It has been objected that the love of the marvellous has in every age constituted so remarkable a phase of human nature as greatly to weaken, if not entirely to invalidate the testimony to the performance of miracles. It is alleged that the great historians of ancient times have recorded a number of supernatural occurrences which are now summarily rejected as incredible: and it is therefore argued that all narratives of miraculous occurrences must share the same fate. This objection differs from that which I have considered in the former chapter, in that it avoids the necessity of imputing to the followers of Jesus and the authors of the Gospels a degree of superstition and credulity greatly in excess of that which characterizes the majority of mankind. It will be therefore necessary to give this subject a careful consideration.

It is an unquestionable fact that the human mind has been in all ages disposed to accept a number of narratives of supernatural occurrences upon very insufficient testimony, and which the principles of sound reason lead us to reject as untrue. Such beliefs have been peculiar to no one period of the world's history, but have been co-extensive with the human race; and they form one of the most remarkable facts in our nature. Many of the ancient historians have reported such occurrences without apparent suspicion; or if [pg 311] they entertained any doubts respecting their truth, they did not venture even to whisper them into the popular ear. What is still more; eminent men of the ancient world did not scruple to act in matters of this kind a part which they knew to be deceptive, because they held the opinion that such beliefs, though they might be laughed at by philosophers, were necessary to act as restraints on the vulgar. Thus we know, on the most indubitable authority, that a Roman Augur could gravely act his part before the public at the very time that he was secretly laughing in his sleeve at the ridiculousness of his art. It does not therefore follow because the ancient historians have reported numbers of occurrences of this nature with considerable gravity, that they accepted them as facts. They were frequently influenced by the spirit of accommodation, thinking it necessary for the welfare of society to keep up the vulgar ideas on the subject. It would be inaccurate therefore to attribute all the accounts of such things which we meet with in ancient writers to simple credulity, or to infer from them that they did not believe in an inviolable order of nature of some kind. With respect to the arts of magic, however, one feels that even the greatest of the ancient writers contemplated them with a kind of bated breath. This would appear to have been the state of mind even of Tacitus, with one exception the greatest historian of the ancient world, and one who was intimately acquainted with the various systems of its philosophy. Conscious as he was that vast numbers of the professors of magic were impostors, he seems hardly able to realize the fact that the whole art was a delusion.

It has been affirmed that the progress of physical science has destroyed in this nineteenth century all belief in the actual occurrence of the supernatural, and [pg 312] that it now prevails only in some of the dark corners of Christendom. The widespread belief in the phenomena of spiritualism, which is certainly very far from being confined to religious men, and from which some students of physical science have not been exempt, is a striking proof of the contrary. All that can be affirmed with truth is that, in these modern times, these forms of belief have taken a new direction. Modern science has done much to establish and spread the belief that the operations of all natural, i.e. material forces are uniform. Many of its students have even brought themselves to the belief that the occurrence of any event whose existence is due to the action of any other than the known forces of nature, is impossible: though this is far from being the invariable, and is certainly not the necessary result of its study. Still, probably, the most ardent votary of these opinions would find it difficult to keep himself wholly free from terrors arising from unseen causes, if they were aroused by a suitable apparatus. The study of physical science is far from being a universal safeguard against the invasions of superstition. Its causes lie far more deeply rooted in our nature than the principles of physical science can reach. Nor is it able to guard against an extravagant use of the imagination.

Whether, in the present state of our philosophy, we have fully penetrated to the depths of this principle thus working in the mind of man, may admit of doubt; but its presence there, as an essential portion of our nature, is an unquestionable fact. We are not without the means of getting a general idea of its character. It is doubtless intimately connected with those principles of our nature which constitute man a religious being, and which form a fundamental part of his mental constitution. As such it must, like all our other faculties, [pg 313] have a legitimate and an illegitimate action. It points, as we shall see, to the existence of the supernatural. A rational religion forms the object for its appropriate exercise. Whenever man has been destitute of this, and his reason has been weak, this principle, devoid of its proper object, has always manifested itself in various forms of extravagance. So powerful is it in the human mind that even avowed atheism has not been proof against its power. Julius CÆsar was an atheist, and possessed one of the most powerful minds that ever inhabited the human frame. Yet, on the great day of his triumph, he ascended the steps of the Capitol for the purpose of averting an avenging Nemesis. Napoleon the First was no atheist, though few persons who have ever lived have been more free from the restraints of religion or superstition. Although he possessed a mighty intellect and was no stranger to the truths of modern science, yet even he believed in his star. Many other instances of men of powerful intellect who disbelieved in religion, yet who entertained singular superstitions, might be easily adduced. I refer to them for the purpose of proving that the principle out of which such things originate must be one which is deep-seated in the nature of man, and therefore an essential portion of it. If it is founded on a fundamental principle of our mental constitution, it follows that it must have a legitimate subject-matter on which to exercise its powers, and that the abnormal forms of it which are so frequently manifested are the results of some disorder in its action. What then is its nature?

There are certain principles deeply-seated within us, which form as definite a portion of ourselves as even our rational faculties, and which directly prompt to the belief in the supernatural, and therefore point to its existence. Among these, the faculties of imagination, [pg 314] wonder, reverence and awe, hold a conspicuous place. It is impossible to deny that they form portions of the actual constitution of our minds, however we may account for their origin. Is it then our duty to eradicate them because they prompt us to the belief in something which transcends the visible order of nature? This will hardly be affirmed by the most thorough-going sceptic; for if it be our duty to do so, the human mind must be a mass of disorder in the midst of a universe of order. If we were to make the attempt (for indeed it has been attempted) the result would be to upset the balance of our mental constitution, and it would terminate in failure. Human nature, taken as it is, constitutes a whole. These faculties hold in it a place subordinate to reason and to conscience. When our rational, our imaginative, and our moral powers act harmoniously together, they constitute man a religious being.

