COUNTERFEITMIRACLES

BY

BENJAMINB.WARFIELD

NEWYORKCHARLESSCRIBNER'SSONS

1918

THISVOLUMECONTAINSTHETHOMASSMYTHLECTURESFOR1917-1918

DELIVEREDATTHECOLUMBIATHEOLOGICALSEMINARY

COLUMBIA,SOUTHCAROLINAOCTOBER4-10,1917ITISDEDICATEDTO

THEBOARDOFDIRECTORSANDTHEFACULTYOFCOLUMBIATHEOLOGICALSEMINARY

INAPPRECIATIONOFTHEIRINVITATIONTODELIVERTHELECTURES

ANDINPLEASANTRECOLLECTIONOFTHEIRMANYCOURTESIES

markedupbyLanceGeorgeMarshallGreekandHebrewfontsusedinthisdocumentcanbedownloadedat

BibleWorks

TableofContents

TheCessationoftheCharismata

PatristicandMedievalMarvels

RomanCatholicMiracles

IrvingiteGifts

Faith-Healing

Mind-Cure

THECESSATIONOFTHECHARISMATA

WhenourLordcamedowntoearthHedrewheavenwithHim.Thesigns which accompanied His ministry were but the trailing clouds ofglorywhichHebroughtfromheaven,whichisHishome.ThenumberofthemiracleswhichHewroughtmayeasilybeunderrated.IthasbeensaidthatineffectHebanisheddiseaseanddeathfromPalestineforthethreeyearsofHisministry.Ifthisisexaggerationitispardonableexaggeration.WhereverHewent,Hebroughtablessing:

OnehembutofthegarmentthatHeworeCouldmedicinewholecountriesoftheirpain;Onetouchofthatpalehandcouldliferestore.

We ordinarily greatly underestimateHis beneficent activity asHewentabout,asLukesays,doinggood.1

His owndivine power bywhichHebegan to foundHis churchHecontinued in the ApostleswhomHe had chosen to complete this greatwork.They transmitted it in turn,aspartof theirownmiracle-workingandthecrowningsignoftheirdivinecommission,toothers,intheformof what the New Testament calls spiritual gifts2 in the sense ofextraordinarycapacitiesproducedintheearlyChristiancommunitiesbydirectgiftoftheHolySpirit.

The number and variety of these spiritual gifts were considerable.Even Paul's enumerations, the fullest of which occurs in the twelfthchapter of I Corinthians, can hardly be read as exhaustive scientificcatalogues. The name which is commonly applied to them3 is broadenough to embrace what may be called both the ordinary and thespecifically extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; both those, that is, which

weredistinctivelygracious,and thosewhichweredistinctlymiraculous.In fact, in theclassicalpassagewhichtreatsof them(ICor.12-14)bothclasses are brought together under this name. The non-miraculous,graciousgiftsare,indeed,inthispassagegiventhepreferenceandcalled"thegreatestgifts";andthesearchafterthemisrepresentedas"themoreexcellentway";thelongingforthehighestofthem—faith,hope,andlove—being the most excellent way of all. Among the miraculous giftsthemselves,alikedistinctionismadeinfavorof"prophecy"(thatis,thegift of exhortation and teaching), and, in general, in favor of those bywhichthebodyofChristisedified.

The diffusion of thesemiraculous gifts is, perhaps, quite generallyunderestimated.Oneofthevaluablefeaturesofthepassage,ICor.12-14,consistsinthepicturegiveninitofChristianworshipintheApostolicage(14:26ff.).4"Whatisit,then,brethren?"theApostleasks."Whenyecometogether,eachonehathapsalm,hathateaching,hatharevelation,hathatongue,hathaninterpretation.Letallthingsbedoneuntoedifying.Ifanymanspeakethinatongue,letitbebytwooratthemostthree,andthatinturn; and let one interpret: but if there be no interpreter, let him keepsilenceinthechurch;andlethimspeaktohimself,andtoGod.Andlettheprophets speakby twoor three, and let theothersdiscern.But if arevelationbemadetoanothersittingby,letthefirstkeepsilence.Foryeallcanprophesyonebyone,thatallmaylearn,andallmaybecomforted;andthespiritsoftheprophetsaresubjecttotheprophets;forGodisnota God of confusion, but of peace." This, it is to be observed, was theordinarychurchworshipatCorinthintheApostles'day.Itisanalogousinformtothefreedomofourmodemprayer-meetingservices.Whatchieflydistinguishes it fromthem is that thosewho tookpart in itmightoftenhave a miraculous gift to exercise, "a revelation, a tongue, aninterpretation,"aswellas"apsalmorateaching."Thereisnoreasontobelievethat the infantcongregationatCorinthwassingular in this.TheApostle does not write as if he were describing a marvellous state ofaffairspeculiartothatchurch.Heevenmakesthetransitiontothenextitemofhisadviceinthesignificantwords,"asinallthechurchesofthesaints."And the hints in the rest of his letters and in theBook ofActsrequire us, accordingly, to look upon this beautiful picture of Christianworship as one which would be true to life for any of the numerous

congregations plantedby theApostles in the length andbreadth of theworldvisitedandpreachedtobythem.

Theargumentmaybeextendedtothoseitemsofthefullerlist,giveninICor.12,whichfoundlessoccasionfortheirexhibitionintheformalmeetings for worship, but belonged more to life outside the meeting-room. That enumeration includes among the extraordinary items, youwill remember, gifts of healings, workings of miracles, prophecy,discerningsofspirits,kindsoftongues,theinterpretationoftongues—allofwhich,appropriatetotheworshippingassembly,arerepeatedinICor.14:26ff.WearejustifiedinconsideringitcharacteristicoftheApostolicchurches that such miraculous gifts should be displayed in them. Theexceptionwouldbe,notachurchwith,butachurchwithout,suchgifts.Everywhere, the Apostolic Churchwasmarked out as itself a gift fromGod,byshowingforththepossessionoftheSpiritinappropriateworksofthe Spirit—miracles of healing and miracles of power, miracles ofknowledge, whether in the form of prophecy or of the discerning ofspirits, miracles of speech, whether of the gift of tongues or of theirinterpretation. The Apostolic Church was characteristically a miracle-workingchurch.5

Howlongdidthisstateofthingscontinue?ItwasthecharacterizingpeculiarityofspecificallytheApostolicChurch,anditbelongedthereforeexclusivelytotheApostolicage—althoughnodoubtthisdesignationmaybe takenwith some latitude.These giftswerenot thepossessionof theprimitiveChristianassuch;6norforthatmatteroftheApostolicChurchor the Apostolic age for themselves; they were distinctively theauthentication of theApostles. Theywere part of the credentials of theApostlesastheauthoritativeagentsofGodinfoundingthechurch.Theirfunction thus confined them to distinctively the Apostolic Church, andtheynecessarilypassedawaywith it.7Of thiswemaymakesureon theground both of principle and of fact; that is to say both under theguidance of theNew Testament teaching as to their origin and nature,andonthecreditofthetestimonyoflateragesastotheircessation.ButIshall not stop at this point to adduce the proof of this. It will besufficientlyintimatedinthecriticismwhichIpurposetomakeofcertainopposing opinions which have been current among students of the

subject.My design is to state and examine the chief views which havebeen held favorable to the continuance of the charismata beyond theApostolic age. In theprocessof this examinationoccasionwill offer fornoting whatever is needful to convince us that the possession of thecharismatawasconfinedtotheApostolicage.

The theologians of the post-Reformation era, a very clear-headedbody ofmen, taughtwith great distinctness that the charismata ceasedwith the Apostolic age. But this teaching gradually gave way, prettygenerallythroughouttheProtestantchurches,butespeciallyinEngland,totheviewthattheycontinuedforawhile inthepost-Apostolicperiod,andonlyslowlydiedoutlikealightfadingbyincreasingdistancefromitssource.8 The period most commonly set for their continuance is threecenturies;thedateoftheircessationisordinarilysaidtohavebeenaboutthe timeofConstantine.This, as earlyas theopeningof theeighteenthcentury,hadbecome the leadingopinion,at leastamong theologiansoftheAnglicanschool,asConyersMiddleton,writinginthemiddleofthatcentury, advises us. "The most prevailing opinion," he says in hisIntroductoryDiscourse toa famousbook tobemore fullydescribedbyandby,"isthattheysubsistedthroughthefirstthreecenturies,andthenceasedinthebeginningofthefourth,orassoonasChristianitycametobe established by the civil power. This, I say, seems to be the mostprevailingnotionatthisdayamongthegeneralityoftheProtestants,whothinkitreasonabletoimaginethatmiraclesshouldthencease,whentheend of them was obtained and the church no longer in want of them;being now delivered from all danger, and secure of success, under theprotectionofthegreatestpoweronearth."9

Middletonsupportsthisstatementwithinstanceswhichbringoutsoclearlytheessentialelementsoftheopinionthattheymayprofitablybequoted here. Archbishop John Tillotson represents "that on the firstplanting of the Christian religion in the world, God was pleased toaccompany it with a miraculous power; but after it was planted, thatpower ceased, andGod left it to bemaintained by ordinary ways." So,NathanielMarshallwrote, "that thereare successiveevidencesof them,whichspeakfullandhometothispoint,fromthebeginningdowntotheage of Constantine, in whose time, when Christianity had acquired the

support of human powers, those extraordinary assistances werediscontinued." Others, sharing the same general point of view, wouldpostpone a little the date of entire cessation. Thus the elder HenryDodwell supposes true miracles to have generally ceased with theconversion of the Roman Empire, yet admits some special miracles,whichseemtohimtobeexceptionallywellattested,uptothecloseofthefourth century. Daniel Waterland, in the body of his treatise on theTrinity,speaksofmiraclesascontinuingthroughthefirstthreecenturiesat least, and in the Addenda extends this through the fourth. JohnChapman's mode of statement is "that though the establishment ofChristianity by the civil power abated the necessity of miracles, andoccasioned a visible decrease of them, yet, after that revolution, therewereinstancesofthemstill,aspublic,asclear,aswell-attestedasanyintheearlierages."Heextendstheseinstancesnotonlythroughthefourthcenturybutalsothroughthefifth—which,hesays,"hadalsoitsportion,though smaller than the fourth." William Whiston, looking upon thecharismatalessasthedivinemeansofextendingthechurchthanasthesigns of the divine favor on the church in its pure beginnings, sets thedate of their cessation at A. D. 381, which marks the triumph ofAthanasianism;thatbeingtohim,asanArian,thefinalvictoryoferrorinthe church—whichnaturally put a stop to suchmanifestations ofGod'sfavor. It is a similar idea from his own point of view which is givenexpression by John Wesley in one of his not always consistentdeclarationsonthesubject.Hesupposesthatmiraclesstoppedwhentheempire became Christian, because then, "a general corruption both offaith and morals infected the church—which by that revolution, as St.Jerome says, lost asmuch of its virtue as it had gained of wealth andpower."10Theseslightextensionsof the timeduringwhich themiraclesaresupposedtopersist,donotessentiallyalterthegeneralview,thoughthey have their significance—a very important significance whichMiddletonwasnotslowtoperceive,andtowhichweshallrevertlater.

Thegeneralviewitselfhaslostnoneofitspopularitywiththelapseoftime.Itbecamemore,ratherthanless,wide-spreadwiththepassageoftheeighteenthintothenineteenthcentury,anditremainsveryusualstill.Ineednotoccupyyour timewith thecitationofnumerousmorerecentexpressions of it. It may suffice to adduce so popular a historian as

GerhardUhlhornwho,inhisusefulbookonTheConflictofChristianitywith Heathenism11 declares explicitly that "witnesses who are abovesuspicion leave no room for doubt that the miraculous powers of theApostolic age continued to operate at least into the third century." Asomewhat special turn is given to the same general idea by anotherhistorian of the highest standing—Bishop Mandel Creighton. "TheApostles," he tells us12 "were endowed with extraordinary powers,necessary for the establishment of the church, butnotnecessary for itspermanent maintenance. These powers were exercised for healing thesick and for conveying special gifts of the Holy Spirit; sometimes, butrarely, they were used for punishment. . . . These special powers werecommittedtothechurchasameansofteachingittheabidingpresenceofGod. They were withdrawn when they had served their purpose ofindicating theduties tobepermanentlyperformed.To 'giftsof tongues'succeededorderlyhumanteaching;to'giftsofhealing'succeededhealingby educated human skill; to supernatural punishment succeededdisciplinebyorderlyhumanagency."

This, then, is the theory: that, miracles having been given for thepurpose of founding the church, they continued so long as they wereneeded for that purpose; growing gradually fewer as they were lessneeded,andceasingaltogetherwhenthechurchhaving,sotospeak,beenfirmlyputuponitsfeet,wasabletostandonitsownlegs.Thereismuchthatisattractiveinthistheoryandmuchthatisplausible:somuchthatisboth attractive and plausible that it has won the suffrages of thesehistorians and scholars though it contradicts the whole drift of theevidenceofthefacts,andtheentireweightofprobabilityaswell.Foritisonlysimpletruthtosaythatboththeascertainedfactsandtheprecedentpresumptionsarray themselves inopposition to thisconstructionof thehistoryofthecharismatainthechurch.

The facts are not in accordance with it. The view requires us tobelieve that the rich manifestations of spiritual gifts present in theApostolicChurch, gradually grew less through the succeeding centuriesuntiltheyfinallydwindledawaybytheendofthethirdcenturyoralittlelater.Whereas the direct evidence formiracle-working in the church isactuallyofpreciselythecontrarytenor.Thereislittleornoevidenceatall

for miracle-working during the first fifty years of the post-Apostolicchurch;itisslightandunimportantforthenextfiftyyears;itgrowsmoreabundantduring thenextcentury (the third);and itbecomesabundantandpreciseonlyinthefourthcentury,toincreasestillfurtherinthefifthandbeyond.Thus, if the evidence isworth anything at all, insteadof aregularlyprogressingdecrease, therewasa steadilygrowing increaseofmiracle-workingfromthebeginningon.Thisisdoubtlessthemeaningoftheinabilityofcertainofthescholarswhomwehavequoted,afterhavingallowed that the Apostolic miracles continued through the first threecenturies,tostopthere;thereisamuchgreaterabundanceandprecisionof evidence, such as it is, formiracles in the fourth and the succeedingcenturies,thanfortheprecedingones.

Thematter is of sufficient interest towarrant the statement of thefactsastotheevidencesomewhatmoreindetail.Thewritingsoftheso-calledApostolicFatherscontainnoclearandcertainallusionstomiracle-working or to the exercise of the charismatic gifts, contemporaneouslywith themselves.13 These writers inculcate the elements of Christianlivinginaspiritsosimpleandsoberastobeworthyoftheirplaceastheimmediate followers of the Apostles. Their anxiety with reference tothemselves seems to be lest they should be esteemed overmuch andconfounded in theirpretensionswith theApostles, rather than topressclaimstostation,dignity,orpowerssimilartotheirs.14Socharacteristicisthissobrietyofattitudeoftheirage,thattheoccurrenceofaccountsofmiracles inthe letterof thechurchofSmyrnanarratingthestoryof themartyrdomofPolycarpisarecognizeddifficultyinthewayofadmittingthe genuineness of that letter.15 Polycarp was martyred in 155 A. D.Alreadybythatdate,wemeetwiththebeginningsofgeneralassertionsofthe presence ofmiraculous powers in the church. These occur in somepassages of the writings of JustinMartyr. The exact nature of Justin'stestimony is summed up by Bishop John Kaye as follows:16 "Living sonearly as Justin did to the Apostolic age, it will naturally be askedwhether,amongothercausesofthediffusionofChristianity,hespecifiestheexerciseofmiraculouspowersby theChristians.He says ingeneraltermsthatsuchpowerssubsistedinthechurch(Dial.,pp.254ff.)—thatChristianswereendowedwith thegiftofprophecy (Dial., p.308B, seealsop.315B)—andinanenumerationofsupernaturalgiftsconferredon

Christians,hementions thatofhealing (Dial., p. 258A).Wehave seenalso, in a former chapter, that he ascribes to Christians the power ofexorcisingdemons(chap.VIII).Butheproducesnoparticularinstanceofanexerciseofmiraculouspower,andthereforeaffordsusnoopportunityofapplyingthosetestsbywhichthecredibilityofmiraclesmustbetried."Andthenthebishopadds,bywayofquickeningoursenseofthemeaningofthesefacts:"HaditonlybeengenerallystatedbytheEvangeliststhatChristperformedmiracles,andhadnoparticularmiraclebeenrecorded,howmuch less satisfactorywould theGospelnarrativeshaveappeared!how greatly their evidence in support of our Saviour's divine missionbeendiminished!"

This beginning of testimony is followed up to precisely the sameeffect by Irenćus, except that Irenćus speaks somewhatmore explicitly,and adds amention of two new classes ofmiracles—those of speakingwithtonguesandofraisingthedead,tobothofwhichvarietiesheisthesolewitnessduringthesecenturies,andofthelatterofwhichatleasthemanagessotospeakastosuggestthatheisnottestifyingtoanythinghehadhimselfwitnessed.17 Irenćus's contemporary, indeed,Theophilus ofAntioch, while, like Irenćus, speaking of the exorcism of demons as astandingChristianmiracle,whenchallengedbyAutolycustoproducebutone deadman who had been raised to life, discovers by his reply thatthere was none to produce; and "no instance of this miracle was everproduced in the first three centuries."18 For the rest, we say, Irenćus'switness is wholly similar to Justin's. He speaks altogether generally,adducing no specific cases, but ascribing miracle-working to ''all whoweretrulydisciplesofJesus,"eachaccordingtothegifthehadreceived,andenumeratingespeciallygiftsofexorcism,prediction,healing,raisingthedead,speakingwithtongues,insightintosecrets,andexpoundingtheScriptures (Cont. Hćr., II, lvi, lvii; V, vi).19 Tertullian in like mannerspeaks of exorcisms, and adduces one case of a prophetically giftedwoman (Apol., xxviii; De Anima, ix); and Minucius Felix speaks ofexorcism(Oct.,xxvi)20Origenprofesses tohavebeen an eye-witness ofmanyinstancesofexorcism,healing,andprophecy,althoughherefusesto record thedetails lesthe should rouse the laughterof theunbeliever(Cont.Cels.,I,ii;III,xxiv;VII,iv,lxvii).Cyprianspeaksofgiftsofvisionsand exorcisms. And so we pass on to the fourth century in an ever-

increasingstream,butwithoutasinglewriterhavingclaimedhimselftohavewroughtamiracleofanykindorhavingascribedmiracle-workingtoany known name in the church, and without a single instance havingbeen recorded in detail. The contrast of this with the testimony of thefourthcenturyisverygreat.Therewehavethegreatestwritersrecordinginstances witnessed by themselves with the greatest circumstantiality.Themiraclesofthefirstthreecenturies,however,ifacceptedatall,mustbeacceptedonthegeneralassertionthatsuchthingsoccurred—ageneralassertion which itself is wholly lacking until the middle of the secondcenturyandwhich,when itdoesappear, concernschieflyprophecyandhealings, including especially exorcisms,21 which we can scarcely bewronginsupposingpreciselytheclassesofmarvelswithrespecttowhichexcitementmosteasilyblinds the judgmentand insufficientlygroundedrumorsmostreadilygrowup.22

Wearenodoubtstartledto findIrenćus, in themidstofdeliveringwhatisapparentlymerelyaconventionaltestimonytotheoccurrenceoftheseminorthings,suddenlyaddinghiswitnesstotheoccurrencealsoofthe tremendous miracle of raising the dead. The importance of thisphenomenonmaybethoughttorequirethatweshouldgivealittlecloserscrutinytoit,andthisthemorebecauseofthemockingcommentwhichGibbon has founded on it. "But themiraculous cure of diseases of themost inveterate or even preternatural kind," says he,23 "can no longeroccasionanysurprisewhenwerecollectthatinthedaysofIrenćus,abouttheendof thesecondcentury, theresurrectionof thedeadwasveryfarfrom being esteemed an uncommon event; that the miracle wasfrequently performed on necessary occasions, by great fasting and thejoint supplicationof the churchof theplace; and that thepersons thusrestoredbytheirprayershadlivedafterwardamongthemmanyyears.Atsuchaperiod,whenfaithcouldboastofsomanywonderfulvictoriesoverdeath, it seems difficult to account for the scepticism of thosephilosophers who still rejected and derided the doctrine of theresurrection. A nobleGrecian had rested on this important ground thewholecontroversy,andpromisedTheophilus,bishopofAntioch, that, ifhecouldbegratifiedbythesightofasinglepersonwhohadbeenactuallyraised from the dead, he would immediately embrace the Christianreligion. It is somewhat remarkable that theprelateof the firstEastern

church,howeveranxiousfortheconversionofhisfriend,thoughtpropertodeclinethisfairandreasonablechallenge."

ThetruecharacterofGibbon'ssatiricalremarksisalreadyapparentfrom the circumstances towhichwe have already alluded, that Irenćusaloneofallthewritersofthisperiodspeaksofraisingsofthedeadatall,andthathespeaksofthemafterafashionwhichsuggeststhathehasinmindnotcontemporarybutpast instances—doubtlessthoserecordedinthenarrativesof theNewTestament.24Eusebiusdoesnodoubtnarratewhathecalls"awonderfulstory,"toldbyPapiasontheauthorityofthedaughtersofPhilip,whomPapiasknew."For,"saysEusebius,"herelatesthat in his time," that is to say in Philip's time, "one rose from thedead."25 This resuscitation,however, itwill be observed, belongs to theApostolic, not the post-Apostolic times, and it is so spoken of as tosuggest that it was thought very wonderful both by Eusebius and byPapias.ItisveryclearthatEusebiuswasnotfamiliarwithraisingsfromthedeadinhisownday,andalsothatPapiaswasnotfamiliarwiththemin his day;26 and it is equally clear that Eusebius did not know ofnumerous instances of such a transaction having been recorded asoccurringinthecourseoftheearlyhistoryofthechurch,whichhistoryhewas in the act of transcribing.27Onewould think that thiswould carrywithittheimplicationthatEusebiusdidnotunderstandIrenćustoasserttheir frequent, or even occasional, or even singular, occurrence in histime. Nevertheless when he comes to cite Irenćus's witness to thecontinuance "to his time in some of the churches"—so he cautiouslyexpresseshimself—"ofmanifestations of divine andmiraculouspower,"he quotes hiswords here after a fashionwhich seems to imply that heunderstoodhim to testify to the occurrence inhis own timeof raisingsfromthedead.28

It is an understatement to say that Irenćus's contemporaries wereunaware that the dead were being raised in their day. What they sayamounts to testimony that theywere not being raised. This is true notonlyofthemannerinwhichTheophilusofAntiochparriesthedemandsofAutolycus,29butequallyof themanner inwhichTertullianreverts tothematter. He is engaged specifically in contrasting the Apostles withtheir "companions," that is, their immediate successors in the church,

with a view to rebuking the deference which was being paid to theShepherdofHermas.Amongthecontrastswhichobtainedbetweenthem,he says that the Apostles possessed spiritual powers peculiar tothemselves, that is to say,not sharedby their successors.He illustratesthis, among other things, by declaring, "For they raised the dead."30 ItwouldbestrangeindeedifIrenćushasneverthelessrepresentedraisingsfromthedeadtohavebeenacommonoccurrencepreciselyinthechurchofTheophilusandTertullian.

A scrutiny of his language makes it plain enough that he has notdone so. In the passages cited31 Irenćus is contrasting the miraclesperformedbyChristianswith thepoormagicalwonders towhichalonethehereticsheisengagedinrefutingcanappeal.IndoingthishehasinmindthewholemiraculousattestationofChristianity,andnotmerelytheparticularmiracleswhich couldbewitnessed inhis ownday. Ifwewillread him carefully we shall observe that, as he runs along in hisenumerationoftheChristianmarvels,"thereisasuddenandunexpectedchange of tensewhenhebegins to speakof this greatest ofmiracles"—raising from the dead. "Healing, exorcism, and prophecy—these heasserts are matters of present experience; but he never says that ofresurrection from the dead. 'It often happened,' i.e., in the past; 'theywereraisedup,'i.e.,againatsometimegoneby.Theuseofthepasttensehere,andherealone,implies,wemaysay,thatIrenćushadnotwitnessedanexamplewithhisowneyes,oratleastthatsuchoccurrenceswerenotusualwhenhewaswriting.So,whenhestates,'Eventhedeadwereraisedand abode with us many years'—it does not appear that he meansanything more than this—that such events happened within livingmemory."IntheselastremarkswehavebeenquotingJ.H.Bernard,andwe find ourselves fully in accord with his conclusion.32 "The inferencefrom the whole passage," says he, "is, we believe, that these majormiraclesno longerhappened—aninferencewhich iscorroboratedbyallthetestimonywehavegot."

When we come to think of it, it is rather surprising that theChristians had no raisings from the dead to point to through all theseyears.Thefactisstrikingtestimonytothemarkedsobrietyoftheirspirit.Theheathenhadtheminplenty.33Inanagesoinnocentofrealmedical

knowledge, and filled to the brim and overflowing with superstition,apparentdeathandresuscitationwerefrequent,andtheyplayedaroleofimportanceintheGreekprophetandphilosopherlegendsofthetime.34

A famous instanceoccurs inPhilostratus'sLifeofApolloniusofTyana,which, from a certain resemblance between it and the narrative of theraisingofthewidowofNain'sson,usedtobethoughtanimitationofthatpassage.35 Things are better understood now, and it is universallyrecognizedthatwehaveinthisbeautifulstoryneitheranimitationoftheNew Testament nor a polemic against it, but a simple product of thearetalogy of the day. OttoWeinreich has brought together the cases ofraisingfromthedeadwhichoccurinthisliterature,inthefirstexcursustohis treatise onAncientMiracles ofHealing.36He thus enables us toobserveataglancethelargeplacetheytakeinit.Itisnoticeablethattheywerenotesteemedaverygreatthing.Intheinstancejustalludedto,theintroduction of a resuscitation into Philostratus's Life of Apollonius isaccompanied by an intimation that it may possibly be susceptible of anaturalexplanation.Philostratusdoesnotdesiretomakethegloryofhishero depend on a thingwhich even a commonmagician could do, butratherrestsitonthosegreatermiracleswhichintimatethedivinenatureoftheman.37

YouprobablywouldliketohavetheaccountwhichPhilostratusgivesof thismiracle before you. "Here too," hewrites,38 "is amiracle whichApolloniusworked:Agirlhaddiedjustinthehourofhermarriage,andthe bride-groom was following her bier lamenting, as was natural, hismarriageleftunfulfilled;andthewholeofRomewasmourningwithhim,for the maiden belonged to a consular family. Apollonius, then,witnessing their grief, said: 'Put down the bier, for Iwill stay the tearsthatyouaresheddingforthismaiden.'Andwithalheaskedwhatwashername. The crowd accordingly thought hewas about to deliver such anorationasiscommonlydeliveredasmuchtogracethefuneralastostiruplamentation;buthedidnothingofthekind,butmerelytouchingherandwhisperinginsecretsomespelloverher,atoncewokeupthemaidenfromherseemingdeath;andthegirlspokeoutloudandreturnedtoherfather'shouse; justasAlkestisdidwhenshewasbroughtbacktolifebyHerakles. And the relations of themaidenwanted to present himwithonehundredandfiftythousandsesterces,buthesaidthathewouldfreely

presentthemoneytotheyoungladybywayofadowry.Now,whetherhedetectedsomesparkoflifeinher,whichthosewhowerenursingherhadnotdiscovered—for it issaidthat,although itwasrainingat thetime,avaporwentup fromher face—orwhether lifewas reallyextinct,andherestored it by thewarmth of his touch, is amysterious problemwhichneitherImyselfnorthosewhowerepresentcoulddecide."

We are naturally led at this point to introduce a further remarkwhich has its importance for the understanding of the facts of thetestimony.Allthathasbeenheretoforesaidconcernsthechurchwriters,properly so-called, the literary remains of the church considered as thebodyof right-believingChristians.Alongsideof this literature,however,there existed a flourishing growth of apocryphal writings—Acts ofApostles and the like—springing up in the fertile soil of Ebionitish andGnosticheresy,themostrespectableexampleofwhichisfurnishedbytheClementina. In these anonymous, or more usually pseudonymous,writings,thereisnodearthofmiraculousstory,fromwhateveragetheycome. Later, these wild andmiracle-laden documents were taken overintotheCatholicchurch,usuallyafteracertainamountofreworkingbywhichtheywerecleansedtoagreaterorless—usuallyless—extentoftheirheresies, but not in the least bit of their apocryphal miracle-stories.Indeed, by the relative elimination of their heresies in the Catholicreworking,theirteratologia—asthepedantscalltheirmiracle-mongering—wasmade evenmore the prominent feature of these documents, andmore exclusively the sole purpose of their narrative.39 It is from theseapocryphal miracle-stories and not from the miracles of the NewTestament, that the luxuriant growth of themiraculous stories of laterecclesiasticalwritingsdraw theirdescent.And this isasmuchas to saythat their ultimate parentagemust be traced to those heathenwonder-talestowhichwehavejusthadoccasiontoallude.

FortheliteraryformexemplifiedintheWanderingsoftheApostleswasnotaninnovationoftheChristianheretics,buthadalreadyenjoyedavast popularity in the heathen romances which swarmed under theempire, and the best known names of which are Antonius Diogenes'sIncredible Tales of Beyond Thule, Jamblicus's Babylonian Tales, theEphesian Stories of the later Xenophon, theEthiopians of Heliodorus,

the romances of Achiles Tatius and of Chariton, not to mention theMetamorphoses ofApuleius.40R.Reitzensteinnodoubt insists thatweshall draw into a somewhat narrower category and no longer speak ofthesewonder-taleswithwhichwehavehereespeciallytodo,broadly,asromances. He wishes to retain that term to describe a highly artisticliterary form which, developing out of the historical monograph, wasstrictly governed by technical laws of composition derived ultimatelyfromthedrama.Withtheromanceinthisnarrowsense,thecollectionsofmarvellousstorieslooselystrungtogetherinthewonder-taleshavebutadistantrelationship.Wemustnotconfuse,Reitzensteincounselsus,twokinds of fiction, which were sharply distinguished in ancient ćsthetics,πλάσμα andψευδος,41 or mix up two literary forms which were quitedistinctintheirwholetechnicandstyle—merelybecausetheywereborntogetherandgrewupsidebyside.Theromanceplaysoneverystringofhuman emotion; the wonder-tale—aretalogy is the name whichReitzensteingivestothisliteraryform—strikesbutonenote,andhasasits single end to arouse astonishment.42 It represented in the ancientworld,thoughinanimmenselymoreseriousvein,ourmodernGulliver'sTravelsorAdventuresofBaronMunchausen,whichinfactareparodiesof it, like their inimitable forerunnerswithwhich Lucian has delightedthe centuries. It will be readily understood that the wonder-tale—themotives of the travelling prophet or philosopher having been fairlyworked out—should eagerly seize on the new material offered it byChristianity.ButasVonDobschützremarks,43thematterdidnotendbyitsseizingonChristianity.Christianityturnedthetablesonitandseizedon it, and produced out of it themission aretalogy which we know ingeneralastheApocryphalActsoftheApostles.

With its passage thus into Christian hands this literary form lostnoneofitsmarvel-mongery—tohavelostwhichwouldhavebeentohavelost its soul. "'Teratology,' 'marvellousness,'" explainsVonDobschütz,44

"is the fundamental element of these Christian romances also. This ismade very clear," he goes on to say, "by the circumstance that it isregularlymagicofwhichtheApostlesarerepresentedasbeingaccused.Ofcoursetheydonotadmitthattheaccusationis just.Magicalartsaredemonicarts,and itwaspreciselyeverykindofdemonicpoweragainstwhichtheysetthemselvesinthealmightynameofJesusChrist.Itismost

impressivelyshownthattothisnameeverykneeinheavenandonearthandundertheearthistobow.Wecannothelpseeing,however,thatonlyanotherformofmagic,aChristianmagic,stepshereintotheplaceoftheheathen.ThenameofJesusservesastheall-powerfulspell,thecrossastheirresistiblecharm,bywhichboltscanbesprung,doorsopened,idolsoverturned,poisonrenderedharmless, thesickhealed, thedeadraised.The demonic flight of themagician is confounded by the prayer of theApostles;theyarenonethelessthemselvescarriedhomeontheclouds,through the air." Something new entered Christianity in thesewonder-tales;somethingunknowntotheChristianityoftheApostles,unknowntothe Apostolic churches, and unknown to their sober successors; and itenteredChristianityfromwithout,notthroughthedoor,butclimbingupsome other way. It brought an abundance of miracle-working with it;and,unfortunately,itbroughtittostay.ButfromacontemplationoftheswellingfloodofmarvelsthusintroducedintoChristianity,obviously,thetheoryofthegradualcessationofmiracle-workinginthechurchthroughthreecenturies,whichwearenowexamining,canderivenosupport.45

Itmaybe justly asked, how it canbe accounted for that so large abody of students of history can have committed themselves to a viewwhichsoclearlyruns inthe faceof theplainest factsof theveryhistorythey are setting themselves to explain. The answer is doubtless to befoundinthecuriouspowerwhichpreconceivedtheoryhastoblindmentofacts.Thetheorywhichthesescholarshadbeenledtoadoptastothecessation of miraculous powers in the church required the course ofevents which they assume to have happened. They recognized theabundantdevelopmentofmiraculousgifts in theApostolicChurch,andthey argued that this wide-spread endowment could scarcely failsuddenly,butmusthavediedoutgradually. Inestimating the lengthoftime through which the miracle-working might justly be supposed tosubsist, and at the endofwhich itmightnaturally be expected tohavediedout,theywereunfortunatelydeterminedbyatheoryofthefunctionofthesemiraclesintheApostolicChurchwhichwasplausibleindeed,andbecauseplausibleattractive,butwhichwasnot foundedonanaccurateascertainmentoftheteachingoftheNewTestamentonthesubject,andthereforesomissedthetruththat,initsapplicationtothehistoryoftheearlychurch, itexactlyreversedit.Thistheoryis inbrief,Imayremind

you,thatthemiraculouspowerspresentintheearlychurchhadfortheirend supernatural assistance in founding the church; that they weretherefore needed throughout the period of the church's weak infancy,being inbrief,asFuller calls them, ''the swaddling-clothesof the infantchurches"; and thatnaturally theywerewithdrawnwhen their endhadbeen accomplished and Christianity had ascended the throne of theempire. When the protection of the strongest power on earth wassecured,theideaseemstobe,thepowerofGodwasnolongerneeded.46

Butwhencecanwe learn this tohavebeen theend themiraclesofthe Apostolic age were intended to serve? Certainly not from the NewTestament.Initnotonewordiseverdroppedtothiseffect.Certainofthegifts(as,forexample,thegiftoftongues)arenodoubtspokenofas"signsto those that are without." It is required of all of them that they beexercised for the edification of the church; and a distinction is drawnbetweentheminvalue,inproportionastheywereforedification.Buttheimmediate end forwhich theywere given is not left doubtful, and thatproves to be not directly the extension of the church, but theauthentication of the Apostles as messengers from God. This does notmean,ofcourse,thatonlytheApostlesappearintheNewTestamentasworkingmiracles,orthattheyalonearerepresentedasrecipientsofthecharismata. But it does mean that the charismata belonged, in a truesense, to the Apostles, and constituted one of the signs of an Apostle.Only in the two great initial instances of the descent of the Spirit atPentecost and the reception of Cornelius are charismata recorded asconferredwithout the layingonof thehandsofApostles.47 There isnoinstance on record of their conferenceby the laying onof thehands ofanyoneelsethananApostle.48Thecaseof theSamaritans,recordedintheeighthchapterofActs,isnotonlyaveryinstructiveoneinitself,butmayevenbelookeduponasthecardinalinstance.ThechurchhadbeenpropagatedhithertobytheimmediatelyevangelisticworkoftheApostlesthemselves,andithadbeenaccordinglytheApostlesthemselveswhohadreceived the converts into the church. Apparently they had all receivedthepowerofworkingsignsbythelayingonoftheApostles'handsattheirbaptism.TheSamaritanswere the firstconverts tobegathered into thechurchbymenwhowerenotApostles;andthesignsoftheApostleswereaccordinglylackingtothemuntilPeterandJohnweresentdowntothem

that they might "receive the Holy Ghost" (Acts 8:14-17). The effect onSimonMagusofthesightofthesegiftsspringinguponthelayingonoftheApostles'hands,wewillallremember.Thesalientstatementsareveryexplicit. ''Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received theHoly Ghost." "Nowwhen Simon saw that through the laying on of theApostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given." "Give me also this power,that,onwhomsoeverIlaymyhands,hemayreceivetheHolyGhost."ItcouldnotbemoreemphaticallystatedthattheHolyGhostwasconferredby the laying on of the hands, specifically of the Apostles, and of theApostles alone;whatSimon is said tohave seen isprecisely that itwasthrough the laying on of the hands of just the Apostles that the HolyGhostwasgiven.Andtherecanbenoquestionthatitwasspecificallytheextraordinary gifts of the Spirit that were in discussion; no doubt isthrownuponthegenuinenessoftheconversionoftheSamaritans;onthecontrary,thisistakenasamatterofcourse,anditsassumptionunderliesthewholenarrative;itconstitutesinfacttheverypointofthenarrative.

ThiscaseoftheSamaritanswasofgreatimportanceintheprimitivechurch, toenablemen todistinguishbetween thegiftsofgraceand thegiftsofpower.Without it therewouldhavebeendangerthatonlythosewouldbeaccreditedasChristianswhopossessedextraordinarygifts.Itisofequalimportancetous,toteachusthesourceofthegiftsofpower,inthe Apostles, apart from whom they were not conferred: as also theirfunction,toauthenticatetheApostlesastheauthoritativefoundersofthechurch. It is in accordancewith this reading of the significance of thisincident, that Paul, who had all the signs of an Apostle, had also thepowerofconferringthecharismata,andthatintheentireNewTestamentwe meet with no instance of the gifts showing themselves—after theinitial instances of Pentecost and Cornelius—where anApostle had notconveyed them. Hermann Cremer is accordingly quite right when hesays49 that "theApostoliccharismatabear thesamerelation to thoseofthe ministry that the Apostolic office does to the pastoral office"; theextraordinary gifts belonged to the extraordinary office and showedthemselvesonlyinconnectionwithitsactivities.50

The connection of the supernatural gifts with the Apostles is soobviousthatonewondersthatsomanystudentshavemissedit,andhave

soughtanaccountof theminsomeotherquarter.The trueaccounthasalwaysbeenrecognized,however,bysomeofthemorecarefulstudentsofthesubject.Ithasbeenclearlysetforth,forexample,byBishopKaye."Imay be allowed to state the conclusion," he writes,51 "to which I havemyself been ledby a comparisonof the statements in theBookofActswith the writings of the Fathers of the second century. My conclusionthenis,thatthepowerofworkingmiracleswasnotextendedbeyondthedisciplesuponwhomtheApostlesconferreditbytheimpositionoftheirhands. As the number of these disciples gradually diminished, theinstances of the exercise ofmiraculous powers became continually lessfrequent,andceasedentirelyatthedeathofthelastindividualonwhomthehandsoftheApostleshadbeenlaid.Thateventwould,inthenaturalcourseofthings,takeplacebeforethemiddleofthesecondcentury—atatimewhenChristianity,havingobtainedafootinginalltheprovincesoftheRomanEmpire,themiraculousgiftsconferreduponthefirstteachershadperformedtheirappropriateoffice—thatofprovingtotheworldthatanewrevelationhadbeengivenfromheaven.What,then,wouldbetheeffectproduceduponthemindsof thegreatbodyofChristiansby theirgradual cessation? Many would not observe, none would be willing toobserve, it. . . . They who remarked the cessation of miracles wouldprobably succeed in persuading themselves that it was only temporaryand designed by an all-wise Providence to be the prelude to a moreabundant effusion of the supernatural powers upon the church. Or ifdoubtsandmisgivingscrossedtheirminds,theywouldstillbeunwillingtostatea factwhichmightshake thesteadfastnessof their friends,andwould certainly be urged by the enemies of the gospel as an argumentagainst its divine origin. They would pursue the plan which has beenpursued by Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Irenćus, etc.; they would haverecourse to general assertions of the existence of supernatural powers,withoutattempting toproduceaspecific instanceof theirexercise. . . ."Thebishopthenproceedstorecapitulatethemainpointsandgroundsofthistheory.52

Whatever we may think of the specific explanation which BishopKaye presents of the language of the second-century Fathers, we canscarcelyfailtoperceivethattheconfinementofthesupernaturalgiftsbythe Scriptures to those who had them conferred upon them by the

Apostles,affordsareadyexplanationofallthehistoricalfacts.Itexplainstheunobserveddyingoutofthesegifts.Itevenexplains—whatmightatfirstsightseeminconsistentwithit—thefailureofallusiontotheminthefirsthalfofthesecondcentury.ThegreatmissionaryApostles,PaulandPeter,hadpassedawaybyA.D.68,andapparentlyonlyJohnwasleftinextremeoldageuntilthelastdecadeofthefirstcentury.ThenumberofthoseuponwhomthehandsofApostleshadbeenlaid,livingstill inthesecondcentury,cannothavebeenverylarge.WeknowofcourseofJohn'spupil Polycarp; wemay add perhaps an Ignatius, a Papias, a Clement,possibly aHermas, or even aLeucius; but at themost there are fewofwhomweknowwithanydefiniteness.ThatJustinandIrenćusandtheircontemporariesallude tomiracle-workingasa thingwhichhad to theirknowledge existed in their day, and yet with which they seem to havelittleexactpersonalacquaintance,isalsoexplained.Irenćus'syouthwasspent in the company of pupils of theApostles; Justinmay easily haveknown of, if not even witnessed, miracles wrought by Apostolicallytrainedmen.The faultof thesewritersneedhavebeennomore thanafailure to observe, or to acknowledge, the cessation of these miraclesduring their own time; so that it is not somuch the trustworthiness oftheirtestimonyastheirunderstandingofthechangingtimeswhichfallsundercriticism.Ifweoncelayfirmholduponthebiblicalprinciplewhichgovernedthedistributionofthemiraculousgifts,inaword,wefindthatwe have in our hands a key which unlocks all the historical puzzlesconnectedwiththem.

Thereis,ofcourse,adeeperprinciplerecognizablehere,ofwhichtheactual attachment of the charismata of the Apostolic Church to themissionof theApostles isbutanillustration.Thisdeeperprinciplemaybe reached by us through the perception, more broadly, of theinseparable connection of miracles with revelation, as its mark andcredential;or,morenarrowly,ofthesummingupofallrevelation,finally,in Jesus Christ. Miracles do not appear on the page of Scripturevagrantly, here, there, and elsewhere indifferently, without assignablereason.Theybelongtorevelationperiods,andappearonlywhenGodisspeaking to His people through accredited messengers, declaring Hisgraciouspurposes.TheirabundantdisplayintheApostolicChurchisthemark of the richness of the Apostolic age in revelation; and when this

revelation period closed, the period of miracle-working had passed byalso,asamerematterofcourse.Itmight,indeed,beaprioriconceivablethatGodshoulddealwithmenatomistically,andrevealHimselfandHiswill to each individual, throughout the whole course of history, in thepenetraliumofhisownconsciousness.Thisisthemystic'sdream.Ithasnot,however,beenGod'sway.Hehaschosenrathertodealwiththeraceinitsentirety,andtogivetothisraceHiscompleterevelationofHimselfinanorganicwhole.Andwhenthishistoricprocessoforganicrevelationhad reached its completeness, and when the whole knowledge of Goddesigned for the savinghealth of theworldhadbeen incorporated intothe living body of the world's thought—there remained, of course, nofurtherrevelationtobemade,andtherehasbeenaccordinglynofurtherrevelationmade.GodtheHolySpirithasmade itHissubsequentwork,not to introduce new and unneeded revelations into the world, but todiffuse this one complete revelation through the world and to bringmankindintothesavingknowledgeofit.

AsAbrahamKuyperfigurativelyexpressesit,53ithasnotbeenGod'sway to communicate to each and everyman a separate store of divineknowledge of his own, to meet his separate needs; but He rather hasspreadacommonboardforall,andinvitesalltocomeandpartakeoftherichness of the great feast. He has given to the world one organicallycompleterevelation,adaptedtoall,sufficientforall,providedforall,andfrom thisonecompleted revelationHe requireseach todrawhiswholespiritualsustenance.Thereforeitisthatthemiraculousworkingwhichisbut the sign ofGod's revealing power, cannot be expected to continue,andinpointoffactdoesnotcontinue,aftertherevelationofwhichit isthe accompaniment has been completed. It is unreasonable to askmiracles, says John Calvin— or to find them—where there is no newgospel.54 By as much as the one gospel suffices for all lands and allpeoplesandalltimes,bysomuchdoesthemiraculousattestationofthatone single gospel suffice for all lands and all times, and no furthermiracles are to be expected in connection with it. "According to theScriptures," Herman Bavinck explains,55 "special revelation has beendeliveredintheformofahistoricalprocess,whichreachesitsendpointinthepersonandworkofChrist.WhenChristhadappearedandreturnedagain to heaven, special revelation did not, indeed, come at once to an

end.Therewasyet to follow theoutpouringof theHolyGhost,and theextraordinary working of the powers and gifts through and under theguidanceoftheApostolate.TheScripturesundoubtedlyreckonallthistothe sphere of special revelation, and the continuance of this revelationwas necessary to give abiding existence in the world to the specialrevelationwhichreached itsclimax inChrist—abidingexistenceboth inthe word of Scripture and in the life of the church. Truth and life,prophecy andmiracle, word and deed, inspiration and regeneration gohand in hand in the completion of special revelation. But when therevelationofGodinChristhadtakenplace,andhadbecomeinScriptureandchurchaconstituentpartofthecosmos,thenanothererabegan.AsbeforeeverythingwasapreparationforChrist,soafterwardeverythingisto be a consequence of Christ. Then Christ was being framed into theHeadofHispeople,nowHispeople arebeing framed into theBodyofChrist. Then the Scriptures were being produced, now they are beingapplied.Newconstituentelementsofspecialrevelationcannolongerbeadded; for Christ has come,His work has been done, andHis word iscomplete." Had anymiracles perchance occurred beyond the Apostolicage they would be without significance; mere occurrences with nouniversalmeaning.Whatisimportantisthat"theHolyScripturesteachclearlythatthecompleterevelationofGodisgiveninChrist,andthattheHolySpiritwho ispouredout on thepeopleofGodhas come solely inordertoglorifyChristandtotakeofthethingsofChrist."BecauseChristis all in all, and all revelation and redemption alike are summed up inHim,itwouldbeinconceivablethateitherrevelationoritsaccompanyingsigns should continueafter the completionof thatgreat revelationwithitsaccreditingworks,bywhichChristhasbeenestablishedinHisrightfulplace as the culmination and climax and all-inclusive summary of thesavingrevelationofGod,thesoleandsufficientredeemerofHispeople.

At this point we might fairly rest. But I cannot deny myself thepleasureofgivingyousomeaccountinthisconnectionofafamousbookon the subject we have been discussing—to which indeed incidentalallusion has beenmade. I refer to ConyersMiddleton'sAFree InquiryintotheMiraculousPowerswhicharesupposedtohavesubsistedintheChristian church from the earliest ages through several successivecenturies. By which it is shown that we have no sufficient reason to

believe, upon the authority of the primitive fathers, that any suchpowers were continued to the church, after the days of the Apostles.Middletonwasadoughtycontroversialist,nolessadmiredforhisEnglishstyle,whichwas reckonedbyhis contemporaries as second inpurity tothat of nowriter of his day exceptAddison (though JohnWesleymorejustly found it stiff and pedantic), than feared for the sharpness andpersistencyofhispolemics.Hewasofasomewhatscepticaltemperandperhapscannotbeacquittedofacertainamountofinsincerity.Wecouldwish at least that itwere clearer that JohnWesley's description of himwereundeserved,as"aimingeveryblow,thoughheseemstolookanotherway,atthefanaticswhowrotetheBible."56 Inthis,hischief theologicalwork,however,Middletonhadasubjectwherescepticismfoundapropermark, and he performs his congenial task with distinct ability. Hiscontroversial spirit and a certain harshness of tone, while they maydetractfromthepleasurewithwhichthebookisread,donotdestroyitsvalueasasolidpieceofinvestigation.

Consciousoftheboldnessoftheviewshewasabouttoadvocateandforeseeing their unpopularity,Middleton sent forth in 1747 as a sort ofpreparationforwhatwastocomeanIntroductorydiscoursetoalargerwork designed hereafter to he published, concerning the miraculouspowerswhich are supposed to have subsisted in the Christian churchfrom the earliestages through several successive centuries; tending toshowthatwehavenosufficientreasontobelieveupontheauthorityoftheprimitivefathers,thatanysuchpowerswerecontinuedtothechurchafterthedaysof theApostles.Withapostscript . . . (London,1747).InthisDiscoursehepointsoutthehelplessnessoftheAnglicanpositioninthe faceofRomish claims.There isno reason for allowingmiracles forthefirstthreecenturieswhichisnotasgoodorbetterforallowingthemforthesucceedingcenturies:andyetthegreaterportionofthemiraclesofthese later centuries were wrought in support of distinctively Romishteaching, which, it would seem, must be accepted, if their attestingmiracles are allowed. Next year (1748) he published Remarks on twoPamphlets . . ., which had appeared in reply to his IntroductoryDiscourse; and at length in December, 1748, he permitted the FreeInquiryitselftoseethelight,fittedwithaprefaceinwhichanaccountisgiven of the origin of the book, and the position taken up in the

Introductory Discourse is pressed more sharply still—that thegenuineness of the ecclesiastical miracles being once allowed, nostopping-place can be found until the whole series of alleged miraclesdowntoourowndaybeadmitted.AttheendofthisprefaceMiddleton'sownviewastothecauseofthecessationofthespiritualgiftsisintimated,andthisprovestobeonlyamodificationofthecurrentAnglicanopinion—thatmiracles subsisted until the church had been founded in all thechiefcitiesof theempire,which,heheld,hadbeenaccomplishedintheApostolictimes.It is interestingtoobservethusthatMiddletonreachedhiscorrectconclusionastothetimeofthecessationofthesegiftswithoutthehelpofarightunderstandingofthetruereasonoftheircessationwiththeApostolicage;purely,thatistosay,onempiricalgrounds.

TheFreeInquiryitselfisascholarlypieceofworkforitstime,andacompetentargument.Itisdisposedinfiveparts.Thefirstofthesesimplydraws out from the sources and presents in full the testimony tomiraculousworkingfoundintheFathersofthefirstthreecenturies.Themeagreness and indefiniteness of their witness are left to speak forthemselves,withonly thehelpof twoclosingremarks.Theoneof thesepresses the impossibilityofbelieving that thegiftswere firstwithdrawnduring the first fiftyyearsof thesecondcenturyand thenrestored.Theother contrasts thepatristicmiracleswith thoseof theNewTestament,with respect both to their nature and the mode of their working. Thesecond section discusses the persons who worked the ecclesiasticalmiracles. It is pointedout thatnoknownwriter claims tohavehimselfwroughtmiracles, ornames anyof his predecessors ashavingdone so.The honor is left to unknown and obscure men, and afterward to the"rotten bones" of saintswhowhile living did no suchworks. The thirdsectionsubjectsthecharacteroftheearlyFathersasmenofwisdomandtrustworthinesstoasevereandnotalwaysperfectlyfaircriticism,withaview to lessening the credit that should be given to their testimony insuchamatterastheoccurrenceofmiraculousworkingsintheirday.Thefourth section then takes up the several kinds of miracles which, it ispretended, were wrought, and seeks to determine from the nature ofeach, in each instance of its mention, whether its credibility may bereasonablysuspected.Finally,inthefifthsection,theprincipalobjectionswhichhadbeenraised,orwhichseemedlikelytoberaised,tothetenorof

theargumentarecitedandrefuted.

Thebookwas receivedwitha stormof criticism, reprobation, evenabuse. It was not refuted. Many published careful and searchingexaminations of its facts and arguments, among othersDoctorWilliamDodwell57 (the younger) and Doctor Thomas Church,58 to whomMiddletonrepliedinaVindication,publishedposthumously(1751).Afteracenturyandahalfthebookremainsunrefuted,and,indeed,despitethefaultsarisingfromthewriter'sspiritandthelimitationsinseparablefromthe stateof scholarship inhisday, itsmaincontention seems tobeputbeyonddispute.59

PATRISTICANDMEDIEVALMARVELS

AsoveragainsttheeffortmademoreespeciallybyAnglicanwriterstoconfinegenuineecclesiasticalmiraclestothefirst,andintheirviewthepurest and most authoritative, centuries of Christianity, the RomishtheologiansboldlydeclarethatGodhasbeenpleasedineveryagetoworkamultitudeofevidentmiraclesinHischurch.Beforethisassertion,aswehaveseen,theAnglicantheoryishelpless,onthegroundwhetheroffactorofprinciple.Offact,becausetheevidenceforthelatermiracles,whichitdenies, isverymuchgreater involumeandcogency than that for theearliermiracles,whichitaccepts.Ofprinciple,becausethereasonwhichitgivesforthecontinuanceofmiraclesduringthefirstthreecenturies,ifvalidatall,isequallyvalidfortheircontinuancetothetwentiethcentury.Whatwe shall look upon as the period of the planting of the church isdeterminedbyourpointofview.Iftheusefulnessofmiraclesinplantingthe church were sufficient reason for their occurrence in the RomanEmpire in the third century, it ishard todeny that itmaybe sufficientreason for the repetition of them in, say, the Chinese Empire in thetwentiethcentury.AndwhygotoChina?Isnotthechurchstillessentiallyin the position of a missionary church everywhere in this world ofunbelief?Whenwetakeareally''longview"ofthings,isitnotatleastadebatable question whether the paltry two thousand years which havepassed since Christianity came into the world are not a negligiblequantity,andtheageinwhichweliveisnotstilltheageoftheprimitive

church?Wemustadjudge,therefore,thattheRomishtheoryisthemoreconsistentandreasonableofthetwo.Ifwearetoadmitthatthemiraclesof the first three centuries happened, slightly and only generallywitnessedas theyare,weshould inall reasongoonandadmit that themuchmore numerous andmuch better attestedmiracles of the fourthcentury happened too—and those of the fifth, and of the sixth, and ofeverysubsequentcenturydowntoourday.

The force of this reasoning is interestingly illustrated by theconversionbyitofEdwardGibbon,inhisyouth,toRomanCatholicism.Sir James Fitzjames Stephen gives a somewhat caustic account of thecircumstances. "At Oxford," he says,1 "'the blind activity of idleness'impelled him to readMiddleton'sFree Inquiry. Yet he could not bringhimselftofollowMiddletoninhisattackontheearlyFathers,ortogiveupthenotionthatmiracleswereworkedintheearlychurchforat leastfourorfivecenturies. 'ButIwasunabletoresisttheweightofhistoricalevidence that within the same period most of the leading doctrines ofPopery were already introduced in theory and practice; nor was theconclusionabsurdthatmiraclesarethetestoftruth,andthatthechurchmustbeorthodoxandpurewhichwas sooftenapprovedby the visibleinterpositionoftheDeity.'

"From themiracles affirmed by Basil, Chrysostom, Augustine, andJerome, he inferred that celibacy was superior tomarriage, that saintswere to be invoked, prayers for the dead said, and the real presencebelieved in; and whilst in this frame of mind he fell in with Bossuet'sExposition and hisHistory of the Variations. 'I read,' he says in hisaffected way, 'I applauded, I believed'; and he adds with truth inreference to Bossuet, 'I surely fell by a noble hand.' 'In my presentfeelings it seems incredible that I ever should have believed intransubstantiation;butmyconqueroroppressedmewiththesacramentalwords,anddashedagainsteachotherthefigurativehalf-meaningsoftheProtestantsects....'

"Noone,wewillventuretosay,hasbeenconvertedinthenineteenthcentury by a belief that, as a fact, miracles were worked in the earlychurch, and that, as a consequence, thedoctrinesprofessedat the time

mustbetrue.Asarulethedoctrineshavecarriedthemiracles. . . .ThefactthattheprocessbeganattheotherendwithGibbonischaracteristicbothofthemanandoftheage;butitisputinastillstrongerlightbytheaccountwhichhegivesofhisreconversion....Theprocessfromfirsttolastwasemphaticallyanintellectualone....Gibbonhimselfobserves:'Istill remembermy solitary transport at thediscoveryof aphilosophicalargument against the doctrine of transubstantiation: that the text ofScripturewhichseemstoinculcatetherealpresenceisattestedonlybyasingle sense—our sight; while the real presence itself is disproved bythreeofoursenses—thesight,thetouch,andthetaste.'"

Onlyabriefaccountwillbenecessaryofthestateofthecaseforthefourthandlatercenturies.Whenwepassfromthe literatureof thefirstthree into thatof the fourthandsucceedingcenturies,we leaveatoncethe region of indefinite and undetailed references tomiraculous workssaid to have occurred somewhere or other—no doubt the referencesincrease in number and definiteness as the years pass—and come intocontact with a body of writings simply saturated with marvels. Andwhereasfewwritersweretobefoundintheearlierperiodwhoprofessedtobeeyewitnessesofmiracles,andnonewhowroughtthemwerenamedto us, in the later period everybody appears to have witnessed anynumberofthem,andtheworkersofthemarenotonlynamedbutprovetobe themost famousmissionariesandsaintsof thechurch.Normustwe imagine that these marvels are recounted only by obscure andotherwise unknown hero-worshippers, whose only claim to berememberedbyposterityisthattheyweretheoverenthusiasticadmirersof the great ascetics of their time. They are rather the outstandingscholars, theologians,preachers,organizersof theage. It isJerome, theleadingbiblicalscholarofhisday,whowrotethedistressinglivesofPaul,Hilarion, and Malchus; Gregory of Nyssa, one of "the three greatCappadocians," who narrates the fantastic doings of his thaumaturgicnamesake;2theincomparableAthanasiushimself,whoisresponsibleforthelifeofAntony.Andnottobeleftbehind,thegreatestpreacheroftheday,Chrysostom;thegreatestecclesiastic,Ambrose;thegreatestthinker,Augustine,—all describe for us miraculous occurrences of the mostincrediblekindashavingtakenplacewithintheirownknowledge.Itwillbenotonlyinterestingbutusefulforourpurpose,aswell,ifaspecimen

instancebebroughtbeforeusofhowthesegreatmendealtwithmiracles.

Augustinenodoubtwillserveourpurposehereaswellasanother.Inthe twenty-second book3 of the City of God, he has circumstantiallyrelatedtousascoreormoreofmiracleswhichhadcomeunderhisownobservation, andwhich he represents as only a tithe of those he couldrelate.Aconsiderablenumberofthesewerewroughtbytherelicsof"themostgloriousmartyr,Stephen."ThebonesofStephenhadcometolightin Jerusalem in415.Certainportions of themwerebrought intoAfricaand everywhere they were taken miracles were wrought. Somewhereabout424Hippoobtained its fragmentsandenshrinedtheminasmallchapel opening into the cathedral church, on the archway of whichAugustinecausedfourversestobecut,exhortingworshipperstoascribetoGodallmiracleswroughtuponStephen'sintercession.Almostseventymiracleswroughtatthisshrinehadbeenofficiallyrecordedinlessthantwo years, while incomparably more, Augustine tells us, had beenwroughtattheneighboringtownofCalama,whichhadreceiveditsrelicsearlier. "Think,beloved,"he cries, in the sermonwhichhepreachedonthereceptionoftherelics,"whattheLordmusthaveinstoreforusinthelandof the living,whenHebestowssomuch in theashesof thedead."Even thedeadwere raisedat these shrines,with greatpromptness andfacility. Here are some of the instances recorded by Augustine withcompleteconfidence.4

"Eucharius,aSpanishpriestresidingatCalama,wasforalongtimeasufferer fromstone.By therelicsof thesamemartyr (Stephen)whichthe bishop Possidius brought him, he was cured. Afterward the samepriest sinking under another disease, was lying dead, and already theywerebindinghishands.Bythesuccorofthesamemartyrhewasraisedtolife,thepriest'scloakhavingbeenbroughtfromtheoratoryandlaiduponthecorpse....AudurusisthenameofanestatewherethereisachurchthatcontainsamemorialshrineofthemartyrStephen.Ithappenedthat,asa littleboywasplaying in thecourt, theoxendrawingawagonwentoutofthetrackandcrushedhimwiththewheel,sothatimmediatelyheseemedathislastgasp.Hismothersnatchedhimupandlaidhimattheshrine, and not only did he revive but also appeared uninjured. AreligiousfemalewholivedatCaspalium,aneighboringestate,whenshe

wassoillastobedespairedof,hadherdressbroughttothisshrine,butbeforeitwasbroughtbackshewasgone.However,herparentswrappedhercorpseinthedress,and,herbreathreturning,shebecamequitewell.AtHippo, a Syrian called Bassuswas praying at the relics of the samemartyrforhisdaughter,whowasdangerouslyill.Hetoohadbroughtherdresswithhimtotheshrine.Butasheprayed,behold,hisservantsranfrom the house to tell him she was dead. His friends, however,interceptedthemandforbadethemtotellhim,lestheshouldbewailherinpublic.Andwhenhereturnedtohishousewhichwasalreadyringingwith the lamentations of his family, and had thrown on his daughter'sbody thedresshewascarrying,shewasrestored to life.There, too, theson of aman, Irenćus, one of the tax-gatherers, took ill and died. Andwhilehisbodywas lying lifeless,andthe lastriteswerebeingprepared,amidst the weeping andmourning of all, one of the friends who wereconsolingthefathersuggestedthatthebodyshouldbeanointedwiththeoil of the same martyr. It was done and he was revived. Likewise,Eleusinus,amanoftribunitianrankamongus, laidhis infantson,whohaddied, on the shrineof themartyr,which is in the suburbwherehelived, and, afterprayer,whichhepouredout therewithmany tears,hetookuphischildalive."5

NotallthemiracleswhichAugustineincludesinthisanthologywerewrought,however,bythebonesofStephen.Evenbeforetheseboneshadbeendiscovered,miraclesofthemostastonishingcharacterhadoccurredwithin his own personal knowledge. He tells us, for example, of therestorationofablindmantosightatMilan—"whenIwasthere,"hesays—by the remains of themartyrsProtasius andGervasius, discovered toAmbrose in a dream. And he tells us with great circumstantiality of amiraculous cure of fistula wrought in Carthage—"in my presence andundermy own eyes," he says—when he and Alypius had just returnedfrom Italy. A special interest attaches to these early instances, becauseAugustine, although an eyewitness of them, and although he insists onhishavingbeenaneye-witnessofthemastheirattestation,doesnotseemtohave recognized theirmiraculous character until long afterward. ForAugustine's hearty belief in contemporary miracles, illustrated by theteeming list now before us, was of slow growth. It was not until someyearsafterhisreturntoAfricathatitbecameeasytohimtoacknowledge

theiroccurrence.HearrivedinAfricain388,butstillinhistreatises,OntheTrueReligion,whichwaswrittenabout390,andOntheUsefullnessof Believing, written in 391 or 392, we find him speaking on thehypothesisthatmiraclesnolongerhappened."Weperceive,"hewritesinthe former of these treatises,6 "that our ancestors, by that measure offaith by which the ascent is made from temporal things to eternal,obtained visiblemiracles (for thus only could they do it); and throughthemithasbeenbroughtaboutthattheseshouldnolongerbenecessaryfor their descendants. Forwhen theCatholicChurchhadbeendiffusedandestablishedthroughthewholeworld,thesemiracleswerenolongerpermitted to continue in our time, lest the mind should always seekvisiblethings,andthehumanraceshouldbechilledbythecustomarinessof the very thingswhose novelty had inflamed them." Similarly, in thelattertreatise,afterenumeratingthemiraclesofourLord,heasks,7''Whydonotthesethingstakeplacenow?"andanswers,"Becausetheywouldnotmoveunless theywerewonderful, and if theywere customary theywould not be wonderful." "Even the marvels of nature, great andwonderfulastheyare,"hecontinues,"haveceasedtosurpriseandsotomove; and God has dealt wisely with us, therefore, in sending hismiraclesonce forall toconvincetheworld,dependingafterwardontheauthorityofthemultitudesthusconvinced."

Subsequentlyatthecloseofhislife,reviewingthesepassagesinhisRetractations,hesupposesitenoughtosaythatwhathemeantwasnotthat nomiracleswere still wrought in his own day, but only that nonewerewroughtwhichwereasgreatas thoseourLordwrought, and thatnotallthekindsourLordwroughtcontinuedtobewrought.8"For,"sayshe,9 "those that are baptized do not now receive the Spirit on theimposition of hands, so as to speak in the tongues of all the peoples;neither are the sick healed by the shadow of the preachers of Christfallingonthemastheypass;andothersuchthingsaswerethendone,arenowmanifestlyceased."Whathesaid,heinsists,10 isnottobetakenasmeaningthatnomiraclesatallweretobebelievedtobeperformedstillinChrist'sname."For Imyself,whenIwrote thatbook"—thebookOnthe TrueReligion—"already knew that a blindman had been given hissightatMilan,bythebodiesofthemartyrsinthatcity;andcertainotherthingswhichweredoneatthattimeinnumberssufficienttopreventour

knowing them all or our enumerating all we knew." This explanationseems scarcely adequate; but it suggests that the starting-point ofAugustine's belief in contemporarymiracles is to be sought inMilan—althoughitappearsthatsometimewasrequiredafterhehadleftMilanforthebelieftoripeninhismind.

A sufficiently odd passage in one of his letters—written in 404—seemstoillustrateatoncetheMilaneseoriginofhismiracle-faithandtheprocess of its growth to maturity.11 There had been a scandal in thehousehold; one member of it had accused another of a crime, andAugustinewasindoubtwhichofthetwowasreallyatfault."Ifixeduponthe following as a means of discovering the truth," he writes. "Bothpledgedthemselvesinasolemncompacttogotoaholyplace,wheretheawe-inspiringworksofGodmightmuchmorereadilymakemanifesttheevil of which either of them was conscious, and compel the guilty toconfess, either by judgment or through fear of judgment." God iseverywhere,itistrue;andabletopunishorrewardinsecretasHewill."But,"continuesAugustine,"inregardtotheanswersofprayerwhicharevisible to men, who can search out the reasons for appointing someplacesratherthanotherstobethescenesofmiraculousinterpositions?"ThegraveofacertainFelixsuggesteditselftohimasasuitableplacetosendhisculprits.True,nosupernaturaleventshadeveroccurredthere.But,hewrites, "Imyselfknewhow,atMilan,at the tombof thesaints,where demons are brought in amostmarvellous and awfulmanner toconfesstheirdeeds,athief,whohadcomethitherintendingtodeceivebyperjuringhimself,was compelled toownhis theftsand restorewhathehadtakenaway.""AndisnotAfricaalso,"heasks,"fullof thebodiesofholymartyrs?""Yetwedonotknowofsuchthingsbeingdonehere,"heconfesses."Evenasthegiftofhealingandthegiftofdiscerningofspirits,"heexplains, "arenotgiven toall saints, as theApostledeclares; so it isnotatallthetombsofthesaintsthatithathpleasedHimwhodividethtoeachseverallyasHewill,tocausesuchmiraclestobewrought."Aslateas404, then, there were as yet no miracle-working shrines in Africa.Augustine,however,isbusilyatworkproducingthem.Andtwentyyearslaterweseetheminfullactivity.

It was naturally a source of embarrassment to Augustine that the

hereticshadmiraclestoappealtojustlikehisown;andthattheheathenhadhadsomethingvery like themfromtime immemorial.Themiraclesof the heretics he was inclined to reject out of hand. They neverhappened,hesaid.Ontheotherhand,hedidnotdreamofdenyingtheactualoccurrenceof theheathenmiracles.Heonlystrainedeverynervetoputtheminadifferentclassfromhisown.Theystoodrelatedtohis,hesaid, as the marvels wrought by Pharaoh's magicians did to Moses'miracles.Meanwhile,therethethreesetsofmiraclesstood,sidebyside,apparently justalike,andtobedistinguishedonlybythedoctrineswithwhichtheywereseverallyconnected.Apassageinthethirteenthtractateon John on Donatist miracles (he calls them "miracle-ettes"), is veryinstructive. This tractate seems to have been delivered subsequently to416,andthereforerepresentsAugustine'slaterviews."Letnoonetellyoufables,then,"hecries,12"saying,'Pontiuswroughtamiracle,andDonatusprayedandGodansweredhimfromheaven.'Inthefirstplace,eithertheyare deceived or they deceive. In the last place, grant that he removesmountains:'Andhavenotcharity,'saystheApostle,'Iamnothing.'Letussee whether he has charity. I would believe that he had, if he had notdivided unity. For against those whom I may call marvel-workers, myGodhasputmeonmyguard,saying, 'Inthelasttimesthereshallarisefalse prophets doing signs and wonders, to lead into error, if it werepossible, even the elect. Lo, I have foretold it to you.' Therefore theBridegroomhascautionedus, thatweoughtnot tobedeceivedevenbymiracles."SimilarlytheheathenandChristianmiraclesarepittedagainstoneanother,anddecisionbetweenthemsoughtongroundslyingoutsidethemiracles themselves. "Which, then, canmore readily be believed toworkmiracles?Theywhowishthemselvestobereckonedgodsbythoseonwhomtheyworkmiracles,orthosewhosesoleobjectinworkinganymiracles is to induce faith inGod, or inChrist also asGod? . . . Letusthereforebelievethosewhobothspeakthetruthandworkmiracles."13Itisnottheempiricalfactwhichcounts—therewerealltoomanyempiricalfactstocount—butthetruthlyingbehindtheempiricalfact.14

WhatnowarewetothinkofthesemiracleswhichAugustineandhisfellowsnarratetousinsuchsuperabundance?

Weshouldperhapsnoteattheoutsetthatthemarvellousstoriesdo

notseemtohavemetwithuniversalcredencewhenfirstpublished.Theyseem indeed to have attracted very little attention. Augustine bitterlycomplainsthatsolittlewasmadeofthem.15Eachwasknownonlyinthespotwhereitwaswrought,andeventhenonlytoafewpersons.Ifsomereportofithappenedtobecarriedtootherplacesnosufficientauthorityexistedtogiveitpromptandunwaveringacceptance.Herecordshowhehimselfhadsharplyrebukedawomanwhohadbeenmiraculouslycuredofacancerfornotpublishingabroadtheblessingshehadreceived.Herphysicianhadlaughedather,shesaid;andmoreovershehadnotreallyconcealed it. Outraged, however, on finding that not even her closestacquaintances had ever heard of it, he dragged her from her seclusionand gave the utmost publicity to her story. In odd parallelism to thecomplaint of his somewhat older contemporary, the heathen historianAmmianusMarcellinus,whoinwistfulregretfortheportentswhichweregone,declaredstoutlythattheyneverthelessstilloccurred,only"nobodyheeds them now,"16 Augustine asserted that innumerable Christianmiracles were constantly taking place, only no notice was taken ofthem.17

Itwasnotmerelyindifference,however,whichtheyencountered,butdefinite disbelief. Many (plurimi) shook their heads at what SulpitiusSeverustoldinthesecondbookofhisDialoguesofthedeedsofMartinofTours—somanythathefeltconstrainedcarefullytogivehisauthoritiesinthe next book for eachmiracle that he recorded. "Let them accept," hesays in announcinghispurpose todo so,18 "the evidence of people stillliving, and believe them, seeing that they doubtmy good faith." In thefirst book of his Dialogues,19 indeed, he represents his collocutor—hisGallic friend Postumianus—as saying to him frankly: "I shudder to tellwhatIhavelatelyheard—thatamiserableman(Idonotknowhim)hassaid that youhave toldmany lies in thatbookof yours"—that is, inhisLife of Martin. The reason Postumianus gives for his shuddering,however, is what most interests us. It is that doubt of the actualoccurrenceofthesemiraclesisaconstructiveassaultuponthecredibilityof the Gospels. "For," Postumianus argues, "since the Lord HimselftestifiedthatsuchworksasMartin'sweretobedonebyallthefaithful,hewhodoesnotbelievethatMartindidthemsimplydoesnotbelievethatChristutteredsuchwords."Inpointoffact,ofcourse,Christdidnotutter

thesewords; the appeal is to the spurious "last twelve verses ofMark."We see, however, that the belief that Christ uttered thesewordswas apowerful co-operating cause inducing belief in the actual occurrence oftheallegedmarvels. It seemedanarraignmentofChrist to say thatHismost distinguished followers did not do the works which Christ hadpromised thatallHis followers shoulddo.Theactualoccurrenceof themiracleswasprovedquiteasmuchbythefanciedpromiseoftheGospelasbyocularevidence.20

It isaverydisturbingfact further that theveryFatherswhorecordlong lists of miracles contemporary with themselves, yet betray aconsciousness that miracles had nevertheless, in some sense or other,ceased with the Apostolic age. When Ambrose, for example, comes tospeakofthefamousdiscoveryofthebodiesofthetwomartyrs,Protasiusand Gervasius, at Milan, and the marvels which accompanied andfollowed their discovery, he cannot avoid expressing surprise andbetrayingthefactthatthiswastohimanewthing."Themiraclesofoldtime,"hecries,21"arecomeagain,whenbytheadventoftheLordJesusafuller grace was shed upon the earth." Augustine, in like manner, inintroducing his account of contemporaneous miracles which we havealready quoted, begins by adducing the question: "Why do not thosemiraclestakeplacenow,which,asyoupreach,tookplaceonce?""Imightanswer,"hereplies,"thattheywerenecessarybeforetheworldbelieved,thatitmightbelieve,"andthenhegoesontosay,aswehaveseen,that"miracleswerewroughtinhistime,buttheywerenotsopublicandwellattested as the miracles of the Gospel." Nor were the contemporarymiracles, he testifies, so great as those of the Gospels, nor did theyembraceall thekindswhichoccur there.SoChrysostomsays:22 "Arguenotbecausemiraclesdonothappennow,thattheydidnothappenthen... . In those times theywereprofitable, andnow they arenot."Again:23

"Whyaretherenotthosenowwhoraisethedeadandperformcures?...When naturewasweak,when faith had to be planted, then thereweremanysuch;butnowHewillsnotthatweshouldhangonthesemiraclesbutbereadyfordeath."Again:"WhereistheHolySpiritnow?amanmayask; for then it was appropriate to speak of Him when miracles tookplace,andthedeadwereraisedandallleperswerecleansed,butnow...."Again: "TheApostles indeed enjoyed the graceofGod in abundance;

butifwewerebiddentoraisethedead,oropentheeyesoftheblind,orcleanselepers,orstraightenthelame,orcastoutdevilsandhealthelikedisorders. . . ."Chrysostom fairly teemswith expressions implying thatmiracle-working of every kindhad ceased;24 he declares in the crispestway, "Of miraculous powers, not even a vestige is left";25 and yet herecordsinstancesfromhisday!IsodoreofPelusiumsimilarlylooksuponmiraclesasconfinedtotheApostolictimes,adding:26"Perhapsmiracleswouldtakeplacenow,too,ifthelivesoftheteachersrivalledthebearingoftheApostles;thougheveniftheydidnot,suchalifewouldsufficeforthe enlightenment of those who beheld it." The same significantdistinguishingoftimesfollowsusdowntheyears.ThusGregorytheGreatat theendof the sixthcentury, though thevery typeofamiracle-lover,nevertheless,writingonMark 16:17, says:27 "Is it so,mybrethren, thatbecauseyedonot these signs, yedonotbelieve?On the contrary, theywerenecessaryinthebeginningofthechurch;for,thatfaithmightgrow,itrequiredmiraclestocherishitwithal;justaswhenweplantshrubs,wewaterthemuntilweseethemtothriveintheground,andassoonastheyare well rooted we cease our irrigation." He proceeds to say that thewonders of grace are greater than miracles. Isodore of Seville at theopening of the next century writes in precisely the same spirit.28 "Thereason why the church does not now do themiracles it did under theApostles," he explains, "is, because miracles were necessary then toconvince the world of the truth of Christianity; but now it becomes it,beingsoconvinced, toshine forth ingoodworks. . . .Whoeverseeks toperform miracles now as a believer, seeks after vainglory and humanapplause. For it is written: 'Tongues are for a sign, not to them thatbelieve,buttothemthatbelievenot.'Observe,asignisnotnecessaryforbelievers, who have already received the faith, but for unbelievers thattheymaybeconverted.ForPaulmiraculouslycuredthefatherofPubliusofafeverforthebenefitofunbelievers;butherestoresbelievingTimothywhenill,notbyprayer,butbymedicine;sothatyoumayclearlyperceivethatmiracleswerewroughtforunbelieversandnotforbelievers."Eveninthethirteenthcentury,Bernard,commentingonMark16:17,asks:29''Forwhoistherethatseemstohavethesesignsofthefaith,withoutwhichnoone, according to this Scripture, shall be saved?" and answers just asGregorydid,bysayingthatthegreatestmiraclesarethoseoftherenewedlife.Thecommonsolutionof this inconsistentattitude towardmiracles,

that theecclesiasticalmiracleswereonlyrecognizedasdiffering inkindfromthoseoftheScripture,whilegoingacertainway,willhardlysufficefor the purpose. Ecclesiastical miracles of every conceivable kind werealleged.Everyvarietyofmiracleproperlyso-calledChrysostomdeclarestohaveceased.ItisthecontrastbetweenmiraclesassuchandwondersofgracethatGregorydraws.NodoubtwemustrecognizethattheseFathersrealizedthattheecclesiasticalmiracleswereofalowerorderthanthoseof Scripture. It looks verymuch as if, when theywere not inflamed byenthusiasm,theydidnotreallythinkthemtobemiraclesatall.30

It is observable further that, throughout the whole patristic andmedićvalperiodsatleast,itisdifficulttodiscoveranyonewhoclaimstohave himself wrought miracles. "It may seem somewhat remarkable,"saysGibbon,31"thatBernardofClairvaux,whorecordssomanymiraclesofhisfriend,St.Malachi,nevertakesanynoticeofhisown,whichintheirturn,however,arecarefullyrelatedbyhiscompanionsanddisciples. Inthelongseriesofecclesiasticalhistory,doesthereexistasingleinstanceofasaintassertingthathehimselfpossessedthegiftofmiracles?"Thereis certainly a notable phenomenon here which may be brought to itssharpestpointby recallingalongwith it two facts.First,ChristandHisApostlespresentastrongcontrastwith it.OurLordappealstoHisownworks,andPaultohisown,inproofoftheirmission.Secondly,Bernard,for example, not only does not claim to haveworkedmiracles himself,but, as we have seen, seems to speak at times as if he looked uponmiraclesashavingceasedwiththeApostles.

