There is only one other miraculous circumstance of this kind recorded by Eusebius. He tells us that during the same persecution, when the city was filled with the tortured bodies and mangled limbs of the martyrs, the pillars of the public buildings ran down with moisture, and the streets were filled with wet, though there had been no rain. Here again we can hardly doubt of the fact, because he appeals to the common report of the place, that the earth shed tears. Whether the event was miraculous or no, is rather a matter of philosophy than of faith; and we may again infer that Eusebius was not in the habit of relating miracles, when he says, "I am aware that what I am saying will appear to posterity to be an idle fable."

With the exception of the appearance of the cross to Constantine, these are all the events which Eusebius relates as happening in his own time, and which can in any sense be called miraculous. As to the story of the cross, we do not intend to discuss the question, whether it was a preternatural vision or an optical illusion. We only wish to rescue Eusebius from the charge of credulity. He introduces the story thus (Vit. Const. 1, 28.);—“ While the emperor was praying, a most extraordinary miracle appeared to him; which, perhaps, if any one else had related it, would have been difficult to be believed; but when the emperor himself told it to me a long time after, and confirmed the account with an oath, who can doubt as to admitting the narrative ?" We have surely no right to question the veracity of Eusebius, as to his having actually received the story from the mouth of Constantine; and when he had himself witnessed the greatest of all miracles, the adoption of Christianity by the Roman government, he might surely be prepared to believe that God had vouchsafed a much slighter token of his power to the person whom he had selected as his instrument in this general conversion.

story

66 a succes

If we now look to the third century, as we read the of it in the work of Eusebius, so far from finding sion of miracles, as of all other common events," we shall meet with scarcely any which deserve the name of miracles. There is perhaps, something marvellous in the story of a dove descending upon Fabianus, who was in consequence elected Bishop of Rome about the year 238. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, is also said to have mentioned in a letter that he had been favoured with a special revelation from heaven. But when a whole century can only produce these few miracles, we must surely allow that Gibbon and Dr. Middleton were either wholly ignorant of ecclesiastical history, or had wholly forgotten it. It is true, that in this same century Gregory, Bishop of Neocæsarea, is said to

have worked such stupendous miracles, that he acquired the name of Thaumaturgus; and Dr. Milner, when he names him as connecting the series of miraculous powers in the church, refers to Eusebius. In his usual loose and unscholarlike way he only refers to Euseb. l. vi., and any person would imagine, that in some place or other of the sixth book, Eusebius mentions Gregory as a worker of miracles. The fact, however, is directly the contrary, and the silence of Eusebius upon this point is very extraordinary. In three places of his ecclesiastical history, Eusebius mentions Gregory of Neocæsarea; but he neither gives him the title of Thaumaturgus, nor says a syllable about his numerous miracles. It is by such careless and inaccurate references as this, that people have been led to believe, that ecclesiastical history is filled with relations of the marvellous.

We may now look to what Eusebius says of more ancient times, and the expressions which he uses will furnish still stronger grounds for believing that he did not wish to speak of miracles as being common in his own days. Having named Justin Martyr, who lived in the middle of the second century, he expresses himself thus :— "Justin writes also that even to his days the spiritual gifts (xαрioμатα πро¶ntina) were conspicuous in the church." (1. 4, c. 18.) It may be disputed what is the exact meaning of this expression, but that some miraculous gift of the spirit was intended can hardly be doubted; and we may surely infer from the words of Eusebius, that such gifts, whatever they might be, were not known in his own times. If they were, he would not have remarked, that they continued even to Justin's days. We should draw the same inference from what he says of the martyr Attalus, who died about the year 161. It seems that he had a revelation from heaven, upon which Eusebius observes," for they were not unprotected by the grace of God, but the Holy Ghost was their adviser."—(1. 5, c. 3.) And in the same chapter, speaking of Montanus and his followers, who were then beginning to publish their inspirations, he says, "for many other extraordinary instances of divine grace were still at that time seen in different churches." In each of these places we must understand the grace of God (xápis and Xápioux) to mean something preternatural; and the words of Eusebius surely prove, that the same preternatural effects were not witnessed in his own days; but he is showing, in this chapter, that they were not entirely gone out in the middle of the second century. Irenæus lived rather nearer to the end of the same century, and when Eusebius notices his writings, he says, "In the second book he shows that examples of divine and

extraordinary power were left in some churches even in his days;" (1. 5. c. 7.) and after some quotations from Irenæus he ends the chapter by saying, "I have written this concerning the continuance of different spiritual gifts with those who were worthy of them, even to the times now mentioned." We would ask, whether Eusebius could have written in this manner, if similar examples had been common in his own times? He clearly leaves us to infer that they were not; and he also shows that in his own opinion miracles were not worked in all churches even in the days of Irenæus.

If the inference which we have drawn from the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius be correct, it follows, that what is said of there being equally strong evidence for the existence of miracles in every century is altogether unfounded. Eusebius not only furnishes very slight evidence for the existence of any miracles in his own days, but he expressly alludes to more ancient times, when miraculous gifts had not ceased. Thus, according to Eusebius, there was greater evidence for the existence of miracles in the days of Justin Martyr and Irenæus than there was in the third century and in the beginning of the fourth, which is a direct contradiction to the assertions quoted above from Gibbon and Dr. Middleton, and which as directly supports the notion of those persons who think that miracles continued for a certain period, and were then gradually withdrawn.

