suppose for we can always make a supposition-suppose that nature's laws had on rare occasions not acted uniformly, how should we have become aware of the exceptions? By experience again, of course. But how if the experience of uniformity, being the stronger, should have denied all force to the experience of the rarer exceptions? Why, that would have been blind tyranny of might over right-it would have been against reason. Now, this

blind sacrifice of the weaker to the stronger is precisely the thing of which we complain. On the sole strength of general uniformity, occasional non-uniformity, no matter how clear its claim, is refused all recognition, and declared to be only uniformity in disguise. The most headlong mountain torrent, were it suddenly to change its course, and rush as impetuously uphill as it before rushed down, would, on this theory, exhibit the laws of running water in disguise-a very complete disguise, it must be confessed. But, surely, some very good reason should be given for thus assigning unnatural effects to natural causes. This reason would be sufficiently rendered, either by actually tracing the events to the forces that produce them, or by showing that such forces, though occult, must exist in nature, from the demonstrated fact that no supernatural force ever can be or is exerted in the universe. Now, no one attempts the first of these two plans, otherwise the forces would no longer be occult. Neither does any one pretend to have given proof accord ing to the requirements of the second method of defence. For no manthat is, no reasonable man-tries to make believe that he has demonstrated these propositions: That God does not exist;* that God did not create the primal elements of matter, and give them their forces

J'aurais une extrême curiosité de voir celui qui serait persuadé, que Dieu n'est point: il me dirait de moins la raison invincible qui a su le convaincre (La Bruyère).

and laws; that God cannot interfere with the universe a little more effectually than men interfere with that small portion which is subject to their dominion.* Nescience on these subjects is the most that the saner sort of materialists will assert. Yet, when awkward facts are brought against this theory of nescience, they forget their former position, and argue now, not from the know-nothing point of view, but from the ground of certain knowledge that God does not and cannot interrupt the settled course of nature in one single instance. Unless, indeed, they prefer to keep to their old principle, and argue this way: We don't know whether God can interfere with mundane affairs, therefore he can't.

But to bring the nescience theory to an issue, it will be well now to abandon the argument, which has hitherto been mainly ad hominem, and to enter more into the reason of things. St. Thomas Aquinas--and men of science agree with him-lays down this rule for investigating the nature of a thing. "The perfect knowledge of an object cannot be had unless its action is known. For from the manner and kind of its action we learn the measure and quality of its powers. Now, it is from the powers of a thing that its nature is manifested. For, according as it has been endowed with such and such a nature, such and: such will be its operations." Hence the old axiom operatio sequitur esse,. everything works after the manner of its being. This principle, therefore, must be applied if we would trace the cause of the effects called miraculous.

Whenever previously known causes are found manifestly inadequate to the production of observed phenom: ena, it is scientific to postulate a

"The influence of external circumstances on man is not greater than his influence on the external world" (Mrs. Somerville). Lyell says that man's modifying agency on physical nature is so strong as to upset the possibility of calculating, many future contingencies from past events.

new cause, of which, however little else we may know, we may affirm at least this much, that it is a something possessed of the qualities which are indicated by the effects assigned to it. Thus luminiferous ether is postulated, not because any one has directly seen it, or tasted it, or handled it, or discerned it by smell, but because we know of no ordinary substance combining the properties of density and elasticity in a degree sufficient to account for observed facts. But there was another substance postulated by a famous man of our day, and I here adduce the example, because it makes strongly for my cause, though in one respect it might be twisted into an argument for the other side. Sir John Herschel thought he had found an instance of matter not subject to the law of universal gravitation.

"Liquidum et gravitate carentum Æthera, nec quidquam terrenæ focis habentem."

That is, he thought that the exemption was absolute, not merely apparent, as in the case of the gyroscope and of other instances where counteracting forces are at work. His conclusion was premature; and the subsequent labors of Mr. Lockyer and others have resulted in a more satisfactory solution of the problem. But assuming his first step to be right, Herschel is quite correct in his second. He said to himself, Here is matter absolutely devoid of a property which we know by our widest induction to be inherent in all ordinary matter. Therefore, though it is the glory of these latter times to have annihilated the difference between celestial and terrestrial mechanics, and to have gone far towards doing the same between celestial and terrestrial physics, yet, notwithstanding, I will admit an exception against this fusion of two realms of science, rather than give up a principle that is the foundation of all science. Herschel's own words are: Physical science has yet to settle "whether it is really matter

in the ordinary acceptation of the term which is projected from the heads" of comets.. "In no respect is the question as to the materiality of the tail mo.e forcibly pressed on us for consideration than in that of the enormous sweep it makes round the sun in perihelion, in the manner of a straight, rigid rod, in defiance of the law of gravitation, nay, even of the received laws of motion." According to Herschel, then, if we see a phenomenon really contravening the laws of gravity and of motion, we are bound to conclude, however much it may go against the grain, that we have something more than the forces of ordinary matter. This same principle carried a little higher leads us to the recognition of the miraculous.

