical.

 79. When, then, controversialists go through the existing accounts of ecclesiastical miracles, and explain one after another on the hypothesis of natural causes; when they resolve a professed vision into a dream, a possession into epilepsy or madness, a prophecy into a sagacious conjecture, a recovery into the force of imagination, they are but expressing their own disbelief in the Grace committed to the Church; and of course they are consistent in denying its outward triumphs, when they have no true apprehension of its inward power. Those, on the other hand, who realize that the bodies of the Saints were in their lifetime the Temples of the Holiest, and are hereafter to rise again, will feel no offence at the report of miracles wrought through them; nor ought those who believe in the existence of evil spirits to have any difficulty at the notion of demoniacal possession and exorcism. And it may be taken as a general truth, that where there is an admission of Catholic doctrines, there no prejudice will exist against the Ecclesiastical Miracles; while those who disbelieve the existence among us of the hidden Power, will eagerly avail themselves of every plea for explaining away its open manifestations. All that can be objected here is, that miracles which admit of this double reference to causes natural and supernatural, taken by themselves and in the first instance, are not evidence of Revealed Religion; but I have nowhere maintained that they are. Yet, though not part of the philosophical basis of Christianity, they may be evidence still to those who admit the Divine Presence in the Church, and in proportion as they realize it; they may be evidence in combination with more explicit miracles, or when viewed all together in their cumulative force; they may confirm or remind of the Apostolic miracles; they may startle, they may spread an indefinite awe over certain transactions or doctrines; they may in various ways subserve the probation of individuals to whom they are addressed, more fully than occurrences of a more marked character. The mere circumstance that they do not carry their own explanation with them is no argument against them, unless we would surrender the most sacred and awful events of our religion to the unbeliever [n. 8 ]. As the admission of a Creator is necessary for the argumentative force of the miracles of Moses or St. Paul, so does the doctrine of a Divine Presence in the Church supply what is ambiguous in the miracles of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus or St. Martin.

 3.

 80. The course of these remarks has now sufficiently shown that in drawing out the argument in behalf of ecclesiastical miracles, the main point to which attention must be paid is the proof of their antecedent probability [n. 9 ]. If that is established, the task is nearly accomplished. If the miracles alleged are in harmony with the course of Divine Providence in the world, and with the analogy of faith as contained in Scripture, if it is possible to account for them, if they are referable to a known cause or system, and especially if it can be shown that they are recognized, promised, or predicted in Scripture, very little positive evidence is necessary to induce us to listen to them or even accept them, if not one by one, at least viewed as a collective body. In that case they are but the natural effects of supernatural agency, and Middleton's canon, which Douglas, as above quoted, adopts to their disadvantage, becomes their protection. Then "the history of miracles," instead of being "suspected always of course, without the strongest evidence to confirm it," is at first sight almost "to be admitted of course, without a strong reason to suspect it;" such suspicions as attach to it arising from our actual experience of fraud, not from difficulties in its subject matter. If "the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them;" if the Church is "the kingdom of heaven;" if our Lord is with His disciples "alway, even unto the end of the world;" if He promised His Holy Spirit to be to them what He Himself was when visibly present, and if miracles were one special token of His Presence when on earth; if moreover miracles are expressly mentioned as tokens of the promised Comforter; if St. Paul speaks of "mighty signs and wonders by the power of the Spirit of God," and of his "speech and preaching" being "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power," and of "diversities of gifts but the same Spirit," and of "healing," "working of miracles," and "prophecy," as among His gifts; surely we have no cause to be surprised at hearing supernatural events reported in any age, and though we may freely exercise our best powers of inquiry and judgment on such and such reports, as they come before us, yet this is very different from hearing them with prejudice, and examining them with contempt or insult.

 81. This Essay, indeed, is not the place for doctrinal discussions: there is one text, however, to which attention may be drawn, without deviating into theology, in consequence of what may be called its historical character, which on other accounts also makes it more to our purpose, our Lord's charge to His disciples at the end of St. Mark's Gospel. It might in truth have been anticipated that, among the promises with which He animated His desponding disciples when He was leaving them, some mention would be made of those supernatural powers which had been the most ready proof of His own divinity, and the most awful of the endowments with which during His ministry He had invested them. Nor does He disappoint the expectation; for in the passage alluded to He distinctly announces a continuation of these pledges of His favour, and that without fixing the term of it. At the very time apparently when He said to them, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world," He also made two announcements, one for this life, the other for the life to come. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," was for the future; and the present promise, which concerns us here, ran thus: "These signs shall follow them that believe; In My Name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Now let us see what presumption is created or suggested by this passage in behalf of the miraculous passages of Ecclesiastical History as we have received them.

 82. First, let it be observed, five gifts are here mentioned as specimens of our Lord's bequest to His disciples on His departure: exorcism, speaking with new tongues, handling serpents, drinking poison without harm, and healing the sick. When our Lord first sent out the Apostles to preach during His ministry, He had specified four: "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils." Comparing these two passages together, we find that two gifts are common to both of them, and thereby stand out as the most characteristic and prominent constituents of the supernatural endowment. It is observable, again, that these two gifts, of which there is this repeated mention, are not so wonderful or so decisively miraculous as those of which mention only occurs in one of the two texts. The power of exorcism and of healing is committed by our Lord to the Apostles, both when He first calls them, and when He is leaving them; but they are promised the gift of tongues only on their second mission, and that of raising the dead only on the first. This does not prove that they could not raise the dead when our Lord had left them; indeed, we know in matter of fact that they had, and that they exercised, the power; but it is natural to suppose that a stress is laid on what is mentioned twice, and to form thence some idea, in consequence, of the predominant character of their miraculous endowment, when it was actually brought into exercise. In accordance with this anticipation, whatever it is worth in itself, St. Matthew heads his report of our Lord's charge to His Apostles on their first mission with mention of these very two gifts, and these only: "And when He had called unto Him His twelve Disciples, He gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease ." And in like manner when the Seventy are sent, these two gifts, and these only, are specified by St. Luke as imparted to them; our Lord saying to them, "Heal the sick," and they answering, "Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through Thy Name."

 83. Further, when we turn to the history of the Book of Acts we find the general tenor of the Apostles' miracles to be just such as these passages in the Gospels would lead us to expect; that is, were a Jew or heathen of the day, who had a fair opportunity of witnessing their miracles, to be asked what those miracles consisted in, the general impression left by them on his mind, and the best account which he could give of them would be, that they were the healing the sick and casting out devils. We have indeed instances recorded of their raising the dead, but only two in the whole book, those of Tabitha and Eutychus; and of these the latter was almost a private act, and wrought expressly for the comfort of the brethren, not for the conviction of unbelievers; and though the former was the means of converting many in the neighbourhood, yet it was wrought at Joppa, among a number of "widows" and "saints," not in Jerusalem, where the jealous eyes of enemies would have been directed upon it. In the same book there are three instances of the gift of tongues, at Pentecost, in Cornelius's house, and at Ephesus on the confirmation of St. John's disciples. There is one instance of protection from the bite of serpents, that of St. Paul at Melita. There is no instance of cleansing leprosy, or of drinking poison without harm. With this frugality in the display of their highest gifts is singularly contrasted the bountifulness of the Apostles in exercising their powers of healing and exorcising. "They brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them that were vexed with unclean spirits ; and they were healed every one ." Again, when St. Philip went down to Samaria, and "the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did," what were the particular gifts which he exercised? the inspired writer continues, "For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them; and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. And there was great joy in that city." Again, we read of St. Paul, in a later part of the same book, as has been already quoted in another connection, that "from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them." [Acts v. 15, 16; viii. 6-8; xix. 12.]

