Section 2. On the Antecedent Credibility of a Miracle, Considered as a Divine Interposition{13} IN proof of miraculous occurrences, we must have recourse to the same kind of evidence as that by which we determine the truth of historical accounts in general. For though Miracles, in consequence of their extraordinary nature, challenge a fuller and more accurate investigation, still they do not admit an investigation conducted on different principles,—Testimony being the main assignable medium of proof for past events of any kind. And this being indisputable, it is almost equally so that the Christian Miracles are attested by evidence even stronger than can be produced for any of those historical facts which we most firmly believe. This has been felt by unbelievers who have been, in consequence, led to deny the admissibility of even the strongest testimony, if offered in behalf of miraculous events, and thus to get rid of the only means by which they can be proved to have taken place. It has accordingly been asserted, {14} that all events inconsistent with the course of nature bear in their very front such strong and decisive marks of falsehood and absurdity, that it is needless to examine the evidence adduced for them [Note 1]. "Where men are heated by zeal and enthusiasm," says Hume, with a distant but evident allusion to the Christian Miracles, "there is no degree of human testimony so strong as may not be procured for the greatest absurdity; and those who will be so silly as to examine the affair by that medium, and seek particular flaws in the testimony, are almost sure to be confounded." [Note 2] Of these antecedent objections, which are supposed to decide the question, the most popular is founded on the frequent occurrence of wonderful tales in every age and country—generally, too, connected with Religion; and since the more we are in a situation to examine these accounts, the more fabulous they are proved to be, there would certainly be hence a fair presumption against the Scripture narrative, did it resemble them in its circumstances and proposed object. A more refined argument is that advanced by Hume, in the first part of his Essay On Miracles, in which it is maintained against the credibility of a Miracle, that it is more probable that the testimony {15} should be false than that the Miracle should be true. This latter objection has been so ably met by various writers, that, though prior in the order of the argument to the former, it need not be considered here. It derives its force from the assumption, that a Miracle is strictly a causeless phenomenon, a self-originating violation of nature; and is solved by referring the event to divine agency, a principle which (it cannot be denied) has originated works indicative of power at least as great as any Miracle requires. An adequate cause being thus found for the production of a Miracle, the objection vanishes, as far as the mere question of power is concerned; and it remains to be considered whether the anomalous fact be of such a character as to admit of being referred to the Supreme Being. For if it cannot with propriety be referred to Him, it remains as improbable as if no such agent were known to exist. At this point, then, I propose taking up the argument; and by examining what Miracles are in their nature and circumstances referable to Divine agency, I shall be providing a reply to the former of the objections just noticed, in which the alleged similarity of all miraculous narratives one to another, is made a reason for a common rejection of all. In examining what Miracles may properly be ascribed to the Deity, Hume supplies us with an observation so {16} just, when taken in its full extent, that I shall make it the groundwork of the inquiry on which I am entering. As the Deity, he says, discovers Himself to us by His works, we have no rational grounds for ascribing to Him attributes or actions dissimilar from those which His works convey. It follows, then, that in discriminating between those Miracles which can and those which cannot be ascribed to God, we must be guided by the information with which experience furnishes us concerning His wisdom, goodness, and other attributes. Since a Miracle is an act out of the known track of Divine agency, as regards the physical system, it is almost indispensable to show its consistency with the Divine agency, at least, in some other point of view if, that is, it is recognised as the work of the same power. Now, I contend that this reasonable demand is satisfied in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, in which we find a narrative of Miracles altogether answering in their character and circumstances to those general ideas which the ordinary course of Divine Providence enables us to form concerning the attributes and actions of God. While writers expatiate so largely on the laws of nature, they altogether forget the existence of a moral system: a system which, though but partially understood, and but general in its appointments as acting upon free agents, is as intelligible in its laws and provisions as the material world. Connected with this {17} moral government, we find certain instincts of mind; such as conscience, a sense of responsibility, and an approbation of virtue; an innate desire of knowledge, and an almost universal feeling of the necessity of religious observances; while, in fact, Virtue is, on the whole, rewarded, and Vice punished. And though we meet with many and striking anomalies, yet it is evident they are but anomalies, and possibly but in appearance so, and with reference to our partial information. These two systems, the Physical and the Moral, sometimes act in union, and sometimes in opposition to each other; and as the order of nature certainly does in many cases interfere with the operation of moral laws (as, for instance, when good men die prematurely, or the gifts of nature are lavished on the bad), there is nothing to shock probability in the idea that a great moral object should be effected by an interruption of physical order. [Note 3] But, further than this, however physical laws may embarrass the operation of the moral system, still on the whole they are subservient to it; contributing, as is evident, to the welfare and convenience of man, providing for his mental gratification as well as animal enjoyment, sometimes even supplying correctives to his moral disorders. If, then, the economy of nature has so constant a reference to an ulterior plan, a Miracle is a deviation from {18} the subordinate for the sake of the superior system, and is very far indeed from improbable, when a great moral end cannot be effected except at the expense of physical regularity. Nor can it be fairly said to argue an imperfection in the Divine plans, that this interference should be necessary. For we must view the system of Providence as a whole; which is not more imperfect because of the mutual action of its parts, than a machine, the separate wheels of which effect each other's movements. Now the Miracles of the Jewish and Christian Religions must be considered as immediate effects of Divine Power beyond the action of nature, for an important moral end; and are in consequence accounted for by producing, not a physical, but