But, for the purposes of the present argument, I have simply to draw attention to the fact that imagination, wonder, reverence and awe form an essential portion of our being. It would be in the highest degree undesirable to get rid of them, even if we were able. How mighty is the influence of the first of these principles! It lies at the foundation of everything that is great and noble in man. To it are due the magnificent creations of poetry; in fact everything which adorns life, and much of that which raises us above the mechanical forces of nature. Destitute of it, our reason could not act; nay, it could not even exist; and we should be reduced to the mere mechanical action of the understanding, the wheels of which would be in danger of rusting. Nor has the faculty of wonder a less definite place in our being. It is closely connected with our imagination, which supplies [pg 315] it with objects fitted to excite it, and ought to be exercised under the guidance of reason. Its object is the great and the vast, shall I not say, the infinite? Regulated by reason and united with awe, it produces reverence. Reverence points to the existence of some object which is really worthy of veneration. Veneration can only be legitimately exercised on that which is truly venerable. As such it directly points to a personal God, and refuses to rest in anything short of Him as able fully to gratify its aspirations. Viewing them as a whole, the legitimate object of these faculties, and the subject from which they can receive their fullest gratification, is that Great Being who everywhere manifests Himself in this glorious universe. But when man has ceased to contemplate in nature a rational power guiding and controlling it, the principle of wonder has frequently prompted him to gratify its aspirations by peopling it with a multitude of phantastic creations. When under the influence of awe, he has contemplated it in its terrible aspects, unguided by a being who possesses a moral character, these feelings have prompted the imagination to fill it with beings who excite the feeling of superstitious dread.

Although the vastness of the material universe and the energy of its forces can excite the feeling of wonder, yet that of reverence refuses to find in the mere extension of space, or the might of material forces, any object adequate to its demands. The vastness of the material universe may fill the mind with wonder and admiration; but even wonder refuses to rest satisfied with a vastness of which the limits are known. It demands something which is conceivable, which yet runs up into the regions of the inconceivable. But even here the feeling of reverence can find nothing on which to energize. It directly points to a moral being [pg 316] in whom it can find a centre, and it will find its gratification in nothing short of one. To talk, as many Pantheists do, of feeling reverence for an impersonal Universe, is a misuse of language. What! to reverence a Being, if the impersonal Universe can be called a Being, which is everlastingly casting up the bubbles of existence in the form of moral agents, and is everlastingly devouring them, devoid alike of consciousness, volition, and a moral nature!

It follows, therefore, if these principles form a constituent portion of our nature, that like all our other faculties, they must admit of a right and a perverted use. It is therefore absurd to lay down as a general principle, because they admit of an illegitimate use, that the whole class of phenomena connected with them are worthy of nothing but summary rejection, without exercising our reason on the evidence on which they stand. All that their existence can prove in reference to this subject is something which is very like a truism; that mankind, being liable to all kinds of mistakes and errors, and having frequently fallen into them, no class of phenomena ought to be accepted as facts, until evidence of their occurrence has been adduced which is capable of satisfying our reason. But this is a very harmless proposition.

There can be no doubt that to a perverted use of these faculties is due the belief in a kind of current supernaturalism, which in various forms runs through the entire history of man. This has owed its origin to the efforts of the imagination to supply objects for its gratification when the reason is feeble and the moral faculties have become perverted. Hence the readiness of large masses of mankind to accept narratives of marvels without regard to the evidence on which they rest. They are accepted simply as gratifying the principle [pg 317] of wonder. This is the cause of what I have designated by the term “Current Supernaturalism.”

But because all our faculties admit of abuse, and the higher they are, the greater, this forms no reason for rejecting their legitimate use, or the entire subject-matter on which they operate. As I have observed, the principle is found energizing wherever man exists. Although in one age it may be more active than in another, it is alike the inheritance of the civilized man and the savage. It has displayed itself in the creations of the poet and the writer of fiction; in the various forms of religious thought; in the production of ghost-stories and pictures of the under-world; in the creation of the various forms of demonology, witchcraft and magic; in the milder form of fairy-tales; in charms and incantations, and in efforts to pry into the future. Even in philosophy and science we may trace its influence, not only in aiding and suggesting their great discoveries, but in propounding multitudes of startling theories, erected on the smallest basis of fact. These not only gratify this feeling, but promise an apparently royal road to knowledge, which avoids the long and tedious one of only propounding theories after a careful investigation of facts. But in the regions of intellectual pursuit, its abnormal manifestations are pre-eminently in the science of historical criticism, in those numerous departments of historical inquiry where the facts are few and vague. Here nothing is easier than to supply the absence of facts by theory, and to erect a magnificent edifice on a foundation of sand. The ancient soothsayer gratified vulgar curiosity by guessing at the events of the future. There is a species of modern soothsaying which expends its energies in guessing at the events of the past. Such guessing presents an unspeakable fascination to a large number [pg 318] of minds, by its happy mixture of fiction and fact, and is the true analogue to many of the forms of ancient thought. It has been necessary to draw attention to these things for the purpose of proving the widespread influence of this principle on human nature. Its action has manifested itself in different forms in different ages; but the cause is the same in all, the existence in man of a principle which points to the existence of God, and which can only receive its adequate gratification in Him.

The action of similar principles produces in man the love of the extraordinary, the unusual and the novel. This is so powerful that unless it is kept in subordination to reason, it produces a number of fictitious beliefs. So strong is it, that it may be truly said of large numbers of mankind that they spend all the time which they are not compelled to devote to the serious realities of life, in little else than hearing and speaking of some new thing. It is undoubtedly the cause of a large number of fictitious beliefs, and produces, in minds where the rational powers are weak, a ready acceptance of the unusual, the strange, and the wonderful. The same principle, acting in conjunction with others, when uncontrolled by reason, has occasioned many of the exaggerations which are to be found in history.

Still, as one of the fundamental principles of our minds, it cannot but have a legitimate sphere of action. United with curiosity, it is the chief source of all mental activity. It is that which produces the earnest desire to penetrate into the regions of the unknown. As such, it is essential to the activity of our rational faculties, and has been the exciting cause which has rendered all our great discoveries possible.

It follows, therefore, that if these principles form [pg 319] part of our mental constitution, the objection that they destroy the value of miracles as a testimony to a revelation is absurd. We might as well argue that because the love of the marvellous has generated a belief in a number of fictions as facts in ordinary history, it invalidates its testimony to events which have really happened, or renders all unusual occurrences incredible. I will illustrate this by an example. Herodotus tells us in his history that there were certain tribes who dwelt in wooden habitations erected over lakes, and he gives us several particulars as to their manner of life. This fact, until a comparatively recent period, might have been pronounced incredible, and have been supposed to have originated in the simple love of the marvellous, either in the author or in his informants. I own that when I first read the historian, this was the opinion which I formed respecting it. But we now know that he reported an actual fact. On the other hand it is certain that a great portion of the details of the Scythian expedition of Darius must have originated in the undue activity of the mental faculties to which I have referred, i.e. that they are inventions. But if the principle of summarily rejecting narratives of events which lie beyond our experience is valid, because the abnormal activity of certain faculties has urged men to invent, and believe in a multitude of fictions, the account of the lake-dwellings given by the historian ought to have been rejected as equally unworthy of credit, with some of the occurrences of the Scythian expedition. It is impossible to deal with the events of history on any general It follows, therefore, that if these principles admit of an abnormal action, we are still by no means justified in a summary rejection of all unusual occurrences. It only [pg 320] forms an adequate reason for closely scrutinizing the evidence on which the credibility of history rests. The faculty of imagination, instigated by that of wonder, has produced widespread beliefs in a mass of supernatural events which are utterly incredible. But as that faculty must have a legitimate action somewhere, it is clear that its abuse can be no valid reason for the rejection of all supernatural occurrences, unless for other reasons they are proved to be incredible. The whole must be a question of evidence and of reason. If it formed a valid ground for the rejection of miracles, it is clear that the principle on which it is founded cannot be confined to any such narrow limits, but must have a wide and general application, and extend to all that is wonderful and unusual.

It is an unquestionable fact that a large proportion of mankind in every age have eagerly sought the means of affording gratification to the feeling of wonder, and that this has been the means of introducing into history a considerable number of fictions of various kinds. But does this invalidate its testimony? Does it justify us in rejecting whole classes of phenomena as unworthy of consideration? We have already seen that whatever principle is applied to miracles must be equally applied to all extraordinary events, because as phenomena there is no difference between them. We admit that many fictions have got into history. These it is the duty of the critical historian to detect and displace. Will anyone affirm that their introduction invalidates the events in the history of the past, which rest on an adequate attestation? What that is, I shall consider hereafter. Whatever effect this may have exerted on the minor details of history, will anyone affirm that its great outlines do not rest on a substantial basis of truth? It is impossible to lay [pg 321] down on these subjects a wide and comprehensive canon which will save us the trouble of careful and accurate investigation. All reports of extraordinary events, marvels, and miracles, must stand or fall with the adequacy of the evidence which can be adduced for their occurrence, and cannot be decided by any artificial rule. If the evidence is good, they must be accepted, notwithstanding the fact that extensive classes of marvels have been accepted by mankind on testimony wholly insufficient to establish their truth. If the evidence fails, they must be regarded as the result of the abnormal exercise of faculties which yet have a legitimate place in our mental constitution.

Nothing is more common than the assertion that at certain periods of history, mankind have been ignorant that there is an order in nature; and that this ignorance has given these faculties such unbounded play as to render all reports of supernatural occurrences unworthy of credit, notwithstanding any amount of evidence which may be alleged in their favour. It is urged that, if men are ignorant that there is an order in nature, to such a state of mind nothing would be really supernatural; but every event, whether supernatural or otherwise, would be viewed as a matter of ordinary occurrence. To this state of mind a miracle would convey no meaning, and therefore it would be valueless as evidence of a divine revelation. In other words, it has been affirmed that there have been certain conditions of mankind in which the love of the marvellous has been so powerful, and the action of reason so weak, as to destroy all sense of the distinction between a natural and a supernatural occurrence.

I reply that the Christian revelation was not addressed to such a condition of the human mind. On the contrary, it was made after a long course of [pg 322] preparation for its introduction. After the whole course of previous history, under the controlling providence of God, had prepared the way for His Advent, Jesus Christ appeared. The Gospel was not preached to men in the lowest state of barbarism, but to civilized man. What may have been the ideas of degraded savages, at some early period of the history of our race, it will be needless to inquire. With mankind in such a condition we have nothing to do in the present controversy, but with the state of thought in the Roman Empire during the first century of our era. This was no period of mental darkness or of boundless credulity. In the early ages, when every phenomenon of nature was viewed as due to the action of some capricious god, the belief in an order of nature must have been in a high degree vague and uncertain. But such a state of things, whatever it might once have been, had long since passed away. The period of history now under consideration was one of widespread intelligence, varying greatly in different parts of the empire, but still one of intelligence and civilization.

It is impossible for men to attain a degree of progress necessary for the existence of civilization, and still to remain ignorant that a large class of natural occurrences follow an order which does not admit of deviation. Civilization would be impossible unless this were generally recognized. It is in fact founded on its recognition. At the same time, there is a class of phenomena which are not recognized by the ordinary mind as following a definite order. It is within this alone that the beliefs of current supernaturalism exert their activity. But the supernatural occurrences narrated in the New Testament do not belong to this ambiguous order of events, and are therefore unaffected by them.

