12276472 the life of apollonius of tyanaeus jh newman

8/8/2019 12276472 the Life of Apollonius of Tyanaeus JH Newman

1/69


2/69


3/69

THE LIFEOP

APOLLONIUS TYANJ3TJSWITH A COMPARISON

BETWEENTHE MIRACLES OF SCRIPTURE

AOT) THOSE ELSEWHEEE EELATED,A3REGARDS

THEIR RESPECTIVE OBJECT, NATURE, AND EVIDENCE.

BY JOHN HENRY NEWMAN, B.D.,ORIEL OLLEGE,XFORD.

BEPRINTED ROMTHEORIGINAL DITION.

H.


4/69


5/69

CONTENTS.

LIFE OF APOLLONIUS TYAN^US.His Life written by Philostratus,with the object of bringing him forwardas a rival to the Author of the Christian Religion, . . . 341His Birth and Education, 34::He adoptshe PythagoreanPhilosophy, , .... 342His travels n Asia, Greece,Rome, Spain, Egypt, ^Ethiopia, &c. . . 342His Death, 347Miraculous Pretensionsnot madebyhimself, 349Enumeration of his Pretended Miracles, ...... 349Real Nature of his Pretensions, . . . . . . , .351His Story an Imitation of Scripture, .... . 354THE MIRACLES OF SCRIPTURE COMPARED WITH THOSE

RELATED ELSEWHERE, AS REGARDS THEIR RESPECTIVEOBJECT, NATURE, AND EVIDENCE.I.-ON THE NATUEE AND GENERAL USES or MIRACLES, . . . 356II.-ON THE ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF A MIRACLE, CONSIDERED

AS A DIVINE INTERPOSITION, 330Tests derived from our Knowledgeof the Divine Attributes, by whichall but ScriptureMiracles areexcluded, . . . 3671. Those which are not even referred by the workers of them to

Divine Agency, 3672. Those which are unworthy of an All-wise Author, . . 3683. Thosewhich haveno professed bject, ..... 3704. Thosewhich are exceptionableas egards heir object, . . 372Conclusionof the Antecedentquestion, 376

HI.-ON THE CRITEEION or A MIEACLE, CONSIDEREDAS A DIVINEINTERPOSITION, . 377

TestsbetweenReal and Apparent Miracles,deduced rom the Definitionof the Term, 380

The Term MIRACLE defined, 380


6/69

340 uummNio.PicaThe Facts which have no title to the name Miracle, are:-1. Thosewhich may be referred to Misstatementn the Narration, 3802. Those which from suspicious circumstances attending themmaynot unfairly be referred to an unknownPhysical cause, 3813. Those which may be referred to the supposedoperationof a

Cause known to exist, ....... 383Observationson the foregoingTests, ....... S85IV ON THE DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES, . 386The Scripture Miracles have far stronger evidence n their favour thanother ProfessedMiracles, thoughthey do not require evidenceequally

strong 387What kind of Testimony s to be required for a Miracle, . . . 3871. The Testimony must be honest, ...... 3892. And competent, 390

Tests relative to these Qualities, . 391Observations n the foregoingTests, ....... 396View of the Complete$vidence for the Scripture Miracles, . . . 396Union of Testimony with AntecedentProbability, .... 397


7/69

From A.c. 4, to A.D. 96.

APOLLONIUS, he Pythagorean philosopher, was born at Tyana, Apoiiomusn i " " ii j? T> i-rTt f i f j.i bora A.c.4in Lappadocia, m the year ot Kome 7oU, four years before thecommon Christian era.1 His reputation has been raised ar abovehis personal merits, by the attempt made in the early ages of theChurch, and since revived,2 o bring him forward as a rival to theAuthor of our Religion. His life was written with this object, His ifeabout a century fterhis death,by Philostratus f 'Leniuos, henPhilostratAmmonius was systematizing the Eclectic tenets to meet theincreasing influence of the Christian doctrines. Philostratusengagedn this work at the instanceof his patronessJulia Domna,wife of the Emperor Severus,a princess celebrated or her zeal inthe causeof Heathen Philosophy who put into his hands a journalof the travels of Apollonius rudely written by one Damis, anAssyrian, his companion.3 This manuscript, an account of hisresidence t ^Egse,prior to his acquaintance ith Damis,byMaximus of that city, a collection of his letters, some privatememoranda relative to his opinions and conduct, and lastly thepublic records of the cities he frequented,were the principal docu-ments from which Philostratus compiled his elaborate narrative,which is still extant.4 It is written with considerable legance,butwith more ornament and attention to the composition han is con-sistent with correct taste. Though it is not a professed mitationof the Scripture istoryof Christ, t contains uiteenougho showthat it was written with a view of rivalling it; and accordingly, nthe followingage, t wasmade seof in a directattackuponChris-tianity by Hierocles/ Prsefectof Bithynia, a disciple of the EclecticSchool, o whom a reply was written by Eusebius of Csesarea. Theselection f a Pythagorean hilosopheror the purpose f a com-parisonwith Christwas udicious. The attachment f the Pytha-gorean Sect o the discipline of the established eligion, which most