a final cause [Note 4]. We are not left to contemplate the bare anomalies, and from the mere necessity of the case to refer them to the supposed agency of the Deity. The power of displaying them is, according to the Scripture narrative, intrusted to certain individuals, who stand forward as their interpreters, giving them a voice and language, and a dignity demanding our regard; who set them forth as evidences of the greatest of moral ends, a Revelation from God,—as instruments in His hand of affecting a direct intercourse between Himself and His creatures, which {19} otherwise could not have been effected,—as vouchers for the truth of a message which they deliver [Note 5]. This is plain and intelligible; there is an easy connection between the miraculous nature of their works and the truth of their words; the fact of their superhuman power is a reasonable ground for belief in their superhuman knowledge. Considering, then, our instinctive sense of duty and moral obligation, yet the weak sanction which reason gives to the practice of virtue, and withal the uncertainty of the mind when advancing beyond the first elements of right and wrong; considering, moreover, the feeling which wise men have entertained of the need of some heavenly guide to instruct and confirm them in goodness, and that unextinguishable desire for a Divine message which has led men in all ages to acquiesce even in pretended revelations, rather than forego the consolation thus afforded them; and again, the possibility (to say the least) of our being destined for a future state of being, the nature and circumstances of which it may concern {20} us much to know, though from nature we know nothing; considering, lastly, our experience of a watchful and merciful Providence, and the impracticability already noticed of a Revelation without a Miracle, it is hardly too much to affirm that the moral system points to an interference with the course of nature, and that Miracles wrought in evidence of a Divine communication, instead of being antecedently improbable, are, when directly attested, entitled to a respectful and impartial consideration. When the various antecedent objections which ingenious men have urged against Miracles are brought together, they will be found nearly all to arise from forgetfulness of the existence of moral laws [Note 6]. In their zeal to perfect the laws of matter they most unphilosophically overlook a more sublime system, which contains disclosures not only of the Being but of the Will of God. Thus, Hume, in a passage above referred to, observes, "Though the Being to whom the Miracle is ascribed be Almighty, it does not, upon that account, become a whit more probable, since it is impossible for us to know the attributes or actions of such a Being, otherwise than from the experience which we have of His productions in the usual course of nature. This still reduces us to past observation, and obliges us to compare the instances of the violation of truth in the testimony of men with {21} those of the violation of the laws of nature by Miracles, in order to judge which of them is most likely and probable." Here the moral government of God, with the course of which the Miracle entirely accords, is altogether kept out of sight. With a like heedlessness of the moral character of a Miracle, another writer, notorious for his irreligion [Note 7], objects that it argues mutability in the Deity, and implies that the physical system was not created good, as needing improvement. And a recent author adopts a similarly partial and inconclusive mode of reasoning, when he confuses the Christian Miracles with fables of apparitions and witches, and would examine them on the strict principle of those legal forms which from their secular object go far to exclude all religious discussion of the question [Note 8]. Such reasoners seem to suppose, that when the agency of the Deity is introduced to account for Miracles, it is the illogical introduction of an unknown cause, a reference to a mere name, the offspring, perhaps, of popular superstition; or, if more than a name, to a cause that can be known only by means of the physical creation; and hence they consider Religion as founded in the mere weakness or eccentricity of the intellect, not in actual intimations of a Divine government as contained in the moral world. From an apparent impatience {22} of investigating a system which is but partially revealed, they esteem the laws of the material system alone worthy the notice of a scientific mind; and rid themselves of the annoyance which the importunity of a claim to miraculous power occasions them, by discarding all the circumstances which fix its antecedent probability, all in which one Miracle differs from another, the professed author, object, design, character, and human instruments. When this partial procedure is resisted, the à priori objections of sceptical writers at once lose their force. Facts are only so far improbable as they fall under no general rule; whereas it is as parts of an existing system that the Miracles of Scripture demand our attention, as resulting from known attributes of God, and corresponding to the ordinary arrangements of His providence. Even as detached events they might excite a rational awe towards the mysterious Author of nature. But they are presented to us, not as unconnected and unmeaning occurrences, but as holding a place in an extensive plan of Divine government, completing the moral system, connecting Man and his Maker, and introducing him to the means of securing his happiness in another and eternal state of being. That such is the professed object of the body of Christian Miracles, can hardly be denied. In the earlier Religion it was substantially the same, though, from the preparatory nature of the Dispensation a {23} less enlarged view was given of the Divine counsels. The express purpose of the Jewish Miracles is to confirm the natural evidence of one God, the Creator of all things, to display His attributes and will with distinctness and authority, and to enforce the obligation of religious observances, and the sinfulness of idolatrous worship [Note 9]. Whether we turn to the earlier or later ages of Judaism, in the plagues of Egypt, in the parting of Jordan, and the arresting of the sun's course by Joshua, in the harvest thunder at the prayer of Samuel, in the rending of the altar at Bethel, in Elijah's sacrifice on Mount Carmel, and in the cure of Naaman by Elisha, we recognise this one grand object throughout. Not even in the earliest ages of the Scripture history are Miracles wrought at random, or causelessly, or to amuse the fancy, or for the sake of mere display; nor prodigally, for the mere conviction of individuals, but for the most part on a grand scale, in the face of the world, to supply whole nations with evidence concerning the Deity. Nor are they strewn confusedly over the face of the history, being with few exceptions reducible to three eras; the formation of the Hebrew Church and polity, the reformation in the times of the idolatrous Kings of Israel, and the {24} promulgation of the Gospel. Let it be observed, moreover, that the power of working them, instead of being assumed by any classes of men indiscriminately, is described