 84. If there is one other characteristic gift in the Book of Acts in addition to these, it is the gift of visions and divine intimations. And, as if to make up for our Lord's silence concerning it in the Gospel of St. Mark, St. Peter opens the sacred history of the Acts with a reference to the Prophet Joel's promise of the time, when "their sons and their daughters should prophesy, and their young men should see visions, and their old men should dream dreams;" an announcement of which the narrative which follows abundantly records the fulfilment. St. Stephen sees our Lord before his martyrdom; the Angel directs St. Philip to go towards Gaza, and the Holy Spirit Himself bids him join himself to the Ethiopian's chariot; St. Paul is converted by a vision of our Lord; St. Peter has the vision of the clean and unclean beasts, and Cornelius is addressed by an Angel; Angels release first the Apostles, then St. Peter from prison; "a vision appeared to Paul in the night, there stood a man of Macedonia;" at Corinth Christ "spake to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid;" Agabus and St. Philip's four daughters prophesy; in prison "the Lord stood by Paul, and said, Be of good cheer;" on board ship an Angel stood by him, saying, "Fear not, Paul, thou must be brought before Cæsar." [Acts vii. 56; viii. 26, 29; ix. 3-6; x. 3, 10, etc.]

 85. Such is the general character of the miracles of the Book of Acts; and next let it be observed, such is the character of our Lord's miracles also, as they would strike the bulk of spectators. He raises indeed the dead three times, He feeds the multitude in the desert, He cleanses the leprosy, He gives sight to the blind, on various but still definite occasions; but how different is the language used by the Evangelists when His powers of healing and exorcising are spoken of! We read of "a great multitude of people out of all Judea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear Him and to be healed of their diseases ; and they that were vexed with unclean spirits ; and they were healed. And the whole multitude sought to touch Him; for there went virtue out of Him, and healed them all ." Again, " Whithersoever He entered, into villages, or cities, or country, they laid the sick in the streets, and besought Him that they might touch if it were but the corner of His garment; and as many as touched Him were made whole ." Again, "They brought unto Him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and  those that were possessed with devils, and those that were lunatic, and those that had the palsy ; and He healed them." [Luke vi. 17-19; Mark vi. 56; Matt. iv. 24.] It may be added that of other miraculous occurrences in the Gospels none are more frequent than visions and voices, from the Angel which appeared to Zacharias to the vision of Angels seen by the women after our Lord's resurrection; as is obvious without proof.

 86. It appears, then, that the two special powers which were characteristic, as of our Lord's miraculous working, so also of His Apostles after Him, were exorcism and healing; and moreover that these were in matter of fact the two gifts especially promised to the Apostles above other gifts. It appears, also, that if one other gift must be selected from the Gospels and Book of Acts as of greater prominence than the rest it will be the gift of visions; so that cures, exorcisms, and visions are on the whole the three distinguishing specimens of Divine Power, by which our Lord authenticated to the world the Religion He bestowed upon it. Now it has already been observed [n. 10 ] that these are the very three especially claimed by the Primitive Church; while, as to the more stupendous miracles of raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, cleansing lepers, and the like, of these certainly she affords instances also, but very rarely, as if after the manner of Scripture. This surely is a remarkable coincidence; and is the rather to be dwelt upon, because those who consider the vagueness of the language with which the ecclesiastical miracles are attested, as a proof that they were merely the fabrication of fraud or credulity, have to explain how it was that, while the parties accused were exercising their powers of imagination or imposture, they did not embellish their pages with similar vague statements of miracles of a more awful character, even from the mere love of variety, instead of confining themselves to those which in appearance at least were shared with them by Jews and heathen.

 87. Nor can it reasonably be urged that their acquaintance with Scripture suggested to them in this matter an imitation of the Divine procedure as there recorded; because Scripture does not on the face of it impress upon the reader the fact which has been here pointed out. The actual course of the events which Scripture relates is one thing, and the course of the narrative is another; for the sacred writers do not state events with that relative prominence in which they severally occurred in fact. Inspiration has interfered to select and bring into the foreground the most cogent instances of Divine interposition, and has identified them by a number of distinct details; on the other hand, it has covered up from us the "many other signs" which "Jesus did in the presence of His disciples," "the which, if they should be written every one, even the world itself," as St. John speaks, "could not contain the books that should be written." And doubtless there are doctrinal reasons also for this circumstance, if we had means of ascertaining them. But so it is, that the primâ facie appearance of the Gospel Miracles does not so correspond to that of the Ecclesiastical Miracles, as probably it would have corresponded, had St. John, for instance, given us a description of the second and third centuries, instead of St. Justin and Origen, or had Sulpicius described the Miracles of the Apostles at Jerusalem or Ephesus.

 4.

 88. And now, if this representation has any truth in it, if our Lord, in the passage of St. Mark in question, promised five gifts to His disciples, two of which were those of exorcism and healing; if these same two, distinguished in other places of the Gospels above the rest, are the prominent external signs of power in the history both of our Lord and of His Apostles; if these particular Miracles are the special instruments of the conversion of whole multitudes; if on account of the cures and exorcisms wrought by the twelve Apostles "believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women;" if on St. Philip's casting out devils, and curing palsy and lameness, "the people with one accord gave heed," and "there was great joy in that city;" if when an evil spirit had confessed, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?" "fear fell on them all," and "the Name of the Lord Jesus was magnified," and "the word of God grew mightily and prevailed;" what is to be said of those modern Apologists for Christianity who do their best to prove that these phenomena have nothing necessarily miraculous in them at all? So much is evident at once, that had they been the persons encountered by these miracles of the Apostles, had they been the Samaritans to whom St. Philip came, or the Ephesians who were addressed by St. Paul, they would have thought it their duty to have felt neither "much joy" with the one, nor "fear" with the other; and that, if Samaritans and Ephesians had acted on the modern view of what is rational and what is evidence, what sound judgment and what credulity, Christianity would not have made way and prospered, but we all should have been heathen at this day.

 89. Bishop Douglas, for instance, observes, that the circumstance that the Fathers allow that "cures of diseases, particularly of demoniacs by exorcising them," "were exercised by pagans with the assistance of their demons and gods," and admit that "there were exorcists among the Jews and Gentiles, who by the use of certain forms of words, used as charms, and by the practice of certain rites, cast out devils, as well as the Christian exorcists," that this circumstance "some may think puts these feats of jugglers and impostors upon the same footing of credibility with the works ascribed to Christians" [n. 11 ]: why not with the works ascribed to Apostles? Again he urges, that "the cures ascribed to the prayers of Christians, to the imposition of their hands, etc., in those early times, might, for aught we know, be really brought about in a natural way, and be accounted for in the same way in which we have accounted for those ascribed to the Abbé Paris, and those attributed by the superstitious Papists to the intercession of the Saints": perhaps the acute unbelievers of Corinth or Ephesus by a parallel argument justified their rejection of St. Paul. At Ephesus, when the demoniac leapt on the Jewish exorcists, "and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded," "fear" in consequence "fell on all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus;" but the Bishop would have taught them that "a few grimaces, wild gestures, disordered agitations, and blasphemous exclamations, suited to the character of the supposed infernal inhabitants, constitute all we know of their disease; and consequently, as all these symptoms are ambiguous, and may be assumed at pleasure by an impostor, a collusion between the exorcist and the person exorcised will account for the whole transaction, and every one who would avoid the character of being superstitiously credulous will naturally account for it in this manner, rather than by supposing that any supernatural cause intervened." [n. 12 ] Such is this author's judgment of one of the two exhibitions of miraculous power with which our Saviour specially and singularly gifted His Apostles, and by which they, in matter of fact, converted the world. The question is not, whether in particular cases its apparent exercise may not be suspicious and inconclusive, for Douglas is speaking against the gift as such; so that a heathen of Ephesus would have been justified on his principles in demanding of St. Paul to see a man raised from the dead, before he believed in Christ. And such was the nature of the demand made by Autolycus upon St. Theophilus at the end of the second century, and Middleton and Gibbon justify it, and seem moreover to consider the mere silence of Theophilus to be a proof that such a miracle was utterly unknown in his days, as if resurrections abounded in the Acts [n. 13 ].