ItisveryinstructivetoobservehowJ.H.NewmanendeavorstoturntheedgeofGibbon'sinquiry."Iobservethen,first,"hesays,32"thatitisnot often that the gift ofmiracles is even ascribed to a saint. Inmanycases miracles are only ascribed to their tombs or relics; or wheremiracles are ascribed to them when living, these are but singular oroccasional, not parts of a series." "Moreover," he adds as his secondanswer,"theyarecommonlywhatPaleycallstentativemiracles,orsomeoutofmanywhichhavebeenattempted,andhavebeendoneaccordinglywithoutanypreviousconfidenceintheirpowertoeffectthem.MosesandElijahcouldpredicttheresult;butthemiraclesinquestionwerescarcelymorethanexperimentsandtrials,eventhoughsuccesshadbeengranted

to themmany times before.Under these circumstances, how could theindividualmenwhowroughtthemappealtothemthemselves?Itwasnottill afterward, when their friends and disciples could calmly look backupon their life, and review the various actions and providences whichoccurred in thecourseof it, that theywouldbeable toput together thescattered tokens of divine favor, none or few of which might inthemselvesbeacertainevidenceofamiraculouspower.Aswellmightweexpectmen in their lifetime tobe called saints asworkersofmiracles."Therestillremainsinreserveathirdargument,whichamountstosayingthat the workers of ecclesiastical miracles were modest men, "as littleinclinedtoproclaimthemaloudastomakeaboastoftheirgraces."

Thewholetenorofthisrepresentationoftherelationofthemiracle-workersofthepatristicandmedićvalchurchtotheirmiraclesisartificial.It is nothing less than ludicrous to speak of themiracles ascribed to aMartin of Tours or a Gregory Thaumaturgus as "tentative," or asattempted with incomplete confidence. It is equally ludicrous torepresentincompleteassuranceonthepartofasaintwithrespecttohismiracles before they were wrought as prolonging itself throughout hislife,aftertheywerewrought.Meanwhilethefactremainsthatthroughoutthehistoryofthechurchmiracleshaveratherbeenthrustuponthanlaidclaim to by their workers.33 Nor did there ever lack those who openlyrepudiated the notion that any necessary connection existed betweensaintliness and miracle-working. Richard Rolle of Hampole, who alsobecameposthumouslyamiracle-worker,was inhis lifetimepronouncednosaintbecausehewroughtnomiracles.Hisreplywastotheeffectthatthe inferencewas inconsequent. "Not all saints," he said,34 "doorhavedonemiracles,neitherinlifenorafterdeath;nordoallreprobateseitherinlifeorafterdeathlackmiracles;frequentlythemediocregoodandlessperfect do miracles, and many who are seated highest in the heavensbefore the face of God remain quietwithin."35 "Many bodies," he says,"have been translated on earth whose souls perchance have not yetattainedheaven.""Saintsarenotcarriedtothesupernaturalseatsforthereasonthattheyhaveshowedwonders, forsomewickedmen,too,havedone this; but truth has desired that the more ardently one loves, themorehighlyshallhebeelevated,themorehonorablyshallhebeseatedamongtheangels."36"Itisnotnecessarynow,"hecontinuesquiteinthe

veinofAugustine,"thatmiraclesshouldbeshown,sincethroughoutthewhole worldmany abide inmemory; but there is need that before theeyesofallshouldbeshowntheexampleofthatwork...."

In remarks like these there ismanifested a certain depreciation ofthevalueofmiracles,assuredlynotstrangeinthecircumstances.Andweareboundtocarrythisastepfurtherandtorecognizethatagreatmassofthesemiraclesareallegedtohavebeenwroughtintheinterestofwhatwemustpronouncegraveerrors.J.H.Newman,inapassagejustquoted,remarks that manymiracles are ascribed to the tombs or relics of thesaints,ratherthantothesaintsthemselves;andthisisonlyanexampleofthe uses to which they have been put. So many were wrought inconnection with superstitions which grew up about the Eucharist, forinstance, that "wonders wrought by the Eucharist" is made one of themain divisions of the article, "Wonders," in Smith and Cheatham'sDictionaryofChristianAntiquities.37Thus,forexample,"Cyprianspeaksofapersonwhohad lapsed inpersecutionattempting to communicate;whenonopening theareaor receptacle inwhich theconsecratedbreadwas reserved, fire burst out from it and prevented her. Another, onattendingchurchwiththesamepurpose,foundthathehadreceivedfromthepriestnothingbutacinder."38AmbroserelatesthatoneofhisfriendscalledSatyruswaspiouslyinclinedbutnotyetadmittedtothesacrament."In this state he happened to suffer shipwreck in his passage fromAfrica.""SaysAmbrose:'Satyrus,notbeingafraidofdeath,buttodieonlybeforehehadtakenofthesemysteries,beggedofsomeofthecompany,whohadbeeninitiated,thattheywouldlendhimthedivinesacrament'"(whichtheycarriedaboutwiththem—accordingtothesuperstitioushabitoftheday—asanamuletorcharm),"'nottofeedhiscuriositybypeepinginsidethebag,buttoobtainthebenefitofhisfaith,forhewrappedupthemysteries in his handkerchief, and then tying it about his neck threwhimself into the sea; never troubling himself to look out for a plank,whichmighthelphimtoswim,sincehewantednothingmore than thearmsofhis faith;nordidhishopes failhim, forhewas the first of thecompany who got safe to the shore.'"39 Optatus relates that certainmembers of the Donatist sect once cast the Eucharistic bread of theCatholicstothedogs—whichpromptlywentmadandbittheirmasters.40

SozomentellsthatawomanwhohadreceivedsomeEucharisticbreadof

theMacedonians,founditturnedtoastone.40GregorytheGreatnarratesthatayoungmonkwhohadgonetovisithisparentswithoutpermission,diedonthedayofhisreturn,butcouldnotrestquiet inhisgraveuntilBenedict,hissuperior,hadthehostlaidonit.40InthetimeofJustinian,weare told,when itwas the custom todistribute theEucharisticbreadleft over after the communion to the children, it happened once that aJewishchildreceivedandateafragmentofit.Theenragedfathercastthechild into a furnace, but it was miraculously preserved from harm.40

GregoryofTours tellsofadeaconofunholy life,who,carryingonedaytheEucharistintoachurch,hadthebreadflyofitselfoutofhishandandplace itselfonthealtar.40Accordingto thesamewriter thehostononeoccasionshedbloodwhenbroken.40AbishopnamedMarsius isrelatedtohavelethisportionoftheEucharisticbread,receivedfromthehandsoftheadministrator,fallintothefoldsofhisrobebecausehedidnotwishto break his fast. It at once turned into a serpent, and wrapped itselfabouthiswaistwhenceitcouldbedislodgedonlybyanightofprayerforhimonthepartoftheadministrator.40ThisismatchedbythemiracleofBolsena,whichRaphaelhasrenderedfamous.Apriestsayingthemass—it isdated1264—letadropofwinefallonhiscorporal,anddoubledupthegarmentuponit.Itwasfoundtohavelefttheimpressionofthewaferinbloodoneveryfoldwhichtouchedit.41

We have seen Augustine constrained to allow the principle thatmiracles alleged in the interests of false doctrines are self-condemned;thatnomiraclecanbeacceptedagainstthetruth,butisatoncetobesetaside if presented in the interests of error. The principle is a scripturalone42andhasrepeatedlybeenrationallyvalidated.Itissovalidated,forexample, in a solid argument by Lyman H. Atwater, speakingimmediatelyofspiritualism.43"Acorruptdoctrine,"sayshesuggestively,''destroys a pretended miracle just as strong counter circumstantialevidencewouldinvalidatethetestimonyofasinglewitness."Agooddealofconfusionseemstobeabroadonthismatter.Animpressionappearstoexist that theproper evidenceof truth—orat leastof religious truth—ismiracle,andthatthereforetherecanbenodecisivecriterionofreligioustruthofferedforouracceptanceexceptmiracleswroughtinsupportofit.It is at least very commonly supposed that we are bound to examine

carefullyintothepretensionsofanyallegedmiracleproducedinsupportofanypropositionswhatever,howeverintrinsicallyabsurd;and,iftheseallegedmiraclescannotbeatoncedecisivelyinvalidated,weareboundtoacceptas truethepropositions insupportofwhichtheyarealleged.Noproposition clearly perceived to be false, however, can possibly bevalidated to us by any miracle whatever; and the perception of thepropositionasclearlyfalserelievesusatoncefromthedutyofexamininginto themiraculous characterof its alleged support and invalidatesanyclaimwhichthatsupportcanputintomiraculouscharacter—priortoallinvestigation. A matter so clear could not be missed, of course, byAugustine,andwehavehissupport,accordingly,inpointingoutthattheconnectionofallegedmiracleswitherroneousdoctrinesinvalidatestheirclaimtobegenuineworksofGod.

We must not imagine, however, that ecclesiastical miracles aredistinguishedfromthebiblicalmiraclesbynothingexcept thenatureofthe doctrines in connectionwithwhich they are alleged to bewrought.Theydiffer fromthemalso, fundamentally, incharacter.Thisdifferenceis not denied. J. H. Newman, for example, describes it thus:44

''Ecclesiasticalmiracles, that is,miracles posterior to theApostolic age,are,onthewhole,differentinobject,character,andevidencefromthoseofScriptureonthewhole."Atasubsequentpoint,heenlargesonthis.45

"The Scripturemiracles," says he, "are for themost part evidence of aDivine Revelation, and that for the sake of those who have beeninstructed in it, and in order to the instruction of multitudes; but themiracleswhichfollowhavesometimesnodiscoverableordirectobject,orbutaslightobject; theyhappenfor thesakeof individualsandof thosewhoarealreadyChristians,orforpurposesalreadyeffected,asfaraswecanjudge,bythemiraclesofScripture....ThemiraclesofScriptureare,onthewhole,grave,simple,majestic;thoseofecclesiasticalhistoryoftenpartakeofwhatmaybecalledaromanticcharacter,andofthatwildnessandinequalitywhichentersintothenotionofromance.ThemiraclesofScripture are undeniably beyond nature; those of ecclesiastical historyareoftenscarcelymorethanextraordinaryaccidentsorcoincidences,oreventswhichseemtobetrayexaggerationsorerrorsinthestatement."Ina word,46 "Scripture is to us a Garden of Eden, and its creations arebeautifulaswellas'verygood';butwhenwepassfromtheApostolicalto

thefollowingages, it isasifweleftthechoicestvalleysoftheearth,thequietestandmostharmoniousscenery,andthemostcultivatedsoil, fortheluxuriantwildernessofAfricaorAsia,thenaturalhomeorkingdomofbrutenature,uninfluencedbyman."Newmanlaborstoshowthatthisis only a general contrast; that there are some miracles in Scripturewhich,takenbythemselves,wouldfindtheirplaceinthelowerclass;andsomeinecclesiasticalhistorywhichrisetothehigherclass;andinlaterlife he would somewhat modify his statement of the contrast. But theadmission that the contrast exists is unavoidable; some measure ofrecognitionof it runs, aswehave seen, through the literatureof all theChristianages,anditisbigwithsignificance.

IhavefrequentlyquotedinthecourseofthislectureNewman'sessayon The Miracles of Ecclesiastical History compared with those ofScripture, as regards their nature, credibility and evidence. Indeed, Ihavepurposelydrawnagooddealofmymaterialfromit.PerhapsIoweyousomeaccountofthisbook,whichis,perhaps,anevenmorefamousbookthanMiddleton's, formerlydescribedtoyou.Newmanhadwrittenin 1825-6 a paper onTheMiracles of Scripture, compared with thosereported elsewhere, as regards their nature, credibility, and evidence.Thatwas in his Protestant days, and in this paper he takes sufficientlystrong ground against the genuineness of ecclesiastical miracles. ThencametheOxfordmovementofwhichhewastheleader;andafterwardhisdriftRomeward.AsthisdriftwasreachingitsissueinhispassingintotheRomanchurch—in1842-3—hewrotethesubtlepleaforthegenuinenessofecclesiasticalmiracleswithwhichwearenowconcerned,primarilyasaprefaceforatranslationofaportionofFleury'sEcclesiasticalHistory.47

How well pleased he, as a Catholic, was with his performance isevidenced by his republication of the two papers together, withoutsubstantialalteration,inrepeatededitionsafterhisperversion.

Theessaynowclaimingourattentionisprobablythemostspeciousplea for the credibility and reality of the whole mass of ecclesiasticalmiracles ever penned. I say the whole mass, although Newman, withgreatapparentcandor,admitsthatthereistobefoundamongthemeveryvarietyofmiracle,ofeverydegreeofintrinsiccredibilityorincredibility,andsupportedbyeverydegreeofevidenceorno-evidence.For,afterhe

has, under the cover of this candor, concentrated attention upon whatseem to him the particular miracles most deserving to be true, andsupported by themost direct andweighty evidence, he subtly suggeststhat,ontheirbasis,manymoreinthemselvesdoubtfulordistastefulmaybe allowed, that insufficiency of proof is not the same as disproof, andthatverymanythingsmustbeadmittedbyustobeverylikelytrueforthetruth of which we have no evidence at all—inasmuch as we mustdistinguishsharplybetweenthefactandtheproofofthefact,andmustbepreparedtoadmit that failureof the latterdoesnotcarrywith it therejectionoftheformer.

Thedispositionofmatterinthisfamousessayisasfollows.First,theantecedent probability of the ecclesiastical miracles is estimated; then,theirinternalcharacterisinvestigated;then,theargumentintheirbehalfingeneralispresented;andfinallythemajorportionoftheessayisgivento a detailed attempt to demonstrate that a few selected miracles ofgreaterintrinsiclikelihoodandbetterattestationthanthemass,actuallyhappened—suchasthoseofthethunderinglegion,thechangingofwaterintooilbyNarcissus,thealterationofthecourseoftheLycusbyGregoryThaumaturgus,theappearanceofthecrosstoConstantine,thediscoveryof the cross by Helena, the death of Arius, the fiery eruption whichstopped Julian's attempt to build the temple at Jerusalem, the cure ofblindness by relics, and the speech of the African confessors withouttongues. Everywhere the reader is charmed by the delightful style, andeverywherehe is ledonbythehandofamaster-reasonerbendingfactsandreasonaliketofollowthepathappointedforthem.

The opening argument runs as follows. Although there may be acertain antecedent probability against this or that particular miracle,there can be no presumption whatever againstmiracles generally afterthe Apostles, because inspiration has borne the brunt of any suchantecedent prejudice, and, in establishing the certainty of thesupernaturalhistoriesoftheScriptures,hasdisprovedtheirimpossibilityin the abstract. The skilfulness of this is beyondpraise. By keeping hisreader's attention fixed on the possibility of miracles in the abstract,Newman quite distracts it from the decisive question in the case—whether the scriptural histories of miracles do not themselves raise a

presumption against the alleged miracles succeeding them. At a laterpoint, to be sure, this question is raised. But only in a special form,namely, whether the difference between the biblical and ecclesiasticalmiraclesisnotsogreatthatthelatterbecomeimprobableiftheformerbeadmitted.Adifferenceisallowed;butitsimplicationsareavoidedbyanappealtotheanalogyofnature,inprofessedimitationofJosephButler.Itisargued,namely,thatthecaseisverymuchlikethatofamanfamiliaronly with the noblest animals, which have been subjected to humandominion, who is suddenly introduced into a zoological garden and,perceiving the great variety of animal nature, the hideousness anduselessness ofmuchof it, is led to deny that all couldhave come fromGod.Thus,saysNewman,oneaccustomedtoonlythenoblemiraclesofScripturemaybepardonedsomedoubtwhenintroducedintothejunglesof ecclesiastical history. But doubt here too should pass away withincreasingknowledgeandabroadeningoutlookonthedivinepowerandworks. This is the argument of the second section, on the "internalcharacter of ecclesiastical miracles." But the real grounds of thepresumption against ecclesiastical miracles are never adverted to—namelythatScripturerepresentsmiraclestobeattachedtotheApostles,the vehicles of revelation, as their signs, and thus raises an antecedentpresumptionagainstanymiracleshavingoccurredaftertheirage;thatonthe testimonyof historymiracles accordingly ceasedwith theApostolicage, and only after an interval are heard of again; that, when heard ofagain, they are the apparent progeny of the apocryphalmiracles of theGnosticandEbioniticromancesofthesecondandthirdcenturiesandnotof themiracles of the New Testament; that they accordingly differ notonlytotocœlo from themiraclesof theScripture inkind,but areoftenwroughtinsupportofsuperstitionsnotonlyforeigntothereligionoftheBible,butincontradictiontoit.OfallthisNewmansaysnotaword,andhemanages to carry the reader so along with him by an exhibition ofcandorwhencandorisharmlessthatthereisdangerofitsbeingforgottenthatofallthisanythingoughttobesaid.

Thesectiononthestateoftheargumentbeginspolemically,butsoonreturns to themain point, namely that the case is to be settled on thegroundofantecedentprobability.This is thenatonce resolved into thequestion of the doctrine of the church. Newman, it is true, expresses

himself as if what he was handling was the reality of Christianity. Hewarnsusthatscepticismheremay,nay,must,beatbottom"disbeliefinthegracecommitted to thechurch."Hesuggests that thosewhorealizethatthebodiesofthesaintsinlifearetheTemplesoftheHighestoughtnot to feel offense ifmiracles arewrought by these bodies after death.Finally,heenunciatesthepropositionthat"itmaybetakenasageneraltruth that, where there is an admission of Catholic doctrines, there noprejudice will exist against ecclesiastical miracles; while those whodisbelieve in the existence among us of the hidden Power will eagerlyavail themselves of every plea for explaining away its openmanifestation."48

This again is very skilfully put. But there is no reason why thejudgment expressed should not be concurred in without debate. ACatholic,believing first in thedivinityof thechurchas theorganof theHolyGhost,inwhichHeismadeadepositforthewholeworld,andfromwhichaloneHecanbeobtained;andbelieving,next, in the truthof allthedistinctiveteachingsofthischurch,astomonasticismandasceticism,relicsandsaints,transubstantiation,andthelike, inhonorofwhichtheallegedmiraclesareperformed—willnaturallybepredisposedtobelievethese miracles real. A Protestant, believing none of these things, butlooking upon them as corruptions of the Gospel, will as naturally bepredisposed to believe them spurious. In this sense, every Protestantmustdenytheexistenceof"thehiddenPoweramongus"whichNewmanaffirms,andhencecannoteitherexpectorallow"openmanifestations"ofit.We believe in a wonder-working God; but not in a wonder-workingchurch.ThustheeffectofNewman'sargument,whenonceitisprobed,isto uncover the root of the matter, and to make clear just what thepresumption against ecclesiastical miracles is. It matters not that heproceedstocitethelasttwelveversesofMarkandtobuildanargumentupon the promise included in them. The spuriousness of the passageevacuatestheargument.It isameaninglessexcrescence,however,uponhisargumentinanycase.Thatultimatelycomesmerelytothehistoricalcausafinitaest:ecclesialocutaest.

The examination of the evidence for selected miracles which ispresentedattheendofthevolumeisaninterestingpieceofwork,butis

unconvincingforthemainmatter.Thattheconclusionineachcaselackscogencymaybeshowninonewayoranother;butitisnotnecessarytodothis.Newmanhimselfallowsthatthegeneralconclusionreachedrestsonthe antecedent presumption; and that that depends on our attitude toRomandoctrine.Foritsinherentinterest,however,wemayglanceforamoment at the last, and perhaps themost striking, of the instances ofmiraclestheevidenceforwhichNewmantreatsfully.ItisthemiracleofthecontinuedspeechoftheAfricanconfessorsdeprivedoftheirtonguesby the cruelty of Hunneric in 484. The evidence, which is especiallyprofuseandgood,isdetailedwithgreatskill.Wereallycannotdoubttheunderlyingfact.Thetonguesofthesemartyrswerecutout,cutoutbytheroots;andoneormoreofthemwereknownatConstantinopleashavingstillthepowertospeak.Themiracleisinferred.Theinference,however,isnot stringent. It curiously emerges as aphysiological fact that amanwith half a tongue cannot speak, but amanwith no tongue at all can.Newmanknewthis fact.MiddletonhadadducedtwoFrenchcases—oneofagirlbornwithouta tonguewhoyet talkeddistinctlyandeasily, theother of a boy who had lost his tongue without losing his faculty ofspeech.Newmanjudgedthattheseinstanceslefthismiracleuntouched.Butotherevidencewassoonadduced.Ithappensthattheexcisionofthetongue is a form of punishment repeatedly inflicted in the East, and abody of evidence has grown up there which puts it beyond cavil thatexcisionofthetongue,ifthoroughlydone,doesnotdestroythepowerofspeech. In his later editions, while recording this evidence in anappendix, Newman is still unable frankly to allow that this is whathappenedtotheAfricanmartyrs.49

PerhapsIoughttomentionbeforeleavingNewman'sbookthatithasbeensubjectedtoaverythoroughexamination,andhasbeengivenaverycompleterefutationbyEdwinA.Abbott,inavolume-devotedwhollytoit, published under the significant title of Philomythus.50 And, havingmentionedthisbook,perhapsIoughttosayfurtherthatthesamewriterhasalsopublishedaveryextendeddiscussionofthemiraclesofThomasŕBecket,51 under the impression that some sort of a parallel might bedrawn between them and the miracles of the New Testament, to thedisadvantageoftheacknowledgmentofthetrulymiraculouscharacterofthelatter.Nothingfurtherneedbesaidofthisthanwhathasbeenbriefly

saidbyA.G.Headlaminthecourseofadiscussionofmiracles,whichhereadat theChurchCongressatMiddlesbrough(1912).52 "ReferencehasbeenmadetomiraclesofSt.ThomasofCanterbury,"hesays, "and it ismaintainedthatthosemiraclesaresupportedbyasgoodevidenceastheGospel narratives, and that they represent just the same strong ethicalcharacter that our Lord's work did. I do not think that any one whomakes assertions of this sort can have looked at the evidence for amoment.WehaveveryfullaccountsofthelifeofThomasŕBecket,andwe have many letters written by him. In none whatever of the earlynarratives is there any reference tomiracles performed in his lifetime.Neither he himself nor his contemporaries claimed that he couldworkmiracles. The stories ofmiraculoushappenings are entirely confined tothe miracles believed to have been worked by his dead body after hisdeath, and these narratives are exactly of the same character as thoserecorded at Lourdes, for example, at the present day. Many of themrepresentanswerstoprayerswhichwereofferedupindifferentpartsoftheworldinthenameofSt.Thomas,manyofthemaretrivial,andsomerepellent. Some doubtless represent real cures, which were workedamongthosewhowentonapilgrimage,justastherecanbenodoubtthatreal cures are experienced by those who go to Lourdes. What theircharactermaybeweneednotdiscussatthismoment,butthewholetoneofthenarrativerepresentssomethingquitedifferentfromanythingthatweexperiencewhenreadingthestoryoftheGospel."

Wereturnnowtothemainquestion:Whatarewetothinkofthesemiracles? There is but one historical answer which can be given. Theyrepresentaninfusionofheathenmodesofthoughtintothechurch.Ifwewishtotracethisheatheninfusionalongthelineofliterarydevelopment,wemusttakeourstartfromthoseApocryphalActsofEncratitetendencywhich,inaformerlecture,wehadoccasiontopointtoasnaturalizingtheheathenwonder-tales—then a fashionable literary form—in the church.Oncenaturalized in the church, theseChristianwonder-talesdevelopedalongthelineofthechurch'sowndevelopment.Astimewenton,E.vonDobschütz explains, the churchdrewever closer to theEncratite idealswhichwereglorified in theApocryphalActs,and itwas thiswhichgavetheirtendencytothenewChristianromanceswhichbegantomultiplyinthe later fourth century, and are represented to us especially by

Athanasius'Life of Antony, and Jerome's Lives of Paul, Hilarion, andMalchus."Whetherthereisanyhistoricalkernelinthemornot,"remarksVon Dobschütz,53 "they are exactly like the older Christian romances,described already, in their fundamental traits—loose structure,miraculousness and asceticism." The state of the case is fairly broughtbefore us by R. Reitzenstein, when, after expounding at length therelevant details, he states his conclusion thus:54 "I think I may nowventuretosaythattheprophetandphilosopheraretalogiessuppliedtheliterarymodel for the Christian Acts of the Apostles. . . . But in orderproperlytofeeltheextentandinfluenceofthisliterature,wemustfollowtheChristianaretalogyastepfurther....Thisnewliteraturearose,asiswell known, when, after the victory of Christianity, the interest of thecommunity shifted from the portrait of the ideal missionary to thestrange figuresof thehermits andmonks.Forus there comeespeciallyinto consideration Athanasius' Life of Antony, and the two greatcollectionsoftheHistoriaMonachorumandtheHistoriaLausiaca;onlyinthesecondrank,theLivesofPaulandHilarionbyJerome."

Ithasbeenmuchdisputedoflate,whethertheworkwhichstandsatthe head of this literature, Athanasius' Life of Antony, is reallyAthanasius'or is aworkof fiction.Perhapswedonotneed to treat thealternative as absolute.Thebook can scarcely bedenied toAthanasius,andifweconceiveitasaworkoffiction,itceasestobewhollyunworthyofhim."InspiteofitsbadGreek—Athanasiuswasanythingbutamasterof form"—writes Reitzenstein,55 "the book belongs distinctly to thecategoryof 'great literature,'anditsappearancemaybespokenofasaneventofworld-historicalimportance."T.R.Glover,whoconsidersthatithasbeendemonstratedthatthebookisa"workoffiction,"pointsout56

that"itwasfictionasUncleTom'sCabinwasfiction,"andwroughtevenmorepowerfully;"ofall thebooksof the fourthcentury ithadthemostimmediate and wide-spread influence, which, though outgrown by us,lasted on to the Renaissance." How great the misfortune was that theasceticidealshouldbecommendedtotheworld-wearypeopleofGodinthisageofdyingheathenismthroughthemediumofaromanceofsuchundeniablepower,theeventonlytoosadlyshowed.Theelevationofthework above its successive imitators Jerome's Paul and Hilarion andMalchus, Sulpitius Severus's Martin and beyond—is immense.

Reitzensteinsuggests it tous57 in the contrasthedrawsbetween it andJerome's Life of Hilarion. It is Jerome's obvious purpose to outvieAthanasius, andhe does itwith vigor. "Thedifference between the twoworks,"saysReitzenstein,"iscertainlyverygreat.Athanasiushandledthemiraculousnarrativeasaconcession tohispublic, laidall thestressonthedisciplineofthemonk,andpreciselythusraisedtheworktoavaluewhich must be felt even by one who is filled with horror by thispedagogically presented union of the fervor of Christian faith andEgyptiansuperstition.JeromehasretrenchedeventhepreachingandtheexhortationwhichformthereligiouskerneloftheheathenaswellastheChristian aretalogy; the miracle narrative is its own end; it is 'greathistory'whichheisgiving,andhepresentsitbythismeans."58

Thusanewliteraturesprangupsynchronouslywithmonasticism—amonkish belletristic, as A. Harnack calls it.59 ''Feuilletonists inmonks'clothing made romances and novels out of the real and inventedexperiencesof thepenitents,andtheancientworlddelighted itselfwiththis preciosity of renunciation."Themiraculouswas in this literature amatterofcourse;andtheever-swellingaccountsofmiraclesinthatageofexcitedsuperstitiontransferredthemselveswithimmensefacilitytolife."The martyr-legend," says H. Günter strikingly, at the opening of hisLegend-Studies,60"isolderthantheChristianmartyrs—ofcoursewithagrainofsalt—initspresuppositions";andthesameistrueofthemonk-legends. Günter illustrates what the martyr-legend did with Biblepassages by bidding us observe what is done in theActs of Peter andAndrewwithChrist'ssayingaboutthecamelpassingthroughtheeyeofaneedle.This aretalogist is so zealous for the savingof richmen thathemakes a camel actually pass repeatedly through the eye of the smallestneedle that can be found, before our very eyes.61 There is nothing toohard for the monkish legend. A veil of miracle settles down overeverything,coveringupallhistoricalandindividualtraits.

An admirable summary of what took place in the church itself,parallelwith this literarydevelopment, is drawnupbyRobertRainy inthecourseofhisgeneraldescriptionoftheeffectsoftheintroductionofmonasticism into the church. "The stimulus which was applied to thefancy and to nervous tendencies," says he,62 "is revealed also by the

extraordinaryharvestofvisions,demoniacalassaults,andmiracleswhichfollowedinitswake.TheoccurrenceofsomemarvelshadbeenassociatedallalongwithChristianhistory,intimesofpersecutionespecially,andinother cases of great trial. But both in type and in number these hadhithertooccupiedacomparativelymodestplace,andtheChristianfeelinghadbeenthatmiraclescomparable to theGospelmiracleshad forgoodreasonspassed away.But fromAntonyonward themiraculous elementincreases, and by the end of the fourth century it had overflowed theworld. Asceticismwas one cause; another, which operated in the sameway,wasthemoodofmindnowprevailinginregardtotherelicsofthesaints. Illustrations of the first may be found abundantly in SulpitiusSeverus.Fortheeffectofrelics,notehowAugustine,whoinearlierdaysrecognized the comparative absence of the miraculous from Christianexperience,inlaterlifequalifiedandvirtuallyretractsthestatement.Forin themeantime not only had asceticism begun to bear fruits, but therelics of St. Stephen had come into Africa, and miracles everywherefollowedintheirtrain;andsuchmiracles!"

When we say that this great harvest of miracles thus produced inChristiansoil,fromthelatefourthcenturyon,inconnectionwiththeriseofthemonasticmovement,wasatransplantationfromheathendom,wedo notmean to imply that the particularmiracles thus produced owednothing to the Christian soil in which they grew. As they were theproductsofhumanhopesandfears,andhumanity is fundamentallythesameinallagesandunderallskies,miracle-storiesofthiskindpresentageneralfamilylikenessinalltimesandinallreligiousenvironments.Butthey are, of course, colored also by the special modes of thinking andfeeling of the peoples among whom they severally rise, and Christianmiracle-stories will, therefore, inevitably be Christian in their groundtone.C.F.Arnolddescribesverystrikinglythedifferenceincharacterandunderlying postulates between the miraculous stories which grew upamong the Christian population of southern Gaul and those of theheathenwhichtheysupplanted.HeisspeakingofthetimeofCćsariusofAries, inthefirsthalfofthesixthcentury."Besidesmarvelsofhealing,"he says,63 "many other marvels are also related. It is easy to say thatmedićvalbarbarismrevealsitselfinsuchrecords.Butwemustnotforgetthat not only are the books of Apuleius filled with the wildest

superstitions, but even such a highly educated heathen as the youngerPlinybelievedinthesilliestghost-stories.Wenotonlyperceiveinthisareflectionoffolk-beliefamongtheeducated,butweareespeciallystruckwith the naturalism, the passive character of heathen religiousness.Christian superstition as it meets us in the environment of Cćsarius,alwaysdiffersfromtheheathenbyitsdoubleidealbackground.First,wearemet in itwithachildlikeformofvital faithinProvidence,which, inthesedaysofpracticalpessimismandmaterialism,wemightalmostenvythat time.Secondly, therespeaks tous in it,not fear in thepresenceofthe blind forces of nature, as in heathen superstition, but a certainconfidenceinthevictoryofthespiritovernature.Fromapracticalpointofviewthissuperstitionwroughtgreatevil,becauseithinderedfightingagainstphysical illswith theweaponwithwhich theyshouldhavebeenfought—that is, by God-trusting labor. Sickness was fought as if it hadbeensin,withprayer;while,ontheotherhand,sinwasfoughtasifithadbeen sickness,withdiligence in ascetic practices."Even aman so greatand wise as Cćsarius was not able to escape this deeply rootedsuperstition. He shared, as Arnold phrases it, the fundamental errorwhich,fromatheologicalstandpoint,underlaythiswholemiraclethirst:the error of failing to distinguish between the epoch of the creation ofsalvation and that of its appropriation. But Cćsarius was wise enough,while not denying that miracles still happened, to minimize theirimportance,andtopointrather tospiritualwondersas thethingstobesought.64''WhatistheexampleofChristthatwearetofollow?"heasks."Is it that we should raise the dead? Is it that we should walk on thesurfaceofthesea?Notatall;butthatweshouldbemeekandhumbleofheart,andshouldlovenotonlyourfriendsbutalsoourenemies."

As themiraculous stories of the populace thus took on aChristiancomplexionwhenthepeoplewhoproducedthembecameChristian,andbecamenowthevehiclesofChristianfaithinProvidenceandofhopeintheGodwhoisthemakerandrulerofthewholeearth;sotheyreflectalsotheothercurrentsofpopularbeliefandfeelingoftheday.Alongseriesmightbegleaned fromthemedićval records, forexample,which reflecttheingrainedbeliefinmagicwhichtingedthethoughtofanagesolittleinstructedinthetruecharacteroftheforcesofnature,andespeciallyitsdeeplyseatedconceptionoftheessentiallymagicalnatureofreligionand

itsmodesofworking.PaulSabatier,inhisLifeofFrancisofAssisi,citesanumberofinstancesofthekind,65fromwhichwemaycullthefollowing."Inonecaseaparrotbeingcarriedawaybyakiteutteredtheinvocationdear to his master, 'sancte Thoma, adjuva me,' and was immediatelyrescued.InanotheramerchantofGroningen,havingpurloinedanarmofSt.JohntheBaptist,grewrichasifbyenchantment,solongashekeptitconcealedinhishouse,butwasreducedtobeggarysosoonas,hissecretbeing discovered, the relic was taken away from him and placed in achurch.""AchroniclerrelatesthatthebodyofSt.MartinofTourshad,in887,beensecretlytransportedtosomeremotehiding-placeforfearoftheDanish invasion.Whenthe timecameforbringing ithomeagain, therewere in Touraine two impostors, men who, thanks to their infirmity,gainedlargesumsbybegging.Theywerethrownintogreatterrorbythetidingsthattherelicswerebeingbroughtback;St.Martinwouldcertainlyhealthemandtakeawaytheirmeansoflivelihood!Theirfearswereonlytoowell founded. They had taken to flight; but being too lame towalkfast, they had not yet crossed the frontier of Touraine when the saintarrivedandhealedthem."Themedićvalchroniclesarefullofsuchstoriesinwhichthecrasspopularthoughtoftheageexpressesitself.Folk-talesare, after all, folk-tales, and must embody the people's ideas andsentiments.

One result is that the production of miraculous stories cannot beconfinedtoauthorizedmodesof thinking.If thedominantecclesiasticalpowersavailthemselvesoftheuniversaltendencytothemanufactureoffolk-stories in order to commend their system, they must expect toreckonwith entirely similar stories supporting what they look upon asheresy.Itaccordinglyhappensthatthehereticsofallagesareatleastaswellprovidedwith supportingmiraclesas thechurch itself. IfCatholicstook advantage of the tendency to superstition abroad in the world toconquer the unbeliever, it was but natural that "heretics often tookadvantage of this thirst for the marvellous to dupe the Catholics. TheCathari ofMoncevalmade a portrait of the Virgin, representing her asone-eyedandtoothless,sayingthat,inHishumility,Christhadchosenavery ugly woman formother. They had no difficulty in healing severalcasesofdiseaseby itsmeans; the imagebecamefamous,wasveneratedalmosteverywhere,andaccomplishedmanymiracles,untilthedaywhen

thehereticsdivulgedthedeception,tothegreatscandalofthefaithful."66

AmoreentertainingincidentofthesamekindoccurredinFranceinthefirsthalfoftheeighteenthcentury.TheJansenistshadtheirmiracles,you will understand, as well as the Jesuits. A young Jansenist cleric,François de Paris, was a particularly warm opponent of Clement XIV'sbullUnigenitus.Thisdidnotpreventhisacquiringagreatreputationforsanctity. He died in 1727. Scarcely was this admirable man dead, saysMosheim,67thananimmensecrowdflockedaroundhisbody,kissinghisfeet,securinglocksofhishair,books,andclothinghehadused,andthelike; and immediately the wonder-working power that was expected,appeared.Neithertheexcitementnorthemiraculousphenomenashowedany sign of ceasing after the burial of the good abbé. His tomb in thechurchyard of St. Médard became the resort of the Jansenistconvulsionnaires,andtheconstantsceneofatoncethemostmarvellousandthemostfantasticmiracles.InafewyearshisgravehadgrownintoafamousshrinetowhichmencameincrowdsfromalloverFrancetobecuredoftheirdiseases,andatwhichprophecies,speakingwithtongues,and ecstatic phenomena of all sorts daily took place. This could not beotherthangravelydispleasingtotheJesuits,andastheJesuitswerethepowerbehindthethrone,itcouldnotbepermittedtocontinue.Tocheckitseemed,however,difficult ifnotimpossible.Atlasttheexpedientwasadoptedofenclosing the tombso thatnonemightapproach it.This,nodoubt,broughtmiraclesatthegraveitselftoanend,thoughitcouldnotcalm the general excitement. And some wag turned the tables on theJesuitsbychalkingingreatlettersontheenclosure,afterthemannerofaroyalproclamation,thesewords:68

DeparleRoy,défenceŕDieuDefairemiracleencelieu.

ThewholeincidentofthemiraclesofSt.Médardisfullofinstructionforusastotheoriginandcharacterofthemiracle-working69whichfillstheannalsofthepatristicandmedićvalchurch.70

ROMANCATHOLICMIRACLES

It would be natural to suppose that the superstitions whichflourished luxuriantly in the Middle Ages would be unable to sustainthemselvesinthecleareratmosphereofthetwentiethcentury."Weshallhave no repetition of medićval miracles," says W. F. Cobb with someshowofconviction,1 "for thesimplereasonthat faith inGodhasoustedcredulity in nature." When we speak thus, however, we are reckoningwithout the churchofRome.For the churchofRome,while existing inthe twentieth century, is not of it. As Yrjö Hirn crisply puts it:2 "TheCatholic Church is aMiddleAgewhich has survived into the twentiethcentury."PreciselywhathappenedtothechurchofRomeatthatepochinthehistoryofChristianitywhichwecalltheReformation,wasthatitbentitsbacksturdilytocarryonwithitallthelumberwhichhadaccumulatedinthegarretsandcellarsofthechurchthroughamillenniumandahalfof difficult living. It is that part of the church which refused to bereformed;whichrefused,thatis,tofreeitselffromtheaccretionswhichhad attached themselves to Christianity during its long struggle withinvading superstition. Binding these closely to its heart, it has broughtthemdownwithittothepresenthour.3ThechurchofRome,accordingly,canpointtoabodyofmiracles,wroughtinourowndayandgeneration,as large and as striking as those of any earlier period of the church'shistory. And when the annals of the marvels of the nineteenth andtwentieth centuries come tobe collected, there is no reason to supposethat they will compare unfavorably in point either of number ormarvellousness with those of any of the "ages of faith" which haveprecededthem.ThiscontinuousmanifestationofsupernaturalpowersinitsbosomconstitutesoneoftheproudestboastsofthechurchofRome;byit,itconceivesitselfdifferentiated,say,fromtheProtestants;andinititfindsoneofitschiefcredentialsasthesoleorganofGodAlmightyforthesavingofthewickedworld.4

We had occasion in a previous lecture to point out that this greatstreamofmiracle-workingwhichhasrunthusthroughthehistoryofthechurchwasnotoriginaltothechurch,butentereditfromwithout.5Thechannelwhichwethenindicatedwasnottheonlyonethroughwhichit

flowed into the church. It was not even the most direct one. Thefundamental factwhichshouldbeborne inmind is thatChristianity, incoming into theworld, came into aheathenworld. It found itself, as itmade its way ever more deeply into the world, ever more deeplyimmersed inaheathenatmospherewhichwasheavywithmiracle.Thisheathenatmosphere,ofcourse,penetrateditateverypore,andaffectedits interpretationof existence in all thehappeningsofdailyHfe. Itwasnot merely, however, that Christians could not be immune from theinfectionof theheathenmodesof thoughtprevalentabout them.Itwasthat the church was itself recruited from the heathen community.Christians were themselves but baptized heathen, and brought theirheathenconceptionsintothechurchwiththem,littlechangedinallthatwasnotobviouslyatvariancewiththeirChristianconfession.Hethatwasunrighteous,bythegraceofGoddidnotdounrighteousnessstill;nordidhe that was filthy remain filthy still. But he that was superstitiousremained superstitious still; and he who lived in a world of marvelslookedforandfoundmarvelshappeningallabouthimstill.Inthissensetheconqueringchurchwasconqueredbytheworldwhichitconquered.

It is possible that we very commonly underestimate themarvellousness of the world with which the heathen imaginationsurroundeditself,crippledasitwasbyitsignoranceofnaturallaw,andinflamed by the most incredible superstition. Perhaps we equallyunderestimatetheextenttowhichthisheathenviewoftheworldpassedover into the church. Th. Trede bids us keep well in mind thatChristianity did not bring belief inmiracles into the world; it found itthere.Thewholereligionoftheheathenturnedonit;whattheykepttheirgods for was just miracles. As Theodore Mommsen puts it in a singlesentence:6"TheRomangodswereinthefirstinstanceinstrumentswhichwere employed for attaining very concrete earthly ends"—and then headds,verysignificantly,"apointofviewwhichappearsnotlesssharplyinthesaint-worshipofpresent-dayItaly.""Thepower,"saysTrede,7"whichintheRomanEmpiresetthestatereligiongoing,aswellasthenumerouslocal,social,andfamilycults,wasbeliefinmiracles.Thegods,conceivedas protecting beings, as undoubted powers in the world, but as easilyoffended, were, by the honor brought to them in their worship, to bemade and kept disposed to interpose in the course of nature for the

benefit of theirworshippers, in protecting, helping, succoring, rescuingthem; that is to say, were to work miracles. Belief in miracles wasinvolved in belief in the gods; only denial of the gods could producedenialofmiracles."Enlargingonthematterwithespecialreferencetothethirdcentury,Tredecontinues:8"Inthethirdcenturyreligiousbeliefwassteepedinbeliefinmiracles.Intheirthinkingandintheirbelievingmenfloatedinaworldofmiracleslikeafishinwater.Themoremiraculousastory the more readily it found believing acceptance. There was noquestion of criticism, however timid; the credulity of even educatedpeople reached anunheard-ofmeasure, aswell as thenumber of thosewho, as deceived or deceivers, no longer knew how to distinguishbetweentruthandfalsehood.Thoseoftheoldfaith(theheathen)hadnodoubtofthemiraclesofthoseofthenewfaith(theChristians),andviceversa. The whole population of the Roman Empire was caught in agiganticnetofsuperstition,theproductofthecombinedworkofEastandWest.Thereneverwasasocietysoenlightenedandsoblaséthatlivedsoentirelyintheworldofthesupernatural."Andhetoodrawstheparallelwith our own times. He adduces the incredible things related by anAristides and an Ćlian, and then adds:9 "Things just like this are stillrelated...ĆlianandAristidesarestillliving,asthemiracle-storiesatthefamous places of pilgrimage show. We mention here the miracles atLourdes and Pompeii nuova, which afford a very close likeness of thedoingsofthethirdcentury.Themiraclesofthenineteenthcenturyrecallthoseofthethird."

Are we then to discredit out of hand the teeming multitudes ofwonderswhich fill the annals of the church despite their attestation indetail bymenofprobity and renown?What credit canbeaccorded thetestimonyofmenevenofprobityand renown inmatters inwhich theyshow themselves quite color-blind? TakeAugustine, for example. AdolfHarnack declares,10 and declares truly, that he was incomparably thegreatest man whom the Christian church possessed "between Paul theApostle and Luther the Reformer." And, perhaps more to our presentpurpose, therewasnothing inwhichheovertoppedhis contemporariesandsuccessorsmoremarkedlythaninhishighsenseofthesacrednessoftruth and his strict regard for veracity in speech. In contrastwith "thepriestsandtheologians"ofhistime,who,onoccasion,"liedshamelessly,"

Harnack,forexample,callshim11"Augustinethetruthful,"andthatwithfull right. There is no one towhomwe could gowithmore confidence,whether on the score of his ability or his trustworthiness, than toAugustine,toassureusofwhatreallyhappenedinanyordinarymatter.Yet, whenever it is a case ofmarvellous happenings, he shows himselfquite unreliable. Here he is a child of his times and cannot rise abovethem.Whatvaluecanbeattachedtothetestimonytowondersbyaman,howeverwiseinothermattersandhowevertrue-heartedweknowhimtobe, who can, for example, tell us gravely that peacock's flesh isincorruptible—heknowsitbecausehehastriedit?"WhenIfirstheardofit,"hetellsus,12"itseemedtomeincredible;butithappenedatCarthagethat abirdof this kindwas cookedand servedup tome, and, taking asliceoffleshfromitsbreast,Iorderedittobekept,andwhenithadbeenkeptasmanydaysasmakeanyotherfleshoffensive,itwasproducedandsetbeforeme,andemittednounpleasantodor.Andafterithadbeenlaidbyforthirtydaysmore,itwasstillinthesamestate;andayearafter,thesamestill,exceptthatitwasalittlemoreshrivelledanddrier."

Takeanotherexamplewhichbringsusclosertoourpresenttheme.Augustinetellsus13thatintheneighboringtownofTulliumtheredweltacountrymannamedCurma,wholayunconsciousforsomedays,sickuntodeath,andinthisstatesawintotheotherworld,asinadream.Whenhecametohimself,thefirstthinghedidwastosay:"LetsomeonegotothehouseofCurmathesmith,andseehowitiswithhim."Curmathesmithwas foundtohavediedat theverymoment inwhichCurmathe farmer"hadreturnedtohissensesandalmostbeenresuscitatedfromdeath."HethentoldthathehadheardinthatplacewhencehehadjustreturnedthatitwasnotCurmathefarmerbutCurmathesmithwhohadbeenorderedtobebrought to theplaceof thedead.Augustine,now, tellsus thatheknewthisman,andatthenextEasterbaptizedhim.Itwasnotuntiltwoyears later, however, thathe learnedofhis vision; but thenhe sent forhim and had him bringwitnesseswith him.He had his story fromhisown lips and verified all the circumstantial facts carefully by thetestimony of others who had first-hand knowledge of them—Curma'ssickness, his recovery, his narrative of what had befallen him, and thetimelydeathoftheotherCurma.Henotonlyhimselfbelievesitall,butclearlyexpectshisreaderstobelieveitonthegroundofhistestimony.

This, however, is only the beginning. Gregory the Great tells thesame story14—not, however, on the authority of Augustine as havinghappenedtoCurmaofTullium,butashavinghappenedwithinhisownknowledge to an acquaintanceofhis own—"the illustriousStephen,"hecallshim,amanwellknown(andthatmeansfavorablyknown),hesays,toPeter,thefriendtowhomheiswriting.Stephen,hesays,hadrelatedtohimfrequentlyhiswonderfulexperience.HehadgonetoConstantinopleon business, and, falling sick, had died there. The embalmers being alittledifficulttogetat,thebodywasfortunatelyleftovernightunburied.Meanwhile the soul was conducted to the lower regions and broughtbeforethejudge.Thejudge,however,repelledit,saying:"Itwasnotthisone,butStephen thesmith that Iordered tobebrought."Thesoulwasimmediatelyreturnedtothebody,andStephenthesmith,wholivednearby, died at that very hour. Thus it was proved that "the illustriousStephen"hadreallyheard thewordsof the judge; thedeathofStephenthesmithdemonstratedit.Arewebound,onthecreditofAugustineandGregory, both of whom relate it as having happened within their ownknowledgetoacquaintancesoftheirown,tobelievethatthisthingreallydidhappen,happenedtwice,andinbothcasesthroughoneofthesamenamebeingmistakenforasmith?

Wearenotyet,however,attheendofthematter.Thesamestoryisrelatedby theheathensatiristLucian,15writingas farbackas the thirdquarter of the second century—two hundred and fifty years beforeAugustine, and three hundred and fifty years before Gregory. Only,Lucian has this advantage over his Christian successors in his way oftelling it, that he does not tell it as having really happened, but in arollicking mood, laughing at the superstitions of his time. He bringsbeforeus a chancegatheringofmen,who, in their conversation, fall tovyingwithoneanotherin"romancing"oftheirsupernaturalexperiences.Oneofthem,aPeripatetic,namedCleodemus,makesthiscontributiontothe conversation. "I had become ill, and Antigonus here was attendingme.Thefeverhadbeenonmeforsevendays,andwasnowaggravatedbytheexcessiveheat.Allmyattendantswereoutside,havingclosedthedoorand leftme tomyself; thosewere your orders, you know, Antigonus; Iwas to get some sleep if I could.Well, I woke up to find a handsomeyoungmanstandingbymyside,inawhitecloak.Heraisedmeupfrom

thebed,andconductedmethroughasortofachasmintoHades;IknewwhereIwasatonce,becauseIsawTantalusandTityusandSisyphus,Nottogointodetails,Icametothejudgment-hall,andtherewereĆacusandCharon, and the Fates and the Furies. One person of a majesticappearance—Pluto,Isupposeitwas—satreadingoutthenamesofthosewhowereduetodie,theirtermoflifehavinglapsed.Theyoungmantookmeandsetmebeforehim,butPlutoflewintoarage:'Awaywithhim,'hesaidtomyconductor;'histhreadisnotyetout;goandfetchDemylusthesmith;hehashadhisspindlefulandmore!'Iranoffhome,nothingloath.Myfeverhadnowdisappeared,andItoldeverybodythatDemyluswasasgoodasdead.Helivedcloseby,andwassaidtohavesomeillness,anditwasnotlongbeforeweheardthevoicesofmournersinhishouse."

ThelateJamesPayne,thenovelist,usedwhimsicallytocontendthatfiction did not imitate life as was commonly supposed, but, on thecontrary, life imitated fiction;aromancercouldnot inventamotive,hesaid,howeverbizarre, but a lot of peoplewould soonbe found stagingcopiesofitinreallife.Perhapsonsomesuchtheorywemightdefendthereality of the occurrences related by Augustine and Gregory as havinghappenedwithin their own knowledge. Scarcely on any other. That thesourceofAugustine'sandGregory'sstoriesliesinLucian'sistooobviousto requirearguing;even thedoomedsmith is common toall three,andthe strong heathen coloring of the story is not obscured, in Gregory'sversion at least, which clearly is independent of Augustine's. HeinrichGünterhasaningenioustheorydesignedtosavethecreditofthesaints.Hesupposes16thatthestorymighthavebeensowidelyknownthatsickpeoplewouldbelikelytoreproduceit intheirfevereddreams."Tosuchanextent,"he remarks, "hadcertain imaginaryconceptionsbecome thecommon property of the people that they repeated themselves asautosuggestionsanddreams."17Onewouldpresume,evenso,thatwhenthe dreamers woke up, they would recognize their dreams as oldacquaintances;andhowshallweaccountforAugustineandGregorynotrecognizingsuchwell-knownstoriescirculatingsouniversallyamongthemasses, when they were told them as fresh experiences of the otherworld?

HippolyteDelehayefranklygivesuptheefforttosavethecreditofall

parties."Itisimpossibletobemistaken,"hecomments.18"ThatfriendofSt.Gregory'swasanunscrupulousperson,whobraggedofhavingbeentheheroofastorywhichhehadreadinthebooks.TosaynothingofSt.Augustine,Plutarchcouldhavetaughtittohim,andbetterstill,Lucian."NothingissaidheretosaveAugustine'sreputationfortruthfulness;andif Gregory's honor is saved it is at the expense not only of his friendStephen's,butalsoofhisownintelligence.CouldnotGregory,aswellasStephen, have read his Plutarch or his Lucian, to say nothing of hisAugustine,whomofcoursehehadread,thoughequallyofcoursehehadnot rememberedhim?Andhowcouldhehave listened toand repeatedStephen's tale without noting the heathen coloring of it, which aloneshouldhavestampedit tohimasabitofromancing?R.Reitzenstein isnotsotenderofthehonorofthesaintsasDelehaye,andhastheoriesofhis own to consider. The close agreement of the details of the story asAugustine tells it with Lucian's version, as well as the use whichAugustinemakesofit,"leavenodoubt,"hethinks,19"thatAugustinehassimplytransferredtohisowntimeanearlyChristianmiracle-tale,knownto him in literary form, without taking offense at this ψευδός, whichobviouslybelongstothestyle; thatearlyChristianstoryhavingbeenonits part taken almost verbally from a heathen motive." Gregory issupposedtohavederivedindirectlyfromAugustine—which,wemaysayinpassing,isimpossible,sinceGregory'sstoryismuchclosertoLucian'sthan Augustine's is. And wemay say, also in passing, that there is noproofofthecirculationofthestoryinawrittenearlyChristianform,andnojustificationforrepresentingAugustineasreceivingitfromanyothersource than that which he himself expressly indicates—namely thenarrativeofCurma.Augustine comesout of the affairwithhis feathersruffledenough;weneednotgratuitouslyrufflethemmore.

With Reitzenstein we pass over from the theologians to thephilologists,andthephilologists'interestinthematterisabsorbedintheformalquestionoftheoriginandtransmissionofthestory.Itoccursnotonly in Lucian, but also, in a form less closely related to that inwhichAugustine and Gregory repeat it, in Plutarch. Like Augustine andGregory,Plutarchrelatesitinallseriousnessashavinghappenedwithinhis ownknowledge to a friendofhis own.20ErwinRohde21 thinks thatLucian is directly parodying Plutarch's anecdote; L. Radermacher22

pronounces this absurd;andReitzenstein23 agreeswithhim in this.Allthree, on grounds which appear very insufficient, declare the story tohave been in popular circulation before even Plutarch, and all woulddoubtless contend that the Christians picked it up in the first instancefrom its oral circulation rather than took it overdirectly fromLucian—whichagaindoesnotseemclear.

Withsuchmatterswehavenow littleconcern.Our interest is fixedfor the moment on ascertaining the amount of credit which is due toAugustine and Gregory when they tell us marvellous stories. Theoutstanding fact is that they stake their credit in this instance on amarvellousstorywhichverycertainlydidnothappen.ItisnotnecessarytogothelengthsofReitzensteinandchargeAugustinewithcopyingthestoryoutofabook,andattributing it toquiteanothersource than thatfrom which he really derived it, elaborately inventing sponsors for hisnewstory.Thatisathingwhich,wemaybesure,couldnothappenwithAugustine; and the explanation of Radermacher that it belongs to theaccepted methods of utilizing such materials that the sponsors for thestory should, on eachnew telling, be altered into personages known totheteller,doesnotremovethedifficultyofsupposingthatthishappenedwith an Augustine. But the trustworthiness of the saints as relaters ofmarvels is not saved by supposing they were deceived by theirinformants, even though we could imagine those informants, withGünter, in some absurd fashion to have been self-deceived, andthemselveshonestintheirnarratives.NothingcanchangethecentralfactthatbothAugustineandGregoryreportashavinghappenedwithintheirown knowledge an absurd story which a Lucian had already maderidiculous forall theworldsomecenturiesbefore.Clearly theircredit isbroken, as witnesses of marvellous occurrences. The one fact whichstandsout inclear light,afterall thatcanbesaidhasbeensaid, is thatthey were, in the matter of marvellous stories, m the slang phrase,"easy."23a

Oneof thereasonswhywehavechosen thisparticular incident fordiscussionliesintheillustrationwhichitsuppliesofthetakingoverintoChristianity of a heathen legend bodily. In this case it is only a littleisolatedstorywhichisinquestion.Buttheprocesswentononthelargest

scale.Everyreligiouspossessiontheheathenhad,indeed,theChristians,itmaybesaidbroadly,transferredtothemselvesandmadetheirown.Asone of the results, the whole body of heathen legends, in one way oranother, reproduced themselves on Christian ground. The remarkablestudies of the Christian legendswhichHeinrichGünter has given us,24

enable us to assure ourselves of the fact of this transference, and toobserve its process in the large. On sketching the legendary materialfound in the pagan writers, he exclaims:25 "After this survey it will beseenthatthereisnotmuchleftfortheMiddleAgestoinvent.Theyonlypresent the same ideas in variations and Christianized forms, andperhapsalsoexpandedononesideoranother.Thereisnodoubtastotheagreementoftheconceptions.""Withthesixthcentury,"hesaysagain,26

"we find thewholeancient systemof legendsChristianized,notonlyasanonymousandunlocalizedvagrants,butmoreandmorecondensed,inaunitarypicture, intoa logicalgroupofconceptions,andconnectedwithreal relations of historical personalities, whose historical figures theyoverlie. . . .The transferenceof the legendbecamenow thechief thing,thesaintofhistorygavewaytothatofthepopulardesire.""Hellenism—Pythagoreanism — Neo-Platonism — Christian Middle Ages,"—thus hesums up27—"the parallelism of these has made it very clear that thelegendinthegrotesqueformsofaNicholasPeregrinusorKeivinosoroftheMarylegendisnotaspecificallyChristianthing."Inoneword,whatwefind,whenwecastoureyeoverthewholebodyofChristianlegends,growing up from the third century down through the Middle Ages, ismerely a reproduction, in Christian form, of themotives, and even theveryincidents,whichalreadymeetusinthelegendsofheathendom.WedonotspeaknowofthebodilytakingoverofheathengodsandgoddessesandthetransformationofthemintoChristiansaints;oroftheinventionofsaintstobethenewbearersoflocallypersistinglegends;orofthemeretransference to Christianity of entire heathen legends, such as that ofBarlaamandJoasaph,whichnobodynowadaysdoubtsisjustthestoryofBuddha.28 What we have in mind at the moment is the completereproductionintheconception-worldoftheChristianlegendsofwhatisalready found in the heathen. In this respect the two are preciseduplicates. We may still, no doubt, raise the question of the ultimateoriginofthisconception-world.That,remarksGünter,"isnotdeterminedbythefactthatitisthecommonpossessionofall.Inthelastanalysis,"he

declares,29"ithascomeoutofthebeliefofmankindintheotherworld.Itisscarcelypossiblenowtodeterminehowolditis,orwhereitoriginated.Themanner inwhich it flowered, and especially inwhich it dischargeditself into Christianity, however, gives an intimation also of theexplanationofitsfirstorigin."Itisthismassoflegends,theChristianizedformof theuniversalproductof thehumansoul,working intoconcreteshape its sense of the other world, that the church of Rome has takenupon its shoulders. It is not clear that it has added anything ofimportancetoit.30

Thereisonetypeofmiracle,itistrue,whichisnewtoChristianity,thoughnot to the churchofRome; for itwas inventedby themedićvalchurch, and has been taken from it with the rest. We refer tostigmatization. The heathen world had no stigmatics; they are aspecifically Christian creation,31 deriving their impulse from thecontemplation of the wounds of Christ. The first stigmatic known tohistoryisFrancisofAssisi.32Afterhim,however,therehavecomeagreatmultitude, extending in unbroken series down to our own day. TheearliestoftheseisCatharineofSiena(1370),who,however,possessedthestigmata only inwardly, not in outward manifestation;33 the latest thefameofwhomhasreachedthegeneralpublicisacertainGemmaGalganiof Lucca, who received the fivewounds in 1899, those of the crown ofthornsbeingadded in 1900,andof the scourging in 1901—theexternalsigns, in her case too, being subsequently removed in answer to herprayers.34A.Imbert-Gourbeyre35hasnoted321 instances inall,only41ofwhichhavebeenmen,alongwith280women;thenineteenthcenturysupplies29ofhisinstances.Only62ofthe321havereceivedtheofficialrecognition of the church in the form of canonization or beatification;and, indeed, it is sometimes hinted that the church is not absolutelycommittedtothesupernaturalcharacterofthestigmatainmorethantwoor three instances—in thatofFrancisofAssisi,of course,andwithhimperhapsalsoonlyinthoseofCatharineofSienaandLuciedeNarnia.36AdispositionismanifestedinsomeRomanistwriters,infact,tospeakwithgreat reserve of the supernaturalness of the stigmata. A. Poulain, whowrites the article on the subject in The Catholic Encyclopedia, forexample,willnotdistinctlyassertthattheyaresupernaturalinorigin,butcontents himself with declaring that they have not been shown to be

natural.Othersremindusthat37"thelearnedpope,BenedictXIV,inhisTreatise on the Canonization of the Saints, does not attach capitalimportancetostigmatization,anddoesnotseekinitademonstrationofsanctity;buthimselfnotesthatnaturemayhavesomepartinitaswellasgrace";or thatIgnatiusLoyola,when"consultedonedayaboutayoungstigmatic,respondedthatthemarksdescribedtohimmightjustaswellhavebeentheworkofthedevilasofGod."38

Thewriterofthearticleonthissubject inMigne'sDictionnairedesProphétiesetdesMiracles39 seems tospeakwithLoyola'swarningeverinmind,andtobeaboveallthingsanxiousthatitshouldnotbeforgottenthatthesestigmaticmarksarenosafeindiciaofsupernaturalaction.Heappearsalmosttobewailthemultitudinousnessoftheinstances,lestbyitweshouldbebetrayedintoconfusingthegoodandthebad.FrancisandCatharine,hesays,"areinfactthetwomostancientexamplesrelatedbyhistory...butsincethen,"hesighs,"howmanystigmaticshastheworldnotseen!""Itisagreatpity,"hegoesontoobject,"thattheignoranceofthepeople,alwaysbenevolentandpiousintheirjudgments,shouldtakefordivinefavorsnaturalmarksresultingfromcertainmaladieswhichitisscarcelydecent even toname, or from the artifices of fraud; and it is avery horrible thing that fraud should have a place in a matter sorespectable and so holy." "The Charpy of Troyes," he exclaims, "wasstigmatized;theBucailleofValognewasstigmatized;MarieDesrolléeofCoutancewas stigmatized; theCadičrewas stigmatized; andhowmanyothersbesides!Wehaveknownof thosewhohavedeservednothing solittleasthenameofsaintwhichwasattachedtothembyamockingoracredulous public; therewere convulsionnaires of St.Médardwhowerestigmatized.Butletusallowthecurtaintofallontheseignobleactorsofsacrilegious comedies; the list is neither shortnor edifying." If any onewishestoknowanythingmoreabouttheladieshehasjustmentioned,hesays, let him go where the biographies of such ladies are wont to befound.Meanwhile,speakingofthestigmaticsofourownday:"Weknowpersonallysomeofthem,"hesays,40"andweleavethemintheobscurityfrom which it has not pleased God to draw them. This phenomenon,naturalordivine, isnotas rareasmightbesupposed.Butnaturalas itmay be inmany persons, it sanctifies itself, and divinitizes itself, so tospeak,bytheusewhichthey"(thefeminine"they")"knowhowtomakeof

it,andthe increaseof faith,of lovedivine,ofpatience,andofChristianresignationwhich itproduces in them" (feminine "them"). "Andpermitme here a reflectionwhich arises from our subject but is applicable tomanyothers.OntheDayofGod,whoknowsall,andwhojudgesall,therewill be a great disillusionment formany peoplewho have thought thattheyrecognizedthedivinecachetwhereitwasnot,andformanyotherswhohavedaredtoattempttoeffaceitwhereitwas.""Wehavenotgreatlyadvancedthequestionofthestigmata,"heconfessesinclosing,41 ''butifany of our readers, affected by an inclination to attribute all thesephenomena to natural causes, has come in the end to doubt thisconclusionortounderstandthatthequestionisalwaysanindividualone,and cannot be resolved in one sense or the other except afterexamination,andindependentlyofallanalogy,weshallnothaveentirelylostour time." It seemsnotanunfairparaphraseof this tosay that thestigmata are in themselves no signs of the divine action; anybody canhavethem;butwhenhewhohasthemisasaintitshouldbeunderstoodthattheyhavebeensenthimbyGod.This,however,isobviouslytomakethe saint accredit the stigmata, and not the stigmata the saint. And itclearlyremovesthemoutofthecategoryofmiraculousmanifestations.

Such a cautious method of dealing with the stigmata is certainlyjustified by the facts of the case. The single circumstance that onlyecstatics receive them42 is suggestion enough of their origin inmorbidneuroses.43 It is sufficient to read over an account of the phenomena,written by however sympathetic an observer—say, for example, that byJoseph vonGörres in his great book onChristianMysticism44—to feelsurethatweareinthepresenceofpathologicalphenomena.Itisacrimeto drag these suffering women into the public eye; and it is a greatercrime to implant in their unformed intelligences45 that spiritual pridewhichleadsthemtofancythemselvessingledoutbytheLordforspecialfavors,andevenpermittedbyHimtoshareHissufferings—nay, to joinwithHiminbearingthesinsoftheworld.ForwedonotfullyapprehendtheplacegiventostigmatizationintheRomansystemofthoughtuntilwerealizethatthepassionofthestigmaticsisnotexpendedinwhatwecallthe"imitationofChrist"—thedesiretobelikeHim,andtoenterintoHissufferingswithlovingsympathy—butpressesonintothedaringambitionto take part in His atoning work, and, by receiving the same bodily

woundswhichHe received, to sharewithHim the saving of theworld."The substanceof this grace," explainsAug.Poulain,46 "consists in pityforChrist,participationinHissufferings,sorrows,andforthesameend—the expiation of the sins increasingly committed in the world." ThematterisexpoundedfullybyG.Dumas,professorofreligiouspsychologyat the Sorbonne, in the course of an admirable general discussion of"StigmatizationintheChristianMystics,"printedintheRevuedesDeuxMondesforthe1stofMay,1907.47Weavailourselvesofhisilluminatingstatement.

"First of all," says he, "it is scarcely necessary to point out thesymbolical andprofound sensewhich all themystics attach to the veryfactofstigmatization.

"Tobearthemarksofthecross,ofthecrownofthorns,ofthelance,or of the nails is to be thought worthy by Jesus to participate in Hissufferings;itisaccordingtotheverywordsofahistorianofmysticism,'toascendwithHimtotheCalvaryof thecrucifixionbeforemountingwithHim the Tabor of the Transfiguration.'48 All the mystics, accordingly,sufferviolentpainsintheirstigmata,andtheyholdthesepainstobetheessentialpartoftheirstigmatization,withoutwhichtheirvisiblestigmatawouldbeintheireyesonlyanemptydecoration.Theyexperienceunderthe cross, under the crown, under the nails, under the lance the samesufferings as Jesus; they really languish and die with Him; theyparticipateinHispassionwithalltheforceoftheirnerves.WehaveseenFrancis and Veronica suffer in their ecstasies all the pains of thecrucifixion; theyalldo this.CatherinedeRuconisioexperiencedviolentpains under the crown of blood which she let John Francis de laMirandolasee;ArchangelicaTarderaseemedatthepointofrenderinguphersoulduringthesceneofherflagellation;andCatherinede'Ricci,oncoming out of the swoon in which she was marked, 'appeared to herassociates so wasted and so livid that she looked to them like a livingcorpse.'

"InsufferingthusthemysticspersuadethemselvesnotonlythattheydrawneartoJesus,butthattheyareadmittedbyakindofdivinegracetoperpetuate the sacrifice of theirGod, to expiate likeHim sins ofwhich

they are personally innocent. These sharp pains of the thorns, thesepiercingsufferingsof thenailsandof the lance,arenot, intheirminds,painslostformen;theyredeemsins,theyconstitutepledgesofsalvation,theyareforthemthereligiousandmetaphysical formofcharity. 'Thesereparative souls which recommence the terrors of Calvary,' says acontemporary mystic,49 'these souls who nail themselves in the emptyplaceofJesusonthecross,arethereforeinsomesortexpressimagesoftheSon;theyreflectinabloodymirrorHispoorface;theydomore:theygive to this Almighty God the only thing which He yet lacks, thepossibility of still suffering for us; they satiate this desire which hassurvivedHisdeath, since it is infinite like the lovewhichengenders it.'Thestigmataareforthesenewcrucifiedonestheexternalnotificationoftheir transformation into JesusChrist; they proclaim thatArchangelicaTardera, that Veronica Giuliani, that Catherine de' Ricci are so like totheirGod that they succeedHim inHis sufferings; they are the visiblesealsoftheirsanctity."

TheconnectionofstigmatizationwithsuchdoctrineisthesufficientproofthatitisnotfromGod.50

Itisoftenurgedindefenseofthemiraculousnessofthestigmatathattheyhavenotyetbeenexactlyreproducedinthelaboratories.51Itisnotclear why a phenomenon so obviously pathological, and in manyinstancesconfessedlypathological,shouldbepronouncedmiraculous inothersofitsinstancesmerelybecausetheimitationofitproducedinthelaboratories is not exact. If, however, the precise thing has not beenproducedinthelaboratories,somethingsolikeithasbeenthatitismadequiteclearthatexternalsuggestioniscapableofproducingphenomenaofthesamegeneralorder.WilliamJamesmaybeappealedtototellusthegeneral stateof the case. "Imay say,"writeshe,52 "that there seemsnoreasonable ground for doubting that in certain chosen subjects thesuggestionofacongestion,aburn,ablister,araisedpapule,orableedingfrom the nose or skin may produce the effect." "Messrs. Delbœuf andLiégeoishaveannulledbysuggestion,onetheeffectsofaburn,theotherofablister."Delbœuf"appliedtheactualcautery(aswellasvesicants)tosymmetricalplacesontheskin,affirmingthatnopainshouldbefeltonone of the sides. The result was a dry scorch on that side, with (as he

assuresme)noafter-mark,buton theother side a regularblister,withsuppurationandasubsequentscar.Thisexplainstheinnocuityofcertainassaultsmadeonsubjectsduringtrance....Theseirritations,whennotfeltbythesubject,seemtohavenoafter-consequences.Oneisremindedofthenon-inflammatorycharacterofthewoundsmadeonthemselvesbydervishes in their pious orgies.On the other hand, the reddenings andbleedings of the skin along certain lines, suggested by tracing lines orpressingobjects thereupon,put the accountshandeddown tousof thestigmataofthecrossappearingonthehands,feet,side,andforeheadofcertainCatholicmysticsinanewlight."

Certainly the effects produced by external suggestion in thelaboratoriesareveryremarkable,andcannotfailtoleadthemindinthedirectionof anatural explanationof the stigmata.Whenwe seeDoctorRybalkin of St. Petersburg, by a mere command, produce a bad burn,whichblistersandbreaksandscabs,andslowlyhealslikeanyotherbum;orDoctorBiggsofSantaBarbaraaredcrossonthechestwhichappearseveryFridayanddisappearsfortheotherdaysoftheweek;53weacquireanewsenseoftheextentofthepossibleactionoftheminduponthebody,and may perhaps begin to understand what can be meant when it issaid:54"ThatIshouldbeabletoholdmypenbecauseIwishtodoit, isultimatelyjustasgreatamysteryasthatIshoulddevelopstigmatafrommeditating on the Crucifixion." To do them justice, there were notwantingCatholicwritersbeforethedaysofthisnewexperimentationwhohad more than a glimpse of the producing cause of the stigmata.FrancescoPetrarch feltnodoubt thatFrancis' stigmatawere fromGod,but neither had he any doubt—he says so himself, when writing, be itobserved,toaphysician—thattheywereactuallyproducedbytheforcesofhisownmindworkingonhisbody."Beyondalldoubt,thestigmataofSt.Francis,"hewrites,55"hadthefollowingorigin:heattachedhimselftothedeathofChristwithsuchstrongmeditationsthathereproduceditinhis mind, saw himself crucified with his Master, and finished byactualizing in his body the pious representations of his soul." EvenFrancis de Sales, though of course absolutely sure that the ultimateaccount of Francis' stigmata is that they represented "that admirablecommunication which the sweet Jesus made him, of His loving andpreciouspains,"yetworksouttheactualmechanismoftheirproduction

in elaborate but healthful naturalism. "This soul, then," he says,56 "somollified, softened, and almost melted away in this loving pain, wastherebyextremelydisposedtoreceivethe impressionsandmarksof theloveandpainofitssovereignLover;forthememorywasquitesteepedintheremembranceofthisdivinelove,theimaginationstronglyappliedtorepresenttoitselfthewoundsandbruiseswhichtheeyestherebeheldsoperfectlyexpressedintheimagebeforethem,theunderstandingreceivedthe intenselyvivid imageswhich the imagination furnished itwith;andfinally,loveemployedalltheforcesofthewilltoenterintoandconformitselftothepassionoftheWell-Beloved;whencenodoubtthesoulfounditself transformed into a second crucifixion.Now the soul, as formandmistressofthebody,makinguseofitspoweroverit,imprintedthepainsof thewounds bywhich it waswounded in the parts corresponding tothoseinwhichitsGodhadenduredthem."57

Withall its threehundredandmoreexamples,however, it is, afterall, a small place which stigmatization takes in the wonder-life of thechurchofRome.Thecentreaboutwhichthisliferevolveslies,rather,inthevenerationof relics,whichwas in a verydefinite senseaderivationfromheathenism.HippolyteDelehaye, it is true,puts inaprotesthere.''The cult of the saints," says he,58 "did not issue from the cult of theheroes, but from the cult of themartyrs; and the honors paid to themfrom the beginning and by the first Christian generations which hadknown the baptism of blood, are a direct consequence of the eminentdignityofthewitnessesofChristwhichChristhimselfproclaimed.Fromtherespectwithwhichtheirmortalremainsweresurrounded,andfromthe confidence of Christians in their intercession, there proceeded thecultofrelicswithallitsmanifestations,withitsexaggerations,alas!onlytoonatural,and,whyshouldwenotsayit?withitsexcesses,whichhavesometimes compromised the memory which it was wished to honor."Theseremarks,however,donotquitereachthepoint.Whatisassertedisnot that theChristianstooktheheathenheroesover intotheirworship,thoughtherewereheathenheroeswhomtheChristiansdidtakeoverintotheirworship.Neitherisitthattheycontinuedunbrokenlyatthetombsoftheseheroestheheathenriteswhichtheywereaccustomedtocelebratethere,onlysubstitutinganothernameas theobjectvenerated. It is thatundertheinfluenceoftheseoldhabitsofthoughtandactiontheycreated

for themselves a new set of heroes, Christian heroes, called saints, anddeveloped with respect to their relics a set of superstitious practiceswhichreproducedinalltheiressentialtraitsthosetowhichtheyhadbeenaccustomed with respect to the relics of the heathen heroes. There iscertainlyatruesenseinwhichthesaintsarethesuccessorsofthegods,59

and thewhole body of superstitious practiceswhich cluster around thecultofrelicsisadevelopmentinChristiancirclesofusageswhichparallelvery closely those of the old heathenism.60 The very things whichDelehayeenumeratesasthesourcesofthelatercultofthesaintsandthevenerationoftheirrelics—thecultofthemartyrs,thehonorrenderedtotheir remains, the confidence of Christians in their intercession—arethemselvesalreadyabusesduetotheprojectionintotheChristianchurchofheathenhabitudesandthenaturalimitationofheathenexample.

There are no doubt differences to be traced between the Christianandtheheathencultofrelics.AndthesedifferencesarenotalwaystotheadvantageoftheChristians.Thereisthematterofthepartitionofrelics,forexample,andtheroaringtradewhich,partly inconsequenceof this,has from time to time been driven in them. The ancient world knewnothing of these horrors. In it the sentiment of reverence for the deaddetermined all its conduct toward relics. Christians seem to have beeninspired ratherwith eagerness to reap the fullest possible benefit fromtheirsaints;and,reasoningthatwhenabodyisfilledwithsupernaturalpower every part of the body partakes of this power, they broke thebodies up into fragments and distributed them far and wide.61 Theinsatiable lust to secure such valuable possessions begot in those whotrafficked inthemacallousrapacitywhichtradedonthe ignoranceandsuperstitionofthepurchasers.Theworldwasfilledwithfalserelics,62ofwhich,however,thisistobesaid—thattheyworkedaswellasthetrue.63

Sohighlywasthemerepossessionofrelicsesteemedthatthemanneroftheiracquisitionwascondonedinthesatisfactionofhavingthem.Theftwas freely resorted to—it was called furtum laudabile;64 and violentrobberywas not unknown—and thatwith (so it was said) themanifestapproval of God. St. Maximinus, bishop of Trčves, died at Poitiers (ofwhich townhewas a native) on a journey toRome, and very naturallywasburied there.But the inhabitants ofTrčveswished theirbishop forthemselves, and stole him out of the church at Poitiers. When the

Aquitanianspursuedthethieves,heavenintervenedanddrovethembackhome,notwithoutdisgrace,while the thieveswere left scathless,65 andfurtheredontheirjourney.

Allsortsofirreverentabsurditiesnaturallyfoundtheirwayintothecollections of relics, through an inflamed craving for the merelymarvellous.Theheightof theabsurdseemsalreadytobereachedwhenwereadinPausaniasthatintheshrineof ''thedaughtersofLeucippus,"at Sparta, the egg which Leda laid was to be seen.66 The absurdity isequally great, however, when we hear of the Christians preservingfeathersdroppedfromthewingsofGabrielwhenhecametoannouncetoMary thebirthof Jesus; and it is only covered fromsightby the shockgivenbytheirreverenceofit,whenwereadofpilgrimmonksboastingofhaving seen at Jerusalem the finger of theHoly Spirit.67 Any ordinarysense of the ridiculous, however, should be sufficiently satisfied by thesolemnexhibitioninthechurchofSaintsCosmasandDamienatRomeofa"vialofthemilkoftheBlessedVirginMary."ButOssaispiledonPelionwhen we learn that this is far from the only specimen of Mary's milkwhich is to be seen in the churches. Several churches in Rome havespecimens, andmany in France—at Evron, and Soulac, andMans, andReims,andPoitiers,andSt.Denis,andBouillac,andtheSainteChapelleat Paris; the Cathedral of Soissons has two samples of it; and theCathedralatChartresthree.ThenthereissomemoreatToledoandattheconventofSt.Peterd'ArlanzainSpain,andofcourseinothercountriesaswell.Wearefairlyastonishedattheamountofit.68

Thisastonishment isonlypartlyrelievedwhenweare toldthatnotallof thismilkneedbethatwithwhichtheVirginnourishedherdivineSon.TheVirgin, it seems,hasbeenaccustomedall through the ages togivenourishmenttoherchildrenintheirtimesofdeadlyneed,andevenher statuesandpaintingsmay,onoccasion, supply it,69Wearehere incontact with a wide-spread legend of mystical nourishment which wascurrenttowardtheendoftheMiddleAges."Marywaslookedupon,"asYrjö Hirn explains,70 "not as an individual human being, but as anincarnation of an eternal principle which had exercised its power longbeforeitbecameembodiedinthefigureofaJewishgirl.TheMadonna'smotherly care had previously been directed to all the faithful,whohad

been fed by her 'milk' in the same way as the Child of Bethlehem. InMechthild's revelations it is even expressly said that the Madonnasuckled theprophetsbeforeChristdescended into theworld.Later, shefed,duringHis childhood, 'theSonofGodandall ofus,' andwhenHewasfull-grownsheofferedhermilktotheChristianChurch.AllfriendsofGodcouldgetstrengthatherbosom.'Eja,damachsollenwirbekennen—Die Milch und auch die Brüste—Die Jesus so oft küsste.'"71 There issymbolism here, but notmere symbohsm. ThereforeHirn continues:72

"There isnoquestionof symbolismwhen, in themiracle-histories, it isrelatedthattheMadonnacuredpiousindividualswithherhealingmilk.73

ItisalsotoldofsomeholymenthattheywerequiteliterallyrefreshedbyMary's breast. The pious Suso relates without reserve, and in adescriptionofgreatdetail,howhetasted'denhimmlischenTrunk';74andBernardofClairvaux,whomeritedtheVirgin'sgratitudemorethananyother man, was rewarded for all his panegyrics and poems by MaryvisitinghiminhiscellandlettinghislipsbemoistenedbythefoodoftheheavenlyChild."75 "Thus,"explainsHeinrichGünter,76 followingoutthesame theme, "in the age of the Mary-legend, the Virgin also had tobecome a miraculous nourisher, and that—in accordance with theexaggerated imaginationof the times—withherownmilk.Amonkgetssick;mouthandthroataresoswollenthathecantakenonourishment;thebrethrenexpecttheend.ThenMaryappears—visibleonlytothesickman—andgiveshimherbreastandannouncestohimhisearlyrecovery.Among the mystical women of the convent of Töf the same thinghappenedtoSisterAdelheitofFrauenberg;shenarratesitherself:Marysaystoher. . . '"Iwillfulfilyourdesireandwillgiveyoutodrinkofthemilk with which I suckled my holy Child," and she put her pure, softbreastintomymouth;andwhenthisunspeakablesweetnesswasdonetomeIwasonthepointofweeping.'"

