of the phenomena. H. S. C. H., we need not say, is not a man to "dress up" a case : it cannot, indeed, with any person, we should think, be a "point of honour" to defend an alleged modern miracle, much less, we should hope, a point of faith: therefore, as an honest and Christian man he only intended, we are quite sure, to give the data as they stood; but still, in point of fact, and without any impeachment of motive, the second narrative cools down the excitement, which was an essential part of the case.

But our correspondent's reason for procuring a second narrative was, he says, that the public might have a dry statement relative to the disease, and the remedies which had been administered. But the statement thus announced is singularly unsatisfactory; and it is not the statement of a surgeon, but of the patient herself. Why, if the event was to be published abroad as miraculous, did not one of the medical men who had attended Miss Fancourt give the world his opinion of the case; at least to shew, what does not appear from the narrative, and what we do not believe, that there existed at the time of her cure any organic disorder? Her original malady had probably subsided by rest and proper treatment; so that nothing now was needed but some strong excitement to induce the patient to use her recovered powers. We find, indeed, " a surgeon from the west end of the town," who visited the patient after the cure, but who seems to have known nothing of her before, affirming that it was "a peculiar interposition of Divine favour and power:" but this is only his theological, and not his medical, opinion; and we ourselves have already said quite as much as this. His testimony would have been more to the purpose, if he had given the medical ground on which it rested. Besides which, would it not have been more satisfactory to state facts rather than opinions? Was there no surgeon who could judge of a case of organic injury, if such existed, and without which there is nothing extraordinary in the cure, any more than any cure of hysteria, by powerful nervous excitement? And why import from the west end of the town the only surgeon probably in London who, as currently alleged, believes in the new Scotch divinity and Scotch prodigies? And even he gives only an ex-post-facto opinion, by no means pledging himself to any circumstance in the case that can render it miraculous.

If from our knowledge of the parties we were not quite certain-for certain we are —that artifice is out of the question, we might naturally have concluded that the absence of a proper medical certificate, couched in medical terms, was from a fear lest, under such an ordeal, the miracle should prove not miraculous; as assuredly it would, ifit should turn out that what is

66

vaguely called the "hip complaint” of spinal" complaint, was merely fune tional, and not organic. We have not so much as the test of a stiff joint loosened or a curvated bone straightened; in fact, we have no proof whatever that any se rious disorder remained beyond nervous debility; for which "excitement" has, times without number, proved a sufficient cure. The excitement of the house being on fire might likely enough have had the same effect.

Our correspondent avers, that we have adopted an argument of Hume's and Spinoza's. This is really a hard charge. Because we said that in the case of a young lady at Hoxton, who had recovered her health under peculiar circumstances, “it was more likely that we were ignorant than that God had suspended his laws," we are charged with adopting the profane reasoning of Hume and Spinoza. If retort were argument, we might reply, that the allegation of miracles in such cases as Miss Fancourt's, Mary Campbell's, and the Scotch fanatics who pretend to the gift of tongues, is the ready way to make Humes and Spinozas of all the rational part of mankind; if indeed they did not take the trouble to look one step further, and to discern that there is no analogy whatever between the cases. Let any reader survey the glowing mass of proofs adverted to in former pages of this Number for the truth of the Gospel, and then say whether it would not be utterly disparaging and irreverent to institute a comparison between the two cases-between Scripture miracles and the cure of Miss Fancourt. God did then “suspend his ordinary laws;" the evidence to prove which is multifarious and incontrovertible; to deny it, not to affirm it, “ proves" the denier "ignorant:" but can the same be said of the recovery, however remarkable, of a young person labouring under an obscure and perhaps nervous affection? Our correspondent, by the same reasoning, is a disciple of Hume and Spinoza if he does not believe the Divine agency to have been miraculously exerted through metallic tractors, holy wafers, animal magnetism, charms, relics, and exorcism. There was once a real gift of tongues: and do we deny this by saying that we utterly disbelieve the pretension to it, whether knavish or insane, as practised at Port-Glasgow? In truth, the hint about Hume and Spinoza, our friend must allow us to say, appears to us a little invidious, and not by any means to the purpose of the argument. We stated in our last Number, and we repeat our statement, that we hope by the blessing of God not to be deterred from adhering to what appears to us to be both Scripture and common sense, from the fear of being charged in the Morning Watch, or in a conference of millennarian believers in Scotch miracles, with scepticism, Neologianism, r

