'We may dismiss from the question all cases in which, allowing the fact to be true, it still remains doubtful whether a miracle were wrought!'

Some Writers, having a leaning towards the naturalistic school, while they admit the general truth of the Scripturenarratives, have laboured hard to make out that some of the miracles recorded may be explained as natural occurrences; though the rest, they acknowledge to imply a superhuman agency. They forget that even if their explanations had been as reasonable as they are emphatically, the reverse, there would still have been a mere waste of perverted ingenuity: since if it be once established that a certain person did possess superhuman power, it is of no practical consequence whether he performed a hundred miracles, or only fifty.

It is to be remarked that in several cases of what are reckoned miracles, (and justly so, if the evidence be sufficient), there is, in the occurrence itself—though an unusual onenothing that is properly miraculous; but only, in the prediction of it. Such, for instance, are what are called the miraculous draughts of fishes,-the swallowing up of Korah and his company by an earthquake-the drought and famine announced by Elijah, and several others.

Some years ago, a person of eminent ability in his own department, but who was ambitious of displaying his powers on matters which he had not studied, was declaiming on the destruction of Sennacherib's army, which, he said, was doubtless the effect of the Simoom-the pestilential blast from the Desert which has often proved fatal to travellers. There was therefore, he said, nothing miraculous in the event-nothing that could not be accounted for by natural causes. 'And what difference does that make' (said a youth who was in the company), if it was prophesied ?'

If it had been declared beforehand concerning those eighteen who were crushed by the fall of a tower,' that they had-like Korah-' provoked the Lord;' and that they would in consequence suffer an untimely and violent death, this would authorize a belief in the prophetic character of the person who announced this. And so also, if the Cholera, or the Famine,

1 Luke xiii.

which visited us, had been predicted by any one at a time when there was no reason-humanly speaking-for expecting any such event, and he had announced, as by a divine revelation, both the precise time, and the exact circumstances of the visitation, and that it was a sign of divine displeasure towards the sufferers, we should have recognised him as an inspired Prophet. But as it is, any one who presumes, in defiance of our Lord's declaration (Luke xiii.) to use such language, and moreover to denounce as ungodly all who venture to differ from him, shows himself as deficient in sound judgment, as in christian modesty and christian charity.

6

And there is reason to think that the rash language of daring pretension used by some religious enthusiasts, may have conduced to foster and spread those rationalistic extravagances which I have noticed in the introduction to this volume. When men speak of being 'moved by the Spirit' to say what they do say— which is in other words, to claim inspiration-when they describe themselves as speaking (as Paul did) with demonstration of the Spirit and of power,'-when they regard every thought or design that is strongly borne in on their mind' as an 'answer to prayer,' and an undoubted direction from Heaven-when they speak of following the inward light' they possess, as an infallible divine guide-when they interpret every remarkable occurrence as a sign from Heaven, and reckon any event that furthers their object, as a manifest divine interposition in their favour the Rationalist may step forward and say, 'this is all just what was done by the first promulgators of Christianity. Any remarkable event, they called a miracle; just as you Like you, they considered as a divine revelation, or direction from above, any strong conviction, or strong impulse. Their miracles were only poetically-coloured pictures of such things as are taking place around us. Their inspiration-their guiding inward light-were only those vivid impressions, and those grand designs, which are common to you with them. Both causes are alike miraculous or non-miraculous. And in both, belief in the miracle is not the cause, but the effect, of the reception of the doctrine.'1

do.

1 To prove that this representation is not that of Rationalists alone, but of celebrated Theologians and Preachers, I subjoin as a specimen (one out of many) a passage from a Newspaper. I do not indeed engage for the accuracy of such

Thus it is that presumptuous and unwise Christians prepare the way for the inroads of that covert infidelity, which by making every thing miraculous, makes, in fact nothing miraculous, and virtually destroys the whole character of inspiration, by making it universal. A King would be virtually dethroned, if all his subjects were elevated to regal power.

Little damage, comparatively, would be done by the assailants of our Faith, if they were not thus unconsciously aided by its injudicious defenders.

CHAPTER II.

UT they, with whom we argue, have undoubtedly a right to select their own examples. The instances with which Mr. Hume hath chosen to confront the miracles of the New Testament, and which, therefore, we are entitled to regard as the strongest which the history of the world could supply to the enquiries of a very acute and learned adversary, are the three following:

1. The cure of a blind and of a lame man at Alexandria, by the Emperor Vespasian, as related by Tacitus;

2. The restoration of the limb of an attendant in a Spanish church, as told by Cardinal de Retz; and

3. The cures said to be performed at the tomb of the Abbé Paris, in the early part of the present century.

1. The narrative of Tacitus is delivered in these terms: 'One of the common people of Alexandria, known to be diseased in his eyes, by the admonition of the god Serapis, whom that superstitious nation worship above all other gods, prostrated himself before the emperor, earnestly imploring from him a remedy for his blindness, and entreating that he would

Reports; but it is certain that they are widely circulated, and if uncontradicted, likely to gain credit.

preached to a

'Dr. — on the Irish Revivals.-On Sunday night Dr. crowded congregation, and in the course of his sermon he introduced the subject of the revivals in Ireland. He had not, he said, himself personal evidence of this ' awakening,' but he had had communications from clergymen of different persuasions and from laymen; and these and his own reflections convinced him that this was indeed the work of the Lord, and that we were really in the midst of the time prophesied by Joel, when 'your sons and daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men see visions.''

cess.

deign to anoint with his spittle his cheeks and the balls of his eyes. Another, diseased in his hand, requested, by the admonition of the same god, that he might be touched by the foot of the emperor. Vespasian at first derided and despised their application; afterwards when they continued to urge their petitions, he sometimes appeared to dread the imputation of vanity; at other times, by the earnest supplication of the patients, and the persuasion of his flatterers, to be induced to hope for sucAt length he commanded an inquiry to be made by the physicians, whether such a blindness and debility were vincible by human aid. The report of the physicians contained various points; that in the one the power of vision was not destroyed, but would return if the obstacles were removed; that, in the other, the diseased joints might be restored, if a healing power were applied: that it was, perhaps, agreeable to the gods to do this; that the emperor was elected by divine assistance; lastly, that the credit of the success would be the emperor's, the ridicule of the disappointment would fall upon the patients. Vespasian, believing that everything was in the power of his fortune, and that nothing was any longer incredible, whilst the multitude, which stood by, eagerly expected the event, with a countenance expressive of joy executed what he was desired to do. Immediately the hand was restored to its use, and light returned to the blind man. They who were present, relate both these cures, even at this time, when there is nothing to be gained by lying."

Now, though Tacitus wrote this account twenty-seven years after the miracle is said to have been performed, and wrote at Rome of what passed at Alexandria, and wrote also from report; and although it does not appear that he had examined the story, or that he believed it (but rather the contrary), yet I think his testimony sufficient to prove that such a transaction took place; by which I mean that the two men in question did apply to Vespasian; that Vespasian did touch the diseased in the manner related; and that a cure was reported to have followed the operation. But the affair labours under a strong and just suspicion, that the whole of it was a concerted imposture brought about by collusion between the patients, the physician, and the

1 Tac. Hist. lib. iv.

emperor.

This solution is probable, because there was everything to suggest, and everything to facilitate such a scheme. The miracle was calculated to confer honour upon the emperor, and upon the god Serapis. It was achieved in the midst of the emperor's flatterers and followers; in a city, and amongst a populace, beforehand devoted to his interest, and to the worship of the god; where it would have been treason and blasphemy together to have contradicted the fame of the cure, or even to have questioned it. And what is very observable in the account is, that the report of the physicians is just such a report as would have been made of a case, in which no external marks of the disease existed, and which, consequently, was capable of being easily counterfeited, viz., that in the first of the patients the organs of vision were not destroyed, that the weakness of the second was in his joints. The strongest circumstance in Tacitus's narration is, that the first patient was 'notus tabe oculorum,' remarked or notorious for the disease in his eyes. But this was a circumstance which might have found its way into the story in its progress from a distant country, and during an interval of thirty years; or it might be true that the malady of the eyes was notorious, yet that the nature and degree of the disease had never been ascertained; a case by no means uncommon. The emperor's reserve was easily affected; or it is possible he might not be in the secret. There does not seem to be much weight in the observation of Tacitus, that they who were present continued even then to relate the story when there was nothing to be gained by the lie. It only proves that those who had told the story for many years, persisted in it. The state of mind of the witnesses and spectators at the time, is the point to be attended to. Still less is there of pertinency in Mr. Hume's eulogium upon the cautious and penetrating genius of the historian; for it does not appear that the historian believed it. The terms in which he speaks of Serapis, the deity to whose interposition the miracle was attributed, scarcely suffer us to suppose that Tacitus thought the miracle to be real, by the admonition of the god Serapis, whom that superstitious nation (dedita superstitionibus gens) worship above all other gods.' To have brought this supposed miracle within the limits of comparison with the miracles of Christ, it ought to have appeared that a person of a low and private sta