miraculous powers at all, it is surely safer to abide by the authority of writings which have come down to us, than to form hypotheses upon abstract reasoning only, which totally contradict those authorities, and compel us to charge the writers with deliberate falsehood. We repeat, that there are no grounds whatever for saying, that as many miracles are recorded in the third century as in the first and second: this is an assertion which has been made in ignorance, or with an intention to deceive, and which has been unwarily admitted by Protestants, who have unsuccessfully tried to evade it. The true conclusion from history, as stated above, is this; that miracles were worked by pious Christians at the end of the second century, and in some instances were known in the third, but these were very few; and it was obvious at the time, that miraculous powers had been gradually diminishing, and had then only left some faint traces.

We may mention, that the Bishop of Bristol, though he fixes the time for the cessation of miracles, yet seems to have felt the necessity of qualifying his decision to a certain extent. He says, at p. 105, "But though miraculous gifts might have ceased in the church, the Almighty might still interpose for its protection, and for the advancement of its interests, by especial and visible manifestations of his power." He is also willing to admit, at p. 104, that "God still revealed himself in dreams to pious members of the church, for their especial comfort and instruction." With such sentiments concerning the interposition of God in the affairs of his church, we are surprised that the learned prelate should decide, that the power of working miracles ceased entirely at the death of the last individual on whom the hands of the

apostles had been laid. If even after this the Almighty still interposed by especial and visible manifestations of his power, it is surely most unreasonable to imagine, that he would never have selected a human being as the agent by whom this power was shown. The Almighty undoubtedly could work miracles without employing a human instrument. He might send fire from heaven to destroy the wicked, or he might send a shower of rain to save an army which was perishing from thirst; but unless such miracles were attended with circumstances which compelled the spectators to ascribe them to the true God, it did not necessarily follow that such interpositions would spread the knowledge of the gospel; and a miracle worked by the preacher of a new doctrine would be much more convincing in favour of that doctrine, and would be more likely to lead to the worship of that God whose assistance was openly invoked.

If we had not trespassed already so long upon our readers, we should have made some remarks upon the miracles of the fourth

and fifth centuries, and of the middle ages generally; for though we have seen, that miracles had perceptibly declined and almost become extinct in the third century, yet it cannot be denied, that in the following century we have abundant testimony of their being worked; and from this period the Romanists have no difficulty in drawing out a connected series of supernatural operations. We have no hesitation in saying, that nearly all these later miracles are to be rejected. We have observed above, that there is no reason why we should not believe that the Almighty sometimes conferred the power of working them even after the time of Constantine; the fancy and heated imaginations of pious men may also have ascribed a miraculous character to ordinary transactions; but when we read the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, we cannot avoid the conclusion, that either many of the miracles related by them were pious frauds, or the story was a deliberate invention. It appears also, that a satisfactory explanation may be given of this sudden rise, or rather this sudden renovation, of miraculous powers. We have seen, that the writers of the third century, and Eusebius, at the beginning of the fourth, speak of such a power as a thing which had existed, but had almost entirely ceased; but within a few years after the history of Eusebius was written, we find a totally different account: the Christian world seems to have teemed with workers of miracles; and St. Anthony, St. Hilarion, St. Martin, St. Nicolas, with many others, are recorded to have worked much more numerous and stupendous miracles in the fourth century, than any of the apostles, or our Saviour himself. In a few words, we conceive the Arian heresy, and the violent party feeling consequent upon it, to have given rise to these marvellous stories. If an Arian pretended, through his peculiar sanctity, to be gifted with superhuman powers, it was incumbent upon the Catholics to put forward the same pretensions; and whoever reads the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries with this view, will perhaps be able to account for all the vehement protestations with which the pretended miracles of each party are attested. It is known, that at a later period miracles were said to be worked by opposite and conflicting parties; and Augustin expressly asserted, that the miracles of the Donatists were not to be credited; he calls the workers of them mirabiliarii, and says" they either deceive, or are deceived." (Tract. 13 in Joan.)

We have only time at present for observing, that if we compare any event which is recorded by Eusebius, with the same event as it is related by subsequent writers, we may easily trace the progress of invention, and see how the simple truth has been altered and overlaid. It has been mentioned above, that though Euse

bius in three places speaks of Gregory, Bishop of Neocæsarea, he does not say a word of the miracles which he worked; but the life of him written by Gregory of Nyssa, toward the end of the fourth century, is full of the most marvellous and incredible anecdotes in every page. The late ecclesiastical historians, Socrates and Sozomen, also speak of his stupendous miracles.

