deal of smoke there must be some fire.

And now, to apply the principle of this remark to the subject we are considering, I would just observe, that although I do not regard the performance of a wonderful work as any evidence that its performer is morally pure, superhu manly endowed, or a teacher of truth on subjects disconnected with his wonder-working,-and albeit I attach no great importance to physical miracles, in any way, as far as vital religion is concerned; believing as I do, that every truth rests upon a foundation of its own,-yet somehow I cannot divest myself of the impression, that Jesus may have healed the sick, in some instances, and perhaps, in one or two cases, aroused to consciousness those who were thought to be dead. I do not know as I ought to say that I wholly discredit the story that Lazarus may have been so awakened, even after he had been buried, though I do disbelieve, entirely, that he was resuscitated after putrefaction had commenced; which has by some been inferred from the account.*

If Christ had, in a very few cases, by the invincible grandeur of his presence, and his benign expression, soothed and rationalized, for the time being those who were made infuriate by lunacy, (as in the case of those subdued by Miss Dix); and if, in one instance only, he startled into sentient wakefulness some one who was apparently dead, I think that, in that age of the world, when credulousness prevailed to a greater extent (if possible) than it does now; when the Jewish people

* John, xi. 39.

were almost universally expecting a Messiah who should do very wonderful deeds; and when the mass of men were exceedingly prone to look upon every genius as above the grade of humanity, it was possible (to say the least) for the story of what Jesus actually did, to become exaggerated after his death, in passing from one to another of his early followers, and the various new-made converts to his Religion—especially, as some of the latter (among whom may be particularly mentioned Mark and Luke) were not of his personal companions, and never saw him!

I freely admit that several of the miracles ascribed to Jesus bear the stamp of beneficence. This is partic ularly the case with those that tended to alleviate human suffering. The same, however, may be said of the miraculous works attributed to Pythagoras and Plato, who lived several hundred years before Christ; St. Bernard, who was born in the latter part of the eleventh century, A. C., and many others; whose marvellous deeds are as well attested, (as far as written, historical documents are concerned) as any of the miracles recorded in the New Testament.

Not Jesus only, but also his first apostles, and even some others not specially commissioned by him,* are said to have wrought miracles; such as casting out devils, healing the sick, &c.

Mark tells us that when Christ "appeared unto the * Mark, ix. 33-40. See also corresponding passage, Luke, ix. 49, 50.

eleven, as they sat at meat," after he had risen from the dead, he gave the following commission: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned. And 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."* This account, taken in connection with ecclesiastical history, has always been somewhat puzzling to me. Is it to be understood literally? Or did Jesus speak in metaphor? The language ascribed to him neither expresses nor implies any restriction of the endowment to a specified number of persons, or to a particular age or generation: "These signs shall follow them that believe"-i. e., as I understand it, all who believe, whether then or at any time afterwards, whether in Judea or anywhere else. The promise of these miraculous "signs" to those who should believe, is mentioned by Mark, and by him only. This individual, let it be remembered, does not pretend that he was ever acquainted with Jesus; nor does he speak as an eye-witness of those transactions which he relates. Matthew records the apostolic commission with considerable brevity, omitting all mention of the marvellous "signs." He has written it thus: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and * Mark, xvi. 15-18.

of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."*

If Jesus spoke figuratively, when he said, "These signs shall follow them that that believe,"-meaning simply the power to cure spiritual maladies, overcome vicious influences, such as the "devils" of bad passion, &c., then, of course, the promise is for us, in the present age, as well as for all others who may desire to become his true disciples. And have we not some now who exercise this power?

But if we suppose he meant to be understood literally, we must admit that the signs were restricted to some early age of the Church,-unless we are willing to acknowledge the plausibility of the claims asserted by Roman Catholics, Mormons, and some others who pretend that they can now work miraculous cures, by the mysterious agency of holy relics, by incantations, and the laying on of hands.

Protestant sects generally deny the present existence of miraculous power in the Church. Will any of them tell us at what time it ceased? Augustine, one of the Christian fathers, so termed, who was born A. D. 354, speaks of miracles having been wrought in his day. And several of the fathers believed that even the Pagans were supernaturally endowed. This last-mentioned fact

*Matt. xviii. 19, 20.

is admitted by Bishop Watson, in his reply to Gibbon ;* though he says the fathers attributed the Pagan miracles to the influence of the devil.

Rev. Charles Buck, an English clergyman, of much erudition, remarks as follows, respecting this matter: "The power of working miracles is supposed by some to have been continued no longer than the apostles' days. Others think that it was continued long after. It seems pretty clear, however, that miracles universally ceased before Chrysostum's time, [i. e. the latter half of the fourth century; for Chrysostum was not born till A. D. 344.] As for what Augustine says of those wrought at the tombs of the martyrs, and some other places, in his time, the evidence is not always so convincing as might be desired in facts of importance. The controversy concerning the time when miraculous power ceased was carried on by Dr. Middleton, in his Free Enquiry into the Miraculous Powers, &c.; by Mr. Yate, Mr. Toll, and others, who suppose that miracles ceased with the apos tles. On the contrary side appeared Dr. Stebbing, Dr. Chapman, Mr. Parker, Mr. Brooke, and others."†

It is supposed by some that the power by which the miracles of Jesus and the apostles were performed, may have been identical with the mysterious influence which is now termed Mesmerism; which is often brought into successful requisition for the removal of physical pain. Rev. John B. Dods, the celebrated lecturer on Animal.

*See Watson's "Apology for Christianity," Letter vi. ¶ 31. + Theological Dictionary, Art. "Miracle."