as a prerogative of the occasional Prophets, to the exclusion of the Priests and Kings; a circumstance which, not to mention its remarkable contrast to the natural course of an imposture, is deserving attention from its consistency with the leading design of Miracles already specified. For the respective claims of the Kings and Priests were already ascertained, when once the sacred office was limited to the family of Aaron, and the regal power to David and his descendants; whereas extraordinary messengers, as Moses, Samuel, and Elijah, needed some supernatural display of power to authenticate their pretensions. In corroboration of this remark I might observe upon the unembarrassed manner of the Prophets in the exercise of their professed gift; their disdain of argument or persuasion, and the confidence with which they appeal to those before whom they are said to have worked their Miracles. These and similar observations do more than invest the separate Miracles with a dignity worthy of the Supreme Being; they show the coincidence of them all in one common and consistent object. As parts of a system, the Miracles recommend and attest each other, evidencing not only general wisdom, but a digested and extended plan. And while this appearance {25} of design connects them with the acknowledged works of a Creator, who is in the natural world chiefly known to us by the presence of final causes, so, again, a plan conducted as this was, through a series of ages, evinces not the varying will of successive individuals, but the steady and sustaining purpose of one Sovereign Mind. And this remark especially applies to the coincidence of views observable between the Old and New Testament; the latter of which, though written after a long interval of silence, the breaking up of the former system, a revolution in religious discipline, and the introduction of Oriental tenets into the popular Theology, still unhesitatingly takes up and maintains the ancient principles of miraculous interposition. An additional recommendation of the Scripture Miracles is their appositeness to the times and places in which they were wrought; as, for instance, in the case of the plagues of Egypt, which, it has been shown [Note 10], were directed against the prevalent superstitions of that country. Their originality, beauty, and immediate utility, are further properties falling in with our conceptions of Divine agency. In their general character we discover nothing indecorous, light, or ridiculous; they are grave, simple, unambiguous, majestic. Many of them, especially those of the later Dispensation, are remarkable for their benevolent and {26} merciful character; others are useful for a variety of subordinate purposes, as a pledge of the certainty of particular promises, or as comforting good men, or as edifying the Church. Nor must we overlook the moral instruction conveyed in many, particularly in those ascribed to Christ, the spiritual interpretation which they will often bear, and the exemplification which they afford of particular doctrines [Note 11]. Accepting, then, what may be called Hume's canon, that no work can be reasonably ascribed to the agency of God, which is altogether different from those ordinary works from which our knowledge of Him is originally obtained, I have shown that the Miracles of Scripture, far from being exceptionable on that account, are strongly recommended by their coincidence with what we know from nature of His Providence and Moral Attributes. That there are some few among them in which this coincidence cannot be traced, it is not necessary to deny. As a whole they bear a determinate and consistent character, being great and extraordinary means for attaining a great, momentous, and extraordinary object. I shall not, however, dismiss this criterion of the antecedent probability of a Miracle with which Hume has furnished us, without showing that it is more or less detrimental to the pretensions of all professed {27} Miracles but those of the Jewish and Christian Revelations; in other words, that none else are likely to have occurred, because none else can with any probability be referred to the agency of the Deity, the only known cause of miraculous interposition. We exclude then 1. Those which are not even referred by the workers of them to Divine AgencySuch are the extraordinary works attributed by some to Zoroaster; and, again, to Pythagoras, Empedocles, Apollonius, and others of their School; which only claim to be the result of their superior wisdom, and were quite independent of a Supreme Being [Note 12]. Such are the supposed effects of witchcraft or of magical charms, which profess to originate with Spirits and Demons; for, as these agents, supposing them to exist, did not make the world, there is every reason for thinking they cannot of themselves alter its arrangements [Note 13]. And those, as in some accounts of {28} apparitions, which are silent respecting their origin, and are referred to God from the mere necessity of the case. 2. Those which are unworthy of an All-wise Author1. As, for example, the Miracles of Simon Magus, who pretended he could assume the appearance of a serpent, exhibit himself with two faces, and transform himself into whatever shape he pleased [Note 14]. Such are most of the Miracles recorded in the apocryphal accounts of Christ [Note 15]; e.g., the sudden ceasing of all kinds of motion at His birth, birds stopping in the midst of their flight, men at table with their hands to their mouths, yet unable to eat, etc.; His changing, when a child, His playmates into kids, and animating clay figures of beasts and birds; the practice attributed to Him of appearing to His disciples sometimes as a youth, sometimes as an old man, sometimes as a child, sometimes large, sometimes less, sometimes so tall as to reach the Heavens; and the obeisance paid Him by the military standards when He was brought before Pilate. Of the same cast is the story of His picture presented by Nicodemus to Gamaliel, which, when pierced by the Jews, gave forth blood and water. {29} 2. Under this head of exception fall many of the Miracles related by the Fathers [Note 16]; e.g., that of the consecrated bread changing into a live coal in the hands of a woman, who came to the Lord's supper after offering incense to an idol; of the dove issuing from the body of Polycarp at his martyrdom; of the petrifaction of a fowl dressed by a person under a vow of abstinence; of the exorcism of the demoniac camel; of the stones shedding tears at the barbarity of the persecutions; of inundations rising up to the roofs of churches without entering the open doors; and of pieces of gold, as fresh as from the mint, dropt from heaven into the laps of the Italian Monks [Note 17]. 3. Of the same character are the Miracles of the Romish Breviary [Note 18]; as the prostration of wild beasts before the martyrs they were about to devour; the miraculous uniting of two chains with which St. Peter had been at different times bound; and the burial of Paul the Hermit by lions. 