Another instance of these successive additions to a plain story may be found in the accounts which we have of the journey of the Empress Helena to Jerusalem. Eusebius would certainly

not have suppressed any fact which would have increased the sanctity of this lady's character. In his life of her son Constantine, (3, 42, &c.,) he mentions that her piety led her to visit the Holy Land; but he does not say a word of anything miraculous which befel her. Socrates and Sozomen, in speaking of the same journey, relate the extraordinary story of the invention of the cross. Both of them lived in the fifth century; and Socrates, the earliest of the two, after he has mentioned the miracle, adds, "I write this as I have heard it; but almost all the inhabitants of Constantinople know that it is true." (1, 17.) Even in the few years which intervened between Socrates and Sozomen, the story had greatly increased; and Sozomen relates it with many more particulars of minute detail; and at the end, he says, "I have given this history, as I received it from men who knew it accurately, to whom the information had come by successive tradition from father to son, and from writers, who to the best of their ability left the account to those who came after them." (2, 1.) The same story is told by Sulpicius Severus, with still more marvellous additions, and by several other later writers; but when we remember, that Eusebius lived at the time, and that he does not say a syllable about these miraculous occurrences, we must surely think, that they labour under very heavy suspicion, and that they were the gradual and successive inventions of later times.

To bring this long discussion to a close, the history of miraculous powers in the Christian church is simply this: they existed in the second century, and were almost gone out in the third; in the fourth century they are spoken of as being in full force; and in the fifth and following centuries we read of the most stupendous miracles being of frequent occurrence. But if we reject

the miracles of the fourth and fifth centuries, does it follow that we must therefore reject those of the first and second? Surely no reasoning can be more inconsequential than this. The histories of the two periods must be weighed according to their respective evidence. In the third century, which intervened between them, we find that miracles had almost ceased. We believe this, because contemporary writers assert it; and the very fact of

their acknowledging the cessation of a power which their predecessors possessed, entitles them to our credit. But these writers, while they disclaim such power as existing among themselves, relate as an indisputable fact, that it had existed in the century which preceded them. When we find them thus candid and unassuming with respect to themselves, it would be the height of scepticism and injustice not to believe them with respect to the times which were gone by; but because we believe, upon such testimony, that miracles were worked in the second century, it by no means follows, that we are bound to receive whatever is related of the miracles of the fourth and fifth centuries. These, as observed above, must rest upon their own evidence; and the fact of miraculous power being acknowledged to have almost ceased, at a time when Christianity was struggling against the power and intolerance of the heathen world, must make it very improbable, that it should have revived at a time when Christianity was professed and upheld by the Roman government.

We say, that such a sudden reappearance of miraculous power is extremely improbable. That the Almighty could not have seen reasons for so restoring it, and that some miracles were not occasionally worked after the conversion of Constantine, is what the presumptuous or the ignorant will alone venture to assert; but after a minute investigation of the historical evidence we feel satisfied, that the opinion which has prevailed with the majority of Protestants, and particularly of writers of our own church, is true, viz., that miracles did continue among Christians after the death of the apostles, and that they were gradually and perceptibly on the decline during the second and third centuries, particularly in the last; and the same evidence enables us to resist at once the conclusion of the Romanist and of the sceptic; to deny that there is equal evidence of miracles having been worked in every century since the time of the apostles, or that because we reject the miracles of the fourth and fifth centuries, we are therefore to treat with equal unbelief those which are stated to have been worked in the second and third.

ART. II.-Mémoires inédits de Madame de Genlis, &c. &c. Memoirs of the Countess de Genlis, illustrative of the History of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Written by Herself. 8 vols. 8vo. Colburn.

THE present age, fertile in all kinds of literature, has been peculiarly productive of autobiographical memoirs. A new ground has thus been opened for a generous rivalry between France and England. In the latter, although the field is of much more recent cultivation, a plentiful harvest of journals, diaries, recollections, and reminiscences, has been already reaped. Past times have paid tribute to our own; and the domestic events of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries have been put into requisition for the purpose of gratifying the exhaustless curiosity of the readers of the nineteenth. Volumes, which for several generations had slumbered quietly in manuscript upon their shelves in a private mansion, are now, as in the case of Evelyn and Pepys, flourishing in print for the benefit of the subscribers to every circulating library in the kingdom. At the same period, and from the same causes, a strong impulse has been given to our contemporaries; and the peer and poet, like Lord Byron,-the professional man, like Mr. Charles Butler,-the dramatic author, and musical composer, like O'Keefe, and Kelly, and Reynolds-down even to persons at the very bottom of the social scale-have manifested a similar desire to edify the world with a history of themselves and of their times. Every man among us, in short, with any pretensions to notoriety, appears anxious at the present day

"to print an olio,

And on the public pour out his portfolio."

France, on the other hand, has long been celebrated for this species of composition. It seems, indeed, indigenous to the soil; and adapted in a more especial manner to the genius of a nation, whose inhabitants have always preserved the character of being vain, lively, proud of their conversational and epistolary talents, and fond, even beyond the common fondness of humanity, of talking about themselves. Memoirs, therefore, have formed a great staple commodity in the literature of France, from the age of Sully, of Richelieu, or of de Retz, to that of Carnot, Fouché, and Segur. French women, too, have often distinguished themselves by their biographical publications; as may be abundantly testified by the names, and a