 90. Again, St. Peter cured Æneas of the palsy, "and all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, and turned to the Lord;" but the Bishop would have advised them to wait till they had seen Tabitha raised; because "palsies, it is well known, arise from obstructions of the spirits that circulate in the nerves, so that their influx into the muscles is impeded, or from obstructions of the arterious blood. Nothing more, therefore, was required here than to remove that obstruction." [n. 14 ]

 91. We read in Scripture of the sudden cure of the dropsy; but the Bishop observes, "That enthusiasm should warm its votaries to a holy madness, and excite the wildest transports and agitations throughout their whole frame, is an effect which, in a country so fruitful of this production as is ours (though enthusiasm be the product of every soil and of every religion), must be consistent with the experience of many." [n. 15 ] Then he adds, speaking of some particular cases: "As one of the curative indications of a dropsy is an evacuation of the water by perspiration, and as the medicines administered by the physician aim to produce this effect, ... what could be more likely to excite such copious perspiration than the enthusiastic transport with which they prayed, and the convulsive struggles which shook their whole frame?" [n. 16 ]

 92. Peter's wife's mother was raised from her fever at once, so as even to be able to "minister" to the holy company; but Bishop Douglas would have suggested to the Pharisees that, had there been more raising of the dead, more restoring of sight to the blind, such cures might have been dispensed with, because, where minds are "heated and inflamed, and every faculty of their souls burning with the raptures of devout joy and enthusiastic confidence," it is "far from being impossible ... that in some cases a change might be wrought on the habit of the body;" [n. 17 ] for "in this case the nervous system is strongly acted upon, and fresh and violent motions are communicated to the fluids;" [n. 18 ] and "such agitations necessarily suppose that the velocity of the fluids" is "greatly accelerated;" [n. 19 ] and "gouts, palsies, fevers of all kinds, and even ruptures, have been thus cured." [n. 20 ] It certainly does not appear why a class of miracles which was, in matter of fact, the principal means of the conversion of the world in the age of the Apostles, should, when professed in the second and third centuries, be put aside by our Apologists on the excuse that "powers were not appealed to, less ambiguous in their nature," nor "other works performed, which admit of no solution from natural causes, and were incapable of being the effects of fraud and collusion." [n. 21 ]

 93. This being the language of so respectable a writer as Bishop Douglas, the following sentiments from Middleton cannot surprise us. Of miracles of healing he says: "In truth, this particular claim of curing diseases miraculously affords great room for and delusion and a wide field for the exercise of craft . Every man's experience has taught him that diseases thought fatal and desperate are oft surprisingly healed of themselves, by some secret and sudden effort of nature impenetrable to the skill of man; but to ascribe this presently to a miracle, as weak and superstitious minds are apt to do, to the prayers of the living or the intercessions of the dead, is what neither sound reason nor true religion will justify." [n. 22 ] Of exorcisms: that certain circumstances "concerning the speeches and confessions of the devils, their answering to all questions, owning themselves to be wicked spirits, etc., and may not improbably be accounted for, either by the disordered state of the patient, answering wildly and at random to any questions proposed, or by the arts of imposture and contrivance between the parties concerned in the act." [n. 23 ] And of visions: "To declare freely what I think, whatever ground there might be in those primitive ages either to reject or to allow the authority of those visions, yet, from all the accounts of them that remain to us in these days, there seems to be the greatest reason to suspect that they were all contrived,or authorized at least, by the leading men of the Church ." [n. 24 ]

 94. Such, then, is the opinion of Christian Apologists concerning the nature of those miracles to which our Lord mainly entrusted the cause of His sacred truth; for, however great the differences may be between the Scripture and Ecclesiastical miracles, viewed as a whole, so far is certain, that the actual and immediate instruments by which the world was convinced of the Gospel were those which these writers distinctly discredit as of an ambiguous and suspicious character. And, if it be asked whether, after all, such miracles are not suspicious, whatever be the consequence of admitting it, I answer, that they are suspicious to read of, but not to see. The particular circumstances of an exorcism, which no narrative can convey, might bring home to the mind a conviction that it was a divine work, quite sufficient for conversion; and much more a number of such awful exhibitions. Generalized statements and abstract arguments are poor representations of fact; but, as they are used to serve the purpose of those who would disparage Saints, it is necessary to show that they can be turned by unbelievers as plausibly, though as sophistically, against Apostles.

 5.

 95. To proceed. The same words of our Saviour which have introduced these remarks in defence of the nature of the ecclesiastical gifts will suggest an explanation of certain difficulties in the mode of their exercise. Christ says, first, "He that believeth shall be saved;" and then, "These signs shall follow them that believe." Here it is obvious to remark, that the power of working miracles is not promised in these words to the preachers of the Gospel merely, but to the converts [n. 25 ]. It is not said, "Preach the Gospel to every creature, and these signs shall follow your preaching," but "these signs shall follow them that believe," the same persons to whom salvation is promised in the verse preceding [n. 26 ]. And further, whereas final salvation is there represented as a personal gift, the gift of miracles is not granted here to " him that believeth," but to " them that believe." And the particular word used, which the Authorized Version translates "follow," suggests or encourages the notion that the miracles promised were to attend upon or to be collateral with their faith, as general indications and tokens [n. 27 ]; not indeed that they were to be the result of every act of faith and in every person, but that on the whole, where men were united together by faith in the name of Christ, there miracles would also be wrought by Him who was "in the midst of them." Thus the gift was rather in the Church than of the Church.

 96. An important text already quoted teaches us the same thing: "I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out My Spirit." The young, the old, the bond and the free, all flesh, all conditions of men, were to be the recipients of the miraculous illuminations of the Gospel. The event exactly accomplished the prediction. In the very opening of the New Dispensation, not only Zacharias the Priest, but Mary the young maiden, Elizabeth the matron, Anna the widow of fourscore and four years, and just and aged Simeon, were inspired to bear witness to it. Again, in the Book of Acts, while Peter was preaching to Cornelius, "the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." At Ephesus, when St. Paul had laid his hands on John's disciples, the Holy Ghost came on them, "and all the men were about twelve." Moreover, we hear of St. Philip's "four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy." And the disorders of the Church of Corinth plainly show that the miraculous gifts were not confined to one or two principal persons of high station or spiritual attainments, but were "dispersed abroad" with a bountiful hand over all the faithful. The same inference may be drawn from St. Peter's direction, "As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." Such, then, is the Scripture account of the bestowal of the miraculous powers in the Apostolic age; and, I repeat, it serves to remove certain misapprehensions and objections which have been made to their exhibition as instanced in the times that follow.

