Section 4. On the Direct Evidence for the Christian Miracles{70} IMPORTANT as are the inquiries which I have hitherto prosecuted, it is obvious that they do not lead to any positive conclusion, whether certain miraculous accounts are true or not. However necessary a direct anomaly in the course of nature may be to rouse attention, and an important final cause to excite interest and reverence, still the quality of the testimony on which the accounts rest can alone determine our belief in them. The preliminary points, however, have been principally dwelt upon, because objections founded on them form the strong ground of unbelievers, who seem in some degree to allow the strength of the direct evidence for the Scripture Miracles. Again, an examination of the direct evidence is less necessary here, because, though antecedent questions have not been neglected by Christian writers [Note 1], yet the evidence {71} itself, as might be expected, has chiefly engaged their attention [Note 2]. Without entering, then, into a minute consideration of the facts and arguments on which the credibility of the Sacred History rests, I proceed to contrast its evidence generally with that produced for other miraculous narratives; and thus to complete a comparison which has been already instituted, as regards the antecedent probability and the criterion of Miracles. For the present, then, I forego the advantage which the Scripture Miracles have gained in the preceding Sections over all professed facts of a similar nature. In reality, indeed, the very same evidence which would suffice to prove the former, might be inadequate when offered in behalf of those of the Eclectic School or the Romish Church. For the Miracles of Scripture, and no other, are unexceptionable, and worthy of a Divine Agent; and Bishop Butler has clearly shown, that, in a practical question, as the divinity of a professed Revelation must be considered, even the weakest reasons are decisive when not counteracted by any opposite arguments [Note 3]. Whatever {72} evidence, then, is offered for them is entirely available to the proof of their actual occurrence; whereas evidence for the truth of other similar accounts, supposing it to exist, would be first employed in overcoming the objections which attach to them all from their very character, circumstances, or object. If, however, it can be shown that the Miracles of Scripture as far surpass all others in their direct evidence, as they excel them in their à priori probability, a much stronger case will be made out in their favour, and an additional line of distinction drawn between them and others. The credibility of testimony arises from the belief we entertain of the character and competency of the witnesses; and this is true, not only in the case of Miracles, but when facts of any kind are examined into. It is obvious that we should be induced to distrust the most natural and plausible statement when made by a person whom we suspected of a wish to deceive, or of relating facts which he had no sufficient means of knowing. Or if we credited his narrative, we should do so, not from dependence on the reporter, but from its intrinsic likelihood, or from circumstantial evidence. In the case of ordinary facts, therefore, we think it needless, as indeed it would be endless, to inquire rigidly into the credibility of the {73} testimony by which they are conveyed to us, because they in a manner speak for themselves. When, however, the information is unexpected, or extraordinary, or improbable, our only means of determining its truth is by considering the credit due to the witnesses; and then, of course, we exercise that right of scrutiny which we before indeed possessed, but did not think it worth while to claim. A Miracle, then, calls for no distinct species of testimony from that offered for other events, but for a testimony strong in proportion to the improbability of the particular fact attested; and it is as impossible to draw any line, or to determine how much is required, as to define the quantity and quality of evidence necessary to prove the occurrence of an earthquake, or the appearance of any meteoric phenomenon. Everything depends on those attendant circumstances, of which I have already spoken,—the object of the Miracle, the occasion, manner, and human agent employed. If, for instance, a Miracle were said to be wrought for an immoral object, then of course the fact would rest on the credibility of the testimony alone, and would challenge the most rigid examination. Again, if the object be highly interesting to us, as that professed by the Scripture Miracles, we shall naturally be careful in our inquiry, from an anxious fear of being biassed. But in any case the testimony cannot turn out to be more than that of competent and honest {74} men; and an inquiry must not be prosecuted under the idea of finding something beyond this, but to obtain proofs of this. And since the existence of competency and honesty may be established in various ways, it follows that the credibility of a given story may be proved by distinct considerations, each of which, separately taken, might be sufficient for the purpose. It is obvious, moreover, as indeed is implied by the very nature of moral evidence, that the proof of its credibility may be weaker or stronger, and yet in both cases be a proof; and hence, that no limit can be