AsMary,althoughthechief,isnottheonlysustainerofGod'speople,so,intheincrediblematerialismofmedićvalthought,itisnotshealonewhosemilkhasbeengiventosuccorthemintheirextremities.Oneandanotherofthesaints,withoutcarefulregardtosex,havebeenrecordedasperforming the same service. Lacking another, Christina Mirabilis wasfed from her own virgin breast.77 Even the veins of saints, in token oftheir functions as sustainers ofGod's people, have flowedwithmilk as

wellaswithblood.78Thiswasthecase,forexample,withPantaleon,andtherewaspreservedinConstantinopleavesselcontainingthecombinedbloodandmilkwhichhadissuedfromhismartyredbody."Everyyear,"we read,79 "they changed places; when 'once in our time, under theEmperorMichael (that is,Paleologus, 1259-82), theblood remainedontop,itwasayearfilledwithtroubles.'"Pantaleonwasagreatsaint,andhispreservedbloodevenactedasapalladium,givingoraclesofwealorwoe to the fortunate cities which possessed it. As soon as the famousliquefying blood of Januarius appeared atNaples, Günter tells us, "theblood of Pantaleon, too, all at once spread over all Italy, everywhereexhibitingthesamequality—inNaplesitselfinthreechurches,inRavello,Bari,Vallicella,Lucca,Venice—withoutSanGennaro,however,sufferingin the least by the concurrence." The celebrated miracle of theliquefaction of the blood of Januarius is not then unexampled. In thesingleChurchoftheHolyApostlesatRomeyoumayseetheperpetuallyliquid blood of St. James the Less, and the miraculous blood of St.Nicholas of Tolentino, which exudes from his arms whenever they areseparated from his body. And at the near-by nunnery of St. Cyriacus,whereCyriacus'sheadiskept,thatheadhasbeensaid,sincethetimeofGregoryIX(1241),tohavebecomeredwithbloodontheanniversaryofthemartyr'sdeath,andthereliquarytohavebecomemoist.80Ofall themiraclesofthiskind,however,theliquefactionofJanuarius'sbloodisthemostfamous.ItisexhibitedannuallyatNaples,onthedayofthesaint'sfestival.GünterspeaksofitwiththeprudencewhichbecomesahistorianwhoisalsoaCatholic."Aproblembeforewhichcriticismiscompelledtopause," says he.81 "The fact is assured; the explanation is not yetdiscovered.Thehistorianmay contenthimselfwith registering that theblood-miraclefirstappearssuddenlyinthelateMiddleAges,andthatanolder notice of a Neapolitan miraculous vial exists, which the popularbeliefbroughtintoconnection,however,withthemagicianVergil."Thisvialenclosedinitanimageofthecity,anditwasbelievedthatsolongasthe vial remained intact, so would the city. It was esteemed, in otherwords,asthepalladiumofthecity,asthevialofJanuariusnowis.

Relics, however, have not been venerated for naught, and it is notmerelysuchspectacularmiracleswhichhavemadethemtheobjectoftheeager regardwhich ispaid them.AsPfisterputs it:81a "Thebasisof the

Christiancultofrelics,asinthecaseoftheantiquecult,liesinthebeliefthatthemenwhoseremainsarehonoredaftertheirdeath,wereintheirlifetimefilledwithspecialpowerbyvirtueofwhichtheywereinpositionto work extraordinary things: then, that this power still filled theirremains, in the first instance,of course, theirbodily remains,but, afterthat, all that had come into contactwith the deceased." Itwas becausemuchwashopedfromtheserelicsthattheywerecherishedandhonored;andsincemankindsuffersmostfrombodilyillstherelicshavenaturallybeenhonoredaboveeverythingelseasinstrumentsthroughwhichbodilyreliefandbodilybenefitmaybeobtained.Güntercanwrite,82nodoubt:''In the timesof the inventionsand translationsof the relics therewerenaturally innumerable relic-miracles promulgated. It was not only thatthe'blindsaw,thelamewalked,theleperswerecleansed,thedeafheard,and thedeadwereraised,'when theywerebrought to thegravesof thesaints;thesanctuariesandhealingshrineshadsomethinggreaterstillintheincorruptibilityofthebodiesofthesaints,83oroftheirseveredlimbs,or in astonishing manifestations of power and life of other kinds.Gregory'sGloriamartyrumandGloriaconfessorum,andtheactivityofthemiraculousgoldsmithofLimoges,andof the laterbishopofNoyon,Eligius, served almost exclusively to glorify the graves of the saints.Eligiuswas endowed fromheaven especially for the discovery of relics.Hehimself,whenhisgravewasopenedayearafterhisdeath(DecemberI, 660)waswholly uncorrupted, just as if hewere yet alive; beard andhair,whichaccordingtocustomhadbeenshaved,hadgrownagain."ButGünterrequirestoadd:"Itisintheirpowertohelp(Hilfsmacht)that,onthebasisofoldexperiences,thesignificanceofthegravesofthesaintsforthepeoplestilllies,downtoto-day."Inpointoffactthegreatmajorityofthemiraclesofhealingwhichhavebeenwroughtthroughoutthehistoryof the church, have been wrought through the agency of relics.84 Notmerely the actual graves of the saints, but equally any places wherefragments of their bodies, however minute, have been preserved, havebecome healing shrines, to many of which pilgrims have flocked inimmense numbers, often from great distances, and from which therehavespreadthroughtheworldinnumerablestoriesofthemostamazingcures,andevenoftherestorationofthedeadtolife.Wearehereattheverycentreofthemiracle-lifeofthechurchofRome.85

We have pointed out the affiliation of this whole development ofrelic-veneration with heathenism. We are afraid that, as we survey itsdetails, the evenuglierword, fetichism, risesunbidden to our lips: andwhenwefindJ.A.MacCulloch,forexample,writingofmiraclesatlarge,speaking incidentally of "the use of relics" as "at bottom a species offetichism,"86 we cannot gainsay the characterization.87 Heinrich,naturally, repels such characterizations. There is no heathenism,fetichism, in the cult of relics,he insists,88 because that cult is relative,and that with a double relativity. "Our cult terminates really on God,whomwe venerate in the saints," he says, "and thus the cult becomesactuallyareligiousone;itisarelativecultinadoublerelation:itdoesnotstopwith therelicsbutproceeds to thesaints; itdoesnotstopwith thesaints but proceeds toGodHimself."We are afraid, however, that thisreasoningwillnotgoonallfourswithHeinrich'sfundamentalargumentfor the propriety of venerating relics. "The veneration of the saint," heargues,89"terminatesonthepersonasthetotalobject,moreparticularly,ofcourse,onthesoulthanonthebody;fortheformalobject,thatis,thegroundoftheveneration,isthespiritualexcellencesofthesaint....Butduringlifethebodyalsosharesinthevenerationofthepersontowhichitbelongs. It must, therefore, be esteemed holy also after death; theveneration always terminates on the person."Wemaymiss the logicalnexushere;itmaynotseemtoustofollowthat,becausethebodysharedin the veneration offered to the saint while it was part of the livingperson,itoughttherefore—Heinrichactuallysays"therefore"—toshareinthisvenerationwhenitisnolongerapartofthelivingperson—anymorethan,say,theexuvićduringlife,which,however,therelic-worshippers,itmustbeconfessed,domakeshareinit.ButHeinrichnotonlyprofessestoseethislogicalnexus,buthangsthewholecasefortheproprietyofthevenerationofrelicsuponit.Inthatcase,however,thevenerationoftherelic isnotpurelyrelative;thereissomethingintherelicassuchwhichcallsforreverence.Itisnotmerelyasymbolthroughwhichthesaint,nowseparated from it, is approached, but a part of the saint, though aninferiorpart,inwhichthesaintisimmediatelyreached."TheChristian,"says Heinrich himself,90 "recognizes in the body of the martyr, of thesaint,morethanamereinstrumentofthesoul;itis,asourfaithteachesus,thetempleoftheHolyGhost;itwasthesacredvesselofgraceinlife;itistobeglorifiedinunityagainwiththeglorifiedsoul."Suchscholastic

distinctions as that between direct and relative worship—like thatbetween doulia, hyperdoulia, and latria—are, in any event, matterspurely for the schools. They have no real meaning for the actualtransactions,andnothingcanbemorecertainthanthat throughout theCatholic world the relics, as the saints, have been continuously lookedupon by the actual worshippers, seeking benefits from them, asthemselves the vehicles of a supernatural power of which they mayhopefullyavailthemselves.91

Wehavesaidthatrelicsstandatthecentreofthemiracle-lifeofthechurchofRome,Manyarepreparedtogofurther.YrjöHirn,forexample,wishestosaythattheystandatthecentreofthewholereligiouslifeofthechurch of Rome. He does not mean by this merely that all Catholicreligious life and thought centre in and revolve around themiraculous.Thisistrue.Theworld-viewoftheCatholicisoneallhisown,andisveryexpresslyamiraculousone.Hereckonswiththemiraculousineveryact;miraclesuggestsitselftohimasanaturalexplanationofeveryevent;andnothing seems too strange to him to be true.92 It is a correct picturewhich a recentwriterdrawswhenhe says:93 "The really piousCatholichasapeculiarpassionformiracles.Theextremelynumerousaccountsofmiraculous healings, not alone at Lourdes; the multiplied promises,especiallyinthelittlePrayerandPilgrimBooks,ofphysicalhealingofthesick in reward for many offered prayers and petitions; the enormouscredulity of theCatholic people, as it is revealed to us in the LeoTaxilswindle—all this manifests a disposition for miracle-seeking which isaltogetherunaffectedbythemodemscientificaxiomoftheconformityofthe course of nature to law." To say that relics lie at the centre of themiracle-lifeofCatholicismisnotfarfromsayingthattheylieatthecentreof theCatholic religious life; for the religious lifeofCatholicismand itsmiracle-life are very much one. Hirn is thinking here,94 however,particularlyoftheorganizationofCatholicworship;andwhathesees,orthinkshesees,isthattheentiretyofCatholicworshipissoorganizedastogatherreallyaroundtherelic-chest.Forthealtar,asithasdevelopedintheRomanritual,hasbecome,hesays,intheprocessoftheyears,thecoffinenclosingthebonesofasaint;andthatisthefundamentalreasonwhytherulehaslongbeeninforcethateveryaltarshallcontainarelic,95

andthataGregoryofTours,forexample,whenspeakingofthealtarcan

callit,not"ara"or"altare,"but"arca,"thatistosay,boxorark.Catholicpiety, thusexpressing itself inworship,has found its centre ina sealedcase;forthetableforthemassisnotapieceoffurniturewhichhasbeenplaced inabuilding,butanucleusaroundwhich thebuildinghasbeenformed,andthetableforthemasshasbecomenothingmoreorlessthan"a chest which guards the precious relics of a saint." Thus, "the ideasconnectedwiththeabodeofthedeadremainforalltimeboundupwiththechurch'sprincipalplaceofworship.""Saint-worshiphaslittlebylittlemingledwith themass-ritual, and themass-table itself hasbeen finallytransformedintoasaint'sshrine."96

Enthroned though it thus be at the centre of themiracle-life, andwith it of the religious life, of the church of Rome,97 the cult of relics,nevertheless,doesnotabsorbintoitselftheentiretyofeithertheoneortheother.Ithasonerivalwhichshareswith itevenitscentralposition,and in our own day threatens to relegate it, in some sections of theCatholicworldat least, to thebackground.This is thecultof theVirginMary,whose legendhas incorporatedinto itselfallother legends,98andwhose power eclipses and seems sometimes almost on the point ofsupersedingallotherpowers.ThereisasenseinwhichitmayalmostbesaidthatthesaintshavehadtheirdayandthefuturebelongstoMary.Itistoher,fullofgrace,Queen,MotherofMercy,ourLife,ourSweetness,ourHope,99thatmennowcallforreliefinalltheirdistresses,anditistoher shrines that the great pilgrim-bands of the afflicted now turn theirsteps.100 These shrines are not ordinarily relic-shrines. Mary had her"assumption"asherdivineSonhadHis"ascension";shehasleftbehindhernograve,nobody,nobodilypartstobedistributedseverallythroughtheearth.Herrelicsconsistexclusivelyofexternalthings:ofherhair,hermilk, theclothesshewore, thehouseshedwelt in.Theyhavehad theirpart to play—a very great part—in the history of the relic-cult and ofpilgrimages;ashavealsomiraculousimagesofher.ButthechiefsourceofthenewershrinesofMarywhichhavebeenfoundedoneafteranotherin these latter days, and have become one after another the goal ofextensive pilgrimages and the seat of innumerablemiracles of healing,hasbeenaseriesofapparitionsofMary,whichhavefollowedoneanotherwith bewildering rapidity until they have almost seemed to becomeepidemic in France at least—in France, because France is the land of

MaryasItalyisthelandofthesaints.

Let us put side by side these four apparitions: La Salette (1846),wheretheVirginappearedasa"beautifullady"totwoshepherdchildren,a girl and boy, aged respectively fifteen and eleven; Lourdes (1858),where she appeared as "a girl in white, no bigger thanme," to a littlecountry-bredgirlof fourteen;Pellevoisin(1876),wheresheappearedas"the Mother All-Merciful" to an ill serving-maid; Le Pontinet (1889),wheresheappearedastheQueenofHeaven,firsttoalittlecountrygirlofeleven, and then to a considerable number of others infected by herexample.Thelastofthesewasdisallowedbytheecclesiasticalauthorities,and has had no wide-spread effects.101 The other three are woventogether inthepopular fancy intoasinglerichchaplet forMary'sbrow."Eachof theseriesofapparitionsof theBlessedVirgin in thiscentury,"we read in a popular article published in the early nineties,102 "bears adistinctcharacter.AtLaSaletteMaryappearedinsorrow,anddisplayingtheinstrumentsofthePassiononherheart;atLourdes,withagoldandwhiterosaryinherhands,andwithgoldenrosesonherfeet,shesmiledat the child Bernadette; at Pellevoisin she appeared in a halo of light,surroundedbyagarlandofroses,andwearingonherbreastthescapularoftheSacredHeart."Ineachinstanceanewculthasbeeninaugurated,anew shrine set up, a new pilgrimage put on foot with the highestenthusiasmofdevotion,andwithimmenseresultsinmiraclesofhealing—all of which accrue to the glory of Mary, the All-Merciful Mother ofGod.103

Amongtheseapparitions,thatatLourdeseasilytakesthefirstplaceinpointofhistorical importance."Undoubtedly thegreateststimulus toMariandevotioninrecenttimes,"writesHerbertThurston,104"hasbeenaffordedbytheapparitionoftheBlessedVirginin1858atLourdes,andinthenumberlesssupernaturalfavorsgrantedtopilgrimsboththereandatothershrinesthatderivefromit."Nodoubtthewaywaspreparedforthiseffectbypreviousapparitionsofsimilarcharacter,atLaSalette,forexample,andperhapsaboveallbythosetoZoeLabouré(SisterCatherinein religion) in 1836, the external symbol of which was the famous"Miraculous Medal," which has wrought wonders in the hands of theSisters of Charity.105 And no doubt the impetus given by Lourdes has

been reinforcedby similarmovementswhichhavecomeafter it, as, forexample, by that growing out of the apparitions at Pellevoisin—whosepanegyrists,however,praise it significantlyonlyas "a secondLourdes."Meanwhile, it is Lourdes which occupies the proud position of thegreatest shrine ofmiraculoushealing in theworld.Wemaypredict thefadingofitsgloryinthefuture,asthegloryofotherhealingshrinesinthepasthas faded.But there isnothing apparent to sustain thispredictionbeyondthisbareanalogy.Wefearitisonlythewishwhichhasfatheredthethought,whenwefinditputintosomewhatexaggeratedlanguagebyaFrenchmedicalwriter,thus:106"Letusseewhathashappenedduringacentury only, in the most venerated sanctuaries of France. No moremiraclesatChartres!InsignificantmiraclesatNotreDamedeFourvičresat Lyons. La Salette, incapable of the smallest cure, after having shonewithanincomparablelustre.Paray-le-monialbecomeuselessinspiteofthechemiseofMarieAlacoque.To-dayitisLourdeswhichisthereligiousvogue; it is toLourdes that thecrowdsdemandingmiraclesgo—waitingforLourdestodisappearliketheothershrines,whenthefaithofbelieversgraduallyfadesliketheflameofacandlecomingtoanend."

ItmustbeadmittedthatthebeginningsofLourdeswerenotsuchasmight have been expected of a great miraculous agency entering theworld.Itispossibletosay,itistrue,thattheywerebetterthanhasbeenthecase insomesimilar instances.BernadetteSoubirousseemstohavebeen a good child, and she seems to have grown into a good, if asomewhatcolorless,nottosayweak,andcertainlyverydiseased,woman.ThescandalsofLaSalettedidnotrepeatthemselvesinhercase.107Andperhapsshecannotbespokenofwiththesameenergyas''thelittleseer"of Le Pontinet, as the child of degenerated parents, weighted with theburdenofbadheredity.108Butitisamatteronlyofdegree.Bernadette'sparentage was not of the best omen; in her person she was, if not adegenerate, yet certainly a defective. It is of such that the Virginapparently avails herself in her visions.109 Nor does the vision itselfreassure us. "The figure seen was one which, by the admission, webelieve, of the Catholic clergy themselves, has been often reported asseen,mainlybyyounggirls,undercircumstanceswhennoobjectivevaluewhatevercouldbeattributedto theapparition."110Thecommunicationsmadebytheheavenlyvisitant,onewouldprefertobelievethedreamsof

the defective child. "As the times, so the saints," remarks HeinrichGünter,111 with a very obvious meaning; and it may be added with anequallydirectmeaning:Asthesaintssothemessages.DoctorBoissarie,itis true, seeks to forestall criticismbyboldly affirming that themessagegiven toBernadettewas loftybeyond thepossibilityofher invention:112

"The name of the Virgin, the words which she uttered—all is out ofproportion to the percipient's intelligence. Remembering the formalprinciple,admittedbyallauthorities,'Ahallucinationisnevermorethana reminiscence of a sensation already perceived,' it is evident that theintelligenceandthememoryofBernadettecouldneverhavereceivedtheimageorheardtheechoofwhatshereceivedandheardatthegrotto."TowhichtheMessrs.Myersveryproperlyrespond:113"DoctorBoissariedoesnottelluswhetheritisthedivinecommandtokisstheearthforsinners,orthedivinecommandtoeatgrass,whichisbeyondtheintelligenceofasimple child. He dwells only on the phrase, 'I am the ImmaculateConception'; and we may indeed admit that this particular mode ofreproducing the probably often heard statement that the Virgin wasconceivedwithoutsindoesindicateamindwhichiseithersupraorinfragrammaticam."Theplain fact is that thecommunicationsattributed tothe Virgin are silly with the silliness of a backward child, repeating,without in the least comprehending theirmeaning, phraseswithwhichtheairwaspalpitant; itwas in 1854 that thedogmaof the ImmaculateConception ofMary was proclaimed in circumstances which shook thewholeCatholicworldwithemotionaltremors,somewavesofwhichcouldnot have failed to reach even Bernadette. The immense success ofLourdes as a place of pilgrimage has been achieved in spite of themeannessofitsorigin,andistobeattributedtotheskillwithwhichithasbeen exploited. Under this exploitation, it has distanced all its rivals,supersededallitspredecessors,andhasendedbybecomingthegreatesthealingshrineintheworld,countingthepilgrimswhoannuallyresorttoit by the hundreds of thousands, and now even, sowe are told, by themillion.114

We cannot doubt that it is a true picture of Lourdes in its totalmanifestation, which is given by Émile Zola in his great novel.115 Hedescribes the colossal national pilgrimage which gathers there eachAugustinanepicofhumansuffering.Lookedatthus,itisamostmoving

spectacle. "It is difficult to remain strictly philosophical," writes anEnglishphysicianafterwitnessingthescene;116"impossibletobecoarselyscepticalinthatstrangeassembly.Hardindeedwouldbetheheartofanymedicalmanwhich could remain unmoved by the sightwhichmetmyeyesthatday.Atnootherspotinthewideworldcouldthefacultybeholdataglancesomanyofitsfailures....OutofthethousandsofpilgrimsIcoulddetectbutfewwhowereevidentlyofthepoorestclass;forthemostpart theywere of the uppermiddle classes or, at least, well-to-do. . . .Surelysomuchmiseryhasatnootherspotbeenfocussed insosmallaspace."Itis,indeed,an"armyofincurables"whichgatherseveryyeartoLourdes,driventotheirlastrecourse.Butofcoursenotalltheenormousmasses of pilgrims are seeking healing. Lourdes does not register herfailures; the proportion of her pilgrims who are seeking healing, theproportionofthoseseekinghealingwhoarehealed,canonlybeguessed.The lateMonsignor R.H. Benson, speaking of the greatmasses of thenationalpilgrimage,says,nodoubtsomewhatloosely:117"Hardlyoneinathousandofthesecometobecuredofanysickness."Duringthetwentyyearsfrom1888to1907,inclusive,thewholenumberofcuresrecordedwas2,665,118whichyieldsayearlyaverageofabout133.119Itisgenerallyunderstood that about 90 per cent of those seeking cure go awayunbenefited,120andthiswouldleadustosupposethatbetween1300and1400seekhealingatLourdesannually.GeorgesBertrintellsus121thatupto 1908—the fiftieth anniversary of the vision—some 10,000,000 ofpilgrims had visited Lourdes, and that the whole number of cures,"whetherpartialorcomplete,"registeredduringthattimewas3,962.Hethinks that nearly as many more may have been wrought but notregistered;letussay,then,thattheremayhavebeensome8,000curesinall during this half-century—"whether partial or complete." Absolutelythis is a greatnumber;butproportionately to thenumbersofpilgrims,notverylarge:aboutonecurebeingregisteredtoevery2,500visitors,notmorethanonecuretoevery1,250visitorsbeingevenconjecturable.Howmanyfailuresstandoveragainstthese4,000to8,000cureswehavenomeansofestimating;butiftheproportionof90percentseekingcureberight,theywouldmounttothegreatnumberofsome50,000.Theheartsinkswhen it contemplates this enormousmassof disappointment anddespair.122

There are certain other circumstances connectedwith the cures ofLourdes,which,onthesuppositionoftheirmiraculousness,evokesomesurprise.TheBureauofConstatationexhibitsat timesacertainshynessofexpectingtoomuchofamiracle—ashynessquiteabsent,itistrue,onother occasions, when, as it appears, anything could be expected. Weread,123 for example, of a case of apparent hip-disease, and itwas saidthat one leg had been seven centimetres shorter than the other; whilenow,after thecure,"the legswereofanexactlyequal length."Thecurewas not admitted to registry, but was referred back for furtherinvestigation."Thedoctorsshooktheirheadsconsiderablyoverthesevencentimetres"; "seven centimetreswas almost too large ameasure to bebelieved."Why—ifitwasamiracle?And,afterall,wouldtheprolongationof a leg by seven centimetres be any more miraculous than theprolongation of it by six—or by one? Stress is sometimes laid on theinstantaneousness124 of the cures as proof of theirmiraculousness. Buttheyarenotallinstantaneous.Wereadrepeatedlyintherecordsofslowand gradual cures: "At the second bath she began to improve"; "at thefourth bath the curewas complete."125 Indeed the cures arenot alwaysever completed. Gabriel Gargam, for example, one of Bertrin's crucialcases, he tells us,126 "bears a slight trace of his old infirmity as theguarantee of its erstwhile existence.He feels a certain weakness in hisback at the spot where Doctor Tessier supposed that a vertebra waspressing on themedulla." Similarly in the case ofMadame Rouchel, acase of facial lupus, and another of Bertrin's crucial cases, "a slightulcerationoftheinsideoftheupperlip,"hesays,127"remainedafterthecure." These cases are not exceptional: Bertrin informs us128 that it isquitecommonfortracesoftheinfirmitytoremain.Heevendiscoverstherationale of this. It keeps the cured person in grateful memory of thebenefitreceived.129And it isevenavaluableproof that thecure is trulymiraculous. For, do younot see?130 "had the disease beennervous andfunctional, andnotorganic, everythingwouldhavedisappeared; all thefunctions being repaired, the disease would not have left any specialtrace."Thisreasoning ismatchedbythat intowhichBertrin isbetrayedwhenmadebythephysiciansofMetz—MadameRouchel'shome—reallytofacethequestionwhethershehadbeencuredatall.Theypointedoutthatthelipwasimperfectlyhealed.Bertrincriesout131thatthe''question

wasnotwhetheraslight inflammationofthelipremained,butwhetherthe two perforations which had existed in the cheek and roof of themouth before going to Lourdes had been suddenly closed on Saturday,September6."Thephysicianspointoutinexorablythatthisistoreversethevalueofthesymptomsandtomistakethenatureoftheirproducingcauses,andrecordthetwofindings:(1)thatthelupuswasnothealed;(2)thattheclosingofthetwofistulasintwelvedayswasnotextraordinary.Thiscelebratedcasethuspassesintothecategoryofascandal.132

It must remain astonishing, in any event, that miracles should befrequentlyincomplete.Weshouldaprioriexpectmiraculouscurestoberegularlyradical.NodoubtwearenotjudgesbeforehandhowGodshouldwork.Butitisnotwrong,whenweareaskedtoinferfromtheverynatureof an effect that it is the immediate work of God, that we should bedisturbedbycircumstancesinitsnaturewhichdonotobviouslypointtoGod as the actor. The reasons which Bertrin presents for theimperfections in theeffectsdonot remove thisdifficulty.Theybear theappearance of "covering reasons"—inventions to remove offenses. Afterallissaidanddone,itismereparadoxtorepresenttheimperfectionsinthecuresasevidencesofthedivineaction.Wemayexpectimperfectionstoshowthemselvesintheproductsofsecondcauses;wenaturallyexpectperfectionintheimmediateoperationsoftheFirstCause.BertrinstrikesbacksomewhatwaspishlywhenZolamakesoneofthephysiciansattheBureau of Constatation ask "with extreme politeness," why the Virgincontented herself with healing a sore on a child's foot, leaving an uglyscar,andhadnotgivenitabrand-newfootwhileshewasaboutit—since"thiswouldassuredlyhavegivenhernomoretrouble."Here,too,Bertrinsays133 that the scar was left that it might be a standing proof of therealityandgreatnessofthemiracleofhealingthathadbeenwrought,andadds, somewhat unexpectedly it must be confessed at this point, thatwhateverGoddoes,Hedoeswell.WhateverGoddoes.Hecertainlydoeswell; and it assuredly is our part only to endeavor to understand Hisways.Butwhen thequestion is,DidGoddo it?we arenot unnaturallypuzzledifitdoesnotseemobviousthatwhatHeisaffirmedtohavedone,hasbeenwelldone.Thephysician'squestionwasnotfoolish.Itwastheperhapsnotquiteblandexpressionofanaturalwonder—wonderat thelimitationswhichshowthemselves in theseallegedmiracles.Why,after

all,shouldmiraclesshowlimitations?134

WearefarfromwishingtosuggestthatthecuresatLourdesarenotinthemainrealcures.Weshouldbegladtobelievethatthewholeofthefourtoeightthousandwhichareallegedtohavetakenplacethere,havebeenrealcures,andthatthisgreathostofsufferershavebeenfreedfromtheirmiseries.Probablynoonedoubts thatcuresaremadeatLourdes;anymorethanmendoubtthatsimilarcureshavefromthebeginningofthe world beenmade in similar conditions elsewhere—as of old in thetemples of Asclepius, for example, and to-day at the hands of theChristianScientists.SolittleisitcustomarytodenythatcuresaremadeatLourdes thatevenfree-thinkingFrenchphysiciansareaccustomedtosendpatientsthere.DoctorMauricedeFleuryinhismuch-admiredbook.La Médecine de l'Esprit,135 writes: "The faith that heals is onlysuggestion;thatmakesnodifference,sinceitheals.Thereisnooneofuswhohasnot sent somesickwoman toLourdes,expectingher to returnwell." The same in effect is said by Charcot,136 Dubois,137 even thepolemicRouby.Roubyevengoestothelengthofpointingoutafunctionwhich Lourdes, according to him,may serve in the advance ofmedicalscience. "Lourdes has not been without its value to contemporaryphysicians,"hewrites;138"theyhavehadinitagreatfieldforthestudyofhysterosis, which a large number of them havemisunderstood or onlypartiallyunderstood.Lourdeshasputneurosisbeforetheminastrikingway. Those of our colleagues who have written into their certificates adiagnosisofincurability,havebeenprofoundlydisturbedwhentheysawtheirpatientsreturncured;andthoseofthemwhohavenotbelievedinamiraculouscurehaveasked themselves the trueaccountof thesecures.TheyhavecomeintoactualtouchatLourdeswithwhattheyhadreadintheir treatises on various diseases. They have learned what hysterosisreally is, and what a great role it has played and will play still in theproductionofmiracles;andtheywillsignnomorecertificatesonwhichthe Bureau of Constatation can depend for establishing themiraculouscharacterofcures.Thisignoranceofhysterosisonthepartofphysicians,whichhasmore thananythingelsemade the fortuneof thepilgrimage,will,itistobehoped,nolongerexist."139

Lourdes, naturally, repudiates this classification of her cures, and

claims a place apart. She points to the unexampledmultitude of cureswrought by her; she points to their intrinsicmarvellousness. The greatnumber of cures wrought at Lourdes is not due, however, to anypeculiarity in the curative power which she possesses, but to theexcellenceofitsexploitation.ItwillhardlybecontendedthatherpatientsaremiraculouslybroughttoLourdes.Thatthepowerbywhichhercuresare wrought differs intrinsically from that at work elsewhere is notobvious.Toallappearance,all thesecuresarethesameinkindandarethe products of the same forces set in action after essentially the samefashion. These forces are commonly summed up, in large part at least,underthesomewhatvagueterm"suggestion."Thetermis,perhaps,notaverygoodonefortheparticularcircumstances,andmustbeunderstoodwhenused in this connection in a verywide sense. Itmeans at bottomthattheimmediatecurativeagencyis foundinmentalstates inducedinthepatient,powerfullyreacting,undertheimpulseofhighexaltation,onhis bodily functioning.140 With his eye precisely on Lourdes, J. M.Charcotsketcheswithafewboldstrokestheworkingofthissuggestioninthemind of the patient. "In a general way," he says,141 "the faith-curedoes not develop the whole of its healing force spontaneously. If aninvalidhearsareportthatmiraculouscurestakeplaceinsuchandsuchashrine,itisveryrarelythathefieldstothetemptationtogothereatonce.Athousandmaterialdifficultiesstand,atleasttemporarily,inthewayofhismoving; it isnolightmatterforaparalyticorablindman,howeverwell off he be, to start on a long journey.He questions his friends; hedemandscircumstantialaccountsofthewonderfulcuresofwhichrumorhas spoken.He receivesnothing but encouragement, not only fromhisimmediatesurroundings,butoftenevenfromhisdoctor,whoisunwillingtodeprivehispatientofhislasthope,especiallyifhebelieveshismaladyto be amenable to the faith-cure—a remedywhich he has not dared toprescribe himself. Besides, the only effect of contradictionwould be toheightenthepatient'sbelief inamiraculouscure.The faith-cure isnowborn, and it continues to develop. The forming of the plan, thepreparation, the pilgrimage, become an idée fixe. The poor humiliatethemselves to ask alms to enable them to reach the holy spot; the richbecome generous toward the poor in the hope of propitiating thegodhead;eachandallpraywithfervor,andentreatfortheircure.Underthese conditions themind is not slow to obtainmastery over thebody.

When the latter has been shaken by a fatiguing journey the patientsarriveattheshrineinastateofmindeminentlyreceptiveofsuggestion.'The mind of the invalid,' says Barwell, 'being dominated by the firmconviction thatacurewillbeeffected,acure iseffected forthwith.'Onelasteffort—animmersionatthepool,alastmostferventprayer,aidedbytheecstasyproducedbythesolemnrites—andthefaith-cureproducesthedesiredresults;themiraculoushealingbecomesanaccomplishedfact."

If anyonewishes to feel the intensitywithwhich the last stagesofthisprocessofsuggestionarebroughttobearonthesickatLourdes,theperfectartwithwhich thewholedramaticmachinery ismanaged,142 heneed only read a few pages of the description ofMonsignor Benson ofwhathesawatLourdes.LikeBertrin,143Bensonscoffsatthenotionthat"suggestion" canbe thoughtof as the impulsive causeof the cures; butlike Bertrin he defines suggestion in too narrow a sense and no onepictures more vividly than he does suggestion at work. Here is hisdescriptionofthegreatprocessionandblessingofthesick.144

"Thecrowdwaspastdescribing.Hereaboutuswasavastconcourseofmen; and as far as the eye could reach down the huge oval, and farawaybeyondthecrownedstatue,andoneithersidebackto theBureauon the left, and on the slopes to the right, stretched an inconceivablepavementofheads.Aboveus,too,oneveryterraceandstep,backtothedoorsofthegreatbasilica,weknewverywell,wasoneseething,singingmob. A great space was kept open on the level ground beneath us—Ishould say one hundred by two hundred yards in area—and the insidefringe of this was composed of the sick, in litters, in chairs, standing,sitting,lying,andkneeling.Itwasatthefartherendthattheprocessionwouldenter.

"After perhaps half an hour's waiting, during which one incessantgustofsingingrolledthiswayandthatthroughthecrowd,theleadersoftheprocessionappeared faraway—littlewhiteorblack figures,smallasdolls—andthesingingbecamegeneral.Butastheendlessfilesrolledout,thesingingceased,andamomentlaterapriest,standingsolitaryinthegreatspace,begantoprayaloudinavoicelikeasilvertrumpet.

"I have never heard such passion in my life. I began to watchpresently,almostmechanically, the littlegroupbeneath theombrellino,in white and gold, and themovements of themonstrance blessing thesick;butagainandagainmyeyeswanderedbacktothelittlefigureinthemidst,andIcriedoutwiththecrowd,sentenceaftersentence,followingthatpassionedvoice:

"'Lord,weadoreThee!'

"'Lord,'camethehugeresponse,'weadoreThee.'

"'Lord,weloveThee,'criedthepriest.

"'Lord,weloveThee,'answeredthepeople.

"'Saveus,Jesus,weperish.'

"'Saveus,Jesus,weperish.'

"'Jesus,SonofMary,havepityonus.'

"'Jesus,SonofMary,havepityonus.'

"Then,withasurgeroseuptheplain-songmelody:

"'Spare,O Lord,' sang the people, 'spare Thy people! Be not angrywithusforever.'

"Again:

"'GlorytotheFather,andtotheSon,andtotheHolySpirit.'

"'Asitwasinthebeginning,isnowandevershallbe,worldwithoutend.Amen.'

"Thenagainthesinglevoiceandthemultitudinousanswer:

"'ThouarttheResurrectionandtheLife!'

"AndthenanadjurationtoherwhomHegavetobeourMother:

"'MotheroftheSaviour,prayforus.'

"'Salvationoftheweak,prayforus.'

"Thenoncemorethesinging;thenthecry,moretouchingthanall:

"'Lord,healoursick!'

"'Lord,healoursick!'

"Thenthekindlingthatbroughtthebloodtotenthousandfaces:

"'Hosanna!HosannatotheSonofDavid!'(Ishooktohearit.)

"'Hosanna!'criedthepriest,risingfromhisknees,witharmsflungwide.

"'Hosanna!'roaredthepeople,swiftasanecho.

"'Hosanna! Hosanna!' crashed out again and again, like greatartillery.

"Yet there was nomovement among those piteous prostrate lines.Thebishop,theombrellinooverhim,passedonslowlyroundthecircle;andthepeoplecried toHimwhomhebore,as theycried twothousandyearsagoontheroadtothecityofDavid.SurelyHewillbepitifuluponthisday—theJubileeYearofHisMother'sgraciousness,theoctaveofherassumptiontositwithHimonHisthrone!

"'MotheroftheSaviour,prayforus.'

"'Jesus,ThouartmyLordandmyGod.'

"Yettherewasnomovement....

"The end was now coming near. Themonstrance had reached theimageonceagain,andwasadvancingdownthemiddle.Thevoiceofthepriest grew more persistent still, as he tossed his arms, and cried formercy:

"'Jesus,havepityonus,havepityonus!'

"Andthepeople,franticwithardoranddesire,answeredhimwithavoiceofthunder:

"'Havepityonus!Havepityonus!'

"AndnowupthestepscamethegravegrouptowhereJesuswouldatleastblessHisown,thoughHewouldnothealthem;andthepriestinthemidst,withonelastcry,gaveglorytoHimwhomustbeservedthroughwhatevermisery:

"'Hosanna!HosannatotheSonofDavid!'

"Surely thatmust touch theSacredHeart!WillnotHisMothersayoneword?

"'Hosanna!HosannatotheSonofDavid!'

"'Hosanna!'criedthepriest.

"'Hosanna!'criedthepeople.

"'Hosanna!Hosanna!Hosanna!...'

"Onearticulateroarofdisappointedpraise,andthen—TantumergoSacramentum!roseinitssolemnity."

Therewasnomiracle,andBensonthinksthatthatissufficientproofthat themiracles are notwrought by "suggestion." "If ever 'suggestion'couldworkamiracle,"hesays,"itmustworkonenow."Butthiswasonlythedayofpreparation,andthe feverplanted in thebloodwasworking.And the next day themiracles came.145 "The crowdwas still, very still,answering as before the passionate voice in the midst; but watching,watching,asIwatched....Thewhitespotmovedonandon,andallelsewasmotionless.Iknewthatbeyonditlaythesick.'Lord,ifitbepossible—if it bepossible!Nevertheless,notmywill butThinebedone.' Ithadreachednowtheendofthefirstline.

"'Lord,healoursick,'criedthepriest.

"'Lord,healoursick,'answeredthepeople.

"'ThouartmyLordandmyGod!'

"Andthenonasuddenitcame.

"Overhead lay thequietsummerair,chargedwith thesupernaturalasacloudwiththunder—electric,vibratingwithpower.Herebeneath,laysoulsthirstingfor its touchof fire—patient,desirous, infinitelypathetic;and in the midst that Power, incarnate for us men and our salvation.Thenitdescendedswiftandmightily.

"Isawasuddenswirlinthecrowdofheadsbeneaththechurchsteps,and then a great shaking ran through the crowd; but there for a fewinstants it boiled like a pot. A sudden cry had broken out, and it ranthrough the whole space; waxing in volume as it ran, till the headsbeneathmywindowshookwithitalso;handsclapped,voicesshouted,'Amiracle!Amiracle!'"

The tension thus broken, of course other miracles followed. AndBensonsayshedoesnotseewhat"suggestion"hadtodowiththem!

Wefeelnoimpulsetoinsistontheword,"suggestion"asifitwereamagic formula, which accounts with completeness for all the cureswrought at Lourdes.We should be perfectly willing to admit, on goodreasonbeinggivenfortheadmission, that,afterall thecureswhichcanbe fairly brought under this formula have been brought under it, aresiduummay remain for theaccountofwhichwe should look further.Wedonotourselvesthinkthatwearemuchadvancedintheexplanationoftheseresiduum cases, if theyexist,bypostulating"a transferrenceofvitalizing force either from the energetic faith of the sufferers, or fromthat of the bystanders"—as Benson intimates that Alexis Carrel wasinclined to recommend.146 At bottom, this is only a theory, and it doesnotseemtousaverycomplete theory,ofhow"suggestion"acts.Letusleave that to further investigation. For our part,we prefer just to leavethese residuum cases themselves, if they exist, to this further

investigation.Wefeelnonecessitylaidonustoexplainthemmeanwhile.Bertrinmakeshimselfmerry147overtheappeal,fortheirexplanation,totheworkingof"unknownforces"asamereshifttoavoidacknowledgingthe presence of the supernatural. But surely we cannot pretend to acomplete knowledge of all the forceswhichmaywork toward a cure insuchconditionsasarepresentatLourdes.Unknownforcesareassuredlyexistent,anditisnotunnaturaltothinkofthemwheneffectsoccur,thecauses of which are unknown. Meanwhile residuum cases suggestingreference to them, if they exist at all, are certainly very few.Doctor E.MackeyinaverysensiblearticlepublishedafewyearsagoinTheDublinReview,148seemsinclinedtorestthecaseforrecognizingtheirexistenceonthreeinstances.ThesearethecuresofPierredeRudder,ofabrokenbone;ofJoachineDehant,ofadislocation;andofFrançoisMacary,ofavaricosevein."Suchcases,"hesays,149 . .."cannotcurethemselves,andnoamountoffaithandhopethatthemindofmancanimaginewillunitea brokenbone, reduce a dislocation, or obliterate a varicose vein. Suchcasescannotbeparalleledbyanymedicalexperience,orimitatedbyanytherapeuticresource,andareasfarremovedfromitsfutureasitspresentpossibilities. To the sceptic we may give without argument the wholerangeofnervedisorders,butwhatexplanationisthereofthesuddenandpermanent cure of an organic lesion? What, but the working of theuncoveredfingerofGod?"

ThecasesselectedbyDoctorMackeyarefamouscases.ThatofPierredeRuddermaybe said, in fact, to beLourdes's star case, and is foundduly set forth in detail at the head ofwell-nigh every argument for themiraculousnessoftheLourdescures.PerhapsDoctorMackeymightjustas well have contented himself with appealing to it alone. Its salientfeaturesarethatwhatwashealedinitwasafractureoflongstandingofboth bones of the lower leg, just below the knee, the two parts of thebroken bone piercing the flesh and being separated by a suppuratingwoundaninchlong.Thehealingwasinstantaneous.Wehaveneverseena satisfactory natural explanation of how this cure was effected. If thefacts,inalltheirdetailsaspublished—sayinBertrin'sextendedaccount,—areauthentic,itseemsfairlyimpossibletoimaginehowitwaseffected.DoctorRouby,itistrue,offersaveryplausibleexplanationofthehealing,but, to make it plausible, he is compelled to assume that some of the

minor details are not quite accurately reported.150We prefer simply toleave it,meanwhile, unexplained.Do you cry out thatwe are bound tosupplyasatisfactorynaturalexplanationofit,orelseacknowledgethatamiraclehastakenplaceinthiscase?Wefeelnodifficultyindecliningthedilemma.ThehealingofPierredeRudder'slegisnottheonlythingthathasoccurredintheworldofthemodeoftheoccurrenceofwhichweareignorant.Afterall, inexplicableandmiraculousarenotexactsynonyms,andnobodyreally thinksthat theyare.Is itwrongsuddenlyto turnthetablesandaskthosewhowouldcompelustoexplainPierredeRudder'scase, how they explain Charlotte Laborde's case, which is certainly farmore wonderful than Pierre de Rudder's? Charlotte Laborde was aJansenist cripplewhohadno legsatall, as twosurgeonsduly testified;and yet she literally had two good legs pulled out for her—as anybodymay read inMontgeron's veracious narrative.151 No doubt it will be atoncesaidthatthethingneverhappened.Assuredly,itneverdidhappen.Buthaseverybodyearnedtherighttotakeupthatattitudetowardit?Werecognize,ofcourse,thatnotalltestimonytomarvelscanbetrusted—atleast not in all the details. It seems indeed rather difficult to reportmarvelspreciselyastheyhappened,andfewtherebewhoattaintoit.152

WehaveseenthatevenanAugustinecannotbe implicitlytrustedwhenhe reports marvels as occurring within his own knowledge. PerhapsDoctorRoubyisrightinsuggestingthatsomeslighterrorsofdetailhavecreptintothereportofPierredeRudder'scase;andthatthismarveltooisoneofthethingsthatneverhappened—preciselyasitisreported.Ourpersonalinterestinsuchadjustments,however,isatbestlanguid.Inthenature of the case they are only conjectural.We are only beginning tolearnthemarvellousbehaviorofwhichlivingtissueiscapable,anditmaywell be that, after a while, it may seem very natural that Pierre deRudder'scasehappenedjustasitissaidtohavehappened.Weareafraidtoalter the factsaswitnessedevena little, inorder tomakethemfit inbetterwiththeignoranceofto-day:andourguessesofto-dayaresuretoseemvery foolish to-morrow.Wedonotbusyourselves, therefore,withconjecturing how Pierre de Rudder's curemay have happened.We arewillingtobelievethatithappenedjustasitissaidtohavehappened.Wearecontenttoknowthat,innocase,wasitamiracle.

Wemustendeavortomakeclearthegroundsonwhichthisassertion

isadventured.Todothisweneedtogobackalittleinthediscussion.Wetake it up again at the point where we have said that bareinexplicableness cannot be accepted as the sufficient criterion of themiraculous. There are many things which we cannot explain, and yetwhich nobody supposes to be miraculous,153 No doubt the appeal to"unknown laws," hidden forces of nature not yet discovered, may bemade themarkof aneasy ridicule.Yetwemustnotbe stampeded intoacknowledging as sheerly miraculous everything the laws of whoseoccurrence—the forces by which it is produced—are inscrutable to us.Evenifabsoluteinscrutabilitybemeant—inscrutabilitynottome(formyignorance cannotbe themeasureof reality)but toanyandevery livingman, or body ofmen, to anypossibleman—miracle cannot be inferredfrom this alone.Naturewasmade byGod, notman, and theremay beforcesworkinginnaturenotonlywhichhavenotyetbeendreamedofinourphilosophy,butwhicharebeyondhumancomprehensionaltogether.Simpleinexplicability,therefore, isnotanadequategroundonwhichtoinfermiracle.TheremustbesomethingelseaboutanoccurrencebesidesitsinexplicablenesstojustifyusinlookinguponitasadirectactofGod's.

Clearly,whenwearebiddentoacceptaneventasmiraculousmerelyon the ground of its inexplicableness, it is forgotten that no event ismerelyaninexplicableevent.It isalwayssomethingelsebesides;andifweare topassupon itsoriginwemust considernotmerely itsabstractinexplicableness but the whole concrete fact—not merely that it hashappened inexplicably, but what it is that has happened inexplicably—that is to say, not its bare occurrence, but its occurrence in all itscircumstantials,thetotalthingwhichhasoccurred.ThehealingofPierredeRudder,forexample,isnotmerelyaninexplicablehappening(ifitbeinexplicable) of which we need know nomore than just that. It is thehealing of a particular individual, Pierre de Rudder, in a complex ofparticular circumstances, the whole complicated mass of whichconstitutes the thing that has occurred. The cause assigned to theoccurrencemust satisfy not only its inexplicableness, but also all theseothercircumstancesenteringintotheeventasanoccurrenceintimeandspace.No event, occurring in time and space—in a complex, that is, ofother occurrences—nomatter howmarvellous it may seem to be, howsheerlyinexplicableonnaturalgrounds—canpossiblybeinterpretedasa

divine act, if there is anything about it at all in its concrete wholenesswhichcannotbemadeconsistentwiththatreference.

If,forinstance,totakeanexamplesoextremethatitcouldnotoccur,butonethatmayserveallthebetterasourillustrationonthataccount,therewereburiedsomewhereintheconcretewholenessoftheoccurrencetheimplicationthattwicetwoarefive.ItwouldbemoreinexplicablethatGodshouldnotknowHismultiplication table than thatanyoccurrencewhatever,howeverinexplicableitmayseemtous,shouldneverthelessbedue to natural causation. God is not bare omnipotence;He is absoluteomniscienceaswell.Hecannotpossiblybetheimmediateagentinanactinwhichagrossfailureof"wisdom"isapparent,nomatterhowdifficultitmaybeforustoexplainthatactwithoutcallinginomnipotenceasitsproducingcause.StilllesscanHebesupposedtobetheimmediateactorinoccurrencesinwhichimmoralitiesareimplicated;or,inwhich,intheirwholeness, as concrete facts, there are embodied implications of, say,irreligionor of superstition.Whetherwe can seehow suchoccurrencesare wrought, or not, we know from the outset that God did not workthem.ItwouldbemoreinexplicablethatGodshouldbedirectlyactiveinthemthanthattheyshouldbetheproductofnaturalcausation,thoughtosuppose this to be the fact would be to confound all our previousconceptions of natural causation. CharlesHodge speaks not awhit toostronglywhenheasserts154that"wearenotonlyauthorizedbutrequiredtopronounceanathemaanapostleorangelfromheavenwhoshouldcalluponustoreceiveasarevelationfromGodanythingabsurdorwicked.''

God, indeed, has Himself forewarned us here. He has said:155 "Ifthereariseinthemidstoftheeaprophetoradreamerofdreams,andhegivetheeasignandawonder,andthesignorthewondercometopass,whereof he spake unto thee, saving. Let us go after other Gods, whichthouhastnotknown,andletusservethem;thoushaltnothearkenuntothewordsofthatprophetoruntothatdreamerofdreams."'Conformityin their implications to what God has already revealed of Himself, HeHimself makes the test of all alleged miracles. It would be moreinexplicablethatGodbyHisactionshouldconfusetherevelationwhichHehasmadeofHisBeing,ofmen'srelationtoHim,andof thedutyofservicewhichtheyowetoHimandtoHimalone,thanthatinexplicable

things should yet be produced by natural causation. It is a primaryprinciple, therefore, that no event can be really miraculous which hasimplicationsinconsistentwithfundamentalreligioustruth.Eventhoughwe should stand dumb before the wonders of Lourdes, and should beutterly incapable of suggesting a natural causation for them, we knowrightwell they are not ofGod. Thewhole complex of circumstances ofwhich they are a part; their origin in occurrences, the best that can besaidofwhichis thattheyaresilly; their intimateconnectionwithacultderogatory to the rights of God who alone is to be called upon in ourdistresses.—stamp them, prior to all examination of the mode of theiroccurrence,asnotfromGod.WearefarmoresurethattheyarenotfromGodthanweevercanbesure,afterwhateverscrutiny,ofpreciselyhowtheyarewrought.Itisdoubtlesssomethinglikethisthatisexpressed—itought tobeat least this that ismeant—byÉmileZola'scrispremark:156

''That two and twomake fourmayhave become trite—butneverthelesstheydomakefour.Itislessfoolishandlessmadtosaysothantobelieve,for example, in themiraclesofLourdes."ThatGod isone, and thatHealone is to be sensed with religious veneration, is no doubt an oldrevelation.Itisneverthelessatruerevelation.AndhewhotakesitassuchcanneverbelievethatmiraclesarewroughtatLourdes.

Ofcourse,asR.H.Bensonputsit,157"thosewhobelieveinGodandHisSonandtheMotherofGodonquiteothergrounds,"maydeclarethat''Lourdes is enough." But this is not to make the miracles carry thedoctrine, but the doctrine the miracles, in accordance with J. H.Newman's proposition that it is all a matter of point of view, ofpresuppositions.158Tothose,ontheotherhand,whobelieveinGodandHisSon,astheyhaverevealedthemselvesinthepagesofHolyScripture,butnotinaMotherofGod,standingbetweenusandGodandHisSon.and usurping their place in our hearts and worship, Lourdes verydistinctly isnotenough.Itwouldrequiresomethingverydifferent fromwhat happens at Lourdes tomake them see the express finger of Godthere. It isnotHewho rules there somuchas that incoherent goddesswhohasannouncedherselftoherworshipperswithasfineadisregardofthe ordinary laws of grammar and intelligible speech as of thefundamental principles of Christianity, in the remarkablewords, "I amtheImmaculateConception,"asifoneshouldsay,''Iamtheprocessionof

the equinoxes," or ''I am themiddle of next week." "Thewhole place,"saysBenson,159 '"isalivewithMary."ThatistheveryreasonwhywearesurethatthemarvelswhichoccurtherearenotthedirectactsofGod,butareof the sameorderas the similaroneswhichhaveoccurredatmanysimilarshrines,ofmanynames,inmanylands,servingmanygods.Howcloseall these lie tooneanother issingularly illustratedbywhatwearetoldofadaughtershrineofLourdes'sown,inthatNearEastwhichisthemeeting-place of peoples and religions. At least, we read:160 "Thesanctuary of Feri Keuď at Constantinople, dedicated to Our Lady ofLourdes, is a place of pilgrimage and a source ofmiraculous cures forChristians, Jews, and Mussulmans. Its silver-wedding was celebratedrecentlywithanassemblageofpeopleof the religionswhich live in theTurkishEmpire."WhatLourdeshas tooffer is thecommonpropertyofthewholeworld, andmay be had bymen of all religions, calling upontheirseveralgods.161

IRVINGITEGIFTS

PRETENSIONS by any class of men to the possession and use ofmiraculouspowersasapermanentendowmentare,within the limitsoftheChristianchurch,a specialtyofRomanCatholicism.Denialof thesepretensionsispartoftheprotestbyvirtueofwhichwebearthenameofProtestants."Inpointofinterpretation,thehistoryofProtestantism,"asanEdinburgh reviewer,writing in trying conditions in 1831, justlyputsit,1 "is a uniform disclaimer of any promise in the Scriptures thatmiraculouspowersshouldbecontinued in theChurch." Inpointof fact(wemay slightlymodify his next sentence to declare), the claim to thepossessionandexerciseofpowersof thisdescriptionby individualshasalways been received in Protestant circles with a suspicion whichexperiencehasonlytoocompletelyjustified.

Protestantism, to be sure, has happily been no stranger toenthusiasm; and enthusiasmwith a lower-case "e" unfortunately easilyrunsintothatEnthusiasmwithacapital"E"whichisthefertileseed-bedoffanaticism.IndividualshaveconstantlyarisensofilledwiththesenseofGodintheirownsouls,andsooverwhelmedbythewondersofgrace

whichtheyhavewitnessed, that theysee the immediatehandofGod ineveryoccurrencewhichstrikesthemasremarkable,andwalkthroughtheworldclothedinanimbusofmiracle.TothemitseemsasmallthingthattheGodwhohas somarvellouslyhealed their sick souls shouldequallymarvellously heal their sick bodies; that the God who speaks sounmistakablyintheirspiritsshouldspeakequallyunmistakablythroughtheir lips. Especially in times of wide-spread oppression, when wholecommunitieshave,intheirhopelessagony,beenthrownbackupontheirGodastheironlyrefuge,andhavefoundinHimsolaceandstrength, ithasoverandoveragainhappenedthatoutoftheirdistresseswordsanddeedshavecometothemwhichtotheirapprehensionseemedmanifestlydivine.

We may find an illustration of the former phenomenon in JohnWesley, who, though he would have repelled the accusation ofsuperstition, yet, as one of his biographers finely expresses it,2 "wasalways far more afraid of being ungodly than of being credulous." Hewouldnotadmitthattherewasanyscripturalgroundforsupposingthatmiracleshadceased. "Idonotknow,"hedeclares,3 "thatGodhathanyway precluded Himself from thus exerting His sovereign power, fromworking miracles in any kind or degree, in any age, to the end of theworld.IdonotrecollectanyScripturewherewearetaughtthatmiraclesare to be confined within the limits either of the Apostolic or theCyprianic age; or to any period of time, longer or shorter, even to therestorationofallthings.Ihavenotobserved,eitherintheOldTestamentor the New, any intimation at all of this kind." Feeling thus nopreconceived chariness with reference to miracles, he recognized theiroccurrencewith great facility in the past and in the present.4 He twitsMiddleton with his readiness to believe, on the testimony of scientificobservers, that it is possible to speak without a tongue, rather than tocredit the miracle testified to as having been wrought in favor of theAfricanconfessorswhohadhadtheirtonguescutout."Afteravowingthisbelief,"hecries,5"doyougravelytalkofothermen'scredulity?Iwonderthatsuchavolunteerinfaithshouldstaggeratanything.Doubtless,wereit relatedasnaturalonly,notmiraculous, youcouldbelieve thatamancould see without eyes." After himself recording a sheerly incredibleinstanceofmirror-gazing,hesolemnlyaffirmshisbeliefinit,andstoutly

declares that those who can believe it all fiction "may believe a man'sgettingintoabottle."6WilliamWarburton,whodevotesthesecondbookof his Doctrine of Grace almost entirely to criticisms of a series ofextractsfromWesley'sJournal,sumsuphisfindingsintheremark7that"thisextraordinarymanhath,infact,laidclaimtoalmosteveryApostolicgiftandgrace;andinasfullandampleameasureastheywerepossessedofold";that,infact,"ofalltheApostolicgiftsandgracesthereisbutonewith which we find him not adorned—namely, the gift of tongues." Tosuchapparentlengthsisitpossibletobecarriedbythemereenthusiasmoffaith.

A very good example of the wide-spread prevalence of apparentlysupernatural experiences in conditions of deep religious excitement isaffordedbythehistoryof theCamisardsduringthe longperiodof theirbrutal persecution; and, indeed, beyond—for the same class ofmanifestations continued among their English friends, apparently by akindofspiritualinfection,longaftersomeofthemhadtakenrefugefrompersecutioninEngland.Thesemanifestationsincludedprophesyingandpredictions,miracle-workingand speakingwith tongues, and theywereby no means done in a comer. AMr. Dalton, "who did not know oneHebrew letter fromanother,"neverthelessuttered"withgreat readinessand freedom complete discourses in Hebrew, for near a quarter of anhourtogetherandsometimesmuchlonger."Mr.LacyspokeinLatinandGreek and French, although himself unable to construe his Latin andGreek, "of which," the historian slyly remarks, "the syntax is certainlyinexplicable." Unfortunately for themselves, these "French Prophets"believedsufficientlyinthemselvestoventureupontheluxuryofspecificpredictions. They foretold that a certain Doctor Emes, who diedDecember22,1707,wouldriseagainonMarch25,1708.Hedidnotdoso;and theprophetswerereduced topublishingapapergiving"SquireLacfs reasons why Doctor Emeswas not raised.'' They predicted thatcertain dreadful judgments would fall on London in three weeks,explainedexplicitlytomeanthreeliteralweeks.Whenthefulfilmentdidnot take place, they re-explained that, after all, it was three propheticweeks that were intended—which corrected dating also was, of course,stultified intheprocessof time.Aboveall,ofcourse, theypredictedthespeedycomingof theLord,and thesettingupofHispersonal reignon

earth,ofwhich,theyexplained,thepresentdiffusionofthespiritualgiftsamong themwas thepreparation and the sign. ''Christians," cries JohnLacy,"nowonlylookuponChristasdeadandascendedintoheaven.Butwhere—where's the expectation taughtofHis comingagain?Adoctrinethat has annexed to it the powers, the mighty gifts of the Holy Ghostengagedbypromises.IsthestateofChristianitynowsoperfectthatthepowers and gifts of the Holy Ghost extraordinary are not worthyexpectingorregarding? . . .Thereforetheextraordinarydispensationtoprepare so extraordinary a revolution . . . sure there needs somethingextraordinarytoprepareforsotremendous,useful,sojoyousandblissfulastateoftheChurchonearth.Nay,thewisestdoneedanextraordinarycallforit."8

Thiscaseofthe"FrenchProphets"hasnotbeenadducedbecauseitisbetterfittedinitselfthananumberofsimilarmovementstoillustratethegeneralsubject.Ithascommendeditselftoournoticebecauseofitslonghistoryand itspathetic significanceduring its connectionwith thepersecutions in the Cévennes; and particularly because of certainpeculiarities of its English development which recall the Irvingitemovementtowhichwewishtodevotethislecture.Amongthesemaybenumbered its close connection with chiliastic vagaries and theexpectationofthespeedycomingoftheLord,andalsothecircumstancethatitleftbehinditanewsectinChristendom,topreserveinsomesortitsmemory.Outoftheactivitiesofsomeofthefollowersofthe"FrenchProphets" originated the people called Shakers, who, like the CatholicApostolicChurch,sprungfromtheIrvingitemovement,haveprotractedsomesortofexistencetoourday.

The religious atmosphere of the earlier decades of the nineteenthcentury was exceedingly unsettled and filled with a restless desire forchange. In particular premillenarian extravagances were rife, andmenwereheatedlylookingfortheearlycomingoftheLord.ItwasoutofthissoilthatIrvingismgrew,predictingtheimmediateadventofChrist,andproclaiming the restoration of the extraordinary offices and gifts of theApostolic age, along with an elaborate church organization, inpreparationforHiscoming.Neverhavepretensionstogiftsandpowersof a supernatural order suffered more speedily and definitely the

condemnation of facts. The predicted coming of the Lord did not takeplace: the "Apostles" appointed to receive Him at His coming weregradually called to their eternal home, and still He came not; thepretenderstosupernaturalgiftsoneafteranotherawoketothetruestateof the case and acknowledged themselves deluded. But the sect ofIrvingites, broken in spirit, torn with dissension, altered in itspretensions,stilllivesonandadjustsitselftoitsblastedhopesasbestitmay.9

TheviewsofEdward Irving, the founderof the sect,on the specialmatter now before us, the persistence or revival of the Apostoliccharismata in themodern church,may be read at large in two papers,entitled respectively "The Churchwith her endowment of holiness andpower"and"TheGiftsoftheHolyGhostcommonlycalledsupernatural,"which are printed at the end of his Collected Writings, edited by hisnephew, Gavin Carlyle. One or two extracts will bring before us theessentialelementsofhisteaching.

"I have shown," he writes, "the great purpose and end of thisendowmentofSpiritualgifts:thatpurposeandendisnottemporarybutperpetual, till Christ's coming again; when that which is perfect shallcome, and that which is in part shall be done away. If they ask for anexplanation of the fact that these powers have ceased in the Church, Ianswer, that theyhavedecayed justas faithandholinesshavedecayed;but that they have ceased is not amatter so clear. Till the time of theReformation, thisopinionwasnevermooted in theChurch;and to thisday, the Roman Catholics and every other portion of the Church butourselves,maintaintheverycontrary....AndIwouldsay,thatthisgifthath ceased to be visible in the Church because of her great ignoranceconcerning thework of Christ atHis second coming, ofwhich it is thecontinual sign; because of her most culpable ignorance of Christ'scrownedglory,ofwhichitisthecontinualdemonstration;becauseofherindifference to theworldwithout, forpreaching towhich thegiftof theHolyGhostisthecontinualfurnishingandoutfitoftheChurch.. . .Butthingsaretakingaturn.LettheChurchknowthatthingsaretakingonamighty turn. There is a shining forth of truth in these subjects beyondformerdays.ThepowerandgloryofarisenLord,aswellastheholiness

ofaLordinflesh,isbeginningtobeunderstoodanddiscussedof;andtheenemywouldspreadacurtainoftheirsophistrybetweentheChurchandthebrightdawn;hemightaswellhidethemorningbydrawingbeforeoureyesthespider'sweborthefrost-workofthenight,whichtherisingsunquicklydissipates....TheChurch...willhaveherfulldignityrestoredtoheroftestifying...ofarisenLordinpowerandglory,crownedforHisChurchandinHisChurchputtingforthuntotheworldafirst-fruitofthatpower and government over all creation which in her He will everexerciseoverallcreation.Thesegiftshaveceased,Iwouldsay,justastheverdure,andleaves,andflowers,andfruitsofthespringandsummerandautumn cease in winter, because, by the chill and wintry blasts whichhaveblownovertheChurch,herpowertoputforthhergloriousbeautyhath been prevented.But because thewinter iswithout a green leaf orbeautiful flower,domenthereforearguethat thereshallbe flowersandfruitsnomore? . . . If theChurchbe still in existence, and thatnoonedenies;and if itbe the lawandendofherbeing toembodya first-fruitandearnestofthepowerwhichChrististoputforthintheredemptionofallnature;thenwhatthoughshehathbeenbroughtsolow,herlifeisstillinher, and that lifewill, under amore ferventday, put forth itsnativeforces.""Unlessmen,therefore,beleftsofartothemselvesastosaythatGodhathceasedtotestifytotheworkwhichChristperformedintheflesh—ofcastingSatanout;ofredeemingallfleshfromdeath,anddiseaseitsprecursor;ofrestoringtheanimalandvegetableworld,andallcreation,to their original sinlessness, innocency, and subserviency tomankind—unlessmenbedisposedtosay,thattheyknowGodhathceasedtobeatany pains or charges in giving testimony to thiswork ofHis Son, theyhavenogroundforbelievingthattheageofmiraclesispast....Astothefactwhichtheyallege, that therehavenotofa longtimebeenanysuchseals;grantingtheirallegationtobea truth,whichIdonotbelieve, theanswer to it is, that there hath been no testimony to the greatwork ofChrist'sredemptionsuchas tobeworthyofbeingsosealedunto . . . inChristendom,sincethefirstthreecenturies. . . .Thesubjectofthegifts,commonly called extraordinary, and rashly conceived of as given for alocal and temporary end, is one of far greater importance than theadvocates of either opinion have dared to conceive, or, at least, haveventured to express: being as I Judge, connected in the closestmannerwiththeedificationoftheChurchinloveandholiness;withherwitness

amongthenationsfortheirconversionuntoChrist;withthegloryofGodas the creatorof thehumansoul forHis shrine, agent, and interpreter;withthegloryofChrist,astheheadoftheChurch,subordinatingallthemembersuntoHimself for theuseof theCreator;with the gloryof theHoly Ghost, as the very life and mind and substance of Godhead,inhabiting, informing and manifesting forth the being of God, in suchwisethattheChurchshouldbeGod'smanifestedfullness,thefullnessofGod,whofillethallinall."10

ItisnotmypurposetoenteronaformalexaminationandcriticismofIrving'sviews;theyhavealreadybeenjudgedbythecourseofhistory.Buthavingthuspresentedthemtoyouinhisownhighlyornatelanguage,wemayturnourattentiontosomeaccountoftheriseofthemovementcalled (but not by its adherents) "Irvingism," as to a theme far moreinteresting and certainly as instructive for the general object whichwehaveinview.WehavespokenofEdwardIrvingasitsfounder,andsohewas, without whose susceptibility, enthusiasm, force, and eloquence itcould never have come into existence. But in another sense hemay bethought of rather as its chief victim. It presents a curious subject forspeculation, to consider how little often the chiefmovers in events likethis are the real originators of them or the true forces which producethem. Just as J.H.Newmanwas in every high sense the leader of theOxford movement while yet he himself was rather pushed on by theactivityofothers,sothatitisliterallytruethatitwasHurrellFroudewhowasatthebottomofhisAnglo-CatholicismandW.G.Wardwhonaggedhim,againsthiswill,intoRomanism;soEdwardIrvingwasineveryhighsensethefounderandleaderof"Irvingism,"whichjustlybearshisname,whileyet it isequally truethathewasdriven into itstepbystepbytheinfluence and force of otherminds.With all his sensitiveness of heart,enthusiasticearnestnessofpurpose,soaringviewsofreligioustruth,andgrandeur of style in its presentation; in aword,with all those qualitieswhichintheircombinationgavehimacertainmeasureofgreatness;hissimplicity, perhapswemust also say,withindue limits, his vanity, andcertainly we must say his intellectual weakness and deficiency inJudgmentandcommonsense,madehimtheeasypreyofotherandmoreenergetic orders of mind. Henry Drummond was his Hurrell Froude;AlexanderJ.ScottwashisW.G.Ward.

Irving had none too brilliant a career as the young assistant ofChalmersinGlasgow,andthesummonstoLondoninJuly,1822,totakechargeofthedyingCaledonianChapelthere,camenolessasasurprisethanasanopportunity.11Fromthefirst,however,heachievedinLondona popularity which began by being astonishing, and ended by beingimmense.Hebecamethetalkofthetown.Statesmenandmenoflettershung on his words. Society took him under its patronage. The littlechurch in Hatton Garden was soon outgrown. This sudden andunexampledpopularapplauseperhapsdidnotcompletelyturnhishead,but itdistinctly injuredhim. It lefthimanenthusiastic, simple-mindedman;butitgavehimoverweeningconfidenceinhimself;anditinfectedhimwith the illusion that somehighandworld-widemissionhadbeencommittedtohim.

At the very beginning of his London career, he adopted the crasspremillennialviewswhich latercoloredhiswhole thought.ThiswastheworkinhimofJamesHatleyFrere,12amanofincisivemindandstrongindividuality, who seems to have deliberately selected Irving to be thepopularmouthpieceofhisApocalypticspeculations.Thesehesucceededin impressing on himwith amazing completeness of detail. Then came"thelittlepropheticconferences"atAlbury,HenryDrummond'sbeautifulSurrey residence, where "the students of prophecy," as they calledthemselves, began in 1826 to meet for annual conferences on themeaningofthepropheticScriptures.13Theseconfereesweremenofhighsocial position and easy financial circumstances—Gerard Noel, HughMcNeile, LewisWay, JosephWolf, withHenryDrummond, the richestandmosteccentricof themall,at theirhead—"asingularmixtureofallthings," Carlyle describes him; "of the saint, the wit, the philosopher,swimming, if I mistake not, in an element of dandyism."14 Irving'simaginativedispositiontookfire,andhesoonbecamethechieffigureofthecoterie,andbegantoproclaimeverywherethattheLordwasshortlytocome,andthatthechiefdutyofbelieverswastopressthesignsofthetimesontheattentionofmen.

InthisexcitedstateofmindIrvingwascalledupontoenduregreatpersonal trials.Hisopinionson thepersonofChristwereveryproperlycalledinquestion;andhewascompelledtomeetecclesiasticalprocessin

consequence.Inthemidstofthesedistractingoccurrences,heundertooka journey to Scotland that hemight proclaim there, as in London, theapproaching coming of his Master.15 On this journey he met at Row(McLeod Campbell's parish) aman whose influence on his subsequentlife cannot be overestimated—Alexander J. Scott, an impracticableprobationer of the church of Scotland, whose strong and acute butindocile and wilful mind imposed upon every one whom he met anoverestimateofhis intellectualability.Thiswas in thesummerof1828.IrvingwasatoncetakencaptiveandengagedScotttocomeuptoLondonwith him and share his work, on the only terms on which Scott couldeither then or at any subsequent time have been engaged—"entirelyunfettered by any pledge as to doctrine."16 This "powerful and singularspirit,"soscepticalofwhateverothersbelieved—hisdriftagecarriedhimultimatelybeyondthelimitsofChristianity—soconfidentofwhateverhismindfixeditselfuponatthemoment,hadalreadyreachedtheconclusionthatthecharismataof theearlychurchmightandshouldbeenjoyedbythechurchofallages.HesucceededinimposingthisbeliefuponIrving,whohimselfdateshisconviction that thespiritualgiftsof theApostolicagewerenotexceptionalortemporaryfrom1828—theyearinwhichhebecameassociatedwithScott.17

Irvingwas inclinedtobecontentwithholdinghisviewasatheory.This,however,didnot content "the restless soul"byhis side.As Irvinghimself relates: "And aswewent out and in together, he used often tosignifytomehisconvictionthattheSpiritualGiftsoughttobeexercisedintheChurch;thatweareatliberty,andindeedbound,toprayforthemasbeingbaptizedintotheassuranceofthe'giftoftheHolyGhost,'aswellas of 'repentance and remission of sins. . . .' Though I couldmake noanswertothis,"headds,"anditisaltogetherunanswerable,Icontinuedstilltobeverylittlemovedtoseekmyselfortostirupmypeopletoseekthese spiritual treasures.Yet Iwent forward to contend and to instructwhenever the subject came before me in my public ministrations ofreading and preaching the Word, that the Holy Ghost ought to bemanifested among us all, the same as ever He was in any one of theprimitive Churches."18 Scott, his assistant, doubtless did likewise.Herewesee,atleast,Scott'spreparationofIrvinghimselfandofhischurchforwhatwastocome.

"But,"saysMrs.Oliphant,19"Mr,Scott'sinfluencedidnotendthere.Aboutthesameperiodatwhichhewasengagedinquickeningthisgermofexpectation inthebreastofIrving,circumstancesbroughthiminthewayofsowingastillmoreeffectualseed."TherewasadistrictinScotlandsufferingatthistimeundergreatreligiousexcitement—rousedpartlybythepreachingofJohnMcLeodCampbell,andpartlyby the influenceofthe kindly life of Isabella Campbell of Fernicarry, a young saint whosedeath had just profoundly moved the community. There, just at thisjuncture, Scott appeared, a "master of statement and argument," asIrvingdescribeshim,andinMrs.Oliphant'swords,"bentallhispowersto laying this train of splendid mischief."20 "When Isabella Campbelldied,aportionofher fame—herpilgrimvisitors—herpositionasoneofthe most remarkable persons in the countryside, a pious and tenderoracle—descendedtohersisterMary,"21whoseemstohavebeenayoungwoman"possessedofgiftsofmindandtemperamentscarcelyinferiortogenius,""withallthepersonalfascinationofbeauty,"andendowedwitha"young, fervid and impressionable imagination."22 On her the subtlestarguments of one of the acutest men of the day were poured. Irvinghimself describes the result thus: "Being called down to Scotland uponsomeoccasion,andresidingforawhileathisfather'shouse,whichisinthe heart of that district of Scotland upon which the light of Mr.Campbell'sministry had arisen, he (Scott)was led to openhismind tosome of the godly people of those parts, and among others to a youngwoman who was at that time lying ill of a consumption, from whichafterwards,when brought to the very door of death, shewas raised upinstantaneouslybythemightyhandofGod.Beingawomanofveryfixedandconstantspirithewasnotablewithallhispowerof statementandargument,whichisunequalledbythatofanymanIhaveevermetwith,to convinceherof thedistinctionof regenerationandbaptismwith theHoly Ghost; and when he could not prevail, he left her with a solemnchargetoreadovertheActsoftheApostleswiththatdistinctioninmind,andtobewarehowshehastilyrejectedwhatwas,ashebelieved,thetruthofGod.BythisyoungwomanitwasthatGod,notmanymonthsafter,didrestore the gift of speaking with tongues and prophesying to theChurch."23

Howitcameabout,Irvingdescribesasfollows:"Thehandmaidenof

theLord,ofwhomhemadechoiceon thatnight" (aSundayevening inthe end ofMarch—i.e., March 28, 1830) "to manifest forth in her Hisglory, had been long afflicted with a disease which the medical menpronouncedtobeadecline,andthatitwouldsoonbringhertohergrave,whither her sister had been hurried by the samemalady a fewmonthsbefore.Yetwhileallaroundherwereanticipatingherdissolution,shewasin the strength of faith meditating missionary labours among theheathen;andthisnightshewastoreceivethepreparationof theSpirit;thepreparationofthebodyshereceivednotuntilsomedaysafter.ItwasontheLord'sday;andoneofhersisters,alongwithafemalefriendwhohadcometothehouseforthatend,hadbeenspendingthewholedayinhumiliation,andfasting,andprayerbeforeGod,withaspecialrespecttotherestorationofthegifts.Theyhadcomeupintheeveningtothesick-chamberof their sister,whowas laidona sofa, and, alongwithoneortwoothersof thehousehold,wereengaged inprayer together.When inthemidstoftheirdevotion,theHolyGhostcamewithmightypoweruponthesickwomanasshelayinherweakness,andconstrainedhertospeakatgreatlengthandwithsuperhumanstrengthinanunknowntongue,totheastonishmentofallwhoheard,andtoherowngreatedificationandenjoymentinGod;'forhethatspeakethinatongueedifiethhimself.'ShehastoldmethatthisfirstseizureoftheSpiritwasthestrongestsheeverhad, and that it was in some degree necessary it should have been so,otherwiseshewouldnothavedaredtogivewaytoit."24

Meanwhilethe"power"passedacrosstheClydetotheoppositetownofPortGlasgowintoanotherpioushousehold.WhenJamesMacdonaldreturned from his work to his midday dinner one day "he found hisinvalid sister in the agonies of this new inspiration. The awed familyconcluded . . . that she was dying." But she addressed her brothers atgreat length and solemnly prayed that James might at that time beendowed with the Holy Ghost. "Almost instantly James calmly said, 'Ihavegotit.'"Withachangedcountenanceinafewmoments,"withastepand manner of the most indescribable majesty—he walked up to hissister's bedside and addressed her in these words of the 20th Psalm:'Ariseandstandupright.'Herepeatedthewords, tookherbythehand,and she arose."25 After thiswonderful cure JamesMacdonaldwrote toMary Campbell, "then apparently approaching death, conveying to her

thesamecommand thathadbeensoeffectual in thecaseofhis sister."She roseupat once anddeclaredherselfhealed.Andherewehave therestoredgiftspreparedforthechurch.

TheonlyremainingstepwastoconveythegiftstoIrving'schurch.Ofcourse,hewas at once informedof the extraordinary eventswhichhadtaken place in Scotland. He seems to have caught the contagion ofexcitement at once. John Bate Cardale, a lawyer of Irving's circle, whoafterward became the first Irvingite "Apostle," went to Scotland at theheadofadelegationto investigateandreport.Meanwhile thechurchatLondonwaskeptinanattitudeofstrainedexpectancy.Butthe"gifts"didnotcomeatonce.AnisolatedcaseofhealingoccurredinOctober,1830—aMissFancourt—butthisinstanceseemstohavestoodsomewhatapartfrom direct relation whether to the Scotch manifestations or to thecomingeventsinIrving'schurch.26Irving'sbabysontooksickanddied,andthoughtheysoughtitanxiouslywithtearstherewasnointerpositionto savehim.During thenext springdailyprayer-meetingswereheld intheearlymorningstoaskdirectlyforthe"giftsoftheSpirit,"newsoftheunbrokenexerciseofwhichwasnowcomingcontinually fromScotland."Irving,"saysMrs.Oliphant,"hadnoeyestoseetheoverpoweringforceof suggestion with which such prayers" "might have operated uponsensitive and excitable hearts."27 At last we hear incidentally in July,1831,thattwooftheflockinLondonhadreceivedthegiftsoftonguesandprophecy.28Theyhadbeeninexercise,however,forsomemonthsbeforethat,firstintheformofspeakingwithtonguesatprivatedevotions,theninthepresenceofothers,andatlengthbothinspeakingwithtonguesandin prophesying at small prayer-meetings.29 The formal date of thebeginning of the "power" is usually given asApril 30, 1831,whenMrs.Cardalespokesolemnlywiththetonguesandprophesied.DavidBrown,however, seems to imply30 that the first to exercise the power in thepresenceofotherswasEmilyCardaleatadateapparentlyverynearthis.He is speaking of the early-morning prayer-meetings in the church,which,hesays,begantobeheldtwoweeksbeforetheGeneralAssemblyof 1831.31 It was the custom of a party from the prayer-meeting to gohome with the Irvings to breakfast. "At one of these breakfasts," hewrites, "a sweet, modest, young lady. Miss Emily Cardale, began tobreathe heavily, and increasingly so, until at length she burst out into

loud but abrupt short sentences of English which after a few minutesceased. The voice was certainly beyond her native strength, and thesubject matter of it was the expected power of the Spirit, not to beresisted by any one who would hear. Mr. Irving asked us to unite inthanksgivingforthisanswertoourprayers.""Othersuchinstances,"addsBrown, "followed, but as yet all in private, first by the same voice, butafterwardsbyaMissHall,andthenbyamanwhoratherrepelledme(ateacher by thenameofTaplin)whoprofessed to speak in anunknowntongue." Itwas through thisMissHall that the voiceswere introducedinto thepublic servicesof the church, onCommunionSunday,October16,1831.Wehaveseveralaccountsofthescenebyeye-witnesses.32Whattheychieflydwelluponisthestartlingeffectoftheoutcry,andtherushoftheyoungwoman, eitherunable to restrainherself, or alarmedatwhatshehaddone, intothevestry,whenceproceededasuccessionofdolefuland unintelligible cries, while the audience of fifteen hundred or twothousand people, standing up and straining to hear and see what wastoward,fellintoutterconfusion.