4. Such again are the Rabbinical Miracles, as that of the flies killed by lightning for settling on a rabbi's paper. And the Miracles ascribed by some to Mahomet, as that the trees went out to meet him, the stones saluted him, and a camel complained to him [Note 19]. {30} The exorcism in the Book of Tobit must here be mentioned, in which the Evil Spirit who is in love with Sara is driven away by the smell of certain perfumes [Note 20]. 5. Hence the Scripture accounts of Eve's temptation by the serpent; of the speaking of Balaam's ass; of Jonah and the whale; and of the devils sent into the herd of swine, are by themselves more or less improbable, being unequal in dignity to the rest. They are then supported by the system in which they are found, as being a few out of a multitude, and therefore but exceptions (and, as we suppose, but apparent exceptions) to the general rule. In some of them, too, a further purpose is discernible, which of itself reconciles us to the strangeness of their first appearance, and suggests the possibility of similar reasons, though unknown, being assigned in explanation of the rest. As the Miracle of the swine, the object of which may have been to prove to us the reality of demoniacal possessions [Note 21]. 6. Miracles of mere power, even when connected with some ultimate object, are often improbable for {31} the same general reason, viz., as unworthy of an All-wise Author. Such as that ascribed to Zoroaster [Note 22], of suffering melted brass to be poured upon his breast without injury to himself. Unless indeed their immediate design be to exemplify the greatness of God, as in the descent of fire from heaven upon Elijah's sacrifice, and in Christ's walking on the sea [Note 23], which evidently possess a dignity fitting them to be works of the Supreme Being. The propriety indeed of the Christian Miracles, contrasted with the want of decorum observable in those elsewhere related, forms a most striking evidence of their divinity. 7. Here, too, ambiguous Miracles find a place, it being antecedently improbable that the Almighty should rest the credit of His Revelation upon events which but obscurely implied His immediate presence. {32} 8. And, for the same reason, those are in some measure improbable which are professed by different Religions; because from a Divine Agent may be expected distinct and peculiar specimens of divine agency. Hence the claims to supernatural power in the primitive Church are in general questionable [Note 24], as resting upon the exorcism of evil spirits, and the cure of diseases; works, not only less satisfactory than others, as evidence of a miraculous interposition, but suspicious, from the circumstance that they were exhibited also by Jews and Gentiles of the same age [Note 25]. In the plagues of Egypt and Elijah's sacrifice, which seem to be of this class, there is a direct contest between two parties; and the object of the divine messenger is to show his own superiority in the very point in which his adversaries try their powers. Our Saviour's use of the clay in restoring sight has been accounted for on a similar principle, such external means being in repute among the Heathen in their pretended cures. 3. Those which have no professed Object1. Hence a suspicion is thrown on all miracles ascribed by the Apocryphal Gospels to Christ in His infancy; for, being prior to His preaching, they seem {33} to attest no doctrine, and are but distantly connected with any object. 2. Those again on which an object seems to be forced. Hence many harmonizing in one plan arrest the attention more powerfully than a detached and solitary miracle, as converging to one point, and pressing upon our notice the end for which they are wrought. This remark, as far as it goes, is prejudicial to the miracle wrought (as it is said) in Hunneric's persecution, long after the real age of Miracles was past; when the Athanasian confessors are reported to have retained the power of speech after the loss of their tongues. 3. Those, too, must be viewed with suspicion which are disjoined from human instruments, and are made the vehicle of no message [Note 26]; since, according to our foregoing view, Miracles are only then divested of their à priori improbability when furthering some great moral end, such as authenticating a divine communication. It is an objection then to those ascribed to relics generally, and in particular to those attributed to the tomb of the Abbé Paris, that they are left to tell their own story, and are but distantly connected with any object whatever. As it is, again, to many tales of apparitions, that they do not admit of a meaning, and consequently demand at most only an otiose assent, as Paley terms it. Hence there is a {34} difficulty in the narrative contained in the first verses of John v.; because we cannot reduce the account of the descent of the Angel into the water to give it a healing power under any known arrangement of the divine economy. We receive it, then, on the general credit of the Revelation of which it forms part [Note 27]. 4. For the same reason, viz., the want of a declared object, a prejudice is excited when the professed worker is silent, or diffident as to his own power; since our general experience of Providence leads us to suppose that miraculous powers will not be committed to an individual who is not also prepared for his office by secret inspiration. This speaks strongly against the cures ascribed by Tacitus to Vespasian, and would be an objection to our crediting the prediction uttered by Caiaphas, if separated from its context, or prominently brought forward to rest an argument upon. It is in general a characteristic of the Scripture system, that Miracles and inspiration go together [Note 28]. 5. With a view to specify the object distinctly, some have required that the Miracle should be wrought after the delivery of the message [Note 29]. A message delivered an indefinite time after the Miracle, while it cannot {35} but excite attention from the general reputation of the messenger for an extraordinary gift, is not so expressly stamped with divine authority, as when it is ushered in by his claiming, and followed by his displaying, supernatural powers. For if a Miracle, once wrought, ever after sanctions the doctrines taught by the person exhibiting it, it must be attended by the gift of infallibility,—a sustained miracle, which is inconsistent with that frugality in the application of power which is observable in the general course of Providence [Note 30]. On the other hand, when an unambiguous Miracle having been first distinctly announced, is wrought with the professed object of sanctioning a message from God, it conveys an irresistible evidence of its divine origin. Accident is thus excluded, and the final cause indissolubly connected with the supernatural event. I may remark that the Miracles of Scripture were generally wrought on this plan [Note 31]. In conformity to which we find moreover that the Apostles, etc., could not work miracles when they pleased [Note 32]; a circumstance more consistent with our {36} ideas of the Divine government, and connecting the extraordinary acts more clearly with specific objects, than if the supernatural gifts were unlimited and irrevocable. 