1 Olear. ad Philostr. 1.12. 5 His work -was called Aoyc) QiXa^filiii;2 By Lord Herbert and Mr. Blount. *$o; X{j-T


8/69

342 APOLLONIUS TYA1LEUS.otherPhilosophieseglected;ts austerity,ts pretendedntercoursewith heaven,ts professionf extraordinary ower vernature,andthe authoritative tone of teaching which this profession counte-nanced,6were all in favour of the proposedobject. But with theplansof the Eclecticsn their attackuponChristianitywehavenoimmediate concern.Rirthand Philostratus begins his work with an account of the prodigies;ion- attending he Philosopher'sirth, whichwith all circumstancesfa like nature, we shall for the present pass over, intending to makesomeobservationson them in the sequel. At the age of fourteenhe wasplacedby his father under he careof Euthydemus, dis-tinguished hetoricianof Tarsus; but being displeased ith thedissipation f that city, he removedwith his master o ^Egse, neighbouring town, frequented as a retreat for students n philo-sophy.7 Here he made himself masterof the Platonic, Stoic,Epicurean, nd Peripatetic ystems;giving,however, n exclusivepreference to the Pythagorean,which he studied with Euxenus ofHeraclea, a man whose ife ill accordedwith the ascetic principlesHe dopts of his Sect. At the early age of sixteen years, according to hisI'ythagoreaniographer, e resolved n strictly conforming imself o the pre-Phiiosophj.epts Of Pythagoras, and, if possible, rivalling the fame of hismaster. He renouncedanimal food and wine ; restricted himself tothe use of linen garments, and sandalsmadeof the bark of trees;suffered his hair to grow; and betook himself to the temple ofJEsculapius, who is said to have regarded him with peculiarfavour.8On the news of his father's death, which took place not longafterwards, he left JEgfe for his native place, where he gave uphalf his inheritance to his elder brother, whom he is said to havereclaimedrom a dissolute ourseof life, and the greater art ofthe remainder o his poorer elatives.9Prior to composingny Philosophical ork,he thought t neces-sary o observehe silence f five years,whichwas he appointedinitiation nto the esoteric octrines f his Sect. During this timehe exercisedhis mind in storing up materials for future reflection.We are told, that on several occasions he hindered insurrections inthe cities in which he resided,by the mute eloquenceof his lookand gestures 10-a fact, however,which we are able to trace to theinvention f his Biographer, ho, n his zeal o compare im to hismaster,orgot hat thedisciples f the Pythagorean chool eniedthemselvesuring heir silencehe ntercourse f mixedsociety.11Travels. The periodof silencebeingexpired,Apollonius assedhroughtheprincipalcitiesof Asia Minor,disputingn the Templesn imita-tion of Pythagoras, unfolding the mysteries of his Sect o such aswere observingheir probationary ilence,discoursingwith the Philostr. 1.17, VI. 11. 7Ibid. I. 7. 8 Ibid. I. 8. Apollon. Epist. 50.Oibid, 1.13. 10 bid. 1.14,15. 11Brucker,Voiril. p. 104.


9/69


10/69

344 APOLLONIUS TYAN^EUS.similarattemptat the Caveof Trophonius.20n both places isreputationor Magicwas he cause f his exclusion.Hitherto our memoirhas given the unvaried ife of a merePytha-gorean,which may be comprehendedn three words,mysticism,VisitsRome.ravel, and disputation. From the date of his journey to Rome,which succeeded is Grecian our, it is in some degree connectedwith the history of the times; and though much may be owing tothe inventionof Philostratus, here is neither reasonnor necessityfor supposing he narrative to be in substance ntrue.Nero had at this time prohibited the studyof philosophy,allegingthat it was made the pretence or Magical practices;21-and thereport of his excesses o alarmed he followers of Apollonius as theyapproachedRome, that out of thirty-four who had accompaniedimthus far, eight only could be prevailed on to proceed. On hisarrival, the strangeness of his proceedings caused him to beBrought brought successively efore the consul Telesinusand Tigellinus hebufore ero.Mm}st;er Of Nero;22 both of whom however dismissed him afterexamination; the former from a secret eaning towards Philosophy,the latter from fear (as we are told) of his extraordinary powers.He was in consequence llowed to go about at his pleasure fromTemple to Temple, haranguing the people, and prosecuting hisreforms n the worship paid to the Gods. But here, as before, wediscovermarks of incorrectness n the Biographer. Had the edictagainst Philosophersbeenas severe s he represents,neither Apol-lonius, nor Demetrius the Cynic, who joined him after his arrival,would have been permitted to remain; certainly not Apollonius,afterhis acknowledgmentf his ownMagical owersn the presenceof Tigellinus.23Denied by Philostratus all insight into the circumstanceswhichinfluenced he movements f Apollonius, we must attend whither hethinks it to conduct im. We find him next n Spain,aking partin the conspiracy forming against Nero by Vindex and others.24" The politicalpartisans f that day seemo havemade seof pro-fessedugglers andMagicianso gainover the bodyof the peopleto their interests. To this maybeattributedNero'sbanishinguchcharactersromRome2o ndApolloniusadprobablyeen lreadyvisits pain,erviceablen this wayat the Capital,ashe wasnow n Spain,andimmediatelyfter o Vespasianus;ndat a later period o Nerva.

20 When denied at the latter place, he use of them in furthering his politicalforced his way in. Philostr. VIII. 19. plans. Tacit. Hist. II. 78. "We read of21 bid. IV. 35. Brucker (Vol. II. p. their predicting-Nero's accession,he118) with reason thinks this prohibition deaths of Vitellius and Domitianus &c.extended only to the profession of magic. They were sent into banishment bv22 bid. IV. 40, &c. Tiberius, Claudius, Vitellius, and Dd-23Brucker, Vol. II. p. 120. mitianus. Philostratus describes NeroZi Philostr.V. 10. as ssuinghis edict on eaving heCapital25 Astrologers were concerned in for Greece, IV. 47. These circumstan-Libo's conspiracy gainstTiberius,and ces eemo imply that astrology,magicpunished. Vespasianus, s we shall &c., were at that time of considerablehaveoccasiono notice presently,made servicen political ntrigues.