 97. For instance, there seems a fallacy in the mode in which a phrase is used, which often occurs in the controversy. It has been contended that there is no "standing gift of miracles" in the Church; and then it is concluded that therefore no manifestation of Divine Power takes place in it, but those rare and solemn interpositions which we have reason to think actually occur even in heathen countries. "The position which I affirm," says Middleton, "is that, after the days of the Apostles, no standing power of miracles was continued to the Church, to which they might perpetually appeal for the conviction of unbelievers. Yet all my antagonists treat my argument as if it absolutely rejected everything of a miraculous kind, whether wrought within the Church by the agency of men, or on any other occasion by the immediate hand of God." [n. 28 ] Now, there is an ambiguity in the words "standing power," according as we take it to mean a capacity committed to particular persons and exercised by them, or a Divine Agency generally operating in the Church and among Christians, as its Almighty Author wills. Middleton denies the standing power in its former sense; but in our Lord's promise, as well as in St. Paul's description of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, the latter is the prominent idea. Middleton speaks, just after the passage above quoted, of "the Church having no standing power of working " miracles, and elsewhere of a "standing power of working miracles, as exerted openly in the Church, for the conviction of unbelievers." [n. 29 ] Again, he speaks of the "opinion that after the days of the Apostles there resided still in the primitive Church, through several successive ages, a divine and extraordinary power of working miracles, which was frequently and openly exerted, in confirmation of the truth of the Gospel, and for the conviction of unbelievers." [n. 30 ] In like manner Douglas says of Middleton that "his Free Inquiry is not, whether any miracles were performed after the times of the Apostles, but whether, after that period, miraculous powers subsisted in the Church; not whether God interposed at all, but whether He interposed by making use of men as His instruments." [n. 31 ] Here he makes "the subsistence of miraculous powers" equivalent with "the instrumentality of men in their operation;" meaning by the latter the conscious exercise of them by inspired persons in proof of a divine mission, as a former passage of his work shows [n. 32 ]. The present Bishop of Lincoln (Kaye) takes the same view of the controversy, observing that Middleton's object "was to prove that, after the Apostolic age, no standing power of working miracles existed in the Church, that there was no regular succession of favoured individuals upon whom God conferred supernatural powers, which they could exercise for the benefit of the Church of Christ, whenever their judgment, guided by the influence of the Holy Spirit, told them that it was expedient so to do." [n. 33 ] Certainly, if this is what Middleton set about to do, he had not a difficult task before him.

 98. Yet Lord Barrington, before Middleton, had implied that the question lay between the same two issues. "There cannot be much doubt," he says, "of these gifts lasting as much longer as the oldest of those lived to whom St. John imparted them ... Irenæus, speaking of the prophetic gifts, mentions the gift of tongues and the discernment of spirits. And that these did not last longer seems to have been the case in fact, since Irenæus, who died about the year 190, in a very old age, speaks of his having seen these gifts, but says nothing of his own having them." [n. 34 ] That is, Barrington makes no medium between a definite transmission of the gift from Christian to Christian by imposition of hands or similar formal act, such as would involve Irenæus's own possession of it, and on the other hand its having utterly failed. Irenæus saw the gift, he had it not, therefore it was failing in his time; else he would have had it.

 99. What ecclesiastical history rather inculcates is the doctrine of an abiding presence of Divinity such as dwelt upon the Ark, showing itself as it would, and when it would, and without fixed rules; which was seated primarily in the body of Christians, and manifested itself sometimes in persons, sometimes in places, as the case might be, in saintly men, or in "babes and sucklings," or in the very stones of the Temple; which for a while was latent, and then became manifest again; which to some persons, places, or generations was an evidence, and to others was not [n. 35 ]. The ideas of "regular succession," conscious "exercise" of power, objects deliberately contemplated, discretionary use of a gift, and the like, are quite foreign to a theory of miraculous agency of this kind; yet, at the same time, it cannot surely be denied that in one sense such an appointment may rightly be called a "standing power," and that it is very much more than such rare "interpositions of Providence," and such "miracles of invisible agency," as the above writers seem to consider the only alternative to the admission of a discretionary, and conscious, and transmitted gift.

 100. The Ark was a standing instrument of miraculous operation, yet it did not send forth its virtue at all times, nor at the will of man. What was the nature of its mysterious powers we learn from the beginning of the First Book of Samuel; where we read of it first as stationed in the tabernacle, and of the Almighty speaking from it to the child Samuel; next it is captured in battle by the Philistines; but next, when it is set up in the house of Dagon, the idol, without visible cause, falls down before it, and its worshippers are smitten. Next, the cattle which are yoked to it are constrained against their natural instinct to carry it back to Israel. And then the men of Bethshemeth are smitten for looking into it. Was there, or was there not, then, a standing power of miracles in the Jewish Church? There was not, in the sense in which Middleton understands the phrase; there was no "regular succession" of "individuals" who exercised supernatural gifts with a divinely enlightened discretion; even the Prophets were not such a body; yet the Divine Presence consisted in much more than an occasional and extraordinary visitation or intervention in the course of events. That such too should be the nature of the Presence in the Christian Church is at least quite consistent with the tenor of the new Testament; and is almost implied when, in the text which has given rise to these remarks, our Lord bestows its miraculous manifestations upon the body at large. The supernatural glory might abide, and yet be manifold, variable, uncertain, inscrutable, uncontrollable, like the natural atmosphere; dispensing gleams, shadows, traces of Almighty Power, but giving no such clear and perfect vision of it as one might gaze upon and record distinctly in its details for controversial purposes. Thus we are told, "The wind bloweth where it listeth;" "a little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me;" "their eyes were holden," and "they knew Him, and He vanished;" "suddenly there came a sound from heaven;" when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; "all these worketh that One and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will." At one time our Lord connects the gift with special holiness, as when He says that certain exorcisms require "prayer and fasting;" at another He allows it to the reprobate, as when He says that those whom He never knew will in the last day appeal to the wonderful works they did in His Name. At one time St. Paul, in evidence of his divine mission, says, "Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you;" at another he seems to ascribe the power to an imposture: "Though an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, let him be accursed."

 6.

 101. Another difficulty which the text in question enables us to meet is the indiscriminate bestowal of the miraculous gift, as we read of it in ecclesiastical history. Its being in the Church, not of the Church, implies this apparent disorder and want of method in its manifestations, as has been already observed. Yet Middleton objects, speaking of the Fathers, "None of these venerable Saints have anywhere affirmed, that either they themselves, or the Apostolic Fathers before them, were endued with any power of working miracles, but declare only in general, that such powers were actually subsisting in their days and openly existed in the Church; that they had often seen the wonderful effects of them; and that everybody else might see the same, whenever they pleased; but as to the persons who wrought them, they leave us strangely in the dark; for instead of specifying names, conditions, and characters, their general style is, Such and such works are done among us or by us; by our people; by a few; by many; by our exorcists; by ignorant laymen, women, boys, and any simple Christian whatsoever." [n. 36 ] That is, his objection is against the very idea of a gift, committed to the body of the Church, or abiding in the Church. Objectors are hard to please; sometimes they imply dislike of the notion of the gift as delegated to a ministerial succession, and formally transmitted from individual to individual, and then, on the contrary, of its belonging to the Church itself without the intervention of rites of appropriation or definite recipients: what is this but saying that they will not entertain the notion of a continuance of miracles at all? As to Middleton's objection, it seems directed against the prophetic anticipation of the times of the Gospel made to the Jews, as quoted already, that "their sons and daughters should prophesy, their young men see visions, and their old men dream dreams," quite as much as against any seeming incongruities and anomalies which are found in the early Church.

 102. Middleton's complaint, that the Fathers do not themselves profess a miraculous gift, is echoed by Gibbon. "It may seem somewhat remarkable," he says, "that Bernard of Clairvaux, who records so many miracles of his friend St. Malachi, never takes any notice of his own, which, in their turn, however, are carefully related by his companions and disciples. In the long series of ecclesiastical history, does there exist a single instance of a Saint asserting that he himself possessed the gift of miracles?" [n. 37 ] The concluding question concerns our present subject, though St. Bernard himself is far removed from the period of history on which we are engaged. I observe then, first, that it is not often that the gift of miracles is even ascribed to a Saint [n. 38 ]. In many cases miracles are only ascribed to their tombs or relics; or when miracles are ascribed to them when living, these are but single and occasional, not parts of a series. Moreover, they are commonly what Paley calls tentative miracles, or some out of many which have been attempted, and have been done accordingly without any previous confidence in their power to effect them. Moses and Elijah could predict the result; but the miracles in question were scarcely more than experiments and trials, even though success had been granted them many times before [n. 39 ]. Under these circumstances, how could the individual men who wrought them appeal to them themselves? It was not till afterwards, when their friends and disciples could calmly look back upon their life, and review the various actions and providences which occurred in the course of it, that they would be able to put together the scattered tokens of Divine favour, none or few of which might in themselves be a certain evidence of a miraculous power. As well might we expect men in their lifetime to be called Saints, as workers of miracles. But this is not all; the objection serves to suggest a very observable distinction, which holds good between the conduct of those whose miracles are designed to be evidence of the truth of religion, and that of others though similarly gifted. The Apostles, for instance, did their miracles openly, because these were intended to be instruments of conversion; but when the supernatural Power took up its abode in the Church, and manifested itself as it would, and not for definite objects which it signified at the time of its manifestation, it could not but seem to imply some personal privilege, when operating in an individual, who would in consequence be as little inclined to proclaim it aloud as to make a boast of his graces.