Itisnotnecessarytogiveanaccounthereofthenaturalexcitementwhich was raised in London; of the increasing confusion which theexerciseofthe"gifts"broughtintothepublicserviceofthechurch;ofthesuitinstitutedbythetrusteesagainstIrvingforbreachoftrustdeeds,andhis exclusion from the church; of the founding of the first IrvingiteCongregation in Newman Street in a deserted studio which had beenerectedfortheuseofthepainterWest.Thenew''prophets"asamatterofcourse soon began to exercise the authority which they found in theirhandsasinspiredservantsofGod.TheydroveIrvingalongfromsteptostep, until at last a new spirit appeared on the scene in the person ofRobert Baxter (first in August, 1831, but not as a force until early in1832).33Insteadofunintelligible''tongues"andweakrepetitionsofpiousplatitudes, Baxter, when the "power" was on him, delivered himselfauthoritativelyinspecificcommandstoIrving,arrangementsforchurchorder,andthelike,andevendefinitepredictionsofthefuture.Herewassomethingnewanddangerous.Irvingwasstartledandfilledwithdoubt.Butthe"power"inBaxterarguedhimdown,andallthe"prophets"borewitness to the genuineness of Baxter's inspiration, so that the wholemovement was committed to this new development. The dangers

inherentinitwerenotslowinshowingthemselves.Thefirstshockcamewhen the "power" in Baxter commanded him to go to the Court ofChancery and deliver a message which would be there given him,whereuponheshouldbecastintoprison.Hewent,andnomessagecametohim,andhewasnotcastintoprison.Otherpredictionsthathadbeenmade failed of fulfilment. Contradictions began to emerge between theseveral deliverances by the same organ, or between the several organs.Spiritwasarrayedagainstspirit.Thespiritthathadspokenacceptablyinone, was pronounced by another, speaking in the Spirit, nothing otherthananevilspirit.Somewhohadbeenveryforwardinspeaking,andhadreceivedtheindorsementofothersspeakingintheSpirit,wereconvictedofhavingframedtheirownmessages.Baxter'seyeswereopened,andtheverydoctrinalbasisofIrving'steachinghavingbecome—aswellitmight—suspect tohim,he foundhimselfat lastno longerable tobelieve thatthemanifestations in which he had himself taken so prominent a partwereofGod.34

Theclimaxof thisparticulardevelopment isverydramatic.Havingreached his conclusion, Baxter (who lived at Doncaster) naturallytravelledatonceuptoLondontocommunicateittoIrving.Hearrivedatthemoment of a crisis in Irving's own affairs. Itwas the verymorningwhenIrvingwastoappearinthesuitbroughtagainsthimbythetrusteesof the church for permitting in it practices contrary to the trust deed.Irvingwas atbreakfastwith apartyof friends. "CallinghimandMr. J.C[ardale]apart,"saysBaxter,35"ItoldthemmyconvictionthatwehadallbeenspeakingbyalyingspiritandnotbytheSpiritoftheLord."Butwewill let David Brown describe the scene from within. He had himselfreached the conclusion that there was nothing supernatural in the"manifestations"—this was not exactly Baxter's conclusion—and haddeterminedtoseparatehimself fromIrving.HehadbrokenthistoMrs.Irvingbuthadpostponedannouncingit toIrvinghimselfuntilafterthetrial,whichwastotakeplacethatday."Theselectfewofus,"hewrites,36

"came home with him"—from the early-morning prayer-meeting—"tobreakfast, in the midst of which Miss Cardale uttered, in the usualunnatural voice, some words of cheer in prospect of the day'sproceedings.Butscarcelyhadsheceasedwhenaringcametothedoor,and Mr. Irving was requested to speak with the stranger. After five

minutes'absence,hereturned,saying, 'Letuspray,'andkneelingdown,allfollowedwhilehespokeinthisstrain:'Havemercy.Lord,onThydearservant,whohas comeup to tellus thathehasbeendeceived, thathiswordhasneverbeenfromabovebutfrombeneath,andthatitisallalie.Havemercy on him, Lord, the enemy hath prevailed against him, andhitherhathhecomeinthistimeoftroubleandrebukeandblasphemy,tobreakthepowerofthetestimonywehavetobearthisdaytothisworkofThine.ButletThyworkandpowerappearuntoThypoorservant....'"

SostrongwasthedelusiontowhichIrvingwasnowdelivered—thatIrvingwhohadbeenhithertoplasticwaxinthehandsofeverybody.HewassoonestablishedinhisnewchurchinNewmanStreet.Inthatchurchanelaborateorderwassetup,andanornateritualinstitutedaccordingtothepatternofwhichBaxterhimselfhaddrawn theoutlines, andwhichwasevermorefullydevelopedbydeliverancesfromBaxter'sfollowers.37

"Beforetheopeningofthischurch,theprophethimselfhadpublishedthewonderful narrative in which he repeated the predictions which camefromhisown lips, and, appealing to thewholeworldwhether theyhadbeen fulfilled, proclaimed them a delusion."38 Nothing, however, couldnow stay thedevelopment of the ''CatholicApostolicChurch,"not evenIrvinghimself,hadhewishedtodoso.Moreandmoreoverruledandsetasidebythepowershehadevokedandcouldnotcontrol,hesankintoanevermoresubordinatepositionintheedificehehadraised.39

Meanwhileitwasnotgoingmuchbetterwiththe"gifts"inScotland,where they had originated, than in London, whither they had beentransplanted.ThereportoftheiroutbreakontheClydehadfoundareadyresponseintheheartofThomasErskineofLinlathen.Hiswholereligiouslifewasintenselyindividualistic,andhetoohadbecomeimbuedwiththesame chiliastic hopes which in London were fostered by the propheticstudies of Albury. Predisposed to recognize the phenomena asendowmentsoftheHolyGhost,herepairedatoncetoPortGlasgowandbecame an inmate of the Macdonalds' house, living with them for sixweeksandattending thedailyprayer-meetings,wherehewitnessed themanifestations.Hisimmediateconclusionshepublishedtotheworldinatract,OntheGiftsoftheSpirit,issuedatthecloseof1830,andinamoreconsiderable volumewhich appeared the same year under the titleThe

BrazenSerpentorLifeComing throughDeath. "Theworld," saidhe,40

"doesnotliketherecurrenceofmiracles.Andyetitistruethatmiracleshaverecurred.IcannotbuttellwhatIhaveseenandheard.Ihaveheardpersons,bothmenandwomen,speakwithtonguesandprophesy,thatis,speak in the Spirit to edification, exhortation, and comfort." A closeracquaintance with the phenomena, however, first shook and thenshattered this favorable judgment.Thedevelopments inLondonwereagreattrialtohisfaith,asindeedtheywerealsotothatoftheoriginatorsofthe"gifts"atPortGlasgow,whodidnothesitatetodenouncethemasdelusions. "James Macdonald writes,"41 Erskine tells one of hiscorrespondents,"thatthespiritamongthemdeclaredtheLondonpeopleto be 'deceitful workers transforming themselves into the Apostles ofChrist.'Strangethings—spiritagainstspirit."Hediscoveredthatsomeatleast of the deliverances of the Macdonalds rested on no profounderinspirationthanparagraphsinthecurrentnewspapers.42Beforetheendof1833herequiredtowrite:43 "Mymindhasundergoneaconsiderablechange. . . . Ihave seen reason todisbelieve that it is theSpirit ofGodwhichisinM,andIdonotfeelthatIhavestrongerreasontobelievethatit is in others." His conviction grew ever stronger that all themanifestationshehadhimselfwitnessedatPortGlasgowweredelusive,44

and that the whole development had originated and been maintainedthroughadreadfulmistake.45

Whyheshouldhaveevergivenhimselftosuchadelusionistherealpuzzle. There is an article in the Edinburgh Review for June, 1831,reviewingthenewcharismaticliterature,consideringwhichthereviewerimpatientlybutnotunjustlyexclaimsthat"theologianslookfortruth,aschildren on excursions seek for pleasure, by leaving the plain path andthelightofdaytopenetrateintocavernsandscrambleinthedark."46Inthis article occurs a pungent paragraph which ought itself to haveawakened Erskine to the true nature of his procedure. The subject inhand is the criterion employed to discriminate between true and falsemanifestations of the Spirit. True to his spiritual individualism, his"enthusiasm,"togiveitanoldname,Erskinehadcontendedthattheonlypossible criterion in such cases is our own spiritual discernment. "Theonly security," hewrote, ''lies in having ourselves the seal ofGod—thatgift of the Holy Ghost by which we may detect the lying wonders of

Satan." "According tohis account, therefore," the reviewer comesdownwithhissledge-hammerblow,47"theveryfactoftheirbeingpreparedtopass judgment between God and Satan in the affairs of Port Glasgowamounts to a direct pretence to inspiration," "The gift pretended," hecontinues,"isthat'discerningofspirits'socelebratedbytheApostles,asthe divine endowment by means of which Simon the magician wasdetectedbyPeterandElymasthesorcererconfoundedbyPaul.Itisnotthe first time, doubtless, thatmenhave indemnified themselves for theabsence of visible gifts by setting up a title to invisible ones. Theirargument,ifitentitlesthemtoeither,entitlesthemtoboth.Theirclaimisunfortunatelyconfinedtothecasewhichadmitsnootherproofthantheirmerepersonalassertionthattheyareinspired."

Certainlytheclaimsmadeto"gifts"whichadmittedofexternaltests,failed to justify themselves in the application of these tests. Even poorMaryCampbellwas,intheend,ledtoconfessthatshehadnotbehavedquitehonestly in thematterofher "gifts." "Ihad,before receivingyourletter,"shewritestoRobertStory,"cometotheresolutiontowritetoyouandtoconfessmysinanderrorforcallingmyownimpressionsthevoiceof God. Oh," she exclaims, "it is no light thing to use the holy nameirreverently,asIhavebeenmadetofeel."48"'Shewasnotatallcarefulinherstatements,'wroteanimpartialspectatorofthedoingsatFernicarry,whoknewtheattractiveprophetesswell,"R.H.Storytellsus,49andthengoesontoremarkonwhathecallsherCeltictemperament,"impressiveratheronthespiritualthanonthemoralside."Itisratherasordidstory,allinall,andweleaveitwithonlytworemarks,bothofwhichappeartousveryrelevant.TheoneconcernsthepatheticcircumstancethatRobertStory sent Mary Campbell's confession to Irving, accompanied with anote exposing her "want of simplicity"—and remarking on how"disappointing a career hers had turned out, especially as she wasconsidered the most remarkable and conclusive evidence of the HolyGhostbeingagainwithpowerinthemidstofthechurch"—justintimetobedeliveredafterIrving'sdeath.50Theotherconcernsthecompletenesswith which the criterion desiderated by the Edinburgh reviewer of therealityof thegift of spiritualdiscernmentalleged tobe laid claim tobyErskine, is supplied by the issue in these Scotch instances of claims tospiritual gifts, so confidently acceptedbyErskine.This issue for a time

profoundlyandsalutarilyshookErskine'sconfidenceinhis judgmentinsuchcases."TheshakewhichIhavereceivedinthematteris,Ifind,verydeep,"hewrites.51Buthecanonlyadd:"IhopeIshallnotbeledtoshutmy ear against the true voice because I have been deceived by a falseone."52Hedoesnotseemabletofindtherightway.53

Youwilldoubtlessbegladtohavesomeaccountofthenatureofthe"prophetic" deliverances, and other manifestations of this movement.YouwillfindsuchanaccountwithspecimensoftheScotch"tongues"inthe eighth appendix to Hanna's edition of Erskine's Letters, writtenduring this period. Mrs. Oliphant, in the course of her biography ofIrving,recordsquiteanumberof theutterances.Inparticularshegivestheinterjected"manifestations"ofthefirstserviceattheNewmanStreetChurch.54Wecannotquotethematlarge;herearesomeexamples.InthecourseofhisexpositionofthefirstchapterofISamuel,Irvingmentionsthechurchasbarren...onwhichtheecstaticvoiceinterposes:"Ohbutsheshallbefruitful:oh!oh!oh!sheshallreplenishtheearthandsubdueit—and subdue it!" A little further on, another breaks in with lessappositenesstothesubject:"Oh,youdogrievetheSpirit—youdogrievetheSpirit!Oh!thebodyofJesusistobesorrowfulinspirit!YouaretocrytoyourFather—tocry, to cry, in thebitternessof your souls!Oh it is amourning,amourning,before theLord—asighing,andcryingunto theLord because of the desolations of Zion—because of the desolations ofZion—because of the desolations of Zion!" There were seven of thesevoices heard during the course of the service. Theywere all pious, butrepetitious, and, one would think (with Mrs. Oliphant), quiteunnecessary,interruptionsoftheservice.

It is more difficult to convey a notion of what the "speaking withtongues" was like. The "tongues" were thought at first to be reallanguages.ObserversoftheScotchinstancesareveryclearthat,althoughunintelligible to their hearers, they were languages with recognizablestructureassuch.55CardaleeasilyseparatedinJ.Macdonald'sutterancestwodistinguishable tongues.56MaryCampbell declared that the tonguewhichshespokewasordinarilythatofthePelewIslanders.57Theopinionsoon became settled, however, that the "tongues" were an ecstaticheavenly and no earthly speech. The piercing loudness and strength of

theutterancewasitsmostmarkedcharacteristic.Onewitnessspeaksofitas "bursting forth" from the lips of awoman, "with an astonishing andterriblecrash."58Baxtersaysthatitfellonhimathisprivatedevotionssoloudly that he stuffed his handkerchief into his mouth to keep fromalarming the house.59 Irving's own description of it is as follows: "Thewholeutterancefromthebeginningtotheendingof it, iswithapower,and strength, and fullness and sometimes rapidity of voice, altogetherdifferentfromthatoftheperson'sordinaryutteranceinanymood;andIwouldsay,both in its formand in itseffectsuponasimplemind,quitesupernatural.ThereisapowerinthevoicetothrilltheheartandoverawethespiritafteramannerwhichIhaveneverfelt."60Carlyleonceheardit,andhegivesacharacteristicdescriptionof it.61"Itwasinaneighboringroom. . . . There burst forth a shrieky hysterical 'Lah lall lall!' (little ornothingelsebutl'sanda's)continuedforseveralminutes.... 'Whywasthere not a bucket of water to fling on that lah-lalling hystericalmadwoman?' thought we or said to one another." Doubtless bothaccountsaresomewhatcoloredbythepersonalequation.

We may imagine what a public service would be like liable tointerruptions by such manifestations. Henry Vizetelly, in his GlancesBackThroughtheYears(1893),givesusavignettepictureofIrvinginhisnewchapelinNewmanStreet."WhatchieflyattractedmetothechapelinNewman-street was the expectation, generally realised, of the spiritmoving some hysterical shrieking sister or frantic Boanerges brother(posted in the raised recess behind Irving's pulpit), to burst forthsuddenly with one of those wild rapid utterances which, spite of theirunintelligibility,sentastrangethrillthroughallwhoheardthemforthefirsttime....Hehadgrowngrayandhaggard-looking,andthis,withhislong,stragglinghairandrestlesslook,emphasizedbythecastinhiseye,gave him a singularlywild and picturesque appearance.His voice, too,waspiercingly loud, andhisgestureswereasvehementas thoseof anystreetranteroftheday."

Ithinkyouwillnotbesorry,however,toplacebythesideofthisafull-lengthportraitofoneofthoseearly-morningprayer-meetingsheldinthe Regent Street Church, which were the scene of the first publicdisplaysofthe"power."Youwillbearinmindthatthehourissixinthe

morning,whichinthewinterwasbeforedawn."Thechurchappearedtome,"writesourobserver,62"tobepitchdark;onlythelightsfromthegaslampsshining intothewindowsenabledus togropeourwayforward.Itseemedtobeentirelyfull,butmyfriendaccostedaverger,wholedustoanexcellentseat,nearlyoppositethereadingdesk.Afterthepeoplewereseated themost solemn stillness prevailed. The sleet beating upon thewindowswas theonly sound that couldbeheard.The clouded sky andthedriving snow increased the obscurity, and itwasnot for some timethatwecouldperceiveournearestneighbors,andassureourselves thatthe place was full from one end to the other. I quite believe in theexquisitesimplicityandentiresincerityofMr.Irving'swholecharacter.Ibelieve him to have been incapable of deliberately planning the scenewhichfollowed.Hadhe,however,beenthemostconsummateactorthatever lived,hadhestudiedtheartofscenicportraitureanddisplayfromhis youth up, he could not have produced a finer effect than on thisoccasion.Justastheclocksoutsidestrucksix,thevestrydooropenedandhe entered the churchwith a small but verybright reading lamp inhishand.Hewalkedwithsolemnstep to the readingdesk,andplacing thelampuponit, immediatelybeforehim,hestoodupfacingtheaudience.Remember,thiswastheonlylightintheplace.Itshoneuponhisfaceandfigureas if to illuminatehimalone.Hehadona voluminousdarkbluecloak,withalargecape,withagiltclaspatthethroat,whichheloosenedat once, so that the cloak formed a kind of a background to his figure.Tall,erect,andgraceful,hestoodforafewmomentsinsilence,hispaleface in thewhite light,his longdark locks fallingdownuponhiscollar,hiseyessolemnandearnest,peeringintothedarknessofthebuilding....Afterafewmusical,earnestwordsofprayerheopenedtheBiblebeforehim,andbegantoreadthetwenty-secondchapterofRevelation.IfIweretoliveahundredyearsIshouldneverforgetthereadingofthatchapter.Ibelieveitexceededineffectthefinestspeechandmosteloquentsermoneveruttered.Theexquisitemusical intonationandmodulationofvoice,thedeepandintensepathosofdelivery,asifthespeakerfelteverywordentering into his own soul, and that he was pouring it out to create asympathywith his own feelings in others—all this was very wonderful,andtotallyabsorbingeverythoughtoftheaudience.Butwhenhecametothatverse, 'IamtherootandtheoffspringofDavid,andthebrightandMorningStar,'theeffectofthelastfivewordswaselectrical.Thepeople

couldnotcheernorapplaud,norinanywayrelievetheirfeelings.Therewas a kind of hard breathing, a sound of suppressed emotion, morestriking than the loudest plaudits could have been. The reader himselfstopped for amoment as if to allow his unwonted emotion to subside.Beforehecouldresumetherecamefromawomanwhowastwoorthreeseatsbehindme,asoundsoloudthatIamsureitmighthavebeenheardontheoppositesideof thesquare. Ihavebeentryingto findawordbywhichtodescribeit,andtheonlywordIcanthinkofistheword'yell.'Itwasnotascreamnorashriek;itwasayellsoloudandsoprolongedthatitfilledthechurchentirely,andasIhavesaid,musthavebeenheardfarbeyondit.Itwasatfirstonesinglesound,butitseemedinashorttimetoresolveitselfintomanyseparatesounds—notintoarticulatewordsbyanymeans.Theywerefarmore likethesoundsutteredbyadeafanddumbchildmodulating its tones,butwholly innocentof speech.Thiswas thebeginningand theendingof the so-called 'unknown tongues' inRegentSquare,bywhichImeantheynevervariedfromnorimproveduponthistype.Howanyonecouldbesodeludedastofancyinthemanywordsorsyllables,tosaynothingofanylanguage,Icouldneverunderstand.Therewasnoarticulation,andnoattemptat it.Hadtherebeennowandthensomethinglikeaword,itwasmixedupinsuchajargonofsound,itwasutteredwithsuchrapidity,and insucha longcontinuedandprolongedyell that, ledup to itas Ihadbeenby theadjunctsof thescene,by theweirdnessandobscurityofthebuilding,Iwasneverdeceivedbyitforonemoment.Afterafewminutes'utteranceofthese'unknowntongues,'theexcitedwomanbegantospeakinarticulateEnglishwords.Itwasstillinthe same loud yell, slightly subdued by the necessity of speech. TheutteranceswerechieflytextsofScriptureofanexhortativekind—thefirstwordbeinguttered three timesover, eachone louder than the last, thelast calling forth thewoman'spowers to theutmost,herbreastheavingandstrainingwiththeexertion.OnthisoccasiontheEnglishbeganoddlyenough,withtheword,'Kiss!Kiss!!Kiss!!!theSon,lesthebeangry,andyeperishfromtheway.'Thismorningtherewasonlyonemanifestation.Generally therewere two; on several occasions I heard three, andoncefour. They proceeded, however, from the same women, for while thesecond was speaking the first recovered her strength, and as hercompanion'svoicediedaway insubduedmurmurs,sheburstoutanew,asifadozenspiritswerecontendinginher.WhenIlookbackonthatfirst

morning,IfeelmovedwiththedeepestpityandregretforpoorEdwardIrving. He was greatly excited and overcome. In his honest heart, hebelieved that God had honored him and favored him above all theministers inLondon. I can seehimnowbeforeme, as I sawhim then,meeklyandhumblysaying,'IwillnowfinishreadingthechapterinwhichIwasinterruptedbytheHolySpirit,speakingbythisyoungwoman.'YesIheardhimsaythiswithmyownears.Alreadythecharmoftheservicewas gone.He seemed glad to conclude it, as if he were afraid his owngentlewordscoulddetractfromandinjuretheholyimpressionthathadbeenproduced...."

EdwardIrvinghimself"neverreceivedthepower,norattainedtoanysupernaturalutterance,thoughnoonemoreearnestlysoughtafterit."63

AsErskine inScotland,soIrving inLondon,hadtobecontentwiththerole of observer of others' endowments. Norwas the actual number ofthosewhoenjoyedthegiftsatanytimeverylarge."Ofthemanyhundredindividuals who for the first twelve months attended in London upontheseutterances,andwhowere,oneandall,praying for thesamegifts,notsomanyas twelveattainedto theutterances.""The leadingpersonswho,formanymonthsgaveforththeutterances,andwroughtthestrongconvictionoftheworkbeingofGodweretwoladies"64—andoneofthem(MissHall)wasnotonlydeclaredbyhersisterprophetess(MissCardale)tobea falseprophetess,65 butwas constrained to confess thaton someoccasionsatleastshewasherselftheauthorofherutterances.66

Ofcourseweareinthepresencehereofhysteria.67TherearethosewhotakeoccasionfromthisfacttoexonerateIrving,inwholeoratleastin large part, for his vagarious course. "Oh," cries an appreciativebiographer,"thatthewholesadtribeofpropheticpedantsandhystericalpietistshadgonetheirownway,leavinghimtogohis!"68Didtheynotgotheirownway?AndwasittheirfaultthatIrvingneverhadawayofhisown?Whyburden"theAlburysages"or thecrowdofhystericalwomenwhichsurroundedhim,andtowhomhegavealltoowillinganear,with"the shipwreck of Irving's genius and usefulness"? Is not their ownshipwreck burden enough for them to bear? Were it not juster to saysimplythatthiswastheparticularkindoffireIrvingchosetoplaywith,and that, therefore, this is the particular way in which he burned his

fingers?Itisaltogetherprobable,beingthemanhewas,thatifithadnotbeeninthese,hewouldhaveburnedtheminsomeotherflames.69

FAITH-HEALING

I HAVE called your attention to the discrediting which befell theIrvingite gifts. This discreditingwaswrought not only by the course ofhistorywhichconfoundedalltheexpectationsbasedonthem,butalsobythe confession which was made by one and another of the "gifted"personsthattheyhadsufferedfromdelusion.Letmeremindyouofthis,and at the same time point out that all the gifts are involved in thisdiscrediting.The characteristic Irvingite giftwas the "tongues," and theaccompanying"prophecy."RobertBaxterintroducedanewmanifestationof authoritative and predictive deliverances, which was assumed tobelong to the "Apostolic" gift. But all the "prophets" committedthemselves, when speaking in "the power," to the genuineness of hisinspiration. Their credit falls thus with his. But again, their gifts areinextricablyboundupwiththegiftof"healing."YouwillrememberthatMaryCampbell"spokewithtongues"beforeshewashealed;andthatthedescent of the "power" onMargaretMacdonald was preliminary to itsdescentonJamesMacdonald,whobyitwasmadethefirstfaith-healerofthemovement.ByhimbothMargaretMacdonald'sandMaryCampbell'shealingwasperformed—theinitialstepsoftherestorationofthe"gifts."

Itisimpossibletoseparatethesecasesofhealingfromtheothergiftswith which they are historically connected. And in general the several"gifts"appearonthepagesoftheNewTestamenttogether,andformsoclearlyconnectedabodythatitwouldbedifficulttoseparatethemfromone another. Nevertheless many attempt their separation, and,discardingoratanyrateneglectingtheothergiftsrevivedintheIrvingitemovement, contend vigorously that the gift of healing the sick is apermanent endowment of the church, and has been illustrated bynumerouscasesessentially like thoseofMargaretMacdonaldandMaryCampbell down to to-day. This assertion is very clearly made by aclergymanofthechurchofEngland,JosephWilliamReynolds,inabookdealingwithwhat he callsTheNaturalHistory of Immortality. "Manyfacts,attestedbyhonest,capable,painstakingwitnesses,"hesays,1"showthe reality in our own days of healings which exceed the limits of allknownnaturalandhumanmeans,sothatnoreasonabledoubtoughtto

existastotheirbeinggivenofGodinconfirmationofourChristianfaith.ClergyandlaityoftheEnglishchurch,variousnon-conformingministers,medical men, lawyers, and professors of physical science, with a largenumberofhealedpersons,presentindisputableevidencethattheGiftofHealing is now, as in the Apostolic Age, one of the signs which followthosewhobelieve."Theclaimisprecise,andthebeliefwhichitexpressesis somewhat wide-spread. Already thirty years ago (1887)2 there weremore than thirty "Faith-Homes" established in America, for thetreatment of disease by prayer alone; and in England and on theEuropean Continent there were many more. International conferenceshad already been held by its advocates, and conventions of narrowerconstituencybeyondnumber.Itcountsadherentsineverychurch,and,iffornootherreasonthanitsgreatdiffusion,itdemandscarefulattention.

Iamalittleembarrassedtoknowhowtotakeupthesubjectsoastodoitjusticeandtobringthefulltruthoutclearly.Onthewhole,Ifancyitwill be fairest to select a representative book advocating this teaching,andtobeginwithananalysisofitsargument.Thewaybeingthusopened,we shall probably be able to orient ourselves with reference to theproblemitselfinacomparativelybriefspace.ThebookIhaveselectedforthis purpose as, on thewhole, at once themost readable and themostrational presentation of the views of the Faith-Healers, is Doctor A, J.Gordon'sTheMinistryofHealing,orMiraclesofCure inAllAges.Thecopyof thisbookatmydisposalbelongs to thesecond, revisededition,issuedin1883.Gordonwritesinastraightforward,businesslikestyle,inexcellentspirit,withgreatskillinarranginghismatteranddevelopinghissubject,andwithaverypersuasiveandeveningeniousdispositionofhisargument, so as to present his case in the most attractive way. Heexpresses his purpose as "to let the history of the church of all agesanswer to the teaching of the Scriptures on this question, withoutpresuming to dogmatize on it himself."3 Alreadywe get the impressionthatheknowshowtopresenthismattersoasnotonlytopleasereaders,butalsotoremovesuchprejudicesagainsthiscauseasmaybelurkingintheirminds, and topredispose them to followhis guidance.Wedonotlosethisimpressionaswereadon.Afteranintroductorychapteron''TheQuestionandItsBearings,"weareatoncegivenaseriesofchapterson"The Testimony of Scripture," "The Testimony of Reason," "The

Testimony of the Church," "The Testimony of Theologians," "TheTestimony of Missions," "The Testimony of the Adversary," "TheTestimony of Experience," "The Testimony of the Healed." You willobservethepowerofsuchadispositionofthematter;italmostconvincesustoreadoverthemeretitlesofthechapters.Attheendtherecometwochaptersonthe"Verdict"—calledrespectivelythe"VerdictofCandor"andthe"VerdictofCaution"—andfinallythe"Conclusion."Wemustnowlooka little more closely into the contents of this full and admirablymarshalledargument.

Our logical sense meets with a shock at the first opening of thevolume.Ontheveryfirstpagetheauthorrepresentsaskingthequestion.Whatisamiracle?as"evadingtheissue";andtowardthecloseofthefirstchapterheformallydeclinestodefineamiracle.This,astheoutcomeofachapter on "The Question and its Bearings," beginning a volumeundertakingtogiveproofoftheexistenceof"miraclesofcureinallages,"is far from reassuring. We open our eyes wider, however, when weobservethatthismethodofdealingwiththesubjectisnotpeculiartothisauthor,butissomewhatcharacteristicoftheadvocatesofFaith-Healing.Robert L. Stanton, for example, in an able essay printed in ThePresbyterian Review, takes up the same position.4 "It is well in theoutset," he says, "to have a definite conception of the topic to behandled."Hethenproceedsbywayofrenderingthesubjectmoredefinitetoexpressapreference for "thecategoryof thesupernatural, insteadofthat of the miraculous." Such methods can bear only one of twomeanings.Theyeitheryieldthequestionindebatealtogether—fornoonewhoisaChristianinanyclearsensedoubtsthatGodhearsandanswersprayerforthehealingofthesickinagenerallysupernaturalmanner—orelse they confuse the issue. The former is certainly not their intention;thesewritersdonotmeantoyieldthepointofthestrictmiraculousnessof Faith-Healing. Stanton's selected instances, on which he rests hisdefense of Faith-Healing, are all such as are meant to demonstratespecificallymiraculousworking.Everywhere theuseofmeansnaturallyadaptedtobringthecureabout,suchasthesurgeon'sknifeorthearticlesofthemateriamedica,are,ifnotforbidden,yetcertainlydiscouragedbythepractitionersofFaith-Healing,andrepresentedasamarkof lackoftrustinGod;anddependenceonGodalone,apartfromalluseofnatural

means,isrepresentedastheveryessenceofthematter.5Afterrefusingattheoutsettodefineamiracle,weobserveGordon,accordingly,showingnohesitancylateronindefiningitsharplyenough,andassertingthatitisjustthiswhichiswroughtinFaith-Healing.Whenthetestimonyisallin,andhecomestodelivertheverdict,hedeclaresdecisively,6"amiracleisthe immediate actionofGod, asdistinguished fromHismediate actionthrough natural laws"—than which no definition could be clearer orbetter. This, he now says, this andnothing else, iswhatwe pray for inFaith-Healing. It is plain, therefore, that these writers do notmean toyieldthequestionwhentheydeclinetodefineamiracleatthebeginningof their arguments. Precisely what they contend for is that expressmiracles of healing—healings by the "immediate action of God, asdistinguished fromHismediate action throughnatural laws"—still takeplaceinnumerousinstances.Theonlyeffectoftheirrefusalofdefinitionattheoutset,therefore,istoconfusetheissue.

Now,thisconfusionoftheissueisaveryseriousmatter.Ithasfirstofalltheeffectofpermittinglonglistsofunsiftedcasestobepleadedasproofs of the proposition defended, although a large number of thesecaseswouldbeatonceexcludedfromconsiderationonacloserdefinitionofexactlywhat is tobeproved.Thus theverdictof thesimplereader isforced, as it were: he is led to look upon every instance of answer toprayerasacaseinpoint,andisgraduallyledonthroughtheargumentinthedelusionthattheseareallmiracles.Ithasnexttheeffectofunjustlyprejudicing the reader against those who feel constrained to doubt thereality of specifically miraculous Faith-Healing as if they denied thesupernatural, or any real, answer to prayer, instead of merely thecontinuance through all time of the specificmode of answer to prayerwhichcomesbymiracle.Theconfusionsthusengenderedinthereader'smind are apt, moreover, to eat pretty deeply into his own modes ofthinking,andtoendbybetrayinghimintoseriouserrors.Heislikely,forexample, to be led to suppose that in the cases adduced for hisconsideration he has examples of what real miracles are; and thus toreduce the idea of miracles to the level of these Faith-Healings,assimilatingthemiraclesofourLord,forexample,tothemanddenyingthat miracles in the strict sense have ever been wrought, even by ourLord.Or,on theotherhand,underamoreor less vague consciousness

that the instancesofFaith-Healingadduceddonotprovewhat theyarereally adduced to prove, he may gain the impression that they do notprove what they are ostensibly adduced to prove, that is to say, thesupernatural answer to prayer; and thus he may be betrayed intodoubting the reality of any answer to prayer whatever. Readers of theliterature of Faith-Healing will not need to be told that no merelyhypotheticaleffectsofthisconfusingwayofarguingthequestionareheresuggested.Eachoftheseeffectshasactuallybeenproducedinthecaseofnumerousreaders.

Sofarisconfusionbetweenthingsthatdifferpressed,intheattemptto obtain some petty argumentative advantage, that, not content withrefusing to discriminate miracles (the continued recurrence of whichsome deny) from special providences (which all heartily recognize ascontinually occurring), some writers make a vigorous effort also toconfound the miraculous healing of the body with the supernaturalregeneration of the soul, as not merely analogous transactions, buttransactionssomuchthesameinessencethattheonecannotbedeniedandtheotheraffirmed.Gordonpermitshimself,forexample,towrite:"Isit right for us to pray to God to perform a miracle of healing in ourbehalf?'Thetruthis,'answersaneminentwriter,7'thattoaskGodtoactatall,andtoaskHimtoperformamiracleareoneandthesamething....'We see no reason, therefore, why we should hesitate to pray for thehealingofourbodiesanymore than the renewalofour souls.Botharemiracles. . . ."8 The effect of writing like this is obviously to identifymiraculousFaith-Healingwith the causeof supernaturalism ingeneral;andthustheunwaryreaderisled,becausehebelievesintheregenerationofthesoulbytheimmediateoperationoftheHolySpiritandinaprayer-hearingGod,tofancythathemustthereforebelieveinmiraculousFaith-Healing.Averyunfairadvantageisthusgainedintheargument.

Thedeeperdanger to the reasonerhimselfwhich comes from thusobscuringthelineswhichdividemiracles,specificallysocalled,fromthegeneral supernatural, although already incidentally suggested, seems torequireat thispointmoreexplicitnotice.Whenonce thedistinguishingmark of miracles is obliterated, it is easy to eliminate the specificallymiraculousaltogetherbythesimpleexpedientofsinkingitinthegeneral

supernatural; and that notmerely in contemporary Christianity, but inthe origins of Christianity also. Numerous recent advocates of Faith-Healing have definitely entered upon this path. Thus PrebendaryReynolds,towhosebookallusionhasalreadybeenmade,isperfectlysurethat the miracles of Faith-Healing are as truly miracles as those thatChristwroughtwhileonearth.But,thefencebetweenmiraclesproperlyso-calledandthegeneralsupernaturalhavingbeenconvenientlyletdownforhimbyhisinstructors,heisnotsosurethatmiracles,inthesenseofeffectswrought immediatelybyGodwithout the interventionofnaturalforces,everoccurred.Heseeksanalogiesinmesmerism,hypnotism,andthe like, and permits himself to write a passage like this: "Dr. RudolfHeidenhaun gently stroked once or twice alongDr.Kröner's bent rightarm;atonceitbecamequitestiff.Othermuscles,othermemberscanbeacted on in likemanner. The effects are similar to effects produced bycatalepsy. This shows how easy it was for our Lord, with His divineknowledgeandpower,toworkeverykindofhealing."9EvenPrebendaryW.YorkeFaussetinsiststhatthehealingworksofourLordwerewroughtbyHimnotinvirtueofHisDeitybutontheplaneofHishumanity,anddiffer not in kind but in degree "from the wonderful works of humanhealing, or, at all events, of healers who havewrought 'in the name ofJesus Christ'"—in which, it is needless to say, he finds nothing that isstrictlymiraculous, though everything that is "spiritual," that is to say,supernatural.10 Some may look upon this movement of thought, to besure, with indifference. The late Charles A. Briggs, for example, taughtthat"if itwerepossible toresolveall themiraclesof theOldTestamentintoextraordinaryactsofDivineProvidence,usingtheforcesandformsofnatureinaccordancewiththelawsofnature;andifwecouldexplainallthemiraclesofJesus,Hisuniqueauthorityovermanandovernature,fromHis use ofmind-cure, or hypnotism, or any other occult power,""nothingessentialwouldbelostfromthemiraclesoftheBible."11Fewofus will be able, however, to follow Doctor Briggs in this judgment, ajudgmentwhichwouldconfoundMoseswiththemagiciansatPharaoh'scourt, and reduce our Lord, in these ofHis activities at least, from themanifestationofGodinthefleshtotheexhibitionoftheoccultpowersofman.Itisnoteasytoview,therefore,withotherthangraveapprehensionthe breaking down of the distinction betweenmiracles and the generalsupernatural;becauseittendstoobliteratethecategoryofthemiraculous

altogether,andinthelongruntoassimilatethemightyworksofourLordto—we put it at its best — the wonders of science, and Him, as theirworker,to—westillputitatitsbest—thehumansage.12

There is yet another effect, coming, however, from the oppositeangle,which follows on breaking down the distinction betweenmiracleandthegeneralsupernatural,thatweshouldnotpassbywithoutnotice.What is the natural attitude of a man expecting a miracle? Simpleexpectancy,ofcourse;justquietwaiting.Butwhatisthenaturalattitudeof amanpraying forhelp fromGod,which is expected to come tohimthrough theordinary channelsof law?Equally,of course, eageractivitydirectedtotheproductionofthedesiredresult.Hencetheproverb,Godhelpsthosewhohelpthemselves;andtheexhortation,onahigherplane,Workandpray.NomanpraysGodforagoodharvestandthenneglectstoplanandplantandcultivate.Ifhedidheknowsperfectlywellhewouldneitherdeservenorreceivetheharvest.SimilarlyGodrequireseffortonthe part of those who receive His supernatural salvation—even thoughthereareelementsinitwhichdonotcomeby"law."''Workoutyourownsalvationwith fear and trembling," Paul commands, "for it isGodwhoworketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure." OnewouldthinkthatGordon,whoinsiststhatthehealingofourbodiesandthe renewal of our souls stand on the same plane with respect to thenatureoftheDivineactivitiesinvolved,wouldinferfromsuchapassagethatsincethegiftofsalvationfromGoddoesnotsupersedeourdutytoworkoutourownsalvation,sothegiftofbodilyhealingfromGodcannotsupersede thedutyofworkingoutourownhealing—eachby theuseoftheappropriatemeans.Butno;herequiresustodiscardmeans,andallseeking through means. Whence there follows, on the one hand, anadditional proof that, despite his refusal to define "miracle" for hisreaders at the outset, he carries in his own mind a perfectly definiteconceptionofwhatamiracleis;and,ontheotherhand,anindicationofthefanaticalcharacterofhisteachingastoFaith-Healing—ifitdoesnotturnouttobenotmerelysupernaturalbutdistinctivelymiraculousinitsmode of occurrence.Hewho prays for a harvest, and does not plough,andsow,andreap,isafanatic.Hewhopraysforsalvationanddoesnotwork out his own salvation is certainly aQuietist, andmay become anAntinomian.Hewhopraysforhealinganddoesnotemployallthemeans

ofhealingwithinhisreach—hygiene,nursing,medicine,surgery,—unlessGodhaspromisedtohealhiminthespecificmodeofprecisemiracle,iscertainlyafanaticandmaybecomealsoasuicide.Whence,atthisstageoftheinquiry,wemaylearnnotmerelythecontroversialunfairnessandthelogicalerrorofrefusingtodefineattheoutsetofadiscussionlikethiswhatamiracle is,butalso thegravepracticaldangerwhicharises fromsuch a procedure of leading men into destructive fanaticism. It is theessenceof fanaticism toneglect themeanswhichGodhasordained fortheproductionofeffects.

WeperceivethatGordonisboundtoproduceevidencenotmerelyofsupernatural healing but distinctively ofmiraculous healing in order tojustify his contention. And with his manner of opening the discussionbefore us, we feel bound, not only for our own instruction but for ourprotectionaswell,toscrutinizetheevidenceheofferswithcare,inorderto assure ourselves that it unambiguously justifies the conclusion thatGodhascontinuedthegiftofspecificallymiraculoushealingpermanentlyin the church.Theheadsof the chapters inwhich theproof is adducedhavealreadybeenmentioned.The firstof themappropriately invitesustoconsiderthetestimonyofScripture.Threescripturalpassagesarecitedandcommenteduponatlarge.Theseare:Matt.8:17:"Andhecastoutthespirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: that it might befulfilledwhichwas spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,Himself tookour infirmities, and bare our sicknesses";Mark 16:17, 18: "These signsshallfollowthemthatbelieve:inmynameshalltheycastoutdevils;theyshall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if theydrinkanydeadlything,itshallnothurtthem;theyshalllaytheirhandson the sick and they shall recover"; and James 5:14, 15: "Is any sickamongyou? lethimcall for theeldersof thechurch;and let themprayoverhim,anointinghimwithoilinthenameoftheLord:andtheprayeroffaithshallsavethesick,andtheLordshallraisehimup;andifhehavecommittedsins, theyshallbe forgivenhim."Elsewhere,and in treatisesofotherwriters,wefindhintsofotherpassagessupposedtobearonthesubject, such as John 14:12, 13: "Verily, verily, I say unto you.He thatbelievethonme,theworksthatIdoshallhedoalso;andgreaterworksthantheseshallhedo;becauseIgountomyFather";13theenumerationof miraculous gifts by Paul in the twelfth chapter of I Corinthians,

withouthintoftheirapproachingcessation,and14 "amongotherpowerswhichareconcededtobelongtotheChurchtotheendor'tillHecome'";andespeciallynumerousinstancesofactualFaith-HealingintheOldandNewTestamentsalike,particularlyintheActsoftheApostles,whichwearetold,"is fullof it."It isobservable,however, thatthethreepassageson which Gordon rests his argument really constitute the case of theotherwritersaswell.Wemusttakealookatthem,though,naturally,asbriefalookascanbemadeserviceable.

Webeginwiththesecondofthem,Mark16:17,18,becausewemayruleitoutofcourtatonceasspurious.Ofcourseitsspuriousnessmaybedisputed, and some very learnedmen have disputed it. The late DeanBurgonpublisheda lengthytreatise in itsdefense,andtheAbbéMartinwroteanevenmorelengthyone.Neverthelessitisjustascertainthatitisspuriousasanythingofthiskindcanbecertain.ThecertaintythatitwasnotoriginallyapartofMark'sGospel, for example, is the samekindofcertaintyasthatthebeautifulverse

"ForThysorrowsweadoreThee,Forthegriefsthatwroughtourpeace;GraciousSaviour,weimploreThee,InourheartsThyloveincrease,"

whichwenowsingas the last verseof thehymn, "Sweet themoments,richinblessing,"wasnotoriginallyapartofthathymn.Orifyouprefertoputitso,thecertaintythatthelasttwelveversesofMarkarespuriousis the same in kind as the certainty that the rest of Mark's Gospel isgenuine.Anditmaybeaddedthat it is justaswell foryouandmethattheyarespurious.Forthegiftsthatarepromisedto"themthatbelieve"seemnot to be promised to eminent saintsmerely, one here and therewho believes mightily, but to all believers; and what is promised tobelieversisnotoneortwoofthesegiftsbutallofthem."Thesesigns,"itissaid,"shallaccompanythemthatbelieve."Ishouldnotliketohavethegenuinenessofmyfaithmadedependentuponmyability tospeakwithnew tongues, to drink poison innocuously, and to heal the sick with atouch.15And,letusnoteinpassing,itcertainlywasnotunderstoodintheApostolic Church that these gifts were inseparable from genuine faith.

Theincidentof theconversionof theSamaritansrecordedintheeighthchapterofActsstandsthere,aswehaveseeninapreviouslecture,16fortheexpresspurposeofteachingusthecontrary—that,towit,thesesignsaccompaniednotthemthatbelievedbutthemonwhomtheApostleslaidtheirhandsinordertoconferthesesignsuponthem.

The employment of this spurious passage by Gordon in thisconnection brings him into inevitable embarrassment. For although,when commenting on it here,17 he insists, as he must, that "this richcluster of miraculous promises all hangs by a single stem, faith"—"thesamebelieving towhich is attached thepromiseof salvation"; and that"whateverpracticaldifficultieswemayhaveinregardtothefulfillmentofthisword, theseoughtnot to leadus to limit itwhere theLordhasnotlimitedit";yet,whenhecomes,atalaterpoint,tomeettheobjectionthat"if you insist thatmiracles of healing are possible in this age, then youmustlogicallyadmitthatsuchmiraclesasraisingthedead,turningwaterintowine,andspeakinginunknowntonguesarestillpossible"18—hedoes"throwonehalfoftheillustriouspromiseintoeclipse,"denyingthatthatpartof it,at least,whichsaysthatthissignshall followbelievers,"Theyshallspeakwithothertongues,"doesstillfollowthem.Norwillitbeeasytoshowthat"takingupserpents,"whateverthatmaymean,ordrinkingdeadlythingswithoutharm,arenot"miraclesonexternalnature,liketheturning of the water into wine." The truth is that these items bear anapocryphal appearance, and constitute one of the internal indications,answeringtothesufficientexternalproof,thatthepassageisuncanonicalandofuninspiredorigin.19

The third passage, that from James 5:14, 15, we are ourselvesinclinedtosetasidewithequalsummarinessas irrelevant.Weallow,ofcourse,thatthepresumptionis''thatthepassagereferstoanestablishedand perpetual usage in the Church"; we should not find it difficult tobelieve that "theoil isappliedasasymbolof thecommunicationof theSpirit,bywhosepowerhealingiseffected";weagreethat"thepromiseofrecovery is explicit, andunconditional" to the prayer of faith.20Butwesee no indication in the passage that "a peculiar miraculous faith" isintended; no promise of a healing in a specificallymiraculousmanner;andnocommandtoexcludemedicinalmeans,orproofoftheirexclusion.

If we read the passage with simpleminds, free from preconceptions, Ithinkwe shall find in it nothing but a very earnest exhortation to sickpeopletoturntotheLordintheirextremity,andaverypreciouspromiseto those who thus call uponHim, that the Lordwill surely hearken totheircry.

Thepassagedoesnotstandoffbyitselfinisolation:ithasacontext.Andthecontextthrowslightuponthesimplicityofthemeaning."Isanyamong you suffering?" asks James, and advises, "let him pray. Is anycheerful?lethimsingpraises.Isanyamongyousick?lethimcallfortheeldersofthechurch;andletthemprayoverhim,anointinghimwithoilinthenameoftheLord;andtheprayeroffaithshallsavehimthatissick,andtheLordshallraisehimup;andifhehavecommittedsins,itshallbeforgivenhim."Isthereanythingherethatisnotrepeatedbeforeoureyeseveryday,whenever anyChristian is sick—except thatwehaveallowedthe formal churchly act of intercession for him to fall into desuetude?Hereisreallythegravamenofthepassagetous.Theexplicitpromiseisto the official intercession of the church, the Apostolic enforcement, Itakeit,consonanttotheentranceintohistoryoftheorganizedchurch,ofour Lord's gracious promise, that "when two or three are gatheredtogetherinHisname,thereHeisinthemidstofthem."Evennatureitselfshould have taught us the value of this organic supplication; does notÉmileBoutroux,forexample,declare21that"acollectivewillhasnothingto dowith themathematical sum of the individual wills"? And canwewonderthatourLordshouldhonorthesameprinciple?Apartfromthisfailure, we have nothing in the passage that transcends universalChristian experience.Where is there any command in it to exclude theordinarymedicinalmeans?Where is thereanypromiseofa specificallymiraculousanswer?WhenJamessays,"Ifanyofyoulackethwisdom,lethimaskofGodwhogivethtoallmenliberallyandupbraidethnot,anditshall be given him," are we to understand him to forbid that wisdomshouldbesought in thenaturalwayof thoughtfulconsideration,andtopromise thatGodwill bestow it after a specificallymiraculous fashion?WhenourLordsays,withcompleteabsenceofanyhintoflimitationastothefieldinwhichtherequestmoves,"Askandyeshallreceive,"arewetounderstandHimtoforbidalleffortinanysphereoflife,andtopromisespecificallymiraculousprovisionforallourneeds?Arewetoexpecttobe

fedwithmannafromheaven,orarewenotrathertolearntoworkwithourownhands,thatwemayhavewherewithtogivetothenecessitiesofothersaswell as to supplyourownwants?There seems tobenomorereason in our present passage to exclude medicinal means from thehealing of the sick, or to expect amiraculous answer to our prayers intheirbehalf,thanthereisinourLord'spromisetoexcludetheuseofallmeansofseekingtosupplyourdailynecessitiesandtodependwhollyonmiraculousgiftsfromheaven.

It is probable that the common impression received from thispassageofthepromiseofamiraculoushealinginlargepartarisesfromwhatseemstheextremeformalityofthetransactionrecommended.Thesickmanistosendfortheeldersofthechurchtoprayforhim,andtheyaretoanointhimwithoil.Weareaptheretogettheemphasismisplaced.There is no emphasis on the anointing with oil. That is a merecircumstantialdetail,throwninbytheway.Theemphasisfallswhollyonthe sickman's getting himself prayed for officially by the elders of thechurch, and the promise is suspended wholly on their prayer, on thesuppositionthatitisofferedinfaith.Thecircumstantialclause,throwninalmost incidentally, "anointing with oil in the name of the Lord," issusceptibleof two interpretations.22The referencemaybe to theuseofoilasasymbolofthepoweroftheSpirittobeexercisedinthehealing;oritmay be to the use of oil as amedicinal agent. In neither view is theemployment of medicinal agents excluded; but in the latter view theiremploymentisdistinctlyalludedto.Thecircumstancethatoilwaswell-nigh theuniversal remedy in themedical practice of theday favors thelatterview,asdoestheemploymentof,asArchbishopTrenchputsit,"themundaneandprofane"insteadofthe"sacredandreligiousword"fortheactofanointing.23Thelightnessoftheallusiontotheanointingpointsinthesamedirection.Itscarcelyseemsthatsosolemnanactandsodistinctanactasceremonialanointingcouldbealluded tosocursorily.24 If,onthe other hand, the allusion is to the use of oil as a medicinal agent,everythingfallsintoitsplace.Themeaningthenisineffect,"givinghimhis medicine in the name of the Lord." The emphasis falls not on theanointing,butonitsbeingdone"inthenameoftheLord,"andthewholebecomes an exhortation toChristians,when they are sick, to seekuntotheLordaswellastotheirphysician—nay,toseekuntotheLordrather

thantotheirphysician—withapromisethattheLordwillattendtotheircry. Ifany is sickamongyou,we read, lethimcall for theeldersof thechurchandletthemprayforhim,rubbinghimwithhisoilinthenameoftheLord,andtheprayeroffaithshallsavehimthatissick.Whereistherepromiseofmiracleinthat?25

WhatJames requiresofus ismerely thatwe shall beChristians inoursicknessasinourhealth,andthatourdependencethen,too,shallbeontheLord. It isJust the trulyChristianattitudethatheexhortsus to,preciselyasPrebendaryReynoldsdescribesit."Weavailourselves,"sayshe,26 "of all that scienceknows, and thankGod for it. The resources ofcivilizationareours,andweuse themto theutmost.We labour inwiseand kindly nursing, and thankfully call in the medical skill which thedevout and learned and experienced physician and surgeon have atcommand. It is God, however, the real physician, who gives the chiefmedicine;whomakesdrugs, operations, kindness,nursing tohave truehealingpower;whotakesawaysin,sickness,death,givingrighteousness,healing, eternal life."Do you say this is a purely clerical view? It is thephysician's view also, if the physician happens to be a Christian. "Idressed thewound andGodhealed it,"wroteAmbroiseParé, the greatHuguenotphysician—the father ofmodern surgery—on thewalls of theÉcoledeMédecine atParis.27 Letme read you, however,more at largehowamoremodernChristianphysicianputsit."Inthehealingofeverydiseaseofwhateverkind,"writesDoctorHenryE.Goddard,28"wecannotbe too deeply impressed with the Lord's part of the work. He is theoperator.Weare theco-operators.MoreandmoreamI impressed thateverypatientofminewhohas ever risenup fromhis sickbedontohisfeetagainhasdonesobythedivinepower.NotI,buttheLord,hascuredhim.AnditisthisfactthattheLorddoessomuch,thatgivestodifferentsystems of healing their apparent cures. He has healedmany a one inspiteofmedicine,inspiteofmentalhealers,inspiteofignorance,inspiteofnegligenceandpoorandscantyfood.Nineteenoutoftwentycasesofgrippewillgetwellwithoutdoinganythingforit,ifwearewillingtobearit until that time. Pneumonia, even, is what the physician calls a self-limitingdisease,andmanycaseswillrecoveraloneifwearewillingtorunour chanceswith it. The armmay drop into boilingwater and becomescalded.Ninetimesoutoftenitwilltakecareofitselfandheal.Butifthat

armismineitisgoingtohaveanoutwardapplicationwhichwillmakeitfeel better the moment it touches it. And more important by far, it isgoing tobedressedaseptically topreventbloodpoisoning. Itmightgetwellitself,probablywould;butitisgoingtohavemylittleco-operation,themost intelligent that Icanrender, that theLordmayhave theopendoorthroughwhichHecancomeinandblessit."It istheveryspiritofJames, I take it, that speaks in thisChristianphysician. If youare sick,youwillusemeans,allthemeansthatexist;butyouwillusethemeansinthenameoftheLord,andtoHimyouwilllookfortheissue.

ThescatteredpassagesofScripturewhichareappealedtohereandtherebyFaith-Healerstobuttressthechiefprooftextsneednotdelayusmore than amoment.The examples ofmiraculous cures adduced fromthe Bible, are, of course, irrelevant. No one of the parties to thisdiscussiondoubtsthattheyweretrulymiraculous.Thequestionatissueis,whethersuchmiraculousworksmaystillbeperformed,nowthattheperiodofrevelationhasgoneby.Theappealtotheenumerationofgiftsinthe twelfth chapter of I Corinthians is equally irrelevant, since thequestionatissueispreciselywhethertheyareordinarygiftscontinuedinthe church, or extraordinary gifts connected (according to the eighthchapterofActs)directlywiththeApostles.John14:12isworthyofmoreattention.TheFaith-Healersdonotevenprofess,however,todothegreatworkswhichChristdid—Hismiraclesonnature,Hisraisingofthedead—and much less can they point to their healings as greater works thanthese.29Nomiracles, in the strict senseof theword, greater than thosewhich Christ did, have been done by any of His followers. But in andthroughHis followersHehas, in fulfilmentof thispromise,manifestedthe power of the Holy Spirit, foreshadowed and begun at Pentecost,beyondanythingwitnessedinHislifetime;andHeisthusconqueringtheworld toHimself through the "greaterworks" ofHisdisciples.ThatHerefersheretothesespiritualworksisgenerallyagreed.30

IhavereservedtothelastthepassagewhichGordonappealstofirst,becauseitsapplicationtothepresentmatterraisesaquestionofdoctrinewhichitseemedmoreconvenienttodiscussattheend,ratherthanatthebeginning of a scrutiny of proof texts. When speaking of our Lord'saboundingmiracles of healing,Matthew says thatHedid them "that it

might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying.Himself took our infirmities and bare our diseases" (Matt. 8:17). Thepassagehas,ofcourse,nodirectbearingontheassertionthatmiraculouscurescontinue tobeperformed in thechurch. It speaksonlyofChrist'sownmiraculouscures,anddoesnotintheremotestwaysuggestthatHisfollowersweretoworksimilarones.ItcanbemadeusefultotheFaith-Healinghypothesis,notdirectly,butonlyindirectly,throughthedoctrinewhichitissupposedtoteach.Thatdoctrineisdeclaredtobethis:"Thatwe have Christ set before us as the sickness-bearer as well as the sin-bearer of His people"; "that Christ endured vicariously our diseases aswell as our iniquities"; and, it being true "that our Redeemer andSubstituteboreoursicknesses,itwouldbenaturaltoreasonatoncethatHe bore them that we might not bear them." As, then, "we urge thetransgressor to accept theLordJesus ashis sin-bearer, thathemaynolongerhave tobear thepains andpenalties ofhisdisobedience," soweshould urge the sick "to accept Him as his pain-bearer."31 OttoStockmayer is quoted as teaching32 "that if our Redeemer bore oursicknesses it is not his will that his children should remain under thepowerofdisease,anymorethanthat,havingborneoursins,itishiswillthat they should remain under condemnation and disobedience." Inenunciating the same doctrine, Stanton makes use of the remarkableexpressions,33 "that the Atonement was not only made for sin but fordisease, the fruit of sin," and "that in atoning for ourdiseases of body,justasforoursinsofsoul,ChristtookthemuponHimselfthatHemightbear themaway, and thus relieveHispeople from theneedofbearingthem."

Itwould bedifficult to findmore confused expressions than these.What exact meaning can be attached, for example, to the phrase,"atonementfordisease"?Isitintendedtosuggestthatdiseaseisfaultforwhichwe are responsible? Atonement can bemade only for fault. Andwhy should thephrase, "beardisease away"be employed in connectionwith this text?Doesnot thewordemployedhere for "bearing sickness"expressnotbearingaway,removing,butbearing,enduring?AndbywhatrightcanStockmayer—the"theologianofFaith-Healing,"asheiscalled—parallelthe"powerofdisease"with"condemnationanddisobedience"asaliketakenawaybyChrist'sredemption,unlesshemeanstoconveythe

idea that, as there isnowno condemnation to them inChrist Jesus, sotherecannowbenodiseasetothemthatareinChristJesus;andasalldisobedienceiswilfulandsinful,soalsoisallsickness?Ifso,wecanonlyinferthatnoneofusareinChristJesus:ouruniversalphysicaldecayanddeatharebut theexternalmanifestationsofour inwardcorruptionandoureternaldoom.34

Itwilldoubtlessbemoreprofitable,however,toseektolayourfingeronthesourceoferrorinthestatementofthedoctrine,andtocorrectit,than to track out all its confusions. This error does not lie in thesuppositionthatredemptionisforthebodyaswellasthesoul,andthatthesavedmanshallberenewedintheoneaswellasintheother.Thisistrue. Nor does it lie in the supposition that provision is made in theatonement for the relief of men from disease and suffering, which arefruits of sin. This too is true.35 It lies in confusing redemption itself,whichisobjectiveandtakesplaceoutsideofus,withitssubjectiveeffects,which takeplace inus; and in failing to recognize that these subjectiveeffectsofredemptionarewroughtinusgraduallyandinadefiniteorder.Ideally all of Christ's children were saved before the foundation of theworld,whentheyweresetuponbyGod'slove,andgivenbytheFathertotheSontobesavedbyHim.ObjectivelytheyweresavedwhenChristdiedfor themon the tree, purchasing them toHimself byHis ownpreciousblood. This salvation was made their personal possession in principlewhen theywere regenerated by theHoly Spirit, purchased for thembythedeathofChristintheirbehalf.Itwasmadeovertothemjudiciallyontheir believing in Christ, in the power of theHoly Ghost thus given tothem. But it is completed in them in its full effects only when at theJudgment Day they stand, sanctified souls, clothed in glorified bodies,beforethethroneofGod,meet forthe inheritanceof thesaints in light.Here, youperceive, is a process.Even afterwehave believed inChrist,andhaveatitleasjustifiedmentothebenefitsboughtforusbyHisbloodand righteousness, entrance into the actual enjoyment of these severalbenefits remains a process, and a long process, to be completed in adefinite order. This is true of the spiritual blessings which come to usthroughtheatonementofChrist.Wearenolongerunderthecurseofsin.Butweremainsinners.Thestruggleagainstindwellingsin,andthereforeindwellingsintostruggleagainst,continuesthroughlife.Wehavenotyet

obtained, andwe are not yetmade perfect. It is little thatwe continuealsophysicallyweak,liabletodisease,andcertaintodie.Fortheremovalofthesephysicalevils, too,provisionismadeintheatonement.Butthebenefit here too is not received all at once. For us, as in the broadersphereoftheworld'ssalvation,deathisthelastenemytobeconquered.ThoughtheredeemedoftheLordandnolongerunderthedominionofsin,theresultsofsinremainwithus:inwardlywearecorrupt,outwardlywearethepreyofweaknessanddiseaseanddeath.Weshallnotescapefromeitherinthislife.Whoistherethatsinsnot?Andwhoistherethatdoes not suffer and die? But ultimately we are relieved from both. Ofindwelling corruptionwhenour sanctification is completedand,havingbeenmadeholy,wedepart,whichis farbetter, tobewiththeLord, theHolyOne.Ofoutwardweaknesses,atthatredemptionofthebodywhich,whileherebelow,weonly,groaningandtravailinginpain,waitforinitsdue season—that is, at the resurrection,whendeath shall be swallowedup in victory. This is the teaching of the Bible; and this is what ChristillustratedwhenHe healed the sick inHisministry on earth thatmenmight see, as in an object-lesson, that provision was made in Hissubstitutionaryworkforthereliefofeveryhumanill.Thereisincludedinthis, however, no promise that this relief is to be realized in itscompletenessallatonce,orinthisearthlylife.OurLordneverpermittedit for a moment to be imagined that the salvation He brought wasfundamentallyforthislife.Hiswasemphaticallyanotherworldreligion.Heconstantlypointedtothebeyond,andbademenfindtheirtruehome,tosettheirhopes,andtoplacetheiraspirations,there.

But,weareasked,aretherenottobeprelibationshere?Isthereno''intermediateworkofhealingandrecoveryforthebody"hereasthereis"a vast intermediate work of cleansing and renewal effected for thesoul?"36 Assuredly. The goodman will not fail to be the better for hisgoodness even in his bodily life. Of course we may make an absurdapplicationofevensoobviousamaxim.Thatdevoutphysicianwhomwehad occasion to quote a while ago, warns us against such an absurdapplication. He is unwise, he declares,37 who teaches "Obey thecommandments, the laws of spiritual life, and you will thereby attainphysicalhealth.""Thatdoesnotfollow,"hedeclares."Aswellsay, 'Obeythecommandmentsandyouwillbecomelargepossessorsofthisworld's

goods,' or, 'Obey the commandments and youwill therefore be exemptfromthe lawofgravitation.'"Whathemeans tosay is that theLord, inplacing His people in this complex of forces whose regular workingconstituteswhatwecall the lawsofnature, subjects them,of course, tothese laws. We cannot expect to be emancipated from the laws whichgoverntheactionoftheforcesinthemidstofwhichourlifeiscast.Thatwouldbetotakeusoutoftheworld.Nomatterhowholywearewemustexpect, ifwe cast ourselves from a tenth-storywindow, to fallwith thesame certainty andwith the same rate of accelerating velocity as othermen.Thelawofgravityisnotsuspendedinitsactiononusbyourmoralcharacter.WecannotgrowrichbysimplyrubbingsomeAladdin's lampandcommandingsupernaturalassistance;economic lawwillgoverntheacquisitionofwealthinourcaseasinthatofothers.Whentyphoidgermsfindlodgmentinabody,eventhoughitbethebodyofasaint,theywillunder favorable conditions, growandproduceall theirdreadful effects,withthesamecertaintywithwhichtheseedsofcornwhichyoucastintothegroundgrowandbringforththeirharvest.Thesamelawsonwhichyoudepend for theharvestof corn, youmayequallydependon for theharvests of disease which you reap year after year. We live then in acomplexofforcesoutofwhichwecannotescape,solongasweareinthisworld,andtheseforcesmakefordiseaseanddeath.Wearealllefthere,likeTrophimusatMiletum,sick.AndifweinsistuponbeingrelievedofthissicknesswecanexpectonlytheanswerwhichwasgiventoPaul:"Mygraceissufficientforyou."

All this is true,andyet it too isnot incapableofexaggeration in itsapplication.And that for two very obvious reasons. In the first place italsoisalawofnaturethatthepureinheartandcleaninconductescapemany evils, among which must be ranged multifarious sicknesses. Weneed not labor so obvious a point.38 We find even Matthew Arnoldremarking on this law in his allusive manner. "Medical science," sayshe,39"hasnevergauged—neverperhapsset itselftogauge—theintimateconnectionbetweenmoral fault anddisease.Towhat extent, or inhowmany cases, what is called illness is due tomoral springs having beenusedamiss,whetherbybeingoverusedorbynotbeingusedsufficiently—wehardlyatallknow,andwetoolittleinquire."Butwedonotfoundheresolelyonalawofnature.Eventhelawsofnatureareunderthecontrolof

Godintheiroperation,andwepointtothegoodprovidenceofourGod.The Lord is rich inmercy to them that trust in Him, and it would bestrange indeed if there were no visible and tangible fruits of this Hismercyperceptibleinourbodilylife.Thereisapromiseforthislifeaswellas for thatwhich is to come, and it is definitely said that to thosewhoseekfirstthekingdomofGodandHisrighteousness,allthesethingsshallbeadded.ArenottheprovidenceandgraceofGodenoughforusinthis"our little journey in the world"? Or, dissatisfied with these, are we todemandthatthelawsofnaturebesuspendedinourcase;that,thoughintheworld,weshall,inthissensetoo,benotofit?Whatscripturalgroundisthereforexpectingmiraculoushealingsofthebodythroughtheseagesof our earthly pilgrimage, in addition to that benefit which the bodyobtains fromitsanimationbyarenewedandsanctifyingsoul, fromourLord's watchfulness over it as His purchased possession, from theindwelling in it of the Holy Spirit as His Temple, from the Father'slisteningtotheprayersofHissaintsforitskeepingandhealing,andfromallGod'sgoodness to it in fulfilmentofHiswordthatgodlinesshas thepromiseofthelifethatnowisaswellasthatwhichistocome?Nonehasbeenpointedto,andweareconstrainedtobelievenoneexists.Forsoulandbodyweare in theLord's lovingkeeping.We trust inHimandHekeepsus.ThereisnospecificpromisethatHewillkeepusotherwisethanbyHisprovidenceandgrace.Donotthesesufficeforallourneeds?

Wehave examined all the scriptural passages formally appealed tobyGordon.Theconsiderationswhichheplacesundertheheadingof"thetestimony of reason," however, are closely related to the scripturalargument,andnodoubtrequireapassingword.Theyarethese:(1)that,"ifmiracles should cease, theywould formquite adistinct exception toeverythingelsewhichtheLordintroducedbyHisministry";and(2)that"theuseofmiraclesofhealingassignsseemstoarguestronglyfortheirpermanency; if the substance remains unchanged,why should the signwhichwasoriginallychosentoexhibititbesuperseded?"Theforceoftheargument here lies in its assumptions. If we begin by assuming thatmiracle-working was instituted by our Lord as an ordinance of theChristianreligion;wasestablished, likeBaptismandtheLord'sSupper,asavisible,permanentsignoftheinvisiblereality;why,ofcourse,theircessation becomes a striking exception to the rule and calls for

explanation. But clearly there is nothing to justify these assumptions.Andiftherewere,toomuchwouldbeprovedtosuitthecase.ForGordonproceedsatoncetoarguethatonlymiraclesofhealingabide.ButsurelyitcannotbecontendedthatonlymiraclesofhealingwereintroducedbyourLordbyHisministry, and onlyHismiracles of healingwere "signs." IfGordon'sargumentisworthanythingitprovesthatallformsofmiracle-workingpractisedbyChristwerecontinuedasthepermanentpossessionofHischurch.Itisnotevenclaimedthatthatisthefact.

ItmightnotbeabsolutelyfataltotheassertionsoftheFaith-Healersthatthescripturalgroundsonwhichtheybasethemprovetooprecarioustobeartheirweight.It isconceivablethatthefactofthecontinuanceofmiraculoushealingcouldbemadesoclearthatweshouldbecompelledtoconfessitscontinuancethoughnoScripturehadpromisedit.Stantonpreferstotakethisattitudetowardthematter.Hedeprecatesbeginningwith scriptural "theory" and thence proceeding to investigate "fact," asessentially an a priori method. He insists that "the question is pre-eminently one of fact";which canonly be fairly testedby a ''process ofrigidinduction.""Factsareneverheresies,"hesays,"eitherinscienceorreligion." Accordingly he proposes to begin with facts and argue backfromthemtotheirtruecause.Heopenshisdiscussion,therefore,withacollectionofselectedcaseswhichherepresentsasundeniableinpointoffact and details, and as of such inherent character, being immediatehealings by prayer of organic diseases, that they necessitate theconclusion that they are veritable miracles. From the fact of miracle-working,thusestablished,heturnsbacktotheScripture,toseewhetheritispossiblethatitcontainsnowarrantforsuchgreattransactions.Thereis a certain apparent strength in this mode of procedure. It involves,however, a confessionof theweaknessof the scriptural evidence. If theevidenceofScripturewerefelttobeinitselfconclusive,itsconsiderationwouldscarcelybepostponeduntilfactswereaccumulatedtoguideinitsinterpretation.Gordon'smethodofappealingtoScripturefirst,certainlydoesmore honor to Scripture and gives the impression that in dealingwith ithe feelshimselfon solidground.The scriptural evidencehavingfailed,however,hiscasetoofallsbackonthebaldfactsofexperience.

ThetitlesofthechaptersinwhichGordonadducesthetestimonyof

theallegedmiraculous facts,havealreadybeenenumerated.Hecalls inturnupon thewitnessof the church,of theologians, ofmissions, of theadversary,ofexperience,andofthehealed.Thereisanalmosttoogreatcompleteness in this accumulation of sources of testimony. There isnevertheless observable a certain eclecticism in dealing with it. Thetestimonyofthechurch,forinstance,doesnotmeanthetestimonyofthechurch speaking as an organized body—whether as awhole or in someone or other of its organized sections. It means the testimony ofChristians of the past, the record of which is found in what is called"churchhistory."Itisaveryeclectic"churchhistory,"however,whichisappealed to. The testimony of the first three centuries is adduced, andpartly that of the fourth. Then comes a sharp break, at the age ofConstantine, at which time, as we have shown, really explicit evidenceonly begins. Later, it is true, under the caption of "The Testimony ofTheologians," Augustine's opinion is cited—with what consistency wemay judge when we observe that all the miracles of "the ApostateChurch,"whichissaidtohavebegunwiththeageofConstantine,40aredeclared to be "the testimony of the Adversary," working counterfeitmiracles,andonlysobearingwitnesstothecurrencyofthetrue.Inthischapteron"TheTestimonyoftheChurch"wearecarriedoveratoncetothe testimony of the Waldenses, Moravians, Huguenots, Covenanters,Friends, early Baptists and Methodists. With reference to these theremark is made that, in every revival of primitive faith, "we find aprofessionof chasteandevangelicalmiracles."How far thisdescriptionappliestothemarvelsithasprofessedlyinviewwemustletthereaderofthe annals of those troubled movements himself decide. We thinkourselves thataremarkmadebyGordonatanearlierpoint is farmoreapplicable to them: when he spoke of the likelihood of every trueupstirring of genuine emotion being accompanied by more or lessfanaticismwhichoughtnottobepermittedtocloudourjudgmentastothe genuineness of the emotion itself. The testimony of theologians is,naturally,amatterofopinion,whilethatofmissions,experience,andofthehealedthemselvesisonlyafurtherrecordoffacts,artificiallydividedinto these heads, which constitute in their totality the whole evidencebeforeus.Itistothefactsthusgatheredthatwearetogiveourattention.

Whatnowarethesefacts?Whatistheirnature?Andwhatareweto

thinkofthem?Thefirstthingwhichstrikestheobserver,ashecastshiseyeoverthem,isthattheystandsadlyinneedofcarefulsifting.Whatweare looking for is such facts as necessitate or at least suggest theassumption, in order to account for them, of the ''immediate action ofGod, as distinguished from His mediate action through natural laws."ThatisGordon'sowndefinitionofmiracle,41andwhatisaffirmedisthatthesefactsarguemiraculousaction.Thegreatbodyofthefactsofferedtous,however,arguenothingofthekind.

Inmanyofthemmeansareopenlyused,meanswhichrankamongthespecificallybestmeansknowntomedicalscience.Thisisthecase,forexample,withalltheinstancesofcuresmadeintheFaith-Houses.WhodoubtsthatmultitudesofthesickwouldfindcureundertheskilledandtirelessnursingofaDorotheaTrüdel,whowasknowntopassthewholedaywithoutfood,utterlyforgettingtheclaimsofherbodyindevotiontoherwork?42Who doubts that great physical benefit could be found bymanyin"thesilenceandretirementof thesimplecureofPastorRein"?DoctorWeirMitchell won fame as a physician through his "rest-cure."What medical man will not agree that good nursing and a quiet andrestfulstateofbodyandmindareamongthebestofcurativeagents?TheveryexistenceofFaith-Houses,indeed,isthesufficientrefutationofthedoctrineofFaith-Healingwhichseekssupportfromthem.Byhypothesisamiraculouscureshouldbeimmediate,as incausesointime—withoutdelayaswithoutmeans—ontheexerciseofsimplefaith.TheexistenceofFaith-Hospitals is a standing proof that it is not immediate, either incause or in time: that a place of retirement is helpful, and that goodnursing has its reward. Faith-Houses may raise a protest against themethods of current medical practice, but they do so by setting up aparticular method of practice of their own—not by introducingmiraculoushealingasoveragainstnatural.

Itisobservable,further,thatthecaseswhicharesuccessfullytreatedintheFaith-Houseshavetheirnaturallimits.Noteveryoneiscured.ThebrotherofSamuelZeller,whosucceededDorotheaTrüdelinherHouseinSwitzerland, soughtcure there foryears invain.DorotheaTrüdel'sownhealth remained throughout her life "very feeble"; she suffered fromcurvatureofthespinefromanearlyageanddiedatforty-eightoftyphus

fever.Zellerhimself"stronglyrepudiatedthewholesystemofdoctrine"ofthe typical Faith-Healers, especially "the idea that sickness in God'speople is the result ofunbelief"; and sharply reprobated thepracticeofholdingpublicmeetingsandexpectingcuresat them,attributingfailureto lack of faith. He did not require that medical treatment should berenounced;hemerelyputhisowndependenceonrest,quiet,andprayertoGod.43 The failures of cure on this system cannot be accounted formerelybyanappealtothesovereigntyofGodinansweringprayer.Theyfindtheiraccountalsointhenatureofthediseasestreated.Wequotethefollowing from the pen of one of the most eminent aurists of the lastgeneration. "The avoidance of tangible affections by faith-curers," saysDoctor St. John Roosa,44 "is a circumstance that tells unanswerablyagainsttheirdoctrines.Iwasoncesentfortoseealadywhowaslivinginwhat was called a faith-cure establishment in this city, in order that Imight,ifpossible,relieveherfromimpairmentofhearing.ThisIfoundtobe chiefly caused by a collection of wax in the outer canal of the ear,whichwaseasilyremoved.Theremovalcausedgreatimprovementinthehearing.Ihadneverseenafaith-cureestablishmentbefore,andIconfessIwassomewhatsurprisedthatIwassentfor.Iasked,'Howisitpossible,that, if without the use of any means except prayer to God, internaldiseasesarecured,affectionsoftheorgansthatwecannotsee,thosethatwecan see, and thatare susceptibleof reliefby theordinaryphysician,believingorunbelieving,cannotbecuredbyprayer? . . .' It isa terribleshocktothebelieverinthissystemtothinkthatGodcancureacaseofdisease of the liver or of the nerves, and will cure it by the use of theprayerof faithalone,but(andImeantospeakreverently)Hewillhavenothingtodowithacaseofdeafness."

Wethinkitfairtourgealsothatthesiftingofcasesmustexcludeallthose cures which can be paralleled by cures that have, in similarcircumstances,beeneffectedobviouslywithoutmiracle.Ifweareseekinginstanceswhichdemonstratethatamiraclehasbeenwrought,surelywemusthavecasesessentiallydifferent fromthosewhichareknown tobecurablewithoutmiracle.Obviously, for example,we cannot confidentlyinfer miracle to account for a cure which "the Apostate Church" canperform aswell aswe;whichmind-cure can equally readilywork on apantheistic,theBuddhistonanatheistic,andthemesmeristonapurely

materialisticbasis.Thesecuresmayseemtousstartling,buttheycannotbethoughtbyustobemiraculous.Itis,however,noexaggerationtosaythat the great mass of the cures wrought by Faith-Healers are closelyparalleledbysomeorallofthesesisterpractitioners.Yourtimeneednotbe taken up by descriptions here of the wonders worked by DoctorPerkins's metallic tractors, by mesmerism, mind-cure, the waters ofLourdes.45 Let me give you but a single partial illustration of howcompletelytheyrepeatoneanother'striumphs.

Stanton rests his case for Faith-Healing on a half-dozen wiselychoseninstances.Thefirstonewhichhegivesisthatofayoungwomanwith"awitheredhandwhichwasbentinuponherwristasnowellhandbyanyactof thewill canbe,andpresentednothingbutamassof skinandbones,withnotaveinvisibleuponit."Thiswitheredhandwascuredbyprayer.Well,hereisfirstaRomanCatholicparallelamongthecuresofPrince Hohenlohe: "Captain Ruthlein, an old gentleman of Thundorf,seventy years of age, who had long been pronounced incurable ofparalysiswhichkepthishandclinched,andwhohadnotlefthisroomformany years, was perfectly cured."46 And here is a parallel frommesmerism: "EdwardWine, aged seventy-five,whohadbeenparalyzedtenyearsinanarmandleg.Theleftarmwasspasmodicallyfixedtothechest, thefingersdrawntowardthepalmofthehandandwasted,quiteincapable of holding anything." Perfectly cured by mesmerism.47 Andhere is a parallel from imagination: Sir Humphrey Davy placed athermometerunderthetongueofaparalyzedpatientsimplytoascertainthetemperature; thepatientatonceclaimedtoexperiencerelief,sothesame treatment was continued for two weeks, and by that time thepatient was well.48 And, finally, here is a somewhat similar case frompure deception. "Thewife andmother of the housewas suffering frominflammatory rheumatism in its worst form. She could not move, wasterriblyswollen,andcouldnotbeartobetouched....Oneofthehandsofthe patientwas fearfully swollen, so that the fingerswere as large verynearlyasthewristofanordinarychildthreeyearsofage....Nearlyallthespacebetweenthefingerswasoccupiedandthefistwasclinched.Itwas plain that to open them voluntarily was impossible, and to movethem intensely painful. . . . The hand had not been opened for severalweeks." "I held," says Doctor Buckley, the operator,49 "two knitting-

needles about two inches from the ends of the woman's fingers, justabove the clinchedhand, and said, 'Now,Madam,donot thinkof yourfingers,andabovealldonottrytomovethem,but fixyoureyesontheendsoftheseneedles.'Shedidso...andthefingersstraightenedoutandbecame flexiblewithout the leastpain. I thenmoved theneedlesabout,andshedeclaredthatallpainleftherhandexceptinonespotabouthalfan inch in length." The fact is that imagination and concentratedattention are powers which need to be reckonedwith in all cures, andonlysuchcuresasexcludeapossibleappealtothem,ortoshock,orthelike, are available for evidence of the miraculous. The simulation ofdisease by hysteria is also very remarkable. There was a woman in St.Luke'sHospital,NewYorkCity,whohada tumor toall, even themostskilled, diagnosis. But the tumor simply disappeared on theadministration of ether and the consequent withdrawal of nervousaction.50 When all these cases are excluded, the list left as availableevidenceformiraculousactionwillbeshortindeed.