Of course we must first establish our facts better than Herschel did, before we apply to them his principle.

For proof of these facts I can only refer the reader, earnestly and confidently, to documentary evidence that is to be found in various quarters, but especially in the judicial processes preceding the canonization of saints. If after a careful study of this evidence he shall still refuse to believe, then he will dispute anything, and it is no use arguing with such a person. But given the facts, it is unphilosophical to have recourse to occult natural powers to explain the mystery. For in many instances the circumstances are so simple, the forces at work are so obvious, that it is ridiculous to suppose natural agencies to be called into play beyond what can be observed. Granting that we may not know all nature's forces, at least we know all that exert themselves under the simplest combinations and under the commonest conditions. For remember, these miracles are not wrought with all the apparatus of a conjurer or a magician. There is no stage erected, there are no curtains, no concave mirrors, no double boxes, none of the appliances usual at those places of amusement

where people pay their money to be excitingly deceived. Miracles are as simple nowadays in their operation as they were in the days of Christ and his Apostles. As Christ worked his wonders with short, plain utterances and little ado, so now a few common words are spoken, some ordinary water is drunk, a relic is applied, and suddenly, beyond all proportion to the material means employed, an astounding effect takes place. And that unbelievers themselves are convinced these results cannot be produced by natural forces, occult or otherwise, is proved by the circumstance that for the most part they deny the fact in the teeth of overwhelming evidence. Having it at their choice to elect between one interruption of nature's laws and another, they find it more to their taste to believe the greater miracle and to deny the less-they will rather believe thousands of people to have been miraculously deceived as to the simplest facts that can fall under the cognizance of the human senses, than admit a principle against which a priori they have not a single valid objection, to wit, that God can and does occasionally make visible his governing hand in the direction of human affairs.

Such conduct is due to inveterate prejudice, the causes of which are betrayed in some of the objections to miracles. Thus it is urged that so many reputed miracles have been admittedly mere fancies or impostures, and that the people are so very credulous; that no one believes certain of the legends of the middle ages, and that the rule is a good one -ex uno disce omnes. I reply, leave the doubtful cases, and form your judgment on a few of the best-authenticated examples. A whole system of things is not discredited because there have been regarding it a host of mistakes. No man doubts the explanation of the solar system given by the astronomers of to-day, because the cumbrous apparatus of

their brethren of a thousand years back, with its cycles and epicycles, has been thrown ignominiously into the lumber-room of exploded theories. A man may believe that he has, in a fossil, the record of an extinct species, though he knows that it was once fashionable to say that fossils were generated by the sun, or produced by the plastic powers of the earth. The presence of a thousand quacks in London is no reason why the citizens should spurn the services of the good physicians. It is unreasonable then to reject the genuine because of the coexistence of the spurious; it is unreasonable to reject true miracles because of pseudo-miracles. We have fact and fable mingled together; where we can, let us separate the fact from the fable. It is what we do with profane records.

Again, it is objected that an old Saxon monk, had he found out that a speech, reported to him as having been delivered in America five minutes before, really had been so delivered, would have certainly concluded that nothing short of an angel could have brought the news so speedily. But I deny the force of the objection on several grounds. For first, in the slow progress of human science we have a guarantee against anything like the electric telegraph being discovered and brought into practical use darkly and on the sly. Neither was the laying down of the Atlantic cable an easy secret to keep. There is not on record a single discovery of any magnitude that has been the private work of one man. Electricity has been known for hundreds of years. Its application as a working power has been a gradual progress observable to all observers. Then again, if the telegraph escaped the notice of a poor monk, when he came to proclaim his imagined miracle to the world, there would be better informed heads to correct his error. But not the profoundest man of science can

give any satisfactory account of our more palpable miracles. They cannot tell us, for instance, why a large extent of diseased structure in the human frame should suddenly be restored to its healthy condition by a draught of pure water.* Nerve-force is so unaccountable a thing that we can allow for a sudden nervous change on the application of a stimulant, mental or physical. But the tissues are built up and repaired by a slow process, through the nutriment supplied by the blood; hence it is not in nature that a sudden restoration should take place in this quarter. So that in these cases "monkish ignorance" is no argument for adversaries to lay hold of. Lastly, in the supposed instance of the Saxon monk, there must have been a wilful deceiver at work. But in many of our miracles it is demonstrable that there are no knaves in the transaction, and moreover there are no electric machines or any apparatus for imposing upon the simple. All is above board. Would that our critics were as honest in their examination as are the actors in the cases to which we invite their attention!