 7.

 103. The same peculiarity in the gift will also account for that deficiency in the evidence, and other unsatisfactory circumstances of a like nature, which have already been spoken of. Since the Divine manifestation was arbitrary, the testimony would necessarily be casual. What else could be expected in the case of occurrences of which there was no notice beforehand, and often no trace after, and where we are obliged to be contented with such witnesses as happened to be present, or, if they cannot be found, with the mere report which has circulated from them? and when perhaps, as was noticed in the last paragraph, the principal parties felt it to be wrong to court publicity, after our Lord's pattern, and perhaps shrank from examination? "There is no man," said His brethren to Him, "that doeth anything in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly; if Thou do these things, show Thyself to the world." In our Lord's own case there was a time for concealment and a time for display; and, as it was a time for evidence when miracles were wrought by the Apostles, so afterwards there was a time for other objects and other uses, when miracles were wrought through the Church; and as our Lord's miracles were true, though the Jews complained that He "made them so long to doubt," so it is no disproof of the miracles of the Church, that those who do not wish them true have room to criticise the character or the matter of the testimony which at this day is offered in their behalf.

 8.

 104. One more remark is in point. Middleton, in the extract above quoted, finds fault with the Fathers for "declaring only in general " that miracles continued, that they had seen them themselves, and that any one else might see them who would, while they made no attempt to specify the names, conditions, and characters of the persons working them. Yet surely this is but natural, if such miracles were as frequent as ecclesiastical history represents. Instead of its being an objection to them, it is just the state or things which must necessarily follow, supposing they were such and so wrought as is described. When we are speaking of what is obvious, and allowed on all hands, we do not go about to prove it. We only argue when there is doubt; we only consult documents, and weigh evidence, and draw out proofs, when we are not eye-witnesses. If the Fathers had seen miracles of healing or exorcisms not unfrequently, and were writing to others who had seen the like, they would use the confident yet vague language which we actually find in their accounts. The state of the testimony is but in keeping with the alleged facts.

 105. For instance, St. Justin speaks of the Incarnation as having taken place "for the sake of believers, and for the overthrow of evil spirits;" and " you may know this now," he continues, " from what passes before your eyes ; for many demoniacs all over the world, and in your own metropolis, whom none other exorcists, conjurers, or sorcerers have cured, these have many of our Christians cured, adjuring by the Name of Christ, and still do cure." Again: "With us even hitherto are prophetical gifts, from which you Jews ought to gather that what formerly belonged to your race is transferred to us;" and soon after, quoting the passage from the prophet Joel, he adds, "and with us may be seen females and males with gifts from the Spirit of God." And St. Irenæus: "In His Name His true disciples, receiving the grace from Himself, work for the benefit of other men, as each has received the gift from Him. For some cast out devils certainly and truly, so that oftentimes the cleansed persons themselves become believers, and join the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things future, visions, and prophetical announcements. Others by imposition of hands heal the sick, and restore them to health. Moreover, as I have said, before now even the dead have been restored to life, and have continued with us for many years. Indeed, it is not possible to tell the number of gifts which the Church throughout the world has received from God in the Name of Christ Jesus, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and exercises day by day for the benefit of the nations, neither seducing nor taking money of any." Shortly before he observes, that the heretics could not raise the dead, "as our Lord did, and the Apostles by prayer; and in the brotherhood frequently for some necessary object, (the whole Church in the place asking it with much fasting and supplication,) the spirit of the dead has returned, and the man has been granted to the prayers of the Saints." And again, he speaks of his " hearing many brothers in the Church who had prophetical gifts, and spoke by the Spirit in all tongues, and brought to light the hidden things of men for a profitable purpose, and related the mysteries of God." And in like manner Tertullian: " Place some possessed person before your tribunals ; any Christian shall command that spirit to speak, who shall as surely confess himself to be a devil with truth, as elsewhere he will call himself a god with falsehood ... What work can be clearer? ... there will be no room for suspicion; you would say that it is magic, or some other deceit, if your eyes and ears allowed you, for what is there to urge against that which is proved by its naked sincerity?" Again Origen speaks of persons healing, "with no invocation over those who need a cure, but that of the God of all and the Name of Jesus, with some narrative concerning Him. By these," he adds, "we, too, have seen many set free from severe complaints, and loss of mind, and madness, and numberless other such evils, which neither men nor devils had cured." [n. 40 ]

 106. This is the very language which we are accustomed to use, when facts are so notorious that the onus dubitandi may fairly be thrown upon those who question them. All that can be said is, that the facts are not notorious to us ; certainly not, but the Fathers wrote for contemporaries, not for the eighteenth or nineteenth century, not for modern notions and theories, for distant countries, for a degenerate people and a disunited Church. They did not foresee that evidence would become a science, that doubt would be thought a merit, and disbelief a privilege; that it would be in favour and condescension to them if they were credited, and in charity that they were accounted honest. They did not feel that man was so self-sufficient, and so happy in his prospects for the future, that he might reasonably sit at home closing his ears to all reports of Divine interpositions till they were actually brought before his eyes, and faith was superseded by sense; they did not so disparage the Spouse of Christ as to imagine that she could be accounted by professing Christians a school of error, and a workshop of fraud and imposture. They wrote with the confidence that they were Christians, and that those to whom they transmitted the Gospel would not call them the ministers of Antichrist.

Notes

 1. "What have we to oppose to such a cloud of witnesses but the absolute impossibility or miraculous nature of the events which they relate?" (Essay on Miracles.)

 2. Page 25.

 3. Page 26.

 4. How much more cautious is Jortin! "Though miracles," he says, " may be wrought in secret, and cannot be disproved only because they were seen by few, yet they often afford motives for suspicion, and a wise inquirer would perhaps suspend his assent in such cases, and pass no judgment about them." (Eccl. History, Works, vol. ii. p. 3, ed. 1810.) Again, "As far as the subsequent miracles mentioned by Christian writers fall short of the distinguishing characters belonging to the works of Christ and His Apostles, so far they must fail of giving us the same full persuasion and satisfaction ." (P. 20.)

 5. Page 27.

 6. Page 50.

 7. Page 228.

 8. [ Meta tauta pros o popoiei  Ioudaion aut o i dialegomenon t o i 'I e sou kai elenchonta auton and h o s plasamenon autou t e n ek parthenou genesin ... ph e si de aut e n kai hypo tou g e mantos, tektonos t e n techn e n ontos, exe o sthai, elenchtheisan h o s memoicheum e n e n eita legei, h o s ekbl e theisa hypo tou andros, kai plan o men e atim o s skotion egenn e se ton I e soun ]. Orig. contr. Cels. i. 28.