11/69

APOLLONIUS TYAILEUS. 345His nextexpeditions ereo Africa, o Sicily,andso o Greece,26but as they do not supplyany thing of importance o the elucidationof his character, it may be sufficient thus to have noticed hem. AtAthens he obtained he initiation in the Mysteries, or which he had Athens,on his former visit unsuccessfully pplied.The following spring, the seventy-third of his life according to Andthe common calculation,he proceeded o Alexandria ~7where he A1attracted the notice of Vespasianus,who had just assumed hepurple, and seemeddesirous of countenancinghis proceedings ythe sanctionof Religion. Apollonius might be recommendedo himfor this purpose by the fame of his travels, his reputation fortheurgic nowledge, ndhis ate acts n SpainagainstNero. It issatisfactory o be able to bring two individuals into contact,each of introduced

whom has n his turn been made o rival Christ and his Apostles n vespasianmpretensions o miraculous power. Thus, claims which appeared obe advanced on distinct grounds are found to coalesce,and by theunion of their separate nconsistenciescontribute to expose eachother. The celebrated cures by Vespasianusare connectedwiththe ordinary uggles of the PythagoreanSchool; and Apollonius isfound here, as in many other instances, to be the mere tool ofpolitical factions. But on the characterof the latter we shall havemore to say presently.His Biographer's accountof his first meeting with the Emperor,which is perhaps substantially correct, s amusing from the regardwhich both parties paid to effect n their behaviour.28 The latter,on entering Alexandria was met by the great body of the Magis-trates, Prasfects,and Philosophers f the city; but not discoveringApollonius in the number,he hastily asked, whether the Tyanseauwas in Alexandria," and when told he was philosophizing n theSerapeum,proceeding hither he suppliantly entreatedhim to makehim Emperor; and, on the Philosopher'sansweringhe had alreadydone so in praying for a just and venerableSovereign,29e avowedhis determination of putting himself entirely into his hands, and ofdeclining the supremepower unlesshe could obtain his countenancein assuming t.30 A formal consultation was in consequence eld,at which, besides Apollonius, Dio and Euphrates, Stoics in theEmperor's rain, were allowedo deliver heir sentiments;when

26Philostr. V. 11, &c. some probability. It was on this occasion27 bid. V. 20, &c. that the famous cures are said to have28 bid. V. 27. been wrought.29 acitus elates,hat whenVespa- soASEgypt upplied ome ithcorn,sianus was going to the Serapeum, t super Vespasianus bv taiing possessionof that


12/69

346 APOLLONIUS TYAN^EUS.the latter Philosopherenteredan honestprotest against the sanctionApollonius asgiving o the ambition f Vespasianus,ndadvocatedthe restoration of the Roman State to its ancient republican orm.31This differenceof opinion laid the foundation of a lasting quarrelbetween the rival advisers, to which Philostratus makes frequentallusion in the course of his history. Euphrates s mentionedbythe ancients n terms of high commendation by Pliny especially,who knew him well.32 He seems o haveseen hrough his opponent'scharacter, as we gather even rom Philostratus 33 nd when so plaina reason exists for the dislike which Apollonius, in his Letters,and Philostratus, manifest towards him, their censure must not beallowed o weigh against the testimony of unbiassedwriters.visits After parting romVespasianus,pollonius ndertook nexpedi-Ethiopia. f.jon jn0 Ethiopia, where he held discussions with the Gymno-sophists, ndvisited he cataracts f the Nile.84 Onhis returnhereceived the news of the destruction of Jerusalem; and beingpleased with the modestyof the conqueror,wrote to him in com-mendation of it. Titus is said to have invited him to Argos inCilicia, for the sake of his adviceon various subjects, and obtainedfrom him a promise that at some future time he would visit him atRome.35

On the succession f Domitianus,he became once more engagedin the political commotions f the day, exerting himself to excite hecountriesof Asia Minor against he Emperor.36 These proceedingsat length occasioned n order from the Government o bring him toRome which, however, according o his Biographer's account,heanticipatedby voluntarily surrendering himself, under the idea thatby his prompt appearance e might remove he Emperor's ealousy,and save Nerva and others whose political interests he had beenpromoting. On arriving at R-omehe was brought before Domi-tianus and when, very inconsistently with his wish to shield hisfriends from suspicion,he launchedout into praise of Nerva, he wasimprisonedorced away into prison to the companyof the worst criminals, hisDomitianus.air and beard were cut short, and his limbs loadedwith chains.His rial. After somedays he was brought to trial; the chargesagainst himbeing the singularity of his dress and appearance, is being calleda God, his foretelling a pestilenceat Ephesus,and his sacrificing achild withNerva or the purpose f augury.37Philostratus uppliesus with an ample defence,which he was to have delivered,38ad he

31Philostr. V. 31. 36Philostr. VII. 1, &c. see Brucker,32 Brucker, Vol. II. p. 566, &c. Vol. II. p. 128.33Philostr. V. 37, he makes Euphrates 37 Ibid. VIII. 5, 6, &c. On account ofsay to Vespasianus, fi^oa-otfixv,$.n\iu, his foretelling the pestilence he was hon-rip fj-ln x.u.TO'p'jfiv anitii XKI tt.irva.gif'r,v $e cured as a (rod by the Ephesians, VII.&oXwTi


13/69

APOLLONIUS TYA1LEUS. 347not in the courseof the proceedingsuddenly anishedrom theCourt, and transported himself to Puteoli, whither he had beforesent on Damis.This is the only miraculous occurrence hich forces tself into the Hishistory sa componentartof henarrativethe estbeing f easyni^aculoomission without any detriment to its entireness.39 And strictly dbappe


14/69

348 APOLLONIUS TYAJSf^US.have abridged, should not contain more authentic and valuablematter. Both the secular ransactionsof the times and the historyof Christianity might have been llustrated by the life of one, who,while an instrument of the partisansof Vindex, Vespasianus, ndNerva, was a contemporary and in some respects a rival of theApostles; and who, probably, was with St. Paul at EphesusandHis Rome.48 As far as his personal character is concerned, here isexamined, othing to be lamented in these omissions. Both his Biographer'spanegyric and his own Letters convict him of pedantry, self-conceit,and affectation ncompatiblewith the feelings of an enlarged,culti-vated, or amiable mind. His virtues, as we have already seen,were temperanceand a disregard of wealth; and without them itwould have been hardly possible or him to have gained the popu-larity which he enjoyed. The great object of his ambition was toemulate the fame of his master; and his efforts seem to have beenfully rewardedby the general admiration he attracted, the honourspaid him by the Oracles,and the attentions shown him by men inpower.We mighthavebeen nclined,ndeed,o suspecthat his reputa-tion existedprincipallyn his Biographer's anegyric,were t notmentionedy other writers. The celebritywhichhe has enjoyedsince the writings of the Eclectics, by itself affords but a faintpresumption of his notoriety before they appeared. Yet after allallowances, here remains enough to show that, however fabulousthe detailsof his historymaybe, herewassomethingxtraordinaryin his life and character. Some foundation there must have beenfor statementswhich his eulogistswere able to maintain n the faceof those who would have spoken out had they been altogether novel.Admissionsretensionseverbeforeadvanced ust have excited he surpriseFathers. and ontempt f-theadvocatesf Christianity.40 et Eusebius tyleshim a wise man, and seemso admit the correctness f Philostratus,except n the miraculous parts of the narrative.60 Lactantius doesnot deny hat a statue was erected o him at Ephesus;51 nd SidoniusApollinaris, who even wrote his life, speaksof him as the admira-tion of the countries he traversed, and the favourite of monarchs.53Oneof his works wasdepositedn the palaceat Antium by theEmperor Hadrian, who also formed a collection of his letters ;53statueswereerectedo him n the temples, ivinehonours aidhimby Caracalla,AlexanderSeverus, nd Aurelianus,and magicalvirtue attributed to his name.64

48 Apollonius continued at Ephesus, as if his name were familiar to them.Smyrna, &c. from A.D. 50 to about 59, Olear. prsef. ad Tit.and'wasat Rome romA.p. 63 o 66. St. 60 n Hierocl. 5.Paul passed through Ionia into Greece *l Inst. V. 3.A.D.53,and wasat EphesusA.D.54,and 52See Bayle, Art. Apollonius andagain from A.D. 56 to 58; he was at Rome Cudworth, Intell. Syst. IV. 14.in A.D. 65 and 66,when he was martyred. ra Phiiostr. VIII. 19, 20.84SeeEusebi-us,opiscus,Lampridius,49 Lucian and Apuleius speak of him &c. as quoted by Bayle.


15/69

APOLLONIUS TYA1SLEUS. 349It has n consequenceeenmadea subjectof dispute, ow far Miracuionhis reputationwasbuilt upon hat supposedlaim o extraordinary retensiopower which, as was noticed n the openingof our memoir, has ledto his comparisonwith sacred ames. If it couldbe shown hat hedid advance uchpretensions,nd upon he strength f themwas

admitted as an object of divine honour,a case would be made out,not indeed so strong as that on which Christianity is founded,yetremarkable nougho demandur serious xamination.Assuming,then, or overlooking this necessary ondition, scepticalwriters havebeen orward to urge the history and character of Apollonius ascreating a difficulty in the argument for Christianity derived fromMiracles; while their opponentsave sometimes ttemptedoaccount for a phenomenonof which they had not yet ascertainedthe existence,and most gratuitously have ascribed his supposedpower to the influenceof the Evil principle.55 On examination,we "t nmdeyshall indnota shadowf a reasonor supposinghat Apolloniusirworked Miracles, in any proper sense of the word; or that he pro-fessed to work them; or that he rested his authority on extra-ordinary works of any kind; and t is strange ndeed hat Christians,with victory in their hands,should have so mismanagedheir causeas to establish an objectionwhere none existed, and in their hasteto extricate themselvesrom an imaginary difficulty, to overturn oneof the main arguments or revealedReligion.To state these pretended prodigies is in most cases a refu- Enumera-tation of their claimuponour notice,50nd even hosewhichare racie^65not in themselves exceptionable,become so from the circum-stancesor manner in which they took place. Apollonius is said tohave been an incarnation of the God Proteus; his birth wasannounced y the falling of a thunderboltand a chorusof swans hisdeath signalized by a wonderful voice calling him up to Heaven;and after death he appeared o a youth to convincehim of theimmortality of the soul.67 He is reported to have known thelanguage of birds : to have evoked he Spirit of Achilles ; to havedislodged a demon rom a boy; to have detected an Empusa whowas seducing youth nto marriage whenbrought beforeTigellinus,to have caused he writing of the indictment to vanish from thepaper; when mprisoned y Domitianus,o have miraculouslyreleased himself from his fetters; to have discovered the soul ofAmasis in the body of a lion; to have cured a youth attackedbyhydrophobia,homhepronouncedo beTelephushe Mysian.'58ndeclaringmen's houghts nddistantevents e indulgedmost iber-


