teries of the kingdom of darkness, but to those who were without, all was mystery or parable." This has such an affinity of sound with what is said by the highest authority (St Mark iv. 11.) that the Infidels, or balancing believers, may, I am afraid, contrary to the writer's intention, wrest the striking allusion to counte 'nance the trite sneer, that " priests of all religions are the same." I come now to the principal, and pro

.

perly personal part of your letter, respecting your own articleMiracle," which notwithstanding your modesty in the introduction of your friend's two articles, I think, both in the matter and manner of it, preferable. You are quite in the right where you take any ⚫ difference between you and me to be only "in our language." What I said about the "Laws of Nature," was in the "person" of an infidel or sceptic, who will still take hold of that vague term, to carp against it; and any definition that can be given of it, even your last definition-" a stated course of things, or an order of causes and effects, established in every part of the system of nature which falls under our observation," will not be allowed to pass, without some fault being found with it For, excepting the astronomical part of the system, where yet perhaps our observations are not absolutely certain, I know no other "course of things" in which there is not a variation more or less, like the variation of the magnetic needle, and in some pla

to be observed at some times, ces, which I could exemplify, if necessary, in many • instances. It is not therefore the proof of what is called a "miracle," that I am disposed to object to, but to the philosophic definition of it, as

66

"a deviation from the laws of nature," which I would change into the more intelligible expression of "a ⚫ work which none but God could perform." Your own quotation of our Saviour's words justifies this defini⚫tion. He calls what he did "works," "works of God,” "works which no man ever did," &c. And indeed many of his works are such as will not come under the philosophic definition, and yet are confessedly "miraculous.” His own list (St Matt. xi. 5.) of the "blind," the "lame," the "lepers," the " deaf," presents to my mind " not "a deviation from," but a restoration of "the laws ❝ of nature, which, under your own explication of "a stat❝ed course of things," state, I think, the general con⚫dition of mankind to be otherwise. Even his feeding "the thousands" with a few loaves, may be accounted ' for according to my hypothesis, as it may be supposed that the quantity of grain which composed the loaves, might, if sown, have produced one sufficient repast for the thousands; and the same divine power which was necessary for working the increase in the ground 'could operate as naturally in the basket. His stilling the sea was no deviation from the "laws of nature," but rather a bringing it back to its natural state; and what shall we think of his "driving the buyers and 'sellers out of the temple," which I take to be almost as great a miracle as any, according to my idea, but no way ⚫ included in the philosophic definition. Let the experi'ment be tried by an obscure fisherman or carpenter's

son, from any of the neighbouring villages, upon the motley group of stall-keepers, who carry on their petty traffic in the vestibule of the Outer House of Session in Edinburgh, and the result, I dare say, would confirm

my opinion. There is a passage in the Psalms, which I have long thought a prophetic allusion to our Saviour's power in these two last instances: (Ps. lxv. 7.) "Who stillest the raging of the sea, and the noise of his waves, and the madness (tumult) of the people,' where the climax points to the preference, which perhaps has some analogy to what is said at the fourth verse, about the pleasures, or goodness of God's "house." Excuse these desultory hints, not as objections to the probation of miracles, but as offering a plan, • detached from all foreign argument, for founding that probation upon; and conducting it with as much probability of success as has hitherto appeared. I wish you < would take it in hand (if you think it any way feasible), C as, from the propriety of language, and clearness of method which I have observed in such of your produc⚫tions as I have seen, I would expect such corroboration of the common cause,' as, whether it convinced the • proud Infidel or not, would mightily edify and confirm the humble Believer. What little assistance is in my weak power I would willingly contribute to such an atC tempt, it made, and shall be happy, if “fungar vice "cotis, acutum reddere quæ ferrum valet, exsors ipsa "secandi."

The definition of a 'Miracle' given by Mr Skinner in this letter, he afterwards admitted, would not be proper in a discussion with philosophical unbelievers, and therefore seemed to acquiesce in that which his correspondent had made use of. This is stated on Dr Gleig's authority, who added the following remarks; I have no desire that you should mention this on my own account;

• but

6

but I think it would be creditable to Mr Skinner; for we really do not know, in numberless instances, what • works are such as God only can perform. Perhaps there is nothing short of creation, which some of the most exalted orders of created Intelligences might not, with the divine permission, perform; though without that permission, the most powerful of them could per• form nothing.'

The subject which came next to be discussed between Dr Gleig and Mr Skinner, is thus detailed in a letter from the former, dated the 31st of March, 1794 :—' A

bout the time that I received your letter of the 8th curt. I was thinking of writing to you on as puzzling a ques'tion as ever occurred to me in the history of literature • and science. But till this moment I have not found leisure to put my intention into execution. I now do it however, with sanguine hopes of receiving at least 6 part of that information which I so much want. In our great work, the word Philosophy will soon occur in the order of the alphabet, and I have got from Professor Robinson of Edinburgh, the finest view of the present philosophy, and the best rules for conducting 'philosophical enquiries, that I have ever seen. This however is not enough to complete the article. According to the plan of the Encyclopædia, a short History of Philosophy must be given; and this I have written myself, in a manner that meets the learned Pro•fessor's warmest approbation. In my sketch you will not be surprised, that the philosophy of ancient Egypt should make a conspicuous appearance. It was confessedly the source of Grecian science, and, if I mis

• take

• take not, of the religion and philosophy of the Brahmins in India. But what was the source of Egyptian • wisdom? That they were as learned and wise in the days of Moses as they were at a subsequent period, the sacred scriptures will not permit me to doubt; and that · at a subsequent period they were acquainted with the true solar system, is so well vouched by Greek and Latin writers, that it would be unreasonable in the highest degree to question the fact. Aristotle, Plutarch, and • Ammianus Marcellinus, affirm that Pythagoras was in Egypt, taught not only what we believe to be the true system of the sun, but, what is more extraordinary, the doctrine of comets in particular, and of their revo•lutions round the sun's centre with the other planets; "Stellas quasdam," says the Roman Historian," ceteris "similes, quarum ortus, obitusque, quibus sint tempo"ribus præstituti humanis mentibus ignorari." (lib. 25.

.

c. 10). At the same time that the Egyptian priests gave this wonderful piece of information to the Greek sages, it appears beyond a doubt, that they themselves were comparatively but poor Mathematicians. Pythagoras, we are told, spent twenty-two years in Egypt, studying the science of Geometry and Astronomy, and yet he discovered, after his return to Samos, the 47th proposition of Euclid's first book. This is doubtless a very useful, but in itself a very simple Theorem, and since it was not reached by the Egyptian Geometry, we < cannot suppose that those people had then reached far in such speculations. The same conclusion must be drawn with respect to their Astronomical sciences; for, notwithstanding their knowledge of what is now termed the Copernican system, we nowhere read (that I know

.