infidelity. We are, however, very sceptical as to the truth of much that has of late been obtruded on the world as scriptural interpretation, and most of all on the subject of prophecy and modern miracles. Our correspondent goes on to say, that our disbelief in alleged modern miracles "is only the opinion of an individual;" and that we have adduced no proof of it from Scripture. But so far from it being only the opinion of an individual, we sincerely thought, till the late Scotch miracles, that it was the opinion of every reasonable man in Christendom. We gave no proof from Scripture, as it never occurred to us to be necessary to prove negatives; we own we took the matter for granted: it is rather for those who believe these modern miracles to prove them from Scripture, than for us who disbelieve them to disprove them. If a man professed to fly, and we said we did not believe it, would it be fair to reply, "You have not proved from Scripture that the thing is not to be expected?" We only say, Prove from Scripture that it is. So far, however, from thinking that Scripture sanctions such an assumption, we find it made the very badge of the beast, the false prophet, and antichrist, that they pretend to these lying wonders. We cannot read what the most judicious Protestant writers have written respecting the New-Testament prophecies, which apply to the corrupt Church of Rome, without trembling to see any approach towards the same pernicious superstitions within the precincts of Protestantism. It is rather because we do not wish to speak too painfully, than because we think the New Testament encourages the expectation of miracles in the present age, that we quit this topic. If, however, our friends wish to grapple with it, let them freely tell us why they are looking for miracles. Miracles are exceptions to the general rule of God's providence: but it is not reasonable for them to call on others to disprove exceptions; they ought to begin with proving them. When our friends afford us their reasons for believing that modern miracles are probable, it will be time enough to consider their arguments; till then, we think the expectation of them neither reasonable nor scriptural. The power of God to work them is on all hands admitted; but that he does now work them we see no shadow of reason to believe. But, after all, the particular fact under consideration, is not whether miracles are likely, but whether Miss Fancourt's case is miraculous. Even if we believed that miracles were the ordinary course of the existing dispensation, and were wrought every hour, we should still say, as much as at present, that we see nothing miraculous in this particular instance.

But our correspondent proceeds to shew us that Mr. Milner believed in a particular

miracle, said to be wrought in the fifth century; and that Archbishop Tillotson thought it likely enough that, if missionaries of "sincere minds" went out to preach to the heathen, "God would enable such persons to work miracles." Such were the opinions of Mr. Milner and Archbishop Tillotson. And what then? what doctrine is there so strange which has not been vouched for by celebrated names? The venerated Bishop Jewell preached before Queen Elizabeth a vehement anti-witchcraft sermon; in which he complained that "witches and sorcerers had of late wonderfully increased," that under their influence "her majesty's subjects pined away until death," and that "their colour faded, their flesh rottened, their speech was removed, and their senses bereft." In consequence of these and similar absurd and superstitious addresses, hundreds of unoffending persons, in the course of that and the next century, were put to death by cruel tortures. Yet Jewell was an eminent man, and a sound divine; and his authority is quite as high as that of Milner or Tillotson. And if any person had calmly reasoned the matter with Jewell, would it have been fair for the good bishop to have retorted (saving the anachronism) that the objector was using the arguments of Hume and Spinoza, and that he had not proved from Scripture that there would not be scores of witches and sorcerers in the days of the Tudors and Stuarts?

With regard to the particular instances mentioned by Milner and Tillotson, it is not necessary for us to discuss them. The Archbishop's is a mere arbitrary hypothesis, unsupported by Scripture or fact, and in direct opposition to both. So far from there being scriptural reason to expect, as he thinks, that if persons went out "with sincere minds to preach the pure Christian religion" they would be gifted with the power of working miracles, and that this would convince the pagan world; but that," without it, there is little or no possibility of success," the Scriptures tell us quite the contrary: for the evidence for the truth of Christianity is complete; and "if they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither would they believe though one rose from the dead." And then, with regard to the matter of fact, missionaries in great numbers have gone out, with as "sincere minds" as the Archbishop could expect ; but does our correspondent know of any missionary, either to Jews or heathens, who is thus miraculously endowed: and, if not, he must admit that the Archbishop's hypothesis is a mere conceit, and of no weight as an argument; for even Tillotson's authority is of little value against both Scripture and fact. Still, in justice to the Archbishop, we should remark, that in the case he mentions, there would be a "nodus," which he might not un