6. Lastly, under this head I may notice professed miracles which, as those attributed to Apollonius, may be separated from a narrative without detriment to it. The prodigies of Livy, for instance, form no part in the action of the history, which is equally intelligible without them [Note 33]. The miraculous events of the Pentateuch, on the contrary, or of the Gospels and Acts, though of course they may be rejected together with the rest of the narrative, can be rejected in no other way; since they form its substance and groundwork, and, like the figure of Phidias on {37} Minerva's shield, cannot be erased without spoiling the entire composition [Note 34]. 4. Those which are exceptionable as regards their Object1. If the professed object be trifling and unimportant; as in many related by the Fathers, e.g., Tertullian's account of the vision of an Angel to prescribe to a female the exact length and measure of her veil, or the divine admonition which Cyprian professes to have received to mix water with wine in the Eucharist, in order to render it efficacious [Note 35]. Among these would be reckoned the directions given to Moses relative to the furnishing of the Tabernacle, and other regulations of the ceremonial law, were not further and important objects thereby effected; such as, separating the Israelites from the surrounding nations, impressing upon them the doctrine of a particular Providence, prefiguring future events, etc. {38} 2. Miracles wrought for the gratification of mere curiosity are referable to this head of objection. Hence the triumphant invitations which some of the Fathers make to their heathen opponents to attend their exorcisms excite an unpleasant feeling in the mind, as degrading a solemn spectacle into a mere popular exhibition. 3. Those, again, which have a political or party object, as the cures ascribed to Vespasian, or as those attributed to the tomb of the Abbé Paris, and the Eclectic prodigies, all which, viewed in their best light, tend to the mere aggrandizement of a particular Sect, and have little or no reference to the good of Mankind at large. It tells in favour of the Christian Miracles, that the Apostles, generally speaking, were not enabled to work them for their own personal convenience, to avoid danger, escape suffering, or save life. St. Paul's preservation from the effects of the viper's bite on the Isle of Melita is a solitary exception to this remark, no mention being made of his availing himself of this Miracle to convert the natives to the Christian faith [Note 36]. 4. For a similar reason, those bear a less appearance of probability which are wrought for the conviction of individuals. I have already noticed the {39} contrary character of the Scripture Miracles in this respect; for instance, St. Paul's miraculous conversion did not end with itself, but was followed by momentous and inestimable consequences [Note 37]. Again, Miracles attended the conversion of the Æthiopian Eunuch, Cornelius, and Sergius Paulus; but these were heads and firstfruits of different classes of men who were in time to be brought into the Church [Note 38]. 5. Miracles with a bad or vicious object are laden with an extreme antecedent improbability; for they cannot at all be referred to the only known cause of supernatural power, the agency of God. Such are most of the fables concerning the heathen deities; not a few of the professed Miracles of the primitive Church, which are wrought to sanction doctrines opposed not only to Scriptural truth, but to the light of nature [Note 39]; and some related in the Apocryphal Gospels, especially Christ's inflicting death upon a schoolmaster who threatened to strike Him, and on a boy who happened to run violently against Him [Note 40]. Here must be noticed several passages in Scripture, in which a miraculous gift seems at first sight to be exercised to {40} gratify revengeful feelings, and which are, therefore, received on the credit of the system [Note 41]. 6. Unnecessary Miracles are improbable; as those wrought for an object attainable without an exertion, or with less exertion, of extraordinary power [Note 42]. Of this kind, we contend, would be the writing of the Gospel on the skies, which some unbelievers have proposed as but an adequate attestation to a Revelation; for, supposing the recorded fact of their once occurring be sufficient for a rational conviction, a perpetual Miracle becomes superfluous [Note 43]. Such, again, would be the preservation of the text of Scripture in its verbal correctness, which many have supposed necessary for its infallibility as a standard of Truth. 7. The same antecedent objection presses on Miracles wrought in attestation of truths already known. We do not, for instance, require a Miracle to convince {41} us the Sun shines, or that Vice is blameable. The Socinian scheme is in a great measure chargeable with bringing the Miracles of the Gospel under this censure: for it prunes away the Christian system till little is left for the Miracles to attest. On this ground an objection has been taken to the Miracle wrought in favour of the Athanasians in Hunneric's persecution, as above mentioned; inasmuch as it merely professes to authorize a comment on the sacred text, i.e., to sanction a truth which is not new, unless Scripture be obscure [Note 44]. Here, too, may be noticed Miracles wrought in evidence of doctrines already established; such as those of the Papists, who seem desirous of answering the unbeliever's demand for a perpetual Miracle. Popish Miracles, as has often been observed, occur in Popish countries, where they are least wanted; whereas, if real, they would be invaluable among Protestants [Note 45]. Hence the primitive Miracles become suspicious, in proportion as we find Christianity established, not only from the increasing facility of fraud, but moreover from the apparent needlessness of the extraordinary display. And hence, admitting the Miracles of Christ and His followers, future Miracles with the same end are somewhat improbable. For enough have been wrought to attest {42} the doctrine; and attention, when once excited by supernatural means, may be kept alive by a standing Ministry, just as inspiration is supplied by human learning. 8. I proceed to notice inconsistency in the objects proposed, as creating a just prejudice against the validity of miraculous pretensions. This applies to the claims of the Romish Church, in which Miracles are wrought by hostile sects in support of discordant tenets [Note 46]. It constitutes some objection to the bulk of the Miracles of the primitive Church, when viewed as a continuation of the original gift, that they differ so much in manner, design, and attendant circumstances, from those recorded in Scripture [Note 47]. "We see," says Middleton (in the ages subsequent to the Christian era) "a dispensation of things ascribed to God, quite different from that which we meet with in the New Testament. For in those days the power of working Miracles was committed to none but the Apostles, and to a few of the most eminent of the other disciples, who were particularly commissioned to propagate the Gospel and preside in the Church of Christ. But, upon the pretended revival of the same powers in the following Ages, we find the administration of them committed, not to those who were intrusted with the government of the Church, not to the successors {43} of the Apostles, to the Bishops, the Martyrs, nor to the principal champions of the Christian cause; but to boys, to women, and, above all, to private and obscure laymen, not only of an inferior but sometimes also of a bad character [Note 48]. 9. Hence, to avoid the charge of inconsistency in the respective objects of the Jewish and Christian Miracles, it is incumbent upon believers in them to show that the difference between the two systems is a difference in appearance only, and that Christ came not to destroy but to fulfil the Law. Here, as far as its antecedent appearance is concerned, the Miracle said to have occurred on Julian's attempt to rebuild the Jewish Temple is seen to great advantage. The object was great, the time critical, its consequences harmonize very happily with the economy of the Mosaic Dispensation, and the general spirit of the Prophetical {44} writings, and the fact itself has some correspondence with the prodigies which preceded the final destruction of Jerusalem [Note 49]. 10. Again, Miracles which do not tend to the accomplishment of their proposed end are open to objection; and those which have not effected what they had in view. Hence some kind of argument might be derived against the Christian Miracles, were they not accompanied by a prediction of their temporary failure in effecting their object; or, to speak more correctly, were it not their proposed object gradually to spread the doctrines which they authenticate [Note 50]. There is nothing, however, to break the force of this objection when directed against the Miracles ascribed to the Abbé Paris; since the Jansenist interest, instead of being advanced in consequence of them, soon after lost ground, and was ultimately ruined [Note 51]. 11. These Miracles are also suspicious, as having been stopped by human authority; it being improbable that a Divine Agent should permit any such interference with His plan. The same objection applies to the professed gift of exorcising demoniacs in the primitive Church; which was gradually lost after the decree of the Council of Laodicea confined {45} the exercise of it to such as were licensed by the Bishop [Note 52]. And lastly, to the supernatural character of Prince Hohenlohe's cures, which were stopped at Bamberg by an order from authority, that "none should be wrought except in the presence of Magistrates and medical practitioners." [Note 53] These are the most obvious objections which may be fairly made to the antecedent probability of miraculous narratives. It will be observed, however, that none of them go so far as to deprive testimony for them of the privilege of being heard. Even where the nature of the facts related forbids us to refer the Miracle to divine agency, as when it is wrought to establish some immoral principle, still it is not more than extremely improbable and to be viewed with strong suspicion. Christians at least must acknowledge that the à priori view which Reason takes would in some cases lead to an erroneous conclusion. A Miracle, for instance, ascribed to an Evil Spirit is, prior to {46} the information of Scripture, improbable; and if it stood on its own merits would require very strong testimony to establish it, as being referred to an unknown cause. Yet, on the authority of Scripture, we admit the occasional interference of agents short of divine with the course of nature. This, however, only shows that these à priori tests are not decisive. Yet if we cannot always ascertain what Miracles are improbable, at least we can determine what are not so; moreover, it will still be true that the more objections lie against any professed Miracle, the greater suspicion justly attaches to it, and the less important is the fact, even if capable of proof. On the other hand, even when the external appearance is altogether in favour of the Miracle, it must be recollected, nothing is thereby proved concerning the fact of its occurrence. We have done no more than recommend to notice the evidence, whatever it may be, which is offered in its behalf. Even, then, could Miracles be found with as strong an antecedent case as those of Scripture, still direct testimony must be produced to substantiate their claims on our belief. At the same time, since there are none such, a fair prepossession is indirectly created in favour of the latter, over and above their intrinsic claims on our attention. Some few indeed of the Scripture Miracles are open to exception; and have accordingly been noticed in the {47} course of the above remarks as by themselves improbable. These, however, are seldom such in more than one respect; whereas the other Miracles which came before us were open to several or all of the specified objections at the same time. And, further, as they are but a few in the midst of an overpowering majority pointing consistently to one grand object, they must not be torn from their moral context, but, on the credit of the rest, they must be considered but apparent exceptions to the rule. It is obvious that a large system must consist of various parts of unequal utility and excellence; and to expect each particular occurrence to be complete in itself, is as unreasonable as to require the parts of some complicated machine, separately taken, to be all equally finished and fit for display [Note 54]. Let these remarks suffice on the question of the antecedent probability or improbability of a miraculous {48} narrative. Enough, it may be hoped, has been said to separate the Miracles of Scripture from those elsewhere related, and to invest them with an importance exciting in an unprejudiced mind a just interest in their behalf, and a candid attention to the historical testimony on which they rest; inasmuch as they are ascribed to an adequate cause, recommended by an intrinsic dignity, and connected with an important object, while all others are more or less unaccountable, unmeaning, extravagant, and useless. And thus, viz., on the ground of this utter dissimilarity between the Miracles of Scripture and those reported elsewhere, we are enabled to account for the incredulity with which believers in Revelation listen to any extraordinary account at the present day; and which sometimes is urged against them as inconsistent with their assent to the former. It is because they admit the Scripture Miracles. Belief in these has pre-occupied their minds, and created a fair presumption against those of a different class;—the prospect of a recurrence of supernatural agency being in some measure discountenanced by the Revelation already given; and again, the weakness and insipidity, the want of system and connexion, the deficiency in the evidence, and the transient repute of marvellous stories ever since, creating a strong and just prejudice against those similar accounts which now from time to time are noised abroad. Notes1. I.e., it is pretended to try past
events on the principles used in conjecturing future; viz., on
antecedent probability and examples. (Whately's Treatise on
Rhetoric.) See Leland's "Supplement to View of Deistical
Writers," Let. 3. 2. Essays, Vol. ii. Note 1. 3. See Butler's
"Analogy," Part i. Chap.
iii. [This footnote appears on
page 17 without a reference on the page—NR] 4. Divine Legation, Book ix. Chap. v. Vince, On
Miracles, Sermon i. 5. As, for instance, Exod. iv. 1-9, 29-31; vii.
9, 17; Numb. xvi. 3, 28, 29; Deut. iv. 36-40; xviii. 21, 22; Josh.
iii. 7-13; 1 Sam. x. 1-7; xii. 16-19; 1 Kings xiii. 3; xvii. 24; xviii.
36-39; 2 Kings i. 6, 10; v. 15; xx. 8-11; Jer. xxviii. 15-17; Ezek.
xxxiii. 33; Matt. x. 1-20; xi. 3-5, 20-24; Mark xvi. 15-20; Luke i.
18-20; ii. 11, 12; v. 24; vii. 15, 16; ix. 2; x. 9; John ii. 22; iii.
2; v. 36, 37; ix. 33; x. 24-38; xi. 15, 41, 42; xiii. 19; xiv. 10, 11,
29; xvi. 4; xx. 30-31; Acts i. 8; ii. 22, 33; iii. 15, 16; iv. 33; v.
32; viii. 6; x. 38; xiii. 8-12; xiv. 3; Rom. xv. 18, 19; 1 Cor. ii.
4, 5; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Heb. ii. 3, 4; Rev. xix. 10. 6. Vince, On Miracles, Sermon
i. 7. Voltaire. 8.
Bentham, Preuves Judiciares, Liv. viii. 9.
Exod. iii.; xiv.; xx. 22, 23; xxxiv. 6-17;
Deut. iv. 32-40; Josh. ii. 10, 11; iv. 23, 24; 1 Sam. v. 3, 4; xii.
18; 2 Sam. vii. 23; 1 Kings viii. 59, 60; xviii. 36, 37; xx. 28; 2
Kings xix. 15-19, 35; 2 Chron. xx. 29; Isaiah vi. 1-5; xix. 1; xliii.
10-12. 10. See Bryant. 11. Jones, On the Figurative Language of
Scripture, Lecture x. Farmer, On Miracles, Chap. iii. Sec. 6, 2. 12. See, in contrast, Gen. xl. 8; xli. 16; Dan.
ii. 27-30, 47; Acts iii. 12-16; xiv. 11-18; a contrast sustained, as
these passages show, for 1500 years. 13. Sometimes charms are represented as having an
inherent virtue, independent of invisible agents, as in the account
given by Josephus of Eleazar's drawing out a devil through the
nostrils of a patient by means of a ring, which contained in it a drug
prescribed by Solomon. Josephus, Antiq. viii. 2, Sec. 5. See Acts
viii. 19. 14.
Lavington, Enthusiasm of Meth. and Papists
comp. Part iii. Sec. 43. 15. Jones, On the Canon, Part iii. 16. Middleton, Free Enquiry. 17. [Vide, however, Essay ii., infra, n.
48-50, 54, 58, etc.] 18. [Vide ibid.] 19. The offensiveness of these, and many others
above instanced, consists in attributing moral feelings to
inanimate or irrational beings. 20. [So the Protestant version.] It seems to have
been a common notion that possessed persons were beloved by the Spirit
possessing them. See Philostr. iv. 25. Gospel of the Infancy,
xiv.-xvi., xxxiii. Justin Martyr, Apol. p. 113, Ed. Thirlb. We find
nothing of this kind in the account of Scripture demoniacs. 21. Divine Legation, Book ix. Chap. v. 22.
Brucker, Vol. i. p. 147. 23. Power over the elements conveyed the most
striking proof of Christ's mission from the God of nature, who in
the Old Testament is frequently characterized as ruling the sea,
winds, etc. Psalm lxv. 7; lxxvii. 19; Job xxxviii. 11, etc. It is
said, that a drawing of feet upon the water was the hieroglyphic for
impossibility. Christ moreover designed, it appears, to make trial of
His disciples' faith by this miracle. See Matt. xiv. 28-31; Mark vi.
52. We read of the power to "move mountains," but evidently as a
proverbial expression. The transfiguration, if it need be mentioned,
has a doctrinal sense, and seems besides to have been intended
to lead the minds of the Apostles to the consideration of the
Spiritual Kingdom. One of Satan's temptations was to induce our Lord
to work a Miracle of mere power. Matt. iv. 6, 7. See Acts x. 38, for
the general character of the Miracles. 24. [Vide Essay ii. infra, n. 81, etc.] 25. Middleton, Stillingfleet, Orig. Sacr. ii. 9,
Sec. 1. 26. Farmer, On Miracles, Chap. v. 27. The verse containing the account of the Angel
is wanting in many MSS. of authority, and is marked as suspicious by
Griesbach. The mineral spring of Bethesda is mentioned by Eusebius as
celebrated even in his day. 28. Douglas, Criterion. Warburton, Sermon on
Resurrection. 29. Fleetwood, Farmer, and others. 30. The idea is accordingly discountenanced,
Matt. vii. 22, 23. Heb. vi. 4-6. Gal. ii. 11-14. 31. St. Mark ends his Gospel by saying, that the
Apostles "went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working
with them, and confirming the word by signs FOLLOWING,"
chap. xvi. 20. See also Exodus iv. 29, 30; 1 Kings xiii. 2, 3; 2 Kings
xx. 8-11; Acts xiv. 3, etc. 32. E.g., Acts xx. 22, 23; Phil. ii. 27; 2
Tim. iv. 20. In the Book of Acts we have not a few instances of the
Apostles acting under the immediate direction of the Holy Spirit. The
gift of tongues is an exception to the general remark, as we know it
was abused; but this from its nature was, when once given, possessed
as an ordinary talent, and needed no fresh divine influence for
subsequent exercise of it. It may besides be viewed as a medium of
conveying the message, as well as being the seal of its divinity, and
as such needed not in every instance to be marked out as a
supernatural gift. Miracles in Scripture are not done by wholesale, i.e.,
indiscriminately and at once, without the particular will and act of
the individual; the contrary was the case with the cures at the tomb
of the Abbé Paris. Acts xix. 11, 12, perhaps forms an exception; but
the Miracles there mentioned are expressly said to be special,
and were intended to put particular honour on the Apostle; Cf. Luke
vi. 19; viii. 46, which seem to illustrate John iii. 34. [But vide
Essay ii., n. 83-85.] 33. E.g., he says,
"ADJICIUNT
miracula huic pugnæ," ii. 7. 34. Whereas other extraordinary accounts are like
the statue of the Goddess herself, which could readily be taken to
pieces, and resolved into its constituent parts, the precious metal
and the stone. For the Jewish Miracles, see Graves, On the Pentateuch,
Part i. It has been observed that the discourses of Christ so
constantly grow out of His Miracles, that we can hardly admit
the former without admitting the latter also. But His discourses
form His character, which is by no means an obvious or easy one
to imagine, had it never existed. 35. Middleton, Free Inquiry. [No question
relative to the Eucharistic rite can be unimportant.] 36. Rev. J. Blanco White, Against Catholicism,
Let. 6. The Breviary Miracles form a striking contrast to the
Christian in this point. [Not surely on the point of their benefiting
the worker.] 37. Acts
xxvi. 16. 38. Ibid. viii. 26, 39; x. 3, etc.; xiii. 12.
These three classes are mentioned together in prophecy. Isa. lvi. 4-8. 39. E.g., to establish Monachism, etc. [Monachism
is not unnatural, unless we are prepared to maintain that an unnatural
state of life has the sanction of our Lord and St. Paul.] 40. Jones, On the Canon, Part iii. 41. Gen. ix. 24-27; Judges xvi. 28-30; 2 Kings
ii. 24; 2 Chron. xxiv. 22. 42. It does not follow, because all Miracles are
equally easy to an Almighty Author, that all are equally probable;
for, as has been often remarked, a frugality in the application of
power is observable throughout His works. 43. Dr. Graves observes, of the miraculous agency
in the age of Moses and Joshua, that "God continued it only so
long as was indispensably necessary to introduce and settle the
Jewish nation in the land of their inheritance, and establish this
dispensation so as to answer the purposes of the divine economy. After
this, He gradually withdrew His supernatural assistance; He left the
nation collectively and individually to act according to their own
choice," etc.—Lectures on the Pentateuch, Part iii. Lecture 2. 44. See Maclaine's Note on the subject,
Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. Cent. v. Part ii. Chap. v. [Vide Essay ii., n.
220, etc.] 45. [This is answered infra, Essay ii., n.
97, etc.] 46. Douglas, Criterion, p. 105, Note (8vo. Edit.
1807). 47. [All this is answered infra, Essay
ii., n. 96, 101.] 48. Scripture sometimes attributes miraculous
gifts to men of bad character; but we have no reason for supposing
such could work miracles at pleasure (see Numb. xxii. 18; xxiii. 3, 8,
12, 20; xxiv. 10-13), or attest any doctrine but that which Christ and
His Apostles taught; nor is our faith grounded upon their preaching.
Moreover, their power may have been given them for some further
purpose; for though to attest a divine message be the primary object
of Miracles, it need not be the only object. "It would be highly
ridiculous," says Mr. Penrose in his recent work on Miracles, "to
erect a steam engine for the mere purpose of opening and shutting a
valve; but the engine being erected is very wisely employed both for
this and for many other purposes, which, comparatively speaking, are
of very little significance." [This applies to ecclesiastical
miracles.] 49. See Warburton's Julian. 50. See Parables in Matt. xiii. 3, 24, 31, 33,
47; xxiv. 12; Acts xx. 29, 30; 2 Thess. ii. 3; 2 Tim. iii. 1-5, etc. 51.
Paley, Evidences, Part i. Prop. 2. 52. It had hitherto been in the hands of the
meaner sort of the Christian laity. After that time, "few or none of
the clergy, nor indeed of the laity, were any longer able to cast out
devils; so that the old Christian exorcism or prayer for the
energumens in the church began soon after to be omitted as useless."
Whiston, in Middleton. [Vid. Essay ii., n. 59.] 53. Bentham, Preuves Judiciaires, Liv. viii. Chap. x. [This fact requires testimony stronger than Bentham's. However, as to the Abbé Paris, the epigram is well known,
54. In thus refusing to admit the existence of real
exceptions to the general rule, in spite of appearances, we are
not exposing ourselves to that charge of excessive systematizing which
may justly be brought against those who, with Hume, reject the very
notion of a Miracle, as implying an interruption of physical
regularity. For the Revelation which we admit, on the authority of the
general system of Miracles, imparts such accurate and extended
information concerning the attributes of God, over and about the
partial and imperfect view of them which the world affords, as
precludes the supposition of any work of His being evil or
useless. Whereas there is no voice in the mere analogy of
nature which expressly denies the possibility of real exceptions to
its general course. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |