charistic bread of the Macedonians, found it turned to a stone.40 Gregory the Great narrates that a young monk who had gone to visit his parents without permission, died on the day of his return, but could not rest quiet in his grave until Benedict, his superior, had the host laid on it.40 In the time of Justinian, we are told, when it was the cus- tom to distribute the Eucharistic bread left over after the communion to the children, it happened once that a Jewish child received and ate a fragment of it. The enraged father cast the child into a furnace, but it was miraculously preserved from harm.40 Gregory of Tours tells of a deacon of unholy life, who, carrying one day the Eucharist into a church, had the bread fly of itself out of his hand and place itself on the altar.40 According to the same writer the host on one occasion shed blood when broken.40 A bishop named Marsius is related to have let his portion of the Eucharistic bread, received from the hands of the ad- ministrator, fall into the folds of his robe because he did not wish to break his fast. It at once turned into a ser- pent, and wrapped itself about his waist whence it could be dislodged only by a night of prayer for him on the part of the administrator.40 This is matched by the miracle of Bolsena, which Raphael has rendered famous. A priest saying the mass — it is dated 1264 — let a drop of wine fall on his corporal, and doubled up the garment upon it. It was found to have left the impression of the wafer in blood on every fold which touched it.41
We have seen Augustine constrained to allow the prin- ciple that miracles alleged in the interests of false doctrines are self-condemned ; that no miracle can be accepted against the truth, but is at once to be set aside if presented in the interests of error. The principle is a scriptural one42 and has repeatedly been rationally validated. It is so validated, for example, in a solid argument by Lyman H. Atwater, speaking immediately of spiritualism.43 "A corrupt doc- trine," says he suggestively, "destroys a pretended mir-
DOCTRINE AND MIRACLES 53
acle just as strong counter circumstantial evidence would invalidate the testimony of a single witness." A good deal of confusion seems to be abroad on this matter. An impression appears to exist that the proper evidence of truth — or at least of religious truth — is miracle, and that therefore there can be no decisive criterion of religious truth offered for our acceptance except miracles wrought in sup- port of it. It is at least very commonly supposed that we are bound to examine carefully into the pretensions of any alleged miracle produced in support of any proposi- tions whatever, however intrinsically absurd ; and, if these alleged miracles cannot be at once decisively invalidated, we are bound to accept as true the propositions in support of which they are alleged. No proposition clearly per- ceived to be false, however, can possibly be validated to us by any miracle whatever ; and the perception of the propo- sition as clearly false relieves us at once from the duty of examining into the miraculous character of its alleged sup- port and invalidates any claim which that support can put in to miraculous character — prior to all investigation. A matter so clear could not be missed, of course, by Augus- tine, and we have his support, accordingly, in pointing out that the connection of alleged miracles with erroneous doc- trines invalidates their claim to be genuine works of God. We must not imagine, however, that ecclesiastical mir- acles are distinguished from the biblical miracles by noth- ing except the nature of the doctrines in connection with which they are alleged to be wrought. They differ from them also, fundamentally, in character. This difference is not denied. J. H. Newman, for example, describes it thus:44 "Ecclesiastical miracles, that is, miracles posterior to the Apostolic age, are, on the whole, different in object, character, and evidence from those of Scripture on the whole." At a subsequent point, he enlarges on this.45 "The Scripture miracles," says he, "are for the most part evidence of a Divine Revelation, and that for the sake of
54 COUNTERFEIT MIRACLES