put to the conceivable accumulation of evidence in its behalf. Provided, then, the existing evidence be sufficient to produce a rational conviction, it is nothing to the purpose to urge, as has sometimes been alleged against the Scripture Miracles, that the extraordinary facts might have been proved by different or more over-powering evidence. It has been said, for instance, that no testimony can fairly be trusted which has not passed the ordeal of a legal examination. Yet, calculated as that mode of examination undoubtedly is to elicit truth, surely truth may be elicited by other ways also. Independent and circumstantial writers may confirm a fact as satisfactorily as witnesses in Court. They may be questioned and cross-questioned, and, moreover, brought up for re-examination in any succeeding age; whereas, however great may be the {75} talents and experience of the men who conduct the legal investigation, yet when they have once closed it, and given in their verdict, we believe upon their credit, and we have no means of examining for ourselves. To say, however, that this kind of evidence might have been added to the other, in the case of the Christian Miracles [Note 4], is merely to assert that the proof of the credibility of Scripture might have been stronger than it is; which I have already allowed it might have been, without assignable limit. The credibility, then, of Testimony depending on the evidence of honesty and competency in those who give it, it is prejudicial, first, to their character for honesty— 1. If desire of gain, power, or other temporal advantage may be imputed to them. This would detract materially from the authority of Philostratus, even supposing him to have been in a situation for ascertaining the truth of his own narrative, as he professes to write his account of Apollonius at the instance of his patroness, the Empress Julia, who is known to have favoured the Eclectic cause. Again, the account of the Miracle performed on the door-keeper {76} at the cathedral at Saragossa, on which Hume insists, rests principally upon the credit of the Canons, whose interest was concerned in its establishment. This remark, indeed, obviously applies to the Romish Miracles generally [Note 5]. The Christian Miracles, on the contrary, were attested by the Apostles, not only without the prospect of assignable worldly advantage, but with the certainty and after the experience of actual suffering. 2. When there is room for suspecting party spirit or rivalry, as in the miraculous biographies of the Eclectic philosophers; in those of Loyola and other saints of the rival orders in the Romish Church; and in the present Mahometan accounts of the Miracles of Mahomet, which, not to mention other objections to them, are composed with an evident design of rivalling those of Christ [Note 6]. 3. Again, a tale once told may be persisted in from shame of retracting, after the motives which first gave rise to it have ceased to act, even at the risk of suffering. This remark cannot apply to the case of the Apostles, until some reason is assigned for their getting up their miraculous story in the first instance. If necessary, however, it could be brought with force against any argument drawn from the perseverance of {77} the witnesses for the cures professedly wrought by Vespasian, "postquam nullum mendacio pretium;" for, as they did not suffer for persisting in their story, had they retracted, they would have gratuitously confessed their own want of principle. 4. A previous character for falsehood is almost fatal to the credibility of a witness of an extraordinary narrative; for instance, the notorious insincerity and frauds of the Church of Rome in other things are in themselves enough to throw a strong suspicion on its testimony to its own Miracles [Note 7]. The primitive Church is in some degree open to a charge of a similar nature [Note 8]. Or an intimacy with suspicious characters; for instance, Prince Hohenlohe's connection with the Romish Church, and that of Philostratus with the Eclectics, since both the Eclectic and Romish Schools have countenanced the practice of what are called pious frauds [Note 8]. 5. Inconsistencies or prevarications in the testimony, marks of unfairness, exaggeration, suppression of particulars, etc. Of all these, Philostratus stands convicted, whose memoir forms a remarkable contrast {78} to the artless and candid narratives of the Evangelists. The Books of the New Testament, containing as they do separate accounts of the same transactions, admit of a minute cross-examination, which terminates so decidedly in favour of their fidelity, as to recommend them highly on the score of honesty, even independently of the known sufferings of the writers. 6. Lastly, objection may be taken to witnesses who have the opportunity of being dishonest; as those who write at a distance from the time and place of the professed Miracle, or without mentioning particulars, etc. But on these points I shall speak immediately in a different connection. Secondly, witnesses must be not only honest, but competent also; that is, such as have ascertained the facts which they attest, or who report after examination. Here then I notice— 1. Deficiency of examination implied in the circumstances of the case. As when it is first published in an age or country remote from the professed time and scene of action; for in that case room is given to suspect failure of memory, imperfect information, etc., whereas to write in the presence of those who know the circumstances of the transactions is an appeal which increases the force of the testimony by associating them in it. Accounts, however, whether miraculous or otherwise, possess very little intrinsic authority, when written so far from the time or place {79} of the transactions recorded, as the biographies of Pythagoras, Apollonius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Mahomet, Loyola, or Xavier [Note 9]. The opposite circumstances of the Christian Testimony have often been pointed out. Here we may particularly notice the providential dispersion of the Jews over the Roman Empire before the age of Christ; by which means the Apostles' testimony was given in heathen countries, as well as in Palestine, in the face of those who had both the will and the power to contradict it, if incorrect. While the testimony of contemporaries is necessary to guarantee the truth of ordinary history, Miracles require the testimony of eye-witnesses. For ordinary events are believed in part from their being natural, but testimony being the main support of a miraculous narrative, must in that case be the best of its kind. Again, we may require the testimony to be circumstantial in reference to dates, places, persons, etc.; for the absence of these seems to imply an imperfect knowledge, and at least gives less opportunity of inquiry to those who wish to ascertain its fidelity [Note 10]. Miracles which are not lasting do not admit of adequate examination; as visions, extraordinary voices, etc. The cure of diseases, on the other hand, is a {80} permanent evidence of a divine interposition; particularly such cures of bodily imperfections as are undeniably miraculous in their nature, as well as permanent; to these, then, our Lord especially appeals in evidence of His divine mission [Note 11]. Lastly, statements are unsatisfactory in which the miracle is described as wrought before a very few; for room is allowed for suspecting mistake, or an understanding between the witnesses. Or, on the other hand, those wrought in a confused crowd; such are many standing miracles of the Romanists, which are exhibited with the accompaniment of imposing pageants, or on a stage, or at a distance, or in the midst of candles and incense [Note 12]. Our Saviour, on the contrary, bids the lepers He had cleansed show themselves to the Priests, and make the customary offering as a memorial of their cures [Note 13]. And when He appeared to the Apostles after His Resurrection, He allowed them to examine His hands and feet [Note 14]. Those of the Scripture Miracles which were wrought before few, or in a crowd, were permanent; as cures [Note 15], and the raising of Jairus's daughter; or were of so vast a nature, that a crowd could not prevent the witnesses {81} from ascertaining the fact, as the standing still of the Sun at the word of Joshua. 2. Deficiency of examination implied in the character, etc., of the witnesses: (1) for instance, if there be any suspicion of their derangement, or if there be an evident defect in those bodily or mental faculties which are necessary for examining the Miracle, as when the intellect or senses are impaired. Number in the witnesses refutes charges of this nature; for it is not conceivable that many should be deranged or mistaken at once, and in the same way. (2) Enthusiasm, ignorance, and habitual credulity, are defects which no number of witnesses removes. The Jansenist Miracles took place in the most ignorant and superstitious district of Paris [Note 16]. Alexander Pseudo-mantis practised his arts among the Paphlagonians, a barbarous people. Popish Miracles and the juggles of the Heathen Priests have been most successful in times of ignorance [Note 17]. Yet, while we reasonably object to gross ignorance or besotted credulity in witnesses for a miraculous story, we must guard against the opposite extreme of requiring the testimony of men of science and general knowledge. Men of philosophical minds are often {82} too fond of inquiring into the causes and mutual dependence of events, of arranging, theorizing, and refining, to be accurate and straightforward in their account of extraordinary occurrences. Instead of giving a plain statement of facts, they are insensibly led to correct the evidence of their senses with a view to account for the strange phenomenon; as Chinese painters, who, instead of drawing in perspective, give lights and shadows their supposed meaning, and depict the prospect as they think it should be, not as it is [Note 18]. As Miracles differ from other events only when considered relatively to a general system, it is obvious that the same persons are competent to attest miraculous facts who are suitable witnesses of corresponding natural ones. If a peasant's testimony be admitted to the phenomenon of meteoric stones, he may evidence the fact of an unusual and unaccountable darkness. A physician's certificate is not needed to assure us of the illness of a friend; nor is it necessary for attesting the simple fact that he has instantaneously recovered. It is important to bear this in mind, for some writers argue as if there were something intrinsically defective in the testimony given by ignorant persons to miraculous occurrences [Note 19]. To say that unlearned