which, as such, you warn us to beware of, we have an argument for true miracles from this very circumstance. False miracles, indeed, even of themselves, would be marvellous. Grant them

to be even the work of Satan, and you grant a thing denied. And observe, the false miracles, foretold by our Lord, do not mean no miracles at all. That was a point asserted by the Papists, and denied by the Reformers; as you will presently have an opportunity of seeing, by citations express to the point. The Papists, who claimed miracles, wished to make it appear that there could be nothing miraculous except on the side of truth; and therefore asserted that the lying miracles, foretold as one of the signs of Antichrist, were not real. The Reformers, on the contrary, alleged that there might be real, though inferior and lying miracles, on the side of falsehoodnamely, those wrought by the Papists themselves. Thus, even if you grant lying miracles alone, as now occurring, you grant something real. But this is not all. In granting lying miracles, you grant, by inference, more. For, according to all evidence of Scripture, there never were the spurious without the genuine: there never were those from beneath, without those from above at the same time. And prophecy agrees with fact. As tokens of the last day, our Lord foretels the signs and wonders of false Christs and prophets, and Joel foretels true ones. It comes, therefore, to this that wherever we have the one, we must expect the other; so that, alleging the false, you establish the true. For example: prove the alleged "gifts" to be spurious (which, however,

you have not done yet); and you prove a ground for expecting other, and real miracles. There never is an imitation, without a pattern. There never is a copy, without something to copy from. There cannot be an antitype, without a type. There never were beggars, assuming a particular form of misery, without real misery in the same shape. Thus every counterfeit implies something counterfeited; and if you prove counterfeit miracles, you only tell us to open our eyes the wider, and look for the originals.

On the whole, then, we claim to be left unfettered. Some of our opponents have been driven, in their difficulties, to define so closely as almost to make it appear that there is no such thing as a miracle, while others have run ashore in the opposite direction, attempting to muddle the question by exclaiming that all things are miracles alike. We hold our ground, refusing to

go after such delusions, either to the right hand or to the left. Some miracles, and those not ancient, we have to allege; such that not even the tightest definition, provided it makes the least pretence to be scriptural, can exclude them. Others we find, equally deserving to be recorded; and coming within any fair and reasonable definition, not made with a particular object. And others, again, we may cite, of a lower order. If, in consequence of this, some periodical opponent should have recourse to an unworthy trick: should lay hold of some instance, which we do not offer as in the highest sense of the term miraculous: should cite this as one of our examples, keeping back all others should say, "This is no miracle," when,

in the strictest sense of the terms, we never called it one let the reader be on his guard. I give this warning, because I apprehend such artifices, from past proceedings. For the plan of some such opponents has been, not to meet the leading facts and proofs of the argument, but to lay hold of some matter of detail, some point of third or fourth rate importance, and thus to elude the necessity of going fairly into the subject. One antagonist-I mean the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER-has found his chief advantage in catching at particular expressions; and, where they would not quite answer his purpose as they stood, in altering them to bear out his misrepresentations: and, from the advantage of a greater circulation, it is unknown what extraordinary falsehoods and misconceptions have thus obtained general credence. The reader, at least, is now put on his guard against such artifices and, if those who are aware of the deceptions practised will make them known, truth will be promoted, and delusion checked.

I must here remark upon the total insufficiency of the plea, where an attempt is made to get rid of some miraculous occurrences, by representing them as "merely" answers to prayer. They may have been answers to prayer. But does that prove that they were not miracles? Far from it: for we have some miracles wrought in answer to prayer in the Bible itself. Peter prayed, and raised Tabitha to life. Paul prayed, and healed the father of Publius. Elijah prayed, and raised the widow's son. Nay, our Lord teaches us that there are some miracles which cannot be wrought without prayer: "This kind goeth not out but by

prayer and fasting." How vain is it, then, to think that a miracle is disposed of, if it can be called an answer to prayer! Prayer determines nothing one way or the other. One occurrence may be a miracle, with prayer: another may be no miracle, without prayer. The question is, has there been an extraordinary manifestation of supernatural power, perceptible to our senses or to our intelligence? If there has, it is a miracle: there may have been prayer to obtain it, but it is a miracle nevertheless. Prayer is an element that enters not into the definition, for or against: and the introduction of this new and non-essential particular merely answers the purpose of darkening truth, and puzzling the question.

That, of the quotations in the present work, there is, at any rate, one class which relates to miracles strictly so called, is undeniable. I refer to those which have already been cited by my respected and talented opponent, the Hon. and Rev. Baptist W. Noel, in his "Remarks on the Revival of Miraculous Powers in the Church," as making against miracles. By thus quoting them, he has, at any rate, fixed their character so far as this, that whether against, or for, it is to MIRACLES that they relate. This is a point of some importance; especially if on examination we shall find reason to conclude, that some of them do really favour the doctrine, against which he has cited them. I would the more insist upon this point, because it has been supposed, in some quarters (for instance, by the well-intentioned but Committee-ridden RECORD), that the passages in the Reformers, appealed to as favouring miracles, do

in fact relate merely to remarkable providences. Well, then if passages are objected to, on the supposition that they have no real relation to miracles, we must at any rate see if we cannot bring some, which unquestionably do relate to them. And what course more satisfactory than that which I propose? I bring passages which an opponent has quoted, as making against miracles. Therefore they confessedly relate to miracles: this is unquestionably what they are about: to this we have our opponent's own testimony, in his quoting them. And if we find, on examination, that they do, in reality, favour what they seemed to oppose, then have we the testimony of this same opponent, that what they favour is no inferior thing, but actual MIRACLES.

But, having referred to Mr. Noel's pamphlet, let me here give some account of the present work, which partly owes its existence to that publication. I had previously, in "The Christian Dispensation Miraculous," appealed to the authority of the Reformers, as not unfavourable to miracles. Mr. Noel's work contained some citations from the Reformers, which were certainly calculated to convey a very different impression: it contained also the perfectly courteous, though somewhat galling intimation, that the advocates of miracles had used the authority of the Reformers "too hastily." It really looked so: and no doubt many persons, at the sight of Mr. Noel's citations, believed that this was actually the case : that appeals to the Reformers, as favourable to miracles, were too hasty: and, armed with these references, his work was applauded as settling the