16/69

350 APOLLONIUS Tally adoptingbrevity, hich eemedecominghe dignity f hischaracter, while it securedhis prediction from the possibility of anentire ailure. For nstance: egavepreviousntimation f Nero'snarrow escaperom lightning foretold he short reigns of hissuccessorsinformedVespasianus t Alexandria of the burning ofthe Capitol predictedhe violentdeath f Titus by a relative dis-covereda knowledgeof the private history of his Egyptian guide foresaw he wreck of a ship he had embarked n, and the executionof a Cilician Proprietor.59 We must not omit his first predictingand hen emoving pestilencet Ephesus the bestauthenticatedof his professedMiracles,being attestedby the erecting of a statueto him iu consequence. He is said to have put an end to themalady by commanding n aged man to be stoned,whom he pointedout as its author, and who when the stones were removed was foundchanged nto the shapeof a dog.00Their On the insipidity and inconclusiveness f most of these egends,insipidity, considered s evidences f extraordinary power, it is unnecessaryoenlarge .yet hese are the prodigieswhich somewriters have put incompetition with the Christian Miracles, and which others havethought necessary' o ascribe to Satanic influence. Two indeedthere are which must be mentionedby themselves,as being moreworthy our attention han the rest : his raising a young maid atRome, who was being carried to burial, and his proclaiming atEphesus he assassinationf Domitianus at the very time in whichit took place.61 But, not to speak at present of the want of allsatisfactory evidence or either fact, the accountof the former, wemay observe,bears u its language and detail evidentmarks of beingwritten in imitation of Scripture Miracles,6^ nd the latter has allthe appearance f a political artifice employed o excite the peopleagainst the tyrant, and exaggerated y the Biographer.0330, VI. 3, 32. His prediction ot the rum , s ,of the Propraetor s conveyed n the mere ;exclamation, - y StTva. ifa., meaning z.oe.rpS Sexouv-o;S^VKTH.Ka.1 paaqv rethe day of his execution; of the short j, ^alg et


17/69

APOLLONIUS TYANJEUS. 351But the trifling character f most of theseprodigies s easilyaccountedor, whenwe considerhe means y which he authorpro-fessed to work them, and the cause to which he referred them. OfMiracles, indeed,which are asserted o proceed rom the Author ofnature, sobriety, dignity and conclusiveness ay fairly be required;

but when an individual ascribeshis extraordinarypower to his know-ledge of somemerely human secret, mpropriety does but evidencehis own want of taste, and ambiguity his want of skill. We haveno ongera right to expect greatend,worthymeans, r a frugaland judicious pplicationf the Miraculous ift. Now,Apollonius ealatureclaimed othingbeyond fuller nsight nto naturehanothers ad pretensioa knowledgeof the fated and immutable laws to which it is con-formed, of the hidden springs on which it moves.64He brought asecret rom the East and used t; and though he professed o befavoured, and n a manner aught by good Spirits,05 et he certainlyreferred no part of his power o a Supreme ntelligence. Theurgicvirtues, or those which consisted in communion with the Powers andPrinciples of nature, were high in the scale of Pythagorean excel-lence, and to them it was that he ascribed his extraordinary gift.By temperate iving, it was said, the mind was enduedwith amplerand more exalted faculties than it otherwise possessed;partookmore fully of the nature of the OneuniversalSoul, was gifted withProphetic nspiration, and a kind of intuitive perception of secretthings.015This power, derived from the favour of the celestialDeities, who were ed to distinguish the virtuous and high-minded,was quite distinct from Magic, an infamous,uncertain,and deceitfulart, consisting n a compulsorypower over infernal Spirits, operat-ing by means of Astrology, Auguries and Sacrifices,and directedthese predictions were intended to com- " Squiiii/a.-EXTETA-/^^'^ $1 rJ.s Egim,pass heir own accomplishment.Dion Troi^viv ag SjaAsyo^fw Trxaix, hereconfirms Philostratus'saccount of the hediffers romDion n an essentialoint,')occurrence in question; but merely says, l^nr^i, co-ov/lOfStn; LO-T'.v -i'm"/ n rnz-\56o;, riedout KX.KUSrlfKte, &c. Lib. 26.67. He then adds, TOTOi* STUSyiviTc, w Philostr. V. 12; in I. 2, he associatesxv f^v^iKxi: TI; u-na-Tfoy-aXi assurance Democritus, a natural philosopher, -withtruly satisfactory in testimony given 130 Pythagoras and Empedocles. See VIII.years after the event. Allowing, how- 7,Sec.8, and Brucker, Vol. I. p. 1108,&c.ever, for some exaggeration, his account and p. 1184.is perfectlyonsistentith thesupposi- 65 n hig apoiogy efore omitianus,tion _that he exclamation f Apollonius jle expressly ttributes is removal f thewas ntended o subserve political pur- Epbesianpestilence o Hercules, andpose. Let us now seehow Philostratus makeshis ascriptionhe testof a divinehasembelhshecUhetory. Auttoytiuw Philosophersdistinguishedrom a Ma-frfy" "lkST""S^6JSi*"JMtwSJ g'cian, III.7,Sec ,ubi id.Clear.fJi.lvQyzt Ytsfavvn, idv fliras' 7i-'EAAirrsV- *>6^j' ^ro -ruSicc-rS.a-6.1tTri>-:',T


