Page images
PDF
EPUB

appear Miraculous to persons unacquainted with Science, the Chemi-
cal and Mechanical apparatus employed could not fail to rouse
suspicion in intelligent minds.-Hence professed Miracles are open
to suspicion, if confined to one spot; as were the Jansenist cures.
For they then become connected with a necessary condition, which
is all we understand by a means: e.g. such may often be imputed
to a confederacy, which (as is evident) can from its nature seldom
shift the scene of action. "The Cock-lane ghost could only knock
and scratch in one place;'
;"69 the Apostles, on the contrary, are
represented as dispersed about, and working Miracles in various
parts of the world.to
These remarks are of course inapplicable in
a case where the apparent means are known to be inadequate, and
are not constantly used; as our Lord's occasional application of clay
to the eyes, which, while it proves that he did not need its instru-
mentality, convey also an intimation, that all the efficacy of means
is derived from his appointment.

3. THOSE WHICH MAY BE REFERRED TO THE SUPPOSED OPERATION
OF A CAUSE KNOWN TO EXIST.

referable

operation.

Professed Miracles of knowledge or mental ability are often unsatis- Events factory for this reason; being in many cases referable to the to the ordinary powers of the intellect. Of this kind is the boasted supposed elegance of the style of the Koran, alleged by Mohammed in of a known evidence of his divine mission. Hence most of the Miracles of cause. Apollonius, consisting, as they do, in knowing the thoughts of others, and predicting the common events of life, are no criterion of a supernatural gift; it being only under certain circumstances that such power can clearly be discriminated from the natural exercise of acuteness and sagacity. Accordingly, though a knowledge of the hearts of men is claimed by Christ, it seems to be claimed rather with a view to prove to Christians the doctrine of his divine nature, than to attest to the world his authority as a messenger from God. Again, St. Paul's prediction of shipwreck his voyage to Rome was intended to prevent it; and so was the prediction of Agabus concerning the same Apostle's approaching perils at Jerusalem." For a second reason, then, the argument from Prophecy is a less simple and striking proof of divine agency than a display of Miracles; it being impossible in all cases to show that the things foretold were certainly beyond the ordinary faculties of the mind to have discovered. Yet when this is shown, Prophecy is one of the most powerful of conceivable evidences; strict foreknowledge being a faculty not only above the powers but even aoove the comprehension of the human mind.

on

And much more fairly may apparent Miracles be attributed to the supposed operation of an existing Physical cause, when they 69 Hey's Lectures, Book I. Ch. XVI. Sec. 10.

70 Douglas, Criterion, p. 337.

71 Acts xxi. 10-14; xxvii. 10, 21.

are parallel to its known effects; as Chemical, Meteorological, &c., phenomena. For though the cause may not perhaps appear in the particular case, yet it is known to have acted in others similar to it. For this reason, no stress can be laid on accounts of luminous crosses in the air, human shadows in the clouds, appearances of men and horses on hills, and spectres when they are speechless, as is commonly the case, ordinary causes being assignable in all of these; or, again, on the pretended liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius, or on the exorcism of demoniacs, which is the most frequent Miracle in the primitive Church.-The remark applies moreover to cases of healing, so far as they are not instantaneous, complete, &c.; conditions which exclude the supposition of natural means being employed, and which are strictly fulfilled in the Gospel narrative. Again, some cures are known as possible effects of an excited imagination; particularly when the disease arises from obstruction and other disorders of the blood and spirits, as the cures which took place at the tomb of the Abbé Paris.72 We should be required to add those cases of healing in Scripture, where the faith of the petitioners was a necessary condition of the cure, were not these comparatively few, and some of them such as no imagination could have effected, (e.g. the restoration of sight,) and some wrought on persons absent; and were not faith often required, not of the patient, but of the relative or friend who brought him to be healed.73 force of imagination may also be alleged to account for the supposed visions and voices which some enthusiasts have believed they saw and heard: e.g. the trances of Montanus and his followers, the visions related by some of the Fathers, and those of the Romish Saints; lastly, Mahomet's pretended night-journey to Heaven: all which, granting the sincerity of the reporters, may not unreasonably be referred to the effects of disease or of an excited imagination. Such, it is obvious, might be some of the Scripture Miracles, e.g. the various appearances of Angels to individuals, the vision of St. Paul when he was transported to the third Heaven, &c., which accordingly were wrought, as Scripture professes, for purposes distinct from that of evidencing the doctrine, viz. in order to become the medium of a Revelation, or to confirm faith, &c. In other cases, however, the supposition of imagination is excluded by the vision having been witnessed by more than one person, as the Transfiguration; or by its correspondence with distinct visions seen by others, as in the circumstances which attended the conversion of Cornelius; or by its connexion with a permanent Miracle, as the appearance of Christ

72 Douglas, Criterion, p. 172.

73 Mark, x. 51, 52. Matt. viii. 5-13. See Douglas, Criterion, p. 258. "Where persons petitioned themselves for a cure, à declaration of their faith was often re

The

[blocks in formation]

to St. Paul on his conversion, with the blindness in consequence, which remained three days.74

Much more inconclusive are those which are actually attended by a Physical cause known or suspected to be adequate to their production. Some of those who were cured at the tomb of the Abbé Paris were at the time making use of the usual remedies; the person whose inflamed eye was relieved was, during his attendance at the sepulchre, under the care of an eminent oculist; another was cured of a lameness in the knee by the mere effort to kneel at the tomb.75 Arnobius challenges the Heathens to produce one of the pretended Miracles of their Gods performed without the application of some prescription.76 Again, Hilarion's cures of wounds, as mentioned by Jerome, were accompanied by the application of consecrated oil.77 The Apostles indeed made use of oil in some of their cures, but they more frequently healed without a medium of any kind.78 A similar objection might be urged against the narrative of Hezekiah's recovery from sickness, both on account of the application of the figs and the slowness of the cure, were it anywhere stated to have been Miraculous.79 Again, the dividing of the Red Sea, accompanied as it was by a strong east wind, would not have been clearly Miraculous, had it not been effected at the word of Moses. Much suspicion, too, is (as some think) cast upon the miraculous nature of the fire, &c., which put a stop to Julian's attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, by the possibility of referring it to the operation of Chemical principles. Lastly, answers to prayer, however providential are not Miraculous; for in granting them, God acts by means of, not out of, his usual system, making the ordinary course of things subservient to a gracious purpose. Such events, then, instead of evidencing the divine approbation to a certain cause, must be proved from the goodness of the cause to be what they are interpreted to be. Yet by supposed answers to prayer, appeals to Heaven, pretended judgments, &c., enthusiasts in most ages have wished to sanction their claims to divine inspiration. By similar means the pretensions of the Romish hierarchy have been supported.

foregoing

Here we close our remarks on the criterion of a Miracle; which, observait has been seen, is no one definite peculiarity, applicable to all tions on the cases, but the combined force of a number of varying circumstances tests. determining our judgment in each particular instance. It might even. be said, that a determinate criterion is almost inconceivable. For when once settled, it might appear, as was above remarked, to be merely the Physical antecedent of the extraordinary fact; while on the other hand, from the direction thus given to the ingenuity of impostors, it would soon itself need a criterion to distinguish it from

74 Paley's Evidences, Part I. Prop. 2. 75 Douglas, Criterion, p. 143, 184, Note. 76 Stillingfleet, Book II. Ch. X. Sec. 9.

77 Middleton, Free Inquiry, IV. Sec. 2.
78 Mark vi. 13.
79 2 Kings xx. 4-7.

80

its imitations. Certain it is, that the great variety of circumstances under which the Christian Miracles were wrought, furnishes an evidence for their divine origin, in addition to that derived from their publicity, clearness, number, instantaneous production, and completeness. The exorcism of demoniacs, however, has already been noticed as being, perhaps, in every case deficient in the proof of its Miraculous nature. Accordingly, this class of Miracles seems not to have been intended as a primary evidence of a divine mission, but to be addressed to those who already admitted the existence of Evil Spirits, in proof of the power of Christ and his followers over them.8 To us, then, it is rather a doctrine than an evidence, manifesting our Lord's power, as other doctrines instance his mercy.With regard to the argument from Prophecy, which some have been disposed to abandon on account of the number of conditions necessary for the proof of its supernatural character, it should be remembered, that inability to fix the exact boundary of natural sagacity is no objection to such Prophecies as are undeniably beyond it; and that the mere inconclusiveness of some in Scripture, as proofs of divine prescience, has no positive force against others contained in it, which furnish a full, lasting, and in many cases, growing evidence of its divinity. 81

IV.

ON THE DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR THE CHRISTIAN

MIRACLES.

Important as are the inquiries which we 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

80 See Div. Leg. Book IX. Ch. V. Hence the exercise of this gift seems almost to have been confined to Palestine. At Philippi St. Paul casts out a spirit of divination in self-defence. Acts xvi. 16 -18. In the transaction related Acts xix. 11-17, Jews are principally concerned.

81 Some unbelievers have urged the irrelevancy of St. Matthew's citations from the Old Testament Prophecies in illustration of the events of Christ's life, e.g. Ch. ii. 15. It must be recollected, however, that what is evidence in one age is often not so in another. That certain of the texts adduced by the Evangelist furnish at the present day no

proof of divine prescience, is very true; but, unless some kind of argument could have been drawn from them at the time the Gospel was written, from traditional interpretations of their sense, we can scarcely account for St Matthew's introducing them. The question is, has there been a loss of what was evidence formerly, (as is often the case,) or did St. Matthew bring forward as a Prophetical evidence what was manifestly not so, as if to hurt the effect of those other passages, as Ch. xxvii. 35, which have every appearance of being real predictions ?It has been observed, that Prophecy in general must be obscure, in order that the events spoken of may not be understood before their accomplishment.

82

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, yet the evidence itself, as might be expected, has chiefly engaged their attention.83 Without entering, then, into a minute consideration of the facts and arguments on which the credibility of the Sacred History rests, we proceed to contrast the 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.

Miracles

than other

Miracles,

do not

84 equally

For the present, then, we forego the advantage which the Scrip- The ture Miracles have gained in the preceding sections over all professed Scripture facts of a similar nature. In reality, indeed, the very same evidence have far which would suffice to prove the former, might be inadequate when evidence in stronger offered in behalf of those of the Eclectic School or the Romish their favour Church. For the Miracles of Scripture, and no other, are unexcep- Professed tionable and worthy of a divine agent; and Bishop Butler has though they clearly shown, that, in a practical question, as the divinity of a require professed Revelation must be considered, even the weakest reasons evidence are decisive when not counteracted by any opposite arguments. strong. Whatever 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, we show 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 What kind of the character and competency of the witnesses; and this is true, is to be not only in the case of Miracles, but when facts of any kind are required for examined into. It is obvious, that we should be induced to distrust the most natural and plausible statement when made by an individual 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.

82 Especially by Vince, in his valuable Treatise On the Christian Miracles; and Hey, in his Lectures.

8 As Paley, Lyttleton, Leslie, &c.

84 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 ante-
cedent probability of Miracles was dis-
cussed. That it is unsatisfactory to de-
cide 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.

of testimony

a Miracle.

« PreviousContinue »