 9. "Men will be inclined to determine this controverted question according to their preconceived notions and their accustomed way of thinking; for there appears to be a sort of fatality in opinions of this kind, which, when once taken up, are seldom laid down." (Jortin, ibid. p. 24.) Yet he says elsewhere of Theophilus, an Arian missionary, "I blame not Tillemont for rejecting all these miracles, which seem to have been rumours raised and spread to serve a party; but the true reason of his disbelief is, that they were Arian miracles; and if they had been reported concerning Athanasius, all difficulties would have been smoothed over and accounted of small moment." (P. 219.) As if a miracle wrought by Athanasius was not more likely than miracles wrought by an Arian, though a missionary.

 10. [N. 30, supra .]

 11. Page 233-236.

 12. Page 146. Douglas is speaking here primarily of the Church of Rome; afterwards he apparently refers to the passage when speaking of the Primitive Church, p. 236.

 13. Defecere etiam mortuorum excitationes. Certe Autolyco roganti ut vel unum ostenderet qui fuisset è mortuis revocatus, ita respondit Theophilus quasi vel unum demonstrare minime potuerit. Dodw. in Iren. Dissert. ii. 44. Jortin is more cautious. "It is probable," he says, "from his [Theophilus's] silence, that he had heard of no instance of such a miracle in his days; probable, I say, but not certain; because, though he had heard of it, he might possibly have thought it to no purpose to tell his friend that there were Christians who affirmed such things, and he might suspect that Autolycus would not have admitted the testimony of persons with whom he had no acquaintance, and for whom he had little regard." Eccl. Hist. (Works, vol. ii. p. 92, ed. 1810). Vid. the striking statement of Origen. contr. Cels. i. 46. Greg. Nyss. tom. ii. p. 1009.

 14. Page 82.

 15. Page 104.

 16. Page 107.

 17. Page 102.

 18. Page 106.

 19. Ibid.

 20. Page 101.

 21. Page 236.

 22. Page 79.

 23. Page 82.

 24. Page 109.

 25. "Nec enim prædicantes illa secutura signa pollicetur, sed credentes; nec eos qui jam antea credidissent, sed qui essent postea deinde credituri. Responditque eventus accuratissimè; conversis enim, non conversoribus, gratias illas donatas esse constat de quibus legimus in primis Ecclesiarum conversionibus." Dodw. in Iren. Dissert. ii. 28. This is so fully taken for granted by St. Bernard, that he thinks it necessary to answer the objection why "credentes" did not work miracles in his day: "Quis enim ea, quæ in præsenti loco scripta sunt, signa videtur habere credulitatis, sine quâ nemo poterit salvari? quoniam qui non crediderit condemnabitur, et sine fide impossibile est placere Deo." Serm. i. de Ascens. 2. He answers to the question as St. Gregory does in the passage quoted, supra, n. 40, making the miracles now wrought by the faithful to be moral ones. Kuinoel says: "Per [ tous pisteuontas ] non omnes Christi sectatores intelligendi sunt, nam non omnes Christiani ejusmodi miracula patrabant, qualia hoc loco describuntur, sed agit Christus hoc loco ut locis parallelis, Luc. 24, 48. John 20, 19, cum legatis suis, atque adeo significantur imprimis Apostoli, et præter eos alii tunc temporis præsentes, qui haud dubiè è numero septuaginta discipulorum erant. Vid. Luc. 24, 33, coll. Luc. 10, 1; 9, 17, Etiam infra v. 20, disertè commentorantur [ ekeinoi ], illi Christi discipuli, quibus ea dixit, quæ hoc loco leguntur, et ad hos [ s e meia ] referuntur. Monuit præterea Storrius articulum [ tous ] sæpe certos,quosdam, non omnes universos significare. Vid. Luc. 18, 15. Coll. Marc. 10, 13. Matt. 21, 34. 36. 27, 62. 28, 12. Insignivit autem, ut opinor, Christus discipulos suos, futuros religionis suæ doctores, tunc temporis præsentes, voce [ tois pisteusasi ], quoniam paulo ante eorum incredulitatem vituperarat:" in loc. This is such strange reasoning, that it is the best argument for showing how futile the attempt is to wrest our Lord's words from their plain meaning. The elder school of Protestants was more candid. "Non omnibus omnia," says Grotius, "ita tamen ut cuilibet, ut oportet, credenti, aliqua tunc data sit admirabilis facultas, quæ se non semper quidem, sed datâ occasione, explicaret."

 26. Sulpicius almost grounds his defence of St. Martin's miracles on the antecedent force of this text. He says of those who deny them, "Nec Martino in hac parte detrahitur, sed fidei Evangelii derogatur. Nam cum Dominus ipse testatus sit istiusmodi opera, quæ Martinus implevit, ab omnibus fidelibus esse facienda, qui Martinum non credit ista fecisse, non credit Christum ista dixisse." Dial. i. 18.

 27. [ S e meia tauta parakolouth e sei ]. "Stephanus in Thes. hæc citat ex Dioscoride in præf. lib. 6. [ ta parakolouthounta semeia hekast o i t o n pharmak o n ]." Raphel. Annot. in loc. Vid. ibid. in Luc. i. 3. In the last words of the Gospel, where the "signs following" are wrought by the Apostles, and in confirmation the word is [ epakolouthount o n ].

 28. Vindic. p. 32, as quoted by Douglas, p. 224.

 29. Inquiry, p. 9.

 30. Introd. Disc. init.; but in Pref. p. xxxii. he speaks more to the purpose.

 31. Page 224.

 32. Page 216.

 33. Kaye's Tertull. p. 104.

 34. Vol. i. pp. 221, 222, ed. 1828.

 35. Dodwell has a theory (which agrees with what is said in the text, except that he applies it only to the first ages) that miracles abounded or became scarce according to the need, the conversion of the nations being the chief object. "Promisit Dominus majora editurum, qui in illum postea crediderit, miracula quam quæ ipse Dominus ediderit. Quod ego facile moderandum esse concessero, ut et de certis Evangelii propagandi temporibus promissio illa fuerit intelligenda ... Sed nec ita adimpleta est quin superesset adhuc satis amplus locus futuris postea conversionibus, futurisque adeo miraculis and Trajano Imperante novas Evangelii propagandi causâ susceptas expeditiones memorat Eusebius, et quidem id novâ Dei comitante gratiâ atque [ synergeiai ] ... Ortis jam sub Hadriano Hæreticis, ... factum est ut miracula infidelium hæreticorum causâ præstanda fuerint etiam et ipsa frequentiora ... A Marci temporibus deficere cSperunt, and cum nullas aut raras admodum per ea sæcula expeditiones obirent Christiani ad gentes ex professo convertendas; ... satis tamen liberalem adhuc fuisse Deum multa ostendunt," etc., etc. Dissert. in Iren. ii. 28-45, etc.

 36. Page 22.

 37. Ch. xv. note s.

 38. "Hoc intercedit discrimen inter sanctos antiqui et Novi Testamenti, quòd Deus, intercessione Sanctorum V. T., miracula operari dignatus est sæpius in vitâ, et rarius post obitum corum; et quoad Sanctos N. T. sæpius post obitum et rarius in vitâ ipsorum; cùm Sancti V. T. utpote a Deo ipso canonizati, miraculis post obitum non indigerent; sancti autem N. T. ab Ecclesiâ canonizandi, miraculis post obitum indigeant ... Cùm nulla [S. Joannes B.] in vitâ miracula fecisset, putavit Herodes eum post suam in Christo resurrectionem miracula fuisse editurum, 'Ait pueris suis, Hic est Joannes Baptista, etc., et ideo virtutes operantur in eo.'" Bened. xiv de Canon. Sanct. iv. i. § 26.

 39. The present Bishop of London argues from Origen's expression, [ ous ho theos bouletai ], (Contr. Cels. ii. 33), "that the attempts, which no doubt were made to effect miraculous cures, were not always successful;" vid. Athan. Vit, Ant. 56, where this very thing is confessed: then he continues: "and if so, we may safely infer that where they did succeed, they were to be ascribed to the ordinary means of healing under the Divine blessing." Bishop Blomfield's Sermons, p. 434. I cannot follow his Lordship in calling this inference a safe one.

 40. Justin, Apol. ii. 6. Tryph. 82, 88. Iren. Hær. ii. 32, § 4, 31, § 2, v. 6, § 1. Tertull. Apol. 23. Origen, contr. Cels. iii. 24. Vid. also Justin, Apol. 1, 40. Tryph. 30, 39, 76, and 85. Tertull. Apol. 37, 43. Scorp. 1. Test. Anim. 3 Ad. Scap. 4. Minuc. F. 27. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 8. Origen, contr. Cels. i. 46, 67, ii. 33, iii. 36. Cyprian, Ep. 76, fin. ad. Magn. circa fin. vid. supr. n. 32. [Vid. also note and passages in Murdoch's Mosheim, t. i. p. 128.]

 Chapter 5. On the Evidence for Particular Alleged Miracles

 107. IT does not strictly fall within the scope of this Essay to pronounce upon the truth or falsehood of this or that miraculous narrative as it occurs in Ecclesiastical History; but only to furnish such general considerations as may be useful in forming a decision in particular cases. Yet considering the painful perplexity which many feel when left entirely to their own judgments in important matters, it may be allowable to go a step further, and without ruling open questions this way or that, to throw off the abstract and unreal character which attends a course of reasoning, by setting down the evidence for and against certain miracles as we meet with them. Moreover, so much has been said in the foregoing pages in behalf of the Ecclesiastical Miracles, antecedently considered, that it may be hastily inferred that all miraculous relations and reports should be admitted unhesitatingly and indiscriminately, without any attempt at separating truth from falsehood, or suspense of judgment, or variation in the reliance placed in them one with another, or reserve or measure in the open acknowledgment of them. And such an examination of particular instances, as is proposed, may give opportunity to one or two additional remarks of a general character for which no place has hitherto been found.

 108. An inquirer, then, should not enter upon the subject of the miracles reported or alleged in ecclesiastical history, without being prepared for fiction and exaggeration in the narrative, to an indefinite extent. This cannot be insisted on too often; nothing but the gift of inspiration could have hindered it. Nay, he must not expect that more than a few can be exhibited with evidence of so cogent and complete a character as to demand his acceptance; while a great number of them, as far as the evidence goes, are neither certainly true nor certainly false, but have very various degrees of probability viewed one with another; all of them recommended to his devout attention by the circumstance that others of the same family have been proved to be true, and all prejudiced by his knowledge that so many others on the contrary are certainly not true. It will be his wisdom, then, not to reject or scorn accounts of miracles, where there is a fair chance of their being true; but to allow himself to be in suspense, to raise his mind to Him of whom they may possibly be telling to "stand in awe, and sin not," and to ask for light, yet to do no more; not boldly to put forward what, if it be from God, yet has not been put forward by Him. What He does in secret, we must think over in secret; what He has "openly showed in the sight of the heathen," we must publish abroad, "crying aloud, and sparing not." An alleged miracle is not untrue because it is unproved; nor is it excluded from our faith because it is not admitted into our controversy. Some are for our conviction, and these we are to "confess with the mouth" as well as "believe with the heart;" others are for our comfort and encouragement, and these we are to "keep, and ponder them in our heart," without urging them upon unwilling ears.

 109. No one should be surprised at the admission that few of the Ecclesiastical Miracles are attended with an evidence sufficient to subdue our reason, because few of the Scripture Miracles are furnished with such an evidence. When a fact comes recommended to us by arguments which do not admit of an answer, when plain and great difficulties are in the way of denying it, and none, or none of comparative importance, in the way of admitting it, it may be said to subdue our reason. Thus Apologists for Christianity challenge unbelievers to produce an hypothesis sufficient to account for its doctrines, its rise, and its success, short of its truth; thus Lord Lyttelton analyses the possible motives and principles of the human mind, in order to show that St. Paul's conversion admits of but one explanation, viz., that it was supernatural; thus writers on Prophecy appeal to its fulfilment, which they say can be accounted for by referring it to a Divine inspiration, and in no other way. Leslie, Paley, and others have employed themselves on similar arguments in defence of Revealed Religion. I am not saying how far arguments of a bold, decisive, and apparently demonstrative character, however great their value, are always the deepest and most satisfactory; but they are those which in this day are the most popular; they are those, the absence of which is made an objection to the Ecclesiastical Miracles. It is right then to remind those who consider this objection as fatal to these miracles, that the Miracles of Scripture are for the most part exposed to the same. If the miracles of Church History cannot be defended by the arguments of Leslie, Lyttelton, Paley, or Douglas, how many of the Scripture miracles satisfy their conditions? Some infidel authors advise us to accept no miracles which would not have a verdict in their favour in a court of justice; that is, they employ against Scripture a weapon which Protestants would confine to attacks upon the Church; as if moral and religious questions required legal proofs, and evidence were the test of truth.

 110. It is true that the Scripture miracles were, for the most part, evidence of a Divine Revelation at the time when they were wrought; but they are not so at this day. Only a few of them fulfil this purpose now; and the rest are sustained and authenticated by these few [n. 1 ]. The many never have been evidence except to those who saw them, and have but held the place of doctrine ever since; like the truths revealed to us about the unseen world, which are matters of faith, not means of conviction. They have no existence, as it were, out of the record in which they are found; they are not found as facts in the world, influencing its course, and proving their reality by their power, but as sacred truths taught us by inspiration. Such are the greater number of our Lord's miracles viewed individually; we believe His restoration of the widow's son, or His changing water into wine, as we believe His transfiguration, on the word of His Evangelists. We believe the miracles of Elisha, because our Lord has Himself recognised the book containing the record of them. The great arguments by which unbelievers are silenced do not reach as far as these particular instances. As was just now noticed, one of the most cogent proofs of the miracles of Christ and His Apostles is drawn from their effects; it being inconceivable that a rival power to Cæsar should have started out of so obscure and ignorant a spot as Galilee, and have prevailed, without some such extraordinary and divine gifts; yet this argument, it will be observed, proves nothing about the miracles one by one as reported in the Gospels, but only that the Christian story was miraculous, or that miracles attended it. Paley's argument goes little beyond proving the fact of the Resurrection, or, at most, that there were certain sensible miracles wrought by our Lord, such as cures, to which St. Peter alludes in his speech to Cornelius, yet without specifying what. Again, Douglas considers that "we may suspect miracles to be false," the account of which was not published at the time or place of their alleged occurrence, or if so published, yet without careful attention being called to them; yet St. Mark is said to have written at Rome, St. Luke in Rome or Greece, and St. John at Ephesus; and the earliest of the Evangelists wrote some years after the events recorded, while the latest did not write for sixty years; and, moreover, true though it be that attention was called to Christianity from the first, yet it is true also that it did not succeed at the spot where it arose, but principally at a distance from it. Once more, Leslie almost confines his tests to the Mosaic miracles, or rather to certain of them; and though he is unwilling to exclude those of the Gospel from the benefit of his argument, yet it is not easy to see how he brings them under it at all.

 111. On the whole, then, it will be found that the greater part of the Miracles of Revelation are as little evidence for Revelation at this day, as the Miracles of the Church are now evidence for the Church. In both cases the number of those which carry with them their own proof now, and are believed for their own sake, is small; and these furnish the grounds on which we receive the rest. The difference between the two cases is this: that, since an authentic document has been provided for the miracles by which Revealed Religion was introduced, which are thus connected together into one whole, we know here exactly what miracles are to be received on warrant of those which are already proved; but since the Church has never catalogued her miracles, those which are known to be such do but create an indefinite presumption in favour of others, but cannot be taken in proof of any in particular.

 112. On the other hand, that fables have ever been in circulation, some vague and isolated, others attached to particular spots or to particular persons, is too notorious to need dwelling on: it is more to the purpose to observe that the fact of such pretences has ever been acknowledged even by those who have been believers or reporters of miraculous occurrences. We have seen above [n. 2 ] that one of St. Martin's first miracles in his episcopate, as recorded by Sulpicius, was the detection of a pretended Saint and Martyr, whose tomb had been an object of veneration to the ignorant people. And in the very beginning of Christianity St. Luke, in speaking of the "many" who had "taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us," seems to allude to the Apocryphal Gospels [n. 3 ], which ascribe a number of trifling as well as fictitious miracles to our Lord. And when St. Paul cautions the Thessalonians against being "soon shaken in mind or troubled, by spirit or by letter, as from himself, as that the day of Christ was at hand," he testifies both to the fact that spurious writings were then ascribed to him, and that they contained professedly supernatural matter.

 113. What is confessed by Apostles and Evangelists in the first century, and by Martyrologists in the fourth, would naturally happen both in the interval and afterwards. Hence Pope Gelasius, while warning the faithful against several Apocryphal works, mentions among them the Acts of St. George, the martyr under Dioclesian, which had been so interpolated by the Arians, that to this day, though he is the patron of England, and in Chapters of the Garter is commemorated with honours which even Apostles do not gain from us, nothing whatever is known for certain of his life, sufferings, or miracles [n. 4 ]. Again, we are told by St. John Damascene, and in the Revelations of St. Bridget and St. Mathildis, that the Emperor Trajan was delivered from the place of punishment at the prayers of St. Gregory the First; but Baronius says, concerning this and similar stories, "Away with idle tales; silence once for all on empty fables; be they buried in eternal silence. We excuse those who, accounting true what they received as fact, committed it to writing; praise to their zeal, who, when they found it asserted, discussed in scholastic fashion how it might be; but more praise to them who, scenting the falsehood, detected the error." [n. 5 ] Melchior Canus, again, a Dominican and a Divine of Trent, uses the same language even of St. Gregory's Dialogues and the Ecclesiastical History of Bede. "They are most eminent persons," he says, "but still men; they relate certain miracles as commonly reported and believed, which critics, especially of this age, will consider uncertain. Indeed, I should like those histories better, if their authors had joined more care in selection to severity in judgment;" [n. 6 ] though he adds that far more was to be retained in their works than was to be rejected. He does not, however, speak even in these measured terms of the Speculum Exemplorum, and the Aurea Legenda of Jacobus de Voragine; the former of which, he says, contains "monsters of miracles rather than truths;" and the latter is the production of "an iron mouth, a leaden heart, and an intellect without exactness or discretion." Avowals such as these from the first century to the sixteenth, from inspired writers to the schools of St. Dominic and the Oratory, may serve to prepare us for fictitious miracles in ecclesiastical history in no small measure, and to show us at the same time that such fictions are no fair prejudice to others which possess the characters of truth [n. 7 ]. And in like manner, if it be necessary, exceptions might be taken to certain of the miracles recorded by Palladius in his Lausiac, and by Theodoret in his Religious History, and by the unknown collector of the miracles of St. Stephen, which a late writer has brought forward with the hope of thereby involving all the supernatural histories of antiquity in a general suspicion and contempt. That Palladius has put in writing a report of a hyena's asking pardon of a solitary for killing sheep, and of a female turned by magic into a mare, or that one of the Clergy of Uzalis speaks of a serpent that was seen in the sky, will appear no reason, except to vexed and heated minds, for accusing the holy Ambrose of imposture, or the keen, practised, and experienced intellect of Augustine of abject credulity [n. 8 ].

 114. Nor is there anything strange or startling in this mixture of fable with truth, as appeared from what was said on the subject in a former page. It as little derogates from the supernatural gift residing in the Church that miracles should have been fabricated or exaggerated, as it prejudices her holiness that within her pale good men are mixed with bad. Fiction and pretence follow truth as its shadows; the Church is at all times in the midst of corruption, because she is in the midst of the world, and is framed out of human hearts; and as the elect are fewer than the reprobate, and hard to find amid the chaff, so false miracles at once exceed and conceal and prejudice those which are genuine. Nor would the difficulty be overcome, even if we took on ourselves to reject all the Ecclesiastical Miracles altogether; for the fictions which startle us must in fairness be viewed as connected, not only with the Church and her more authentic histories, but with Christianity, as such. Superstition is a corruption of Christianity, not merely of the Church; and if it discredits the divine origin of the Church, it discredits the divine origin of Christianity also. Those who talk even most loudly of the corruptions of the fourth and fifth centuries, seem, when closely questioned, still to admit that Christianity was not extinct, but overlaid by corruptions. If, then, the Church herself, and her miracles in toto, are to be included in that corruption, then of course the corruption was only deeper and broader, than if she is to be accounted as in herself a portion of Apostolic Christianity; and if such greater corruption does not compromise the divinity of Christianity, so the lesser surely does not compromise the real power and gifts of the Church. On both sides fanaticism, imposture, and superstition are admitted as existing in the history of miracles; and on neither side must these evil agents be held to throw suspicion on particular miracles which have no direct or probable connection with them.

 And now, after these preliminary considerations, let us proceed to inquire into the evidence and character of several of the miracles in particular, which we meet with in the first centuries of Christianity.

Notes

 1. Vid. supr . Essay i. pp. 9, 55, 91, 92; also pp. 187, 207.

 2. N. 28.

 3. Jones, On the Canon, part i. ch. 2, has collected the ancient and modern authorities in proof that St. Luke was alluding to the Apocryphal writings. Wolf denies it, Cur. Phil. in loc.

 4. Baron, Annal. 290. 35: Martyrol. Apr. 23.

 5. Emunctis naribus odorati. Annal. 604. 49.

 6. Loc. Theol. xi. 6.

 7. The illustration of this subject might be pursued without limit. Tillemont quotes from a writer of the thirteenth century the broad maxim: "Quand la raison se trouve contraire à l'usage, il faut que l'usage cede à la raison;" and proceeds to quote Papebrok as saying that we cannot too often repeat this excellent rule, "à ceux qui trouvent mauvais qu'on accuse de fausseté diverses choses qui se sont introduites dans l'Eglise par l'ignorance de l'histoire." vol. vii. p. 640. The Bollandists say, "Nimiâ profecto simplicitate peccant qui scandalizantur quoties audiunt aliquid ex jam olim creditis, et juxta Breviarii præscriptum hodiedum recitandis, in disputationem adduci." Dissert. Bolland. tom. ii. p. 140. Vid. also Alban Butler's Saints, Introd. Disc. p. xlvii., etc., ed 1833. Bauer's Theolog. tom. i. art. ii. p. 487, and works there referred to. Benedict. XIV. de Canon. Sanct. iv. p. 1. c. 5, etc. Farmer, On Miracles, p. 320; also the passages from various authors quoted in Geddes' Tracts, vol. iii. pp. 115-118, ed. 1730; who also furnishes, though not in a good spirit, a number of specimens of the sort of miracles which such authors condemn.

 8. "Ambrose occupies a high position among the Fathers; and there was a vigour and dignity in his character, as well as a vivid intelligence, which must command respect; but in proportion as we assign praise to the man individually, we condemn the system which could so far vitiate a noble mind, and impel one so lofty in temper to act a part which heathen philosophers would utterly have abhorred and Under the Nicene system, Bishops in the great cities could stand up in crowded churches, without shame, and with uplifted hands appeal to Almighty God in attestation of that, as a miracle, which themselves had brought about by trickery, bribes, and secret instructions." Ancient Christ. part vii. pp. 270, 271. "He [Augustine] was the dupe of his own credulity, not the machinator of fraud." P. 318.