18/69

352 APULLUJN1US TIAiN/JLUO.to the personal molument f thosewho cultivatedt.67 To ourpresentquestion, owever, his distinction s unimportant. Towhicheverrinciplehe Miracles f Apollonius ereferred, heurgyor Magic,n eithercaseheyare ndependentf the First Cause, ndnot grantedwith a view o the particularpurposeo which heyareto be applied.68We have also ncidentally shown hat they did not profess to beMiracles in the proper meaning of the word, that is, evidentexcep-tions to the laws of nature. At the utmost they do but exemplifythe aphorism " knowledge s power."61' Such as are within therange of human knowledge are no Miracles. Those of them, onthe contrary, which are beyond t, will be found on inspection o beunintelligible, and to convey no evidence. The prediction of anearthquake for instance) s not necessarily uperhuman. An inter-pretation of the discourse f birds can never be verified. In under-standing languages,knowing future events, discovering the pur-poses of others, recognising human souls when enclosed n newbodies, Apollonius merely professesextreme penetrationand extra-ordinary acquaintance ith nature. The spell by which he evokesSpirits and exorcises Demons, mplies the mere possession f asecret 70 nd so perfectly s his Biographer awareof this, as almostto doubt the resuscitation of the Roman damsel, he only decisiveMiracle of them all, on the ground of its being supernatural, nsinu-ating, that perhaps she was dead only in appearance.71Hence,moreover,may be understood he meaningof the chargeof Magic,asbrought against he early Christiansby their Heathenadversariesthe Miracles of the Gospelsbeing strictly interruptions of physicalorder, and ncompatiblewith Theurgic knowledge.72When Christ and his Apostlesdeclare hemselveso be sent fromGod, this claim to a divine mission illustrates and gives dignity totheir profession f extraordinarypower. Whereas he divinity,73 oless than the gift of miracles to which Apollonius laid claim, mustbe understoodn its Pythagoreansense,as referring not to any inti-

67Philostr. I. 2, and Olear. ad loc. note quoted by Olearius, in his Preface, p.3, IV.44, V. 12,VII.39, VIII.7; Apollon. xxxiv.Epist. 8 and 52; Philostr. Prooem. vit. 70 Eusebius calls it 9{ti TI; xcu Keif,";Sophist.; Euseb. in Hier. 2; Mosheim, ro/?i. n Hierocl. 2. In III. 41, Philos-de Simone Mago, Sec. 13. Yet it must tratus speaksof the x^im; oJVSn>ix.a.i^a-i,be confessed hat the views both of the the spells or evoking them, which Apol-Pythagoreans and Eclectics were very lotiius brought from India; Cf. IV. 16,inconsistent on this subject. Eusebius and in IV. 20 of the nx^r,t,im used fornotices several instances of yo-nnict,n casting out an Evil Spirit.Apollonius's miracles; in Hierocl. 10, 28, 71 E;


19/69

APOLLONIUS TYANJ2US. 353mate connexion with a Supreme agent, but to his partaking,through his Theurgic skill, more largely than others n the perfec-tions of the animating1 rinciple of nature.Yet, whatever s understood y his Miraculousgift and his divinenature, certainly his works were not adduced as vouchers or hisdivinity, nor were they, n fact, the principal cause f his reputation.WemeetoitJino claim to extraordinary poiver in his Letters; nor"when eturning thanks to a city for public honoursbestowed n him,nor when complaining o his brother of the neglect of his townsmen,nor when writing to his opponent Euphrates.74 To the Milesians,indeed, he speaks of earthquakeswhich he had predicted butwithout appealing o the prediction n proof of his authority.7'1 As,then, he s so far from nsisting on his pretended xtraordinarypowers,and himself connects the acquisition of them with his Easternexpedition,76 e may conclude hat credit for possessinga Magicalsecret was a part of the reputation which that expeditionconferred.A foreign appearance, ingularity of manners,a life of travel, andpretenceso superior nowledge,excite he imaginationof beholders;77and, as n the case of a wandering people among ourselves,appearto invite the individuals thus distinguished o fraudulent practices.Apollonius is representedas making convertsas soonas seen.78 Itwas not, then, his display of Mronders, ut his Pythagorean dressand mvsteriousdeportmentwhich arrested attention, and madehimthought superior o other men, because e was different from them.Like Luciau's Alexander,79who was all but his disciple,) he wasskilled in Medicine,professed o be favoured by ./Esculapius,pre-tended to foreknowledge,and was supportedby the Oracles; andbeing more strict in conduct han the Paphlagonian,80e establisheda more lasting celebrity. His usefulnesso political aspirantscon-tributed to his success; perhaps also the real and contemporaryMiracles of the Christian teacherswould dispose many minds easilyto acquiescen any claims of a similar character.

See Epist. 1, 2, &c. 11, 44, the last- 5. By \vay of contrast, Cf. 1 Cor. ii.3, 4;mentioned addressed o his brother begins 2 Cor. x. 10.

