offer these ideas as containing a more rational solution of a difficulty which is in itself calculated to stagger the faith of some honest minds, who may think that a mira cle of such an extraordinary nature requires more proof than the testimony of any one man for its support, and especially the man who was the subject of it, and for whose preservation it was wrought, before it can be rationally believed. We have no disposition to call in question the existence of miracles, but firmly believe in them; but, at the same time, to undertake to maintain a miracle, where it cannot be maintained beyond all reasonable doubt, so far from strengthening the Christian religion, only serves to weaken it; or, in other words, to give the enemy the advantage. For this reason, therefore, we think that miracles ought never to be contended for, whenever the material facts can be accounted for in any other way."*

Another writer presents the following extended observations upon this same topic:

"The history of Jonah, though by some carped at and turned into ridicule, contains nothing inconsistent with the soundest philosophy and experience. For,

1. Though a whale, properly so called, has so small a gullet that it could not possibly swallow a man, yet we ought to consider, that the word ketos does not necessarily mean a whale, as distinguished from other large fishes, but only a great sea-monster, of which there are

Appendix to Ballou's Eleven Sermons on Important Doctrinal Subjects; published in Boston in 1832, pp. 163, 164.

some, the shark among the rest, very capable of swallowing a man whole, and which have often done so. A very remarkable fish was taken on our own coast, though probably it was not of the full size, and therefore could not contain the body of a man. But others of its species very well might. A print and curious description of it, by Mr. Ja. Ferguson, may be seen, (Philosophical Transactions, vol. viii. p. 170,) from which even this small one appears to have been near five feet in length, and of great bulk, and to have been merely, as it were, one vast bag, or great hollow tube, capable of containing the body of any animal of size that was in some small degree inferior to its own. And unquestionably such a kind of fish, and of still larger dimensions, may, consistently even with the most correct ideas of any natural historian, be supposed to have occasionally appeared in the Mediterranean, as well as on our coasts, where such an one was caught, having come up so far as into the British Channel and King's Road.

2. A man may continue in the water, in some instances, without being drowned. Derham tells us, (Phisico-Theology, 6, 4. cap. 7, note p. 158, 12mo.) that some have the foramen ovale of the heart remaining open all their lives, though in most it is closed very soon after birth; and that such persons as have the foramen ovale so left open, can neither be hanged nor drowned; because when the lungs cease to play, the blood will nevertheless continue to circulate, just as it does in a foetus in the womb, Though Mr. Cheselden doubted of

this fact, yet Mr. Cowper the anatomist says, he often found the foramen open in adults, and gives some curious instances. Mr. Derham mentions several persons who were many hours and days under water, and yet recovered; and one who even retained the sense of hearing in that state. And Dr. Platt (History of Straffordshire, p. 292) mentions a person who survived and lived, after having been hanged at Oxford, for the space of twenty-four hours before she was cut down. The fact is notorious; and her pardon, reciting this circumstance, is extant on record. See Ray on the Creation, p. 230, who observes, that having the foramen ovale of the heart open, enables some animals to be amphibious. Where, then, is the absurdity of conceiving that Jonah might have been a person of this kind, having the foramen ovale of his heart continuing open from his birth to the end of his days; in which case he could not be drowned, either by being cast into the sea, or by being swallowed by the fish?

3. Neither could Jonah be injured by the digesting fluid in the fish's stomach; for Mr. Jo. Hunter observes (Philosophical Transactions, vol. lxii. p. 449) that 'No animal substance can be digested, by the digesting fluid usually found existing in animal stomachs, while life remains in such animal substances. Animals,' says he, 'or parts of animals, possessed of the living principle, when taken into the stomach, are not in the least affected by the powers of that viscus, so long as the animal principle remains. Hence it is, that we find animals of

various kinds living in the stomach, or even hatched or bred there. But the moment that any of these lose the living principle, they become subject to the digestive powers of the stomach. If it were possible for a man's hand, for example, to be introduced into the stomach of a living animal, and kept there for some considerable time, it would be found, that the dissolvent powers of the stomach could have no effect upon it: but if the same hand were separated from the body, and introduced into the same stomach, we should then find, that the stomach would immediately act upon it. Indeed, if this were not the case, we should find, that the stomach itself ought to have been made of indigestible materials; for if the living principle were not capable of preserving animal substances from undergoing that process, the stomach itself would be digested. But we find, on the contrary, that the stomach, which at one instant, that is, while possessed of the living principle, was capable of resisting the digestive powers which it contained, the next moment, viz. when deprived of the living principle, is itself capable of being digested, either by the digestive powers of other stomachs, or by the remains of that power which it had of digesting other things.' Consis tently with which observations of Mr. Hunter, we find, that smaller fishes have been taken alive out of the stomachs of fishes of prey, and (not having been killed by any bite or otherwise) have survived their being devoured, and have swam away well recovered, and very little affected by the digesting fluid. Two instances of

this kind are mentioned by Dr. Platt, (History of Straffordshire, p. 245,) and others might be added.

There appears, therefore, nothing unphilosophical, or absurd, in supposing that Jonah (having the heart open, or such a construction of his frame as those persons mentioned by Derham had) might be cast into the sea, and be swallowed up whole by a great fish, and yet be neither drowned, nor bitten, nor corrupted, nor digested, nor killed; and it will easily follow, from the dictates of common sense, that in that case the fish itself must either die, or be prompted by its feelings to get rid of its load; and this perhaps it might do more readily near the shore, than in the midst of the waters; and in that case, such person would certainly recover again, by degrees, and escape."*

Many other events, I have no doubt, may be justly referable to perfectly natural causes. I cannot believe that the Deluge, for instance, was in any wise supernatural;† nor does it appear reasonable to me, that the Almighty sent such an overwhelming inundation as a special judgment upon the antediluvians, because of their moral transgressions: for, if so, why should He be so partial as to spare Noah, who was not so pure but that he shortly afterwards got drunk

It has been thought, as it seems to me with some rea

* Erskine's Sketches of Church History, vol. ii. pp. 299-302: cited in Ballou's Appendix, specified in the last note.

+ Genesis. vii. 11-24; viii. 1-14. lbid, ix. 20, 21.