reasonably think "vindice dignus:" so great an object as the conversion of "infidel nations" might seem to justify (if any thing could justify our legislating for our Creator) his expectation of modern missionary miracles. But what is there to be learned or proved by the alleged miraculous cure of a young lady, in the suburbs of London, which even our respected correspondent himself has not thought right to bring forward as connected with any one point of Christian faith or practice? The miracles of Scripture were wrought for the confirmation of some truth known and specified; even the Scotch miracles are alleged to be wrought in confirmation of some of the tenets of Mr. Erskine, Mr. Campbell, or Mr. Irving; but what is the rationale of the Hoxton miracle, even if we could admit it were one?

So much for the Archbishop's case. Mr. Milner's reference to the five hundred persons who are said to have proclaimed aloud the Divinity of Christ after their tongues had been cut out by the Arians, is expressed with the trembling caution so honourable to that excellent and judicious church historian. But, with the greatest respect to Milner's judgment, we are not so fully certified of the circumstances attending that alleged miracle as to make it a fixed point from which to reason to others. We grieve to say, what is too well borne out by fact, that in the controversies which in the darker ages deformed and desolated the church of Christ, even the orthodox were not always religious; nor were they ashamed, on some occasions, to invent so-called "pious frauds," or at least did not always very seriously investigate the evidence of the prodigies which they have handed down to posterity. But admitting that there was

Another ecclesiastical historian, Mosheim, remarks on this subject,

"The many and stupendous miracles which are said to have been wrought by the Christian missionaries, who were sent to convert the barbarous nations, have lost, in our times, the credit they obtained in former ages. The corrupt discipline that then prevailed admitted of those fallacious stratagems, which are very improperly called pious frauds; nor did the heralds of the Gospel think it at all unlawful to terrify or allure to the profession of Christianity by fictitious prodigies, those obdurate hearts which they could not subdue by reason and argument. It is not, however, to be supposed, that all those who acquired renown by their miracles, were chargeable with this fanatical species of artifice and fraud. For as, on the one hand, those ignorant and superstitious nations were disposed to look upon, as miraculous, every event which had an unusual aspect, so, on the other,

the Christian doctors themselves were so

no intentional fraud, it has long been a contested argument whether the cruel dismemberment said to be inflicted by the Arians, was so complete as altogether to prevent articulation. Two of the sufferers, it is recorded, remained dumb; a fact which has been often urged in proof, that in their case the excision was complete, and that in the others it had been left imperfect; so as to allow, if not of very distinct articulation, at least syllabic utterance sufficient to ground upon it the alleged prodigy. Vocal utterance would not be impeded by the operation, though complete; and even syllabic utterance, or articulation, it has been maintained on respectable authority, might be imperfectly* performed, several instances in proof of which have been adduced. We think it not unlikely that the story originated thus: that these resolute martyrs, even after this severe infliction, and with the prospect of death itself before them, continued to testify to the Divinity of the Saviour by signs and writing, and, so far as they could, by imperfect utterance; but that the story of their constancy in being transmitted from mouth to mouth gained additions: a few perhaps had been still able to articulate; but even if none did, the love of the marvellous might gradually invent the miraculous part of the story, and who would attempt to disprove it? Under all the circumstances, therefore, we rather admire the conscientious caution evinced by Milner, than feel certain that the facts are unequivocal, and his conclusion irrefragable. But it cannot be an article of faith either way; for even the Roman Catholics, Mr. Butler being witness, do not consider it an article of faith to believe any miracle posterior to the apostolic age. "The Roman Catholics," remarks that writer, "in his reply to Mr. Southey," admit without qualification, that no miracles except those which are related in the Old or New Testament, are articles of faith; that a person may disbelieve every other miracle, and may even disbelieve the existence of the persons through whose intercession they are related to have been wrought, without ceasing to be a Roman Catholic." "This," continues he, " is equally agreeable to religion and common sense; for all miracles which are not recorded in holy writ, depend on human reasoning. Now human reasoning being always fallible, all miracles depending on it rest on fallible proof

uninstructed and superficial, so little acquainted with the powers of nature, and the relations and connexions of things in their ordinary course, that uncommon events, however natural, were considered by them as miraculous interpositions of the Most High. This will appear obvious to such as, void of superstitition and partiality, read the Acts of the Saints, who flourished in this and the following centuries."

