here; for he only related what he had heard from others, and showed pretty evidently that he did not credit the story himself.

The same may be said respecting the man at Saragossa, spoken of by Cardinal de Retz, who was represented as having been seen without a leg, but obtained one by rubbing the stump with holy oil. The Cardinal had no other evidence of his having ever been maimed, than the suspicious report of the canons of the Church; and he took no pains to ascertain whether the leg which he obtained was really flesh and blood, or an artificial limb.

A great part of the cures said to have been performed at the tomb of the Abbé Paris, were proved upon examination to be mere pretences; and those which were real may easily be accounted for, from the influence of a heated imagination and enthusiastic feelings; especially, since we have seen the wonderful effects of animal magnetism and metallic tractors.

The Abbé Paris was the oldest son of a counsellor of Paris, but being much inclined to a life of devotion he relinquished his patrimony to his younger brother, and retired to an obscure part of Paris, where he spent his life in severe penance, and in charitable exertions for the relief of the distressed poor. He was buried in the ground of the church of St. Medard, near the wall, where his brother erected a tombstone over the grave. To this spot many poor people who knew his manner of life, came to perform their devotions, as much, probably, out of feelings of gratitude as any thing else. Some, among the devotees who attended at this place, professed that they experienced a salutary change in their ailments. This being noised abroad, as the Abbé had been a zealous Jansenist all who were of his party encouraged the idea of miracles having been performed; and multitudes who were indisposed, were induced to go to the tomb of the saint; and some, as they confessed before a competent tribunal, were persuaded to feign diseases which they

never had. It is a fact, however, that the greater part received no benefit, and that more diseases were produced than were cured: for, soon, many of the worshippers were seized with convulsions, from which proceeded the sect of CONVULSIONISTS, which attracted attention for many years.

It was soon found expedient to close up the tomb; but cures were still said to be performed by the saint on persons in distant places. The Jesuits exerted themselves to discredit the whole business, and the Archbishop of Paris had a judicial investigation made of a number of the most remarkable cases, the results of which were various, and often ludicrous. A young woman said to have been cured at the tomb of blindness and lameness, was proved to have been neither blind nor lame. A man with diseased eyes was relieved, but it appeared that he was then using powerful medicine, and that, after all, his eyes were not entirely healed. A certain Abbé who had the misfortune to have one of his legs shorter than the other, was persuaded that he experienced a sensible elongation of the defective limb, but on measurement no increase could be discovered. A woman in the same situation danced on the tomb daily to obtain an elongation of a defective limb, and was persuaded that she received benefit; but it was ascertained, that she would have to dance there fifty-four years, before the cure would be effected, at the rate at which it was proceeding; but as for the unfortunate Abbé, seventy-two years would have been requisite. In short, the whole number of cures, after examination, was reduced to eight or nine, all of which can be easily accounted for on natural principles; and in several of these instances, the cures were not perfect.

2. A second consideration of great weight is, that in true miracles we can trace the testimony to the very time when the facts are said to have occurred, but in false miracles the report of the facts originates a long time afterwards, as in the case of Apollonius, the miracles ascribed to Mohammed by Abulfeda, and Al-Janabbi, and the miracles ascribed by the

1

Jesuits to Ignatius Loyola their founder; which were never heard of until long after his death.

3. Another criterion of importance is, that the report of miracles should originate and first obtain credit in the place and among the people, where they are said to have been performed. This is too remarkably the fact, in regard to the miracles of the Bible, to require any proof. But many stories of miracles are rendered suspicious by the circumstance that they were first reported and believed in some place far from that in which they were alleged to have been wrought. The miracles ascribed by the Romanists to Francis Xavier, are condemned by both the rules last mentioned. In all his letters while a missionary in the east, he never hints that miracles had been wrought; and a reputable writer who gave some account of his labours nearly forty years after his death, not only is silent about Xavier's miracles, but confesses that no miracles had been performed among the Indians. These miracles were said to be performed in the remote parts of India and Japan, but the report of them was published first in Europe. Almost all the miracles ascribed by the Romish Church to her saints, fall into the same predicament. The history of them is written long after they are said to have been performed, and often in countries remote from the place where it is pretended they occurred; or they are manifestly the effect of cunning contrivance and imposture.

4. Another necessary question in judging of the genuineness of miracles, is, whether the facts were scrutinized at the time, or were suffered to pass without examination. When the miracles reported coincide with the passions and prejudices of those before whom they are performed; when they are exhibited. by persons in power, who can prevent all examination and put what face they please on facts, they may well be reckoned suspicious. The cures at the tomb of the Abbé Paris were not performed in these circumstances. The Jansenists were not in power, and their enemies not only had the opportunity to

examine into the facts, but actually did so with the utmost diligence. We have reason to believe, therefore, that we have now a true report of those occurrences. The defect of these miracles is in their nature, not in their evidence.

But, in most cases, the miracles which have been reported, took place when there was no opportunity of examining into the facts; when the people were pleased to be confirmed in their favourite opinions; or when the ruling powers had some peculiar end to

answer.

*

But supposing these miracles to be ever so well attested, I do not perceive how the evidence of divine revelation can be affected by them; for if it could be made to appear that these were supported by testimony as strong as that which can be adduced in favour of the miracles of the New Testament, the only fair conclusion is, that they who believe in Christianity should admit them to be true-but what then? Would it follow, because miracles had been wrought on some rare occasions, different from those recorded in the Bible, that therefore, these were of no validity as evidence of divine revelation? Would not the fact that other miracles had been wrought, rather confirm our belief in those which were performed with so important a design? Mr. Hume does, indeed, artfully insinuate that the various accounts of miracles which exist cannot be true, because the religions which they were wrought to confirm, are opposite; yet not one of those which he brings forward as being best attested, was performed in confirmation of any new religion, or to prove any particular doctrine, therefore they are not opposed to Christianity. If they had actually occurred, it would not in the least disparage the evidence for the facts recorded in the New Testament. And especially, it is a strange conceit, that miracles performed within the bosom of the Christian Church should furnish any proof against Christianity.

It is, however, no part of the object of those who * On this whole subject, see Douglass's Criterion.

bring forward such an array of testimony in support of certain miracles, to prove that such facts ever occurred. This is diametrically opposite to their purpose. Their design is to discredit all testimony in favour of miracles, by showing, that facts acknowledged to be false have evidence as strong as those on which revealed religion rests. But they have utterly failed in the attempt, as we have shown: and if they had succeeded in adducing as strong testimony for other miracles, we would readily admit their truth, and that in perfect consistency with our belief in Christianity.

The Romish Church and some other fanatical sects, do still profess to work miracles; but these pretences are never submitted to the test of an impartial exam- ́ ination by opposers. Or if they are ever publicly exhibited, as in the case of the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius, it only serves to convince all reasonable men that it is a gross imposture.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE BIBLE CONTAINS INTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT ITS ORIGIN IS DIVINE.

As the Old and New Testaments are intimately connected, and form parts of the same system, it is unnecessary to make any distinction between them, in considering this branch of the evidence of divine revelation.

A late writer,* of great eminence and popularity, has represented this species of evidence as unsatisfactory; as not capable of being so treated as to produce conviction in the minds of philosophical infidels; and as opening a door to their most specious objections to Christianity. But certainly this is not the most effectual method of supporting the credit of the Scrip

* Dr. Chalmers.