If we look to the Fathers of the third century, whose works have come down to us, we shall find that they confirm the notion which the history of Eusebius is likely to have given, that miracles were very uncommon in those days. Cyprian, who flourished about the year 250, speaks in more than one place of devils being exorcised by baptismal water, or by other means which Christians used. This power of expelling evil spirits has certainly been claimed by the church at almost every period, but we know so little of the effect which was said to be produced, that we can hardly tell whether it was intended to apply the name of a miracle to it in those early times. The power, whatever it might be, was not confined to some persons of particular sanctity; the name of Christ, pronounced by any mouth and the water of the baptismal font, without any priest or saint being present to sprinkle it, could make the evil spirits tremble and confess themselves overcome. There can be no doubt but that the early Christians fancied at least that some such effect as this was produced; and if we do not believe that there was anything supernatural in the cases appealed to, we can hardly quote Cyprian as bearing any testimony to the

per

continuance of miracles in his days. He speaks, indeed, of having been favoured with visions upon one occasion, and he states that the persons who had denied Christ in the time of secution, or who had been induced to offer sacrifice, were seized with sudden illnesses. But though it is plain, from his expressions, that he considered such cases to be preternatural (and perhaps any other person would have thought the same in those trying times), yet when these are all the miracles which he mentions, we cannot, surely, say that he considered them as common in his days, or that he wished to make us believe that the power of working miracles was the same then as it was in the time of the apostles. We are sorry to be obliged to notice another misstatement of Dr. Milner. He tells us that Cyprian recounts miracles which prove the eucharist to be a sacrifice, and to have been administered in only one kind. As usual, he gives no reference to the particular passage of Cyprian's works which proves these points. We have searched carefully through the whole of the writings of Cyprian, and can confidently assert that no such passage exists; but, on the contrary, it might be demonstrated, if we were not otherwise engaged at present, that there are several passages in Cyprian's works, which show beyond all doubt that the wine as well as the bread was administered to all persons in those days.

If we draw the conclusion mentioned above concerning the paucity of miracles, from the works of Cyprian, we shall find passages in Origen which are much more express to this purpose. Origen may be said to have flourished a few years earlier than Cyprian, though both of them were alive at the same time; and many expressions in his works amount to an acknowledgment that miracles had been gradually on the decline, though they had not entirely ceased. He tells us in one place (De Orat. 13, p. 217.) that wild beasts had been known not to touch the Christian martyrs; which we have already seen to have been observed by Eusebius; but we cannot learn from his words whether he alluded to what had happened recently, or before his own days. He mentions, also, that devils were cast out by the name of Jesus, that diseases were cured, and that some persons had the gift of prophecy. In more than one place he speaks of having witnessed such facts himself; and these passages would, perhaps, be adduced as proving the continuance of miracles in Origen's days. We will undertake, however, to show that Origen expressly alludes to the gradual diminution of miraculous powers in the church; and as to exorcism, which is almost the only miracle for which there is equally strong evidence in every century, he

positively condemns the custom of adjuring evil spirits by the name of Jesus. He says that many persons did it in his days, but his own opinion is decidedly against the propriety of the practice. (Com. in Mat. 110. p. 910.)

66

We will now adduce some of the passages which bear more directly upon the subject before us. It having been said by Celsus, that Grecian philosophy could produce as great effects as Christianity, Origen, after other observations, says that. Christianity may be proved in a manner to which philosophy can make no pretensions, viz., by the demonstration of the spirit and of power: " of the spirit, by prophecies which are sufficient to prove Christianity; and of power, by the miracles which we may prove by many arguments to have existed, and among others, by some traces of them being still preserved with those who live according to the Gospel."-(c. Celo. 1, 2, p. 321.) Having said that the dove which appeared to descend upon Jesus was proved to be the Holy Ghost, by the miracles which Jesus worked, he adds, " and traces of that Holy Spirit, who was seen in the form of a dove, are still preserved among Christians; they cast out devils, and perform many cures, and foresee some future events."-(ib. 1, 46. p. 361.) He says that, "after the coming of Christ, the Jews were altogether deserted, and retained nothing of what they formerly held sacred; there is not even a sign of anything divine being with them, for there are no longer prophets nor miracles; of which some traces are found even now to a certain degree among Christians; and if we may be believed, we have seen them ourselves." It is singular that some MSS. curtail the last sentence very much, and read, "for there are no longer prophets nor miracles, which are found among Christians." It seems not improbable, that when in later times the uninterrupted continuance of miracles began to be asserted, such passages as this, which spoke only of some traces being preserved, were erased from the text. In another place he again reproaches the Jews for being abandoned by God; " for the Holy Spirit is acknowledged to have left them who committed impiety against God, and against him who was foretold by their own prophets; but signs of the Holy Spirit were manifested at the beginning of the teaching of Jesus, and more after his ascension; but afterwards there were fewer; even now, also, there are traces of it with a few, who have their souls purified by the word and by living according to the word."-(7,8, p. 700.) Having spoken in praise of wisdom, and having observed that the Apostles could not have cast down imaginations and very high things without wisdom, which they received from above, he adds, "But do not be surprised, "if now