While considering this subject, it will be necessary to keep steadily in view that miracles are not alleged in the New Testament to have been performed to prove the truth of doctrines, but that a particular person possesses a divine commission; or in attestation of particular facts, such as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The truth of a divine commission being established, it follows that the divinely-appointed messenger must have some message to communicate. We further infer that God will not intrust a message to any person whom He has not previously fully enlightened as to the subject which he has to communicate, and who would not truthfully communicate the message with which he is intrusted. A miracle is therefore not only an attestation to the divine commission of the person performing one, but also to the adequate information and veracity of the messenger. Although a miracle is not wrought to prove the truth of a particular doctrine, but that a particular person is intrusted with a divine commission, we accept a doctrinal statement as true, when made by a messenger thus attested, within the limits of the message with which he affirms himself to be intrusted, on the ground that such a messenger must both be truthful, and possess adequate knowledge. [pg 347] In other words, our belief in the doctrinal statement does not rest on the miracle, but on the veracity of God.

This is the affirmation made in the New Testament respecting the most important class of the miracles which it records. As I have elsewhere observed, not a single instance occurs in it of a miracle wrought for the purpose of proving that a doctrine is true. Our Lord's distinct affirmation is, “The same works that I do, bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me.” (John v. 36.) “If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?” (John viii. 46.) The miracles which are alleged to have been performed by the Apostles for directly evidential purposes, were wrought in proof of the Resurrection of Christ, and of their own divine commission, which directly depended on it.

Let it also be observed that it by no means follows that every miracle recorded in the New Testament was performed exclusively for evidential purposes. This point I shall consider hereafter.

If these principles are correct, they will at once dispose of two objections which are alleged against miracles: first, that they cannot prove a doctrine; and secondly, that they cannot prove a moral truth. I fully accept the statement that moral truths cannot be proved by the evidence of miracles, but must rest on their own inherent evidence; and that all positive duties rest on the command of God, to whom we feel, on other grounds, that all love, reverence, and adoration are due. The truth of doctrines also cannot be established by the performance of a miracle; but when we accept them on external authority, they rest on the testimony of God, and our full persuasion that He must be in possession of all truth. Although, therefore, I accept as correct these principles, on which the objection is founded, they have no bearing [pg 348] on the point at issue; for the New Testament nowhere affirms that its miracles were wrought to prove either doctrinal statements or moral truths, but facts.

1. It is objected that the prevalence of supernatural beliefs renders the existence of miracles “so hackneyed as scarcely to attract the notice of the nation to whom the Christian revelation was in the first instance addressed.” (Supernatural Religion.)

I reply that this objection contains two inaccuracies. First, it is not true that the miracles of Jesus scarcely attracted the notice of those among whom they were performed. The only authority on this point is the New Testament itself, and this assertion contradicts its express statements. Numerous passages in the Gospels directly affirm that the miracles of our Lord attracted very general attention, and produced a profound astonishment; and that those who had witnessed them considered that there was a wide distinction between them and the miraculous pretensions then current. His fame is represented as having been spread by them in regions beyond Palestine; and great multitudes are stated to have collected, both for the purpose of hearing Him and of being healed of their diseases. The fourth Gospel represents our Lord as rebuking the multitudes, for attending on Him for sordid purposes. It is quite true, that notwithstanding the miracles, the body of the Jewish nation ultimately rejected Christianity, though the epistles bear witness that the Jewish element which was attracted into the Christian Church was large. The assertion, therefore, is simply contrary to fact, that miracles were in those days so common and hackneyed as to attract little or no attention to him who professed to work them.

Equally inaccurate is the assertion that the evidence of miracles as the attestation to a revelation was a [pg 349] “hackneyed” one. The Old Testament professed to rest on miraculous evidence. This being the case, the Jews were fully entitled to expect that if God made a further revelation of His will, it would be accompanied by a miraculous attestation. But Judaism was the only religion of the ancient world which professed to be founded on the evidence of miracles. A belief in a current supernaturalism was no doubt mixed up with the ancient religions, but its wonders were not alleged to have been wrought in attestation of the fact that they were revelations, nor even as attestations to their truth. The religion of the Greeks possessed both priests and prophets; but they performed no miracles in attestation of a divine commission. The only attestation of this kind which they claimed was the utterance of obscure or mendacious oracles. I am not aware that anyone who pretended to be a revealer of the divine will in ancient times ever professed to perform visible and palpable miracles in proof of his assertions. Similar is the position of the old religions which still exist in the modern world. Many of them abound in stories of the most fantastic manifestations of their gods in ancient times. Their votaries believe in the efficacy of magic, charms, and incantations. But none of these things have been affirmed to have been wrought in attestation of a divine commission. Mahometanism claims, in the strictest sense, to be a divine revelation; yet the Koran even offers apologies for the fact that its founder wrought no miracles in attestation of his claim to be a divine messenger. So far therefore is it from being the fact that miracles are so generally alleged by religions in vindication of their claim to be revelations, that Judaism and Christianity are absolutely unique in this respect. The idea of working a miracle in attestation of a divine commission is so far from [pg 350] being a “hackneyed” one, that it has the strongest claims to originality.

2. It is urged by the same writer that “every marvel and every narrative of supernatural interference seemed a matter of course to the superstitious credulity of the age. However much miracles are the exception to the order of nature, they have always been the rule in the history of ignorance. In fact the excess of belief in them throughout many centuries of darkness, is almost fatal to their claims to credence now. They have been limited to periods of ignorance and superstition, and are unknown to ages of enlightenment. The Christian miracles are rendered almost as suspicious from their place in a long series of similar occurrences, as they are by their being exceptions to the sequence of natural phenomena. It would be extraordinary if cycles of miracles occurring before and since those of the Gospels, and in connection with every religion, could be repudiated as fables, and these alone maintained as genuine.”