-Aa-l ojtfoj; that is, he com-plains hatwherease soexcelsn life 179> I1' 31 c"ai)dL 1U' 2'&c


20/69

354 APOLLONIUS TYAN2EUS.His toryn In the foregoing emarkswe haveadmitted he general idelityJfecriptiire."ff the history, ecausencient uthorsllowt, and herewasnonecessity o dispute t. Tried howeveron its own merits, it is quiteunworthy of seriousattention. Not only in the Miraculous accounts,

(as we have alreadyseen,)hut in the relation of a multitude of ordi-nary acts,aneffort o rival ourSaviour's istory s distinctlyvisible.The favour n which Apollonius from a child was held by Gods andmen his conversationshen youth n the Temple f JEsculapiushis determination n spite of danger to go up to Rome;81 thecowardiceof his disciples in deserting him; the charge broughtagainst him of disaffection o Cassar; the Minister's acknowledging.on his private examination, hat he was more than man; the igno-minious reatment of him by Domitianuson his secondappearanceat Rome his imprisonment with criminals his vanishing fromCourt and sudden reappearance o his mourning disciples atPuteoli;83 hese, with other particulars of a similar cast, evidence history modelledafter the narrativeof the Evangelists. Expressions,moreover,and descriptionsoccur, clearly imitated from the sacredvolume. To this we must add83 he Rhetorical colouring of thewhole composition, so contrary to the sobriety of truth;84 thefabulous accountsof things and places interspersed hrough thehistory ; K lastly we must bear in mind the principle, recognisedby

81 Cf. also Acts xx. 22, 23; xxi. 4, 11- vii. 27, 28. Brueker and Douglas notice14. the following in the detection of the82Philostr. I. 8, 11, IV. 36, 38, 44, VII. Empusa: A**?WVT< *'*&" Ti ?*,*. **;34, VIII. 5, 11. t^iin iuii 3xffO,l>l^e/viiro,ftr,ye .v.yxa.^tit83See the description of his raising the o/xtAoriT,' n't,, V. 25, Cf. Mark v. 7-9.Roman maid as abovegiven. Take again Olearius compares an expression n VII.the following account of his appearance 30, with 1 Cor. ix. 9.to Damis nd Demetrius t Puteoli,after ^ E.G. his ambitiousdescriptions f.vanishing from Court, VIII. 12. AVA- countries, &c. In IV. 30,32, V. 22, VI.- 24, he ascribes to Apollonius regularSocratic disputations, and in VI. 11, a. ,long and flowery speech n the presenceof the Gymnosophists, modes of Philo-sophical instruction totally at variancewith the geniusof the Pythagorean school,the Philosopher's Letters still extant, andthe writer's own description of his mannerof teaching, 1.17. Some of his exaggera-tions and mis-statementshave beennotic-ed in the course of the narrative. As a

ixo -rris rgo/>tif, c. here is much in- with the simplicity of the Scripture nar-cautious agreement with Luke xxiv. 14^- rative. See also the last sentenceof V.17,27,29,32,36-40. Also more or less n 17, and indeed passim.the following: VII. 30, nit. and 34, fin. 85 jj.g. hjs accounts of Indian andwith Luke xii. 11, 12: III. 38, with ./Ethiopian monsters; of serpents whoseMatt. xvii. 14, &c. where observehe eyeswere ewels of magicalvirtue; ofcontrast of the two narratives: VIII. pygmies; of golden-water; of the speaking-30, fin. with Acts xii. 7-10: IV. 44, tree: of a woman half white and halfwith John xviii. 33, &c.: VII. 34, init. blaek, &c.: he incorporates in his narra-with Mark xiv. 65: IV. 34, init. with tive the fables of Ctesias,Agatharchidas,Acts xvi. 8-10: I. 19, fin. with Mark and otherwriters. His blundersn geo-


21/69

APOLLONIUS TYAN.EUS. 355the Pythagoreannd Eclecticschools, f permittingexaggerationand deceit n the causeof Philosophy.86After all, it must be remembered,hat were the pretendedMiracles as unexceptionableas we have shown them to be absurdand useless,-were they plain interruptions of established aws,were they grave and dignified in their nature, and important intheir object, and were there nothing to excite suspicion n thedesign, manner, or character of the narrator,-still the testimonyon which they rest is the bare word of an author writing onehundred years after the deathof the person panegyrized,and fardistant from the places n which mostof the Miracles werewrought;and who can give no better accountof his information than that hegained it from an unpublishedwork,87 rofessedlyndeed composedby a witness of the extraordinary transactions,but passing nto hishands through two intermediate possessors. These are circum-stanceswhich almost, without positive objections,are sufficient bytheir ovmnegative force o justify a summary ejection of the wholeaccount. Unless indeed the history had been perverted o a mis-chievous purpose, we should esteem it impertinent to directargument against a mere romance,and to subjecta work of imagina-tion to a grave discussion.graphy and natural philosophymay be as ivals o Christ. Brucker,Vol.^11. .added, as far as they arise rom the desire .372. Mosheim, de turbata Ecclesia, &c.of describing wonders, &c. See also his Sec. 25, 26.pompous description of the wonders of sr Philostr. I. 2, 3. He professes hatBabylon, which were not then in exist- his account contains much news. As toc were no en n ex- s accun ans muc new. s oence.Book VIII:ice. Prideaux, Connection, Part I. the sources, besideshe Journal of Damis,deaux, Connection, Part I. the sources, besideshe Journal of Damis,oo I. For his inconsistencies, see from which he pretends to derive his in-Eusebius and Brucker. It must be reformation, he neither tells us how he metmembered, that in the age of Philostratus with them, nor what they contained; northe composition of romantic histories doeshe refer to them in the course of hiswas n fashion. history. On the other hand, much (as88 See Brucker, Vol. I. p. 992, Vol. II. we have above noticed) of the detail ofp. 378. Apollonius was only one out of Apollonius's journey is derived from theseveral who were set up by the Eclectics writings of Ctesias, &c. &c.


22/69

EX, REV, .W.SULLIVANBRAMPTONTHE

MIRACLES OF SCRIPTURECOMPAREDITH

THOSE RELATED ELSEWHERE,ASREGARDSHEIRRESPECTIVEBJECT, ATURE,NDEVIDENCE.

