not by him,—has more evidence, though of the same inferior kind, than any other, for it is attested by the Epistles, as well as the Gospels, and was one corner-stone of the Christian church. But here, is the testimony sufficient to show that a man thoroughly dead as Abraham and Isaac were, came back to life; passed through closed doors, and ascended into the sky? I cannot speak for others—but most certainly I cannot believe such monstrous facts on such evidence.[1]
There is far more testimony to prove the fact of miracles, witchcraft, and diabolical possessions in times comparatively modern, than to prove the Christian miracles. It is well known, that the most credible writers among the early Christians, Irenæus, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret, and others, believed that the miraculous power continued in great vigour in their time.[2] But to come down still later, the case of St Bernard of Clairvaux is more to the point. He lived in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. His life has been written in part by William, Abbot of St Thierry, Ernald, Abbot of Bonnevaux, and Geoffrey, Abbot of Igny, “all eye-witnesses of the saint's actions.” Another life was written by Alanus, Bishop of Auxerre, and still another by John the Hermit, not long after the death of Bernard, both his contemporaries. Besides, there are three books on his miracles, one by Philip of Clairvaux, another by the
- ↑ But see Furness, ubi sup. ch. VII. VIII. XIII. See the candid remarks of De Wette, ubi sup. § 61. He admits the difficulties of the case, and only saves the general fact of the resurrection, by rejecting the authenticity of the 4th and part of the 3d Gospel (p. 315, et seq.), for he thinks the details of their accounts are inadmissible.
- ↑ On this subject of the miraculous power in the early church, see the celebrated treatise of Middleton, A Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers in the Christian Church, &c., Lond. 1749, in his works, Lond. 1752, Vol. I. See Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. Pt. I. ch. i. § 8, and Murdock’s note. The testimony of Chrysostom is fluctuating. See Middleton, Vol. I. p. 105, et seq. See Newman's defence of the Cath. miracles in the dissertation prefixed to Vol. I. of the Tr. of Fleury's History of the Church; Conrad Lycosthenes, Prodigiorum ac Ostentorum Chronicon, Basil, 1557, 1 Vol. Fol.; The treatise of St Ephraim of Cherson on the miracle wrought by Clement, at the end of Cotelerius, Pat. Apost., Ant. 1698, Vol. I. p. 811, et seq. The story of Simon Magus shows the credulity of the early Church. See it in Hegesippus, Lib. III. C. ii. See too Leo, Ep. ad Constant. Imp.; Augustinus, Ep. 86, and Const. Apost. VI. 9; Bernino, Istoria, de tuttel, Heresie, Venet. 1711, 4 vols. 4to, Sec. I. Ch. i. See the curious Miracles related by Victor Vitensis and Aeneas Gazaeus, in Gibbon, Hist. ch. XXXVII.