persons are {83} not judges of the fact of a miraculous event, is only so far true as all testimony is fallible and liable to be distorted by predjudice. Every one, not only superstitious persons, is apt to interpret facts in his own way; if the superstitious see too many prodigies, men of science may see too few. The facility with which the Japanese ascribed the ascent of a balloon, which they witnessed at St. Petersburgh, to the powers of magic, (a circumstance which has been sometimes urged against the admission of unlearned testimony [Note 20],) is only the conduct of theorists accounting for a novel phenomenon on the principles of their own system. It may be said, that ignorance prevents a witness from discriminating between natural and supernatural events, and thus weakens the authority of his judgment concerning the miraculous nature of a fact. It is true; but if the fact be recorded, we may judge for ourselves on that point. Yet it may be safely said, that not even before persons in the lowest state of ignorance could any great variety of professed Miracles be displayed without their distinguishing rightly, on the whole, between the effects of nature and those of a power exterior to it; though in particular instances they doubtless might be mistaken. Much more would this be the case with the lower ranks of a civilized people. Practical intelligence is insensibly diffused from class to class; if the upper ranks are educated, {84} numbers besides them, without any formal and systematic knowledge, almost instinctively discriminate between natural and supernatural events. Here science has little advantage over common sense; a peasant is quite as certain that a resurrection from the dead is miraculous as the most able physiologist [Note 21]. The original witnesses of our Saviour's Miracles were very far from a dull or ignorant race. The inhabitants of a maritime and border country, as Galilee was, engaged, moreover, in commerce, composed of natives of various countries, and, therefore, from the nature of the case, acquainted with more than one language, have necessarily their intellects sharpened and their minds considerably enlarged, and are of all men least disposed to acquiesce in marvellous tales [Note 22]. Such a people must have examined before they suffered themselves to be excited in the degree which the Evangelists describe [Note 23]. {85} But even supposing those among them who were in consequence convinced of the divine mission of Christ, were of a more superstitious turn of mind than the rest, still this is not sufficient to account for their conviction. For superstition, while it might facilitate the bare admission of miraculous events, would at the same time weaken their practical influence. Miracles ceasing to be accounted strange, would cease to be striking also. Whereas the conviction wrought in the minds of these men was no bare and indolent assent to facts which they might have thought antecedently probable or not improbable, but a conversion in principles and mode of life, and a consequent sacrifice of all that nature holds dear, to which none would submit except after the fullest examination of the authority enjoining it. If additional evidence be required, appeal may be made to the multitude of Gentiles in Greece and Asia, in whose principles and mode of living belief in the Miracles made a change even more striking and complete than was effected in the case of the Jews. In a word, then, the conversion which Christ and His Apostles effected invalidates the charge of blind credulity in the witnesses; the practical nature of the belief wrought in them proving that it was founded on an examination of the Miracles. {86} (3) Again, it weakens the authority of the witnesses, if their belief can be shown to have been promoted by the influence of superiors; for then they virtually cease to be themselves witnesses, and report the facts on the authority (as it were) of their patrons. It is observable, that the national conversions of the Middle Ages generally began with the princes, and descended to their subjects; those of the Apostolic Age obviously proceeded in the reverse order [Note 24]. (4) It is almost fatal to the validity of the testimony, if the miracle which is attested coincides with a previous system, or supports a cause already embraced by the witnesses. Men are always ready to believe what flatters their own opinions, and of all prepossessions those of Religion are the strongest. There is so much in the principle of all Religion that is true and good, so much conformable to the best feelings of our nature, which perceives itself to be weak and guilty, and looks out for an unseen and superior being for guidance and support; and the particular worship in which each individual is brought up is so familiarized to him by habit, so endeared to his affections by the associations of place and the recollections of past years, so connected too with the ordinary transactions and most interesting events of life, that even should that form be irrational and degrading, still it will in most cases preserve a strong influence over his mind, and dispose {87} him to credit upon slight examination any arguments adduced in its defence. Hence an account of Miracles in confirmation of their own Religion will always be favourably received by men whose creed has already led them to expect