lose it. "If we should allow after all," says he, "that the

66

66

tongues of these Confessors were cut away to the very "roots, what will the learned Doctor [Berriman] say if this "boasted miracle, which he so strenuously defends, should be "found at last to be no miracle at all? The tongue, indeed, "has generally been considered, as absolutely necessary to "the use of speech; so that to hear men talk without it, "might easily pass for a miracle in that credulous age." And then he mentions the case of "a girl, born without a tongue, who yet talked as distinctly and easily, as if she "had enjoyed the full benefit of that organ," according to the report of a French physician who had carefully examined her mouth and throat, and who refers at the same time to another instance published about eighty years before, of a boy who at the age of eight or nine years lost his tongue by an ulcer after the small-pox, yet retained his speech,-whether as perfectly as before, does not appear. Now taking these instances at their greatest force, does he mean to say that if a certain number of men lost their tongues at the command of a tyrant for the sake of their religion, and then spoke as plainly as before, nay, if only one person was so mutilated and so gifted, it would not be a miracle? if not, why does he not believe the history of these Confessors? At least he might believe that some of them had the gift of speech continued to them, though the numbers be an exaggeration. It is his canon, as Douglas assures us, that while the history of miracles is "to be suspected always of course, without the

strongest evidence to confirm it," the history of common events is "to be admitted of course, without as strong reason "to suspect it "." Now here all the reason or evidence is on the side of believing; yet he does not believe it; why? simply because, as common sense tells us, and as he feels, it

↑ Page 184.

Criterion, p. 26. vid. supr. p. lxx.

is a miraculous story. It is far more difficult to believe that a number of men were forbidden to profess orthodoxy, did continue to profess it, were brought into the forum, had their tongues cut out from the roots, survived it, and spoke ever afterwards as they did before, without a miracle, than with it. But Middleton would secure two weapons at once for his warfare against the claims of the Catholic Church :-it is a miracle, and therefore it is incredible as a fact; it is not a miracle, and therefore it is irrelevant as an argument.

Another remarkable peculiarity of this miracle is what may be called its entireness; by which I mean that it carried its whole case with it to every beholder. When a blind man has been restored to sight, there must be one witness to prove he has been blind and another that he now sees; when a cure has been effected, we need a third to assure us that no medicines were administered to the subject of it; but here the miracle is condensed in the fact, that there is no tongue and yet a voice. The function of witnessing is far narrower and more definite, yet more perfect, than in other cases.

A further characteristic of this miracle is its permanence; and in this respect it throws light upon a remark made in a former page to account for the deficiency of evidence which generally attaches to the Ecclesiastical miracles. It was there observed that they commonly took place without notice beforehand, and left no trace after them; and we could not have better or fuller testimony than what happened to be found on the spot where they occurred ". The instance before us, however, being of a permanent character, and carrying its miraculousness in the very sight of it, admitted of being witnessed in a higher way, and so it is. Supposing the miracles of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus or St. Martin to have had the advantage of similar publicity, from the mis

$ Page c.

statement and exaggeration, which at present prejudice them, they would certainly have been disengaged; are we sure they would not have gained instead a body of testimony to their substantial truth?

It may be thought a drawback on this miracle that it produced no impression on the brutal Prince who was the occasion of it. He continued the persecution. Yet it must be recollected, that his death followed in no long time; and that, under that horrible and loathsome infliction, with which it has in other cases pleased the Almighty to visit those who have used their power, committed to them by Him, in cruelties towards His Church.

And now after considering this miracle, or that of the recovery of the blind Severus by the relics, mentioned next before it, or the death of Arius, how unreal does the remark appear with which Douglas concludes his review of the alleged miracles of the first ages! "I shall only add," he says, "that

if ever there were any accounts of miracles, which passed "current without being examined into at the first publication, "and which consequently will not bear the test of the "third rule which I laid down in this Treatise, this may be affirmed of the miracles recorded by writers of the fourth " and fifth ages, when Christianity, now freed from the terrors of persecution, and aided by civil magistrates, began to be "corrupted by its credulous or ill-designing professors, and "the foundation was laid of those inventions, which have gathered like a snow-ball, in every succeeding age of super"stitious ignorance, till at last the sunshine of the Reforma"tion began to melt the monstrous heap." Surely, if there are miracles prominent above others in those times, in that number are the three which I have just specified; they are great in themselves and in their fame. What then is meant

t Page 239.

by saying that in Arius's death the Church was "aided by "the civil magistrate?" or that she was "freed from the "terrors of persecution" when Severus was restored to sight? or that the report of the power of speaking given to Reparatus and his brethren "passed current without being examined into?" But if these are true, why should not others be true also, whether at this day they have evidence sufficient for our conviction or not? That superstition and imposture accompanied the civil establishment of Christianity all will allow "; but they could but obscure,—they could not reverse or undo,—and why should they prejudice?—the true work of God in His Church, of which they were but the mockery.

CONCLUSION.

MUCH stress has been laid throughout this Essay on the differences existing between the miracles recorded in Scripture, and those which are found in Ecclesiastical history; but from what has come before us in the course of it, it would seem that those differences are for the most part merely such as necessarily attend the introduction of a religion to the world compared with its subsequent course, the miraculous Agency itself being for the most part the same throughout. For instance, the miracles of Scripture are wrought by persons conscious of their power and of their exercise of it; for these persons are the very heralds of Almighty God, whom He has commissioned, whom He has instructed, and whom He has gifted for their work. The Scripture miracles are wrought as evidence of revealed truth, because they are wrought before

" E. g. vid. p. 241. infr.

that truth had as yet been received. They are grave and simple in their circumstances, because they are wrought by persons who know their gift, and, as being under immediate Divine direction, use it without alloy of human infirmity or personal peculiarity. They are definite and certain, drawn out in an orderly form, and finished in their parts, because they were found in that authoritative Document which was intended by God's Providence to be the pattern of His dealings and the rule of our thoughts and actions. They are undeniably of a supernatural character, not only because it is natural that the most cogent miracles should be wrought in the beginning of the Dispensation, but because the Sacred Writers have been guided to put into the foreground those works of power which are the clearest tokens of a Divine Presence, and to throw the rest into the distance. They have no marks of exaggeration about them, and are none of them false or suspicious, because Inspiration had dispersed the mists of popular error, and the colouring of individual feeling, and has enabled the writers to set down what took place and nothing else. But when once Inspiration was withdrawn, whether as regards those who wrought or those who recorded, then a Power which henceforth was mysterious and inscrutable in operation, became doubly obscure in report; and fiction in the testimony was made to compensate for incompleteness in the manifestation.

In conclusion I will but observe, what, indeed, is very obvious, but still may require a distinct acknowledgment, that the view here taken of the primitive miracles is applicable in defence of those of the medieval period also. If the occurrence of miraculous interpositions depends upon the presence of the Catholic Church, and if that Church is to remain on earth until the end of the world, it follows of course, that what will be vouchsafed to Christians at all