and consequently may be untrue. Hence our divines never impose the belief of particular miracles, either upon the body of the faithful or upon individuals; they only recommend the belief of them. They never recommend the belief of any the credibility of which does not appear to them to be supported by evidence of the highest nature; and while they contend that the evidence is of this description, and cannot therefore be rationally disbelieved, they admit that it is still no more than human testimony, and therefore liable to error. Dr. Milner rejects in the wholesale the miracles related in the Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine; those related in the Speculum of V. Belluacensis, and those related in the Saints' Lives of the patrician Metophiastes; and no Roman Catholic gives credit to those which rest on Surius or Monbritius. Dr. Lingard calls Osbert, the writer of the life of St. Dunstan, an injudicious biographer, whose anile credulity collected and embellished every fable.'"

Such is Mr. Butler's testimony; so that even in the superstitious Church of Rome, a person, it seems, may reasonably doubt of any post-apostolic miracle, and think it more likely that there is some mistake or ignorance than that God has suspended his laws, without being reminded of Hume or Spinoza. Dr. Lingard adds, what may possibly apply to the case of the five hundred persons who are said to have miraculously spoken in favour of the Divinity of our Lord, after their tongues had been cut out by the Arians, that on whatever ground some alleged miracles may have first rested, " they depend at present on the distant testimony of writers not remarkable for sagacity or discrimination.'

But we need not proceed with this question; for in truth we neither affirmed nor denied the truth of miracles being wrought after the age of the Apostles: all that we said was, that, as it seems to us, there is no sufficient proof of them; and we cannot think that on either side the question involves any matter of faith or Christian doctrine. If any person believe the alleged miracle of "the thundering legion," we have no quarrel with him; though for ourselves, not denying the fact, we see nothing miraculous in it. The negative, however, in such instances, appears to us not only the more reasonable, but the safer, side; for if once we open a door to modern miracles, where shall we stop? Not only Popery will urge her claims; but every thing absurd and superstitious will find ready entrance.

SO

Our correspondent testifies to the " briety of mind, and meekness and quietness of spirit," of the young lady whose case he records. We most readily believe it, and have repeatedly stated that we intended nothing disparaging, far from it, to any of the respected parties concerned. Yet he admits that after the cure she laCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 348.

boured under "excitement," though he does not allow that she did so at the time; and he attributes the idea of excitement only to our "lively description:" but the lively description" was, word for word, Miss Fancourt's, not ours. She says of Mr. G., not only after the cure, but at and immediately antecedent to it," During this whole time the holy man was looking on me most stedfastly to describe his countenance is impossible; it was most heavenly." Was our statement stronger than this? A countenance so celestial as to be indescribable, and beaming stedfastly on the patient whose cure was to be effected, is surely quite as glowing a deecription as our invention could have devised.

We a little doubt the accuracy of our friend's information, that Miss Fancourt had not heard much of the Scotch miracles, or been interested about them. He admits that her father and Mr. G. had that very afternoon been arguing respecting them and though Mr. Fancourt took a sober view of the matter, there are those, including Mr. G., who take a very different one, and Miss F. might not be sure which was right. It is also stated, that a clergyman who had been preaching just before, at the chapel at which Mr. Fancourt officiates, and which his daughter attends, had urged the exciting doctrine, that we live in a day when gifts of this sort may be expected. But this, with much more that has been stated to us, we lay aside as not authenticated; and confine ourselves to the simple point, that there was quite excitement enough at the moment to account for the effect.

Our correspondent gets over (we do not use the phrase uncourteously) the popish cases which we alluded to, by saying, first, that they are not perfectly parallel, and secondly, that we have not the same evidence of all the circumstances concerning them, as in the present instance. But he has not attempted to point out what is the material difference between them, nor, we are persuaded, can he do so. The depositions in some of these cases are even stronger than in that of Miss Fancourt; and they are both attested and technically explicated by medical men, which hers is not. It is hardly fair of our respected friend, when we admit the facts of his miracle, to deny the facts of other people's miracles. But in truth he seems aware that he cannot maintain this ground; for he adds, that the Popish cases may possibly be miraculous also. This is fair and consistent; but it would lead to conclusions which no Protestant can calmly contemplate; and, in truth, if we accord this to the Roman-Catholic church, we must go further, and acknowledge the hand of God displayed for Mohammedanism and Heathenism themselves: for what false religion is their which has not its alleged prodigies; and some of them 5 H

possibly, as to the mere facts, as well attested as the case of Miss Fancourt? In truth, there is no reason why a belief in the virtues of the waters of the Ganges should not restore a nervous patient as much as the holy water of Popery, or any other form of superstition. We see then but one safe way; to admit what is proved as matter of fact, but to demur to the theological inference.

We have gone thus at some length into the subject, not because it is important in itself to know what is the rationale of Miss Fancourt's case, but because it is highly important in its possible bearings; for if pious and sensible persons are induced to consider this a miracle, we see evils resulting which we shudder to contemplate. Let our readers, and not least our friendly correspondent H., survey the fanaticism that is at work in Scotland, and which is even boldly retailed to us in England, not only in sermons and cheap tracts, but in the pages of a quarterly publication, the Morning Watch, established expressly to propagate the strange opinions which have lately gone abroad on some of the most important subjects of theology. From the last Number of that publication, we shall select a short specimen, to shew the extent to which either the vain imaginations of men or the delusions of Satan are at work. Both the conductors and correspondents contend that the miraculous gift of tongues has revived, and give us the following specimen of its effects; which they consider" supernatural, holy, influential," and a "work of the Holy Spirit." "We spent three weeks, some of us upwards of a month, in Port-Glasgow and the neighbourhood, and attended regularly while there at the prayer meetings; which meetings were held every evening, and occasionally (those only attending who were not engaged in business) in the morning. The history of one of these meetings is the history of all: I may probably as well relate what took place at the first which we attended. The mode of proceeding is for each person who takes a part, first to read a Psalm in metre, which is sung by the meeting; then a chapter from the Bible, and he then prays. On this occasion, after two other gentlemen, J. M'D. read and prayed.

"In the course of prayer, and while engaged in intercession for others, he began speaking in an unknown tongue; and after speaking for some time, he sung, or rather chaunted, in the same tongue. He then rose, and we all rose with him, and in a very loud voice and with great solemnity, he addressed us in the same tongue for a considerable time he then with the same loudness of voice and manner addressed us in English......After he had concluded, a short pause ensued; when suddenly the woman-servant of the M'D.s arose, and spoke for a space of probably ten minutes

in an unknown tongue and then in English ......Mrs. -, one of the ladies who had received the gift of the Spirit, but not the gift of tongues, (she received the gift while we were in the country,) arose, went out of the room, and began speaking in a loud voice of the coming judgments......During our stay, four individuals received the gift of tongues......The tongues spoken by all the several persons, in number nine, who have received the gift, are perfectly distinct in themselves and from each other: J. M'D. speaks two tongues......These persons while uttering the unknown sounds, as also while speaking in the spirit in their own language, have every appearance of being under supernatural direction. The manner and voice are, generally speaking, different from what they are at other times......Their whole deportment gives an impression not to be conveyed in words, that their organs are made use of by supernatural power."-But we will not copy more: we sicken as we write, to think how the fair face of Religion can be distorted and caricatured. Where the imposture ends and the insanity begins, we cannot undertake to determine; but can any man in his senses believe that this compound of fraud and folly is the work of the Divine Spirit?

Are we then wrong, when fanaticism is thus at work, to raise our warning voice against the first incursions of the evil? It is a solemn subject; and solemn will those of our clerical readers in particular find it, who do not guard their flocks against the contagion. Superstition, under the abused name of Religion, is its direst bane. Already are doctrines the most awful afloat; and alleged miracles, it seems, are not wanting to confirm them. The Glasgow linguists are unquestionably either deceiving or deceived; their boasted tongues are mere gibberish and jargon: they do not pretend to understand themselves or each other: but let it not be forgotten that there is an unseen enemy who goes about like a lion, seeking whom he may devour; and who will not be slow in availing himself of these things to dis parage true religion, and to impede to the utmost of his power that extension of piety which threatens the interests of his kingdom of darkness. We do not mean for a moment to make our esteemed correspondent answerable for these absurdities: he merely gives us in truth and fairness a particular narrative which has come within his own knowledge; and we fully appreciate the Christian integrity and boldness which have induced him not to shrink from the responsibility that attaches to his publication of the facts. But if he thinks this case miraculous, we see not how he can deny some of the Scotch miracles, or how he can get rid of the dilemma that these portents urged to he divine are connected with the heresies which are devastating the church of