To conclude, I have urged at some length the unreasonableness of the hypothesis of occult causes, because I feel sure that to destroy it is to destroy the only plausible ground that consistently scientific men have for the rejection of all miracles. For those who say that even the best-authenticated of our facts are not as stated, speak thus either because they have not fully weighed the evidence, or for another reason, which it is not polite to mention. Now this denial of miracles in toto, is a throwing overboard of far the most obvious, often the only, means whereby to come to the knowledge of religion. Even Rousseau perceived that if we could have miracles, they were the surest and easiest proofs of the Divine Being and of Divine revelation. "This character," he says, "is, with

* Vide M. Lasserre's History of Lourdes.

out contradiction, the most luminously striking, one which cannot miss being seen, and which, showing itself by a sudden, sensible effect, appears to demand least examination. For this cause the common people; who are incapable of carrying on a train of reasoning, are particularly taken with a miracle." And Paley quotes from a Protestant missionary History of Greenland, the opinion that "they (the Greenlanders) would never be converted till they saw miracles wrought as in the Apostles' days, and this they expected and demanded of their instructors." With this idea the most remarkable religious record in the world-the only unbroken religious tradition that pretends to be commensurate with the whole duration of the human race up to this time— is in the completest harmony. The Old Testament insists on the constant recurrence of miracles. To separate the miraculous portion from the Jewish history is not to lop off an accidental excrescence; it is to destroy its very essence. I know certain biblical commentators have ventured on the separation. But I also know that St. Paul has this class of men in mind when he says, "Some going astray have turned unto foolish speech, wishing to be doctors of the law, but understanding neither what they say nor of what matters they are making assertions." Perhaps nowhere could a host of more silly utterances be found than in the pages of biblical critics of the rationalistic school. In order to pervert a text they dig for old roots, five or six languages deep, till they arrive at some radicle that suits their purpose; then up they come, bringing their fossils with them, that with the dead they may dispossess the living meaning of the language, as it was understood at the time when the Scriptures were written. But this is a comparatively reasonable proceeding by the side of others.

The critics notwithstanding, there

fore, it remains true that miracles are of the very substance of the Old Testament. Miraculous too is the link between the Old Testament and the New. Prophecies and types demonstrably set forth long before, and afterwards demonstrably realized, the connection of which I speak. But independently of this testimony, Christ's own miracles were alone enough to guarantee his declaration that he was the Son of God. Nor were miracles to cease with him; he promised them to his followers. "If you believe in me," he says, "the works that I do, you shall do also, and greater than these shall you perform." "These signs shall follow those who believe; in my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak in new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly it shall not harm them; they shall lay their hands upon the sick and these shall be healed." How Christ's promises were fulfilled, as far as the Acts of the Apostles testify, is pretty well known. But few consider the witness that is borne by later authorities to the continuation of the prodigies. The declarations of early fathers and ecclesiastical writers are abundant and unmistakably plain; so that there is absolutely no alternative between believing these great men, and setting them down as most unprincipled conspirators, leagued together for the propagation of a most barefaced system of lies, the refutation of which must have been the easiest thing possible to adversaries living in the very midst of the reported wonders, and challenged to come and make proof of them. The Christian witnesses are either true speakers or deliberate deceivers; they could not have been innocent dupes; the facts they assert are often of too obvious a character to admit of deception.

One should be careful, however, before pronouncing men, revered for centuries throughout the Christian world, to be the vilest of im

postors. Listen now to a few gleanings from their testimony as to facts for the most part perceptible to the five senses, without aid from modern science. St. Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, warns those possessed of supernatural discernment against being proud of their endowments. He implies, therefore, that they had these gifts. St. Ignatius the Martyr once and again asserts himself to have been under the guidance of supernatural inspiration. Quadratus in his Apology says, "There flourished also among the successors of the Apostles many others holding the position of chiefs, who, after they had laid the foundations of the faith in certain remote and barbarous places, hastened away to fresh countries, accompanied by the power and grace of God. The virtue of the Divine Spirit, through their instrumentality, wrought here likewise many miracles, so that at the first hearing of these preachers, whole peoples embraced with alacrity the worship of God." St. Justin thus taunts the Jews: Amongst us there still abide the gifts of prophecy; whence you ought to know that what formerly belonged to you, has now been made over to us. "Often," says St. Irenæus, "amongst the brethren, at the request of the whole body of the faithful, who urged their entreaty with many prayers and fastings, a soul departed has returned to the body.

66

Some do most truly and unmistakably drive out devils, so that many who are troubled with evil spirits are brought to embrace our religion and remain faithful to the Church. Others have received the gifts of prophecy and of visions. Others heal the sick by the imposition of hands. Why say more? It were impossible to enumerate all the gifts which the Church throughout the world has received in the name of him that was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and which she daily uses for the benefit of the nations."