Of course Paul's own account of the mode in which he received his knowledge of Christianity must be taken, in preference to that of a narrator like Luke, whose information could only have been second-hand. Paul intimates, as we have seen, that he rather slighted and avoided all ordinary channels of instruction, and prides himself on the originality, exclusiveness, and directness, of the sources of his knowledge. The decision, therefore, of his fidelity and competence as a representative and teacher of the doctrines of Christ, depends entirely on the conclusion we may form as to the genuineness and reality of the visions and revelations. with which he claims to have been favoured. If these were actual and positive communications from his risen and glorified Master, the question admits of no further discussion; Paul was the greatest of the Apostles, and his writings of paramount authority to any other. If, on the other hand, these visions were merely the workings of a powerful and fiery mind in the solitude and seclusion of an Arabian hermitage, such as an ardent and excited temperament, like that of Paul, might easily come to regard as the suggestions of the Divine Spirit, and, perhaps, even could with difficulty distinguish from them; then all his numerous epistles are the teachings, not of Jesus, but of Paul.

Now, not only have we no evidence-(perhaps we could have none)-beyond the bare assertion of Paul himself, that these alleged communications had any other than a subjective existence-were in fact anything beyond a mere mental process; but among all the passages which refer to this subject, there are none which do not more readily bear this interpretation than any other-with one exception'. That exception is the statement of Luke, that the heavenly voice at mid-day was heard by Paul's companions as well as by himself a statement, which being afterwards contradicted. by Paul (or by Luke for him), may at once be put aside as incorrect. Paul "immediately," as he says, upon his miraculous conversion, went into seclusion to meditate and commune with his own heart upon the marvellous change which had taken place in all his feelings;-and the state

1 Perhaps the assertion of Paul that he had seen Jesus, "and last of all he .was seen by me also "-1 Cor. xv. 8-may be considered as another exception. This sight of Jesus, however, probably refers to the vision at the moment of his conversion.

into which he more than once describes himself as having fallen, is that of trance, a condition of the cerebral systemassuredly not a sound one-which solitude, fasting, and religious excitement combined, produce in all ages and countries, and nowhere so readily as in the East. (Acts, xxii. 17; 2 Cor. xii. 2, 3, 24.) We cannot of course, and do not wish, to take upon us to affirm that, while in this state, Paul was not favoured with divine communications; we merely wish to make it clear that we have no reason to believe that he was so favoured, beyond his own assertion—an assertion which has been made with equal sincerity and conviction by hundreds of extatics whom similar causes have brought into a similar physiological condition.

There is much in the tone of the doctrinal writings of Paul which we believe and feel to be at variance, or at least little in harmony, with the views and spirit of Jesus, but nothing perhaps which we can prove to be so. We must therefore

conclude with the ungracious task of pointing out a few passages of which the moral tone shows that the writer was not adequately imbued with the temper of Him who said, "Do good to those that hate you: Pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (2 Thess. i. 6-8; ii. 11, 12; 1 Tim. i. 20; 2 Tim. iv. 14; Gal. i. 8, 9.)

CHAPTER XIII.

MIRACLES.

THE position which the miracles of the New Testament are made to hold in the Christian economy is of the first importance. In the popular theory they lie at the very foundation of the system. The current and, till recently, scarcely questioned opinion of Protestant Christendom respecting them was this:-"The miracles which Jesus wrought constitute the proof of his divine commission, and the guarantee for the truth of the doctrines which he preached. His declarations and his precepts are to be received with unquestioning submission and belief, because he wrought miracles in proof of his authority to teach and to command."-According to this (the prevalent) view, the truth of Christ's doctrines is made to rest upon the reality of his miracles;-we should not know the doctrines to be divine, had it not been for the attesting wonders wrought by the Teacher; and whatever doctrines are preached by a worker of miracles, are, ipso facto, proved to be of divine. authority, and must therefore be received without question.

Now this popular notion appears to us to contain much confusion, and at least two fatal fallacies; for the more clear disentanglement and exposure of which we shall proceed to show,

I. That miracles wrought by any individual are not, nor can be, a proof of the truth of the doctrines which he preaches; and,

II. That miracles are not the real basis of Christianity, and cannot be a safe foundation on which to rest its claims,

1 See Paley, Evid.

inasmuch as miracles can never be proved by documentary evidence-least of all, by such documentary evidence as we possess.

Before proceeding further, we will define the precise theological meaning affixed to the word miracle in the popular mind (as far as the popular mind can be said to attach a precise meaning to any word). This is the more necessary, as a writer of great eminence and ability, in his attempt to show that miracles may be not a violation, but a fulfilment, of the order of nature, appears to us to have confounded a miracle with a prodigy.

In common parlance-which alone we profess to use—a miracle is a suspension or violation of the ordinary course of nature, at the will of an individual-indicating, therefore, the possession by that individual of superhuman power. A similar suspension or violation, unconnected with the command or prediction of any individual, is simply a prodigy, not a miracle. A prodigy is merely a marvellous and abnormal occurrence, of the cause and meaning of which we are wholly ignorant; a miracle is a marvellous and supernatural occurrence, the cause of which lies open to us in the expressed volition of an agent. Lazarus rising out of a four days', grave, without any discoverable cause or antecedent, would merely present to us a prodigy;-Lazarus coming forth at the command of Christ was a manifest miracle.

Mr. Babbage, in that ingenious chapter, in his “Ninth Bridgewater Treatise," wherein he endeavours to show that miracles may be merely natural, bu eptional occurrences -the exceptional expressions of atural law expressly provided for beforehand-seems to have altogether lost sight of this distinction. We might not have deemed it necessary to controvert this theory, had it not been recently adopted and promulgated in a popular work of fiction ("Alton Locke"), by a clergyman of the Church of England. But when so sanctioned it becomes incumbent upon us to unmask the fallacy. "The object of the present chapter (says Mr. Babbage) is to show that miracles are not deviations from the laws assigned by the Almighty for the government of matter and of mind; but that they are the exact fulfilment of much more extensive laws than those we suppose to exist." His conception is that, in the final arrangement

of all things, the Deity provided for the occurrence of those deviations from the established course of Nature which we call miracles, at certain periods, and under certain circumstances; and he contends that such an arrangement suggests grander views of creative power and foresight than either casual interpositions or a uniform and undisturbed order of proceeding would do. We may concede both points; we merely contend that such pre-arranged occurrences would not be miracles in the ordinary sense of the word, on which ordinary sense all theological arguments are based. If Lazarus rose from the dead in obedience to, and in consequence of, "an exceptional law" impressed upon matter in primeval times, (which is Mr. Babbage's conception of the case, and which may be a correct one), then he was not raised from the dead by an action upon the laws of Nature, emanating from the will of Christ;and all arguments based upon this (the prevalent) view of the event fall to the ground. On Mr. Babbage's supposition, the connection between the command of Christ, Lazarus, come forth!" and the resurrection of the dead man, was not that of cause and effect, but merely that of coincidence or simultaneity; or, at the utmost, the command was uttered, because Jesus, of his superhuman knowledge, knew that the moment was arrived when one of these " ceptional laws" was about to operate, in fact the command was a prediction,-a supposition contradicted by the whole language of the narrative, and unavailing for the popular argument; which is, that Christ had the power of countermanding nature-not merely that of foreseeing events hidden from ordinary knowledge.

ex

Mr. Babbage's conception, therefore, though it may make miracles more admissible by scientific minds, does so by depriving them of their theological utility. It makes the fact credible by annulling the argument drawn from it. Or, to speak more correctly, it renders prodigies credible, by making them cease to be miracles1.

I. We now proceed to illustrate the first of our two positions. A miracle, we say, cannot authenticate a doctrine.

1 If Mr. Babbage means, as an expression at page 97 seems to intimate, that the Creator had provided for these exceptional occurrences taking place whenever Christ performed a certain operation which He gave him power to perform, and told him when to perform-then we are at a loss to discover in what way the conception varies from, or is superior to, the vulgar view.

N