Siftingisnotevenyet,however,atanend.Wemustexcludealsoallcureswhichseemtous,indeed,tohavecomeinanswertoprayer,butofwhichthereisnoevidencethattheyhavecomemiraculously,thatis,bythe immediate action of God, without all means. The famous cure ofCanon Basil Wilberforce is a typical instance of what we mean. Hedeclaresthathehasnoshadowofdoubtthathe"washealedbytheLord'sblessinguponHisownword, recorded inSt. James5:15, 16." "But,"headds,"asinsomanyothercases,therewassufficientmarginoftime,andpossibilityofchangeoftissue,betweentheanointingandtherecoverytojustify the sceptic in disconnecting the two."51 All Christians believe inhealinginanswertoprayer.Thosewhoassertthatthishealingiswroughtin a specifically miraculous manner, need better evidence for theirpeculiarviewthansuchasfitsinequallywellwiththegeneralChristianfaith.

FinallyitmustbeaddedwithgreatfirmnessthatsiftingisneededbythecasesreportedbytheFaith-Healerstoisolatetheinstancesthedetailsofwhich canbe trusted.Of certainobvious facts anyhonestlydisposedperson is a competent witness; of certain others few persons arecompetentwitnesses.Amongtheselatterfactsmaysafelybeclassedthe

accurate diagnosis of disease. Few physicians, of even lifelong practice,are really good diagnosticians; perhaps there is none of whatevereminencewhohasnotbeenmorethanoncewhollydeceivedinthenatureof the disease he has been called upon to treat—as the autopsy hasproved.52 Every onewhohas sought to trace up alleged cases of Faith-Healing will have felt the grave doubt which frequently rests upon theidentificationofthediseasewhichisassertedtohavebeencured.Yetweareaskedtobelieveinmultifariousmiraclesonthefaithofthediagnosisofthis, that,ortheotherunknownperson.Nothingismoreremarkablethan the scorn which the average Faith-Healer pours on physicians ashealers, and the unbounded confidence which he reposes in them asdiagnosticians. It iswithhim the endof all strife if he can say that thecasewashopelessonthetestimonyofDoctorThisorDoctorThat.

ItistobefearedthatitmustevenbesaidthatFaith-Healers,intheirenthusiasm over the wonderful things they are testifying to, are notalwaysascarefulastheymightbeinascertainingtheactualfactsofthecasesofcurewhichtheyreport.Itmayseemtothemsometimesalmostasacrilege to make so close an inquisition into the facts, the cold facts,whensomuchhasobviouslybeendone.Gordonrecords,53withapparentapproval, the reply of one of a visiting body of German preachers andprofessors, when inspecting Zeller's Faith-Home in Switzerland. Whenasked to give his opinion of the work, he responded: "When the HolySpiritspeakswithsomuchpower,wecandonootherwisethanlistentoHisteaching;criticalanalysisisoutofthequestion."ButtheHolySpiritHimselfsays,"TrytheSpirits,whethertheybeofGod,"anditisnomoregoodreligionthangoodsense,inamatterofsuchmoment,toabnegatethe functions of a critic. It is necessary for even pious men to guardagainstmisleadingtheirfellows.

The matter may be illustrated by the case of one of the mostcelebrated instances of Faith-Healing ever wrought in America. It wasdeservedlycelebrated,becauseittookplaceinasphereofoperationintowhich Faith-Healing rarely penetrates. It was nothing less than theinstantaneous knitting of a broken bone in answer to prayer. DoctorCharlesCullisissaidtohavereportedittoDoctorW.E.Boardman,whoprinteditinhisbookcalledTheGreatPhysician.Gordonquotesitfrom

Boardman, and Stanton makes it one of his test cases. The narrativecomesultimatelyfromthefatheroftheboyinquestion,"DoctorReedaphysician of Philadelphia." The story as reported in his words byBoardmanisthis:"Thechildrenwerejumpingofffromabench,andmylittle son fell and broke both bones of his arm below the elbow. Mybrother,whoisaprofessorofsurgeryinthecollegeatChicago,washereon a visit. I asked him to set and dress the arm. He did so; put it insplints, bandages, and in a sling. The dear child was very patient, andwentaboutwithoutamurmurallthatday.Thenextmorninghecametomeandsaid:'Dearpapa,pleasetakeoffthesethings.''Ohno,myson,youwillhavetowearthesefiveorsixweeksbeforeitwillbewell.''Why,papa,it is well.' 'Oh no, my dear child, that is impossible!' 'Why, papa, youbelieve inprayer, don't you?' 'Youknow Ido,my son.' 'Well, lastnightwhen Iwent to bed, it hurtme very bad, and I asked Jesus tomake itwell.'Ididnotliketosayawordtochillhisfaith.Ahappythoughtcame.Isaid,'Mydearchild,youruncleputthethingson,andiftheyaretakenoffhemustdoit.'Awayhewenttohisuncle,whotoldhimhewouldhavetogoashewassixorsevenweeks,andmustbeverypatient;andwhenthe little fellow toldhim thatJesushadmadehimwell,he said, 'Pooh!pooh! nonsense!' and sent him away. The next morning the poor boycame tome and pleadedwith somuch sincerity and confidence, that Imorethanhalfbelieved,andwenttomybrotherandsaid:'Hadyounotbetterundohisarmandlethimseeforhimself?'...Mybrotheryielded,took off the bandages and the splints, and exclaimed, 'It is well,absolutelywell!'andhastenedtothedoortokeepfromfainting."Couldanything bemore conclusive? Here is expert medical testimony to thefractureandtothecurealso.Hereisthetestimonyofthefatherhimself,achief actor in the scene, to all its details. We have the additionalguarantee of the repetition of it as authentic by a series of the chiefadvocatesofFaith-Healing.Anditisacaseofabrokenbone,andmustbea miracle. But here comes the trouble. "The case was thoroughlyinvestigatedbyDoctorJ.H.LloydoftheUniversityofPennsylvania,andin The Medical Record for March 27, 1886, Doctor Lloyd published aletterfromthisverychild,whoisgrownupandbecomeaphysician.DearSir:" it reads, "The case you cite, when robbed of all its sensationalsurroundings,isasfollows:Thechildwasaspoiledyoungsterwhowouldhavehisownway;andwhenhehadagreenstickfractureoftheforearm,

and,afterhavinghad itbandaged for severaldays, concludedhewouldmuchprefertogowithoutasplint,topleasethespoiledchildthesplintwas removed, and the arm carefully adjusted in a sling.As amatter ofcourse,thebonesoonunited,asiscustomaryinchildren,andbeingonlypartiallybroken,ofcourseallthesooner.Thisisthemiracle.Somenurseor crank or religious enthusiast, ignorant of matters physiological andhistological,evidentlystartedthestory,andunfortunatelymyname—forIamtheparty—isbeingcirculatedincirclesoffaith-curites,andisgiventhesortofnotorietyIdonotcrave. . . .Veryrespectfullyyours,CarlH.Reed."54Consciousfraudhereisnottobethoughtofforamoment.Butallthemorepowerfullythelessonisdrivenhometousthatinmattersofthis kind testimony to details requires the closest scrutiny. There isscarcely an item in this casewhich is correctly reported in the currentstory.

It seems tobe theexperienceofeveryonewhohasmadeaseriousattempt to sift the evidence for miraculous healing that this evidencemelts away before his eyes. Many remarkable cures are wrought, butnothingwhichcompels the inferenceofmiraculoushealingseemstobeunambiguouslyestablished.Whatemergesasfinalresult isthatasharpline isdrawnbetween theclassof cureswhichcanbeobtainedand theclass of cures which cannot be obtained by faith, and that this line isdrawn approximately at the exact spot where the line runs whichseparatescureswhichcanfromthosewhichcannotbeobtainedbymind-cure,mesmerism, Perkins's tractors, and other similar practices. Thereare classes of sickness which Faith-Healing can cure, and there areclassesof sicknesswhich it cannotcure. Inparticular, forexample, it ispowerless to heal broken bones, to renewmutilations, to do so little athingastorestorelostteeth.DoctorCharlesCullisisreportedassaying:"In no case in God's word is there a promise that wemay pray over abroken bone and anoint the sufferers with oil; only the sick. A brokenboneisnotsickness,andshouldbeputinthehandsofasurgeon."And"he has repeatedly and publicly, in the presence of thousands at OldOrchardBeach and elsewhere, disclaimed all attempts by the prayer offaith to secure from God the restoration of an amputated hand or thesettingofabrokenlimb."55Thisis,ofcourse,onlyaconfessionthatthereisnoquestionofmiraculousactioninFaith-Healing.Whatistheuseof

invoking miracle to do work equally well done without miracle, andrepudiatingalleffects forwhichmiraclesarerequired?Ifamanassertsthathecontrolsthemotionofthesunbymiraculouspower,Iwantsomebetterproofthathedoessothanhispointingtotherisingandsettingofthesuneverydayatitsappointedtime.AndIwantnobetterproofthatheworksnomiracleinthecase,thanthatthesununderhisincantationsmovesnootherwisethanitmoveswithoutthem.

After the statement of the evidence from factsGordonhasnothingfurthertodobuttodrawhisconclusion.Thishedoesinachaptercalled''TheVerdictofCandor,"whilehegivesawarningtohisbrethrennottopressbeyondlimitsinanotherchapterentitled"TheVerdictofCaution."Inbothofthesechapterssomeverygoodthingsaresaid,andsomewhichareratherodd.Ofthelatterclassisthedesignationofhealth"asthefirst-fruitsofredemption,"56whereastheApostlespeaksoftheredemptionofthebodyas the last thing tobe looked for; and the suggestion that thereason for the fewness of instances of Faith-Healing is due to thedifficulty of "an individual prayermaking headway against the adversesentiment of the great body of Christians"57—which sounds more likeMrs. Eddy than a Christian minister. It does not seem necessary,however, to dwell on these things. We take leave of the book with aprofoundconvictionthatitsargumentisinconsequent,anditscontentionunfoundedeitherinScriptureorinfact.

Andnowletusverybrieflysumupfromourownpointofviewwhatitseemsthatweought to thinkofFaith-Healing.Firstofall,asregardsthestatusqućstionis, let it be remembered that thequestion isnot: (1)Whether God is an answerer of prayer; nor (2) whether, in answer toprayer.Hehealsthesick;nor(3)whetherHisactioninhealingthesickisasupernaturalact;nor(4)whetherthesupernaturalnessoftheactmaybesoapparentastodemonstrateGod'sactivityinittoallright-thinkingmindsconversantwith the facts.All thisweallbelieve.Thequestionatissue is distinctly whether God has pledged Himself to heal the sickmiraculously, and does heal them miraculously, on the call of Hischildren—that is to say without means—any means—and apart frommeans, and above means; and this so ordinarily that Christian peoplemay be encouraged, if not required, to discard all means as either

unnecessary or even amark of lack of faith and sinful distrust, and todependonGod alone for thehealing of all their sicknesses.This is theissue,evenconservativelystated.Formanywillsaythatfaithgivesusasclearatitle tothehealingofourbodiesastothesalvationofoursouls;and this is often interpreted to mean that it is the heritage of everyChristian, if a true Christian, to be free from all disease and bodilyweakness,and it isaproofofspecialsin inaChristian ifhe isaspecialsuffererfromdisease.

Withreferencetothisquestionitistobesaidatleast:(1)NopromiseofsuchmiraculousactiononGod'spartexists inScripture.(2)Nofactshave been adduced which will compel the assumption that suchmiraculoushealing takesplace. (3)Suchamiraculousmethodofactionon God's part would be wholly unnecessary for the production of theeffectdesired;GodcanhealthebodilyhurtofHispeoplewithoutmiracle.(4)Theemploymentof suchamethodofworkingwouldbecontrary totheanalogyofGod'smodeofworkinginotherspheresofHisactivity.(5)It would be contrary to the very purpose of miracle, which would bedefeated by it. If miracles are to be common, every-day occurrences,normal and not extraordinary, they cease to attract attention, and losetheir very reason of existence. What is normal is according to law. Ifmiracles are the lawof theChristian life they cease to serve their chiefend. (6) The contention of the Faith-Healers overlooks numerousimportantbiblicalfacts.PrimarilythefactthatthemiraculousgiftsintheNewTestamentwerethecredentialsoftheApostle,andwereconfinedtothosetowhomtheApostleshadconveyedthem—whenceapresumptionarisesagainsttheircontinuanceaftertheApostolicage.Then,again,thatthere are instances of sickness in the New Testament which were notremoved by the prayer of faith. There is, for example, Paul's leaving ofTrophimus at Miletum sick, and his recommending to Timothy, whensick,nottheseekingofhealingbythemiraculousactofGod,buttheuseofmedicinalmeans—thedrinkingnolongerofwaterbutofa littlewineforhisstomach'ssakeandhisofteninfirmities.ItseemsquiteclearthatPauldidnotsharetheviewsofourmodernFaith-Healers.(7)TheFaith-Healing arguments presuppose or lead to many false doctrines. Adesultoryallusiontosomeofthemheremaynotbewithoutitsuses.(A)Sicknessandsinareoftenconnected inanutterlyunscripturalmanner.

Thatallthesicknesseswhichafflictourracearearesultofsinistrue.Butthat special sicknesses infer special sin our Saviour Himself explicitlydenies. (B) These arguments would be equally valid to commendperfectionism. If sinfulness is not to be removed in this life, neither issickness.Botharethefruitsofguilt,andbothareremovedonthebasisofthe work of the guilt-bearer; and both are removed only when thesubjectivesalvationiscompleted.(C)Theyarefoundedonacompletelyunscriptural viewof the functionsof suffering, and theusesof sicknessandpain.Allsicknessandsufferingarespokenofasiftheywerefromtheevilonealone;asiftheyweresheerlythemarkofthedispleasureofGod;andasiftheywereafruitofparticularsin.Scripturesays:"Beholdwhomthe Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom Hereceiveth."SicknessisoftentheproofofspecialfavorfromGod;italwayscomestoHischildrenfromHisFatherlyhand,andalwaysinHislovingpleasureworks,togetherwithallotherthingswhichbefallGod'schildren,forgood. (8)TheFaith-Healing contention leads to contempt forGod'sappointedmeans, and this leads to the fanatical attitude of demandingfromGod apart from allmeans that for the attaining of whichHe hasordainedappropriatemeans.Wearenottorefusetocultivatethesoilandthendemandtobefedbymiracle.(9)TheFaith-Healingpracticeleadstothe production of "professionals," standing between the soul and God.ThereisgravedangerinasoulpermittinganunauthorizedintermediarytotakeupapositionbetweenitandthegraciousactivitiesofGodtowardit.Fromthisgermthewholesacerdotalevilhasgrown.And,ontheotherhand, to the practitioner himself there comes inevitable temptation tospiritual pride and autocracy, which is most disastrous to his spirituallife;andsometimesevensomethingworse.

One of the phenomena of the Faith-Healing delusion has been theproduction of a series of these practitioners, whose activities have notalwaysbeenwholesome.Fromtimetotimeanindividualhealerhasrisento public notice and attracted the attention of the whole religiouscommunity, for a time at least attaining tremendous vogue andcommandinggreatapplause.Therewas,forexample,toconfineourselvestorecenttimes,PrinceAlexanderofHohenlohe,whoduringthefirsthalfofthenineteenthcenturycreatedagreatstirwithhismiraculoushealingsinAustria andGermany.58 A lesser light burned contemporaneously in

IrelandinthepersonofFatherMatthew.59OneofthemostadmirableofthesefigureswasJohannChristophBlumhardtwho,saysWilliamJames,quitespontaneouslydevelopedintheearlyfortiesofthelastcentury"anextremelypurefacultyofhealing,"whichheexertedduringnearlythirtyyears.60PerhapsDoctorA.B.SimpsonofNewYork,whohasbeensince1887thepresidentof theChristianandMissionaryAlliance, founded inthatyearatOldOrchard,Maine,hasbeenblamelesslyinthepubliceyeasahealerofthesickthroughfaithforaslongaperiodasanyofourrecentAmericanhealers.61Thefameofothershasbeen,ifmoresplendid,atthesametimelesspureandlesslasting.ThenameofacertainA.Schrader,forexample,wasineverybody'smouthtwentyyearsago.ThentherewastheromanticfigureofFranzSchlatter,withhismeteoriccareerinDenverandelsewhereintheWest,asMessiahanddivinehealer.62Butperhapsthemost striking of all these personageswas JohnAlexanderDowie,63

whose work in Chicago as general overseer of the Christian ApostolicCatholicChurch inZion—theproductofhisactivities—attainedgiganticproportions. A Scotchman by birth, an Australian Congregationalist inprevious ministerial affiliation, he created, rather than built up, inChicagoagreatreligiouscommunity,overwhichheruledwithdespoticpower, and in the "divine healing rooms" ofwhich hewroughtmany acure.Nodoubt, theproportionof successful cureswroughtbyhimwasnotlargerthaninthecaseofothers.Ifanoteinoneoftheissuesofhisnewspaper—LeavesofHealing—maybetakenasacriterion,theworkofhealing inhishandscanscarcelybepronouncedsuccessful,"Iprayandlay my hands," he says, "on seventy thousand people in a year." Thatwouldgiveahundredandseventy-fivethousandintwoyearsandahalf.Yet in the two years and a half immediately preceding the date of thisstatement he reports only sevenhundred cures.64 One success in everytwo hundred and fifty trials does not impress one as a very successfulministryofhealingtothesickandsorrowingworld.65

MIND-CURE

WHENwespeakof"faith-healing"weuseambiguouslanguagesofaras we leave it undetermined whether we understand the healing inquestiontobeeffectedimmediatelybytheactionofthefaithitself,orbytheGodtowhomitiscommittedinfaith.1Inthelattercasethehealingis,inthepropersenseoftheword,asupernaturalone.Intheformeritisanaturalhealing,asnaturalasifitwerewroughtbyasurgicaloperationorbyadrug.Thisis,ofcourse,nottosaythatGodhasnothingtodowiththehealinginthiscase;or,indeed,hasnotHimselfwroughtit.Godhasverymuch to do with the cures wrought by the surgeon's knife or thephysician's medicaments; so much to do with them that it is He whoreallymakes them. It is toHim that theefficacyof allmeans isdue, ingeneral and inparticular. It is awisemanof very old timewho in onebreathbidsus look to thephysicianwithhis remedies and to theLordwho is behind the physician and works in and through him and hisremedies. "Honor aphysician for thehonordueuntohim, for theuseswhichyemayhaveofhim....ForoftheMostHighcomethhealing,...MySon,inthysicknessbenotnegligent;butprayuntotheLordandHewillmaketheewhole. . . .Thengiveplacetothephysician,fortheLordhathcreatedhim;lethimnotgofromthee,forthouhastneedofhim."2

Whenwethinkofcureswroughtbymeans,wedonotexcludeGodfromthem. But just because they are wrought bymeans, we do not ascribethemtoGodas theirproximatecause.Thepoint is thatacurewroughtproximatelyby faith,orbyanyothermentalact,orattitude,orstate, isjustastrulywroughtbymeansasifitwerewroughtbyadrugoraknife.Anditisjustastrulywroughtbynaturalmeans.Ourmindsareours,andalltheiractsandstatesareouractsandstates;andallthatisproducedbythem in any of their acts or states are effects of our own. Any curesupposedtobeproducedbyfaithitselfisaccordinglyanaturalcure,andthatjustastrulyasanyothernaturalcurewhatever.

Itmight conduce to clearness if writers would agree to classify allsuchcures,thenaturalproductsoffaithitself,undersomesuchcaptionasmind-cures—or,ifwepreferabigname,underthegeneraldesignationof psychotherapy—reserving the term "faith-healing" for those cures

whichareascribednottofaithitself,buttotheimmediateactionofGodsought in faith. Meanwhile this is not the universal usage. Thenomenclature is far from fixed.Very frequently the term "faith-cure" isemployedtoexpressspecificallycureswroughtdirectlybyfaithitself.Asoften, it is used in a sensewide enough to embrace both of these verydiverse species of cures. Naturally, this produces confusion. Theconfusion shows itself, for example, in the definition given to "Faith-Healing"at theheadof thearticleprintedunder this title inHastings'sEncyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. There at least emerges from thisdefinition,however,anexpressrecognitionofadoublesenseoftheterm"faith-cure,"astrictandawidesense.Takingsomuchasgain,weshall,contrary,nodoubt,tothisauthor'sownmeaning,discriminatethesetwosensesinsuchamannerastoassigntothestrictsenseofthetermthosecures which are supposed to be immediately wrought by God on faith,andtothebroadersensethosewhicharesupposedtobewroughtmoreorlesswhollybyfaithitself.

Havingthelatterofthesevarietiesinmind,wefindourselvesmorein accord with our author when he remarks that "faith-healing is theoldest formofhealing in theworld," antedating, or at least growingupsidebysidewith,"medicalpractice initsearliestandcrudestform,andas its predominant partner."3We cannot, indeed, ascribewith him themiraclesofourLordandHisApostlestothiscategory.4But,apart fromthemiraculousattestationofthespecialrevelationofGodwhichhasbeenrecorded for us in the inspired Scriptures, we recognize with him acontinuous stream of faith-healings in this sense, extending from theearliestagesquitedowntoourownday.Thenumerous"Healing-Gods"ofclassicalantiquity,suchpracticesas"temple-sleeping,"andtheendlessnarrativesofcuressoughtandfoundthroughitandothermeans,attestits prevalence in pre-Christian times; the Patristic and Medićval Agesoverflow with instances; the Reformation was far from bringing itspractice to an end, and—ifwemaynow enlarge the category to that ofmind-healing in general—the history of such movements as those stillgoingonamongusunderthenamesofAnimalMagnetism,Mesmerism,Spiritualism,MentalHealing,NewThought,ChristianScience,evincetheplaceitsconsciouspracticestilltakesinthelifeofthepeopleofto-day.

In a former lecture we have sought to give some account of theassertionswhicharestillmade that faith-healings, in thestrict senseofhealingsmadedirectlybyGod,continuetooccuramongus.Forthesakeofcompletenessitmaynotbeimpropertoproceednowtosomeaccountof at least the more prominent varieties of faith-healing in the widersense—or, ina lessconfusingnomenclature,ofmind-cure—prevalent inour day. No doubt, in doing so, we overstep the limits of our formalsubject.Faith-healing inthissense—that is tosay,mind-cure—byvirtueoftheveryfactthatsomementalactorstateisheldtobetheproducingcauseatwork,canmakenopretensetomiraculousness,andinpointoffact, in the forms at least in which it is most commonly practised, itmakesnopretensetomiraculousness.Nevertheless,itsrelationtofaith-healing inthestrictersense issoclose,confusionwith it issocommon,andthelessonstobelearnedfromitastotherealnatureoftheallegedinstances of faith-healing in the strict sense occurring amongus are soinstructive,thatweshouldnotbejustifiedinpassingitbyaltogether.

The variety of forms in which mind-healing is practised to-day isverygreat.Theydiffer fromoneanother less in the resultsobtained,oreven in the means employed to obtain these results, than in thetheoretical basis by which they severally attempt to explain theirproduction.WilliamF.Cobb,thewriterofthearticleon"Faith-Healing"in Hastings's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, to which we havealready alluded, enumerates its principal species as Mental-healing,Magnetic-healing,Spiritualistic-healing,andSpiritual-healing, that is tosay,ifwemayemploythepopulardesignationsoftypicalformsofeachtosymbolize the several varieties, Christian Science, Mesmerism,Spiritualism, and Faith-Healing. This enumeration is by no meansexhaustive,butitwillserveourpresentpurpose.Thepointofimportancefor us is that in the action of all these varieties alike, as Cobb justlyremarks, a leading part is taken by suggestion. This suggestion, whengiven its most scientifically developed form, is called hypnotism. But,under whatever name, and employed under the guidance of whateverunderlying theory of the nature of being, or of the process of the cureestablished,itoperatesafteressentiallythesamefashion.5

It isonlywith those formsofmind-curewhichhave inonewayor

another closely connected themselveswith religion, thatwe are for themoment particularly concerned.One of these forms, very prominent inthe public eye at present, is that which is known as the EmmanuelMovement.Nothingcouldbe further fromthe thoughtof the leadersofthe EmmanuelMovement than a pretension tomiraculous powers.6 Itonly professes to deal, prosaically enough, and with an almostostentatious disassociation of itself from the supernatural, with certainclasses of functional or nervous diseases—by means of suggestion, ofcourse, but also by any other forms of mental and spiritual influencewhich experience may commend as useful. It does not bother itselfovermuchwith underlying theory, although it proceeds actually on thetheory—whichitpreferstolookuponasobservedfact—ofasubconsciouslife,thestorehouseofenergycapableofbeingtappedanddrawnuponforthepurposes of our daily living.7 The common experience of thewholeChristianpast,itthinks,suppliesitwithageneralsupportforitspracticeas an activity of the organized church. It quotes with particularsatisfaction an entry in JohnWesley'sJournal forMay 12, 1759.8HereWesleyremarksonthehelplessnessofthephysiciansinthepresenceofawoman kept ill from fretting over the death of her son. "Why,"Wesleyasks, "don't physicians consider how far bodily disorders are caused orinfluencedbythemind,andinthosecaseswhichareutterlyoutoftheirsphere,call in theassistanceofaminister,asministers,whenthey findtheminddisorderedbythebody,callintheassistanceofaphysician?"Inthe intimate co-operation of the physician and the minister heredesiderated,itissuggested,wehavethewholeprincipleoftheEmmanuelMovement.9 As the physician must be called in to remove the bodilydisorderswhichinhibitrightspiritualfunctioning,sothechurchmaywellstep in to aid in correcting those bodily evils which are ultimately theresultofspiritualdisorders.

Weconfesstobeingchilledwhenwehearofsuchthingsas"religiousfaithandprayer"beinglookeduponastherapeuticalagentsforthecureofdisease,andadministeredtopatientsassuch.Wearefranklyshockedatthecouplingtogetheroffaithandparegoric,prayerandpodophyllinina single comprehensive pharmacopoeia. We are too accustomed tothinking of faith and prayer as terminating on God, and finding theirresponse in His gracious activities, to feel comfortable when they are

turnedbackonthemselvesand—whilestill,nodoubt,addressedtoGod—usedasinstrumentsformovingman.10Itisunfortunate,moreover,thatthe form of Christianity which is professed by the leaders of theEmmanuel Movement, and the inculcation of which they rely upon tosoothe troubledminds and to inspire to effort, is rather that taught byRenanandHarnackandTheodorKeim(thecollocationofnames isnotour own11), than that taught by John and Paul and Jesus; so that arationalisticveilhangsoveralltheirreligiousprescriptions.Nevertheless,although Christianity is emphatically an "other-world" religion, and amerely "this-world" religion is just noChristianity at all, it is not to bedenied that there is a "this-world" side to Christianity.Undoubtedly, ithasthepromiseofthelifethatnowisaswellasofthatwhichistocome,andtheywhoseekfirst thekingdomofGodandHisrighteousnessmayrightlyexpectallthesethingstobeaddeduntothem.It isaslittletobedoubted that there are valuable reflex effectswhichmaybe confidentlycounted upon from the exercise, say, of faith and prayer, as it isundeniablethatthesereflexeffectsareofinfinitelylessimportancethantheirdirectworking.AndofcourseitisunquestionablethatitbelongstotheChristiancallingtorelievesofarasitiswithinourpowertodoso,bytheuseof all legitimatemeans, everydistressunderwhichwe findourfellow men to be suffering. We would not lag behind the EmmanuelMovementinzealforservice;andifwefinditmovedatthisorthatpointbyextravagancesofpretension,and limitedhereand therebydefectivespiritualinsightoroutlook,surely,inavoidingwhatisbadinit,wemaynot refuse to imitatewhat is good, and our chief concern should be tofashion our own conduct more, not less, completely after the higherChristianideal.

TheparticularpsychologicalassumptionsuponwhichtheEmmanuelMovement is at present conducted may seem to us little assured. Nodoubt, we are told that the work "does not depend upon any theory,whether psychological or physiological, of the subconscious."12 We aresimplytoactontheempiricalfactthatevenbrokenmenareaccessibletospiritual influences, and through these spiritual influences may bebrought to a better adjustment with life. To that extent wemay all bebelievers in psychotherapy. What Christian pastor, what Christianperson,hasnotactedon thatassumptionsinceChristianitybegan?But

there is the organization?Well, what has the EmmanuelMovement tooffer here which was not offered in the old Faith-Houses—say, Zeller'sHouse inMannedorf—except a verymuch thinner religion and amoreadvancedmedical science? There remains the question ofmethod.Weourselvesprefertheoldermethodof,say,theestablishmentofhospitalslike thePresbyterianHospitals inNewYorkandPhiladelphia, inwhichChristiancharityprovidesthebestmedicalserviceforhumanills.Wefeelgrave doubts as to the desirability of the minister himself becomingofficially a medical practitioner, even by the method of suggestion;perhaps we would better say especially by the method of suggestion—even though that be spiritual suggestion. When Sir Clifford Allbuttdeclares that "notions of the priest as medicine-man" are "essentiallypagan,"hespeaksnodoubtunnecessarilyharshly,but,wemustadmitit,essentially justly.WhenDoctorCharlesButtaradvises theclergymen tobe"contentforthepresenttoleavetheuntrainedpracticeofmethodsofsuggestiontoquacks,"wecannotdenythathehashadsomeprovocationfor his counsel.When Stephen Paget in his gracious way remarks that"they who desire, extravagantly, to put 'spiritual healing' among themethodsof theChristianministry, seem tome tobe losing sightof thefact that common sense is an essential trait of the Christian life," wecannothelpfeelingthathehassaidtherightwordintherightplace.13Isitnotplaincommonsenseforeachorganofthebodytobecontentwithitsownfunctions,theeyewithitsseeing,theearwithitshearing?AndistherenotaprofoundwarninginPaul'sremark,especiallytouswhohaveaworkofourowntodo,thatallcannotbetheear—elsewhereweretheseeing?14

The leaders of the Emmanuel Movement are theists. Therefore,insteadof sayingofanactofhealing, "The forcesofnaturedo it," theyprefer to say, "God does it in and through the forces of nature." Inaccordancewiththeirtheisticpresuppositionsthisistheproperaccounttogiveofanynaturalactofhealing.No"miraculousagency"issupposed;"theforcesofnature"dothework.ButthereisaGod,andthisGodworksin and through the forces of nature, and thus in the end it isGod thatdoesit.Goddoesit,thatis,inthesamesenseandafterthesamefashionthat it is God that does everything that is done throughout this wholegreatuniverse.W.F.Cobb,towhomwehavealreadyalludedmorethan

once, isnotpurelyatheist;he isamystic.Indescribingthevarietiesofwhat he calls broadly faith-healing, therefore, he naturally reserves theculminatingplaceforavarietywhichpositsbehindtheactofhealing,asitsexplanation,amysticaltheory.Itisnotquiteclearwhetherhewouldgivehispersonaladhesiontoallthedetailsofthis"spiritualhealing,"ashecallsit.15Itisclear,however,thathissympathiesgoverylargelywithit,andthathelooksuponitas,inthemainatleast,thetruerationaleoffaith-healing. Its main postulate is that all physical disease, withoutexception,istheresult,directlyorindirectly,ofpsychicaldisorder,andistobestruckat,therefore,notinthebody,whereonlysymptomsmanifestthemselves,butinthesoul,wherealoneliethecauses.Whatissoughtistoprocureforthesoulofthesuffereraninfluxofspiritual life;andthislifecanbefound,ofcourse,onlyinGod."Thepowerwhichalonecanhealthesoul,"wearetold,"isGod."God,now,isreachedby"faith"—thefaith,itistobeobserved,however,notofthesufferer,butofthepractitioner,forinthisformoftheoryahealerisnecessary."Thisfaithisdefinedasaquality in the spirit of the healer, . . . which enables him to renderquiescenthis'mortalmind,'andsotoplacehisspiritinapositivestateofcalm, poised and at peace, and a channel for the Divine Spirit to passthrough to the sufferer." The state of openness and serenity thusdescribedasfaith,wearefurthertold,issimplythenormalconditionforprayer.Wemay express the process, therefore, by saying that spiritualhealing is the product of the power of God directed by faith throughprayertothesoulthatneedshealing.Hence,itissaidthatitisGod,andGod alone, who performs the act of healing, and that all healing isobtainedby the influxof spiritual life into the soul fromGod;althoughthedoorofingressintothesoulisopenedforitbyapractitioner,thesoulitself being in a state of passive, not active, faith in the process. Thehealing isconceived thusas ina truesensesupernatural:an influx intothe soul fromwithout. Accordingly, it is asserted, there can be no realfailureinit.AninfluxofspirituallifefromGod,thesourceofalllife,mustbringbenefit.Ifthisbenefitdoesnotshowitselfonthephysicalplane,itisneverthelessthere—thesoulatleasthasthebenefit.

Fromamysticismlikethisitisbutasinglesteptoopenpantheism,andthatstep is takenby the formofmind-curewhich ismost invogueamong us:16 that which calls itself for some inexplicable reason by the

nameofChristianScience.17 There is a sense, of course, inwhich—justbecause the fundamental elementsofher thoughtarepantheistic—Mrs.Eddy will not allow that her Christian Science is mind-cure. It is not"mind-cure" with a small "m," she affirms, but "Mind-cure," with acapital "M."18 But just because her fundamental thought is pantheistic,this is merely a verbal distinction. She is intensely emphatic that herMind-cures are "not supernatural but supremely natural."19 In itspractice Christian Science does not differ greatly from other forms ofmind-cure. Perceiving, or at least acknowledging, less readily than theEmmanuelMovement the limitations ofmind-cure, it accepts, like thespiritualhealingofwhichwehavejustbeenspeaking,allkindsofcases—although the range of its actual cures, as Elwood Worcester drylyremarks,isnotenlargedthereby.20Itsrealdifferentiationfromitssistersystemslieswhollyinthepseudo-philosophicalbackgroundwhichithaswashed in with a broad brush behind its activities. This certainly isportentousenough,butitservesonlyforornament,andhasnoeffectonthepracticeofthemind-cure,whichistherealsourceofthemovement'svogue.Itisincumbentonusbeforeweclosethisseriesoflecturestogivesome account of this system of mind-healing, which has become arehgion,andhasinthecourseofaveryfewyearsoverspreadtheearth.

The lateDoctorSt. JohnRoosaoncedescribedmind-cure as faith-cureruntoseed.21Thecharacterizationistrueasageneralpropositioninthe history of thought. Man is a religious animal, and the religiousexplanationofphenomenaantedates,inthisdepartmentofthoughtalso,thenaturalistic. It isalso, in the longerhistoricalsequences, trueof theultimateoriginoftheparticularspeciesofmind-curewhichDoctorRoosahadinmind,that is tosay.ChristianScience.ForMesmerderivesfromGassner, and Christian Science is unquestionably a granddaughter —however ungrateful a granddaughter—ofMesmerism.22 But there is noimmediate affiliation ofChristian Sciencewith faith-cure, and certainlythe adherents of Christian Science do not look upon themselves as itsdeteriorated descendants. They rather set themselves in irreducibleantagonismtoit.23Notindeedthattheydenythateffectsareproducedbyit.TheyappeartoalloweventhatFaith-Healersmayobtaineffectswhichthey cannot themselves obtain; or at least more readily than they canobtainthem.Mrs.Eddyhashercharacteristicwayofaccountingforthis.

"It is asked," she writes, "why are faith-cures sometimes more speedythan someof the cureswrought throughChristianScientists?"And sheanswers thus: "Because faith is belief and not understanding; and it iseasier to believe than to understand Spiritual Truth. It demands lesscross-bearing,self-renunciation,anddivinescience, toadmit theclaimsofthepersonalsenses,andappealforrelieftoahumanizedGod,thantodeny these claims and learn the divine way, drinking his cup, beingbaptized with his baptism, gaining the end through persecution andpurity."Itmustnotpasswithoutnoticethatasomewhatoddadmissionismade here that the results obtained by Christian Science may also beobtained without Christian Science; sometimes more speedily than byChristianScience;byanappeal,forexample,toahumanizedGod;bytheopenroadoffaith,thatis,ratherthanthedifficultpathofunderstanding.How anything can be obtained by an appeal to a humanized God is apuzzle,seeingthatitispresupposedthatnosuchbeingexists.TheFaith-Healersonlycryout to thevoid,andyet theyget theirresults,andthatsometimesmore quickly and alwayswith less effort on their part, thanthe Christian Scientists.24 Various methods of accounting for thisremarkablefacthavebeensuggested.Marsdonsaysfaith-curesarereallymind-cures, wrought by "anything that will enable a sick person tochange his thought," that is to say, they are notMind-cures butmind-cures,wroughtbyourownchangeof thought,which indeed isassertedscores of times byMrs. Eddy herself.Mrs. Kate Taylor,withmuch thesame implications, explaining the difference as that faith-cure requiresfaith tobehealed,andmind-curedoesnot, adds: "Prayer toapersonalGod affects the sick like a drug that has no efficacy of its own, butborrows itspower fromhuman faith andbelief.Thedrugdoesnothingbecause it has no intelligence." Similarly Frances Lord represents thedifferencetobeoneoftheoryonly,notofpractice,whilewithrespecttothe theory she remarks that there ismore to be known than theFaith-Healers admit.25 Such statements undoubtedly show that ChristianScientists do not deny that faith-cure may be acknowledged to be anundevelopedformoftheirbetterpractice.Butthisdoesnotcarrywithitanyimplicationofimmediatehistoricalconnection.

It was out of a very different soil, in point of fact, that ChristianScience actually grew. According to Mrs. Eddy's own account her

previousexperiencehadbeen inother formsofdistinctivelymind-cure.Shehaddabbledinhomœopathy(herthenhusbandsometimespractisedthisart),andhadfoundthatshecoulddilutethedrugsuntilnothingofthem was left, and still they cured. Then she tried—so she says—mesmerismundertheguidanceof"adistinguishedMesmerist,"orassheelsewhere speaks of him,26 "the magnetic doctor, Mr. P. P. Quimby."When itwas subsequentlypointedout that shehad learnedher systemfrom him—as she certainly did—she repelled the statement thus: "ThecowardlyclaimthatIamnottheoriginatorofmyownwritings,butthatoneP.P.Quimbyis,hasbeenlegallymetandpunished."ShealsotoyedwithSpiritualism.Herownaccountof theoriginofherdoctrine is, thathaving been for years a sufferer from chronic disease, shemetwith aninjurypronouncedbyherphysiciantobenecessarilyfatal,andwaslefttodie. She concluded not to do so, and got suddenly well instead. Fortwentyyearsshehadbeenseekingtotraceallphysicaleffectstoamentalcause,andnow,intheearlydaysofFebruary,1866—thebirth-yearofthenew science, then, according to her account—she "gained the scientificcertainty that all causation was Mind, and every effect a mentalphenomenon."27QuimbydiedonJanuary16,1866,andhere,hardonhisheelsfollowshissuccessor,with,despitealldenials,nothinginherhandsbut what she had got from him. For Quimby was not a mesmerist ormagnetic healer as she represents him, but the founder of the wholeschool ofMental-Healers which has flourished in America through thelast half-century. And it turns out that not only was Mrs. Eddy'sfundamentalidea,butthecharacteristiclanguageinwhichsheexpressesheridea,Quimby'sbeforeitwashers.28

First as openly a disciple of Quimby, and then, progressively withmoreandmorestrengthandevenviolenceofassertionofindependenceof him, Mrs. Eddy gradually set her doctrine afloat. She was alreadyteaching it in 1867. Her advertisement as a teacher is found in theSpiritualisticpaper,TheBannerofLight, in1868.In1870she is firmlyestablishedandgreatlyprosperingatLynn,inpartnershipwithoneofherpupils,RichardKennedy, asa firmofhealerson thebasisofQuimby—Kennedy doing the healing while she taught.29 Meanwhile she waswriting. In 1870 her first pamphlet was copyrighted, although its issuewas delayed for another six years. At length, in 1875, appeared her

magnumopus—ScienceandHealthwithKey to theScriptures—which,revised, and rerevised, and rerevised again—when it had reached its440thedition in1907theeditionsceasedtobenumbered—remainsthesoletext-bookofChristianScience;or,ifweprefertothinkofMrs.Eddy'sfollowers from that point of view, the Second Bible of the Church ofChrist,Scientist.30

ChristianScience,aboveallotherreligionscalledbook-religions,isareligionofabook.Thisbook is,ofcourse,representedaswrittenunderdivine inspiration, and as carryingwith it divine authority. "Nohumantongue or pen," says Mrs. Eddy in its opening pages, "taught me theSciencecontained in thisbook,ScienceandHealth, andneither tonguenorpencaneveroverthrowit."31Shewouldblush,shetellsus,towriteofherbookinthestrainsheusestowardit,"wereitofhumanorigin,andI,apart from God, its author, but as I was only a scribe echoing theharmoniesofheaven,indivineMetaphysics,IcannotbesupermodestoftheChristianScience text-book."32 Thebook is received in the spirit inwhichitisgiven."TheBibleandtheChristianSciencetext-book,"writesIrvingC. Tomlinson, in theChristian Science Bible Quarterly Lessons,"areouronlypreachers.AsthediscoursesaremadeupwhollyofpassagesfromtheBibleandtheChristianSciencetext-book,theycontainnothingofhumanopinion;theyaredevoidofman-madetheories.Theyvoicetheeternalfact,concerningtheeverlastingTruth.Theysetforththerealitiesofbeing; they inform, instruct, andenlighten concerning the veritiesofGod and man." When Tomlinson says that the Bible and Science andHealth are theonlypreacherswhich theChristianScientistshave,he isdeclaring the literal fact. There are no sermons delivered in ChristianScience churches. Whenever and wherever Christian Scientists meettogetherforworshiptheservice is thesame.Apassage isreadfromtheBible and apassage is read fromScienceandHealth. Some hymns aresung.TheonlyprayerusedistheLord'sPrayer,followedlinebylinebyMrs.Eddy'sadaptationofittohersystemofteaching.Thatisall.33Thepassage from theBible, it shouldbenoted, is readby theofficial calledthe Second Reader, and that from Science and Health by the FirstReader.34 The place given to Science and Health in the private life ofChristianScientists iscomparable to thatgiven it in thepublicservices.Everyoneisexpectedtopurchaseandreadit;andnotonlytoreaditbut

toporeoverit.Itisintendedthatitshalldominatethewholelife.35

Whenwe open the book thus sent out into the world as divine inoriginandcontents,wereceiveapainfulshock.Itishopelesslyconfusedand obscure whether in matter or in style. EvenMrs. Eddy's disciplessometimesarefrankenoughtoadmitthat"thefirstreadingofherchiefwork. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, leaves theimpression, in spite of much that is strikingly beautiful and true, thatthere is aprevailing toneof incoherence, contradiction, illogicality, andarbitrary, dictatorial assertion,withno regard for evident fact either intherealmofobjectivenatureorhistory,"36Togototheoppositeextreme,a high dignitary of the Roman Catholic church, Robert Hugh Benson,declares37 that "it is impossible to describe the confusion ofmind thatfallsuponthestudentofScienceandHealth." ''Thequasi-philosophicalphraseology of the book, the abuse of terms, the employment ofambiguous words at crucial points, the character of the exegesis, thebroken-backed paradoxes, the astonishing language, the egotism—allthese things andmanymore endbyproducing in theminda symptomresembling thatwhichneuritis produces in the body, namely the sensethat an agonizing abnormality is somewhere about, whether in thewritingsorinthereaderisuncertain."Heisalmostinclinedtolookuponthe fact that Christian Science has been actually propagated by such abook as a proof of its divine origin. This phenomenon is far moreremarkable,he intimates, thananymiracleofhealingMrs.Eddyclaimstohaveperformed:''forshehasdonemorethanmendbrokentissuesbythe application of mind, she has mended minds by the application ofnonsense."Anotherwriterslylysuggeststhatitisbytheveryfactthatthebookissheernonsensethatitseffectisproduced.38IfwewouldonlysaywiththeKinginAlice inWonderland, "If there'snomeaning in it, thatsavesaworldoftrouble,asweneedn'ttrytofindany"—itwouldbeallupwithit.Themischiefcomesfromtryingtofindameaninginit."Giventhewilltobelieveby,say,thecureofafriend,theperusalofthebook,byitsgeneral unintelligibility, produces a kind of mental coma, such as isinduced by staring fixedly at a single bright spot." It hypnotizes us, inshort.39Itisbarelypossible,ofcourse,thatsomeoftheobscurityofthebook is intentional, designed to produce just this effect. TheUnitarianclergyman, James Henry Wiggin, who served for some years as Mrs.

Eddy's literaryadviser,and in thatcapacityrevised the textof thebook(from1885on),suggestsasmuch.40"Asforclearness,"hewrites,"manyChristian Science people thought her earlier editions much better,becausetheysoundedmorelikeMrs.Eddy.Thetruthisthatshedoesnotcare tohaveherparagraphs clear, anddelights in so expressingherselfthatherwordsmayhavevariousreadingsandmeanings.Really, that isone of the tricks of the trade. You know, Sibyls have always been thusoracular, to 'keep the word of promise to the ear and break it to thehope.'"Allowthis theory,however, the fullestapplication,andthebooknevertheless remainshopelessly incompetent.Wigginputshis fingeronthetruecausewhenheadds:"QuimbyhaddefiniteideasbutMrs.Eddyhasnotunderstoodthem."Herabilitylayinotherspheresthaninthatofphilosophicthoughtandliteraryexpression.

Mrs.Eddy's pantheismdeprived her, of course, of a personalGod,andsheinsistedontheimpersonalityofGodwiththeutmostvigor.41Butsherightlyfoundwhatshecalls"theleadingfactor inMind-Science," intheconsequentpropositionthat"Mind"(withacapital "M")"isall,andmatterisnaught";orassheotherwiseexpressesit,that"theonlyrealitiesare the divine mind and its ideas'';42 "nothing possesses reality andexistence except God."43 She sums up her entire teaching in fourfundamental propositionswhich she declares to be self-evident, and sotruethattheyarestilltrueiftheyarereadbackwards:(1)Godisallinall;(2) God is good; Good is Mind; (3) God, Spirit, being all, nothing ismatter; and (4) Life, God, omnipotent good, deny death, evil, sin,disease."44Moreatlargesheexpoundshersystemthus:"Godissupreme;ismind;isprinciple,notperson;includesallandisreflectedbyallthatisrealandeternal; isSpiritandSpirit is infinite; is theonly substance; istheonlylife.ManwasandistheideaofGod;thereforemindcanneverbein man. Divine Science shows that matter and mortal body are theillusionsofhumanbelief,whichseemtoappearanddisappeartomortalsense alone.When this belief changes as in dreams, thematerial bodychangeswith it,goingwhereverwewish,andbecomingwhateverbeliefmaydecree....Besiegesicknessanddeathwiththeseprinciplesandallwilldisappear."

FrancesLordsaysthefirstlessonwemustlearn,accordingly,isthat

"intheuniversethereisonlytheallandthenothing.""Godisall.""SinceGodisall,andGodisgood,theallisthegood;whateverisnotgoodisnotreal andmaybeproclaimed so."Thepowerofproclamation is sogreatthatifwetrainourselvestodenythatanevilis,andtoaffirmthatitisnot—it is not. "We could teach ourselvesDenial," she explains, "using anyerror todenyaway;butwedenyDiseasebecausewehavesetourselvesthis particular task."45 "Mind," she says in further explanation, "in itsthinking faculty is pure understanding. Understanding casts a shadow;this shadow is Intellect. Intellect believes things and has opinions.Intellectualbeliefcastsashadow;thisshadowisthehumanbody."46"Ifthebodyshowsforthabruise,theshadowisshowingforthasadefectiveshadow.Then the substance, orwould-be substance,mustbedefective.But we have just said it is intellectual belief that plays the part ofsubstance to the shadowwe call the body. Then the defectmust be insome intellectual belief: it must consist in some mistaken opinion ornotionwhich the thinkingmindholds. . . . Yes, the bruise pictures outsomemistakenideas."47"Whatistheharmofashadow?"shecontinues."There is no harm whatever in a shadow, provided it knows it is ashadow; the harm of error comes in when it forgets this and claimsindependence.What is the proper way to handle a shadow ? Shall wearguewithit,talktoit,coaxit?No."Thisistheessentialteachingofthewhole school. Only Frances Lord goes a step further in this shadow-dance.ShebelievesalsoinKarma:thatis,shortly, inInheritance.Ifthecauseofillnesshesfurtherbackthanthislife,''itisincurable,exceptthepatientcanbeledtorealizeinsodeepasensethemeaningofthewords,'Thereisnopowerinevil,'"thatheisliftedaboveeven"theoldshadowsofformerlivesandthoughts."48

Now, ifbodilydisease isonly "anappearance,a sensuous seeming,an empty show," an illusion only—asMrs. Eddy says, "You will call itneuralgia,butIcallitIllusion"—allthatisnecessarytocurediseaseistodissipatetheillusion,thatistosay,tochangethemind.Noknowledgeofanatomy is necessary; nomedicament, no regimen, no anything excepttheprojectionofahealthyimageofbody.Wearesickbecausewethinkourselvessick;wearewellwheneverwechangeourmindsandsaywearewelluntilwebelieve it.There isonlyonepossibilityof failure.Supposeyouarethinkingyourselfwell,butotherspersistinthinkingthatyouare

sick.This isunfortunate: foras fastasyouprojectyourselfawellbody,theyprojectyouasickone.Youmustgetallaboutyoutothinkwithyoutoinsuresuccess.Nay,youmustgetthewholeworldtodoso—unlessyoucan persuade the world to forget you utterly, which should do just aswell.49

If we survey the system of Christian Science as a whole, with anactivedesiretodiscoverinitelementsofvalue,itisquitepossibletofixuponcharacteristicswhich,viewedintheabstract,mayseemadmirable.Thereis itsuncompromisingidealism,forexample;theemphasiswhichitplacesonspiritasdistinguishedfrommatter.ThereisthehighvalueitattachestoTruth,asoveragainstotherforms—emotionalorvolitional—of human activity.And there is its constant inculcation of contentmentandserenity,thequietoptimismofitsoutlookonlife,whichmusttend,one would think, to the production of a demeanor, at least, if not acharacter,fullofattractiveness.Thesethingsoccurintheactualsystem,however,notintheabstractbutinveryconcreteforms;andtheconcreteformsinwhichtheyoccurinthesystemdonotseem,uponbeingfranklylookedintheface,verybeautiful.

ItiseasyimmediatelyonperceivingtheidealisticpresuppositionsofChristian Science to go off into laudations of idealism in general, incontrastwiththesordidmaterialismofourage.Butitisourownidealismwe are lauding, not Mrs. Eddy's. Her idealism is a sheer pantheism,involving a complete acosmism,which sinks, not thematerial universeonly, but the world of individual spirits as well, in the ocean ofundifferentiated Being. If it be said thatMrs. Eddy does not work herpantheistic assumption out consistently, that is true in one sense andquiteuntrue inanotherandmuchmore importantsense. It is true thatsheisconstantlymakingassertionsquiteinconsistentwithit;thatinherattempts to expound it, she cannot maintain her consistency threesentencesatatime,buteverywherepresentsus,asMissSturgeputsit,50

"with such a tangle of incoherent, inconsistent, confused statements,contradictorytoeachother,ashas,perhaps,neverbeenseriouslygiventotheworldbefore."Butwithallherinabilityinexpoundingthedetailsofher thought tokeep inview its fundamentalpantheisticpostulate,Mrs.Eddy does not fail to make this pantheistic postulate consistently

fundamental to her system, or to press it explicitly to its extremestimplications.Her system is precisely acosmic pantheism, that, all that,andnothingbutthat.

From another point of view also it is absurd to speak in terms ofpraise ofMrs.Eddy's idealism. It is but a sorry idealism at the best. Itdoesnot take itsstarting-point fromthevisionof thespiritual, fromanenlarged mental outlook and a soaring sense of the value of spiritualthings—butfromacringingfearoftheevilsoflife,aslifeisandmustbelivedbycreaturesofsense.Itmakesallthedifferencewhetherwebeginby affirming spirit and draw the inference thence to the relativenothingness of the material; or begin by shirking the material andinferring only thence that spirit is all. The centre of gravity of the twoattitudes, though they be described in identical language, is antipodal;their reactions on life—expressed in thought, feeling and doing—are socompletely contrasting as to be in point of fact directly contradictory.Mrs.Eddy'sbeginninglayinthedenialofmatter,thatthesufferingandtrialsoflifemightbe,iftheycouldnotbeescaped,yetasfaraspossiblecircumvented.Her attitude is that of flight, flight from the evils of life.There isnothingheroicabout it;nothingelevatedorelevating.We fearthatwemustsaythatitlooksfromwithoutrathersordid.Heridealismisashamidealism;merelyamechanicaldevicefortheeludingoflife,alifewhichmustbelivedinaworldofsuffering(ofwhichMrs.Eddyhasthekeenestsense)andsin(ofwhichsheappearstohavenosenseatall).51Ofcoursethedeviceisasvainasit ismechanical.Todenytheevilsof life,howeverstoutly,unfortunatelydoesnotabolishthem.Mrs.Eddyherselfsuffered from disease and weakness; she too grew old and died.52Heridealismisasfalsetoallthefactsofexperienceasitismeaninitsorigin.Andwemustaddthatitisascruelasitisfalseandmean.Weseeitinitsfullenormityonlywhenweseeitatworkonhelplesssufferers—onthosetoo ill to speak for themselves, on tortured infancy. The annals of thepracticeofChristianScienceonsickandsufferingbabiesbelongstothehistoryofatrocities.53

Similarly,whenwe are tempted to praiseChristian Science for thehonor which it does to Truth, we are bound to stop and ask, not onlymaterially,whatthisTruthistowhichitgiveshonor,butalso,formally,

whetheritcanbecommendedforthefunctionswhichitassignstoTruthinitssystem.Whatitcalls"Truth,"whenitspeakshonoringlyofTruth,isjust its pantheistic theory of Being—that all ismind, andmind isGod,andbesidesGodthereisnothing.Tothis"Truth"assuch—thatistosay,to its mere apprehension as true—it ascribes all healing power. It istherefore that it calls itself "metaphysical healing," healing, that is, bymetaphysics,andthatitnameditscollege,foundedinBostonin1881,the"MassachusettsMetaphysical College." This is, in point of fact, its onlydistinguishingfeature,borrowedindeedfromP.P.Quimby,butmadeallits own. There are other systems of mental healing abroad, seekinghealingthroughothermentalactivities—faith,say,orthewill.Mrs.Eddyremarks:54 "Thecommoncustomofprayingfor therecoveryof thesickfindshelpinblindbelief,whereashelpshouldcomefromtheenlightenedunderstanding." "Will-power is not Science," she says again.55 "WillingthesicktorecoverisnotthemetaphysicalpracticeofChristianScience,but sheer animal magnetism. . . . Truth and not corporeal will is thedivinepowerwhichsaystodisease,'Peace,bestill.'"A"ChristianScienceHealer"explainsthewholematterclearly.56Everyman,hedeclares,hasa"God-given right" to "spiritual,mental and bodilywholeness"; and thiswholeness is "received inproportion toman's intelligentunderstandingoftheGod-natureanditsoperation."Wepassbythemerephrases"God-givenright,""spiritual,mentalandbodilywholeness."TheformerisonlyafashionofspeakingwithnospecificmeaningonaChristianScientist'slipsexceptasastrongwayofsaying,itisaninalienableright.Thelatterismerely rhetorical enumeration to emphasize the single idea ofcompleteness; on Christian Science ground mind and body are bothnonentitiesandnomancanhavearighttoanythingmentalorbodily—hehasonlya right tobe ridofall such things.What is tobenoted is thateverybodyisaffirmedtohaveaninalienablerighttowholeness,andthiswholeness towhicheveryonehasan inalienable right isaffirmed tobeactually enjoyed only—here is the point, note it well—in proportion aseach has an intelligent understanding of "the God-nature and itsoperation."

Here,yousee,isatrulyrampantintellectualism,apureGnosticism.Tounderstandistohaveandtobe.Inproportionasweunderstand,andunderstandintelligently,wepossess.Thethingtobeunderstoodandthe

understandingofwhichbringswholenessisdescribedas"theGod-natureanditsoperation."Inthissystem"theGod-nature"isdefinedastheAll."Godisall,"wearetold,"andall isGod."Understandthat,andyouare"whole."It isthemereunderstandingof itthatdoesthework;italwaysdoesthework,andtheworkisnotdonewherethisunderstandingisnotpresent. This is the reason why puzzled pastors sometimes complain—surely they are themselves showing little understanding—thatmembersof their flockwho are taintedwithChristian Science are found to haveturnedaway fromhistoricalChristianity. It is the first step inChristianScience thatyoumust turnaway fromhistoricalChristianity.57 It is the"new knowledge" that does the work. Unless you have the ''newknowledge" youhavenoChristianScience; forChristianScience is justthis "newknowledge,"and this "newknowledge,"being justpantheisticacosmism, is thecontradictionofhistoricalChristianity.YoucanhavealittleChristianScienceinyourChristianityjustaslittleasyoucanhavealittlewaterinyourfire;andalittleChristianityinyourChristianSciencejust as little as you can have a little fire in your water. The things aremutuallyexclusive.

Thisbaldintellectualismispressedeventotheabsurdextremethatcurative value is ascribed to themere reading ofMrs. Eddy's writings."The perusal of the author's publications," she tells us herself, "healssicknessconstantly."58Apalsiedarm,wearetold,wascuredbyreadingasingle sentence: "All is Mind." Sometimes, no doubt, appearances areagainst this doctrine. But Mrs. Eddy has her explanation and herencouragement to offer. "If patients sometimes seem the worse forreading this book," she says,59—andwho canwonder, if they do?—"thechangemayeitherarisefromthealarmofthephysician,ormaymarkthecrisis of the disease. Perseverance in its reading has generally healedthemcompletely."Thisishealingdistinctlybyreading.Tolle,lege,isthecommandinanewsense.

Itpuzzlesusgreatly, therefore, to learnthathealingcanapparentlybehadneverthelesswithoutthereadingofMrs.Eddy'sbook,andindeedwithouttheunderstandingwhichweareinstructedtolookuponasitselfthehealing.Mrs.Eddy tells this story:60 "Acaseofdropsy,givenupbythe faculty, fell intomyhands. Itwasa terriblecase.Tappinghadbeen

employed,andyetthepatientlookedlikeabarrelasshelayinherbed.IprescribedthefourthattenuationofArgenitumnitricum,withoccasionaldoses of a high attenuation of Sulphuris. She improved perceptibly.Believingthensomewhatintheordinarytheoriesofmedicalpractice,andlearning that her former physician had prescribed these remedies, Ibegantofearanaggravationofsymptomsfromtheirprolongeduse,andtoldthepatientso;butshewasunwillingtogiveupthemedicinewhenshe was recovering. It then occurred to me to give her unmedicatedpellets,andwatchtheresult.Ididso,andshecontinuedtogain.Finallyshe said that shewould giveuphermedicine for oneday, and risk theeffects.After trying this, she informedme that she could get along twodayswithoutglobules;butonthe thirddaysheagainsuffered,andwasrelievedbytakingthem.Shewentoninthisway,takingtheunmedicatedpellets—andreceivingoccasionalvisitsfromme—butemployingnoothermeans,andwascured."Whathad''metaphysicalhealing,"thatis,healingthroughunderstanding,todowiththiscure?Ifunderstandingishealing,howwas thiswoman,whodidnotunderstand,healed?Of course,Mrs.Eddywouldsay thatby thedeceptionpractisedonthiswomanshewasgot toprojectherself graduallyawell-body,andso shegradually foundherselfwithawell-body.Butthatisnot"metaphysical"healing,inwhichknowingisbeing.

But, it seems, not onlymay you be healedwithout understanding,but you may fail to be healed even if you do understand. If you takepoisonyouwilldie;even,itseems,ifyoudonotknowyouhavetakenit."Ifadoseofpoisonisswallowedthroughmistake,andthepatientdies,"Mrs. Eddy posits a case,61 "even though physician and patient areexpectingfavorableresults,doesbelief,youask,causethisdeath?""Evenso,"sheanswers,"andasdirectlyasifthepoisonhadbeenintentionallytaken."Then follows the adjustmentof the case to the theory. "In suchcases,"we are told, "a fewpersonsbelieve thepotion swallowedby thepatient to be harmless; but the vastmajority ofmankind, though theyknownothingofthisparticularcase,andthisspecialperson,believethearsenic,thestrychnine,orwhateverthedrugused,tobepoisonous,forithasbeensetdownasapoisonbymortalmind.Theconsequenceisthatthe result is controlled by themajority of opinions outside, not by theinfinitesimalminority of opinions in the sick chamber." If this be true,

then it is all up with "metaphysical healing," It is not the individual'sunderstanding; it is the common opinion of mankind—not as to thisparticular case of which few have knowledge—but in general, whichdeterminesresults.Materialthings,havingthegroundoftheirbeingandmodes of action in the common opinion of mankind, are just asobjectivelyrealtotheindividualasiftheyhadthegroundoftheirbeingand modes of action in themselves. The individual is helpless in theirpresence, and all the better understandingwhich hemay possess as totheirrealnatureasillusions,canservehiminnopossibleway.

A pantheist has no right to a religion. Hemust be content with aphilosophy and its postulates. As a Christian Science Healer alreadyquotedtellsus,heunderstands"theGod-natureanditsoperation,"andforthwith is "whole"with that "spiritual,mental and bodilywholeness"whichishisindefeasibleright.GetintoyourplaceasapartofthatgreatwholewhichisGod,and,beinginyourplace,youhaveyourwholeness.Thisisasmuchofareligionasapantheistcanhave.ItwasthisthattheStoicmeantwhenhesaid:"Getintothestreamofnature,andifyoudonotlikethewayitisflowing,atleastyouneednotsqueal."62Andthisisthe reason why the religion of mystics—who are pantheizing in theirfundamentalthought—tendstorunintowhatwecallQuietism,whichison the passive side resignation, on the active renunciation, and in itslowestreachesbecomesplacidacceptanceofthelotthathascometous,in its highest rises into disinterested love. Do we not have here theaccountalsoofthespecialtypeofpietywhichissaidtobedevelopedinChristianSciencecircles?ChristianScience,wearetold,hasbroughtnotonly relief from suffering and disease, but release also from worry,anxiety, contentiousness. We will let Frank Podmore depict this self-centredpiety forus. "The religionofChristianScience," sayshe,63 "oilsthe wheels of the domestic machinery, smooths out business troubles,releases from fear, promotes happiness. But it is entirely egoistic inexpression.. . .ForChristianScientiststhereisnorecognizedservicetotheirfellows,beyondtheforceoftheirexample.""Therearenocharitiesor institutions of any kind for social service in connection with theChristianSciencechurches.""Povertyandsin,likesickness,areillusions,errorsof'mortalmind,'andcannotbealleviatedbymaterialmethods.Ifamanissick,hedoesnotneeddrugs;ifpoor,hehasnoneedofmoney;if

suffering, of material help or even sympathy. For the cure in all casesmust be sought within. The New Religion, then, is without theenthusiasmofHumanity. It is, in fact,withoutenthusiasmofanykind.Weshalllookinvainhereforspiritualrapture,forecstaticcontemplationof the divine. There is no place here for any of the passionswhich areassociatedwithChristianity,nor,indeed,foranyexaltedemotion.Therecanbenoremorsewherethereisnosin;compassion,whenthesufferingisunreal,canonlybemischievous;friendship,asweshallsee later, isasnare,and the loveofmanandwomanahindrance to true spirituality.There is no mystery about this final revelation, and there is no room,therefore,forwonderandawe.Hereareno'long-drawnaislesandfrettedvaults';theScientist'soutlookonthespiritualworldisasplainandbareasthewallsofhistemple,shiningwhiteundertheabundantradianceoftheelectriclamps."

Theethicsofpantheismtendeither to licenseor toasceticism.Thefleshisnothing,andallitsdelightsanddesiresarenothing,andmaybetreatedasnothing—whetherinthewayofcarelessindulgenceorofsternextirpation.Wemay be thankful thatMrs. Eddy's thought turns in thedirection of asceticism, though, to be sure, it is to an asceticism ofsufficientlymild a type. On all matters of dietetics and hygiene she ofcourse pours contempt, because she is thinking of them primarily ascurativeagents,andshecanhavenothingtodowithcurativeagents;yetshemanagestospiceherremarksuponthemwithanasceticflavor.Eatwhatyoupleaseisherprescription:muchorlittle—itisallnothing.Godgavemen"dominionnotonlyoverthefishinthesea,butoverthefishinthestomach."64But,ofcourse,remember65"thatgustatorypleasureisasensuous illusion, a phantasm of the mortal mind, diminishing as webetterapprehendourspiritualexistence,andascendtheladderofLife"—^Lifewithacapital"L," forMrs.Eddywasnotthinkingofgrowingold."Ametaphysician never . . . recommends or trusts in hygiene."66 "Thedaily ablutions of an infant," writes she,67 "are no more natural ornecessary, thanwouldbetheprocessof takinga fishoutofwatereveryday,andcoveringitwithdirt,inordertomakeitthrivemorevigorouslythereafter in its native element. 'Cleanliness is next to godliness'; butwashing shouldbeonly for thepurposeof keeping thebody clean, andthiscanbedonewithoutscrubbingthewholesurfacedaily.Waterisnot

thenaturalhabitatofhumanity.""Iscivilization,"sheexclaims,68"onlyahigher formof idolatry, thatmanshouldbowdown toa fleshbrush, toflannels, tobaths,diet,exercise,andair?"Butshehasadeeper feeling."Bathing, scrubbing, to alter the secretions, or remove unhealthyexhalationsfromthecuticle,"shedeclaresinherearliereditionsatleast,receiveda"usefulrebukefromJesus'precept'Takenothought...forthebody.'""Wemustbeware,"sheadds,"ofmakingcleanonlytheoutsideoftheplatter."69

Itiswithrespecttomarriage,however,thattheasceticismintrinsictoMrs.Eddy'sphilosophypushesnearesttothesurface.Shediscouragesmarriage and prefers celibacy. "Is marriagemore right than celibacy?"she asks, and answers,70 "Human knowledge indicates that it is, butScience indicates that it is not." And so far from marriage involvingchildren,childlessmarriagesarethebestandaretobesoughtafter.71Tothe objection that, if every one followed this advice, the human racewould soon perish, she has a ready answer. The propagation of thespecies,sheintimates,doesnotdependonmarriage;sexisanerrorofthemortalmind. "The butterfly, bee andmoth," she says,72—we are afraidthatMrs.Eddy's knowledge of natural historywasdefective—evennowarereproducedinanasexualmanner,andthismay—nay,will—betrueofmanwhenheattainsmorenearlytohistruebeing.Meanwhile,thesearetimesofignorance;andduringthesetimesofignorance,shecounsels,letmarriages continue.73 Thus Christian Science makes its concession to"mortalmind."74

We observe that Mrs. Eddy has an eschatology. She is lookingforwardtoabettertimetocome,whenallthatChristianSciencedreamsshouldbeshallbe.Whyherdreamsofthefutureshouldtaketheformofthis golden agewedonot quite understand. If all ismind andmind isGod,weshouldthinkMrs.Eddy'seschatologywouldpoint forwardtoatime when all the wavelets which fret the surface of the infinite deepshould have sunk to rest in its depths. But no, the paradise she looksforwardtois,apparently,amaterialparadise.75Therearemeninit,andthey increase and multiply and replenish the earth—though after anasexualmanner.Theyareinitbutnotofit.Theytreadtheadderunderfoot;andthoughtheydrinkdeadlythings,theywillsuffernoharm—for

therewillbeno"mortalmind"thentomakeitharmthem.Theywillwalkonthewater,itseems,andturnwaterintowine,andmultiplyloavesandfishes, as Jesus once did, butmen cannot do now. At leastHerman S.Hering,firstreaderofthechurchatConcord,seemstopromisethistous,"eventually." "It is claimed by some opponents," he writes,76 "thatbecause Christian Scientists do not walk on the water, turn water intowine,multiplyloavesandfishes,asdidJesus,andbecausetheystillhaveto do with matter at every turn, the doctrines of Christian Science,especially that of the unreality of matter, must be fallacious. Such anargument is like thatwhichdeclares that, because a school-boy,who isjust learning to add and subtract, cannotwork out a problem in cube-root, therefore the claims of greater possibilities in the science ofmathematicsare fallacious,and the school-boy isbadlydeceivedby thepromiseofbeingableeventuallytosolvesuchhigherproblems."

There is a good time coming, then, and we may confidently lookforwardtoit.Itcontainsforus,nodoubt,nothingbeyondwhatweoughttohavehereandnow,andwouldhavehereandnowwereitnotfortheinterference of "mortal mind." In enumerating the benefits whichChristian Science confers on us, Frances Lord includes in the list suchitemsasthese:77"6.Wedonotneedtofearanyclimate....7.Wedonotneedtotravelorgoawayforachangeofair....8.Weknowthatwedonotreallylivebyeating,andthismereknowledge—withoutanyefforttodowithoutfood,orlessenit,orindeedinterferewithourordinarysimplehabits at all—has the effect ofmaking us less dependent on ourmealsbothas towhat andwhen to eat.9.And in the samewaywegrow lessdependent upon clothing, warmth and coldness, for comfort." But sheimmediatelyadds: ''Here letussayemphatically thatweneitherenjoin,nor encourage, any experiments about food or clothing. Experienceshows us that any changes, to be worth anything, must and do comeabout of themselves, in persons who, having learnt the truth of life,accepted and begun to live by it, demonstrate it naturally andspontaneously." This is, of course, only a repetition of Mrs. Eddy'sconstantmanner.Forexample:78"Fooddoesnotaffecttherealexistenceof man . . . but it would be foolish to venture beyond presentunderstanding,foolishtostopeatinguntilwegainmoregoodness,andaclearercomprehensionofthelivingGod."79

Butwhatabout the success, inactualhealing,of this systemwhichdescribes"amentalcure"—thisisthewaythatLutherM.Marsdonputsit—as "thediscoveryofa sickperson thathe iswell," and thepracticeofwhich consists simply in the transference of this thought from thepractitioner to the patient? It is just as successful as any other of themanysystemsofmentalpractice;nomoreandnoless.Itslistofcuresislong,andmanyof themare remarkable.80Wehavenoreason todoubtthe reality of large numbers of these cures. But by now, we surelyunderstand that there are limitations to them which are neveroverpassed. These limitations are brought sharply into view by achallenge cast out by Professor L. T. Townsend.81 He made thisproposition:"Ifyouorthepresidentofyourcollege,oryourentirecollegeof doctors, will put into place a real case of hip or ankle dislocation,withoutresortingtotheordinarymanipulationorwithouttouchingit, Iwill give you a thousand dollars. Or if you or your president, or yourentire college,will give sight tooneof the inmatesof theSouthBostonAsylumfortheBlind,thatsightlesspersonhavingbeenbornblind,Iwillgiveyou two thousanddollars."Themoneywasnevercalled for.But intheJournalofChristianSciencethisreplyappeared:"Willthegentlemanacceptmythanksduetohisgenerosity, for ifIshouldaccepthisbidhewould lose his money. Why, because I performed more difficult tasksfifteen years ago. At present I am in another department of Christianwork, where 'there shall be no sign given them,' for they shall beinstructed in the principles of Christian Science that furnishes its ownproof."We have observed that in a similar vein a Faith-Healer,DoctorCullis,explainedthat"abrokenbone isnotsickness,andshouldbeputintothehandsofasurgeon."Mrs.Eddydoesnotthuscurtlyrefuse,sheonly postpones, the treatment of such cases. "Until the advancing ageadmitstheefficacyandsupremacyofMind,"shewrites,82"itisbettertoleavetheadjustmentofbrokenbonesanddislocationstothefingersofasurgeon,whileyouconfineyourselfchiefly"—that"chiefly"isverygood!—"to mental reconstruction or the prevention of inflammation orprotracted confinement." Even while saying this, however, sheasseveratesthatcuresofthiskindhaveneverthelessalreadybeenactuallyperformedbothbyherselfandherpupils.

Itwasnot themagnitudeof the taskaskedbyProfessorTownsend

whichledMrs.Eddytopalterthus.Itwasthenatureofit.Thedrawingofatoothisnotagreatthing,butMrs.Eddy'sSciencewasnotequaltoit.Wedoindeedhearheretooof"moredifficulttasks"alreadyperformed.Wehear,forexample,of"the'good-sizedcavity'ofanachingtoothfilledup by mental treatment, 'not with foreign substance, but the genuine,white and perfect.'"83 But when Mrs. Eddy herself had a troublesometooth,sheemployedthegoodofficesofadentisttoobtainrelief,andevenavailedherselfofhis"painlessmethod"toguardherselffromsufferinginthe process.84 The explanation she gives runs as follows: ''BishopBerkeley and I agree that all is Mind. Then, consistently with thispremise, the conclusion is that if I employ a dental surgeon, and hebelievesthattheextractionofatoothismadeeasierbysomeapplicationof means which he employs, and I object to the employment of thismeans, I have turned the dentist's mental protest against myself, hethinksImustsufferbecausehismethodisinterferedwith.Therefore,hismental forceweighs against a painless operation, whereas it should beputintothesamescaleasmine,thusproducingapainlessoperationasalogicalresult."This isveryingenious.TheapplicationoftheanaesthetictoMrs.Eddy'stoothwastooperatenotonMrs.Eddy,directly,butonthedentist; itwasnottokeeptheextractionofthetoothfromhurtingMrs.Eddy,buttokeepthedentistfromthinkingthatitsextractionwouldhurtMrs.Eddy.Buttherealquestionofinterestis,WhydidMrs.Eddyhaverecoursetoadentistatall?85Thetoothacheandthetooth,Mrs.Eddyandtheoperator,thesoothingapplicationandthecruelforcepswereoneandall illusions. It is safe to say that the extraction itself—the act of anonentityonanonentity—didnothappen.

SirWilliamOslertellsusinafewdirectwordswhyMrs.Eddywenttoadentist."Potentasistheinfluenceofmindonbody,"hewrites,"andmany as are the miracle-like cures which may be worked, all are infunctionaldisorders,andweknowonlytoowellthatnowadaystheprayerof faith neither sets a broken thigh nor checks an epidemic of typhoidfever."86 That is to say, directly, by its own power. It may do either,indirectly, through the gracious answer of the Almighty God who hasinfinite resources at His disposal; who, as the old writer to whom welistened at the beginning of this lecture told us, creates physicians andmedicinesandgivesthemtheirskillandefficacy,thatHe,theLord,may

behonoredinHismarvellousworks.ButMrs.EddyhadnoLordtoprayto, and no faith in which to appear before Him, and no hope in Hisalmightysuccor.Letusbethankfulthatsheatleasthadadentist.87

Endnotes:

NotestoLectureI-TheCessationoftheCharismata

1. W.YorkeFausset, for example, unduly restricts thenumberof ourLord's miracles, speaking of the "severe economy with which Heexercised such supernatural, or extranatural, powers." (MedicineandtheModernChurch,editedbyGeoffreyRhodes,1910,pp.175ff.)

2. Χαρίσματα,ormorerarelyπνευματικά, ICor. 12:1,orδόματα, Eph.4:8.

3. Charismata: it is a distinctively Pauline term, occurring elsewherethaninPaul'swritingsonlyonceinPhilo(DeAlleg.Leg.,2:75)andonce in the First Epistle of Peter (4:10), an epistle which, both indoctrineandlanguage,isofquitePaulinecharacter.

4. Cf.C.F.G.Heinrici,DasersteSendschreibendesApostelPaulusandieKorinther,1880,p.452:"MosheimsaysthatPaulsketchesinthissectionakindofChurchDirectory.Thatgoestoofar:butitatleastcontainstheoutlinesofaDirectoryofWorshipinhiscommunity,forwhichitwasatoncemadeclearthatinallmatterswhichconcernthevalue and effect of the worshipping assemblages, caprice andconfusionareexcluded."W.Bousset,KyriosChristos, 1913,p. 106,describes very vividly, though on the naturalistic hypothesisexplained in note 6 below, what their assemblies were for theChristians of the Apostolic times. "Here in the assemblies of thefellowship," he writes, "there arose for the believers in Christ theconsciousness of their unity andpeculiar sociological individuality.Scatteredduringthedayinpursuitoftheirdailycallings,subjectinan alien world to derision and scorn, they came together in theevening(nodoubtasoftenaspossible)forthecommonsacredmeal.They then experienced the miracle of fellowship, the glow of theenthusiasmofacommonfaithandacommonhope,whentheSpiritflamed up and encompassed them with a miracle-filled world:

prophets and tongues, visionaries and ecstatics began to speak,psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs soared through the room, theforces of brotherly charity awoke in an unsuspected fashion, anunheardofnew life pulsated through the crowdofChristians.Andover this whole surging enthusiasm the Lord Jesus reigned as thehead of His community, immediately present in His power with atangibilityandacertaintywhichtakesthebreathaway."

5. J. H. Bernard, in an essay on "The Miraculous in Early ChristianLiterature," published in the volume called The Literature of theSecondCentury, by F. R.Wynne, J. H. Bernard, and S. Hemphill(New York, James Pott & Co., 1892), p. 145, gives a useful butincompleteexhibitof thereferences to theexerciseof thesegifts intheActsandEpistles:(i)Tongues:Pentecost(Acts2)andfrequentlyalluded tobyPaul inhisepistles; (2)Prophecy: frequentlycalleda"sign"ofanApostle,andalsoalludedtointhecasesofAgabus(Acts11:28, 21:10), the twelveEphesian disciples onwhomPaul laid hishands (Acts 19:6), and the fourdaughtersofPhilip (Acts21:9); (3)Poison:Paul'sviper(Acts28:3);(4)Exorcism:byPaul(Acts16:18);(5)Healing:byPaul in thecaseofPublius (Acts28:8),byPeter inthat of Ćneas (Acts 9:33), by Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15), by Paul'sclothing (Acts 19:12),byPeterandJohn(Acts3:7); (6)Raisingthedead:byPaul, in thecaseofEutychus (Acts20:9),byPeter, in thecaseofDorcas(Acts9:36);(7)Punitive:inthecasesofAnaniasandSapphira(Acts5:5),andElymas(Acts13:8);(8)Generalreferencesto signs and wonders: attesting Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:3),Stephen(Acts6:8)andPhilip(Acts8:6).