The principles which I have laid down in a former chapter fully meet the chief points raised in these objections. A few additional observations on them, therefore, are all that will be necessary.

First: the assertion that every marvel or narrative of supernatural interference seemed a matter of course to the superstitious credulity of the age, is inaccurate. If they had been of habitual or constant occurrence, they would have ceased to be marvels at all. In such a case the trade of the impostor would have gone, for it would not have paid him. The entire plausibility of such reasonings arises from confounding under a common name phenomena wholly different in character. I ask emphatically, did the current supernaturalism of any age or nation accept as matters of course such [pg 351] events as the resurrection of Christ, or the cure of a blind man, or a man full of leprosy, by a word or a touch? Have not heathen writers pronounced actual resurrections from the dead to be impossibilities? Were such occurrences ever believed to be within the power of magic to effect? Belief in the possibility of such occurrences became current only under the influence of Christianity.

2. It is not correct to assert that the belief in miracles has been confined to ages of ignorance. Will it be affirmed that the most flourishing period of Grecian literature was an age of ignorance? Yet a belief in a current supernaturalism prevailed in it. Was the Augustan age an age of ignorance? Both ages were ignorant of physical science: but during few periods has the human intellect been equally active. Each age contained men endowed with common sense sufficient to make them adequate judges whether the supernatural occurrences above referred to were possible or not.

3. It is inaccurate to affirm that the Christian miracles are interposed between two similar series of supernatural occurrences. There is only one point in common between them; the claim to be supernatural. As I have proved, in every other respect they are strongly contrasted. It is, therefore, by no means extraordinary that a series of supernatural occurrences, which have the highest moral impress, and possess other distinguishing characteristics, should be true; and that the others, one of which took place before and the other after that in question, and which are stamped with the very opposite characteristics, should be false.

The same author adduces the following objections, as lying at the root of miraculous testimony to a revelation: “Surely supernatural evidence of so common and prodigal a nature betrays great want of force [pg 352] and divine originality. How could that be considered as special evidence for a new revelation, which was already so well known to all the world, and which was scattered broadcast over so many centuries, as well as successfully simulated by Satan.” Again: “Instead of a few evidential miracles taking place at one epoch of history, and filling the world with surprise at such novel and exceptional phenomena, we find miracles represented as taking place in all ages and in all countries. The Gospel miracles are set in the midst of a series of similar wonders which commenced many centuries before the dawn of Christianity, and continued without interruption fifteen centuries after it. No divine originality characterized the evidence selected to accredit the divine revelation.” (P. 192.)

I reply, First: It behoves those who except against the plan of attesting a divine revelation by miracles, to inform us in what other way it is possible that the truth of a divine commission can be attested. It is doubtless possible for God to make a special revelation of His will to each individual man; yet even this would involve supernatural agency of some kind; and it is very questionable whether to do so would be consistent with the plan of God's moral government which comes under our actual observation. But the Christian revelation is founded on the idea of making a divine manifestation additional to, and of a different order from, that which is made by the created universe; and not simply of imparting so much additional information to each individual. This manifestation professes to be made by the Incarnation. How, I ask, was such a manifestation to be made except by a supernatural action of some kind? It is clear, therefore, that every manifestation of God differing from that made by the ordinary forces of nature, or by the moral nature of [pg 353] man, must be supernatural. There can be no doubt as to the means which must be employed. The only question which can be raised is one which I have considered elsewhere, namely: whether it is the purpose of God to make such a manifestation of Himself.

It will be objected that such a manifestation might have been made self-evident to the moral nature of man, and consequently it would have required no additional attestation. To this I reply that, on the supposition that it is God's purpose to make such an additional manifestation of Himself, He must be allowed to be the only adequate judge of the right mode of accomplishing it.

But even if a revelation involved no such manifestation of God, but only a communication of truth to man, it is incumbent on those who object to its attestation by miracles, to find some other method by which the reality of a divine commission could be attested, and to show that this mode would be preferable to an attestation by miracles.

But further: if we regard a miracle as a supernatural occurrence wrought in attestation of a divine commission, which is the unquestionable aspect of a considerable number of those recorded in the New Testament, the fact that there was a wide-spread belief in the existence of supernatural events is far from interfering with its efficacy. What did the current beliefs imply? That there existed beings, other than the blind forces of nature, who interfered in human affairs; and that they were in some way or other capable of communicating with man. What is the very conception implied by a revelation? That a God exists, who is the moral Governor of the universe, who cares for man, and is capable of holding communications with him. Both conceptions rest on a common ground—the existence of [pg 354] supernatural beings capable of manifesting themselves by outward indications. Why then should not the moral Governor of the universe, if it was His purpose to make a revelation, employ media, which were all but universally recognized? No inconsiderable number of the objections of unbelievers rest on the assumption, that if there be a God, it is derogatory to His character to suppose that He is capable of condescending to the weaknesses and imperfections of man. A God who neither will nor can do so may be a very grand conception; but one who is very ill adapted to the wants of human nature, and who is incapable of exciting human sympathies. The only thing that would be necessary, on the supposition that it was His purpose to make such a revelation, would be that His mode of manifesting His presence should be one clearly distinguishable from the events of current supernaturalism. What was requisite would have been to afford evidence that the manifestation in question was due to no other being than Himself; that is to say, that the miracles should bear the unquestionable impress of His own perfections. The subject of alleged demoniacal miracles I have considered elsewhere. The simple question before us is—Are the supernatural events recorded in the Gospels clearly distinguishable in their general character from the supernaturalism which was current previous to the Advent? I have already shown that it contains no doubtful indications as to who the agent must have been, if we suppose the facts to have been actual occurrences.

But further: if the objection has any validity, it presupposes that God ought not to make a revelation in ages of superstition and ignorance; but must wait until knowledge has cleared away the mists of ignorance and error, and supplied us with the means of [pg 355] infallibly discriminating between true miracles and false ones; or, in other words, we must wait for the much-talked-of jury of scientific men, who can submit His alleged miracles to the whole range of scientific tests. Happily, however, God has gifted a considerable number of men with common sense, which is quite adequate to determine whether a certain class of events wrought under certain circumstances are miraculous operations, or mere natural occurrences, or due to imposture. If this be so, what is there, I ask, unworthy of God, in making a revelation at such times as man stands in special need of one?

It is further objected that a miraculous attestation to a divine commission shows a want of force and divine originality. I ask, how? The fact is that with the exception of Judaism, no ancient religion professed to be so attested; and the Jew would naturally expect that any fresh revelation would be attested in a manner similar to that which he believed in as divine.

The objection that because the belief in supernaturalism was so general, therefore miracles must be worthless as evidence, I have already shown to be fallacious.

But it is also objected: “Instead of a few evidential miracles taking place at one particular period of history and filling the world with surprise at such novel and exceptional phenomena, we find them represented as taking place in all ages and in all countries.”

This is the old objection of the Jews who demanded of our Lord a sign from Heaven. Both demand a particular class and order of miracle, viz.: something stupendous, or terrific. The value of each objection lies in conceiving of a miracle as a mere objective fact in external nature, stript of all its moral accompaniments. In one word, it contemplates the miracle in its most vulgar aspect, as a bare act of power, [pg 356] a portent, a prodigy. A great light everywhere appearing in the heavens might have appeared to vulgar minds a greater miracle, and have attracted more attention than the cure of a man full of leprosy by the utterance of a word. But it would not have presented stronger evidences of having been wrought by the power of God.

But with respect to the general question, I ask, Is not the resurrection of Jesus Christ in every respect an exceptional event? Where are resurrections to be found in the history of current supernaturalism? Who ever pretended, before or since, to have a divine commission which was attested by his own resurrection from the dead? This miracle is at any rate absolutely unique; and it must never be forgotten that it is the only one recorded in the New Testament on the truth of which its writers stake the claim of Christianity to be regarded as a divine revelation. Although they refer to other miracles, wonders and signs which God wrought by Him, yet whenever they adduce the full and conclusive evidence of His divine mission, they always appeal to the fact that God had raised Him from the dead.

But a further objection is urged as invalidating this kind of testimony: “At the very time when the knowledge of the laws of nature began to render men capable of judging of the reality of miracles, these wonders entirely ceased. This extraordinary cessation of miracles at a time when their evidence ought to have acquired value from an appeal to persons capable of appreciating them, is perfectly unintelligible, if they are viewed as the supernatural credentials of a divine revelation.”

This passage contains several fallacies. One, to which I have repeatedly drawn attention, runs through it, viz., the classing together every kind of alleged [pg 357] supernatural occurrence, from the miracles of Jesus to the fantastic performances of the magician, as though they all stood on the same level. I need not further allude to the fallacy of such reasoning.

2. It is affirmed that miracles entirely ceased when the knowledge of the laws of nature began to render men capable of judging of their reality. I conclude that by the word “miracles” in this passage, the author means ecclesiastical miracles, viz., those which have been alleged to be wrought in attestation of the established system of belief. If it is meant to be asserted that all belief in a current supernaturalism has now ceased, the affirmation is inaccurate, as the wide-spread belief in spiritualism abundantly testifies.

But if the assertion is intended to be confined to ecclesiastical miracles, it involves an inaccuracy as to a matter of history. They had become thoroughly discredited long before the birth of modern physical science. The cure of blind and leprous persons by a touch, or the feeding of five thousand persons on seven loaves and a few fishes, require nothing else than sound common sense for the appreciation of their supernatural character, or the testing of their reality. The assertion, therefore, that miracles ceased precisely at the time when their evidence would have been most valuable, by their being able to be tested by those persons best capable of appreciating them, is entirely inaccurate.

I fully admit that a belief in a current supernaturalism, as for instance in the absurdities of witchcraft, survived the Reformation. What the Reformation destroyed was a belief in a divine order of miracles wrought in support of an ecclesiastical system. The belief in this current supernaturalism has been gradually diminishing ever since, under the combined influence [pg 358] of the increase of the knowledge of physical science, and common sense. The objection raised is simply irrelevant to the point at issue.

But there is another subject which demands consideration. Hitherto we have been dealing with the evidential character of miracles. But although all miracles have an evidential value, if they can be adequately attested, it by no means follows that every miracle recorded in the New Testament was intended to subserve this purpose alone. It was necessary not only that a revelation should be communicated, and receive an adequate attestation, but that it should be propagated among mankind. To render this possible, it was necessary that its messengers should be armed with some means of insuring that their message should be heard with attention. There was also another object to be effected; namely, the establishment in the world of that great institution, the Christian Church, which was intended so largely to influence its destinies.

It will be quite clear to any person who carefully considers the various supernatural occurrences recorded in the New Testament that they are not all of equal evidential value. The highest class of them are directly affirmed to have been performed for the purpose of attesting the divine mission of Jesus Christ, and as a portion of His supernatural manifestation. To this class belong the miracles wrought by Himself, and several of those performed by the Apostles. But there is another class referred to in the Acts of the Apostles, of which the primary object seems to have been to awaken attention to the Apostolic message, though even these were not destitute of evidential value. There is also another order of manifestations frequently referred to in the Epistles, viz., the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, one of the declared purposes [pg 359] of which was to lay deep the foundations of the Christian Church. As divine interpositions, they were all to a certain extent evidential; but it will be important to observe that there is an order of supernatural manifestations mentioned in the New Testament, whose apparent primary intention was to subserve a different purpose.

Let it be observed therefore, that at the introduction of Christianity, two distinct purposes had to be effected: first, to attest the truth of the revelation; secondly, to establish the Church.

I will briefly draw attention to this latter portion of the subject, as far as it affects certain portions of the supernatural action affirmed in the New Testament. I allude to a certain class of miracles, such as the cure of the cripple at Lystra, those wrought by the passing of Peter's shadow, and by garments brought from Paul's person, and some others; also to the entire class of the supernatural gifts mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and so frequently referred to in the Epistles.

One of the greatest difficulties which beset the missionary is to obtain a hearing in the midst of the hostile elements by which he is surrounded. Yet to obtain this is the necessary condition of carrying on his work. In this respect, the modern missionary possesses great advantages compared with the primitive missionary of Christianity. He belongs to a superior civilization, and is therefore able to bring to bear the whole force of a higher on a lower one. This was exactly reversed in the case of the primitive missionaries. Instead of being able to bring to bear the prestige of a high civilization on those among whom they laboured, they belonged to a despised race; or if the missionary himself was a member of the race whom he addressed, he [pg 360] belonged to the lower sections of society. How was this enormous deficiency to be supplied? How was a man thus despised to obtain a hearing for the message with which he was charged? The New Testament affirms that the deficiency was supplied by imparting to the early Church a certain number of supernatural endowments, which, when once communicated, acted like our ordinary faculties; also that a supernatural gift of curing certain diseases was imparted to particular individuals, a gift which was exactly suited to obtain an attentive hearing for their message.

Among the supernatural gifts which St. Paul affirms to have been communicated to the Church, there were two of which he asserts that the operation was distinct, but which are merged in the modern idea of miracles. These he designated by the expressions ἐνεργήματα δυναμέων, or the inworking of powers; and χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, endowments of healing powers. The distinction in function between these powers is affirmed by him no less than three times; what it consisted in, we are only able to judge from the terms themselves, and the nature of the case. There is every probability that the distinction points to a higher and a lower exercise of supernatural power; the one being the evidential miracle properly so called, and the other a supernatural knowledge of how to effect cures—a gift which would be exactly suited to enable the missionary to obtain that attentive hearing of his message which he so urgently required. The Epistle of St. James furnishes us with a general idea of the nature of the gift, when he directs, that in case a person was sick, the elders of the Church were to be sent for, who were to pray over the sick man, and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord; “And the prayer of faith,” says he, “shall save the sick; and the Lord shall raise [pg 361] him up.” (James v. 15.) The whole description points to a cure which, although in a measure supernatural, was not instantaneous; the latter point being one which would be required to make a miracle in the proper sense of the word evidential. A power of effecting cures, however, whether by a knowledge of natural means supernaturally acquired, or by supernatural agency, would be one which would obtain for the despised Jewish missionary a hearing in Gentile cities, which otherwise he would be unable to obtain.

To such a class of supernatural operations would belong such cures as those effected by the conveyance of handkerchiefs and aprons from St. Paul's body to the sick. These are only asserted to have taken place on one occasion, at Ephesus, a city greatly addicted to the arts of magic. They were adapted to the circumstances of the place, where the Apostle had to encounter a particular form of supernaturalism; and they would have been exactly suited to meet the difficulty in question. The historian tells us that the success was great, for many of those who had used magical arts came forward and confessed their deeds, collected together their magical books, which were worth a considerable sum of money, and publicly burned them. The same observations apply to Peter's shadow. Although the historian does not tell us that cures were wrought by it, yet the narrative presupposes that a large outburst of supernatural power took place in connection with Peter's person. Although the cure of the cripple at Lystra belongs to a class of miracles which is strictly evidential, yet the immediate occasion of its performance seems to have been with the view of arousing the attention of an ignorant heathen population.

But not only had a revelation to be communicated [pg 362] and attested, not only had converts to be made and instructed, but it was also necessary that the foundations of the Church, the visible kingdom of Christ, should be firmly laid, and that it should be established among the visible institutions of the earth. Sufficient attention has not been paid to this portion of the subject in considering the question of supernatural intervention. The establishment of the Church as a visible institution, which was intended gradually to leaven mankind with the great principles of His revelation, is again and again affirmed by Jesus Christ to have been one of the great purposes of His coming. A description of its character and functions forms the subject of no inconsiderable number of His parables, and it is the great end and purpose for which He gave the great final Apostolic commission to go and gather it together out of all the nations of the earth.

The Church of Christ had therefore to be formed into a community out of the most heterogeneous elements. It was destined not for a momentary existence, but for a continuous growth, so as to leaven human nature with its influences. The creation of such a society was a conception so bold that it had never previously entered the head of either poet or philosopher. Those with whom I am reasoning will not deny that the attempt was a very arduous, and to all appearance a most chimerical one.

Yet it is the most certain of facts that the Church of Christ is now in the nineteenth century of its existence. The boldness of the undertaking will be more fully estimated when we reflect that the Church was intended to be a society which, while existing in the world, should differ in its essential character from all the other societies on the earth. Its action was to be entirely spiritual and moral. Its founder intended [pg 363] it to be invested with no coercive powers. The appeal was to be, not to force, but to conscience.

Those who offered to enroll themselves as the subjects of Christ's spiritual kingdom had to be formed into a social organization. Unless this could be effected, one of the great objects for which the revelation was given must have proved a failure. The elements of which it had to be composed were of the most unpromising description. The first converts consisted of no small number of Jews and proselytes, who were extensively leavened with the narrowest prejudices of Judaism. When the Gentiles began to join the new community, its members were chiefly derived from the lower ranks of society, including a considerable number of slaves. The infant Church embraced a great diversity of opinions and characters. When converts were made, the time for their instruction was short. Yet such an institution had to contend with mighty civilization, the habits and prejudices of existing society, the self-interest of a corrupt religion, and the opposition of a powerful government.

Such were some of the difficulties which had to be surmounted before this new institution could be firmly planted among the existing societies of the world, and expand itself with the life which was peculiarly its own. If the primitive followers of Jesus were animated by the credulous superstition which unbelievers delight in attributing to them, none should be better qualified than they to form a judgment of the difficulties which must have beset their path. Yet these have been surmounted. To this fact the vigorous life of the Church during eighteen centuries testifies. It has not only held its ground, but it has succeeded in leavening all existing civilizations with its influences. How has this been accomplished? The Apostolic Epistles return [pg 364] an answer. They affirm that the early converts were endowed with a number of supernatural gifts, exactly fitted to qualify them for the various functions which they were called upon to discharge. I subjoin a list of them, as they are directly affirmed by St. Paul to be then existing in the Corinthian Church. They were nine in number, each of which is asserted by him to have had a distinct and separate function and subject-matter: the gifts of wisdom, knowledge, faith, working of miracles, endowments of healing powers, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tongues, and interpretation. It does not appear whether this last is meant to be exhaustive of the supernatural mental endowments which the members of the early churches supposed themselves to possess, or whether they were varied for the purpose of meeting particular exigences. Nor do I ask those with whom I am reasoning to accept this statement as a true account of an objective fact; but only that they were supposed to be so by the Apostle and those to whom he wrote. It is plain, however, that these supernatural endowments, if real, were precisely such as the Church was in urgent need of, as the instrumentality for welding together the discordant elements of which it was composed, and enabling it firmly to plant itself in the soil of human nature.

These supernatural gifts of the Spirit, with two exceptions, produced no results on external nature. They constituted enlargements of the powers of the human mind. As such, they cannot with strict propriety be said to belong to the class of evidential miracles, although like all other supernatural operations of which God is the Author, they cannot fail to be indirectly evidential. It is important to observe that they belong to a separate class of supernatural phenomena, which were as necessary in reference to the Christian revelation, [pg 365] contemplating as it did the institution of a divine society, as the order of supernatural manifestations which directly attested the divine mission of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. If this was their end and purpose we can understand why they were withdrawn at a very early period, before they could be submitted to the tests of our modern savants. They were given for a special purpose, and they were withdrawn when they had accomplished it. The Apostle who affirms their existence asserts that they were not intended permanently to continue in the Church.

There is one more allegation which is occasionally urged against the miracles of the New Testament, and which I must briefly consider. It is alleged that pious frauds have been very general in all ages of Christian history; that many good men have not hesitated to participate in them; and that literary forgeries were very abundant in the first ages of Christianity, and were even common in the days of the Apostles. It is insinuated that this state of mind throws great suspicion on the alleged miracles of the apostolic age.

As the charge of pious fraud is not made against Jesus himself or his immediate followers, it is difficult to meet so indefinite an objection. It seems to be put in to add force to others, rather than for its intrinsic value. Modern unbelievers express a nearly unanimous concurrence in endeavouring to account for the miracles of the New Testament, by assuming that the followers of Jesus were the victims of the most intense enthusiasm, superstition, and credulity. It is difficult to comprehend, on the assumption that the existence of the supernatural portions of the New Testament is due to these causes, how direct fraud could have anything to do with the concoction of these miraculous stories. Intense enthusiasm and fanaticism, and deliberate fraud, [pg 366] are usually opposite poles of character; and if we call in one to account for these miracles, we must exclude the other from exerting an influence on their origination. To make the charge of any avail against the narratives of the Gospel, it is necessary not to prove that pious frauds were common in the second, third, or fourth century, or even in the first, but to establish directly either that Jesus professed to work miracles while He knew that they were not such, or that His followers deliberately invented a number of miraculous stories and attributed them to Him, well knowing that He had performed none. The charge that the miracles of the New Testament originated in enthusiasm and credulity is a definite one, and can be definitely met. So is the one that they originated in deliberate fraud. So would be the charge that the innocent followers of Jesus were imposed upon by fraudulent impostors. But to combine the charge of intense enthusiasm and credulity with that of conscious fraud, is a mode of reasoning which contains the grounds of its own refutation.

It is no doubt a fact, that the practice of literary forgery was not unknown to the early ages of Christianity. St. Paul seems to have thought that there were in the world impostors daring enough to attempt to forge a letter in his name, and to try to foist it on the churches which he had planted, as a genuine production. But the existence of such impostors has no bearing whatever on the question whether the miracles recorded in the New Testament are facts or fiction. Did not St. Paul himself assert that he had performed miracles? Was he an impostor? Did he not believe that Jesus Christ in veritable reality rose from the dead? What have such beliefs to do with the existence of a set of daring literary impostors? Happily, however, the whole of this class of ancient [pg 367] writers were utter bunglers in the art of fictitious composition. It is a universal characteristic of them, that they were entirely unable to throw themselves into the spirit of former times, or of the persons whose names they assumed. In their references to history, geography, manners, customs, and character, they lay themselves open at almost every point to certain detection. There is good reason for believing that no forger or writer of fiction in the ancient world has succeeded in his art. In investing fiction with apparent probability, the modern world has completely outstript the ancient. Still, however, even in the most perfect works, when the fictions are extended over a wide sphere of action, no amount of genius will protect a writer from leaving some weak point unguarded. It is probably not too much to say that neither in ancient nor modern times, has a fictitious work or a forgery been able to maintain its ground against the apparatus which can be brought to bear on it by a sound and rational criticism.

Most of the other objections which are adduced against the miracles of the New Testament have been answered in principle under the foregoing heads. I must now adduce some of the most important considerations which prove them to have been historical facts.