such interpositions of superior beings. This consideration invalidates at once the testimony commonly offered for Pagan and Popish Miracles, and in no small degree that for the Miracles of the primitive Church [Note 25]. The professed cures of Vespasian were performed in honour of Serapis in the midst of his worshippers; and the people of Saragossa, who attested the Miracle wrought in the case of the door-keeper of the Cathedral, had previous faith in the virtues of holy oil [Note 26]. Here the evidence for the Scripture Miracles is unique. In other cases the previous system has supported {88} the Miracles, but here the Miracles introduced and upheld the system. The Christian Miracles in particular [Note 27] were received on their own merits; and the admission of them became the turning-point in the creed and life of the witnesses, which thenceforth took a new and altogether different direction. But, moreover, as if their own belief in them were not enough, the Apostles went out of their way to debar any one from the Christian Church who did not believe them as well as themselves [Note 28]. Not content that men should be converted on any ground, they fearlessly challenged refutation, by excluding from their fellowship of suffering any who did not formally assent, as a necessary condition of admittance and a first article of faith, to one of the most stupendous of all the miracles, their Master's Resurrection from the dead;—a procedure this, which at once evinces their own unqualified conviction of the fact, and associates, too, all their converts with them as believers in a miracle contemporary with themselves. Nor is this all; a religious creed necessarily prejudices the mind against admitting the miracles of hostile sects, in the very same proportion in which it leads it to acquiesce in such as support its own dogmas [Note 29]. The Christian Miracles, then, have the strongest of conceivable attestations, {89} in the conversion of many who at first were prejudiced against them, and in the extorted confession of enemies, who by the embarrassment which the admission occasioned them, at least showed that they had not made it till after a full and accurate investigation of the extraordinary facts. (5) It has been sometimes objected, that the minds of the first converts might be wrought upon by the doctrine of a future state which the Apostles preached, and be thus persuaded to admit the miracles without a rigorous examination [Note 30]. But, as Paley well replies, evidence of the truth of the promise would still be necessary; especially as men rather demand than dispense with proof when some great and unexpected good is reported to them. Yet it is more than doubtful whether the promise of a future life would excite this interest; for the desire of immortality, though a natural, is no permanent or powerful feeling, and furnishes no principle of action. Most men, even in a Christian country, are too well satisfied with this world to look forward to another with any great and settled anxiety. Supposing immortality to be a good, it is one too distant to warm or influence them. Much less are they disposed to sacrifice present comfort, and strip themselves of former opinions and habits, for the mere contingency of future bliss. The hope of another life, grateful as it is under affliction, will not {90} induce a man to rush into affliction for the sake of it. The inconvenience of a severe complaint is not out-balanced by the pleasure of a remedy. On the other hand, though we know that gratuitous declarations of coming judgments and divine wrath may for a time frighten weak minds, they will neither have effect upon strong ones, nor produce a permanent and consistent effect upon any. Persons who are thus wrought upon in the present day believe the denunciations because they are in Scripture, not Christianity because Scripture contains them. The authority of Revealed Religion is taken for granted both by the preacher and his hearers. On the whole, then, it seems inconceivable that the promise or threat of a future life should have supplied the place of previous belief in Christianity, or have led the witnesses to admit the Miracles on a slight examination. (6) Lastly, love of the marvellous, of novelty, etc., may be mentioned as a principle influencing the mind to acquiesce in professed miracles without full examination. Yet such feelings are more adapted to exaggerate and circulate a story than to invent it. We can trace their influence very clearly in the instances of Apollonius and the Abbé Paris, both of whom had excited attention by their eccentricities, before they gained reputation for extraordinary power [Note 31]. Such {91} principles, moreover, are not in general practical, and have little power to sustain the mind under continued opposition and suffering [Note 32]. ——————— These are some of the obvious points which will come into consideration in deciding upon the authority of testimony offered for miracles; and they enable us at once to discriminate the Christian story from all others which have been set up against it. With a view of simplifying the argument, the evidence for the Jewish miracles has been left out of the question [Note 33]; because, though strong and satisfactory, it is not at the present day so directly conclusive as that on which {92} the Christian rest. Nor is it necessary, I conceive, to bring evidence for more than a fair proportion of the Miracles; supposing, that is, those which remain unproved are shown to be similar to them, and indissolubly connected with the same system. It may be even said, that if the single fact of the Resurrection be established, quite enough will have been proved for believing all the Miracles of Scripture. Of course, however, the argument becomes far stronger when it is shown that there is evidence for the great bulk of the miracles, though not equally strong for some as for others; and that the Jewish, sanctioned as they are by the New Testament, may also be established on distinct and peculiar grounds. Nor let it be forgotten, that the Christian story itself is supported, over and above the evidence that might fairly be required for it, by several bodies of testimony quite independent of each other [Note 34]. By separate processes {93} of reasoning it may be shown, that if Christianity was established without miracles, it was, to say the least, an altogether singular and unique event in the history of mankind; and the extreme improbability of so many distinct and striking peculiarities uniting, as it were, by chance in one and the same case, raises the proof of its divine origin to a moral certainty. In short, it is only by being made unnatural that the Christian narrative can be deprived of a supernatural character; and we may safely affirm that the strongest evidence we possess for the most certain facts of other history, is weak compared to that on which we believe that the first preachers of the Gospel were gifted with miraculous powers. And thus a case is established so strong, that even were there an antecedent improbability in the facts attested, in most judgments it would be sufficient to overcome it. On the contrary, we have already shown their intrinsic character to be exactly such as our previous knowledge of the attributes and government of the Almighty would lead us to expect in works ascribed to Him. Their grandeur, beauty, and consistency; the clear and unequivocal marks they bear of superhuman agency; the importance and desirableness of the object they propose to effect, are in correspondence with the variety and force of the evidence itself. Such, then, is the contrast they present to all other professed miracles, from those of Apollonius downwards— {94} which have been shown, more or less, to be improbable from the circumstances of the case, inconclusive when considered as marks of divine interference, and quite destitute of good evidence for their having really occurred. Lastly, it must be observed, that the proof derived from interruptions in the course of nature, though a principal, is yet but one out of many proofs on which the cause of Revealed Religion rests; and that even supposing (for the sake of argument) it were altogether inconclusive at the present day, still the other evidences [Note 35], as they are called, would be fully equal to prove to us the divine origin of Christianity. Notes1. Especially by Vince, in his valuable Treatise
on the Christian Miracles; and Hey, in his Lectures. 2.
As of Paley, Lyttelton, Leslie, etc. 3.
The only fair objection that can be made to this statement is, that it
is antecedently improbable that the Almighty should work Miracles with
a view to general conviction, without furnishing strong evidence that
they really occurred. This was noticed above, when the antecedent
probability of Miracles was discussed. That it is unsatisfactory to
decide on scanty evidence is no objection, as in other most important
practical questions we are constantly obliged to make up our minds and
determine our course of action on insufficient evidence. 4.
Some of our Saviour's Miracles, however, were subjected to
judicial examination. (See John v. and ix.) In v. 16, the measures of
the Pharisees are described by the technical word [ediokon]. 5.
[The Miracles of Catholic Saints as little benefited their workers as
the Miracles of the Apostles.] 6.
See Professor Lee's Persian Tracts, pp. 446, 447. 7.
[There have been frauds among Catholics, and for gain, as among
Protestants, whether churchmen or dissenters, or among antiquarians,
or transcribers of MSS., or picture-dealers, or horse-dealers; for the
"Net gathers of every kind;" but that does not prove the Church to be
fraudulent, unless geological or chemical frauds are slurs upon the
character of the British Association.] 8.
Hey, Lectures, book i. ch. xii. sec. 15. 9.
Paley, Evidences, Part i. Prop. 2. 10.
The vagueness of the accounts of miraculous interpositions related by
the Fathers is pointed out by Middleton. (Free Inquiry, ii. p. 22.) [Vide
infra, Essay ii., n. 137, 138.] 11.
Matt. xi. 5. 12.
[Candles and incense are commonly used in the daytime; and our Lord
wrought many of His miracles in a throng which was pressing upon Him.] 13.
Luke v. 14; xvii. 14. 14.
Luke xxiv. 39, 40. 15.
Mark viii. 22-26. 16.
The Faubourg St. Marcel. Less. 17.
[Might not the same insinuations be thrown out against the miracles of
Elisha? On the other hand, was the age of St. Ambrose and St.
Augustine ignorant? or that of St. Philip Neri?] 18.
It is well known, that those persons are accounted the best
transcribers of MSS. who are ignorant of the language transcribed; the
habit of correcting being almost involuntary in men of letters. 19.
Hume, On Miracles, Part ii. Reason 1. 20.