6. Theologiansof the "Liberal" school,of course,deny themiraculouscharacter of the charisms on principle, and are prone to representthemasthenaturalmanifestationsofprimitiveenthusiasm."We,forour part," says P.W. Schmiedel (EncyclopediaBiblica, col. 4776),"areconstrainedto""denythemiraculouscharacterofthecharisms,""and to account for everything in the phenomena to which amiraculouscharacterhasbeenattributedbytheknownpsychologicallaws which can be observed in crises of great mental exaltation,whether in persons who deem themselves inspired, or in personswhosimplyrequiremedicaltreatment."Fromthispointofviewthecharismatabelongtotheprimitivechurchassuch,tothechurchnot

merely of the Apostolic age, but of the first two centuries. Thischurchisspokenofincontrasttothestaid,organizedchurchwhichsucceededit,asaCharismaticChurch,thatistosay,intheoldsenseoftheword,asanEnthusiasticChurch,achurchsweptalongbyanexaltedstateofmindandfeelingwhichweshouldlookuponto-dayas mere fanaticism. "It is easily intelligible," says Schmiedel (col.4775), "that the joy of enthusiasm over the possession of a newredeemingreligionshouldhaveexpresseditselfinanexuberantway,which,accordingtotheideasofthetime,couldonlyberegardedasthemiraculousoperationof theHolySpirit."Or, asAdolfHarnack(TheExpansionofChristianityintheFirstThreeCenturies,E.T.I.,pp.250 ff.),puts it,Christianitycame intobeingas"thereligionofSpirit and power," and only lost this character and became thereligionof formandorder towardtheendof thesecondcentury.Arather sharp expression of this view is given in an (inaugural)address delivered in 1893 by A. C. McGiffert, on Primitive andCatholicChristianity. "The spirit ofprimitiveChristianity,"he says(p. 19), "is thespiritof individualism,basedon the feltpresenceofthe Holy Ghost. It was the universal conviction of the primitivechurch thateveryChristianbelieverenjoys the immediatepresenceof the Holy Spirit, through whom he communes with God, andreceives illumination, inspiration and strength for his daily needs.ThepresenceoftheSpiritwasrealizedbytheseprimitiveChristiansinamostvividway. Itmeant thepower toworkmiracles, tospeakwithtongues,toutterprophecies(cf.Mark16:17-18,andActs2:16ff.)." McGiffert is not describing here some Christians, but allChristians;andallChristiansnotoftheApostolicage,butofthefirsttwo centuries: "By the opening of the third century all theseconceptions had practically disappeared." An attempt to give thisgeneralviewalessnaturalisticexpressionmaybereadatthecloseofR. Martin Pope's article, "Gifts," in Hastings's Dictionary of theApostolic Church. "To sum up," he writes (vol. I, p. 451), "anexamination of the passages in apostolic literature which treat ofspiritual gifts inevitably brings us to the conclusion that the life ofthe early church was characterized by glowing enthusiasm, simplefaith, and intensity of joy and wonder, all resulting from theconsciousnessofthepoweroftheHolySpirit;alsothatthisphaseof

Spirit-effectedministriesandservicewastemporary,assuch'tidesoftheSpirit'havesinceoftenproved,andgavewaytoamorerigidanddisciplined Church Order, in which the official tended more andmoretosupersedethecharismaticministries."Ithasalwaysbeenthecharacteristic mark of a Christian that he is "led by the Spirit ofGod":"ifanymanhathnottheSpiritofChristheisnoneofHis."IthasneverbeenthemarkofaChristianthatbecauseheis"ledbytheSpiritofGod"heisalawtohimselfandfreefromtheordinancesofGod'shouse. It isveryclear fromtherecordof theNewTestamentthattheextraordinarycharismatawerenot(aftertheveryfirstdaysof the church) the possession of all Christians, but specialsupernaturalgiftstothefew;anditisequallyclearfromtherecordsofthesub-Apostolicchurchthattheydidnotcontinueinit,butonlya shadowof them lingered in doubtfulmanifestations ofwhichwemust say, Do not even the heathen so? How little this wholerepresentation accords with the facts the progress of the presentdiscussionwillshow.ForanexaminationofMcGiffert'sposition,seeThe Presbyterian Quarterly, April, 1895, pp. 185-194. For a vividpopular description of conditions in the early church asreconstructed from the "Liberal" view-point, and brought intorelation to the "enthusiasm" of later centuries, seeTheEdinburghReviewforJanuary,1903,pp.148ff.

7. R.Martin Pope, as cited, p. 450, speaks ofmodes ofministry, "inaddition to themore stable andauthorizedmodes"mentioned in ICor. 1:4-12,28,whichwereof "a specialorder,perhapspeculiar totheCorinthianChurch,withitsexuberantmanifestationsofspiritualenergy,andcertainly,astheevidenceoflaterChurchHistoryshows,of a temporary character, and exhausting themselves (cf. H. B.Swete,TheHoly Spirit in the N. T., London, 1909, p. 320) in theApostolicorsub-Apostolicage."Incontrastwiththesespecialmodesofministry,hespeaksof"thecharismsofmiracle-workingaslastingdown to the secondcentury, ifwemay trust theevidenceofJustinMartyr(Apol.,2:6)."InthepassageofJustinappealedto,asalsoinsection8,andinDial.,30,76,85,itissaidonlythatdemoniacsareexorcised by Christians; cf. G. T. Purves, The Testimony of JustinMartyr to Early Christianity, 1889, p. 159. We shall see that theevidence of the second and subsequent centuries is not such as

naturallytobasePope'sconclusion.Whenheaddsofthese"charismsofmiracle-working" that"theyneverwere intended,as theextremefaith-healerofto-daycontends,tosupersedetheeffortsoftheskilledphysician," he is of course right, since they were confined to theApostolicage,andtoaverynarrowcirclethen.Butwhenhegoesontosay, "theyrepresent thecreativegift, thepowerof initiatingnewdepartures in the normal world of phenomena, which is rooted infaith(seeA.G.Hogg,Christ'sMessageoftheKingdom,Edinburgh,1911,pp.62-70);andassuchrevealaprinciplewhichholdsgoodforall time"—he is speakingwhollywithoutbook,andrelatively to thecharismsoftheNewTestamentequallywhollywithoutmeaning.

8. A.Tholuck's figure("UeberdieWunderderkatholichenKirche," inVermischteSchriften, I, 1839,p.28) is this: "Christdidnotappearlike the sun in tropical lands,which riseswithout a dawnand setswithoutatwilight,but,asmillenniumsofprophecyprecededHim,somiracles followed Him, and the forces which He first awoke wereactive in a greater or lessmeasure for a subsequent period. Downintothethirdcenturywehavecredibletestimoniesofthepersistenceof themiraculous forces which were active in the first century." Amechanicalconceptionofthemiracle-workingofbothChristandHisfollowers lurks behind such figures; Christ let loose forces whichnaturallyrequiredsometimetoexhausttheirenergies.

9. MiscellaneousWorks,London,1755,vol.I,p.xli.10. Works,NewYork,1856,vol.V,p.706.11. E.T.,p.169,12. PersecutionandTolerance,pp.55-56,13. On the literary form of Hermas, see Kerr Duncan Macmillan in

Biblical and Theological Studies, by the Faculty of PrincetonSeminary, 1912, pp. 494-543. The Didaché tells of "prophets" whospoke"intheSpirit,"asapparentlyawell-knownphenomenoninthechurchesforwhichitspeaks,andthusimpliesthepersistenceofthecharism—or rather of the shadow of the charism—of "prophecy."PapiasisreportedbyPhilipofSideashavingstatedontheauthorityofthedaughtersofPhilipthatBarsabas(orJustus)drankserpent'spoison inadvertently, and that the mother of Manaim was raisedfromthedead,aswellas that thoseraised fromthedeadbyChristliveduntUthetimeofHadrian(cf.Eusebius,H.E.,Ill,39,9;below,

note25);theseeventsbelong,inanyevent,totheApostolicage.14. Cf. H. M. Scott, "The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament

Revelation,"inThePresbyterianandReformedReview,July,1892,vol.III,pp.479-488.

15. J. B. Lightfoot discusses thesemiraculous features of the letter inTheApostolic Fathers, Part II, S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, vol. I, pp.598ff.;cf.Bernard'sexhibitionoftheirnaturalcharacterop.cit.,p.168.H.Günter,Legenden-Studien,1906,pp.10ff.,remarks:"thus,out of the entire series of authentic Passiones there remains as anoutspokenmiracle-martyrdom only the Acts of Polycarp: and eventheyarenotunquestionablysuch."

16. JustinMartyr,bytheBishopofLincoln,ed.3,1853,p.121.17. Cf.Blunt,OntheEarlyFathers,p.387.18. DoctorHey, inTertullian,by theBishopofLincoln,ed.2, 1826,p.

168.19. Cf.what is said of Justin's and Irenćus's testimonybyGillesP:son

Wetter, Charis, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des ältestenChristentums, 1913, p. 185: "We can still hear of χαρίσματα in thechurch, inJustinand Irenćus. . . . Justinand Irenćusareprobablythelatestwitnessesofapropheticgiftofgraceinthechurch....Itisgenerallywholly uncertainwhetherwe can still really find 'gifts ofgrace' in the church in great amount in the time of Justin andIrenćus.AdeclarationlikethatinJustin,Dial.,82,1,παρ�γ�ρημι νκα� μέχρι νυ ν προφητικά χαρισματά εστιν, testifies rather to thecontrary.Ifbothsteadilyspeakof 'we'orofthe 'church'orthelike,yet it is possible that they refer by this to the great spiritualoperationsintheearliestperiodofChristianity,ofwhichwereadintheGospels, inActs,andperhaps insomeof theApocrypha.Thesewere to them certainly valuable 'proofs' of the truth of the divineorigin of Christianity (cf. for this e.g., Justin, Apol., I, 58;Theophilus,adAut.,III,16and26;MinuciusFelix,Octavius,20and23)."

20. Bernard, as cited, p. 147, remarks that "with a few notableexceptions,""thereisnotraceuptotheendofthesecondcentury"—andthesame,wemayadd, is trueof thethird—"ofanymiraculousgiftsstillexistingintheprimitivechurch,savethoseofprophecyandhealing, including exorcism, both of which are frequently

mentioned." With reference to prophecy he adduces the warningagainst false prophets in Hermas (Com. 11) and the Didaché,togetherwithJustin'sassertionthatpropheticgiftscontinuedeven—the "even" is perhaps significant—to his day (Dial., 315 B). As tohealing, he adduces the general assertions of Justin (Dial., 258A)and Origen (Cont. Cels., III, 24). With respect to exorcisms, heappeals to repeatedreferencesbyJustin (Apol., 45A;Dial., 247C,302 A, 311 B, 350 B, 361 C) and Tertullian (Apol., 23, 37, 43;DeSpect.,2;DeTest.Anim.,3;AdScap.,2;DeCorona,11;DeIdol.,11).He remarks that these Fathers all believed in magic and betray afeelingthatthemiraclesoftheirdaywerenotquitethesamekindofthingwhich happened in theNewTestament times (Tertullian,DeRud.,c.21;Origen,Cont.Cels.,I,2).

21. The prominence of exorcisms in the notices of marvellousoccurrences in these Fathers belongs to the circumstances of thetimes,andwouldcall fornospecialnoticeexcept fortheusewhichhasbeenmadeofitinrecentdiscussions(cf.S.McCombinReligionandMedicine, byElwoodWorcester, SamuelMcComb, and IsadorH.Coriat,1908,pp.295-299).Inpointoffact,Christianitycameintoa world that was demon-ridden, and, as Harnack remarks (TheExpansionofChristianity,E.T.,1904,vol.I,p.158),"noflightoftheimagination can form any idea of what would have come over theancientworldortheRomanEmpireduringthethirdcenturyhaditnot been for the church." In conflict with this gigantic evil whichdominated thewhole lifeof thepeople, it isnot tobewonderedatthattheChristiansofthesecondandsubsequentcenturies,whoweremenoftheirtime,werenotalwaysabletoholdthepoisewhichPaulgavetheminthegreatwords:"Weknowthatnoidolisanythinginthe world, and that there is no God but one." Accordingly, asHarnackpointsout,"fromJustindownwards,Christianliteratureiscrowdedwithallusionstoexorcisms,andeverylargechurch,atanyrate,hadexorcists"(p.162).Butthisisnoproofthatmiracleswerewrought, except this greatmiracle, that, in its struggle against thedeeply rooted and absolutely pervasive superstition—"the wholeworld and the circumambient atmosphere," saysHarnack (p. 161),"were filled with devils; not merely idolatry, but every phase andform of life was ruled by them: they sat on thrones; they hovered

over cradles; the earth was literally a hell"—Christianity won, andexpelled the demons not only from the tortured individualswhoseimaginationwasheldcaptivebythem,butfromthelifeofthepeople,and from the world. Themost accessible discussion of the subject(written, of course, from his own point of view) may be found inHarnack, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 152-180. An article really on theChristiandoctrineofangelshassomehowstrayedintotheboundsofthe comprehensive article, "Demons and Spirits," in Hastings'sEncyclopćdiaofReligionandEthics,andthusdeprivedthereaderofthedescriptionwhichhewouldnaturallylookforinthatplaceoftheideas of demons and spirits which have been prevalent amongChristians.

22. PhilipSchaff,HistoryoftheChristianChurch,ed.1884,vol.II,117ff.,sumsupthetestimonyofthisperiodasfollows:"Itisremarkablethat the genuinewritings of the ante-Nicene church aremore freefrommiraculous and superstitious elements than the annals of theNiceneageand theMiddleAges. . . .Mostof thestatementsof theapologists are couched in general terms, and refer to theextraordinary cures from demoniacal possession . . . and otherdiseases....JustinMartyrspeaksofsuchoccurrencesasfrequent...andOrigenappealstohisownpersonalobservation,butspeaksinanother place of the growing scarcity of miracles. . . . Tertullianattributes many if not most of the conversions of his day tosupernaturaldreamsandvisions,asdoesalsoOrigen,althoughwithmorecaution.Butinsuchpsychologicalphenomenaitisexceedinglydifficult to draw the line of demarcation between natural andsupernatural causes, and between providential interpositions andmiracles proper. The strongest passage on this subject is found inIrenćus,who, incontendingagainst theheretics,mentions,besidesthepropheciesandmiraculouscuresofdemoniacs,eventheraisingofthedeadamongcontemporaryeventstakingplaceintheCatholicChurch;buthespecifiesnoparticularcaseorname;anditshouldberemembered also, that his youth still bordered almost on theJohanneanage."WhenSchaffcitesOrigenasspeakingofa"growingscarcityofmiracles,"hislanguageisnotexact.WhatOrigensays,is:"But there were signs from the Holy Spirit at the beginning ofChrist's teaching, and after His ascension He exhibited more, but

subsequently fewer.Nevertheless, evennowstill thereare tracesofthemwith a fewwho have had their souls purified by the gospel."Here,thereisarecognitionofthefactsthatmiracleswererelativelyfewaftertheApostolicage,andthatinOrigen'sdaytherewereveryfew indeed to be found. But there is no assertion that they hadgraduallyceased;onlyanassertionthattheyhadpracticallyceased."Theageofmiracles, therefore," commentsHarnack justly, "lay forOrigeninearlierdays.""Eusebiusisnotthefirst(inthethirdbookofhisHistory)tolookbackupontheageoftheSpiritandofpowerasthe bygone heroic age of the church, for Origen had alreadypronounced this judgment on the past from an impoverishedpresent."(TheExpansionofChristianity, ascited,p.257,andnote2.)

23. TheHistoryoftheDeclineandFalloftheRomanEmpire,chap.XV,§III,ed.Smith,1887,vol.II,pp.178ff.

24. Thesepoints are accordinglyduly intimatedbyMilman inhisnoteonGibbon'spassage.FortheformerofthemheappealstoMiddleton(Works,I,p.59)assponsor;forthelattertoDouglas(Criterion,p.389).

25. H.E.,III,39,9-26. Bernard,op.cit.,p.159,remarksjustlythatPapias"virtuallyimplies

thathehimselfneversawanysuchoccurrence,hisonlyknowledgeof'miracles'ofthiskindbeingderivedfromhearsay."

27. Cf.Bernard,ascited:"Iftheywerefrequent,ifhehadeverseenonehimself, he would have told us of it, or to speakmore accurately,Eusebiuswouldnothaveselectedforquotationasecond-handstory,if the direct evidence of an eye-witness was on record." How didEusebius, then, understand Irenćus? As testifying to a commonoccurrenceinhistime?Or,eventoasingleinstancewithinhisownknowledge?Thisseemsunlikely.

28. H.E.,V,7,1f.29. I:13:"Then,astoyourdenyingthatthedeadareraised—foryousay,

'Showmeonewhohasbeenraisedfromthedead,thatseeingImaybelieve'—first, what great thing is it if you believe when you haveseen the thing done? Then, again, you believe that Hercules, whoburned himself, lives; and that Ćsculapius, who was struck withlightning,wasraised;anddoyoudisbelievethethingsthataretold

youbyGod?But,supposeIshouldshowyouadeadmanraisedandalive, even this you would disbelieve. God indeed exhibits to youmanyproofsthatyoumaybelieveHim.For,consider,ifyouplease,thedyingof seasons, anddays, andnights, how these alsodie andriseagain,"etc.

30. De Pudicitia, 21: "And so, if it were agreed that even the blessedApostles had granted any such indulgence, the pardon of whichcomes fromGod,not fromman, itwouldhavebeen competent forthemtohavedoneso,notintheexerciseofdiscipline,butofpower.Fortheybothraisedthedead,whichGodalonecando;andrestoredthedebilitatedtotheir integrity,whichnonebutChristcando;naytheyinflictedplagues,too,whichChristwouldnotdo,foritdidnotbeseemHimtobeseverewhohadcometosuffer.SmittenwerebothAnaniasandElymas—Ananiaswithdeath,Elymaswithblindness—inorderthatbythisveryfactitmightbeproventhatChristhadhadthepowerofdoingevensuch(miracles)."

31. Adv. Hćer., II, 31:2: Speaking of the followers of one Simon, andtheir inability to work miracles, Irenćus proceeds (Bernard'stranslation):"Theycanneithergivesighttotheblind,norhearingtothe deaf, nor put to flight all demons, except thosewhich are sentintoothersbythemselves,iftheycan,indeed,evendothis.Norcanthey cure theweak, or the lame, or theparalytic, or those that aretroubledinanyotherpartofthebody,asoftenhappenstobedoneinrespect of bodily infirmity.Nor can they furnish effective remediesfor those external accidents whichmay occur. And so far are theyfromraisingthedeadastheLordraisedthem,andtheApostlesdidbymeansofprayer,andaswhenfrequentlyinthebrotherhood,thewholechurchinthelocality,havingmadepetitionwithmuchfastingandprayer,thespiritofthedeadonehasreturned(επεστρέψε),andthemanhasbeengivenback(εχαρίσθη)totheprayersofthesaints—(sofararetheyfromdoingthis)thattheydonotbelievethatitcanpossibly be done, and they think that resurrection from the deadmeansarejectionof thetruthof their tenets."Adv.Hćer., II, 32:4:"Thosewhoare in truth theLord's disciples, having received gracefromHim,doinHisnameperform(miracles)forthebenefitofothermen, according to the giftwhich each one has received fromHim.For some certainly and truly drive out demons, so that those who

havebeencleansedfromtheevilspiritsfrequentlybelieveandareinthe church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come, andvisions,andpropheticwarnings.Othersheal thesickby impositionoftheirhands,andtheyarerestoredtohealth.Yea,moreover,aswesaid, even the dead were raised and abode with us many years(ηγέρθησαν κα� παρέμειναν σύν ημιν ικανοις ετεσι). What moreshallIsay?ItisnotpossibletotellthenumberofthegiftswhichthechurchthroughouttheworldhasreceivedfromGodinthenameofJesusChrist,whowascrucifiedunderPontiusPilate,andwhichsheexerts day by day for the welfare of the nations, neither deceivingany, nor taking any reward for such. For as freely as she hathreceivedfromGod,sofreelydothsheminister."Itisquiteclearthatin II, 32:4 Irenćus throws the raisings from the deadwell into thepast.This ismadeevidentnotonly fromthepast tensesemployed,which aremarkedly contrastedwith the present tenses used in therestofthepassage,butalsofromthestatementthatthosewhowerethusraisedhadlivedaftertheirresuscitationaconsiderablenumberofyears,whichshowsthatrecentresuscitationsarenotinview.Thepassage in II, 31:2, ambiguous in itself, is explained by II, 32:4,whichIrenćushimselfrepresentsasarepetitionofit("aswesaid").Itappears,then,thatinneitherpassagehasIrenćusrecentinstancesinview—and there isno reasonwhy the caseshehas inmindmaynothaveoccurredduringthelifetimeoftheApostlesorofApostolicmen.

32. Ascited,p.164.Cf.Douglas,ascitedinnote24.33. Th. Trede,Wunderglaube in Heidentum und in der alien Kirche,

1901,pp.83-88,bringstogethertheinstancesfromtheliterature.Nodoubt the heathen did not really believe in these resuscitations, atleastwhentheywereinstructedmen.ItdidnotrequireaLuciantoscoffat them:MinuciusFelix(Octavius,chap.IIadfin.)makeshisCćciliusremarkthatdespitethelongtimethathaspassedaway,theinnumerable ages that have flowed by, no single individual hasreturned from the dead, either by the fate of Protesilaus, withpermissiontosojournevenafewhours,ortoserveasanexampletomen.TheChristians,heasserts,inteachingaresurrectionfromthedead,havebutrevampedthefigmentsofanunwholesomebeliefwithwhichdeceivingpoetshavetrifledinsweetverses.

34. Cf.ErwinRohde,DergriechischeRomanundseineVorläufer,1900,p.287,note1.AlsoOrigen,ContraCelsum,2:16,48-58.ThefamousphysicianAsclepiades is said to havemet a funeral procession anddetectedthat thecorpsewasstill living(Pliny,Nat.Hist., 7:124;cf.Weinreich, p. 173). Apuleius, Flor., 19, relates this as an actualresuscitation. The texts may be conveniently consulted in PaulFiebig,AntikeWundergeschichten,etc.,1911.

35. Cf.F.C.Baur,ApolloniusvonTyanaundChristus,p.140.36. AntikeHeilungswunder,1909,pp.171-174.37. Weinreich, as cited, p. 171, note 1; R. Reitzenstein,Hellenistische

Wundererzählungen,1906,p.41,note3.38. Philostratus,TheLifeofApolloniusofTyana, etc.,withanEnglish

translation by F. C. Conybeare (TheLoebClassical Library), vol. I,1912,pp.457ff.

39. Cf.E.vonDobschütz,"DerRomaninderAltchristlichenLiteratur,"in the Deutsche Rundschau, vol. CXI, April, 1902, p. 105. Heremarks:"Tothatweoweitthatsomanyoftheselegendshavebeenpreserved."

40. VonDobschütz,ascited,p.88."I thinkthatImayventure tosay,"says Reitzenstein, op. cit., p. 55, "that the literary model of theChristian Acts of the Apostles was supplied by the Aretalogies ofprophets andphilosophers.We shouldnot thinkmerely of the fewwhichaccidenthaspreservedforus—andthatexclusivelyinliteraryreworkings or parodies; a certain importance attaches to theconnection of one of these essentially anonymous miracle-storiesalreadywithAthenodorus,theStoicteacherofAugustus."

41. Perhaps wemay roughly represent these two things by "romance"and"fable."

42. Op.cit.,p.97.43. Ascited,p.100.44. Ascited,pp.100fif.45. On Greek and Latin fiction, the short article by Louis H. Gray in

Hastings'sEncyclopćdiaofReligionandEthics,vol.VI,pp.6-8,maybe consulted, and the work on which Gray chiefly depends, F. M.Warren,Historyof theNovelPrevioustotheSeventeenthCentury,1890, pp. 21 ff. A good brief account of Greek and early Christiannovels is given by T. R. Glover, in the last chapter of hisLife and

Letters in the Fourth Century, 1901, pp. 357-386. The GermanreplicaofthisisVonDobschütz'sessayalreadymentioned.Thegreatworkon theGreek romances isErwinRohde's, alreadymentioned,by the side of which should be placed E. Schwartz, FünfVorträge über den Griechen Roman, 1896, and A. Chassang,Histoire du Roman dans l'Antiquite Grecque et Latine, 1862.Reitzenstein, in the book already mentioned, seeks to introducemore precision into the treatment of literary forms. See also theconcluding chapter onDieBekenner-vitć in E.Günter'sLegenden-Studien,1906(cf.alsohisDiechristlicheLegendedesAbendlandes,1910),andcf.G.H.Gerould,Saints'Legends,1916,pp.33f.

46. The use to which this opinion, become traditional, is put, may beillustratedbyitsemploymentbyCharlesHermanLea,APlea...forChristianScience,1915,p.58,anditssimilaremploymentbySamuelMcComb, Religion and Medicine, 1908, pp. 295 ff. The formerwrites:"IntheearlyyearsoftheChristianChurch,thiscommandtohealthesickappearstohavebeenfulfilledtoaconsiderabledegree,andhistoryrecordsthatChristianhealingwaspracticeduntiltheendof the third century. Then it appears to have been graduallydiscontinued, as the spiritual life of the church declined, until thepower was entirely lost sight of in the gross materialism thatculminatedintheunionofChurchandState.Thatthepowertohealisnotgenerallypossessedbythe'Christian'Churchto-dayiscertain;nor could anything be more misleading than the idea, sometimespropoundedfromthepulpits,thattheabilitytohealwaswithdrawnbecause it becameno longer necessary for the church to give suchevidenceofGod'spower,andoftheirunderstandingofHim.ForthisverypowerwastheevidencethatJesusChristhimselfgaveasproofof the truth of his teaching. Hence, one of the questions that thechurchesofChristendomneedtofaceto-dayis,'WhyareweunabletofulfilourLord'sclearandexpresscommand?'Isitbecausetheydonot correctly understand his teaching, or because they do notconsider obedience to him, in this respect, necessary? Or has thechurch not yet risen above the materialism that marked itsdecadenceintheearlycenturiesofitshistory?""Perhapsnowhereinhistory," writes McComb, "can we find the power of faith to healdisordersof a semi-moral and semi-nervous character so strikingly

illustrated as in the early centuries of the church's existence. Theliterature of the ante-Nicene period is permeated with a sense ofconquest over sickness, disease, and moral ills of every kind. . . .Gibbon,inhisfamousfifteenthchapter,mentionsasthethirdcauseofthespreadofChristianity,'themiraculouspowersoftheprimitivechurch,' among which he names the expulsion of demons, but hedismissesthewholematterwithascoffasaproductofsuperstition.Wider knowledge now shows that the historian's skepticism wasquiteunjustified.ThereisabundanttestimonythatoneofthemostimportantfactorsoftheearlypropagandaoftheChristianfaithwasan especial power which Christians seemed to have over variouspsychicaldisturbances....EvensolateasthetimeofAugustine,wefindabeliefinthehealingpoweroffaithstillexistent.InhisCityofGod hedescribesvarioushealing-wondersofwhichhewasaneye-witness, and which were done in the name of Christ." The entireangleofvisionhereisunhistorical.

47. JohnLightfoot(Works,Pittman's8vol.ed.,vol.III,p.204)suggestsas the reason for these two exceptions: "TheHolyGhost at this itsfirstbestowingupontheGentilesisgiveninthelikemannerasitwasat its first bestowing on the Jewishnation,—namely, by immediateinfusion;atallothertimesyoufindmentionofit,youfindmentionofimpositionofhandsusedforit."

48. Acts9:12-17isnoexception,asissometimessaid;Ananiasworkedamiracle on Paul but did not confermiracle-working powers. Paul'sownpowerofmiracle-workingwasoriginalwithhimasanApostle,andnotconferredbyanyone.

49. Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1st edition,vol.II,p.873.

50. The connection of the "signs andwonders andmanifold powers oftheHolyGhost"insomeparticularfashionwiththefirstgenerationofChristians—"themthatheard"theLord,thatistosay,atleasttheApostolicgeneration,possiblyspecificallytheApostles—seemstobeimpliedinHeb.2:4.ThatPaulregardsthecharismataas"credentialsoftheApostolicmission"(possiblyevenRom.1:11maybecitedhere)is cleareven toJ.A.MacCulloch (Hastings'sERE.,VIII,p.683b),althoughhehimselfdoubtsthesoundnessof thisview.A.Schlatter(Hastings'sDictionary of theApostolic Church, I, 577 a) sayswith

greatdistinctness:"TheGospels,theBookofActs,andtheutterancesof St. Paul Regarding his 'signs' (II Cor. 12:12), all show distinctlythatmiracleswereintimatelyrelatedtotheApostolicfunction."

51. The Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries,Illustrated front theWritingsofTertullian, 1825; 2d ed., 1826; 3ded.,1845,pp.98ff.

52. Bernard, as cited, p. 130, gives his acceptance to Kaye's view,speaking of "that power which in the days of the Apostles wasconfinedtothemandthoseonwhomtheyhadlaidtheirhands."B.F.Manire,inanarticleonthe"WorkoftheHolySpirit,"inTheNewChristianQuarterly, IV, 2, p. 38 (April, 1895), gives exceptionallyclear expression to the facts: "The matter of imparting the HolyGhostthroughthelayingonoftheirhands,belongedexclusively,asit appears tome, to the Apostles, and therefore passed away withthem....OthersbesidestheApostlescouldpreachtheGospel'withtheHolySpiritsentdownfromheaven,'andcouldworkmiraclesinconfirmation of their testimony; but only the Apostles by theimpositionoftheirownhandscouldimparttheHolySpirittoothersinitswonder-workingpower.Tomeitappearsthatthebestowalofthis power on the Apostles was the highest testimonial of theirofficial character andauthority."PatonJ.Gloag commentsonActs8:15-16 thus: "By theHolyGhost here is not to be understood theordinary or sanctifying influences of the Spirit. The Samaritans, intheactofbelievingthegospel,receivedtheHolyGhostinthissense....ThemiraculousinfluencesoftheSpirit,whicharemanifestedbyspeakingwithtonguesandprophesyings,areheremeant.AsCalvinremarks, 'He speaks not in this place of the common grace of theSpirit,wherebyGodregeneratesusthatwemaybeHischildren,butofthosesingulargiftswherebyGodwouldhavecertainendowed,atthebeginningoftheGospel,tobeautifytheKingdomofChrist.'Butthequestionarises.WhycouldnotPhilipbestowtheHolyGhost?...The common opinion appears to be the correct one—namely, thatPhilip could not bestow the Holy Ghost because he was not anApostle.This,thoughnotexpresslystated,yetseemsimpliedinthenarrative. So Chrysostom and Epiphanius among the fathers, andGrotius, Lightfoot, DeWette, Baumgarten, Meyer, Olshausen, andWordsworth among the moderns." John Lightfoot holds that the

charismatawerenotconferredindiscriminatelyonallbutonlyonaselectfew,toendowthem(apluralityineachchurch)fortheofficeof"minister."ButthatthesegiftswereconferredonlybylayingontheApostles'handsheisclear.Cf.Works,ed.Pittman,vol.III,p.30:"TogivetheHolyGhostwasapeculiarprerogativeoftheApostles";vol.III,p.194,commentingonActs8:"PhilipbaptizedSamaritansanddidgreatwondersamongthem,butcouldnotbestowtheHolyGhostuponthem:thatpowerbelongedonlytotheApostles;thereforePeterandJohnaresentthitherforthatpurpose."

53. EncyclopediaofSacredTheology,E.T.,1898,p.368;cf.pp.355ff.54. Institutes of the Christian Religion, E. T., by John Allen; ed.

Philadelphia,1909,vol.I,pp.26ff.:"Theirrequiringmiraclesofusisaltogetherunreasonable;forweforgenonewGospel,butretainthevery same whose truth was confirmed by all the miracles everwroughtbyChristandtheApostles"—andsoforth.

55. GereformeerdeDogmatiek2,I,pp.363f.56. OnWesley's relations withMiddleton, see F. J. Snell,Wesley and

Methodism,1900,pp.151ff.57. FreeAnswertoDr.Middleton'sFreeInquiry,etc.,1749.58. A Vindication of the Miraculous Powers which Subsisted in the

Three First Centuries of the Christian Church, 1750. Chapman'sMiraculousPowersof thePrimitiveChurch, 1752(followinguphisDiscoveryoftheMiraculousPowersofthePrimitiveChurch,1747)cametoolatetobeincludedinMiddleton'sVindication.

59. Theliteratureofthesubjecthasbeenintimatedinthecourseofthelecture. By the side ofMiddleton's Free Inquiry may be placed J.Douglas, The Criterion; or rules by which the True MiraclesrecordedintheNewTestamentaredistinguishedfromtheSpuriousmiraclesofPagansandPapists,1752,newedd.1857,etc.,1867;andIsaacTaylor,AncientChristianity,1839;ed.4,1844,vol.II,pp.233-365. Cf. also Lecture VIII in J. B. Mozley, Eight Lectures onMiracles, 1865. Of J. H. Newman's Two Essays on ScriptureMiracles and on Ecclesiastical, some account will be given in thenextlecture.ByitssideshouldbeplacedHoraceBushnell'seloquentargument for the continuation of miracles in the church in thefourteenthchapterofhisNatureandtheSupernatural(1858;ed.4,1859,pp.446-492).

Endnotes:

NotestoLectureII-PatristicandMedićvalMarvels

1. HorćSabbaticć,vol.II,pp.413ff.2. Gregory's Panegyric on Gregory Thaumaturgus is described and

characterized, and its true character shown, by Th. Trede,WunderglaubeimHeidentumundinderaltenKirche,1900,pp.144ff.: "Ourdeclaimerattains theclimaxof rhetorical fire-works inhisChristianPanegyric onGregoryThaumaturgus." In this connectionTrede makes some very illuminating remarks on the transferenceinto the church of the bad traditions of the heathen rhetoricalschoolsinwhichsomanyoftheChristianleadershadtheirtraining.

3. Cap.8.4. The confidence which Augustine reposed in these narratives is

perhapsmoststronglyshowninsuchanincidentalremarkasmeetsus intheCityofGod,22:28.He isspeakingofPlatoandCorneliusLabeo, and reporting what they say of resuscitations.He remarks:"Buttheresurrectionwhichthesewritersinstanceresemblesthatofthosepersonswhomwehaveourselvesknowntoriseagain,andwhocame back indeed to this life, but not so as never to die again."Augustinesupposeshimselftohaveactuallyknownpeopleoncedeadtohavecomebacktothislife;hehasnodoubtofitatall.

5. Raising the dead, so common an occurrence in Augustine's day,seems later to have passed somewhat out of fashion. John ofSalisbury,atallevents,whenspeakingofthemiracleswroughtatthetomb of Thomas ŕ Becket († 1170), includes this among them, butspeaksofitassomethingnewtoexperience:"And(athingunheardoffromthedaysofourfathers)thedeadareraised"(E.A.Abbott,St.ThomasofCanterbury,1898,I,p.227,cf.II,p.17,and,ingeneral,theIndexsubvoc.,"Death,Restorationfrom").Later,however,thismiraclerecovereditspopularity.NolessthanfourteeninstancesofitareattributedtoFrancisXavier—althoughhehimself,unfortunately,diedwithoutknowledgeofthem.AndrewD.White(TheWarfareofSciencewithTheologyinChristendom,ed.1896,vol.II,p.17)sumsup the facts thus: "Although during the lifetime of Xavier there is

neither in his ownwritings, nor in any contemporary account anyassertion of a resurrection from the deadwrought by him,we findthat shortly after his death such stories began to appear. A simplestatement of the growth of these may throw some light on theevolutionofmiraculous accounts generally.At first itwas affirmedthat some people at Cape Comorin said that he had raised oneperson; then it was said that he had raised two persons; then invariousauthors—EmmanuelAcosta,inhiscommentarieswrittenasan afterthought nearly twenty years after Xavier's death, DeQuadros,andothers—thestorywaversbetweenoneand twocases;finallyinthetimeofTursellinus,fourcaseshadbeendeveloped.In1622,atthecanonizationproceedings,threewerementioned;butbythetimeofFatherBonhourstherewerefourteen,allraisedfromthedeadbyXavierhimselfduringhislifetime,andthename,place,andcircumstances are given with much detail in each case." Thereferences to Bonhours are given thus: The Life of St. FrancisXavier,byFatherDominicBonhours, translatedbyJamesDryden,Dublin,1838,pp.69,82,93,111,218,307,316,321.Fortherepeatedoccurrenceofraisingsofthedeadinmedićvallegend,seeH.Günter,Die christlicheLegendedesAbendlandes, 1910, pp. 25, 32, 43, 47,191; it is, inspiteofJohnofSalisbury's ignoranceof it,ofcommonoccurrence in the legends.An instructive instance is repeated tousby H. Delehaye, Les Légendes Hagiographiques, 1905, p. 101:"When St. Bernard was preaching the crusade in the diocese ofConstance, an archer in the following of the Duke of Zähringenjeered at his preaching and at the preacher himself, saying, 'Hecannot work miracles any more than I can.' When the saintproceeded to lay his hands on the sick, the mocker saw it, andsuddenly fell over as if dead; he remained a considerable timewithout consciousness. Alexander of Cologne adds: 'I was close tohimwhenthethinghappened....WecalledtheAbbé,andthispoormancouldnotgetupuntilBernardcame,madeaprayerandliftedhimup.'Nosingleeye-witnesssaysawordwhichcanmakeusthinkofaresuscitationofadeadman.Yet,acenturylater,Herbert,authorofacollectionof themiraclesofSt.Bernard,Conrad,authorof theExordium,andCesarofHeisterbach,affirmthatthearcherwasdeadandthesaintrestoredhimtolife."DelehayereferstoG.Hüffer,Der

heiligeBernardvonClairvaux,vol.I(Münster,1886),pp.92,182.6. 25:47.7. §34:NiceneandPost-NiceneFathers,vol.Ill,p.364.8. I,14,5.9. I,13,7.10. Ibid.11. NiceneandPost-NiceneFathers,vol.I,p.346.12. Tract.inJoh.,13,(15):NiceneandPost-NiceneFathers,vol.VII,p.

93.Whenhesays:"Contraistos,utsicloquar,mirabiliarioscautummefecitDeusmens,heisobviouslyusingacontemptuousterm.

13. CityofGod,22,10,attheend.14. On Augustine's doctrine of miracles, see especially, Friedrich

Nitzsch,Augustinus'LehrevomWunder,1865;especiallypp.32-35on the "Continuance of Miracles in the Church," and pp. 35-37,"Miracles outside the limits of the Revelation-history and theChurch."

15. CityofGod,22,8.16. Cf.T.R.Glover,LifeandLettersintheFourthCentury,1901,pp.40,

287.17. How little the abounding miracles of the lives of the saints were

noted—orweshouldbettersay,known—inmedićval times,wemaylearnfromaremarkofH.Günter's(Legenden-Studien,1906,pp.176f.): "For theproper estimateof these thingswemustbear inmindthat contemporary profane history very essentially corrects theliteratureoftheLives:theverynameswhichhereseemtomovetheworld,scarcelyreceivebarementionthere:ofthefloodofmiraclesintheLivesthereisnotevenatrace.TheChroniclesandAnnalistswerenevertheless children of those times, and receptive enough foreverything that was miraculous. The notion which might occur toone, that theChronicles, the newspapers of the day, purposely leftthe domain of the saints to biography and romance, is clearlyuntenable. He who reads Widukind's History of the Saxons, theContinuatioRegionis, theChronicle ofThietmarofMerceberg,willnot fail to learn of the saints of the Saxon period. Thietmar'sdescriptionofthesaint-bishopandasceticEidoofMeissen(VIII,c.25)isatrueclassic.Butsaintsinthesamesenseofthelegend,thesefiguresarenot."

18. Dial.,III,5.19. Dial.,I,26.20. Cf. T. R. Glover, as cited, p. 289: "Sulpicius says, and it is not

improbable thathe ispresentingMartin's view,aswell ashisown,that to doubt these marvels of healing, etc., is to diminish thecredibility of the gospel, 'for when the Lord Himself testified thatsuchworksasMartindidweretobedonebyallthefaithful,hewhodoes not believeMartin did them, does not believe Christ said so.'Perhaps the logic is not above suspicion, but it is clear that itwasheldMartin'smiracleswereprovennolessbythewordsofthegospelthanbyocularevidence."J.H.Newmanhadalreadymademuchthesame remark, Two Essays on Scripture Miracles and onEcclesiastical, p. 209: "Sulpicius almost grounds his defence of St.Martin'smiraclesontheantecedentforceofthistext."Itwouldbeacuriousandnotunprofitablestudytoascertainhowlargeapartthisspurious texthashad inproducing spuriousmiracles in all agesofthechurch.

21. Ep.22:9;NiceneandPost-NiceneFathers,p.438.22. Hom.onICor.6:2,3(Hom.6,vol.X,p.45).23. Hom.8,inCol.No.5(vol.XI,p.387).24. Cf.e.g.Hom.24inJoan.(vol.VIII,p.138);Hom.inIscr.Act.(vol.

III,p.60).25. De.Sacerd.,lib.4;Opera,ed.Sav.,vol.VI,p.35.26. Ep.4:80.27. InEvang.,2,29.28. Isid.Hispal.Sententiarum lib. 1, cap. 27; ed. Col. Agripp., 1617, p.

424.29. Serm.i.deAscens.,2.30. The Patristic citations in this paragraph have been taken largely,

withoutverification,fromNewman,op.cit.,pp.135ff.,208,andW.Goode,TheModernClaims to thePossessionof theExtraordinaryGifts of the Spirit, 1834, pp. 4 ff., 275 ff. Cf. also A. Tholuck,VermischteSchriften,I,pp.35ff.Suchpassagesabound.H.Günter,Legenden-Studien,1906,pp.77ff.,verynaturallyraisesthequestionwhetherthelegendsoftheMiddleAgesreallywishedtobebelieved,andwhethertheywerebelieved.Hisconclusionisthattherecanbenodoubtthattheywereputforthasliteralfacts,butthatthecredit

accorded to them by men of independent mind left certainlysomethingtobedesired."Nooneofthetheologiansofimportance,"he remarks (p. 82), "ever made an attempt to support scientificspeculationsbyappealstolegendarytalesashistoricalevidence,nomatterhownearathandanillustrationfromthemlay."Cf.whathesaysinLegenden-Studien,1906,p.132:"Ithinkitisnotbyaccident,whenCassianobservesthatthemonksofhistime—hediedin435—werenolongersubjectedtothepowerofthedemonsasthe'Fathers'were. Similarly Gregory the Great later finds that miracles do notmanifestthemselvesnowasinthepast(Dial.,I,c.12).AndthesamereflectionisrepeateddozensoftimesintheliteratureoftheMiddleAges.Istherenotasufficientsuggestioninthis?"

31. TheHistoryoftheDeclineandFalloftheRomanEmpire,ed.Smith,1887,vol.II,p.180,note81.

32. Op.cit.,p.220.33. Amongthemanyanomaliesofthelegendsofthesaints,thequestion

asks itself why the saints,many of whom had severe sufferings toundergo, many of whom were lifelong invalids, never rescued orhealed themselves by the exercise of their miraculous powers?BernardofClairvaux,forexample,wheninextremities,neededtobesavedfromwithout—bytheinterventionofMary,whogavehimherbreast.ChristinaMirabilis,itistrue,nourishedherselfwithherownvirgin milk; but this is an exception to the general rule. It is aproverb,"Physician,healthyself";yeteventhemostdiseasedofthesaints did not do it—and all of them apparently died. That theMartyr-heroes of the Martyr-aretalogies ultimately succeeded indyingisastandingwonder.Theyaredeliveredapparentlyfromeveryimaginable, and often unimaginable, peril, at the cost of everyimaginable, and often unimaginable, miracle; fire will not burnthem,norsteelcuttheirflesh;theseawillnotdrownthem,norwillchains bind them. They bear a charmed life and walk unscathedthrougheveryconceivabledanger.Andthensuddenlytheirheadsaresimplychoppedoffasifitwerethemostnaturalthingintheworld—andtheyaredead.Thereadercatcheshisbreathandcannotbelievehiseyes: theexceedingsangfroidwithwhich theauthorkillsat theend those whom nothing can harm in the meantime producesnothinglessthananenormousanticlimax.Hasthemiracle-powerof

the martyr given suddenly out—been all used up in its wonderfulactionhitherto?Oris itmerelythattheinventionoftheauthorhasbeenexhausted,andhehastoclosethuslamelybecausehecanthinkofnothingelsetosay?Wehavesomethingofthesamefeelingwhenwe contemplate sick saints healing others with wonderful facility,while apparently wholly without power to heal themselves. Is itadequate tosaywithPercyDearmer(BodyandSoul,p. 133): "Andoften,whentheyhealedotherstheydidnotsparethestrengthtohealthemselves; often they enduredwithout thinking of themselves theinfirmitieswhichtheycouldnotbeartoseeunhelpedinothers.TheythoughtsomuchofOneofwhomitissaid,'Hesavedothers;HimselfHecannotsave.'"ThesuggestedcomparisonwithChristis,ofcourse,offensive. The sufferings of the saints are not expiatory sacrificesofferedtoGodinbehalfofasinfulworld—althoughitmustbesadlyacknowledgedthatmanyof them(e.g., theStigmatics) fancied theywere. Christ could not save Himself, not because He lacked thepower to do so, but because the work which He came to do waspreciselysuffering—togiveHislifearansomformany.Therewasnomore reason in the nature of things, on the other hand, why thesaintsshouldsufferthanothers.AndthedescriptionwhichDearmergivesofthesaintsisnottruetolife,inmanyinstancesatleast.Theydonotseemtohavebornetheirsufferingswithoutthinkingofthem;theyapparentlythoughtagreatdealofthem,eithertobewailthemor,byaspiritualperversion,togloryinthemasamarkofspiritualdistinction.Andhowdoes itdo to say inone sentence, "Thesaintshave always seemed to regard their healing works as easy things,donebythewayandoutofcompassion";andtheninthenext,"Theydid not spare the strength to heal themselves"? If it cost themnothingtoheal—iftheydiditwithapassingwaveofthehand—whyshouldtheyhavenothealedthemselves?Thesicknessesofthesaintsisastandingpuzzle.

34. Horstman,RichardRolleofHampole,vol.II,p.xxviii.35. Cf.H.Günter,DiechristlicheLegendsdesAbendlandes,1910,p.187,

whocitestheVitaofSt.Gongolfattheendoftheninthcentury,andGislebert of Sens, about 1150, as declaring that in the absence ofgoodmeritmiraclesarenothing,sincetheyareperformedbymanyevilmen; as also the archdeaconRobert ofOstrevand inhis life of

Aybert,of thesameage,whoremarks that thevirtueof lovewhichbelongs to the good alone is of far more worth than the virtue ofmiracles which belongs alike to good and evil. Cf. also the likecitation fromThomasofReuil.Günterreferson thegeneralmatterto L. Zöpf, Das Heilegen-Leben in 10 Jahrh. in "Beiträge z.Kulturgesch. des Mittelalters u. des Renaissance," herausgegebenvonW.Götz,Heft1(1908),pp.62f.,pp.181ff.

36. This is of course the established doctrine; cf. The CatholicEncyclopedia,vol.X,1911,p.351,whereBenedictXIVisquoted(onHeroicVirtue, 1851, III, p. 130) to the effect that, since the gift ofmiracle-workingisagracegratisdata,itisindependentofthemeritof the recipient; even badmenmight be granted it (forGod's ownpurposes)andgoodmendenied it. It formsnogroundof inferencethentosaintliness.Butdonotdifficultiesarisethenwithreferencetothecustomsof"canonization"?

37. Vol. II, p. 2049. On miracles connected with the host, see veryespeciallyYrjöHirn,TheSacredShrine, 1912, pp. 120 ff.,with theliteraturegivenonpp.502ff.

38. Newman,ascited,p.134.39. Middleton,ascited,vol.I,p.li,40. SmithandCheatham,ascited.41. Dict.desProphétiesetdesMiracles (Migne),vol. I,p.370.For the

miracleofBolsenaanditssignificanceinthehistoricaldevelopmentofthelegends,seeH.Günter,Legenden-Studien,1906,pp.174ff.;cf.YrjöHirn,TheSacredShrine,1912,pp.103f.

42. Deut.13:1ff.43. BiblicalRepertoryandPrincetonReview,April,1856,pp.255-285,

articleon"MiraclesandtheirCounterfeits."44. Ascited,p.99.45. Pp.115ff.46. Pp.150f.47. This portion of Fleury's greatHistoireEcclésiastique (Paris, 1691-

1720,20vols.,quarto),from381to400A.D.,translatedbyHerbert(London,1828),wasrepublishedinthreevolumes,Oxford,1842,ina text carefully revised by Newman, and supplied with thisintroduction.

48. P.188.

49. NorindeedcanJohnT.Driscollwritingaslateas1911(TheCatholicEncyclopedia,X,p.346). Ifwemay judge fromreportsof cases inthe public press, modern surgery provides numerous similarinstances.Wehavehappenedtoclipthefollowingtwoexamples.TheNew York Tribune for May 6, 1901: "William H. Crampton, thelecturer,who some timeagohad thegreaterpartofhis tonguecutoutonaccountofacancerousgrowth,isnowabletoarticulateslowlyso that he can make himself understood. . . . Crampton, who forsomeyearshasmadehislivingbylecturing,justbeforetheoperationwas performed, spent two days in delivering his lectures into aphonograph.His ideawas thatwhen he left the hospital, bereft ofspeech, asheanticipated,hewould still beable to earna livingbygivingphonograph lectures. . . .DoctorL.S.Pitcher,of thestaffofthe Seney Hospital, who performed the operation, has asked Mr.CramptontoappearbeforethenextmeetingoftheBrooklynSurgicalSocietyinorderthatitsmembersmaygetathoroughunderstandingof the case. Mr. Crampton will have his phonograph records withhim to show the effects of the operation upon his speech." TheLexington (Ky.) Leader, January 11, 1906 (Associated PressTelegram): "Chicago, Jan'y 10.—Frederick Power, actor and stage-manager,whohadhistonguecutfromhismouthinanoperationforcancer fiveweeks ago, is again able to talk so as tobeunderstood.The case is said by physicians to be a remarkable triumph forsurgery. All ofMr. Power's tongue and part of the root had to beremoved in the operation. With his tongue gone, he is able toarticulate,utteringsomewordsquitedistinctly.ForseveraldaysMr.Powerhasbeenattemptingtosing,andthehospitalattendantssaythat while the efforts were not entirely successful, they haveencouraged the patient andmade him quite hopeful. There is stillsome paralysis inMr. Power's lower lip, due to the operation, andthere is aheavygoldbridge inhismouth.His jaw is stillheld inaheavy plaster cast, andwhen these impediments are removed it isbelievedhewillbeabletoarticulatefairlywell."

50. Philomythus: An Antidote against Credulity. A Discussion ofCardinalNewman'sEssayonEcclesiasticalMiracles.ByEdwinA.Abbott,1891.Secondedition,1891.

51. St. Thomas of Canterbury:His Death andMiracles. By Edwin A.

Abbott,M.A.,D.D.,2vols.,1898.52. P.189.53. Loc.cit.,p.105,note2.54. Op.cit.,p.55;cf.pp.82ff.55. Pp.54ff.56. Loc.cit.,p.384.57. Pp.81f.OntheintegrityofthepresenttextoftheLifeofHilarion,

seeH.Günter,Legenden-Studien,1906,p.130,note3.58. Th.Trede, inthechapteron"Mönchtum,"inhisWunderglaubeim

Heidentum und in der alten Kirche, 1901, has some very usefulremarks(pp.213ff.)onAthanasius'sLifeofAntonyanditsrelationto the miracle-love of the times. "As apostle of Monasticism," hesays,"Athanasiusbecomesarhetorician,withreferencetowhomweask.Wheredoesfancystopandwheredoesrealitybegin?Whenthegreatdoctorofthechurchassuresusthathehasthroughoutlookedonly to the truth, his idea of the truthwas not different from thatwhich we have found among other leaders of the church andpermittedhimsuchmeanstoreachhispurposeaswerelookeduponasself-evident intheheathennotionsof thetime."Withanappeal,then, to Lucian's exposition of the different laws which governhistory and panegyrics (TheWay toWriteHistory, 7 and 8: "Thepanegyristhasonlyoneconcern—tocommendandgratifyhislivingtheme some way or other; if misrepresentation will serve hispurpose, he has no objection to that. History, on the other hand,abhors the intrusion of any least scruple of falsehood . . ."), hecontinues: "The Life of Antony by Athanasius is a panegyric, justsuchasGregoryofNyssawroteaboutGregoryThaumaturgus. . . ."WhenGregoryofNazianzusdescribesAthanasiusassettingforthinthisbook"ενπλάσματιofanarrative, the lawsof themonastic life"(Oration XXI, 5, Post-Nicene Fathers, p. 270), does he not reallysuggestthatitisfiction,inpartatleast?Tredediscussesinasimilarspirit Jerome'sLives of Paul andHilarion. On theVita Pauli, seeWeingarten, PRE2, X, 760, and Grützmacher PRE3, XIII, 217. Thereality of Paul's existence is defended by Butler, The LausiacHistory,I,231,andWorkman,TheEvolutionoftheMonasticIdeal,1913,p. 96, bothofwhomdefendalso thehistoricity of theLifeofAntony, I, 178 and 354 respectively. The Lausiac History is

interpreted as amere romance also by Lucius and Amélineau, butdefended as history by Butler, I, 257 ff. There is a good briefstatement of Athanasius's relation to miracle-working in the VitaAntonii and elsewhere, in A. Robertson's preface to the EnglishtranslationoftheVitaAntoniiprintedintheNiceneandPost-NiceneFathers,II,II,p.192.

59. DasMönchthum,seineIdealeundseineGeschichte,11881,p.21;ed.3,1886,p.27;cf.G.Grützmacher,Hieronymus,I,p.162.

60. Op.cit.,pp.1f.61. SeeActsofPeterandAndrew,intheAnte-NiceneFathers,Am.ed.,

vol.VIII,p.527:"Petersaystohim:OnethingIsayuntothee:itiseasierforacameltogothroughtheeyeofaneedle,thanforarichman to go into the kingdom of heaven.When Onesiphorus heardthis,hewasstillmorefilledwithrageandanger,...saying,...Ifthouwilt showme thismiracle, Iwill believe in thyGod, . . . but if notthou shalt be grievouslypun- ished. . . . TheSaviour appeared . . .and he says to them, Be courageous and tremble not, my chosendisciples, for I am with you always: let the needle and camel bebrought.. . .Andtherewasacertainmerchantinthecity,whohadbelievedintheLord, . . .and, . . .heranandsearchedforaneedlewith a big eye, to do a favour to theApostles.WhenPeter learnedthis,hesaid,Myson,donotsearch forabigneedle, fornothing isimpossiblewithGod: rather bringus a small needle.And after theneedle had been brought . . . Peter looked up and saw a camelcoming. . . . Thenhe fixed theneedle in the ground, and criedoutwith a loud voice, saying. In the name of Jesus Christ, who wascrucifiedunderPontiusPilate,Iorderthee,Ocamel, togothroughtheeyeof theneedle.Thentheeyeof theneedlewasopened likeagate,andthecamelwentthroughit,andallthemultitudesawit.AndPetersaystothecamel:Goagainthroughtheneedle.Andthecamelwent through the second time." Even this is not enough.Onesiphorusnowprovidesaneedleandacamelofhisown,andsetsa woman on the camel—and the same thing is done. Is not theconceptionhere,meremagic?

62. TheAncientCatholicChurch,1902,pp.302f.63. CäsariusvonArelate,1894,p.165.64. P.166,note545(seeMigne,Pat.Lat.,XXXIX,2257,3).

65. E. T., pp. 33 f. His reference is Cesar of Heisterbach, Dialogusmiraculorum (Strange'sed.,Cologne,1851,2vols.,8vo;vol. II,pp.255and125).

66. Sabatier,op. cit., p. 192.His references are: Egbert von Schönau'sContraCatharos, Serm. I, cap. 2 (Migne,Pat.Lat., vol.CXCV),cf.Heisterbach,loc.cit.,5:18;LucdeTuy'sDealteraVita,lib.2:9;3:9,18(Migne,Pat.Lat.,vol.CCVIII).

67. Inquisit.inverit.Miraculor.F.deParis,sec.i,ascitedbyNewman,op. cit., p. 90, note 1. On the Jansenist miracles cf. the excellentcriticismofA.Tholuck,VermischteSchriften, 1839, I,pp. 133-148;he mentions the chief sources of information, among which cf.especiallyCarrédeMontgeron,LaVerité desMiraclesOperés parl'IntercessiondeM.deParisetAutresAppelans,Cologne,1747,withthecommentson itbyJ.M.Charcot inTheNewReview,January,1893,vol.VIII,pp.25ff.,andthecommentonCharcot'suseofthisbookbyG.Bertrin,Lourdes,E.T.,1908,pp.138ff.OntheusemadeofthesemiraclesbyHume,seeJamesOrr,Hume,p.215,whorefersusfortherealfactstoCampbellandLeland.

68. Cf.Middleton,ascited,I,p.357;Newman,ascited,p.45;Hastings'sEncyclopćdiaofReligionandEthics,vol.VII,p.480.

69. ThefirstofthetenmiracleswhichMontgerondiscussesatlargewaswroughtonayoungSpaniard,whowas stoneblind inoneeyeandsawbutdimlywiththeother.Onlythebettereyewashealed,andthefamous oculistGendron told him that he ought to be contentwiththat,sincetherestorationoftheothereye,inwhichmanypartswereabsolutelydestroyed,wouldrequireamiracleofcreationcomparableto giving a cripple two new legs, and no one ever heard of such amiracle.YetCharlotteLaborde,wearetold,whoonthecertificateoftwosurgeonshadnolegsatall,recoveredaserviceablepairbyoneoftheseJansenistmiracles.Hereisamiraclewhichovertopsallothermiracles—eventhatofthefamousPierredeRudderatLourdes,whoonlyhadanoldfractureofthelegmended.Comparepp.118ff.

70. Theliteratureofthesubjectissufficientlyintimatedinthecourseofthelecture.Thefollowingmaybeprofitablyconsulted:E.Lucius(ed.G.Anrich),DieAnfängedesHeiligenkultsinderchristlichenKirche,1904;H.Achelis,"DieMartyrologien,ihreGeschichteundihrWert,"in the Abhandlungen d. kaiserl. Gesellschafi des Wissensch. zu

Göttingen,N.F.III,1900;P.Allard,Dixleçonssurlenartyre3,1907(E.T. byL.Cappadelta,TenLectures on theMartyrs); L. Leclerq,Les Martyrs, 1902-1906; A. van Gennep, La Formation desLégendes,1910;H.Delehaye,LesLégendesHagiographiques,1905(E. T. by N.M. Crawford,The Legends of the Saints); H. Günter,Legenden-Studien, 1906,Die christlicheLegendedesAbendlandes,1910,article"LegendsoftheSaints"intheCatholicEncyclopedia;E.vonDobschütz,article"Legende"inHaupt-Herzog3;G.H.Gerould,Saints'Legends,1916.NaturallythesameinfectionfromheathenismwhichproducedtheChristianmiraclesoftheseages,showeditselfalsoamongtheJews.For the earliest period, see P. Fiebig,JüdischeWundergeschichtendes neutestamentl. Zeitalters, 1911 (original texts in same author'sRabbinische Wunderges. d. N. T. Zeitalters, 1911). S. Schechter(JewishQuarterlyReview,April,1900,pp.431-432)writes:"Againour knowledge of the spiritual history of the Jews during the firstcenturies of our era might be enriched by a chapter on Miracles.Starting from the principle thatmiracles can only be explained bymoremiracles,anattemptwasmadesomeyearsagobyastudenttodrawupalistofthewonder-workingsoftheRabbisrecordedintheTalmud and the Midrashim. He applied himself to the reading oftheseworks,buthisreadingwasonlycursory.Thelist,therefore,isnotcomplete.Still ityieldedaharvestofnotlessthantwohundredand fiftymiracles. They cover all classes of supernatural workingsrecordedintheBible,butoccurwithmuchgreaterfrequency."AstheChristians did not think of denying the reality of the heathenmiracles,buthad theirownwayof accounting for theiroccurrence(see the interestingdiscussion inAugustine,CityofGod,X, 16), sotheJews.P.J.Hershon(GenesiswithaTalmudicCommentary,E.T., p. 284) quotes from theAvoda-zarah, fol. 51, col. i, as follows:"ZonanoncesaidtoRabbiAkiva:BothIandthouknowthatanidolhasnothingin it,andyetweseemenwhogoto it lameandreturnsound; how dost thou account for it?He replied: I will tell thee aparable. There was a faithful man with whom his townspeopledeposited their goods,without thepresenceofwitnesses.Onemandid so likewise,butwas careful tobringwitnesseswithhim.Once,however, he deposited something with him when no one else was

present.Oh,saidhiswife,afterhisdeparture,letuskeepthatdepositfor ourselves. What! replied the husband, because the fool actedimproperlyshallweforfeitourfaith?Soalsowhenchastisementsaresentonmen,they(thechastisements)areadjurednottoleavethembefore a certain day, a certain hour, and then only by a certainmedicament.Ithappensthattheheathenmanrepairstotheheathentemple at that very time. The chastisements then say: By right weshouldnotdepartjustnow;but,onreflection,theyadd:Becausethatfool acts improperly, shall we violate our oath?" Where theChristiansinvokeddemons,Akivafellbackoncoincidence.

Endnotes:

NotestoLectureIII-RomanCatholicMiracles

1. MysticismandtheCreed,1914,p.ix.2. TheSacredShrine,1912,p.xi.3. ThesenseofthiscontinuityisverystrongamongRomanistwriters;

e.g., R.H. Benson,Lourdes, 1914, p. 59: '"These signs shall followthemthatbelieve,'HesaidHimself;andthehistoryof theCatholicChurchisanexactfulfillmentofthewords.Itwasso,St.Augustinetells us, at the tombs of the martyrs; five hundred miracles werereportedatCanterburywithinafewyearsofSt.Thomas'martyrdom.Andnowhere isLourdes,as ithasbeenfor fiftyyears, inthis littlecornerofFrance."

4. Thesamegeneralpointofviewfindsexpressionsometimesinnon-Romanist quarters. For example, J. Arthur Hill, The HibbertJournal, October, 1906, vol. V, p. 118, writes as follows: "Christ'smiracles and resurrection were objective phenomena, andChristianitywasbaseduponthem....ButbeliefinChristianityhasgraduallycrumbledawaybecausetherehasbeennocontinuanceofwell-attestedcognatefacts.TheCatholicmiraclesandecstasiesmakebelief easier for one section of Christianity; but Protestantism—which cuts off miracles at the end of the Apostolic Times—hascommittedsuicide;bymakinguniqueeventsofitsbasicphenomenait hasmade continued belief in them impossible."On this viewnomancanbelieveinmiracleswhohasnothimselfwitnessedmiracles.

Testimonyisdiscreditedoutofhand;manbelievesonlywhathehasseen.Mustwenotgofurtheronthisground?Canamancontinuetobelieveinmiraclesunlesshecontinuestoseethem?Isnotmemoryitselfakindoftestimony?Mustnottherebeacontinuousmiracleinorder to support continuous faith? We cannot thus chop up thecontinuity of life, whether of the individual or of the race, in theinterestsofcontinuousmiracle.Grantedthatoneortheothermustbecontinuous,lifeormiracle;butbothneednotbe.

5. Above,pp.17ff.,61ff.6. RömischeGeschichte,I,p.181.7.WunderglaubeimHeidentumundinderalienKirche,1901,p.101.8. Op.cit.,pp.56-57-9. Loc.cit.10. MonasticismandtheConfessionsofAugustine,E.T.,p.123.11. HistoryofDogma,E.T.,vol.V,p.172,note1.12. TheCityofGod,bookXXI,chap.IV(Post-NiceneFathers,vol.II,p.

458).13. Decurapromortuisgerenda,c.12:15(Migne,vol.VI,pp.602f.).14. Dialog.,IV,36(Migne,vol.III,p.384A).15. Philopseudes,25(TheWorksofLucianofSamosata, translatedby

H.W.FowlerandF.G.Fowler,vol.III,1905,p.244).16. DiechristlicheLegendedesAbendlandes,1910,p.111.17. TheCatholicEncyclopedia,vol.X,1911,p.130.18. LesLégendesHagiographiques,1905,p.210.19. HellenistischeWundererzählungen,1906,p.6.20. Eusebius, The Preparation for the Gospel, 11:37 (E. T. by E. H.

Gifford,vol.III,pp.610f.),quotesitfromPlutarch'streatiseOntheSoul.PlutarchisspeakingofhisfriendAntyllus.Hewrites:"Forhewasillnotlongago,andthephysicianthoughtthathecouldnotlive;buthavingrecoveredalittlefromaslightcollapse,thoughheneitherdidnorsaidanythingelseshowingderangement,hedeclaredthathehaddiedandhadbeensetfreeagain,andwasnotgoingtodieatallofthatpresentillness,butthatthosewhohadcarriedhimawaywereseriouslyreprovedbytheirLord;for,havingbeensentforNicandas,theyhadbroughthimbackinsteadoftheother.Now,Nicandaswasashoe-maker,besidesbeingoneofthosewhofrequentthepalustrć,and familiar and well-known to many. Wherefore the young men

usedtocomeandmockhim,ashavingrunawayfromhisfate,andashavingbribedtheofficerssentfromtheotherworld.Itwasevident,however,thathewashimselfatfirstalittledisturbedanddisquieted;and at last hewas attackedby a fever anddied suddenly the thirdday.But thisAntylluscame to lifeagain,and isaliveandwell,andoneofourmostagreeablefriends."

21. Psyche2,1898,vol.II,p.364,note.22. FestschriftTheodorGomperzdargebracht,usw.,1902.23. Loc.cit.

23a.Erasmushassomeverysensibleremarksonthematter(Epistle475)whichJ.A.Froude(LifeandLettersofErasmus,1894,p.301)reproduces in a condensed form thus: "This Dialogue [Lucian'sPhilopseudes] teaches us the folly of superstition, which creeps inunderthenameofreligion.WhenliesaretoldusLucianbidsusnotdisturb ourselves, however complete the authority which may beproducedforthem.EvenAugustine,anhonestoldmananda loverof truth, can repeat a tale as authenticwhichLucian had ridiculedunderothernamessomanyyearsbeforeAugustinewasborn.Whatwonder,therefore,thatfoolscanbefoundtolistentothelegendsofthe saints or to stories about hell, such as frighten cowards or oldwomen. There is not a martyr, there is not a virgin, whosebiographies have not been disfigured by these monstrousabsurdities.Augustinesaysthatlieswhenexposedalwaysinjurethetruth.OnemightfancytheywereinventedbyknavesorunbelieverstodestroythecredibilityofChristianityitself."Miracles,accordingtoErasmus,, did not happen in his time—though they were said tohappen."Ihavespokenofmiracles,"hewrites(Froude,p.351)."TheChristianreligionnowadaysdoesnotrequiremiracles,andtherearenone;butyouknowthatlyingstoriesaresetaboutbycraftyknaves."He de- scribes with his biting satire what happened (and did nothappen) when the Protestants took over Basle. "Smiths andcarpenterswere sent to remove the images from the churches.Theroodsandtheunfortunatesaintswerecruellyhandled.Strangethatnoneofthemworkedamiracletoavengetheirdignity,whenbeforetheyhadworkedsomanyattheslightestprovocation"(p.359)."Nobloodwasshed;buttherewasacruelassaultonaltars,images,andpictures.We are told that St. Francis used to resent light remarks

about his five wounds, and several other saints are said to haveshowndispleasureonsimilaroccasions.ItwasstrangethatatBaslenot a saint stirred a finger. I am not so much surprised at thepatience of Christ and the VirginMary" (p. 360). As to relics andrelic-worship: "What would Jerome say could he see the Virgin'smilk exhibited formoney;with asmuch honor paid to it as to theconsecrated body of Christ; themiraculous oil; the portions of thetruecross,enoughiftheywerecollectedtofreightalargeship?Herewe have the head of St. Francis, there our Lady's petticoat or St.Anne'scowl,orSt.ThomasofCanterbury'sshoes;notpresentedasinnocentaidstoreligion,butasthesubstanceofreligionitself—andallthroughtheavariceofpriestsandthehypocrisyofmonksplayingonthecredulityofthepeople.Evenbishopsplaytheirpartsinthesefantastic shows, and approve anddwell on them in their rescripts"(pp.121f.).

24. Legenden-Studien,1906;Die christlicheLegendedesAbendlandes,1910.

25. DiechristlicheLegende,usw.,p.69.26. Pp.3,4.27. P.117.28. Op.cit.,p.8;cf.Legenden-Studien,p.70.29. DiechristlicheLegende,usw.,p.118.30. On themiracles, especially of healing, of classical antiquity, see E.

Thräner,art.,"HealthandGodsofHealing,"inHastings'sERE,vol.VI,pp.540-566;OttoWeinreich,AntikeHeilungswunder,1909;R.Lembert,DieWunderglaube der Römer und Griechen, 1905; andAntike Wunderkuren, 1911; G. von Rittersheim, Der medizin.WunderglaubenunddieIncubationimAltertum,1878;L.Deubner,De Incubatione, 1900; M. Hamilton, Incubation, 1906. On thetransferenceoftheheathencustomstoChristianity,seeDeubnerandHamilton,andespeciallyE.Lucius,DieAnfängedesHeiligenkultsinder christliche Kirche, 1904; Th. Trede, Wunderglaube imHeidentumundinderaltenKirche,1901,andDasHeideniuminderRömishen Kirche, 4 vols., 1889-1891; P. Saintyves, Les SaintssuccesseursdesDieux,1907.Withrespecttothemedićvalmiracles,see especially P. Toldo of Turin,whobegan in 1901 in theStudiendervergleichendenLiteraturgeschichtea"scientificclassification"of

the medićval miracles, in a series of articles entitled, "Lives andMiraclesoftheSaintsintheMiddleAges";seealsoKoch'sZeitschriftfür vergleichende Literaturgeschichte, vol. XIV (1901), pp. 267 ff.,where Toldo prints the Introduction to these studies. The bizarrecharacterofthesemiraclesisfairlyillustratedbyabriefbutbrightlywrittenreviewoftheminR,A.Vaughan'sHourswiththeMystics,6

1903,vol.II,pp.218-222.31. Heinrich Günter, The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. X, 1911, p. 229,

singlesthestigmataoutfromothermiraculousmanifestationsas"anespecially Christian manifestation"; all the rest have heathenparallels.

32. Consult, however, A. M. Königer, in Schiele and Zscharnack'sDieReligioninGeschichteundGegenwart,vol.V,1913,col.924:"Intheabsolutesenseinwhichithasbeenuntilrecentlythoughttobesuch,FrancisofAssisidoesnotbegin the long list. It is,on thecontrary,possibletoshowthatattheleasttheideaofimitatingthestigmata,as a consequence of longing after the sufferings of the Lord, wasactivefortheperiodoftheopeningthirteenthcenturywhennotonlywas reverence for the sufferingsofChrist fosteredby the crusades,butmorestillself-mortificationsofallsortsweresetonfootbythegrowing call to repentance and amendment. Consult the self-mutilationsoftheBelgianBeguineMarieofOignies(†1213),of thereligiousfanaticcondemnedbytheOxfordSynodof1222,furtheroftheMarquisRobertofMontferrand,about1226,oftheDutchhermitDodonvonHasha(†1231)." Franciswasnot only the first of the stigmatics inboth timeandimportance, but presented the stigmata in a form which hasremained peculiar to himself. The contemporary accounts agree indescribing the marks on his hands and feet as blackish, fleshyexcrescences, recalling in form and color the nails with which thehandsandfeetofJesuswerepierced.Onlythemarkinthesidewasawound,whenceattimesexudeda littleblood.Nobloodyexudationtook place except at the side. (Cf. Paul Sabatier,Life of Francis ofAssisi,E.T.,1894,p.296,note,andp.435).Francis'sstigmatizationconsisted, then,notof fivebleedingwoundsbutof the imitationofthefournailsandthespearthrustintheside.ThedescriptiongivenofthembyBrotherElias(Sabatier,p.436)inhis lettersasVicarof

theOrder to the brothers, sent out after Francis's death, describesthem as follows: "For (or Not) a long time before his death ourBrother and Father appeared as crucified, having in his body fivewounds,whicharetrulythestigmataofChrist,forhishandsandhisfeet bore marks as of nails without and within, forming a sort ofscars;whileatthesidehewasasifpiercedwithalance,andoftenalittle blood oozed from it." Joseph von Görres, Die christlicheMystik, ed. of 1836, vol. II, p. 422, puts together a very detaileddescriptionofthewoundsonthehandsandthefeet:"Thewoundsofnotableextentopenedinthecentreoftheextremities.Inthemiddleofthemhadgrownoutofthefleshandcellulartissuenailslikeiron;black, hard, fixed, with heads above, below pointed and as ifclinched, so that a finger could be inserted between them and theskin.Theyweremovablefromsidetoside,andifdrawnouttooneside,were correspondinglydrawn inon theotherbut couldnotbeextracted; as St. Clara discovered when she tried to extract themafterhisdeath,andcouldnotdoit.Thefingersremained,moreover,flexibleasbefore,andthehandsperformedtheirservice;neitherdidthefeetfail,althoughwalkinghadbecomemoredifficulttohim,andhe therefore rode thereafter in his journeying through theneighborhood."A.Tholuck,VermischteSchriften,1839,I,pp.105f.,pointsoutthedefectsinthetestimony:"Inthecaseofallothersaintsthe legendspeaksonlyofwoundscars,andtheportraitsofFrancispresent him only with the scars; the old reporters neverthelessdescribetheminapeculiarwayasiftherehadgrownnailsofflesh,with the color of fresh iron andwith clinched points.Neverthelessperfectclearnessislackinginthereports.Thereportofthetressociisays: nails of flesh were seen et ferri quoque nigredinem. Celanosays: Non clavorum quidem puncturas, sed ipsos clavos in eisimpositos,ex ferrirecentinigredine; the lastwordsyieldnosense,andtheeditorsconjecture:exferrirecentisnigredinem.Thematteris spoken of still less clearly in a letter of Francis's immediatesuccessor in the generalship of the Minorites (in Wadding, adannum1226,no.45).Hereweread:Nammanusejusetpedes,quasipuncturas clavorum habuerunt ex utraque parte confixas,reservantes cicatrices, et clavorum nigredinem ostendentes.Accordingtothisalsonailswerepresent."Forrecentdiscussionssee

theworksmentionedatthecloseofthearticleonthe"Stigmatics"inSchieleandZscharnack,ascited,pp.433-443.

33. Görres,ascited,pp.426-428:cf.MargaretRoberts,SaintCatherineofSiennaandHerTimes2,1907,p.103:"Catherinespentlonghoursin the Church of St. Cristina, and it was there that to her innerconsciousnessshereceivedthestigmata,invisibletohumaneyes,buttoherawfully real."Onherbloodysweatandweepingwithbloodytears,seeAugustaT.Drane,TheHistoryofSt.CatherineofSiena3,1899,vol.I,p.52.

34. Germano di Stanislao,GemmaGalgati, German version by P. LeoSchlegel, 1913; W. F. Ludwig, Gemma Galgati, eine Studie ausjüngsteZeit,1912.Themostwell-knowninstanceofstigmatizationofthelateryearsofthenineteenthcenturywasprobablyLouiseLateau.Her case is discussed by William A. Hammond, Spiritualism andAllied Causes and Conditions of Nervous Derangement, 1876, pp.350-362;onpage350anextendedbibliographyisgivenwhichmaybesupplementedfromthatattheendofthearticle,"Stigmatization,"intheNewSchaff-HerzogEncyclopediaofReligiousKnowledge,vol.XI, pp. 96-97. A. Rohling's Louise Lateau, nach authentischenmedizinischen und theologischen Docu- menten, 1874, wastranslated and printed inTheCatholicReview, and afterward in apamphlet entitled Louise Lateau, Her Stigmas and Ecstasy, NewYork,Hickey&Co.,1891.Thefollowingaccount isdrawnfromthispamphlet.LouiseLateauwasbornapeasantgirl,inaBelgianvillage,onthe30th of January, 1850. Her early life was passed in poverty andsickness. In the spring of 1867 she fell into a violent illness, andremained in a dying condition for a year, suffering from abscessesandhemorrhages,untilshewasmiraculouslycured,arisingatoncefrom her bed, on the 20th of April, 1868. "Three days later," saysRohling, "Louise received the stigmasofourSaviour, JesusChrist"(p.8).HereistheaccountgivenbyDoctorRohling:"Wehaveseenthatshewassuddenlyrestoredtohealthonthe20April, 1868.During the two following days she continuedperfectlywell, the thought of receiving the stigmas of the Passion never ofcourse enteringhermind. Indeed at that time, shehadnever evenheard of God's having bestowed this wonderful favor either on St.

Francis, or upon any other of his faithful servants.On the 24th ofApril,however,sheexperiencedareturnofthoseexcruciatingpains,fromwhich shehadbeen enduring amartyrdomof suffering sincethebeginningoftheprecedingyear.Andonthesameday,whichwasFriday, the first trace of the stigmas appeared. On that occasion,however,bloodflowedonlyfromtheleftside.Nextdaythebleedinghad entirely ceased, and all the pain had disappeared. Louise,thinkingthatitwassometransientformofherlateillness,remainedsilentaboutwhathadoccurred.ButonthefollowingFriday,the1stofMay, thestigmasagainappeared;and thebloodnow flowednotonlyfromtheside,asinthepreviousweek,butalsofromtheuppersurfaceofbothfeet.Filledwithanxietyandembarrassment,Louisestill kept the matter a profound secret, speaking of it only to herconfessor...(who)...madenothingofwhathadoccurred....OnthenextFriday,the8thofMay,bloodcameasinthepreviousweeks,and, inaddition,aboutnineo'clockinthemorningitbegantoflowcopiouslyfromthepalmsandbacksofbothhands."..."Sincethenthe bleeding is accustomed to return on Fridays." "On the 25thSeptember, 1868,blood flowed for the first time fromthe foreheadandfromanumberofpointsaroundthehead—astrikingmemorialofourLord'scrownof thorns—andthishasalsooccurredregularlyever since. On the 26th April, 1873, an additional wound of largedimensions appeared on Louise's right shoulder, such as our LordreceivedincarryingthecrosstoCalvary.ThebloodusuallybeginstoflowfromthestigmasaboutmidnightonThursdays;occasionallythebleeding from the left side does not begin until somewhat later.Sometimesbloodflowsonlyfromeithertheupperorlowersurfaceofthe feet, and from either the palms or backs of the hands; butfrequently the bleeding takes place from both. Nor is the timeuniform,duringwhichthebleedingcontinues...butinvariablytheblood ceases to flow beforemidnight Friday. The first symptomofthecommencementofthebleedingistheformationofblistersonthehandsandfeet....Whentheyarefullydeveloped,theblistersburst,thewatery liquid passes off, and blood immediately begins to flowfrom the true skin beneath. . . . During the rest of the week, theposition of the stigmas can be discerned by a reddish tinge, and aglassyappearanceof theskin, theepidermis is intact,exhibitingno

trace ofwound or scar, and beneath itwith the aid of a good lens(with a magnifying power of 20) the skin may be observed in itsnormal condition. . . . During the ecstasy Louise has noconsciousnessofmaterialoccurrencesaroundher. . . .Thestigmasaretheseatofacutepain."

35. Les Stigmatisées, Louise Lateau, etc., Paris, 1873; LaStigmatization, l'ecstasie divine, et lesmiracles de Lourdes, Paris,1894. We are drawing, however, directly from The CatholicEncyclopedia, vol. XIV, p. 294. TwoAmerican cases are describedincidentally in the Proceedings of the Society for PsychicalResearch,vol.VII(1891-1892),pp.341and345.

36. Migne,DictionnairedesProphétiesetdesMiracles,p.1069.37. Op.cit.,pp.1068f.;cf.RevuedesDeuxMondes,May1,1907,p.207.38. G. Dumas,Revue des DeuxMondes,May 1, 1907, p. 207, quoting

Ribadeneira,Vied'IgnacedeLoyola,bookV,chap.x.39. Pp.1066ff.40. P.1070.41. Pp.1080f.42. A. Poulain,TheCatholic Encyclopedia, vol. XIV, p. 295: "It seems

historicallycertainthatecstaticsalonehavethestigmata."43. It is the judgment of a sympathetic critic that "trances, losses of

consciousness, automatisms, visions of lights, audition of voices,'stigmata,'andsuch likeexperiences,areevidencesofhysteria,andtheyarenotinthemselvesevidencesofdivineinfluenceorofdivinepresence."—RufusM. Jones,Studies inMysticalReligion, 1909, p.xxviii.Comparewhathesaysmoreatlarge,whenspeakingofFrancisof Assisi (p. 165): "The modern interpreter, unlike the medićvaldisciple,findsthisevent,ifitisadmitted,apointofweaknessratherthan a point of strength. Instead of proving to be the marks of asaint, the stigmata are the marks of emotional and physicalabnormality." In a like spirit, Baron von Hügel, The MysticalElement of Religion, vol. II, p. 42, declares generally that "thedownright ecstatics andhearersof voices and seersof visionshaveall,whereverwe are able to trace their temperamental andnormalconstitution and history, possessed and developed a definitelypeculiar psycho-physical organization." On the Stigmata andStigmatics,seeespeciallyF.W.H.Myers,Personality,Humanand

Divine,vol.I,pp.492ff.44. Die christliche Mystik, new ed., 1836, vol. II, pp. 407-468: "Die

Ecstase im unterem Leben, und die durch sie gewirkte Trans-formationderLeiblichkeit."EnglishtranslationofthissectionunderthetitleofTheStigmata:AHistoryofVariousCases,London,1883.

45. A.M.Königer, inSchieleandZscharnack,ascited,col.924:"Theirbearers are predominantly women and simple people. In theimmaturity of their understanding they have not yet reachedstability...."

46. TheCatholicEncyclopedia,vol.XIV,p.294,Theitalicsareours.47. Pp.205ff.48. Görres,op.cit.,vol.II,p.189.49. J.K.Huysmans,SainteLydwine,p.101.50. We are reminded byMrs.E.Herman, however (TheMeaning and

ValueofMysticism,1915,p.159),thatinoneelementofthefaithofthose"moderns"whomsherepresents,thereisareturntothisdesireto help Christ save the world. Commenting on some remarks ofAngeladeFoligno,shesays: "To thoseunacquaintedwithmedićvalreligious literature this seems curiously modern in its impliedinsistenceuponourobligationtoaskahumbleshareintheatoningsuffering, insteadof acquiescing in adoctrinewhichwouldmakeapassiveacceptanceofChrist'ssufferingsonourbehalfsufficient fortheremissionofsins."NosharinginChrist'satoningsufferingscanbe described as humble. It is not the "acceptance of Christ'ssufferings" which is represented by the Scriptures and understoodfromthembyevangelicalsas"sufficientfortheremissionofsins."ItisChrist'ssufferingsthemselveswhichareall-sufficient,andthetrailoftheserpentisseeninanysuggestionsthattheyneedoradmitofsupplementing.

51. For example,A.Poulain, as cited;cf.A.M.Königer, as cited: "Theanalogous cases of suggestion from without (local congestion ofblood, slight blood-sweating, formation of blisters, and marks ofburning) lie so far from the real stigmata, connectedwith lesionofthe walls of the blood vessels (hemorrhages), thatmedical scienceknowsasyetnothingelsetodobuttoclassthisamongthe'obscureneuropathicbleedings.'"

52. ThePrinciplesofPsychology,ed.1908,vol.II,p.612.Comparethe

statementquotedbyA.T.Schofield,TheForceofMind,1908,pp.61f.,fromProfessorBarrett,ofTrinityCollege,Dublin,Humanitarian,1905:"Itisnotsowellknownbutitisneverthelessafact,thatutterlystartling physiological changes can be produced in a hypnotizedsubjectmerelybyconsciousorunconsciousmentalsuggestion.Thusaredscarorapainfulburn,orevenafigureofdefiniteshape,suchasacrossoran initial, canbecaused toappearon thebodyof theentranced subject solely through suggesting the idea. By creatingsome local disturbance of the blood-vessels in the skin, theunconscious self has done what it would be impossible for theconscious self to perform. And so in the well-attested cases ofstigmata,where a close resemblance to thewoundson thebodyofthe crucified Saviour appears on the body of the ecstatic. This is acase of unconscious self-suggestion, arising from the intent andadoringgazeoftheecstaticuponthebleedingfigureonthecrucifix.With theabeyanceof theconsciousself thehiddenpowersemerge,whilst the tranceandmimicryof thewoundsarestrictlyparallel totheexperimentalcasespreviouslyreferredto."

53. These cases, with others of the same kind, are cited by F. W. A.Myers,Proceedings of the Society for PsychicalResearch, vol. VII(1891-1892), pp. 337fif., who introduces them with the followingremarks:"Thesubliminalconsciousness,itwillbeseen,wasabletoturn out to order the most complicated novelty in the way ofhysterical freaks of circulation. Let us turn to an equally markeddisturbance of the inflammatory type, the production namely, ofsuppuratingblistersbyawordofcommand.Thisphenomenonhasapeculiar interest, since, from the accident of a strong emotionalassociationwiththeideaofthestigmatainthehandsandfeet, thisspecial organic effect has been anticipated by the introvertedbroodings of a line ofmystics from St. Francis of Assisi to LouiseLateau."Cf.thesimilarcasescitedbyG.Dumas,ascited,pp.215ff.

54. Myers,ascited,p.333.55. Letter to Thomas de Gardo, a Florentine physician, printed in the

EighthBookofhisCorrespondence—ascitedbyDumas,ascited,p.213.

56. Traité de I'Amour deDieu. Book IV, chap, xv (E. T. inMethuen's"LibraryofDevotion,"OntheLoveofGod,1902,p.196).Cf.Dumas,

as cited, who, however, quotes more at large, including certainphrases(notfoundintheE.T.)whichwithdrawsomewhatfromthepurityofthenaturalisticexplanation.

57. TheliteratureofStigmatizationisverylargeandvaried;aguidetoitmay be found in the bibliographies attached to the appropriatearticles in Herzog-Hauck, the New Schaff-Herzog, Schiele andZscharnackandTheCatholicEncyclopedia.TheessaybyDumasinthe Revue des Deux Mondes for May 1, 1907, is exceptionallyinstructive. With it may be consulted the older discussions by A.Maury, in theRevue des Deux Mondes, 1854, vol. IV, and in theAnnales Medico-Psychologiques (edited by Baillarger, Cerise, andLonget), 1855; and themore recent studies by R. Virchow, "UeberWunder und Medizin," in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für practischeMedizin, 1872, pp. 335-339; Paul Janet, "Une Ecstatique," in theBulletindel'Institutepsychologique forJuly,1901,andTheMentalStateofHysiericals:AStudyofMentalStigmata,NewYork,1901;andMauriceApte,LesStigmatisés,1903;cf.alsoW.A.Hammond,Spiritualism and Allied Causes and Conditions of NervousDerangement, 1876, pp. 329-362, and the short note in W. B.Carpenter,PrinciplesofMentalPhysiology, 1874,pp.689-690.Nogeneraldescription isbetter thanGörres's,ascited;andnogeneraldiscussion supersedes Tholuck's, as cited.O. Stoll,Suggestion undHypnotismusinderVölker-psychologie2,1904,pp.520ff.,ischieflyusefulforthesettinginwhichthesubjectisplaced.

58. LesLégendesHagiographiques,1905,p.187.Cf.what issaidbyG.H.Gerould,Saints'Legends,1916,p.42.

59. L.Deubner,DeIncubatione:"ThereligionofChristianshadandhasitsowndemi-godsandheroes;thatistosay,itssaintsandmartyrs";G. Wobbermin,Religionsgeschichtliche Studien, 1896, p. 18: "Thesaints of theChristianChurches, and especially those of theGreekChurch, present a straightforward development of the Greek hero-cult.ThesaintsaretheheroesoftheAncients."Cf.P.Saintyves,LesSaints successeursdesDieux, 1907,andespeciallyLucius,ascited;alsoM.Hamilton,ascited.

60. Cf. Friedrich Pfister, Der Reliquienkult im Altertum, 1902, pp.429ff.; E. Lucius,Die Anfänge desHeiligenkults in der christlicheKirche,1904.

61. Cf.theaccountbyPfister,ascited,p.323,andespecially430ff.62. Cf.Saintyves,ascited,pp.33ff.Wearetoldthatmanyofthebones

oftheeleventhousandvirginmartyrsdisplayedattheChurchofSt.UrsulaatColognearebonesofmen(A.D.White,Warfare,etc.,vol.II,p.29).

63. A.D.WhiterecordsthatFrankBucklandnotedthattherelicsofSt.Rosalia at Palermo are really the bones of a goat (Gordon'sLifeofBuckland, pp. 94-96) ; and yet they cure diseases and ward offepidemics.

64. Harbey,SupplémentauxActaSanctorum,vol.I,1899,p.203(citedbyGünter).Cf.ingeneralSaintyves,ascited,pp.44ff.

65. H.Günter,Legenden-Studien,1906,p.109,note6,citingtheVitaS.Maximini,c.9(ScriptoresrerumMerov.,III,78).

66. Pausanias, III, 16, 1 (Pfister, p. 325); also Delehaye, p. 186, withreferencesgiventhere.

67. HenriEtienne,ApologiepourHérodote,ouTraitédelaConformitédes Merveilles anciennes avec les modernes, ed. le Duchat, 1735,chaps,xxix-xxviii,ascitedbyP.Saintyves,ascited,p.46,whomaybeconsulted(pp.44-48)onthegeneralsubject.

68. Cf.PaulParfait,LaFoireauxReliques,pp.137-138.69. OnMary'smilk,seethewholechapteron"LeSaintLaitd'Evron,"in

Paul Parfait, as cited, pp. 135-144. On what may lie in thebackground of this whole series of legends, see article "Milk," inHastings'sERE,vol.VIII,pp.633-637.

70. TheSacredShrine,1912,p.363.71. These words are Mechthild's; and Hirn adds: "The idea that the

Madonnagivesmilktoallbelieversappearsfinely inapoemintheSwedishcollectionofLatinhymns,PićCantiones,p.161:'Supervinumetunguentumthemammedantfomentum,fove,lactaparvulos.'"

72. P.365.73. Hegivesaseriesofreferencestoinstances.74. DeutscheSchriften,I,p.74.75. ActaSanctorum,38,pp.207-208.76. Legenden-Studien,1906,pp.165f.CompareDiechristlicheLegende

desAbendlandes,1910,p.43:"Thatthelegend[ofMary]praisesthe

MotherofPityalsoasthesuccorerofthesickisamatterofcourse.But the mysticism of the Mary-legend brought a new means ofhealing, in that itmakesMary give her breast to the sick."Cf. thecurious details on p. 85. In the notes accompanying the passagequotedfromtheLegenden-Studien,Güntershowshowwide-spreadandhowfullofvariantssuchlegendswere.InoneMS.themotiveisvaried in a threefold way: a cleric in his illness had bitten off histongue and lips, andwas suddenly healed byMary'smilk; amonkthoughtalreadydeadwashealed;anothermonkhadhisexperienceonlyinadream,butwiththesameeffect.NotingthatthemilkwithwhichFulbert,bishopofChartres,wassprinkledandhealed,issaidin oneMS. to have been gathered up and saved as a relic, Günterinfersthatthemilk-relicsdatefromthisepoch.ThisishowthestoryofFulbertistoldinSablon,HistoireetDescriptiondelaCathédraledeChartres:"St.Fulbert,BishopandRestorerofthisChurch,havingbeen visited byGodwith an incurable firewhichparchedhimandconsumedhis tongue,andseizedwithan insupportablepainwhichpermittedhimnorestthroughthenight,sawasitwereanobleladywhocommandedhimtoopenhismouth,andwhenhehadobeyedher she at once ejected fromher sacred breasts a flood of celestialand savory milk which quenched the fire at once and made histonguemorewell than ever. Some drops had fallen on his cheeks,andthesewereafterwardsputintoavialandkeptinthetreasury."

77. Günter,Legenden-Studien, p. 178;Die christliche Legende, pp. 85,162.

78. Günter,Legenden-Studien,p.59.79. Ibid.,p.208.80. Ibid.,p. 107;cf. the listofothersof similar character inTh.Trede,

DasHeidentuminderRömischenKirche,I,1889,pp.158ff.81. Ibid.

81a.Op.cit.,p.610.82. Legenden-Studien,p.106.83. J.B.Heinrich,DogmatischeTheologie,vol.X,p.797,makesmuchof

this: "Amiracle which belongs peculiarly to them, wrought not bybutontheholybodies,istheirincorruptibilitythroughthecenturies.No doubt this incorruptibility can in many cases be explained bypurelynaturalcauses;butinmanycasesthemiracleisobvious.Itis

especially evident when a portion only of the holy body remainsuncorrupted,particularlythatportionwhichwaspeculiarlyplacedattheserviceofGodduringlife,asthetongueofSt.JohnofNeponac,thearmofSt.StephenofHungary,theheartofSt.Teresa,etc.Andespeciallywhen,withthepreservationofthebodythereisconnectedapleasantfragranceinsteadofthenecessarilyfollowingpenetratingcorpse-odor,orwheneverythingwasdone, as therewasdonewiththebodyofSt.FrancisXavier,tobringaboutaspeedycorruption."Itisastonishingwhatstressislaidonthisincorruptibilityofthebodyof the saints. Thus Herbert Thurston (Hastings's ERE, VIII, 149)thinks it worth while, in a very condensed article on Lourdes, torecord,ofBernadetteSoubirous: "It isnoteworthy that, thoughherbodyatthetimeofdeath(1879)wascoveredwithtumorsandsores,it was found, when the remains were officially examined in 1909,thirtyyearsafterwards,entireandfreefromcorruption(seeCarričre,HistoiredeNotre-DamedeLourdes,p.243)."OnthismatterseeA.D.White,AHistoryoftheWarfareofSciencewithTheology,1896,II, pp. 10, 11, who sets it in its right light, and mentions similarinstances—ofthosewhowerenotsaints.

84. Accordingly,PercyDearmer,BodyandSoul9,1912,p.262,says:"Forthe greater part of Christian history faith-healing was mainlycentered in relics, so that probablymore people have benefited inthisway than in any other." Speaking particularly no doubt of theancient church, but in terms which would apply to every age,Heinrich(op.cit.,X,p.796)observes:"Now,however,thesemiraclesare regularly wrought at the graves, in the churches, and oftenpreciselybytherelicsof thesaints,"andhe is ledtoaddtwopagesfurtheron(p.798):"Thereisscarcelyanotherdoctrineofthechurchwhich has been so approved, established by God Himself, as theveneration of the saints and relics"—that is to say by miraculousattestation.

85. Fortheliteratureofpilgrimages,seethebibliographyattachedtothearticle"WallfahrtundWallfahrtsorten,"inSchieleandZscharnack'sReligion.

86. Hastings's ERE, vol. VIII, pp. 684 f. It is a refreshing note thatMeisterEckhard strikes,proving that commonsensewasnotquitedead even in theopening yearsof the fourteenth century,whenhe

asks, "What is the goodof thedeadbonesof saints?Thedead canneithergivenortake."

87. W. R. Inge, Christian Mysticism, 1889, p. 262 and note 2, ispreparedtomaintainthat"adegradedform"offetichismisexhibitedinmuch else inmodernRomanCatholicism than its relic-worship.He finds it exhibited, for example, "by the so-called neo-mysticalschool of modern France, and in the baser types of RomanCatholicismeverywhere."Headduces in illustrationHuysmans two"mystical" novels.EnRoute andLaCathédrale, and comments asfollows:"Thenakedfetichismofthelatterbookalmostpassesbelief.We have a Madonna who is good-natured at Lourdes and cross-grained at La Salette; who likes 'pretty speeches and little coaxingways'in'payingcourt'toher,andwhoattheendisapostrophisedas'ourLadyof thePillar,' 'ourLadyof theCrypt.' Itmay,perhaps,beexcusabletoresort tosuchexpedientsasthese intheconversionofsavages"(Query:Isit?);"butthereissomethingsingularlyrepulsivein the picture (drawn apparently from life) of a profligate man oflettersseekingsalvationinaChristianitywhichhaslowereditselffarbeneatheducatedpaganism.""OurLadyofthePillar,""OurLadyofthe Crypt," are two images of Mary venerated at the cathedral atChartres, information concerning which is given in the articleentitled"TheoldestofourLady'sShrines:St.Mary'sUnder-Earth,"in The Dolphin, vol. VI (July-December, 1904), pp. 377-399. OnMary's shrines in general, see below. Those who have readHuysmans's La Cathédrale should read also Blasco Ibanes's LaCatedral, and perhaps EvelynUnderbill'sThe LostWord, that thelascinations of cathedral symbolism may be viewed from severalangles.

88. Op.cit.,vol.X,p.799.Yetit isnotmerelyGodwhoisveneratedinthesaints,hesays;thereisanhonorduetothesaintsinthemselves,and accordingly Alexander VIII condemned the proposition: ThehonorthatisofferedtoMaryasMaryisvain.OntheotherhanditissaidthatitismerelythesaintandthroughhimGodthatisveneratedintherelic,accordingtotheexplanationofThomasAquinas:"Wedonotadorethesensiblebodyonitsownaccount,butonaccountofthesoulwhichwasunitedwithit,whichisnowintheenjoymentofGod,and on account of God, whose ministers they were." Why then

continuetoadorethebodywhenitisnolongerunitedwiththesoul,onaccountofitsunionwithwhichaloneitisadored?

89. P.794.90. P.794,91. WhatPfistersays,p.610,althoughnotfreefromexaggerations,isin

its main assertion true. In the Christian religion, he says, thepresenceintherelicsofasupernatural,inacertaindegreemagical,power is accustomed to be emphasized evenmore than it is in theheathen.For,accordingtotheGreekbelief,thegraveswerethoughtof chiefly as the protection of the heroes, without the bonesthemselvesbeingthoughtabletoworkmiracles—fortheyrestinthegrave;themiracle,thehelp,comesingeneralfromtheherohimself,notfromananonymous,impersonal,magicalpowerwhichdwellsintherelics.AccordingtotheChristianbelieftherelicsthemselves,onthe other hand, can perform miracles, and the power residing inthemcanbycontactbedirectlytransferredandproduceeffects.Thusartificial relics can be produced by contactwith genuine ones. Thehabit of relic-partition is connected with this: a part of the objectfilledwithmagicalpowermayact like thewhole.CompareHirn,p.490, note 2: "We deliberately leave out of consideration here theassertion of educated Catholics that in the relics was reallyworshipped the saint in the sameway thatGod isworshipped in apicture or a symbol (cf. Esser, art., 'Reliquien,' in Wetzer-Welte,Kirchenlexicon). It cannot be doubted that relic worship—for theearlierChristiansas forthemassofbelieversto-day—wasbasedonutilitarian ideas of the help that might be had from the sacredremains."

92. SeethecharacterizationoftheCatholicworld-view,byE.SchmidtinSchieleandZscharnack'sReligion,etc.,vol.V,col.1736.

93. Baumgarten, in Schiele andZscharnack'sReligion, etc., vol.V, col.2162.

94. TheSacredShrine,chaps,i-iv.95. CompareSmithandCheatham,DictionaryofChristianArchćology,

I,pp.62,429;II,p.1775,andespeciallyI,p.431:"Aschurchesbuiltover the tombs of martyrs came to be regarded with peculiarsanctity,thepossessionoftherelicsofsomesaintcametobelookedupon as absolutely essential to the sacredness of the building, and

the deposition of such relics in or below the altar henceforwardformedthecentralportionoftheconsecrationrite."Thesucceedingaccountoftheritualoftheconsecrationshouldberead.

96. The literature of relics and relic-veneration is sufficiently indicatedin the bibliographies attached to the articles on the subject in theencyclopedias: Herzog-Hauck, New Schaff-Herzog, Schiele-Zscharnack.Theexhibitionof theHolyCoatatTrčves fromAugust20toOctober3,1891,withtheimmensecrowdofpilgrimswhichitbroughttoTrčves,createdanequallyimmenseliterature,acatalogueofwhichmaybederivedfromtheTheologischerJahresberichtofthetime,andasurveyofwhichwillgiveaninsightintothewholesubjectofthevenerationofrelicsinthenineteenthcentury.

97. The recent history of relic-miracles in the United States is chieflyconnectedwith thevenerationof relicsofSt.Ann.Certain relicsofSt.AnthonyveneratedintheTroyHillChurchatAllegheny,Pa.,haveindeedwon large famefor themiraclesofhealingwroughtby theirmeans,anddoubtlesstheadditionalrelicofthesamesaintdepositedin the Italian Church of St. Peter, onWebster Avenue, Pittsburgh,hastakenitsshareintheseworks.ButSt.Annseemstopromisetobe thepeculiarwonder-workerof theUnitedStates.TheChurchofSt. Anne de Beaupré has, within recent years, become the mostpopular place of pilgrimage in Canada; until 1875 not over 12,000annually visited this shrine, but now they are counted by thehundredthousand;in1905thenumberwas168,000.AlargerelicofSt.Ann'sfinger-bonehasbeeninthepossessionofthisshrinesince1670; three other fragments of her arm have been acquired since,anditwasinconnectionwiththeacquisitionofoneofthese,in1892,that the cult and its accompanying miracles of healing weretransferredtoNewYork.St.Annseemstobeoneofthosenumeroussaints toomuchofwhomhasbeenpreserved in the formof relics.Her body is said to have been brought from the Holy Land toConstantinople,in710;anditissaidtohavebeenstillintheChurchof St. Sophia in 1333. Itwas also, it is said, brought byLazarus toGaul, during the persecution of the Jewish Christians in PalestineunderHerodAgrippa,andfinallyfoundaresting-placeatApt.Losttosightthroughmanyyears,itwasrediscoveredthereintheeighthcentury,andhasbeenincontinuouspossessionofthechurchatApt

eversince.YettheheadofSt.AnnwasatMainzupto1516,whenitwas stolen and carried to Düren in the Rhineland, and her head,"almostcomplete"—doubtlessderived fromApt—ispreservedalsoat Chiry, the heir of the Abbey of Ourscamp. Churches in Italy,Germany, Hungary, and in several towns in France "flatterthemselves that they possessmore or less considerable portions ofthe same head, or the entire head" (Paul Parfait, Le Foire auxReliques, p. 94, in an essay on "The Head of St. Ann at Chiry").Despite all this European history, a relic of St. Ann was againbroughtfromPalestineinthethirteenthcentury,anditwasthisthatwas given to St. Anne d'Auray in Brittany in the early half of theseventeenthcenturybyAnnofAustriaandLouisXIII.TheoriginofthepilgrimagesandhealingsatSt.Anned'Auraywasnotinthisrelic,however, but antedated its possession, taking their start fromapparitions of St. Ann (1624-1626). The relics which have beenrecently brought to this country are said to derive ultimately fromApt. Thence the Pope obtained an arm of the saint which wasintrusted to the keeping of the Benedictine monks of St. Paul-outside-the-Wall,Rome.Fromthem,throughthekindofficesofLeoXIII, Cardinal Taschereau obtained the "great relic" which waspresented to St. Anne de Beaupré in 1892; and from thence alsocame the relic, obtained by Prince Cardinal Odeschalchi, andpresented to the Church of St. Jean Baptiste in East Seventy-sixthStreet,NewYork, the sameyear (July 15, 1892).Another fragmentwasreceivedbytheChurchofSt.JeanBaptisteonAugust6,1893;and some years later still another fragment was deposited in theChurchofSt.AnninFallRiver,Mass.,whence itwasstolenonthenightofDecember1,1901.The"GreatRelic"—apieceofthewrist-boneofSt.Ann,fourinchesinlength—wasbroughtfromRomebyMonsignorMarquis;and,onhis way to Quebec, he stopped in New York with it. MonsignorO'Reilly has given us an enthusiastic account of the effect of itsexpositionattheChurchofSt.JeanBaptisteduringthefirsttwentydaysofMayofthatyear(seetheAveMariaofAugust6,1892;andTheCatholicReviewofthesamedate).Somethingliketwoorthreehundred thousand people venerated the relic; cureswerewrought,though apparently not very many. When Monsignor Marquis

returned on July 15with the fragmentwhichwas to remain at St.JeanBaptiste,theenthusiasmwasredoubled,andSt.Anndidnotletherfeast-day(July26)pass"withoutgivingsomesignalproofofherlove toherchildren."Since thenanovenaandanexpositionof therelicsareheldduringthelatterpartofeachJuly,inconjunctionwithSt.Ann'sfeast-day,andmanymiracleshavebeenwrought.In1901anewmarblecryptwascompletedatthechurch,andusedforthefirsttime for this novena and exposition, andpublic attentionwas veryparticularly called to it. The public press was filled with letterspointing out abuses, or defending the quality of the cures, whichwere numerous and striking (see a short summary note in ThePresbyterian Banner, August 8, 1901). On the whole MonsignorO'Reilly's hope that the depositing of the relics of St. Ann in theChurchofSt.JeanBaptistewillresultin"thefoundinghereinNewYorkofwhatwillbecomeagreatnationalshrineofSt.Anne"—tobesignalized, the editor of theAveMaria adds, "by such marvels ashaverenderedthesanctuariesofSt.AnnedeBeaupréandSt.Anned'AurayfamousthroughoutChristendom"—seemsinafairwaytobefulfilled. The following is a typical instance of what is happeningthere.ItwasreportedinTheCatholicTelegraph. It is thecaseofayoung man aged nineteen, of New Haven, Conn.: "Two years agoyoung Maloney, who was working at the time in a New Havenfactory, fell and injured his hip. Every doctor consulted said hewould be a cripple for life.When hewalked hewas obliged to usecrutches. Until recently he has been under the care of the ablestphysicians in the city, yet all declared him incurable. Hearing ofseveral cures wrought at St. Anne's shrine. New York, he startedthither, making a retreat on arriving. After several days spent inprayer,hevisitedtheshrineofSt.Anne.Themorningofhisvisithereceivedholycommunion,andthentherelicofthesaintwasapplied,and the sufferer anointedwith consecratedoil.Almost instantlyhefeltbetter.Another visit andhewasable towalkwithout crutches,leaving the latterbefore the shrine inwhich the relicsarekept.Hewas well, quite well, and thus returned to New Haven, to theastonishment of all who knew him." It is worth noting that theCincinnatiEnquirer of July 28 and the Lexington (Ky.) Leader ofJuly29,1902,recordthesuddencureofadeafwomaninSt.Anne's

Church,WestCovington,Ky., onSt.Ann's feast-day. "She said shehadheardthekeyinthetabernacle,whichcontainsarelicofSt.Ann,clickasthepriestturnedit"—andafterthatsheheardeverything. Thefollowingextract fromTheNewYorkTribune forAugust13,1906, will be not uninteresting in this connection: "Two thousandquartsofwater fromtheshrineofOurLadyofLourdes, inFrance,arrived here in huge sealed casks on Saturday, consigned to theFathers ofMercy, who have charge of the American shrine of thatname,atBroadwayandAberdeenStreet,Brooklyn.Thewaterwillbedistributed to thousands of physically afflicted men, women andchildrenfromallpartsofthecountrynextWednesdayafternoonandthe following Sunday. NextWednesday in the Catholic calendar isknown as the Feast of the Assumption. It is the titular day of theFrench shrine, and is kept with equal solemnity by the Fathers ofMercy at the American shrine. The water comes to this countryunder the seal of the clergy in charge of the French shrine, whoguarantee it tobeundiluted.FatherPorcile, rectorof theBrooklynchurch,saidyesterdaythatonlytwoounceswouldbegiventoeachperson applying. The celebration of the festival will begin at[blurred]o'clockonWednesdaymorningwithasolemnmass.Intheafternoon at 3.30 o'clock the pilgrimage to the shrine, which hasstoodforyearsonthegroundsofthechurch,willtakeplace.FatherPorcile, who has been at the French shrine several times, says theFrench Government will not attempt to carry out the threatenedabandonmentofLourdesonthechargethatitisamenacetopublichealth. 'IreadaboutFrenchpathologistsholdingthatthepiscinainwhich the afflicted bathe is unhealthy,' he said. 'Anybodywho hasseenthepiscinaknowsbetter.Itisnotapool,butacavity,whichisfilled with running water. If the pool were stagnant, it might beargued,withsomeshowoftruth,thatitwasunhealthful.'"Itisonlyrighttosupposethatthereportermisunderstoodhiscollocutorwithregard to thepiscinas—whether their formationor their filth.Theirfilthisnotglossedby,say,RobertHughBenson(Lourdes,1914,pp.51ff.),whobathedinoneofthem:"Thatwater,"sayshe,"hadbetternotbedescribed."

98. Cf.Günter,Legenden-Studien,p. 177,andespeciallyDie christlicheLegendedesAbendlandes,pp.35ff.

99. Thisstringofepithets is takenfromtheRomanBreviary,AntiphontotheMagnificat.Ifwewishtoknowtheextravagancestowhichtheprevalent Mariolatry can carry people, we may go to Liguori's LeGloriediMaria,abookwhichaJ.H.Newmancoulddefend(LettertoPuseyontheEirenicon,1866,pp.105ff.)"Thewayofsalvationisopen to none otherwise than throughMary." "Whoever expects toobtaingracesotherwisethanthroughMary,endeavorstoflywithoutwings.""GotoMary,forGodhasdecreedthatHewillgrantnograceotherwisethanbythehandsofMary.""Allpowerisgrantedtothee(Mary) inheavenandonearth,andnothing is impossible to thee.""You,ohHolyVirgin,haveoverGodtheauthorityofaMother,andhencecanobtainpardonforthemostobdurateofsinners."Here isthewayJ.K.Huysmansrepresentsherasthoughtofbyhervotaries,doubtlessdrawingfromthelife(LaCathédrale,ed.1903,p.9):"Hemeditated on the Virgin whose watchful attentions had so oftenpreserved him from unforeseen danger, easy mistakes, great falls.Wasshenot"—butwemustpreservetheFrenchhere—"lePuitsdelaBonté sans fond, la Collatrice des dons de la bonne Patience, laTouričredescœurssecsetclos;wasshenotabovealltheactiveandbeneficentMother?"

100. Compare Lachenmann in Schiele and Zscharnack's Religion, etc.,vol.V,col.1837:"Beliefinmiraclesisthechiefmotiveofthefavoriteplaces of pilgrimage and the climax is reached in the innumerablelocalitieswherethegraceofMaryissought.Theoriginoftheseliesnot in the region of veneration of relics since the Catholic churchknowsneitherthegraveofMarynorrelicsofherbody,butgoesbacktostoriesofvisibleappearancesorofinnerrevelationsoftheMotherofGodatparticularlocalitieswhichsheherselfhasthusindicatedforher specialworship, or as places of grace (La Salette, Lourdes); orelsetovowsmadetoMarybyindividuals,orbywholecommunities,intimesofneed;orfinallytothemiraculousactivitiesofanimageofMary."

101. AfullaccountofitisgivenbyLéonMarillierinTheProceedingsoftheSocietyofPsychicalResearch,vol.VII(1891-1892),pp.100-110.

102. "Our Lady of Pellevoisin," reprinted in The Catholic Review (NewYork)forJuly30,1892,fromtheLiverpoolCatholicTimes.

103. InJ.K.Huysmans'sLaCathédralewearegivenahighlypicturesque

meditation on the several manners in which Mary has revealedherself.Sheowessomethingtosinners,itseems,forhaditnotbeenfor their sin she could never have been the immaculatemother ofGod.Shehastriedhard,however,topayherdebt,andhasappearedinthemostdiverseplacesandinthemostdiversefashions—thoughoflateitlooksasifshehaddesertedallheroldhauntsforLourdes.She appeared at La Salette as theMadonna of Tears. Twelve yearslater, when people had got tired of climbing to La Salette (thegreatest miracle about which was that people could be got to gothere),sheappearedatLourdes,nolongerasOurLadyoftheSevenSorrows,but as theMadonnaofSmiles, theTenantof thegloriousJoys.Howeverythinghasbeenchanged!ThespecialaspectinwhichMary isworshippedatChartres, it isadded, isunderthetraitsofachild or a youngmother,muchmore as the Virgin of theNativitythanasOurLadyoftheSevenSorrows.TheoldartistsoftheMiddleAges,workinghere,have taken carenot to saddenherby recallingtoo many painful memories, and have wished to show, by thisdiscretion,theirgratitudetoherwhohasconstantlyshownherselfintheir sanctuary the Dispensatrice of benefits, the Chatelaine ofgraces.

104. TheCatholicEncyclopedia,vol.XV,p.464.105. SeeTheCatholicEncyclopedia,vol.X,p.115;vol.XV,p.115;alsoB.

M. Aladel, The Miraculous Medal: Its Origin, History, etc.TranslatedfromtheFrenchbyP.S.Baltimore,1880.

106. DoctorRouby,LaVéritésurLourdes,1910,pp.318f.107. A sufficient outline of these scandals is given in the article on La

SaletteinTheCatholicEncyclopedia,whichalsomentionsthechiefliterature. Itwassaid that "thebeautiful lady" seenby thechildrenwas a young woman named Lamerličre; suits for slander werebrought;andA.D.Whiteisabletosay(Warfare,etc.,II,pp.21-22,note)thattheshrine"preservesitshealingpowersinspiteofthefactthatthemiraclewhichgaverisetothemhastwicebeenpronouncedfraudulent by the French courts." The wholematter is involved ininextricable confusion.A sympatheticaccountofLaSalettemayberead in J. S. Northcote, Celebrated Sanctuaries of the Madonna,1868, pp. 178 ff. Gustave Droz's first novel,Autour d'une Source,1869,seemstohavedrawnpartofitsinspirationfromthestoryofLa

Salette;itisextravagantlypraisedbyA.D.White(Warfare,II,p.44)as "one of themost exquisitely wrought works ofmodern fiction";andnotquiteaccuratelydescribedas "showingperfectly the recentevolutionofmiraculouspowersatafashionablespringinFrance."Itdoesshowhoweasilysuchthingsmaybeeveninnocentlyinvented.On the question whether the visions of Bernadette may not havebeen the result of ecclesiastical arrangement, see J. de Bonnefon,Lourdes et ses Tenanciers, Paris, without date, and, on the otherside, G. Bertrin, Lourdes, un document apocryphe, in the Revuepractiqued'Apologétique,April15,1908,pp.125-133.

108. SeeMarillier, as cited, and cf.H.Thurston's remarks inHastings'sERE,vol.VIII,p.149.

109. J.K.Huysmans,inhisLaCathédrale,suggeststhattworulesseemtogoverntheappearancesofMary.First,shemanifestsherselfonlytothepoorandhumble.Secondly,sheaccommodatesherselftotheirintelligence and shows herself under the poor images which theselowlypeoplelove."Sheacceptsthewhiteandbluerobes,thecrownsandgarlandsofroses, the jewelsandchaplets, theappointmentsofthe first communion, the ugliest of attire. The peasants who haveseenher,inaword,havehadnootherexamplesbywhichtodescribeher(exceptundertheappearanceofa'finelady')butthetraitsofanaltarVirginofthevillage,ofaMadonnaoftheSaint-Sulpicequarter,ofaQueenofthestreet-corner."

110. WearequotingA.T.MyersandF.W.H.Myers,ProceedingsoftheSocietyofPsychicalResearch,vol.IX,1894,p.177.

111. Legenden-Studien,p.126.112. Lourdes,1891,p.31,ascitedbyMyers,ascited,p.178.113. Myers,ascited,pp.178,179.114. In thecontrastwhichhedrawsbetweenLaSaletteandLourdes, in

hisLaCathédrale,J.K.Huysmansdoesnotneglect thisone. "AndGod who imposed La Salette, without having recourse to themethods of worldly publicity, has changed His tactics and, withLourdes, puffing comes into play. This is very confounding—Jesusresigning Himself to employ the miserable artifices of humancommerce,acceptingtherepulsivestratagemsofwhichwemakeuseinpushingaproductorabusiness!"

115. Lourdes(thefirstofthetriadon"thecities,"Lourdes,Rome,Paris)

waspublishedin1894;E.T.sameyear,byVizetelly,andoftensince.Cf. a critical articleon it inTheEdinburghReview, 1903,No. 103.The secret of Lourdes, says Zola, is that it offers to sufferinghumanity "the delicious bread of hope, for which humanity everhungerswithahungerthatnothingwilleverappease";itproposestomeet "humanity's insatiable yearning for happiness." Since itspublication Catholic writers on Lourdes have, as is natural,concernedthemselvesverymuchwithZola'sbook;G.Bertrin'swork(Histoire critique des événements de Lourdes) which reached its37th edition in 1913, and which Herbert Thurston pronounces"undoubtedly the best general work on Lourdes" (Hastings'sERE,vol.VIII,p.150),wouldnotbeunfairlydescribedasaformalreplytoZola.

116. EdwardBerdoe,"AMedicalViewoftheMiraclesatLourdes,"inTheNineteenthCentury,October,1895,pp.614ff.DoctorBerdoewasaliberal-mindedCatholic in faith;seeHerbertThurston's remarks inTheMonth forNovember,1895,andhiscitationofDoctorBerdoe'sown representations in The Spectator, July, 1895. (Cf. PublicOpinion,November28,1895,p.108.)

117. Lourdes,1914,p.29.118. ThedetailsaregivenbyBenson,p.32.119. AcuriousfactemergesfromBertrin'stablesinhisappendix(E.T.,p.

292);morephysiciansvisitLourdeseveryyeartolookonatthecuresthan there are cures made for them to observe. For the fourteenyears from 1890 to 1903, inclusive, 2,530 physicians visited theMedicalOfficethere,anaverageof18oyearly.Duringthesefourteenyears 2,130 cures were registered at that office, an average of 152yearly.

120. A.D.White,Warfare,etc.,2vol.II,p.24:E.Berdoe,ascited,p.615.Other estimates of the proportion of the cured to patientsmay befound inDearmer,BodyandSoul,9 1912,p.315,and inRouby,LaVéritésurLourdes,1910,p.272.Roubythinksthataboutfiveoutofeverythousandpatientsarecured,thatis,aboutone-halfofonepercent; Dearmer can arrive at no more than one per cent from thefiguresgiven,andremarksthateveniffivepercentbeallowed,asisassertedbysome,theproportionismuchsmallerthanunderregularpsychotherapeuticaltreatment.

121. The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. X, 191 1, p. 390; cf. the earlierestimatesinhisLourdes,AHistoryofitsApparitionsandCures,E.T.,1908,p.91.

122. AratherfavorableopportunityforestimatingtheproportionofcurestopatientsseemstobeaffordedbythefiguresgivenconcerningthepatientsfromVillepinte,aprivateasylumforconsumptivegirls,nearParis.Bertrin(E.T.,pp.98ff.)tellsusthatforthethreeyears1896-1898 inclusive,58of thesegirlswere sent toLourdes,ofwhom20werecured.Rouby(pp.163ff.)derivesfromBoissarieareportalsoforthreeyears(apparentlyjustprecedingthosegivenbyBertrin,butnotexplicitlyidentified)duringwhich58girlsweresenttoLourdes,ofwhom24were cured or ameliorated, the cure beingmaintainedwithtwoorthreeexceptions.Roubysaysheinvestigatedthefactsforoneoftheseyears,1894,inwhichoutof24girlswhoweresent,14were reported cured or ameliorated; he found that 10 of those soreported afterwards relapsed, leaving only 4 benefited.Hewent toVillepinte, he says, and investigated personally the facts for 1902,finding that 30 girls had been sent, and all 30 had come backunbenefited;andhequotesLudovicNaudeauashavinginvestigatedthe facts for 1901 with the same result—none were benefited. Wegather fromBertrin, p. 101, that the same thingwas true for 1903.Here, apparently, then, are three consecutive years, 1901-1903, inwhichnocuresatallwerewroughtintheVillepintedelegation.

123. Benson,ascited,pp.25-26.124. WefindDoctorE.Mackey,DublinReview,October,1880,pp.396f.,

veryproperlydissentingwhenPčreBonniot(LeMiracle,etc.,p.89)lays stress thus on suddenness as a proof of miraculousness in acure. "Mere suddenness of cure," he says, "is not decisive . . . thepower of imagination is very great." Cures just as remarkable andjustassuddenasthoseofLourdesconstantlyoccur intheordinaryexperience of physicians. Doctor J. Burney Yeo quite incidentallyrecordstwosuchsuddencases,inanarticleonasubjectremotefromLourdes,inTheNineteenthCenturyforAugust,1888,vol.XXIV,pp.196-197—oneofblindnessandtheotheroflameness."Agentleman,"sayshe,"thesubjectofseriousdisease,whohadshownatendencytothe development of somewhat startling subjective symptoms,suddenlydeclaredthathewasblind.Hewascarefullyexaminedby

the writer and by an eminent oculist, and although no particularoptical defect could be found in his eyes, to all the tests it waspossible to apply, he appeared to be blind. A few days afterwards,and without any apparent or sufficient cause or reason for thechange, and almost without comment, he asked for the Timesnewspaper, which he proceeded to read in bed without anydifficulty!""Thenext instance,"hecontinues,"isperhapsstillmoreremarkable.AyoungwomanpresentedherselfataLondonHospital,supportingherselfoncrutches,anddeclaredshewaslosingtheuseof her legs. After one or two questions, and after noticing theawkwardmanner inwhich the crutcheswere used, thewriter tookfromherbothcrutches,andorderedher, inafirmmanner,towalkaway without them, which she did! Some years afterwards he wassent for into a distant suburb to see this person's father, havinghimself quite forgotten the preceding incident, when this sameyoungwoman came forward and remindedhim thathe 'had curedheroflameness'manyyearsago!Now,althoughnocurativeagencywhatever,intheordinarysense,wasintroducedorapplied,ineitherof these instances,yetoneof themmighthavesaid, 'whereasIwasblind,nowIsee,'andtheother, 'whereasIwas lame,nowIwalk.'"ProfessorCharles(orGeorge?)Buchanan,"adistinguishedProfessorofSurgeryinGlasgow""visitedLourdesintheautumnof1883,andwas much interested in the undoubted benefit that some of thepilgrims received."Hepublished somenotes in theLancet of June25,1885,fromwhichDoctorA.T.MyersandF.W.H.Myersextractthe followingaccountof an instantaneous cure inwhichhewasanactor (Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, vol. IX,1893-1894, pp. 191 ff.). "With regard," he writes, "to persons whohavebeenlameanddecrepitandknownassuchtotheirfriends,thefact of their leaving their crutches and walking away without helpdoesseemastonishingandmiraculous,anditiscasessuchasthesewhichmakethegreatestimpression.""Ibelievethatthesimplevisitto the grotto by persons who believe in it, and the wholesurroundings of the place,might have such an effect on themindthat a sudden change in the nerve condition might result inimmediate improvement in cases where there is no real change ofstructure,butwherethemaladyisa functional imitationoforganic

disease.Suchcasesarefrequentandfamiliartoallmedicalmen,andarethemostintractabletheyhavetodealwith,thedisorderbeinginthe imagination and not in the part. . . . It is rather a remarkablecoincidencethatonOctober2,1883,withinthreeweeksofmyvisittoLourdes,IreceivedaletterfromMrs.F.,remindingmethatsomeyearsbeforeIhadperformedinhercaseacure,instantaneous,andtoallappearancesmiraculous,andwhichsheproperlyattributedtoundoubtingfaithinmyword.ItisaverygoodillustrationofthekindofcasetowhichIhavebeenalluding,andofthepowerofmindovermind,andoftheeffectofimaginationinsimulatingrealdisease.Mr.F.calledonmeinOctober,1875,andrequestedmetovisithiswife,who had been confined to bed for many months with a painfulaffectionofthespine.WhenIwentintothehouseIfoundMrs.F.,awomanofaboutthirty-oneyearsofage,lyinginbedonherleftside,and her knees crouched up, that being the position that affordedmost relief. She was thin and weak-looking, with a countenanceindicative of great suffering. Iwas informed that formanymonthsshe had been in the same condition. She was unable to move herlimbs,anyattemptbeingattendedwithpain,andpracticallyshewasparalytic.Shewasnotabletoalterherpositioninbedwithouthelp,andthisalwaysgavesomuchtroublethatshewouldhaveremainedconstantlyinthesamepositioniftheattendantshadnotinsistedonmovinghertoallowofthebed-clothesbeingchangedandarranged.She had altogether lost appetite, and had become dreadfullyemaciated, and only took what was almost forced on her by herhusbandandfriends.Shehadgivenupallhopeofrecovery,buthadexpressed a strong desire to be visited by me in consequence ofsomething she had heard from her husband in connection with ahealth lecture he had been present at many years before. When Ienteredherbedroomsomething in theway sheearnestly lookedatme suggested the idea that I might have some influence over hersupposing it to be a case of hysterical spine simulating real spineirritationandsympatheticparalysis.ThestoryIgotwasnotthatofrealdiseaseofspineorcordorlimbs,andIatonceresolvedtoactonthe supposition that it was subjective or functional, and notdependent on actualmolecular change or disintegration. I went toherbed-sideandsaidsuddenly:'Icannotdoyouanygoodunlessyou

allowme to examine your back.' In an instant shemoved slightlyround,andIexaminedherspine, runningmy fingerover itat firstlightly,thenveryfirmly,withoutherwincingatall.Ithensaid:'Getoutofbedatonce.'Shedeclaredshecouldnotmove.Isaid:'Youcanmovequitewell;comeoutofbed,'andgavehermyhand,when,tothe surprise of her husband and sister, who looked perfectlythunderstruck, shecameoutofbedalmostwithnohelpatall, andstoodalone.Isaid:'Walkacrossthefloornow,'andwithoutdemur,shewalkedwithoutassistance,saying:'Icanwalkquitewell;Iknewyouwouldcureme;mypainsaregone.'She thenwent tobedwithverylittleassistance,layonherback,anddeclaredshewasperfectlycomfortable.Shewasgivenaglassofmilkwhichshetookwithrelish,andIleftthehousehavingperformedacurewhichtothebystanderslookednothingshortofamiracle.FormanyyearsIheardnothingofMrs. F.,when onOctober 2, 1883, I got her letter referred to, andshortly after the patient herself called at my house. In February,1885, she again called onme. She is at present in fair health, notrobust, but cheerful and contented. She says she never altogetherregainedherfullstrength;butasanevidencethatsheisnotfeebleorunable for a good deal of exertion, Imay state that she now livesaboutfivemilesfrommyhouse,andshemadeherwayalone,partlybyomnibus,partlybytramway,andtherestonfoot."Comparethecuriouslyparallelcase,happeninghalfacenturyearlier,describedinnote26toLectureIV,onthe"IrvingiteGifts."

125. Benson,ascited,p.24.126. Bertrin,ascited,p.280.127. Pp.256,262.128. P.280.129. P.256.130. P.280.131. P.262.132. On the case of Frau Ruchel, see the report in the Deutsch-

evangelische Korrespondenz for August 11, 1908. The facts arebrought out in the brochure of Doctor Aigner of Mimich, DieWahrheitübereineWunderheilunginLourdes.

133. Pp.197-198.134. Zola,wishing toexpress these limitations inaword, saidhewould

notaskverymuch—onlyletsomeonetakeaknifeandcuthisfingerand immerse it in thewater,and if itcameoutcuredhewouldsaynothingmore.Charcotputsitinahigherform:"Faith-curehasneveravailed to restore an amputated limb" (as cited, p. 19). PercyDearmer, having theories of his own, makes merry over suchstatements.There isnosuch thingas thesupernatural,he says;allthat God does is natural. But that carries with it that it is notunnatural.TheonlylimittosuchcuresasweseeatLourdes,then,isthat nothing unnatural can happen there. Of course, then, faithcannotgrowanewleg.Butthatisonlybecausewearemenandnotcrabs,andcannotbeexpectedtoactinacrustaceanmanner.Gracecanturnasickmanintoawellone,butitcannotturnamanintoanapple-tree or a cactus. God must act on the lines of nature; thesupernatural is not the unnatural (Body and Soul,9 pp. 90 ff.). Allthisis,ofcourse,pureabsurdity.Itistobenoted,notobscured,thatthere are limitations to such cures; that a lost member cannot berestored by them, not even a lost tooth. It is only to dodge thequestiontosaythatsuchthingsareoutofthequestion;theyarenotout of the question but very much in it—when it is a question ofmiracle.Itiseasytosay,"Betterfartohopaboutoncrutchesthantohavethesoulofacrab,"but it isbettersimplytoacknowledgethattherearephysicaldisabilitieswhichLourdescannotrepair,andthatthe reason is that they are above the power of nature to repair. Itshouldbenoted inpassing thatLourdesdoesnot admit that thereare any physical disabilities which she cannot repair, and that thereasonisthatshe,unlikeDearmer,believesinthesupernatural,andbelievesthatshewieldsit.

135. Ed.7,1905,p.55.(E.T.,MedicineandMind.)136. TheNewReview,January,1893,p.31:"Ihaveseenpatientsreturn

from the shrinesnow in voguewhohadbeen sent thitherwithmyconsent, owing tomy own inability to inspire the operation of thefaith-cure. I have examined the limbs affected with paralysis orcontraction some days before, and have seen the gradualdisappearance of the local sensitive spotswhich always remain forsome time after the cure of the actual disease—paralysis orcontraction."

137. ThePsychicTreatmentofNervousDisorders,E.T., 1908,p. 72:A

patient, "whoseneck and jawhadbeen immobilized for years, andwho had undergone unsuccessfullymedical and surgical treatmentfromthemostrenownedclinicians,foundsuddencureinthepiscinaatLourdes."YetDuboisdoesnotthinkwellofLourdes(p.211);thatis to say, after experiencewith it.His expectations hadbeen good,and hewas disillusioned only by experience. "The cures there," hesays, "are in fact rare." Superstition goes all lengths, and—well,"LourdesisnotveryfarfromTarascon."

138. Ascited,p.271.139. Jean de Bonnefon has accumulated at the end of his trenchant

pamphlet,Faut-il fermer Lourdes? 1906—in which he argues thatLourdes should be abolished by the state—a number of opinionsfrom French physicians to whom a questionnaire was sent, askingwhethertheythoughttheenterpriseofLourdesusefulorinjurioustothe sick, whether they thought the piscinas were dangerous, onaccountofthechillorthefilth,whetherthelongpilgrimagesofthesick across Francewere orwere not amenace to the country, andwhethertheythoughtthelawsofhygienewereobservedatLourdes.The opinions of the physicians vary greatly: many are thoroughlyhostile, a few are wholly favorable. What is noticeable is that aconsiderablenumberbelieve it isusefulandought tobe sustained,althoughtheyhavenobeliefwhateverinthesupernaturalnessofthecureswroughtthere.Onephysician,forexample,writes:"Foragreatnumberofsickpeople,andparticularlywomen,Lourdesisabenefit.. . . Free from all religious opinions, I never hesitate to send toLourdes sick people who are in the particularmental condition toreceivebenefitfromit,andIhaveoftenhadoccasiontocongratulatemyself on having done so" (p. 51). Another writes in a less genialspirit(p.51):"TheenterpriseofLourdesisusefulforfeeble-mindedpeople,andtherearelegionsoftheseinourfinelandofFrance....IknowLourdes,anditseemstomethattheyareasfilthythere—inthemedicalsenseoftheword—astheyareeverywhereelseinFrance."

140. W.B.Carpenter,Principles ofMental Physiology, 1824, p. 684, isengaged inpointingout thephysical effectswhichmaybewroughtby"expectantattention."Hesays:"Thattheconfidentexpectationofa cure is the most potent means of bringing it about, doing thatwhichnomedicaltreatmentcanaccomplish,maybeaffirmedasthe

generalizedresultofexperiencesofthemostvariedkind,extendingthrough a long series of ages. For it is this which is common tomethods of the most diverse character; some of them—as theMetallic Tractors, Mesmerism, and Homoeopathy—pretending tosomephysicalpower;whilsttoothers,astotheinvocationsofPrinceHohenlohe, and the commands of Doctor Vernon, or the ZouaveJacob, some miraculous influence was attributed. It has beencustomary,on thepartof thosewhodonotaccept the 'physical'orthe'miraculous'hypothesisastotheinterpretationofthesefacts,torefer theeffectseither to the 'imagination'or to 'faith'—twomentalstates apparently incongruous, and neither of them rightlyexpressing theconditiononwhich theydepend.Foralthough therecan be no doubt that in a great number of cases the patients havebelievedthemselvestobecured,whennorealameliorationoftheirconditionhadtakenplace,yetthereisalargebodyoftestimonyandevidencethatpermanentamendmentofakindperfectlyobvious toothershasshownitselfinagreatvarietyoflocalmaladies,whenthepatients have been sufficiently possessed by the expectation ofbenefit,andbyfaithintheefficacyofthemeansemployed."

141. TheNewReview,January,1893,p.23.142. AwriterinTheEdinburghReviewforJanuary,1903,p.154,hasthis

tosayoftheuseof"suggestion"atLourdes:"Whatissopainfulandso repulsive in Lourdes and similar centres of popular devotion, isnotsomuchthefanaticismofthepilgrims,thecommercialelementinseparablefromthenecessityofprovidingtransportandlodgingforthe multitude of strangers, or even the incongruous emergence ofthose lower passions never wholly absent when men are mettogether, and separated by so small an interval from overwroughtemotion, whatever its source, as the deliberate organization ofhysteria, the training of suggestion, the exploitation of disease.Everythinginthepilgrimageiscalculatedtodisturbtheequilibriumof the faculties, to stimulate, to excite, to strain. The unsanitaryconditionunderwhichthejourneyismade,thehurry,thecrowding,theinsufficientfoodandsleep,theincessantreligiousexercises,theacute tensionofeverysenseandpower,allworkup toacalculatedclimax."

143. Op.cit.,E.T.,pp.118ff.

144. Lourdes,pp.42ff.145. Ibid.,p.56.146. Ibid., p. v; cf. alsoHerbert Thurston,Hastings'sERE, vol. VIII, p.

150.This is apparentlyalsowhatJ.A.MacCullochmeanswhenhesays (Hastings'sERE, vol. VIII, p. 682): "Occasionally miracles atLourdesarealsowroughtonmorethanneuroticdiseases,"and"theysuggestaninfluxofhealingpowerfromwithout."

147. Op. cit., pp. 150 ff. Cf. John Rickaby, "Explanation ofMiracles byUnknownNaturalForces,"inTheMonthforJanuary,1877.

148. October,1880,pp.386-398.149. P.398.150. LaVéritésurLourdes,pp.123ff.151. WetaketheaccountasgivenbyA.Tholuck,VermischteSchriften,I,

p.139.152. TheshortcomingsoftheauthoritiesatLourdesintheirreportsofthe

curesmaybereadinTheDublinReview,October,1908,pp.416ff.,apropos ofDoctorBoissarie'sL'Œuvre de Lourdes, new ed., 1908.Cf. Paul Dubois,The Psychic Treatment of Nervous Disorders, p.211:"Ihavedetectedinthephysiciansofthebureauofstatistics,inspite of their evident good faith, amentality of such a nature thattheirobservationsloseallvalueinmyeyes."

153. Sir Francis Champneys, M.D., F.R.C.P., in The Church QuarterlyReview, April, 1917, p. 44, says justly: "It is not safe to define aMiracleassomethingwhichcannotbeunderstood;for,atthatrate,whatcanbeunderstood?"

154. SystematicTheology,vol.I,p.52.155. Deut.13:2.156. Paris,p.195.157. Lourdes,p.39.158. Seeabove,p.59.159. Lourdes,p.82,160. P.Saintyves,LesSaintssuccesseursdesDieux,p.11,note1.161. ThebibliographyattheendofHerbertThurston'sarticle"Lourdes,"

inHastings'sERE, isamodel list,andcontainsall thatthestudentneedconcernhimselfabout.TheEnglishreaderhasathisdisposal:H. Lasserre,Miraculous Episodes of Lourdes, 1884; R. F. Clarke,Lourdes,and itsMiracles, 1888;G.Bertrin,Lourdes;aHistoryof

its Apparitions and Cures, 1908; R. H. Benson, Lourdes, 1914;togetherwithsuch illuminatingarticlesas thatofProfessorGeorgeBuchanan in the Lancet of June 25, 1885; of a series of BritishphysiciansandsurgeonsintheBritishMedicalJournalforJune18,1910; of J. M. Charcot ("The Faith Cure") in The New Review,January,1893,vol.VIII,pp.18-31;andofDoctorA.T.Myers,andF.W.H.Myers("MindCure,FaithCureandtheMiraclesofLourdes")in theProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, vol. IX,1893-1894, pp. 160-209. There are also three excellent articles byCatholic physicians accessible: Doctor E. Mackey,Dublin Review,October, 1880,pp. 386-398;Doctor J.R.Gasquet,DublinReview,October,1894,pp.342-357;DoctorE.Berdoe,NineteenthCentury,October,1895,pp.614-618.

Endnotes:

NotestoLectureIV-IrvingiteGifts

1. EdinburghReview,vol.LIII,p.302.2. F.J.Snell,WesleyandMethodism,1900,p.157.3. "The Principles of aMethodist Farther Explained," etc., inWorks,

NewYork,1856,vol.V,p.328.4. "Iacknowledge,"hesays,"thatIhaveseenwithmyeyes,andheard

with my ears, several things which, to the best of my judgment,cannotbeaccountedforbyanordinarycourseofnaturalcauses;andwhichI thereforebelieveought tobe 'ascribed to theextraordinaryinterposition of God.' If anyman choose to style themmiracles, Ireclaimnot.Ihavediligentlyinquiredintothefacts,Ihaveweighedtheprecedingandfollowingcircumstances.Ihavestrovetoaccountfortheminanaturalway. . . . Icannotaccountfor(them) . . . inanaturalway.Therefore, Ibelieve theywere . . . supernatural." (Op.cit.,p.325.)OnWesley'singrainedsuperstitionandwonder-cravingproclivities, see the remarksbyL.Tyerman,TheLife andTimes oftheRev.JohnWesley,5 1880,I,pp.220ff.;andIsaacTaylor, therereferredto.

5. "ALettertotheRev.Dr.ConyersMiddleton;occasionedbyhis late'FreeInquiry,'"inWorks,ascited,vol.V,p.746.

6. Snell,ascited,pp.153f.7.Works, 1811, vol. VIII, pp. 322, 329. Cf. The Edinburgh Review,

January, 1831, p. 272, note. On Wesley's views on extraordinaryexercises, see Richard Watson, "Life of Rev. John Wesley," inWatson'sWorks, 1835, pp. 89 ff.; also Watson's observations onSouthey'sLife,pp.385ff.,421ff.

8. JohnLacy'sPropheticalWarnings, 1707, pp. 3, 31, 32, as cited byWilliam Goode, The Modern Claims to the Possession of theExtraordinaryGiftsoftheSpirit,StatedandExamined,etc.,secondedition, 1834, p. 194. Cf. pp. 188-189. Goode's account of "TheFrenchProphets"andsimilarphenomenaisveryinstructive.

9. Aninterestingaccountofpresent-day"Irvingism"willbefoundinanarticle by Erskine N. White in The Presbyterian and Reformed

Review,October, 1899, vol. X, pp. 624-635; see also the article bySamuelJ.Andrews,"CatholicApostolicChurch,"inTheNewSchaf-HerzogEncyclopediaofReligiousKnowledge,with its supplementbyTh.Kolde,andtheaddedbibliography.

10. TheCollectedWritingsofEdwardIrving,editedbyhisnephew,theReverendG.Carlyle,M.A. In five volumes,LondonandNewYork,1866,vol.V,pp.499ff.,532ff.

11. Chalmers himself says: "When Irving was associated with me atGlasgowhedidnot attract a large congregation, buthe completelyattached to himself and his ministry a limited number of personswith whoseminds his own was in affinity. I have often," he adds,"observedthiseffectproducedbymenwhosehabitsofthinkingandfeelingarepeculiaroreccentric.Theypossessamagneticattractionformindsassimilatedtotheirown."(WilliamHanna,MemoirsoftheLifeandWritingsofThomasChalmers,NewYork,1855,vol.III,pp.275-276.)C.KeganPaul(BiographicalSketches, 1883,p.8)puts itthus: "Though his labors from house to house were unceasing,thoughallbroughtfacetofacewithhimlovedhim,inthepulpithewas unrecognized. . . . A few looked on him with exceedingadmiration,butneitherthecongregationnorChalmershimselfgavehimcordialacceptance."InGlasgow,saysMrs.Oliphant(TheLifeofEdwardIrving,NewYork,1862,p.98),"Irvinglivedintheshade.""Itwasthenakindofdeliverance,"saysTh.Kolde(Herzog-Hauck,vol. IX, 1901, p. 425, lines 14 f), "when by the intermediation ofChalmers,hewaschosenin1822asministertothelittle(ithadthenabout fifty members) Scottish (so-called Caledonian) congregationwhichwasconnectedwithasmallScotchHospitalinHattonGarden,London."

12. Seesub.nom.intheDictionaryofNationalBiography.13. From1829to1833theypublishedaperiodical,TheMorningWatch,

aJournalofProphecy.14. J.A.Froude,LifeofCarlyle,1795-1835,vol.II,p.177.15. SeeMrs.Oliphant'sLife,p.302.16. Ibid.,pp.312,362.17. The writer of the sketch of Scott in the Dictionary of National

Biography thinksMrs.Oliphantdoeshiminjustice.Thereseemstobenogoodreasonforsothinking.Cf.whatDavidBrownsaysofhim.

TheExpositor,III,VT,pp.219,266.18. Fraser'sMagazine,January,1832,quotedbyMrs.Oliphant,P-363-19. Ibid.,p.363.20. Ibid.,p.365.21. Ibid.,p.378.22. Ibid.,p.379.23. Ibid.,p.363.24. Ibid.,p.379.25. Ibid., p. 381. It is perhaps worthmentioning that neither of these

youngwomenwas bedridden. Themiracle did not consist in theirliterallyrisingupfromtheirbeds.

26. Samuel J. Andrews, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia ofReligious Knowledge, vol. II, 457, thinks it worth while, in theinterest of the genuineness of the "gifts," to insist on their firstoccurrence in England apart from Irving's congregation. ThedeputationtoScotland,hewrites,"returnedfullyconvincedthattheutterancesweredivine. InMay, 1831, likeutteranceswereheard inLondon, the first in a congregationof theChurchofEngland.Thisbeing reported to the bishop, he forbade them in the future asinterfering with the service. Their occurrence in several dissentingcongregationsbroughtforthsimilarprohibitions,andthisledtotheutterances being made chiefly in the church of Edward Irving, hebeingabelieverintheirdivineorigin.ButtheywerenotconfinedtoLondon.AtBristol andother places the same spiritual phenomenaappeared."TheentiredriftofAndrews'saccountistorepresentthe"gifts"asthrustupon,ratherthanearnestlywooed,byIrvingandhisfellows. This Is wholly unhistorical. On Miss Fancourt's case, seeMrs. Oliphant, Life, etc., pp. 416, 561; it was the subject of acontroversy between The Morning Watch and The ChristianObserver, some account of which may be read in The EdinburghReview,June,1831(vol.LIII,pp.263ff.).Theopinionofthemedicalattendantswasthattherewasnothingmiraculousinthecure.Oneoftheiropinions(Mr.Travers's)issomodern,andaparallelcasewhichisinsertedinitissoinstructive,thatwetranscribethelatterpartofit. "A volume, and not an uninteresting one," we read, "might becompiledofhistoriesresemblingMissFancourt's.Thetruthis,theseare the cases upon which, beyond all others, the empiric thrives.

Credulity,thefoibleofaweakenedthoughvivaciousintellect,isthepioneer of an unqualified and overweening confidence, and thusprepared, the patient is in themost hopeful state of mind for thecreditaswellasthecraftofthepretender.This,however,Imentiononlybytheway,forthesakeofillustration.Ineednotexemplifythesudden and remarkable effects of joy, terror, anger, and otherpassions of the mind upon the nervous systems of confirmedinvalids, in restoring to them theuseofweakened limbs, etc.Theyareasmuchmattersofnotorietyasanyofthepropertiesandpowersofdirectremedialagentsrecordedinthehistoryofmedicine.Tociteone. A case lately fell undermy notice of a young lady,who, frominabilitytostandorwalkwithoutacutepaininherloins,layfornearatwelve-monthuponhercouch,subjectedtoavarietyoftreatmentby approved and not inexperienced members of the profession. Asinglevisitfromasurgeonofgreatfameinthemanagementofsuchcases set the patient uponher feet, andhis prescription amountedsimply toanassurance, in themostconfident terms, thatshemustdisregard the pain, and that nothing else was required for herrecovery, adding, that if she did not do so she would become anincurablecripple.Shefollowedhisdirectionsimmediately,andwithperfectsuccess.Butsuchandsimilarexampleseverymedicalmanofexperiencecouldcontributeinpartialconfirmationoftheoldadage,'Foi est tout.' Of all moral energies, I conceive that faith which isinspired by a religious creed to be the most powerful; and MissFancourt's case, there can be no doubt, was one of the manyinstancesofsuddenrecoveryfromapassiveformofnervousailment,brought about by the powerful excitement of this extraordinarystimulus, compared to which, in her predisposed state of mind,ammonia and quininewould have beenmere trifling." A curiouslysimilar instance to that given by Mr, Travers is adduced by adistinguished recent surgeon,Mr.GeorgeBuchanan, in illustratingwhathesawdoneatLourdes.ItisrecordedbytheMessrs.Myers,intheProceedingsoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch,vol.IX(1893-1894),pp.191fif.,andwehaveciteditthenceonapreviousoccasion.See above, pp. 218 ff.DoctorW.B.Carpenter, in an article inTheQuarterlyReview, vol.XCIII (1853), p. 513, directly refers toMissFancourt's case, and pronounces it a case of "hysterical" paralysis,

suchasiswellknowntobecurablebymentalmeans.27. Mrs.Oliphant,Life,p.420.28. Ibid.,p.417.29. Ibid.,p.418.30. TheExpositor,ThirdSeries,vol.VI(October,1887),268.31. Cf.whatIrvingsays,inMrs.Oliphant'sLife,p.418.32. For example, Mr. Pilkington's, printed in Mrs. Oliphant's Life, p.

424.33. Cf.Mrs.Oliphant'sLife,pp.448ff.34. RobertBaxter,NarrativeofFacts,CharacterizingtheSupernatural

ManifestationsinMembersofMr.Irving'sCongregation,andotherIndividuals in England and Scotland, and formerly in theWriterHimself, second edition, 1893 (April; the first edition had beenpublished in February of the same year). Mrs. Oliphant printsextractsfromBaxter'sNarrativeinherAppendixB,pp.562ff.

35. Baxter,op.cit.,p.118.36. Ascited,p.272.37. "Though Irving was the 'angel' of the church," writes Theo. Kolde

(TheNewSchaff-HetzogEncyclopediaofReligiousKnowledge,vol.VI,p.34),"thevoicesoftheprophetslefthimlittlehearing.Cardale,Drummond,andtheprophetTaplintooktheleadofthemovement,andtheneworganizationproceededrapidly,newfunctionarieswerecreated as the Spirit bade, on the analogy of the New Testamentindications, and presently there were six other congregations inLondon,formingwithIrving'sthecounterpartofthesevenchurchesof theApocalypse. Irving accepted thewhole development in faith,although he had conceived the Apostolic office as somethingdifferent which should not interfere with the independence ofhimselfasthe'angel.'Buthehadlostcontrolofthemovement,andthosewhonowled it lostnoopportunityofhumiliatingthemantowhose personality they had owed so much.When the sentence ofdepositionwasconfirmedby thePresbyteryofAnnan,and thenbytheScottishGeneralSynod,andhereturnedtoLondonstrongintheconsciousnessofhiscallofGodto theofficeofangelandpastorofthechurch,hewasnotallowedtobaptizeachild,butwastoldtowaituntil,onthebiddingoftheprophets,heshouldbeagainordainedbyan apostle. His health was now failing, and his physician ordered

him, in the autumn of 1834, to winter in the South. He went,however, to Scotland,where the prophets had promised him greatsuccessinthepoweroftheSpirit,anddiedinGlasgow,whereheisburiedinthecryptoftheCathedral."Thereareobviousslipsinthisaccount,dueapparently to the translator,butwe transcribe it as itstands.Onthematter,cf.Mrs.Oliphant'sLife,pp.527ff.

38. Mrs.Oliphant'sLife,p.505.39. C. Kegan Paul, as cited, pp. 29 ff., strongly protests against this

representation,citingMrs.Oliphant'saccount,andcontrovertingit."Thecongregation,"hewrites,"aftersomewanderings,foundrefugein a picture-gallery inNewman Street, their home formany years.Hereitwasthattheorganizationandceremoniesbegantosetasidethe old Presbyterian forms, and gain somewhat of Catholicmagnificence.Hereitwasthatbythevoiceofprophecysixapostleswere called out to rule the church before Mr. Irving's death. Mr.Irvingwasnotcalledasanapostle,norwasheaprophet,nordidhespeakwithtongues;butheremainedashehadeverbeen,thechiefpastor of the congregation, the Angel, as theminister in charge ofeach churchbegan tobe called.Hewasnot shelved in anydegree,norslighted,and though thedetailswhich tookplacewereorderedbyothersinprophecy,yetthewholewaswhathehadprayedforandforeseen, as necessary in his estimation to the perfection of thechurch. So in ordering and building up his people under, as itseemed to him, the immediate direction of theHoly Spirit, passedthe rest of that year."There isnothinghere inconsistentwithMrs.Oliphant's representation; it is the same thing looked at from adifferent angle. Paul, however, by adducing the dates, does show,that,asheputs it, "therewasnoperiodofmournfulsilenceduringwhich he waited to speak, nor was his recognition for a momentdoubtful."Fortherest,heonlyshowsthatIrvingkissedtherod.

40. The Brazen Serpent, p. 253, quoted in William Hanna, Letters ofThomas Erskine of Linlathen from 1800 till 1840, 1877, p. 183.ComparethesepassagesquotedonthesamepagefromOntheGiftsof the Spirit: "Whilst I see nothing in the Scripture against thereappearance, or rather the continuance ofmiraculous gifts in thechurch,butagreatdeal for it, Imust further say that I seeagreatdealof internalevidenceinthewestcountrytoprovetheirgenuine

miraculous character, especially in the speaking with tongues. . . .AfterwitnessingwhatIhavewitnessedamongthosepeople,Icannotthink of any person decidedly condemning them as impostors,without a feeling of great alarm. It certainly is not a thing to belightly or rashly believed, but neither is it a thing to be lightly orrashlyrejected.IbelievethatitisofGod."

41. Hanna,ascited,p.218;cf.p.220.42. Hanna,ascited,p.209:"IthinkthatImentionedtoLadyMatildaat

Cadder the circumstance that shook me with regard to theMacdonalds at Port Glasgow, that in two instances when JamesMacdonaldspokewithremarkablepower,apoweracknowledgedbyall the other gifted people there, I discovered the seed of hisutterancesinthenewspapers....AndIputittohim;andalthoughhehad spoken inperfect integrity (of that I havenodoubt) yet hewassatisfiedthatmyconjectureastoitsoriginwascorrect....Ithusseehowthingsmaycomeintothemindandremainthere,andthencomeforthassupernaturalutterances,althoughtheiroriginbequitenatural. JamesMacdonald could not say that he was conscious ofanything in these two utterances distinguishing them from all theothers; but only said that he believed these two were of the flesh.Taplinmadea similar confessiononbeing reprovedbyMissEmilyCardale for having rebuked Mr. Irving in an utterance. Heacknowledgedthathewaswrong;andyethecouldnotsaywherethedifferencelaybetweenthatutteranceandanyother."

43. Hanna,ascited,p.204.Headds:"Thisdoesnotchangemymindasto what the endowment of the church is, if she had faith, but itchangesmeastothepresentestimatethatIformofhercondition."

44. InMarch,1834,afterhearinginEdinburgh"theutterances"throughCardaleandDrummond,hespeaksofhisscepticismregardingthem,despite his agreement (except in two instances) with the matterdelivered in them, and the pleasingness of their form. "The shakewhichIhavereceivedonthismatter,"hewrites(Hanna,ascited,p.209),"is,Ifindverydeep;orratheritwouldbeatruerexpressionofmyfeelingstosaythatIamnowconvincedthatIneverdidactuallybelieveit."Headds:"Myconvictionthatthegiftsoughttobeinthechurch is not in the least degree touched, but a faith in any oneinstance of manifestation which I have witnessed, like the faith

whichIhaveintherighteousnessandfaithfullnessofGod,IamsureIhavenotandneverhavehad,asfarasIcanjudgeonlookingback—thatis,theonlytruefaith,even'thesubstanceofthingshopedfor.'"

45. Hanna,ascited,p.233:"JamesMacdonaldistobeburiedto-dayatone o'clock. . . . This event has recalled many things to myremembrance.Ilivedinthehousewiththemforsixweeks,Ibelieve,andI found thema familyunited toGodand toeachother.Jamesespecially was an amiable and clean character, perfectly true. Andthosemanifestations which I have so oftenwitnessed in himwereindeed most wonderful things and most mighty, and yet—I amthoroughlypersuaded—delusive."ThiswaswrittenFebruary6,1835.George Macdonald died the year following—both of consumption,thediseasewhichcarriedoffIsabellaCampbell,andfromwhichbothMary Campbell and Margaret Macdonald were supposed to besufferingwhentheywere"healed."

46. P.279.47. P.304.48. LifeofStoryofRosneath,byhisson,p.231,note,quotedbyHenry

F.Henderson,TheReligiousControversiesofScotland,1905,p.126.49. Scottish Divines 1505-1872, etc., 1883, being a series of "St. Giles

Lectures,"LectureVII,EdwardIrving,byR.HerbertStory,p.254.50. Henderson, as cited, p. 126. "Story concluded by confessing,"

continues Henderson, "that he had greatly sinned in not exposingherearlier,buthehadbeenrestrainedfromdoingthisbyfeelingsofaffection.WhatchangethislettermighthavewroughtonIrvinghadhe received itwecannot tell.ProbablynotevenStory's voice couldhavenowrecalledhim."MaryCampbellhadin1831marriedayoungclerk inawriter'soffice inEdinburgh,of thenameofW.R.Caird,andwasresidingatAlbury(notwithout interruptions for journeys)as the guest of Henry Drummond; she died in 1840 (see EdwardMiller,TheHistoryandDoctrinesofIrvingism,1878,vol.I,pp.58ff.).Caird,whowasactingasalay-evangelist,undertookin1841anIrvingistmission in southGermany, and in i860was raised to the"apostolic"office.Onthe27thofJanuary,1832,IrvingwrotetoStoryannouncing the new developments which had been introduced byBaxter,andconcludingwiththeremarkableappeal:"Oh,Story,thouhastgrievouslysinnedinstandingafarofffromtheworkoftheLord,

scanning it like a skeptic insteadofproving it like a spiritualman!Ah!brother,repent,andtheLordwillforgivethee!"Tothisletter,asapostscript,headdsthissingleunprepared-forline:"Mrs.CairdisasaintofGod,andhaththegiftofprophecy."Wecannotmisstheairofdefiantassertion,orfailtoreadbehinditafeelingoftheneedofsomething in Mrs. Caird's defense. Mrs. Oliphant (p. 450) justlycomments: "The sentence of approval pronounced with so muchdecisionandbrevityattheconclusionofthisletteraddressedtohimwasIrving'smannerofavoidingcontroversy,andmakinghisfriendaware that, highly as he esteemed himself, he could hear nothingagainst the other, whose character had received the highest of allguarantees to his unquestioning faith." The cause of Irvingite giftswasindeedboundupinonebundlewiththetrustworthinessofMaryCampbell'smanifestations.ThomasBayne,writingonRobertStory,in the Dictionary of National Biography (vol. LIV, p. 430),condensesthestorythus:"In1830hisparishioner,MaryCampbell,professed to have received the 'gift of tongues,' and though Storyexposed her imposture, she found disciples in London, and wascreditedbyEdwardIrving,theninthemaelstromofhisimpassionedfanaticism.On thebasisofherpredictionsarose the 'HolyCatholicApostolicChurch'(seeCarlyle,Life,II,204)."

51. Hanna,ascited,p.209.52. P.213.53. Thenearesthecametoitseemstobeexpressedinthesentence(p.

208):"Ihaveawitnesswithinmewhich,Iamconscious,triestruth;butIdonotknowawitnesswithinmewhichtriespower."Withthisinner infallible sense compare Mrs. Eddy's assertion (ChristianScienceHistory,ed.i,p.16):"Ipossessaspiritualsenseofwhatthemaliciousmental practitioner ismentally arguingwhich cannot bedeceived; I candiscern in thehumanmind thoughts,motives, andpurposes; and neither mental arguments nor psychic power canaffect this spiritual insight." An infallible spiritual insight is adangerous thing to lay claim to, and what we take to be itsdeliveranceastillmoredangerousthingtofollow.

54. Pp.507ff.55. Erskine in his tract.On the Gifts of theHoly Spirit, 1830, writes:

"For the languages are distinct, well-inflected, well-compacted

languages; they are not random collections of sounds, they arecomposedofwordsofvariouslengths,withthenaturalvariety,andyetpossessing that commonnessof characterwhichmarks them tobeonedistinctlanguage.Ihaveheardmanypeoplespeakgibberish,butthisisnotgibberish,itisdecidedlywell-compactedlanguage."—(QuotedinHanna,Chalmers,vol.Ill,p.253;Erskine,p.392.)

56. As quoted in The Edinburgh Review, June, 1831, p. 275: "Thetonguesspokenbyalltheseveralpersonswhohavereceivedthegiftare perfectly distinct in themselves, and from each other. J,Macdonald speaks two tongues, both easily discernible from eachother.Ieasilyperceivedwhenhewasspeakingintheone,andwhenintheothertongue.J.Macdonaldexerciseshisgiftmorefrequentlythan any of the others; and I have heard him speak for twentyminutestogether,withalltheenergyofactionandvoiceofanoratoraddressing his audience. The language which he then, and indeedgenerally, uttered is very full and harmonious, containing manyGreekandLatinradicals,andwithinflectionsalsomuchresemblingthose of the Greek language. I also frequently noticed that heemployed the same radical with different inflections; but I do notremembertohavenoticedhisemployingtwowordstogether,bothofwhich,astorootandinflection,Icouldpronouncetobelongtoanylanguage with which I am acquainted. G. Macdonald's tongue isharsher in its syllables, butmore grand in general expression. Theonly time I everhada seriousdoubtwhether theunknownsoundswhichIheardontheseoccasionswerepartsofalanguage,waswhentheMacdonalds' servant spoke during the first evening.When shespoke on subsequent occasions, it was invariably in one tongue,whichnotonlywasperfectlydistinctfromthesoundssheutteredatthefirstmeeting,butwassatisfactorilyestablishedtomyconviction,tobea language." "Oneof thepersons thusgifted,weemployedasourservantwhileatPortGlasgow.Sheisaremarkablyquiet,steady,phlegmaticperson,entirelydevoidofforwardnessorofenthusiasm,and with very little to say for herself in the ordinary way. Thelanguagewhich she spokewasasdistinct as theothers; and inhercase,asintheothers(withtheexceptionsIhavebeforementioned),itwasquiteevidenttoahearerthatthelanguagespokenatonetimewasidenticalwiththatspokenatanothertime."Perhapsitoughtto

beaddedthatwhenMaryCampbell'swritten-tongue(forshewroteas well as spoke) was submitted to the examination of Sir GeorgeStaunton and Samuel Lee, they pronounced it no tongue at all(Hanna,Chalmers,vol.III,p.266).

57. Mrs.Oliphant,Life,p.430.58. Ibid.59. Ibid.,p.431-60. Ibid.61. Reminiscences,p.252.62. The British Weekly, January 18, 1889. We have purposely drawn

thesedescriptionsfromthemoresympatheticsources.Wemustadd,however, that the more competent the observer was the lessfavorablewastheimpressionmadeuponhim.J.G.Lockhartwritesto "Christopher North," in 1824 (Christopher North, AMemoir ofJohnWilson, by his daughter, Mrs. Gordon. Am. ed., New York,1863,p.271):"Irving,youmaydependuponit,isapurehumbug.Hehasaboutthreegoodattitudes,andthelowernotesofhisvoicearesuperb,witha finemanlytremulationthatsetswomenmad,astheroarofanoblebulldoesafieldofkine;butbeyondthisheisnothing,reallynothing.Hehasno sortof real earnestness; feeble,pumped-up,boisterous,overlaidstuffishisstaple;heisnomoreaChalmersthanisaJeffrey."ThatisavignettefromacompetenthandofIrvingasapreacher, in the first flushofhispopularity inLondon—beforethearrivalofthe"gifts."Andhere,now,isafull-lengthportrait,fromanequallycompetenthand,ofaservicetenyearsafterwards(springof1833),atNewmanStreet.ItistakenfromtheintimatejournalofJosephAddisonAlexander (TheLifeof JosephAddisonAlexander,D.D.,byHenryCarringtonAlexander,NewYork,1870,vol.I,pp.289ff.): "Afterbreakfast,havinglearnedthatEdwardIrvingwastoholdameetingathalf-pasteleven,weresolvedtogo;butwithoutexpectingtohearthetongues,astheyhavenotbeenaudibleoflate.Mr.Nott,who had called before breakfast, conducted us to Newman Street,whereIrvingisestablishedsinceheleftthehouseinRegentSquare.Aswewalkedalongwesawa ladybeforeusarminarmwitha tallmaninblackbreeches,abroad-brimmedhat,andblackhairhangingdownhisshoulders.This,Mr.Nott informedus,wasIrvinghimself

withhiscarasposa.Wefollowedthemtothedoorof thechapel inNewmanStreet,whereMr.Nottleftus,andwewentin.Thechapelisaroomofmoderatesize,seatedwithplainwoodenbenches,likeourrecitationrooms.Theendoppositetheentranceissemicircular,andfilled with amphitheatrical seats. In front of these there is a largearch,and immediatelybeneath itareading-desk intheshapeofanaltar, with a large arm-chair beside it. From this point there areseveralstepsdescendingtowardthebodyofthehouse,onwhicharechairs for the elders of the church. I mention these particularsbecause I think the pulpit and its appendages extremely wellcontrivedforsceniceffects.... "Soon after we were seated, the chairs below the pulpit wereoccupied by several respectablemen, one of them quite handsomeandwelldressed.Anothermanandawomantooktheirseatsuponthebenchesbehind.Whileweweregazingatthese,weheardaheavytrampalongtheaisle,andthenextmomentIrvingwalkeduptothealtar, opened theBible, andbeganat once to read.Hehas anoblefigure,andhis featuresarenotugly,withtheexceptionofanawfulsquint. His hair is parted right and left, and hangs down on hisshouldersinaffecteddisorder.Hisdressislaboriouslyold-fashioned—ablackquakercoatandsmallclothes.Hisvoiceisharsh,butlikeatrumpet;ittakesholdofone,andcannotbeforgotten.Hisgreataimappearedtobetovaryhisattitudesandappearatease.Hebegantoread in a standing posture, but had scarcely finished half a dozenverses when he dropped into the chair and sat while he read theremainder. He then stepped forward to the point of his stage,droppedonhiskneesandbegantoprayinavoiceofthunder;mostofthepeoplekneelingfairlydown.AttheendoftheprayerhereadtheSixty-sixthPsalm,and Inowperceived thathis selectionsweredesigned to have a bearing on the persecutions of his people andhimself. The chapter from Samuel was that relating to Shimei.Hethen gave out the Sixty-sixth Psalm in verse; which was sungstanding,verywell,Irvinghimselfjoininginwithamightybass.Hethen began to read the Thirty-ninth of Exodus, with an allegoricalexposition,afterashortprayer fordivineassistance.Theouchesofthe breast- plate he explained to mean the rulers of the church.Whilehewasdealingthisout,hewasinterruptedinamannerrather

startling.Ihadobservedthattheelderswhosatnearhimkepttheireyesraisedtotheskylightoverhead,asifwooinginspiration.Oneinparticularlookedverywild.Hisfacewasflushed,andheoccasionallyturned up thewhite of his eyes in an ominous style. For themostpart,however,hiseyeswereshut.JustasIrvingreachedthepointIhavementionedandwasexplainingtheouches,thiselder. . .burstoutinasortofwildejaculation,thus,'Taranti-hoiti-faragmi-santi'(Idonotpretendtorecollectthewords);'Oyepeople—yepeopleoftheLord, ye have not the ouches—ye have not the ouches—ha-a-a; yemust have them—ye must have them—ha-a-a; ye cannot hear—yecannothear.' This lastwas spoken in a pretty loudwhisper, as theinspirationdiedawaywithinhim.Whenhebegan,Irvingsuspendedhis exposition and covered his facewith his hands.As soon as thevoiceceased,heresumedthethreadofhisdiscourse,tillthe'tongue'brokeoutagain'inunknownstrains.'Afterthesehadagaincometoanend,Irvingkneltandprayed,thankingGodforlookinguponthepovertyanddesolationofhischurchamidstherpersecutions.Afterhehadfinishedandarisenfromhisknees,hedroppeddownagain,saying, 'onesupplicationmore,'or 'onethanksgivingmore.'Henowproceeded to implore the Divine blessing on the servant who hadbeen ordained as a prophet in the sight of the people. After thissupplementaryprayer,hestoodup,askedablessinginafewwords,andbegantoreadinthesixthJohnaboutfeedingonChrist'sflesh.Inthecourseofhisremarkshesaid:'ThepriestsandchurchesinourdayhavedeniedtheSaviour'sflesh,andthereforecannotfeeduponhim.' He then prayed again (with genuflexion), after which hedropped into his chair, covered his face with his hands, and said,'Hear nowwhat the elders have to say to you.'No soonerwas thissignal given than the 'tongue' begananew, and for severalminutesuttered a flat and silly rhapsody, charging the church withunfaithfulnessandrebukingittherefor.The'tongue'havingfinished,anelderwhosatabovehimrose,withBibleinhand,andmadeadrybutsoberspeechaboutfaith, inwhichtherewasnothing,Ibelieve,outré.Thehandsome,well-dressedman,whomIhavementioned,atIrving's left hand, now rose and came forward with his Bible. Hisfirstwordswere, 'Your sinswhich aremany are forgiven you.'Hisdiscoursewasincoherent,thoughnotwild,andhadreferencetothe

persecutionof the church.The lastpreacheron theoccasionwasadecent,ministerial-lookingmaninblack,whodiscoursedononenesswithChrist.ApaperwasnowhandedtoIrving,whichhelookedat,andthenfelluponhisknees.InthemidstofhisprayerhetookthepaperandreadittotheLord,ashewouldhavereadanotice.Itwasathanksgiving by Harriet Palmer for the privilege of attending ontheseservicesto-day.Aftertheprayer,theysangaPsalm,andthenthemeetingwasdismissedbybenediction.Theimpressionmadeonmy mind was one of unmingled contempt. Everything which fellfromIrving'slipswaspurelyflatandstupid,withoutasingleflashofgenius, or the slightest indication of strength or even vivacity ofmind.Iwasconfirmedinmyformerlowopinionofhim,foundedonhiswritings. . . .Dr.CoxandI flatteredourselves thatheobservedus,andpreachedatus.Isawhimpeepingthroughhisfingersseveraltimes,andIsupposehewasnotgratifiedtoseeusgazingsteadfastlyat him all the time, for he took occasion to tell the people that itwouldprofitthemnothingwithoutthecircumcisionoftheear.Thishe defined to be the putting away of all impertinent curiosity andprofane inquisitiveness—allgazingandprying into themysteriesofGod,andallmaliciousreportingofhisdoingsinthechurch."

63. RobertBaxter,NarrativeofFacts,ed.2,1833,p.xxviii;cf.C.KeganPaul,op.cit.,p.29,asaboveinnote39.

64. Baxter,ascited.65. Baxter,op.cit.,p.133.66. Baxter,op.cit.,p.95.67. CanthemindhelpgoingbacktothevividdescriptionwhichIrenćus

gives us of how Marcus the Magician made his women prophesy(Irenćus,Adv.Hćr.,I,13,3)?"Behold,"hewouldsayafterritesandceremonies had been performed fitted to arouse to greatexpectations,"gracehasdescendeduponthee;openthymouthandprophesy!" "But when the woman would reply, ' I have neverprophesied anddonot knowhow!' hewould begin afreshwith hisincantationssoastoastonishthedeludedvictim,andcommandheragain,'Openthymouth,andspeakwhateveroccurstotheeandthoushaltprophesy.'Shethen,vainlypuffedupandelatedbythesewordsand greatly excited by the expectation of prophesying, her heartbeatingviolently,reachestherequisitepitchofaudacity,andidlyas

well as impudentlyutters somenonsense as it happens tooccur toher,suchasmightbeexpectedfromoneheatedbyanemptyspirit.Andthenshereckonsherselfaprophetess."

68. Henderson,op.cit.,p.125.69. The literatureonEdward Irvingand Irvingismwillbe foundnoted

with sufficient fulness inThe New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia ofReligiousKnowledge, vol. II, p. 459, and vol.VI, p. 34; andat thehead of the article on Irving in Herzog-Hauck. The primaryliterature on the Scotchmovement is given in the footnotes to thebrief accountof it insertedbyWilliamHannaatpp. 175-183ofhisLetters of ThomasErskine of Linlathen from 1800 till 1845, 1877.Foranalmostworld-widerecentrecurrenceofphenomenasimilartothe Irvingite "gifts," especially "speaking with tongues," see theinforming article of FrederickG.Henke, "TheGift of Tongues andRelatedPhenomenaatthePresentDay,"inTheAmericanJournalofTheology,April,1909,XIII,2,pp.193-206.Henkegivesreferencesto the primary literature. For a first-hand account of some relatedphenomena inconnectionwithagreatrevival inKentucky in1801-1803, see the letter of Thomas Cleland on "Bodily Affectionsproduced by Religious Excitement," printed in The BiblicalRepertory and Princeton Review for 1834, vol. VI, pp. 336 ff.;referencestofurtherfirst-handaccountsoftheKentuckyphenomenaare given byWilliam A. Hammond,M.D., Spiritualism and AlliedCausesandConditionsofNervousDerangement, 1876,pp.232 ff.See also Catherine C. Cleaveland, The Great Revival in the West,1795-1805, 1916. The judicious remarks of CharlesHodge on "TheDisorders Attending the Great Revival of 1740-1745," in his TheConstitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the UnitedStatesofAmerica,1857,vol.II,pp.65ff.,shouldbereadalongwiththe account of them given by Jonathan Edwards. On the physicalaccompaniments of John Wesley's preaching at Bristol, chiefly in1739, see an account in Tyerman,The Life and Times of the Rev.JohnWesley,51880,vol.I,pp,255-270.Comparenote7,onp.288.

Endnotes:

NotestoLectureV-Faith-Healing

1. TheNaturalHistory of Immortality, by JosephWilliamReynolds,M.A., rector of St. Anne and St. Agnes with St. John Zachary,GreshamSt.,London,andprebendaryofSt.Paul'sCathedral,1891,p.286.

2. ThesefactsaretakenfromapaperbyR.KeisoCarter,TheCenturyMagazine,March,1887,vol.XI,p.780.

3. P.13.4. January,1884;vol.V,p.49.5. How natural this attitude is, in the circumstances, is interestingly

illustratedbyitsappearanceevenamongthepre-ChristianJews.A.Schlatter, in his Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, 1885, whendiscussing the conception of faith in the synagogue, remarks uponthetendencywhichshoweditselftopushthedutyoffaith(forfaithwasconceivedinthesynagogueasaduty,andthereforeasawork)toextremes.TheJerusalemTargumonGen.40:23blamesJosephforaskingthechiefbutlertorememberhim;heshouldhavedependedon God's grace alone. Any one who, having food for to-day, asks,WhatamItoeat?failsinfaith(Tanch.,fol.29,4).Allmeansaretobe excluded. He then continues (pp. 46 ff.): "Philo blames theemploymentofaphysicianaslackoffaith;ifanythingagainsttheirwill befalls doubters, they flee, because they do not believe in ahelpingGod,tothesourcesofhelpwhichtheoccurrencesuggests—tophysicians,simples,physics,correctdiet;toalltheaidsofferedtoadyingrace;and,ifanyonesuggeststothem.Fleeinyourmiseriestothesolephysicianoftheillsofthesoul,andleavetheaidsfalselyso-calledtothecreaturesubjectedtosuffering,theylaugh,andscoff,andsay.GoodMorrow!—andareunwillingtofleetoGodiftheycanfind anything to protect them from the coming evil; to be sure, ifnothingthatmandoessufficesbuteverything,eventhemosthighlyesteemed, shows itself injurious, then they renounce in theirperplexity thehelpofothers,and flee,compelled, thecowards, lateand with difficulty, to God, the sole Saviour (De Sacrifici Abel,Mang.,I,176,23ff.).InthisPhilodoesnotexpressanideapeculiarto himself; the Son of Sirach, xxxviii, i ff., shows that in thePalestinianSynagoguealso,fromofold,thequestionwasdiscussed,

whether the help of a physicianwas to be sought in sickness: 'TheLordhascreatedmedicinesoutoftheearth,andhethatiswisewillnotabhorthem;wasnotthewatermadesweetwithawordthatthevirtue thereofmightbeknown? . . .Myson, in thy sicknessbenotnegligent; but pray unto the Lord and He will make thee whole.Leaveofffromsinandorderthyhandsaright,andcleansethyheartfromallwickedness;giveasweetsavorandamemorialoffineflour,and make a fat offering, as not being. Then give place to thephysician,fortheLordhascreatedHim;lethimnotgofromthee,forthouhastneedofhim.Thereisatimewhenintheirhandsthereisgoodsuccess, for theyshallalsoprayuntotheLord, thatHewouldprosper that which they give, for ease and remedy to prolong life'(38:4f.,9ff.).Sickness,asajudicialintrusionofGodintothelifeofman,presupposessinandcallsthereforethesicktorepentanceandsacrifice;nevertheless,forthecoolintellectoftheSonofSirach,thisdoes not exclude the use of a physician; but the way in which heexpresslyplacesmedicalhelpinconnectionwithGod'sworking,andalsocallstheScripturestowitnessforit,showsthathehadbeforehiseyes religious doubts against it, thoughts, as Philo expresses them,thatastrongerfaithwouldturnonlytoGod."

6. P.193.7. Jellett,EfficacyofPrayer,p.41.8. P.193.9. Op.cit.,p.303.10. MedicineandtheChurch,editedbyGeoffreyRhodes,1910,pp.209

ff.11. InauguralAddress,1891,ed.2,p.37.12. ThatourLord'smiraclesofhealingwerecertainlynotfaith-cures,as

ithasbecomefashionableamongthe"Modernists"torepresent,hasbeensolidlyshownbyDoctorR.J.Ryle,"TheNeuroticTheoryoftheMiracles ofHealing,"TheHibbert Journal, April, 1907, vol. V, pp.572ff.

13. Seep.41.14. Loc.cit.,p.68.15. Of course this implication of the passage is not neglected by

interestedparties.WefindforexampleC.H.LeainhisAPleafor...ChristianScience,1915,pp.57-58,writing,onthesuppositionofthe

genuineness of this passage quite justly: "All ChristendombelievesthatHegaveHisfollowers—notonlythoseofHisowntimebutofallsucceedingtime—theinjunctiontopreachtheGospelandtohealthesick.Now,thegivingoftheinjunctionclearlyanddefinitelyimplies.. .thatthemarkofone'sbeingaChristianisthathehas,orshouldhave,thisknowledgeandthecorrespondingpowertoheal."

16. Seeabove,p.22.17. Op.cit.,pp.22fif.18. Pp.52ff.19. Ihavebrieflystatedtheevidenceforthespuriousnessofthepassage

inAnIntroduction to theTextualCriticismof theNewTestament,1886,pp.199ff.ButseeespeciallyF.J.A.Hort,TheNewTestamentintheOriginalGreek,Introduction,Appendix,1881,pp.28ff.oftheAppendix.

20. ThepassagesbetweeninvertedcommasmaybefoundinGordon,op.cit.,pp.29,31,33,34.

21. ScienceetReligion,p.189.22. Wesaytwo;forathird,suggestedasapossiblealternativebyJohn

Lightfoot(Works,8vols,ed.,vol.III,p.316),doesnotappeartouspossible, viz., that the reference is to a common Jewish custom ofanointing, in connection with the use of charms, to heal the sick.Lightfoot quotes the Jerusalem Talmud (Shab., fol. 14, col. 3): "Amanthatonecharmeth,heputtethoiluponhisheadandcharmeth."His comment is: "Now, this being a common,wretched custom, toanointsomethatweresick,andtousecharmingwiththeanointing—thisapostle,seeinganointingwasanordinaryandgoodphysic,andthegooduseofitnottobeextinguishedforthatabuse—directsthembetter:namely,togettheeldersorministersofthechurchtocometothesickandtoaddtothemedicinalanointingofhimtheirgodlyandferventprayersforhim,farmoreavailableandcomfortablethanallcharming and enchanting, as well as far more warrantable andChristian."

23. Oil was a remedy in constant use, notably for wounds (Isaiah 1:6;Luke 10:34),but also for themost extendedvarietyofdiseases. Itsmedicinal qualities are commended by Philo (Somn. M., I, 666),Pliny(N.H.,23:34-50),andGalen(Med.Temp.,Bk. II).Comparethenote of J.B.Mayor,TheEpistle of James,1 1892, p. 158. John

Lightfoot gives (vol. III, p. 315) some apposite passages from theTalmud. His comment seems to be thoroughly justified (p. 316):"Nowifwetaketheapostle'scounseltobereferringtothismedicinalpractice, we may construe it that he would have this physicaladministration to be improved to the best advantage; namely that,whereas'anointingwithoil'wasordinarilyusedtothesick,bywayofphysic—he adviseth that they should send for the elders of thechurchtodoit;notthattheanointingwasanymoreintheirhandsthaninanother's,astothethingitself,foritwasstillbutaphysicalapplication—butthattheywiththeapplyingofthiscorporealphysic,might also pray with and for the patient, and supply the spiritualphysicofgoodadmonitionandcomfortstohim.Whichismuchthesameas if inournation,where thisphysical anointing isnot so inuse, a sick person should send for the minister at taking of anyphysic,thathemightpraywithhim,andcounselandcomforthim."

24. The sacrament of extreme unction, grounded on this text on theunderstanding that the anointing was intended in a ceremonialsense, has oddly enough (since the primary promise of the text isbodilyhealing)becomeinthechurchofRome,thesacramentofthedying. According to the Council of Trent (14th session) it is to beesteemed as totius Christianć vitć consummativum; according toThomasAquinas,itistheultimumetquodammodoconsummativumtotiusspiritualiscurationis(Cont.Gent.,14,c.73).ItisaccordingtotheCouncilofTrenttobegivenespeciallytothosewhoseemtobeinperil of death, unde et sacramentum exeuntium nuncupatur. Itseffects are described (reversing the implications of the passage inJames)asprimarilyspiritualhealing,andonlysecondarilyandsolelyin subordination to the spiritual healing, bodily healing. Bodilyhealing, therefore, only very occasionally results from it. As J. B.Heinrichexplains(DogmatischeTheologie,X,1904,p.225):"Sinceit is generally more profitable, and more in accordance with thedivine dispositions, for Christians in articulo orpericulomortis totakethelaststep,thantoresumethebattleof lifeagainforatime,thereordinarilyfollowsnohealing."SeeingeneraltheexpositionofthedoctrinebyHeinrichascited,pp.197ff.Thepopularexpositionsfollow the scientific, but often with some ameliorations. "ExtremeUnction,"we read in one of themostwidely usedmanuals for the

instruction of English Catholics, "was instituted by our Lord tostrengthenthedying,intheirpassageoutofthisworldintoanother"(AManual of Instructions in ChristianDoctrine, published by theSt. Anselm's Society, London, and having the imprimatur ofCardinals Wiseman and Manning, p. 363). Even in this Manual,however, the provision of the passage in St. James is not whollyforgotten.Weread(p.365):"IfGodseesitexpedient,thissacramentrestoresbodilyhealth. . . .Somepersonsareanxious toputoff thereceptionofExtremeUnctiontothelastmoment,becausetheyseemtoregarditasapreludetocertaindeath;whileintruth,ifithadbeenreceived earlier it might have led to their recovery. It cannot bedoubted thatmiraculous cures are sometimes effected by ExtremeUnction; but the beneficial effects which it generally exercises onbodily health are produced in an indirect way. The grace of thesacramentsoothesthesoul,lessensthefearofdeath,andbringsonsuch calmandpeace ofmind as often to lead to the restoration ofhealth.IfGodbepleasedtoworkadirectmiracleitisnevertoolateforHimtodoso;butifthesacramentistoactasanaturalremedy,indirectly restoring health in the way just explained, it must bereceived in due time, otherwise, like ordinary remedies, it will notproduce itseffects." InasimilarspiritDeharbe'sCatechism(AFullCatechismof theCatholicReligion, translated from theGermanoftheReverendJosephDeharbe,S.J.,...revised,enlarged,andeditedbytheRightReverendP.N.Lynch,D.D.,bishopofCharleston,1891,pp. 296, 297), after declaring that ExtremeUnction "often relievesthe pains of the sick person, and sometimes restores him even tohealth,ifitbeexpedientforthesalvationofhissoul,"asks:"Isitnotunreasonable for a person, from fear of death, to defer, or evenneglect,thereceivingofExtremeUnctionuntilheismoribund?"andreplies:"Certainly;for(1)ExtremeUnctionhasbeeninstitutedevenfor the health of the body; (2) The sick person will recover moreprobably,ifheemploysintimetheremedyordainedbyGod,thanifhewaitsuntilhecannot recoverexceptbyamiracle;and (3) Ifhissicknessbemortalwhat shouldhewish formoreearnestly than todie happy, which this holy sacrament gives him grace to do?" "AsmanyofthosesickpersonswhowereanointedbytheApostleswerehealed," we read in The Catechumen2 by J. G. Wenham, 1892, p.

358,"sothisisoftentheeffectofthissacramentnow—thatthosethatreceive it obtain fresh force and vigor, and recover from theirillness." Although, therefore, Extreme Unction is "given to us inpreparationfordeath," it isordinarilyexplained, indeferenceto itsbiblicalfoundation-passage,as(asBellarimineputsit,followingthelanguage of theCouncil of Trent) "also assisting in the recovery ofbodily health, if that should be useful to the health of the soul."FatherW.Humphrey,S.J.,TheOneMediator,ed.2,1894,chap,vii,explainsthemattermorestrictlyinaccordancewiththeauthoritativedeclaration of Trent thus: "Hence one end, and that the principalend, of this sacrament is to strengthen and to comfort the dyingman....AnotherandasecondaryendoftheSacramentofExtremeUnction isproximately todispose andprepare theparting soul forthenewlifeinwhichit isabouttoenter. . . .ThereisathirdandacontingentendofExtremeUnction,andthatisthebodilyhealingofthe sick man under certain conditions." On the origin of thisteachingandthehistoryoftheriteofExtremeUnction,seeFatherF.W. Puller, The Anointing of the Sick in Scripture and Tradition,London, Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1904;and cf. Percy Dearmer, Body and Soul,9 1912, pp. 217 ff. ThemovementformingnowadaysintheAnglicanchurches,withaviewto"therestorationtotheChurchoftheScripturalPracticeofDivineHealing,"alsobasesthe"office"ofanointing.whichItproposes,onJames5:14,15.See,forexample,F.W.Puller,AnointingoftheSick,1904,chap,ix;PercyDearmer,BodyandSoul,91912,esp.chap,xxix,withAppendixiii;HenryB.Wilson,B.D.,TheRevivaloftheGiftofHealing, Milwaukee, The Young Churchman Company, 1914. Mr.Wilsonisthedirectorofthe"SocietyoftheNazarene,"andwritesinits interest, printing also suitable prayers and an office for theanointingof the sick.His contention is that the gift of healingwasneverwithdrawnfromthechurch,andthatthechurchmustrecover"hertherapeuticministry"bymeansofthisformalritualact.SeealsoMr. Wilson's later book,Does Christ Still Heal? New York, E. P.Dutton&Co.,1917.

25. It is sometimes suggested that a miraculous healing is promisedindeed,butthatthispromiseappliedonlytothosemiraculousdays,andisnolongertobeclaimed.EvenJ.B.Mayor,TheEpistleofSt.

James,1 1892, p. 218, appears to lean to this view; and it seems tohave never been without advocates among leading Protestants.LutherwritestotheElectorofBrandenburg,December4,1539(MissCurrie's translationofLuther'sLetters,p.378): "ForChristdidnotmakeanointingwithoilaSacrament,nordoSt.James'swordsapplyto the present day. For in those days the sick were often curedthroughamiracleandtheearnestprayeroffaith,asweseeinJamesand Mark 6." Thorndike (Works, vol. VI, p. 65, Oxford edition)writes: "This is laid aside in all the reformed churches uponpresumptionofcommonsense,thatthereasonisnolongerinforce,beingordained,asyousee,torestorehealthbythegraceofmiraclesthatnomoreexist."J.A.Hessey(Sunday,1860,p.42)agreeswithThorndike.Neverthelesstheviewwillscarcelyapproveitself.

26. Op.cit.,p.277.ThisisthewaythecommonsenseofMartinLuthermetthequestionoftheuseofremediesindisease:"Ourburgomasterasked me whether it was against God's will to use medicine, forCarlstadtpubliclypreached that the sick shouldnotusedrugs, butshouldonlypray toGodthatHiswillbedone. Inreply Iasked theburgomasterifheatewhenhewashungry,andwhenheansweredintheaffirmative, I said, 'Youmay thenusemedicine,which isGod'screatureasmuchasfood,drink,andotherbodilynecessities.'"—(TheLifeandLettersofMartinLuther.ByPreservedSmith,Ph.D.,1911,pp.327-328.)

27. "JelepansayetDieuleguarit,"quotedbyA.T.Schofield,TheForceofMind,1908,p.176.

28. TheNewChurchReview,vol.XV,1908,pp.415f.29. ForexamplePercyDearmer,BodyandSoul,91912,pp.174f.,calmly

sets the "naturemiracles" aside as "quite exceptional occurrences,"anddeclares that itmaybesafelyassumedthat"itwasnot tosuchexceptionaloccurrencesthatChristwasherereferring."OnthebasisofMark6:7;Luke9:1,10:1,andthenatureofthemiraclesrecordedinActs, he asserts that "itmust have been clearly understood thatChrist did not commissionHis disciples to exercise authority overthepowersofnature."Meanwhile,onhisownshowing,thegreatest"works" which Christ did were these "nature miracles"; and itremains inexplicable how Faith-Healings inHis disciples can havebeendeclaredbyHimtobegreaterthanthey.

30. So, for example, Luthardt, Godet, Westcott and Milligan andMoulton;seeespeciallythediscussioninW.Milligan,TheAscensionandHeavenlyHigh-PriesthoodofOurLord,1892,pp.250ff.

31. Op.cit.,pp.16ff.32. P.163.33. Ascited.34. Averylittleconsiderationwillsufficetoshowthattheseattemptsso

tostatethedoctrineoftheatonementastoobtainfromitabasisonwhich a doctrine of Faith-Healing can be erected, betray us into along series of serious errors. They imply, for example, that, Christhavingborneoursicknessesasoursubstitute,Christiansarenot tobearthem,andaccordinglyallsicknessshouldbebanishedfromtheChristianworld;Christiansarenottobecuredofsickness,butoughtnottogetsick.Theyimplyfurther,that,thisbeingso,thepresenceofsicknessisnotonlyaproofofsin,butarguestheabsenceofthefaithwhichunitesustoChrist,ourSubstitute,thatissavingfaith;sothatnosickpersoncanbeasavedman.Theyimplystill furtherthat,assicknessandinwardcorruptionarealikeeffectsofsin,andwemustcontend that sickness, because it is an effect of sin, is removedcompletelyandimmediatelybytheatoningactofChrist,takingawaysin,somustalsoinwardcorruptionbewhollyandatonceremoved;no Christian can be a sinner. Thus we have full-blown"Perfectionism." Stanton writes: "In so far as the soul may bedelivered from sin during life, the body may be delivered fromsicknessanddisease,thefruitofsin";"inshort,ifthefulldeliveranceofthesoulfromsinmaybeatanytimereachedonthissideofdeath,somay the body be freed from disease." Perfectionism and Faith-Healing,on thisground, standor fall together.Wewonderwhy, inhis reasoning, Stanton leaves believers subject to death. Thereasoning which proves so much too much, proves, of course,nothingatall.

35. Gordon remarks: "It is obvious that our Redeemer cannot forgiveand eradicate sin without in the same act disentangling the rootswhichsinhasstruckintoourmortalbodies."Arethesethreetermssynonymous:forgivesin,eradicatesin,disentangletherootsofsin?Andaretheforgivenessofsin,thedisentanglingoftherootsofsin,the eradication of sin, all accomplished in one "act"? There is

through all this reasoning a hopeless confusion of the steps of theprocessof salvationandof the relationsof the several steps tooneanother. If we lay down the proposition that our salvation iscompletedinasingleact,inallitsrelations—why,then,ofcourse,wearenotinprocessofsalvation,butwearealreadywhollysaved.

36. Gordon,op.cit.,p.18.37. TheNewChurchReview,vol.XV,1908,p.414.38. Here is, however, one illustration. Doctor Alfred T. Schofield (A

StudyofFaith-Healing, 1872,p. 38) relates the following incident."KnowingaChristiandoctor,favorabletofaith-healing,Iaskedhimifhecouldtellmeanygenuinecuresoforganicdisease.Butheonlyshookhishead....Theprincipalcaseatthefaith-healingcentrenearhimwas that of awomanwhowas really dying and had continualfits,andwho,thedoctorsaid,wasindubitablycuredbyfaith.Here,then, was an authenticated case at last of some sort. This womangavegreat testimonyas toher cureatvariousmeetings,butas shehadbeenmyfriend'spatient,hewasabletotellmethesecretofit.Godhadcuredherbysavinghersoul,andthusdeliveringherfromtheloveandconstantexcessiveuseofstrongdrinkthathadbeenthesole cause of her illness and fits, and that the doctor had told herwould end her life!" The annals of faith-healing are rich in suchinstances.DoctorSchofieldrecordsa touching instance(p.42)ofayoungwomanwho,bytrustingintheLord,wasfreedfromanervousterrorofthesea,andgraduallyfromotherdisabilities.

39. Literature andDogma, chap. v. Arnold bases really on the notionthatallillnessisduetosinandthatthepropermethodofattackingitis, therefore, by "moral therapeutics." Christ as the source ofhappinessandcalmcureddiseasesbyeliminatingtheirmoralcause;hencewhatwecallHismiracles,whichwere,ofcourse,nomiraclesbutthemostnaturaleffectsintheworld;"miraclesdonothappen."

40. P.62.41. P.192.42. Cf. W. W. Patton, Prayer and Its Remarkable Answers; Being a

Statement of Facts in the Light ofReasonandRevelation, ed. 20,1885, pp. 214 ff., drawing on the booklet,Dorothea Trüdel, or thePrayerofFaith,1865,and(pp.237ff.)DoctorCharlesCullis'sreportofavisittoMannedorf.

43. DoctorA.T. Schofield,op.cit., pp. 23 ff.,who gives an interestingaccountofavisitwhichhemadetoZeller'sHouseatMannedorf.Hefoundthatverymanycamethereforrestandquiet,andmanygrewnobetterwhilethere,butratherworse.Hecouldnot,oninquiryattheHouseorfromthephysiciansinthetown,assurehimselfofthecure there of any truly organic disease; and came away with theconvictionthat"thebulkatanyrateofthecasesbenefitedareclearlymental,nervous,andhysterical"(p.28).

44. Christian Thought, February, 1890, p. 289. Another eminentphysician, J.M. Charcot (TheNewReview, 1893, vol. VIII, p. 19),writes:"Ontheotherhand,thedomainoffaith-healingislimited;toproduce itseffects itmustbeapplied to thosecaseswhichdemandfortheircurenointerventionbeyondthepowerwhichthemindhasoverthebody—caseswhichHackTuke(IllustrationsoftheInfluenceof the Mind upon the Body in Health and Disease, designed toelucidate the Action of the Imagination, London: Churchill, 1872)hasanalyzedsoadmirably inhisremarkablework.No interventioncanmakeitpassthesebounds,forwearepowerlessagainstnaturallaws. For example, no instance can be found amongst the recordssacredtoso-calledmiraculouscureswherethefaith-curehasavailedtorestoreanamputatedlimb.Ontheotherhand,therearehundredsofrecordedcasesof thecureofparalysis,butI thinkthesehaveallpartakenofthenatureofthosewhichProfessorRussellReynoldshasclassified under the heading of paralysis 'dependent on idea'('RemarksonParalysisandotherDisordersofMotionandSensationDependent on Idea . . .' in British Medical Journal, November,1869)."

45. They are sufficiently illustrated by J. M. Buckley, Faith-Healing,ChristianScience,andKindredPhenomena,1892.TotheaccountofFaith-Healing by the Mormons, which he gives on pp. 35 ff., addwhat is said of this practice among the Mormons by Florence A.Merriam,My Summer in a Mormon Village, pp. 115 ff.: "To anoutsider, one of the most appalling features of Mormonism is therootedoppositionofthepeopletoMedicalScience,theirdistrustofskilled physicians, and their faith in the Biblical ceremonial ofanointing or laying on of hands. ..." She gives some instructiveinstances. Cf. also W. A. Hammond, Spiritualism and Kindred

Phenomena.46. Buckley,ascited,p.3;TheCenturyMagazine,vol.X,p.222.47. Buckley,op.cit.,p.27;TheCenturyMagazine,vol.X,p.230.48. Buckley,Faith-Healing,p.25;TheCenturyMagazine,vol.X,p.229.49. Op.cit.,p.25.50. Buckley,op.cit.,p.9,Cf.A.T.Schofield,TheForceofMind,1908,

pp. 256 ff. "Phantom Tumors," says Doctor J. R. Gasquet (TheDublin Review, October, 1894, pp. 355, 356), "deceive even theelect." See also Doctor Fowler's paper, "Neurotic Tumors of theBreast," read before the New York Neurological Society, Tuesday,January7, 1890, in theMedicalRecord,February 19, 1890,p. 179,and cf. Charcot's remarks on it, op. cit., p. 29. Doctor Fowler'stumors were actual, not "phantom," neurotic tumors, and yet, onbeingsubjectedtoacourseoftreatment,"inwhich,sotospeak,thepsychicalelementwasmadethechiefpoint,vanishedasifbymagic."

51. Reynolds,op.cit.,pp.325-326.52. "DoctorCabot's figures,"derivedfromacomparisonofatestseries

of instances of clinical diagnoses with post-mortem findings, havebecomefamous.Inthistest"theaveragepercentageofcorrectnessofthesediagnoses in these cases, takenas awhole,was47.3. In 1913theCommitteeof Inquiry into theDepartmentofHealth,CharitiesandBellevueandAlliedHospitalsintheCityofNewYorkcomparedtheautopsyfindingsinBellevueHospitalwiththeclinicaldiagnoses,and the comparison revealed the fact that clinical diagnoses wereconfirmed in only 52.3 per cent of the cases." Cf. the remarks ofDoctorSchofield,op.cit.,pp.39-40,on thedifficultieswhichcometo physicians in connection with cases of alleged faith-cure. Inexamining intoacaseof reputed tumorhealedatonceon faith,hewrotetothephysicianswhohadchargeofthecaseandlearnedthatit neverwas ofmuch importance, and that it had not disappearedafteritsallegedcure.Butoneofthephysiciansadded:"IamsorryIam not able to answer your question more satisfactorily. As aChristian,Iamgreatlyinterestedin'faith-healing,'buthavecometothe conclusion that it is wiser for me not to examine patients, orpronounce on their condition, when they state that the Lord hashealedthem,forIfeelittoosolemnathingtoshakeaperson'sfaithbytoocriticalpathologicalknowledge."

53. Op.cit.,p.158.54. Buckley,op.cit.,pp.54-55;TheCenturyMagazine,vol.XI,p.784.55. These citations are taken from L. T. Townsend, Faith Work,

ChristianScienceandOtherCures,pp. 16o ff.,where thematter isdiscussedatlarge.

56. P.196.57. Pp.197-198.58. Cf. G. M. Pachtler, Biographische Notizen uber . . . Prinzen

Alexander, Augsburg, 1850; S. Brunner, Aus dem Nächlasse desFürsten . . .Hohenlohe,Regensburg,1851;F.N.Baur,AShortandFaithfulDescriptionoftheRemarkableOccurrencesandBenevolentHolyConductof. . .PrinceAlexanderofHohenlohe. . .duringhisresidenceofTwenty-fiveDaysintheCityofWürzburg...,London,1822;JohnBadeley,AuthenticNarrativeoftheExtraordinaryCureperformed by Prince Hohenlohe, London, n. d.; James Doyle,Miracles said tohavebeenwroughtbyPrinceHohenloheonMissLalorinIreland,London,1823.

59. Cf.J.F.Maguire,FatherMatthew,1864.60. The Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 113, note; Blumhardt is

spokenofbyJamesasa"singularlypure,simpleandnon-fanaticalcharacter," who "in this part of his work followed no previousexample."HislifewaswrittenbyF.Zündel,PfarrerJ.C.Blumhardt,1887; see a short notice with Bibliography, in The New Schaff-HerzogEncyclopediaofReligiousKnowledge,sub.nom.(II,206).

61. SeeTheNewSchaff-Herzog,sub.nom.,andsub.voc,"ChristianandMissionaryAlliance."

62. See C.W. Heisler, "Denver'sMessiah Craze," inThe Independent,October 3, 1895; Henry Kingman, "Franz Schlatter and his PoweroverDisease,"inTheCongregationalist,November1,1895.TheNewYorkdailypressforthelatesummerandearlyautumnof1916(e.g.,TheEveningSunforSeptember28)tellsofthesordidfinalstagesofSchlatter's"practice."

63. TherearearticlesonDowieandontheChristianCatholicApostolicChurch in Zion in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, to thelatterofwhicha fullBibliography is attached.To thisBibliographywemayaddAnnieL.Muzzie,"OneMan'sMission.TrueorFalse?"inTheIndependent, September 17, 1896; "NewSects andOld," chap,

xn of "Religious Life in America," by E. H. Abbott, Outlook,September15,1902,andafterwardspublishedinbookform;JamesOrr,"DowieandMrs.Eddy,"LondonQuarterlyReview,April,1904.

64. See an analysis of Dowie's healing work in American Journal ofPsychology,X,pp.442,465.

65. The literatureofFaith-Healing is veryextensive.Wementiononly,along with Doctor Gordon's Ministry of Healing, among itsadvocates:GeorgeMorris,OurLord'sPermanentHealingOffice inHisChurch;W.E.Boardman,TheGreatPhysician;TheLordThatHealethThee,1881;andFaithWorkunderDoctorCullisinBoston;A. B. Simpson, The Gospel of Healing, 1884; The Holy Spirit orPowerfromonHigh,1899;andDiscoveryofDivineHealing,1902.The doctrines involved are discussed by A. A. Hodge, PopularLectures on Theological Themes, 1887, pp. 107-116; cf. also A. F.Schauffler, The Century Magazine, December, 1885, pp. 274 jBF.ThewholequestionisadmirablycanvassedinL.T.Townsend,FaithWork, Christian Science and Other Cures, 1885; J. M. Buckley,Faith-Healing,ChristianScienceandKindredPhenomena,1892;A.T.Schofield,AStudyofFaith-Healing,1892;W.S.PlummerBryan,Prayer and the Healing of Disease, 1896; W. R. Hall, "DivineHealingorFaith-cure,"LutheranQuarterly,NewSeries,vol.XXVII(1897),pp.263-276.The literaturesattachedto thearticles, "Faith-healing," in Hastings's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, and"Psychotherapy," in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia ofReligious Knowledge, will suggest the works on the action of themindonthebody.P.Dearmer'sBodyandSoul.AnInquiryintotheeffects of Religion upon Health, with a Description of ChristianWorkofHealingfromtheNewTestamenttothePresentDay,1909(9thed.,1912),deservesperhapsspecialmention,aspresentingthematter from a high Anglican standpoint, and on the basis ofpantheizingtheoriesofbeingwhichleavenoroomforrealmiracles,whether in the records of theNewTestament or in thehealings ofsubsequent times. See also J.M.Charcot, "TheFaith-cure," inTheNew Review, VIII (1893), pp. 18-31, which discusses the matter,however,withLourdesparticularlyinmind.

Endnotes:

NotestoLectureVI-Mind-Cure

1. Intermediate positions are, of course, possible in the abstract, inwhich the cure is ascribed both to faith and to God actingreinforcinglyor supplementarily.But thesepossible abstractpointsofviewmaybesafelyleftoutofaccount.

2. Ecclus.38:1ff.3. Thisis,ofcourse,thecommonrepresentation.Thus,forexample:H.

H. Goddard, The American Journal of Psychology, vol. X, 1898-1899, p. 432: "As amatter of fact theprinciple is as old ashumanhistory";H.R.Marshall,TheHibbertJournal,vol.VII,1909,p.293:"Were the complete history of medical science written, it wouldwithout doubt appear that the treatment of disease through whatseemstobementalinfluenceshasprevailedinoneformoranothereversincemanbegantorealizethatcertainillnessesarecurable."

4. HowlittletheycanbeascribedtoithasbeenshownbyR.J.Ryle,inanarticleentitled"TheNeuroticTheoryoftheMiraclesofHealing,"inTheHibbertJournal,vol.V,April,1907,pp.572-586.

5. Sir William Osler, The Treatment of Disease, 1909, speaks of thenecessity in all cases of "suggestion in one of its varied forms—whetherthenegationofdiseaseandpain,thesimpletrustinChristof the Peculiar People, or the sweet reasonableness of thepsychotherapist." Cf. especially William James, The Varieties ofReligiousExperience,21 1911, pp. 712 ff.; Stephen Paget,The Faithand Works of Christian Science, 1909, pp. 204 ff.; Henry H.Goddard.TheAmericanJournalofPsychology, vol.X, 1898-1899,p. 481. That this is not the account given by the practitionersthemselvesliesinthenatureofthecase.Consult,e.g.,C.H.Lea,APlea for . . .ChristianScience,2 1915,pp.xv,70 ff.,whoappeals to"anever-operativeprincipleofgood,orspiritual law,underlyingalllifewhichishereandnowavailableforallmankind."ForthatmatterconsultElwoodWorcester,ReligionandMedicine,p.72;onpp.67ff. Worcester speaks quite in the spirit of the Spiritual Healersspokenofabove.

6. SamuelMcComb,TheChristianReligionasaHealingPower,1909,

p.117: "Itdoesnotbelieve that itscuresaredue toanymiraculousagency...";ReligionandMedicine,1908,p.311:"WedarenotpraytoGodtoworkamiracle,thatis,toviolateoneofthosegenerallawsbywhichHerulesthephysicalworld."

7. Religion and Medicine, p. 14, note; The Christian Religion as aHealingPower,p.99.

8. TheChristianReligionasaHealingPower,p.39.TheremedywhichWesley proposed, however, was not that the minister should turnphysician, but that the physician should become Christian: "Itfollows," he writes, "that no man can be a thorough physicianwithoutbeinganexperiencedChristian."

9. McCombsaysexpressly,TheChristianReligionasaHealingPower,p.92: "Inmany instances itdoesnotmatterwhat theobjectof thefaithmaybe;itisnottheobjectbutthefaiththatheals."ThematterismorefullystatedinReligionandMedicine,p.293:"Faithsimplyas a psychical process, ormental attitude . . . has healing virtue";"Faith as ameremental state has this power"—in accordancewithFeuchterleben's saying, "Confidence acts like a real force." ElwoodWorcester, p. 57, agreeswith his colleague.Of course it is allowedthatifweareseekingmoralaswellasphysicaleffectsitisbetterthatthe faithemployedshouldhaveGodrather thanMumbo-jumboforitsobject.TheplaneonwhichMcComb'schapteron"PrayerandItsTherapeuticValue" (ReligionandMedicine, pp. 302-319)moves isthe same. The therapeutic value of prayer resides in its subjectiveeffects. As it is clearly stated in a leading article in the BritishMedicalJournalforJune18,1910:''Prayerinspiredbyalivingfaithis a force acting within the patient, which places him in themostfavorableconditionforthestirringofthepoolofhopethatlies,stillandhiddenitmaybe,inthedepthsofhumannature."McCombdoesnotutterlyexcludetheprayerofdesireordenythat ithasaneffectonGod;even,ifitbeadesireinbehalfofothers,aneffectonthem.We are organically related to God, he says: "We exist in Himspiritually somewhat as thoughts exist in themind," and "a strongdesire in our soul communicates itself to Him and engages Hisattentionjustasathoughtinoursoulengagesours."Godmayresistthis desire of ours, thus entering His consciousness; but "thestrongerthethought,themorefrequentlyitreturns,themorelikely

it is tobeactedupon." Ifnowwehaveadesire inbehalfofothers,"oursoulnotonlyactsonthatsoul,"telepathicallywesuppose,"butour prayer arising to the mind of God directs His will morepowerfullyandmoreconstantlytothesoulforwhichwepray."Thisisveryingeniousandverydepressing.Wehopethereisnotruthinit.

10. TheChristianReligionasaHealingPower,p.10.TheleadersoftheEmmanuelMovementarevery insistentthattheChristianitywhichthey employ is that of the "critical interpretation" of the NewTestament.

11. Itseemsalmostasdifficultforclericstorecognizefranklythelimitsof their functions as spiritual guides with respect to medicine, aswithrespecttothestate.Theyrepeatedlyshowatendencynotonlyto intrude intobut to seek todominate theonealiensphereas theother.AndrewD.White,AHistoryof theWarfareofSciencewithTheology in Christendom, 1896, II, p. 37, recounts how themediaeval church sought to secure that physicians should alwayspractise their art in conjunction with ecclesiastics. Pius V ordered"thatallphysiciansbeforeadministeringtreatmentshouldcall in 'aphysician of the soul,' on the ground, as he declares, that 'bodilyinfirmity frequently arises from sin.'" Clear differentiation offunctions—"divisionof labor" theeconomistscall it—lies in the lineofadvance.

12. TheChristianReligionasaHealingPower,p.99.Seeabove,note7.13. ThesecitationsarederivedfromMedicineandtheChurch,editedby

GeoffreyRhodes, 1910,pp.35,64,73.Cf.whatStephenPaget saysonthegeneralquestioninTheFaithandWorksofChristianScience,1909,pp.180-190.

14. TheprimaryliteratureontheEmmanuelMovementiscomprisedinthetwobooksbyitsfounders:ElwoodWorcester,SamuelMcComb,Isador H. Coriat, Religion and Medicine, the Moral Control ofNervousDisorders,1908;andElwoodWorcester,SamuelMcComb,The Christian Religion as a Healing Power: A Defense andExposition of the Emmanuel Movement, 1909. See also RobertMacDonald,Mind,ReligionandHealth,withanAppreciationoftheEmmanuelMovement,1909;C.R.Brown,FaithandHealth,1910.Averygoodcriticismof themovementwillbe found in thearticlebyDoctor Henry Rutgers Marshall, on "Psychotherapeutics and

Religion," inTheHibbertJournal, January, 1909,vol. III,pp.295-313. The most recent literature includes: Loring W. Batten, TheReliefofPainbyMentalSuggestion,1917;IsadorH.Coriat,WhatisPsychoanalysis?1917.

15. Hastings'sEncyclopediaofReligionandEthics,vol.V,p.700b.Hehas explained himselfmore at large in his book Spiritual Healing,London, 1914, and quite in this sense. But a certain amount ofambiguity in thismatter is not unnatural, andmaybemetwith inmany writers. Elwood Worcester, for example, gives expressionoccasionallytoamysticaltheorywhichassimilateshimtothetheoryofspiritualhealingdescribedbyCobb(e.g.,ReligionandMedicine,pp.67ff.).Ontheotherhand,PercyDearmer(BodyandSoul,91912,p.318),whoalsoholdstoamysticaltheoryoftheuniverse,mustbeclasseddistinctlyasanadvocateof"Mind-cure";althoughhelaysallthe stresson religion, and refers everything toGodas theultimateactor,heyetisthoroughlynaturalisticinhisanalysis."AllpowerisofGod,"hesays,"—whetheritbeelectricityorneurokym,orgrace;andto him who does not believe in God, all power must be leftunexplained.Ontheotherhand,thehighpowerofreligioncanquitefairlybecalledmental;noonewouldbelessreadytodenythisthanthe Christian for whom, as I have said, the very operations of theSpiritofGod,hisgiftsandhis fruits,arementalphenomenawhichare habitually obtained in a lower form without the special aid ofreligion. There is no ultimate barrier then between what is sacredandwhatissecular,sinceallthingscomeofGodandofhisowndowegivehim;thedifferenceisoneofdegreeandnotofkind."

16. Twootherimportantmovements,tracingtheirimpulsebacktoP.P.Quimby, deserve mention here—the "Mind-cure Movement," thebest representative ofwhich is probablyWarrenF.Evans; and the"New Thought Movement," the best representative of which isprobably Horatio W. Dresser. William James, The Varieties ofReligiousExperience,211911;PP-94ff.,givesanadequateaccountofthe"NewThoughtMovement";agoodbriefaccountofbothstreamsof development will be found in Frank Podmore,Mesmerism andChristian Science, 1909, pp. 255 ff. Some details ofW. F. Evans'scareermaybefoundinMcClure'sMagazine,vol.XXX,pp.390ff.Auseful bibliography of out-of-the-way books on "New Thought" is

giveninTheNewSchaff-HerzogEncyclopedia,vol.VIII,p.148,butthe best books are missed. See, especially, Horatio W. Dresser,HandbookofNewThought,1917.

17. "The truth, therefore, about Christian Science," says W. F. Cobb(MysticismandtheCreed,1914,p.316),"seemstobethatthepowerdisplayed inthecureswhich it indubitablyperforms isnotpeculiarto it, that is, is not Christian Science at all, but that which is itspeculiargloryisthebadphilosophybywhichitseekstosetforththepowerwhichcomesfromtheSpirit,andisundertheguardianshipofreligion."

18. "Manyimagine,"shesays.ScienceandHealth,161sted.,1899,p.xi,"that the phenomena of physical healing in Christian Science onlypresent a phase of the action of the humanmind, which, in someunexplainedway,resultsinthecureofsickness."This,shedeclares,isbynomeansthecase.Shecondemnstheseveralbooks"onmentalhealing"whichhavecomeunderhernoticeaswrongandmisleading,preciselybecause"theyregardthehumanmindasahealingagent,whereas this mind is not a factor in the Principle of ChristianScience" (p. x). The phrase "human mind" in passages like thisprobablyistobereadasequivalentto"mortalmind,"acantphrasein thesystem,as, forexample,onp.303:"History teaches that thepopularandfalsenotionsabouttheDivineBeingandcharacterhaveoriginatedinthehumanmind.Astherereallyisnomortalmind,thiswrongnotionaboutGodmusthaveoriginatedinafalsesupposition,not in immortal Mind." This "mortal mind," we are told (p. 45),"claims togoverneveryorganof themortalbody,"but theclaim isfalse; "the Divine Mind" is the true governor. There "really is nomortal mind." Of course this distinction between mind-cure andMind-cure is not maintained, and endless confusion results. Thusthe Christian Science writer quoted in The American Journal ofPsychology,X,p.433, inthesamebreathrepudiatestheascriptionoftheirhealingstoa"material,mentalorbodilycause,"andaffirmsthat"theonly`agencyevereffectiveincuringdiseasesissomefacultyofmind."

19. ScienceandHealth,1899,p.xi;cf.p.5:"ChristianScienceisnaturalbut not physical. The true Science of God and man is no moresupernatural than is thescienceofnumbers";p.249:"Miraclesare

impossible in Science." Even the resurrection of Christ was notsupernatural:"CanitbecalledsupernaturalfortheGodofnaturetosustain Jesus, in his proof ofman's truly derived power? It was amethodofsurgerybeyondmaterialart,butitwasnotasupernaturalact. On the contrary, it was a distinctly natural act . . ." (p. 349)."MaryBakerEddy," says awriter in theChristian Science JournalforApril,1889,"hasworkedoutbeforeusasonablackboardeverypointinthetemptationsanddemonstrations—orso-calledMiracles—ofJesus,showingushowtomeetandovercometheone,andhowtoperformtheother."AllisnaturalinMrs.Eddy'suniverse.

20. TheChristianReligionasaHealingPower,p.19,21. ChristianThought,February,1890.22. On "the pedigree of Christian Science," see the admirable article

underthattitlebyFrankPodmoreinTheContemporaryReviewforJanuary, 1909, vol. XCV, pp. 37-49; and, of course,more at large,FrankPodmore,MesmerismandChristianScience:aShortHistoryofMentalHealing,1909.

23. Mrs. Eddy herself speaks with contempt of Faith-Healing as "onebelief casting out another—a belief in the unknown casting out abelief in disease," "It is not Truth itself which does this," shedeclares; "nor is it the human understanding of the divine healingPrinciple"(ScienceandHealth,1899,p.317).

24. TheseadmissionsaregreatlymodifiedinScienceandHealth,1899,p.397.Here it is taught,as theIndexputs it, that faith-cure"oftensoothes but only changes the formof the ailment." "Faith removesbodily ailments for a season; or else it changes those ills into newand more difficult forms of disease, until at length the Science ofMindcomestotherescueandworksaradicalcure."

25. ChristianScienceHealing,itsPrinciplesandPractice,1888,p.102.26. Retrospection and Introspection,17 1900, p. 38 (first printed in

1891).27. Ibid. InScience andHealth, 1899, p. 107, shewrites: "In the year

1866IdiscoveredtheChristScienceordivinelawsofLife,TruthandLove, and named my discovery Christian Science. God had beengraciouslypreparingmeduringmanyyearsforthereceptionofthisfinal revelation of the absolute divinePrinciple of scientificmentalhealing."

28. Mrs. Eddy's relations to P. P. Quimby have beenmade quite clearandplacedonafirmbasisbyGeorgineMilmineinaseriesofarticlespublished inMcClure'sMagazine for 1907-1908, and afterward inbook form, The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History ofChristianScience,1909;andbyLymanP.Powell,ChristianScience,the Faith and its Founder, 1907; see also Frank Podmore,Mesmerism and Christian Science, 1909, chap, xiv, "The Rise ofMentalHealing,"andAnnettaGertrudeDresser,ThePhilosophyofP.P.Quimby,1895.Quimby'sfundamentalprincipleissummedupin his conviction that the cause and cure of disease lie in mentalstates.Hispracticewastotalkwithhispatientsabouttheirdiseases,toexplaintothemthatdiseaseisanerror,andto"establishthetruthinitsplace,which, ifdone,wasthecure.""Igivenomedicines,"hesays, "I simply sitby thepatient's sideandexplain tohimwhathethinksishisdisease,andmyexplanationisthecure;...thetruthisthecure." "Mywayofcuring,"hewrites in1862, theyear inwhichMrs.Eddywenttohimasapatient,"convinceshim(thepatient)thathe has been deceived; and, if I succeed, the patient is cured." ThePantheisticbackgroundappearstohavebeenlessprominentlythrustforwardbyQuimbythanbyMrs.Eddy,and itwouldseemthather"discovery"consistswhollyinthispossiblechangeofemphasis.

29. This is sufficiently characteristic to deserve emphasis. Mrs. Eddy(who describes herself as "the tireless toiler for the truth's newbirth")everassumedther61eof thinkerandteacherrather thanofhealer;thehealingshedelegatedtoherpupils."Ihavenevermadeaspecialty of treating disease," she writes, "but healing hasaccompaniedallmyeffortstointroduceChristianScience."Bytakingthecourseshedid,sheunderstoodherselftobeassumingthemoredifficult task: "Healing," she said, "is easier than teaching, if theteachingis faithfullydone"(ScienceandHealth, 1899,p.372).Shewas accustomed to print at the end of the preface to Science andHealth this: "Note.—The author takes no patients and declinesmedical consultation." Nevertheless, in a by-law of 1903, shedeclares "healingbetter than teaching" (McClure'sMagazine,May,1908,p.28).

30. The Christian Scientist writer quoted in the American Journal ofPsychology,vol.X,p.436,declareswithgreatemphasis:"Theonly

text-bookofgenuine,unadulteratedChristianScienceisScienceandHealth,withKey to theScriptures,byRev.MaryBakerEddy."Mr.Bailey, editor of the Christian Science Journal, wrote that heconsidered " the Bible and Science and Health as one book—thesacredScriptures."

31. ScienceandHealth,1899,p.4,32. Christian Science Journal, January, 1901: cf. Miscellaneous

Writings, p. 311: "The words I have written on Christian SciencecontainabsoluteTruth....Iwasascribeunderorders,andwhocanrefrainfromtranscribingwhatGodindites?"

33. In theChristianScienceJournal,April, 1895,Mrs.Eddyabolishedpreachingandordainedthattheserviceshouldbeasheredescribed."In 1895," she says, "I ordained theBible andScience andHealth,withKey to the Scriptures, as thePastor, on this planet, of all thechurches of the Christian Science denomination" (McClure'sMagazine,May,1908,p.25).

34. Thiswasnottheoriginalorder,butwassubsequentlyintroduced.35. Mrs. Eddy says in theChristian Science Journal forMarch, 1897:

"TheBible,ScienceandHealth,withKeytotheScriptures,andmyotherpublishedworksaretheonlyproperinstructionsforthishour.ItshallbethedutyofallChristianScientiststocirculateandtosellasmanyofthesebooksastheycan."

36. G.C.Mars,TheInterpretationofLife,inwhichisshowntherelationof Modern Culture and Christian Science, 1908. It is related thatMrs.Eddyherself,with,nodoubt,araredisplayofhumor,saidoncethat Bronson Alcott, on reading Science and Health, pronouncedthatnoonebutawomanora foolcouldhavewrittenit(McClure'sMagazine,August,1897,p.47).

37. TheDublinReview,July,1908,vol.CXLIII,p.62.38. P.N.F.Young,TheInterpreter,October,1908,vol.V,p.91.39. Sosaymanyof thereadersof thebookwithserio-comicemphasis;

see three suchexpositionsof the effectof trying to read it given inStephenPaget'sTheFaithandWorksofChristianScience,pp.205ff.

40. McClure'sMagazineforOctober,1907,p.699.41. God,saysMrs.Eddy,inScienceandHealth,ed.1875,"isPrinciple,

notPerson";God,shesays, ined.1881,I,p.167;II,p.97,"isnota

person,GodisPrinciple";God,shesaysstillinNoandYes,1906,"isLove,andLoveisPrinciple,notperson."InlatereditionsofScienceand Health the asperity of the assertion is somewhat softenedwithout any change ofmeaning, e.g., ed. 1899, p. 10: "If the termpersonality applied toGodmeans infinitepersonality, thenGod ispersonalBeing—inthissense,butnotinthelowestsense,"i.e.,inthesenseof individuality (cf.what is said on the supposition thatGodshould be spoken of as person on p. 510). The entry in the Indexreferring to this passage (p. 10) is phrased simply, "Person,God isnot";andthroughoutthetextGodisrepresentednotas"Person"butas "Principle." To approach God in the prayer of petition is to"humanize"Him."Prayeraddressedtoapersonpreventsourlettinggo of personality for the impersonal Spirit to whom all things arepossible"(ed.1875).ThewholefoundationofMrs.Eddy'stheoryandpractice alikewasdenial of thepersonality ofGod; see the curiousdepositionprintedinMcClure'sMagazine,1907,p.103,bearingthatthisdenialwasmadebyMrs.Eddytheconditionofentranceintoherclasses. "There is really nothing to understand in Science andHealth," says Wiggin truly, "except that God is all." That is thebeginning and middle and end of Mrs. Eddy's philosophy.Accordingly, the writer in the Christian Science Sentinel forSeptember 25, 1907, p. 57, quoted by Powell,Christian Science, p.242,isquiterightwhenshedeclares:"principleandnotpersonalityistheonlyfoundationuponwhichwecanbuildsafely,"

42. Ed.1875;ined.1899,p.3:"thedivineMindandidea";cf.p.8:"InScienceMindisone—includingnoumenaandphenomena,GodandHisthoughts,"i.e.,everything.Accordingly,C.H.Lea,APleafor...ChristianScience,p.23,says:"TheindividualmanisapartofGod,inthesensethatarayoflightisapartofthesun."

43. Ed.1905,p.331.44. Ed.1899,p.7.45. Op.cit.,p.23.46. P.74.47. P.81.48. P.412.49. It is these "cross currents," we are told, which form the chief

difficultyinthewayofChristianSciencepractice.Mrs.CarrieSnider

even reports in The Journal of Christian Science (McClure'sMagazine, 1907,pp.692-693) thecaseofherhusband,who,being"under the treatment of two healers, whose minds were not inaccord,"wascaughtinthiscrosscurrentanddied,or,asMrs.Eddywouldexpressit,"showedthemanifestationofthedeathsymptoms"("symptoms" themselves being "shadows of belief"). "The thoughtfrom the one," explainsMissMilmine, "confused thought from theother,leavinghimtodieinthecrossfire."TheinterestedreaderwillfindthepreceptsofElwoodWorcesteron"Suggestion"(ReligionandMedicine,p.64) runningvery closelyparallel toMrs.Eddy'sonallsuch matters: "It is necessary as far as possible to guard againstcounter-suggestions";"suggestions. . .containedinbooksareoftenofgreatcurativevalue";"inordertoavoidthedangerofoppositionandcounter-suggestionsomepractitionersprefertotreatthepatientsilently."

50. MedicineandtheChurch,editedbyGeoffreyRhodes,1910,p.293.51. Sin is, of course, in Mrs. Eddy's system, like disease, an illusion;

there is no such thing. "The belief" of it is in the beginning "anunconscious error" (ed. 1899, p. 81), it "exists only so long as thematerial illusionremains"(p.207),andwhat"mustdie" is"notthesinfulsoul"but"thesenseofsin"(ibid.).Itisamusingtoobserveaswe readScience andHealth, how often, in the preoccupationwithsickness as the thing from which we look to Christian Science forrelief, sin comes in as an afterthought. The book itself, it is to benoticed,isatreatiseon"ScienceandHealth";andwhattheauthorprofesses to have discovered is "the adaptation of Truth to thetreatmentofdisease"—towhichisadded,plainlyasanafterthought,"aswellasofsin.""ThequestionofWhatisTruth,"sheaddsinthenext paragraph, "is answered by demonstration—by healingdisease"—"andsin"sheaddsagainasanafterthought.Consequentlyshe goes on to say, "This shows that Christianhealing confers themost health," "and," she adds weakly, "makes the bestmen." Thispreoccupationwithsickness rather thansin isgrounded,nodoubt,in part, in the historical genesis of the system and of the book inwhichitispresented.ItwasnotasareligiousleaderbutasahealerthatMrs.Eddycame forward, treading in the footstepsofQuimby,who was not a religious leader but a healer. Her theories were

religious only because, pushing Quimby's suggestions into expressdeclarations, she found his "all is mind" completing itself in "allmind is God." Her religion, in other words, existed for its healingvalue, and her interest in it was as a curative agent. Sickness andhealing were the foci around which the ellipse of her thought wasthrown. Christian Scientists, therefore, teach that there is no suchthing as sin; and sin, like disease, is to be treated by denial. C.H.Lea,APlea for . . . Christian Science,2 1915, p. 29, says thatGod,beingperfect, allHis creationsmust alsobeperfect; "consequentlythatHedidnotandcouldnotcreateasinfulman,orevenamanthatcould become sinful." We can never be separated from God; "theapparent separation of man from God is, according to ChristianScience teaching,due to the falsehumanconsciousnessormortal'ssenseofsin"(p.39).

52. One gains the impression that Mrs. Eddy was even exceptionallytroubledbysickness.IntheChristianScienceJournalforJune,1902(McClure's Magazine, February, 1908, p. 399), a contributor verysensiblywrites:"DonotScientistsmakeamistakeinconveyingtheimpression, or, what is the same thing, letting an impression gouncorrected, that those in Science are never sick, that they neverhaveanyailmentsortroublestocontendwith?ThereisnoScientistwhoatalltimesiswhollyexemptfromachesandpainsorfromtrialsofsomekind."The"Scientists,"ofcourse,arebetweenthetwohornsofadilemma,forhowcanthey"deny"sicknesswithout"denying"it!Aphysiciangivesthisaccountofanexperienceofhisownwiththisstoicismofdenial(TheNewChurchReview,1908,vol.XV,p.419):"IwascalledtoaChristianScientistwhowassupposedtobesick.Ifoundherhardatworkinthekitchen,forshewasaboarding-housekeeper. I asked her where she felt sick, and she said 'nowhere.' Iaskedher if shehadanypain,andshereplied, 'none,'andthatshefeltaswellasusual.Ifoundhercarryingahighfeverandbothlungsbecomingsolidwithpneumonia.Icalledherhusbandasideandtoldhimshewasprobablynearlythrough,butthatsheoughttogotobedandbecaredfor.Sheinsisteduponremainingupandmakingsomebiscuitforsupper,anddidso.Shesoonlapsedintounconsciousness,andpassedaway.Justbeforeherconsciousnesslefther,shetoldmeshedidhavepainsanddidfeelsick,butwastaughtnottosayso,and

what was more, to persuade herself it was not so, and that herdiseasewasonlyanillusion."Andthenthisphysicianadds:"Ispeakfrankly,astheneedis,butIhaveseenthoseofthisbeliefwithheartdisease, saying they were well, yet suffering week after week, tilldeath released them. I have seen them with malignant growthsbecoming steadily worse, but as I inquired about them I was toldtheyweregettingbetter,andthegrowthwasdisappearing;butonlyfor the undertaker to inform me a little later of their loathsomecondition. I have seen children . . . hurried down to an untimelygravewith appendicitis,while being told practically that therewasnothingthematterwiththem."

53. Observethecaseofpermittingababytodie,reprintedinMcClure'sMagazine, October, 1907, pp. 693 ff., from the Christian ScienceJournalofMarch,1889,p.637;butmostpeoplewillbesatisfied ifthey will but glance over the sixty-eight cases of Christian SciencetreatmentscollectedbyStephenPagetinpp.151-180ofhisTheFaithand Works of Christian Science. He closes with a scathingarraignmentbasedonwhathe,asaphysician,findsinthem(p.180):"Ofcourse,toseethefulliniquityofthesecases,thereadershouldbea doctor, or should go over them with a doctor. But everybody,doctorornot, can feel the cruelty, bornof fear ofpain, in someofthese Scientists—the downright madness threatening not a few ofthem—and theappalling self-will.Theybullydyingwomen,and letbabies die in pain; let cases of paralysis tumble about and hurtthemselves;robtheepilepticoftheirbromide,thesyphiliticoftheiriodide,theanginacasesoftheiramyl-nitrate,theheartcasesoftheirdigitalis; letappendicitisgoon to septicperitonitis, gastriculcer toperforation of the stomach, nephritis to uraemic convulsions, andstrangulatedherniatothemisereremeiofgangrene;watchdayafterday,whileamanorawomanslowlybleeds todeath;compel themwhoshouldbekeptstilltotakeexercise;andwithholdfromallcasesofcancerallhopeofcure.Totheseworksofthedeviltheybringtheironegift,wilfulandcompleteignorance;andtheir'nursing'wouldbeafarceifitwerenotatragedy.SuchisthewayofChristianScience,facetoface,asshelovestobe,withbadcasesoforganicdisease."Forthe legal questions involved, see William A. Purrington, ChristianScience, an Exposition of Mrs. Eddy's wonderful Discovery,

includingtheLegalAspects:aPleaforChildrenandotherhelplessSick,1900.

54. Ed.1906,p.12.55. Ed.1899,p.34.56. AmericanJournalofPsychology,X,1908-1909,p.435.57. SeeMcClure'sMagazine,May,1907,p.103,citedabove,note41.58. Ed.1899,p.443.59. Ibid.60. Ed.1899,pp.49-51.61. P.70.62. Marcus Aurelius says: "Do not suppose you are hurt and your

complaintceases.Ceaseyourcomplaintandyouarenothurt."63. MesmerismandChristianScience,p.282.64. McClure'sMagazine,June,1908,p.184.65. Ed.1899,p.118.66. Ed.1881,I,p.269.67. Ed.1899,p.411.68. Ed.1903,p.174.69. McClure'sMagazine,June,1908,p.184;cf.ScienceandHealth,ed.

1906,pp.382-383;ed.1899,p.381.70. MiscellaneousWritings,p.288.71. P.289.72. ScienceandHealth,ed.1891,p.529,andsubsequenteditionsupto

andincluding1906.73. Ed.1881,II,p.152:"Untilthespiritualcreationisdiscernedandthe

union of male and female apprehended in its soul sense, this riteshould continue"; ed. 1899, p. 274: "Until it is learned thatgenerationrestsonnosexualbasis,letmarriagecontinue."

74. On this whole subject, see especially Powell, op. cit., chap, viii;Podmore,op. cit., pp. 294 fl.; Paget, op. cit., pp. 18 ff.When it isdeclaredinthelatereditionsofScienceandHealth,e.g.,1907,p.68,that Mrs. Eddy does not believe in "agamogenesis," that must beunderstood as consistent with teaching asexual generation, or elsetakenmerely for "the present distress"; in these same editions sheteaches asexual generation for the better time to come. Cf. thecommentatorsalreadymentioned.

75. Themateriality ofMrs. Eddy's golden age seems to be made very

clear from the teaching that not sin and diseasemerely but deathitself isnon-existent,andwillfinallyceaseondue"demonstration."WhenMissMilminesaysthat"asensationlessbody"is,accordingtoMrs. Eddy, the ultimate hope of Christian Science (McClure'sMagazine,June,1908,p.184),sheapparentlyaccuratelyexpressesthefact.Itseemsthatwearenevertobewithoutabody.Itis,thoughillusion,neverthelessprojectedwith inevitable certaintyby "mortalmind." But it is to be a perfect body in the end, free from all thedefectswithwhichitisunfortunatelynowprojected.Theexcitementwhich Mrs. Eddy manifested, and her manner of speech at Mr.Eddy'sdeath,showherpointofviewveryclearly."Myhusband,"shewrote to the Boston Post, June 5, 1882 (McClure's Magazine,September,1907,p.570),"neverspokeofdeathassomethingwearetomeet,butonlyasaphaseofmortalbeing."

76. AsquotedbyPowell,op.cit.,p.127.77. Op.cit.,p.106.78. Ed.1899,p.387.79. ThisistheconventionalmodeofspeechamongChristianScientists,

andmaybereadafreshanyday.ThusMargaretWright,answeringsome inquiries in theNew YorkEvening Sun of October 17, 1916,quite simply writes: "As to eating, if one feels hungry and can getgood food, the sensible thing to do is eat. If they did not do soChristian Scientists would be thought sillier than they already are.Also, if one can't seewithout eyeglasses onemust have themuntilone's understanding of truth enables one to dispense with them.That is practical, andChristianScientists are apractical people, orshouldbe."Cf.note85onp.325.

80. See particularly, Richard C. Cabot, M.D., "One Hundred ChristianScienceCures,"inMcClure'sMagazine,August,1908,pp.472-476,in which a hundred consecutive "testimonies" published in theChristianScienceJournalareanalyzedfromthephysician'spointofview;andStephenPaget,TheFaithandWorksofChristianScience,1909, pp. 99-129, in which two hundred consecutive "testimonies"are brought together; also A. T. and F.W.H.Myers, "Mind-Cure,Faith-Cureand theMiraclesofLourdes," in theProceedingsof theSocietyofPsychicalResearch,vol.IX(1893),pp.160-176.

81. Luther T. Townsend, Faith Work, Christian Science and Other

Cures,p.56.82. Ed.1899,p.400.83. Powell,op.cit.,p.174.84. Powell,op.cit.,pp.174-175,andnotes6and7,p.246;Paget,op.cit.,

pp. 70 and231-232; both goingback toW.H.Muldoon,ChristianScienceClaimsUnscientificandNon-Christian,1901,pp.30-31,whocites Mrs. Eddy herself, in Boston Herald, December, 1900 (cf.LiteraryDigest,December29,1900).

85. ThenaturalembarrassmentofMrs.EddyinthepresencecfphysicalneedisequallyamusinglyillustratedbyastorytoldbyMissMilmineof thedaysofherearlier teaching inBoston(1878)."Occasionally,"she says (McClure's Magazine, August, 1907, p. 456), "a visitorwouldaskMrs.Eddywhysheusedglassesinsteadofovercomingthedefect in her eyesight bymind. The question usually annoyed her,and on one occasion she replied sharply that she 'wore glasses-becauseofthesinsoftheworld,'probablymeaningthatthebeliefinfailing eyesight (due to age) had become so firmly establishedthroughout theages, that shecouldnotatonceovercome it."This,too,wasconcessionto"mortalmind."Comparenote79,p.324.

86. TheTreatmentofDisease, 1909,quotedbyH.G.G.Mackensie, inMedicineandtheChurch,editedbyGeoffreyRhodes,1910,p.122.

87. CharlotteLiliasRamsay,whowrites thearticle "ChristianScience,"inHastings'sEncyclopediaofReligionandEthics,vol.III,pp.576-579,inlieuofaddingtheordinary"Literature"tothearticle,informsus that "there is no authorized Christian Science literature exceptthat which issues from the Christian Science Publishing House inBoston,Mass.""TheStudentofChristianScience,"sheadds,"mustbe warned not to accept any other as genuine." Nevertheless, shegives us, here, this brief sketch. Lewis Clinton Strang gives us asimilar one in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of ReligiousKnowledge, vol. X, pp. 288-291, which would appear to be evenmoreauthoritative,asbearingatitsheadthis"Note,"signedbyMrs.Eddy: "Ihaveexamined thisarticle,edited it,andnowapprove it."TheNew Schaff-Herzog article is rendered more valuable by theadjunctiontoitoftwoothers,a"JudicialEstimateoftheSystem,"byLyman P. Powell, and a "Critical View of the Doctrines," by J. F.Carson—thewhole closingwith an extensive bibliography.There is

nevertheless added at vol. XII, p. 550, as a "Statement from theChristian Science Committee on Publication of the First Church,Boston," a biographical article onMrs. Eddy, signed by EugeneR.Cox.Mrs.Eddy'sScienceandHealth,withKeytotheScriptures,is,ofcourse,thesource-bookforthesystemofteaching.Firstissuedin1875 (pp. 564) it has gone through innumerable editions; the firsteditionofthetextrevisedbyJ.H.Wigginwaspublishedin1885;butthebookhasundergonemuchminorrevisionsince.Accordingtothetrust-deed by which the site of "the Mother Church" in Boston isheld, all the editions, since at least the seventy-first, are equallyauthoritative.Wehaveusedchiefly theonehundredandsixty-first(1899,pp.663).BesidesthesuggestionsgivenbyC.LiliasRamsay,alistofMrs.Eddy'swritingsandofthe"PublicationsoftheChristianScience Publishing Society"may be found in AppendixH to C.H.Lea's A Plea for the Thorough and Unbiased Investigation ofChristian Science, and a Challenge to its Critics, second edition,1915.AgoodclassifiedbibliographyisprefixedtoLymanP.Powell'sChristianScience: theFaithand itsFounder,1907.TheauthorizedlifeofMrs.Eddy isSibylWilbur'sLifeofMaryBakerEddy,1908.Georgine Milmine's Life of Mary Baker Eddy and History ofChristiartScience, firstpublishedinMcGlure'sMagazine for1907-1908,wasissuedinbookformin1909;itgivestheascertainedfacts,andformsthe foundationforacriticalstudyof themovement.Thebookswhich,alongwithit,wehavefound,onthewhole,mostuseful,are Powell's, Podmore's, and Paget's; but the literature is veryextensive and there are many excellent guides to the study of thesystem.Evenfictionhasbeenutilized,ClaraLouiseBurnham'sTheRightPrincess(Boston,HoughtonMifflinCo.,1902),forexample,isaveryattractivepleaforChristianScience;andEdwardEggleston'sThe Faith Doctor (a story of New York), 1891, is a strongpresentation of the social situation created by it. An interestingepisode in the history of Christian Science may be studied in twobookspublishedthroughG.P.Putnam'sSons,NewYork,byAugustaE. Stetson, entitled respectively: Reminiscences, Sermons, andCorrespondence Proving Adherence to the Principles of ChristianScience as Taught by Mary Baker Eddy, and Vital Issues inChristian Science, a Record, etc. A good recent discussion of the

innermeaningofChristianSciencewillbefoundinthearticlebyL.W. Snell, entitled "Method of Christian Science," in The HibbertJournal for April, 1915, pp. 620-629. Walter S. Harris, ChristianScience and the Ordinary Man, 1917, seeks to argue afresh thefundamental question. Among the most recent books, see also:George M. Searle (a Paulist Father), The Truth about ChristianScience, 1916; and W. McA. Goodwin (a "Christian SciencePractitioner, Teacher, and Lecturer"), A Lecture entitled TheChristianScienceChurch,1916.