tives. On this general reasoning he mainly relied, To prove a general negative, or even to make a show of doing so, would be of course impossible, except by such general propositions. The only specific cases which he examines are those brought forward by Hume. With something of the art of a controversialist, he takes it for granted that these must be the strongest. They are the miracles at the tomb of the Abbé Paris in the last century; two cures wrought by the Emperor Vespasian, and recorded by Tacitus; and a story told by the Cardinal de Retz, of a man at Saragossa who lost a leg and had t miraculously restored. Of the first case, I will speak hereafter; as to the others, Paley sets up the hypothesis of fraud. He brings them under the head of stories circulated in the interest of a dominant religion (7).

To the adverse presumption thus established we may oppose the publicity and notoriety of the affair. In the case of the Vespasian cures, we may urge that they were wrought on a person well known, and before many witnesses, and continued to be affirmed when nothing was to be gained thereby. As to the Saragossa miracle, Mr. Lecky' tells us that much has been written upon it, and that the Spanish divines consider it remarkably well attested.

1 See note at p. 154, vol. i., Lecky's 'History of the Rise and Influence of Rationalism.'

This is, however, more incredible than the others. These latter were very possibly instances of mental effects of which I shall speak presently.

As a matter of fact, these cases adduced by Hume, and considered by Paley, are not the most plausible cases of the supernatural which can be found in history. I will presently bring forward various histories that have at least the appearance of the supernatural, and one or two at least will I think be found better attested than Hume's cases. But I shall not maintain that any of them will really pass the ordeal of all Paley's exceptions, even as I have revised those exceptions. My purpose in bringing these cases forward will rather be to give a general view of a good many seemingly miraculous stories, with the idea of so suggesting principles, mental or physical, that may explain their origin. I believe that Paley's argument will be found inadequate for the purposes of modern controversy. But the weakness will appear, not when we are considering the rival cases, but when we come to apply to the Gospel accounts themselves the tests by which other miracles were disposed of.

To some minds, this last proceeding may seem irreverent. Would you test the narratives of Scripture, it may be asked, in the same way that you would test others? The answer is plain, that we must do so in an evidential argument. We cannot

assume that accounts of miracles found in Scripture must be true, and those found elsewhere must be false. Plainly, in our present discussion, this would be begging the question. And, indeed, in any case, it would be unphilosophical as regards the negative proposition. Such a way of regarding the matter was popular in England forty years ago, but even then it was impugned by Dr. Maitland, in one of the essays of his work Eruvin.' An argument in its favour has, I know, been put forward. The Gospel miracles, it has been said, have an evidential value. There is in their case a purpose obvious on à priori grounds which countervails the antecedent improbability of such events, and, if you admit them, you must admit all the Scripture miracles.

But in any

story without this presumption on its side the antecedent improbability prevails. There is here far too much of that judging what God will do, and how he will do it, which all cautious thinkers now avoid. The evidential writers were no doubt justified when they said that man needed light upon religious subjects, and that our notions of the goodness of God would lead us to expect that he would in some way provide that light. But they made an assumption when they said or implied that this could be done only by a miraculous revelation.

The growth of the

moral faculty and of our knowledge of the universe are at least conceivable alternatives. Douglas and

Warburton might speak confidently on such a point, but thoughtful men of these days would be less bold. I may quote Dr. Newman as a remarkable instance of awakening to the untenableness of this position as to non-scriptural miracles. In early life he wrote an essay upon Scripture miracles, discrediting others. In later life he wrote an essay on ecclesiastical miracles, admitting them.

PART IV.

I will now give, as I proposed, some examples of narratives, which seem at least to relate the miraculous.

None of the fathers of the Primitive Church has a higher reputation for piety and ability than St. Augustine of Hippo; perhaps, indeed, none so high. Now it is noteworthy that his testimony to the occurrence of miracles in his own time is remarkably strong. In his great work, 'De Civitate Dei,' lib. xxii. cap. viii., he has given viii., he has given us a collection of accounts of supposed miracles. The first is the history of a blind man cured at Milan by the relics of the martyrs Gervasius and Protasius. Augustine tells us that he himself was there at the time, and adds that an im

mense number of people were witnesses.

The

miracle is attested also by St. Ambrose and by Paulinus his secretary. It has been skilfully defended by Dr. Newman as satisfying the tests of Paley, Douglas, and Leslie. The evidence is that of writers of high character, present at the time and place. The fact was cognisable by the senses, and open to the verification of the public. The man himself remained a monument of its reality. The account was published at once, and with effect, in opposition to a powerful religious party. The Empress, who had been trying to seize a church for the Arians, gave way. The man himself dedicated

his life to the service of religion.

Augustine's next story is that of the case of a man named Innocentius, who was suffering severely from fistula. Augustine tells us that the patient feared greatly the pain of the operation, which the medical men declared to be necessary. He himself witnessed the earnest supplication which Innocentius made to God for relief, when he was informed of this necessity, and he was also present on the day following, when, to the astonishment of the medical men, they found, upon proceeding to operate, that the fistula was gone. The whole scene is described with great liveliness of feeling.

1'Essay on the Miracles of Early Ecclesiastical History,' chap. v., Sect. VIII.