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, is merely to assert that the proof of the credibility of Scripture might have been stronger than it is; which we have already allowed it might have been, without assignable limit. 85 The credibility, then, of a Testimony depending on the evidence of honesty and competency in those who give it, it is prejudicial to their character for honesty, relative to Gain, &c. 1. If desire of gain, power, or other temporal advantage may be Tests imputed to them. This would detract materially from the authority the honesty of Philostratus, even supposing him to have been in a situation for of witnesses. 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 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. 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 Party spirit. 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 Mohammedan accounts of the Miracles of Mohammed, which, not to mention other objections to them, are composed with an evident design of rivalling those of Christ.86 3. Again, a tale once told may be persisted in from shame of Shame. 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 the witnesses for the cures professedly wrought by Vespasianus, "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 credi- Character bility of a witness of an extraordinary narrative, e.g. the notorious falsehood. 85 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 ἐδίωκον. 86 See Professors Lee's Persian Tracts, p. 446, 447. for Marks of unfairness. Facilities for dishonesty. Tests of 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. The primitive Church is in some degree open to a charge of a similar nature.87 Or an intimacy with suspicious characters, e.g. Prince Hohenlohe's connexion 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. 5. Inconsistencies or prevarications in the Testimony, marks of unfairness, exaggeration, suppression of particulars, &c. Of all these we convicted Philostratus, whose memoir forms a remarkable contrast 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, witnesses may be objected to 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, &c. But on these points we shall speak immediately in a different connexion. Secondly, witnesses must be, not only honest, but competent also, competency .e. such as have ascertained the facts which they attest, or who report after examination. Here then we notice, of witnesses, from the cir- case. 1. Deficiency of examination implied in the circumstances of the 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, &c.; 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 of the transactions recorded, as the Biographies of Pythagoras, Apollonius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Mohammed, Loyola, or Xavier. 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 Apostle's 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. 88 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 87 Hey, Lectures, Book I. Ch. XII. Sec. 15. 88 Paley, Evidences, Part I. Prop. 2. 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, &c.; 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.89 Miracles which are not lasting do not admit of adequate examination; as visions, extraordinary voices, &c. The cure of diseases, on the other hand, is a 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.90 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. 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. And when he appeared to the Apostles after his Resurrection, he allowed them to examine his hands and feet.92 Those of the Scripture Miracles which were wrought before few, or in a crowd, were permanent; as cures, ,93 and the raising of Jairus's daughter; or were of so vast a nature, that a crowd could not prevent the witnesses from ascertaining the fact, as the standing still of the Sun at the word of Joshua. 91 the wit 2. Deficiency of examination implied in the character, &c., of the From the witnesses: e.g. if there be any suspicion of their derangement, or if character of there be an evident defect in bodily or mental faculties which are nesses. necessary for examining the Miracle, as when the intellect or senses are impaired. Number in the witnesses refutes charges of this Derangenature; for it is not conceivable that many should be deranged or mistaken at once, and in the same way. ment. Enthusiasm, ignorance, or habitual credulity, are defects which no Enthusiasm, number of witnesses removes. The Jansenist Miracles took place or credulity. in the most ignorant and superstitious district of Paris. Alexander Pseudomantis 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. Yet while we reasonably object to gross ignorance or besotted credulity in witnesses for a Miraculous story, we must guard against 89 The vagueness of the accounts of Miraculous interpositions related by the Fathers is pointed out by Middleton. (Free Inquiry, II. p. 22.) 90 Matt. xi. 5. 91 Luke v. 14; xvii. 14. 92 Luke xxiv. 39, 40. 93 Mark viii. 22-26. 94 The Fauxbourg St. Marcel. Less. Whether the the opposite extreme of requiring the Testimony of men of Science Testimated and general knowledge. Men of Philosophical minds are often too men is ne- fond of inquiring into the causes and mutual dependence of events, of cessary. ones. 95 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 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. 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 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 to attest 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. To say, that unlearned persons are 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 prejudice. Every one, not only superstitious persons, is apt to interpret facts 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,97) is only the conduct of theorists accounting for a novel phenomenon on the principles of their own system. 96 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, persons 95 It is well known, that those 96 Hume on Miracles, Part II. Reason 1. 97 Bentham, Preuves Judiciaires, Liv. VIII. Ch. II. 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.98 99 the original the The original witnesses of our Saviour's Miracles were very far Character of from a dull or ignorant race. The inhabitants of a maritime and witnesses of border country, as Galilee was, engaged, moreover, in commerce, Christian composed of natives of various countries, and, therefore, from the Miracles. 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. Such a people must have examined before they suffered themselves to be excited in the degree the Evangelists describe.100 But even supposing that 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 produced proving that it was founded on an examination of the Miracles. superiors. Again, it weakens the authority of the witnesses, if their belief Influence of can be shown to have been promoted by the influence of superiors; for then they virtually cease to be themselves witnesses, and report 98 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. 99 See Less, Opuscul. 100 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 en deavoured to interest in Miraculous |