Bentham, Preuves Judiciaires, Liv. viii. Ch. ii. 21.
It has been observed, that more suitable witnesses could not be
selected of the fact of a miraculous draught of fishes than the
fishermen of the lake wherein it took place. 22.
See Less, Opuscul. 23.
If, on the other hand, we would see with how unmoved an unconcern men
receive accounts of miracles, when they believe them to be events of
every-day occurrence, we may turn to the conduct of the African
Christians in the Age of Austin, whom that Father in vain endeavoured
to interest in miraculous stories of relics, etc., by formal accounts
and certificates of the cures wrought by them. (See Middleton, p.
138.) The stir, then, which the miracles of Christ made in Galilee
implies, that they were not received with an indolent belief. It must
be noticed, moreover, in opposition to the statement of some
unbelievers, that great numbers of the Jews were converted (Acts ii.
41; iv. 4; v. 13, 14; vi. 7; ix. 35; xv. 5; xxi. 20). On this subject,
see Jenkin, On the Christian Religion, Vol. ii. Ch. xxxii. 24.
Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. Cent. vi. viii. ix. 25.
[Vide Essay ii. n. 36-45. Ecclesiastical Miracles are mainly the
rewards of faith; not, strictly speaking, evidence.] 26.
It has been noticed as a suspicious circumstance in the testimony to
the reported miracle wrought in the case of the Confessors in the
persecution of the Arian Hunneric, that Victor Vitensis, one of the
principal witnesses, though writing in Africa, where it professedly
took place, and where the individuals thus distinguished were then
living, yet refers only to one of them, who was then living at the
Athanasian Court at Constantinople, and held in particular honour by
Zeno and the Empress.—"If any one doubt the fact, let him go to
Constantinople." See the whole evidence in Milner's Church History,
Cent. v. Ch. xi.; who, however, strongly defends the miracle. Gibbon
pretends to do the same, with a view to provide a rival to the Gospel
Miracles. 27.
Not to mention those of Moses and Elijah. 28.
Campbell, On Miracles, Part ii. Sec. 1. 29.
Ibid. Part i. Sec. 4. 30.
Gibbon, particularly Ch. xv. 31.
See the Author's memoir of Apollonius.—Of the Abbé, Mosheim says, "Diem
vix obierat, voluntariis cruciatibus et pœnis exhaustus, mirabilis
iste homo, quum immensa hominum multitudo ad ejus corpus conflueret;
quorum alii pedes ejus osculabantur, alii partem capillorum
abscindebant, quam sancti loco pignoris ad mala quævis averruncanda
servarent, alii libros et lintea quæ attulerant, cadaveri admovebant
quod virtute quadam divina plenum esse putabant. Et statim vis illa
mirifica, quâ omne, quod in terrâ hâc reliquit, præditum esse
fertur, apparebat," etc. Inquisit. in verit. Miraculor. F. de Paris,
Sec. 1. 32.
Paley, Evidences, Part i. Prop. 2. 33.
The truth of the Mosaic narrative is proved from the genuineness of
the Pentateuch, as written to contemporaries and eye-witnesses of the
miracles; from the predictions contained in the Pentateuch; from the
very existence of the Jewish system (Sumner's Records); and from the
declarations of the New Testament writers. The miracles of Elijah and
Elisha are proved to us by the authority of the Books in which they
are related, and by means of the New Testament. 34.
The fact of the Christian miracles may be proved, first, by the
sufferings and consistent story of the original witnesses; secondly,
from the actual conversion of large bodies of men in the age in which
they are said to have been wrought; thirdly, from the institution, at
the time, of a day commemorative of the Resurrection, which has been
observed ever since; fourthly, by collateral considerations, such as
the tacit assent given to the miracles by the adversaries of
Christianity, the Eclectic imitations of them, and the pretensions to
miraculous power in the primitive Church. These are distinct
arguments; no one of them absolutely presupposes the genuineness of
the Scripture narrative, though the force of the whole is much
increased when it is proved. 35.
Such as the system of doctrine, marks of design, gradual disclosure of
unknown truths, etc., connecting together the whole Bible as the work
of one mind:—Prophecy:—the character of Christ:—the morality of
the Gospel:—the wisdom of its doctrines, displaying at once
knowledge of the human heart, and skill in engaging its affections,
cet. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |