them for their strangeness, is no part of a scriptural philosophy.

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 intellects, 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 piece 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 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 k. 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

Hence the charge against the Christians of magic, or yonтeta. 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. exxxviii. fin. Julian calls St. Paul the greatest of rogues and conjurors, Tov πάντας πάνταχου τους πώποτε γοήτας καὶ ἀπατεῶνας ὑπερβαλλόμενον Παῦλον. Ap. Cyr. iii. p. 100. Apollonius pro

fessed 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 κατὰ τὴν ἐπιστήμην τῶν φυσικῶν δυνάμεων, not κατὰ τὴν θείαν αὐθεντίαν. Philostratus illustrates this, when he seems to doubt whether the young woman was really dead whom Apollonius raised. iv. 45.

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 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.

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 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 instances in the Scripture history are such as these:—the serpent in Eden, the Ark, Jacob's vision for the multiplication of his cattle, 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.

And thus, it seems, 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 peculiar in its miraculous narratives, 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 shew, that whatever may be their separate peculiarities, as far as concerns their internal characteristics, they admit of being parts of one system. 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 relating the posssession of brute animals, which appears so extravagant when introduced, as instanced above, into the life of Hilarion by St. Jerome. Again, we have a prototype of the miracles wrought by relics in 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. Similar precedents for a supernatural presence in things inanimate are found in the miracles wrought by the touch of our Saviour's garments, and by the handkerchiefs and aprons which had been applied to St. Paul's body; not to insist on what is told us about St. Peter's shadow. One particular property ascribed in the early Church to relics was the power of exorcising, or at least of violently affecting, the possessed; in connection then with this belief, let the following words be considered; "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." 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 our Lord's multiplication of the loaves and fishes. Again, the account of the consecrated bread becoming a cinder in unworthy hands is not so strange as the very first miracle wrought by Moses, the first miracle for evidence recorded in Scripture, when his rod became a serpent, and then a rod again; nor stranger than

1 Acts xix. 11, 12.

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? 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 m; 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 and 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 the Ecclesiastical miracles are not distinct and unsuspicious enough to be true ones, 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 shew 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, Inquiry, pp. 95, 96.

m