Let us recollect the state of the world on the advent of Jesus Christ. Paganism was universal. Mankind, penned up like wild flocks, existed only by the will of their masters. Families were not constituted; the distinctive character of ancient society was the multiplicity of gods, slavery, and the little value placed on women and children. In proclaiming equality, the founder of Christianity destroyed this threefold error.* At that voice man burst his chains, awoke from his long torpor, and hailed the dawn of his resurrection. When we contemplate the feeble means by which this religion was established, what adversaries it had to encounter, what obstacles to surmount, and in how few years it triumphed, no one can deny its divine origin, which is sufficiently testified by Scripture. Observe what a wonderful multitude of superior intellects have, since the earliest times, brought to its shrine the weight of their talents; number all those great minds which, during so many ages, have ranged themselves under its banner; look at what is passing in our day, and say if a religion which has reckoned, and still reckons, in its ranks so many great men, whose only enemy has been pride, whose steps are all strewn with mercies, whose faults have been those of man, never of its doctrines, ought to be regarded as the work of hallucinated madmen.

* If England, America, and Russia have accomplished such great things, if they have been called to such exalted destinies, they owe it to their respect for religion.

We are not the first who, persuaded of the divine origin of Christianity, have pointed out the line which separates the apparitions of the Scriptures from those of profane history. The English faculty, who have chiefly entered on the subject, have already put forth a similar opinion. Thus Arnold writes: "A rational Christian admits of no inspiration but that exhibited in Christ and his apostles. As to the gift of prophecy in paganism and amongst modern Christians, it is only claimed by madmen, dupes, and impostors. The motives of those deceivers could be traced to private views of ambition or fame and interest, or zeal for the public good."

"It has been asked," says Hibbert, "if all the authenticated facts of apparitions seen and voices heard should be looked upon as pathological cases. A distinction must be made in those that apply to Holy Writ. It would in fact be very unseemly to comment on the manner in which God, to answer certain purposes, has communicated directly with man; but this distinction once established, it is necessary to remark that no facts of the kind are proved to have occurred since the apostolic times; we, therefore, believe that all cases of like character, since that

* Guizot, Hietoire de la Civilisation en Europe, t. i. 1842. Guizot, Essai sur l'histoire de France, 5th edit. Collection Charpentier, 1841. 26 period, belong more to medicine than to theology."* It must be remembered that both Arnold and Hibbert are Protestants.

Abercrombie says, in his work on the Intellectual Faculties, that, howsoever humiliating it may be to the pride of man, it is no less true that the highest efforts of his genius have only resulted in comprehending some insignificant parts of the plan of creation, and the admirable order which pervades the whole. If he attempts to dive deeper into the causes of this order, he finds that the power of the Creator extends beyond the limits of his mind, and that infinity is still before him. Notwithstanding all his efforts, he cannot step over the threshold; and, if he be permitted to reach it, he can only contemplate the boundless horizon, which meets his bewildered sight, and bow in humble adoration before unmeasured wisdom and incomprehensible power.†

It has been thought strange that a Christian rationalist, some-thing of a philosopher, should have appealed to the authority of Protestant authors. Our reply is simple; if we believe in the excellency of the Catholic religion, if we firmly believe that our country will only be wise and happy in proportion as that religion is respected, we make no sectional distinctions, because God has reserved to himself alone the judgment of the conscience; and we find it impossible to believe that he will be inexorable to men truly religious, of whatsoever sect they may be.

There are writers, who, in view of the events that have passed before our eyes, and the more terrible ones for which they have prepared the way, should have been made more just towards religion, but who have indulged in great outcries against the distinction we have made in favor of the apparitions of the Bible. But, instead of reproaching us for the weakness of bowing with too much respect before the canonical narrations, they have attacked us as an eclectic, who adopted some and rejected others. In acting thus, we did not pretend to more orthodoxy than the Fathers of the Church, and those learned theologians, who, like ourselves, were rationalists in regard to the hallucinations of several holy personages; which assertion will be proved by the following quotations.

* Hibbert, op. cit. A very well-written estimate will be found in a work by the Abb6 Lenglet-Dufresnoy (viewed religiously), of apparitions and visions which have occurred since the apostolic age, particularly in the Middle Ages. Traite Historique et Dogmatique sur les Apparitions, les Visions et les Reve1ations particulieres, 2 vols, in 12. Avignon et Paris, 1751, vol. i. p. 97.

† Abercrombie, op. cit.; John Cheyne's Essays on Partial Derangement of the Mind in supposed connection with Religion, 1 vol. Dublin, 1843.

Saint Bonaventura says decidedly, that certain persons who imagine they see Jesus Christ, or the Virgin, and from their mouths receive consolation, are exposed to errors, the publication of which would be in itself blasphemous.* The famous Dr. Gerson has written a work entirely in the same spirit. Besides, the Church, according to Cardinal Lambertini, grants very little authority to particular visions. Some she tolerates, but rejects the mass. She shows no respect to them in acts of canonization, unless they are accompanied by sublime virtues. Even when visions are recognized by the Holy See, they do not constitute an object of general faith. Any opinion whatever, even the least favorable to miracles of all kinds, may be entertained as to their causes, without exceeding, on that account, the bounds of orthodoxy.†