An incident had some years before come to my knowledge, which now seemed instructive.  An educated, highly acute and thoughtful person, of very mature age, had become a convert to the Irving miracles, from an inability to distinguish them from those of the Pauline epistles; or to discern anything of falsity which would justify his rejecting them.  But after several years he totally renounced them as a miserable delusion, because he found that a system of false doctrine was growing up and was propped by them.  Here was a clear case of a man with all the advantages of modern education and science, who yet found the direct judgment of a professed miracle, that was acted before his senses, too arduous for him!  He was led astray while he trusted his power to judge of miracle:  he was brought right by trusting to his moral perceptions.

When we farther consider, that a knowledge of Natural Philosophy and Physiology not only does not belong to the poor, but comes later in time to mankind than a knowledge of morals;—­that a Miracle can only be judged of by Philosophy,—­that it is not easy even for philosophers to define what is a “miracle”—­that to discern “a deviation from the course of nature,” implies a previous certain knowledge of what the course of nature is,—­and that illiterate and early ages certainly have not this knowledge, and often have hardly even the idea,—­it becomes quite a monstrosity to imagine that sensible and external miracles constitute the necessary process and guarantee of divine revelation.

Besides, if an angel appeared to my senses, and wrought miracles, how would that assure me of his moral qualities?  Such miracles might prove his power and his knowledge, but whether malignant or benign, would remain doubtful, until by purely moral evidence, which no miracles could give, the doubt should be solved.[7] This is the old difficulty about diabolical wonders.  The moderns cut the knot, by denying that any but God can possibly work real miracles.  But to establish their principle, they make their definition and verification of a miracle so strict, as would have amazed the apostles; and after all, the difficulty recurs, that miraculous phenomena will never prove the goodness and veracity of God, if we do not know these qualities in Him without miracle.  There is then a deeper and an earlier revelation of God, which sensible miracles can never give.

We cannot distinctly learn what was Paul’s full idea of a divine revelation; but I can feel no doubt that he conceived it to be, in great measure, an inward thing.  Dreams and visions were not excluded from influence, and nacre or less affected his moral judgment; but he did not, consciously and on principle, beat down his conscience in submission to outward impressions.  To do so, is indeed to destroy the moral character of Faith, and lay the axe to the root, not of Christian doctrine only, but of every possible spiritual system.