WE are naturallv led to pursue the subject "which he life ofApollonius as hus ntroduced,y drawing n extendedomparisonbetween he Miracles of Scriptureand those elsewhere elated, asregards heir respective bject,nature,and evidence. We shalldivide our observations nder the following heads:-I. On the Nature and general Usesof Miracles.II. On the antecedentCredibility of a Miracle, considered s aDivine Interposition.III. On the Criterion of a Miracle, considered as a Divine Inter-position.IV. On the direct Evidence for the Christian Miracles.

I.ON THE NATURE AND GENERAL USES OF MIRACLES.

Definitionf A Miracle may be consideredas an event inconsistentwith theace' constitution f nature, .e. the establishedourse f things n whichit is found. Or, again, an event n a given systemwhich cannotbereferred to any law, or accounted or by the operationof any prin-ciple in that system. It does not necessarilymply a violation ofnature, as some have supposed,-merely the interposition of anexternal cause, which, as we shall hereafter show, can be no otherthan the agencyof the Deity. And the eifect produced s that ofunusualor increasedaction n the parts of the system.A Miracle It is then a relative term, not only as it presupposesan assem-term?tlve Wageof laws rom which t is a deviation,but also as t has referenceto some neparticular system for the sameeventwhich is anomalousin one, may be quite regular -when observed in connexion withanother. TheMiracles f Scripture,or instance, re irregularitiesin the economyof nature, but with a moral end; and formiuo- one


23/69

NATURE AND USES OF MIRACLES. 357instance out of many, of the providenceof God, .e. an instanceofoccurrences in the natural world with a final cause. Thus, whilethey are exceptionso the lawsof one system,hey may coincidewith thoseof another. Theyprofesso be he evidencef a Revela-tion, the criterion of a divine message. To consider them as mereexceptions o physical order, is to take a very incompleteview ofthem. It is to degrade them from the station which they hold inthe plans and provisions of the divine mind, and to strip them oftheir real use and dignity; for as naked and isolated facts they dohut deform an harmonious ystem.From this accountof a Miracle, it is evident that it may often A Miraclebedifficultexactly o draw he line betweenncommonndstrictly edSfromMiraculous events. The productionof ice, e.g. might have seemed ere1/. x~at first sigM Miraculous to the Siamese for it was a phenomenon vent.referable to none of those laws of nature which are in ordinaryaction n tropical climates. Such, again, might magnetic attractionappear, n ages familiar only with the attraction of gravity.1 Onthe other hand, the extraordinary works of Mosesor Paul appearsuch, even when referred to those simpleand elementaryprinciplesof nature which the widest experiencehas confirmed. As far asthis affects the discrimination of supernatural acts, it will be con-sidered in its proper place; meanwhile et it suffice to state, thatthose events only are connectedwith our present subjectwhich haveno assignable econd ause r antecedent, nd which, on that account,are from the nature of the case eferred to the immediateagency ofthe Deity.A Revelation, .e. a direct messagerom God to man, itself bearsRevelatioin some degree a Miraculous character; inasmuch as it supposes videncesthe Deity actually to present himself before his creatures, and to more r lesinterpose n the affairs of life in a way above he reach of thosesettled arrangementsof nature to the existenceof which universalexperience ears witness. And as a Revelation tself, so again theevidences of a Revelation may all more or less be consideredmiraculous. Prophecy is an evidence only so far as foreseeingfuture events s above he known powers of the human mind, orMiraculous. In like manner, f the rapid extensionof Christianitybe urged in favour of its divine origin, it is because uch extension,under such circumstances,s supposed o be inconsistentwith theknown principles and capacity of human nature. And the puremorality of the Gospel,as taught by illiterate fishermenof Galilee,is an evidence, u proportionas the phenomenon isagreeswith theconclusionsof general experience,which leadsus to believe that ahigh stateof mentalcultivations ordinarily equisite or the pro-duction of such moral teachers. It might evenbe said that, strictlyspeaking, o evidencef a Revelations conceivablehichdoes ot

i Campbell, On Miracles, Part I. Sec. 2.


24/69

3.58 NATURE AND USES OF MIRACLES.partakeof the character f a Miracle; sincenothingbut a displayof power ver he existing ystem f things anattest he mmediatepresencef Him by whom t wasoriginally stablished; r, again,because o event which results entirely from the ordinary operationof nature can be the criterion of one that is extraordinary.2Miracles In the present rgument e confine urselveso the consideration3orcaUed,'yf Miracles ommonlyocalled; suchevents,.e. for the mostpartas are inconsistentwith the constitution of the physical world.Contrasted Miracles, hus defined,hold a very prominent place n the evidence"therthe of tne Jewish and Christian Revelations.They are the mostbranches striking and conclusiveevidence; becausehe laws of matter beingevidenceor better understood than those to which mind is conformed, the trans-Keveiation.ressionof them is moreeasilyrecognised.They are the mostsimple and obvious; because,whereas he freedom of the humanwill resists he impositionof undeviating aws, the material creation,on the contrary, being strictly subjected to the regulation of itsMaker, looks to him alone for a change n its constitution. YetMiracles are but a branch of the evidences, and other branches havetheir respectiveadvantages. Prophecy,as has been often observed,is a growing evidence, nd appealsmore forcibly to those who areacquaintedwith the Miracles only through testimony. A Philoso-phical mind will perhapsbe most strongly affectedby the fact of thevery existenceof the Jewish polity, or of the revolution effected byChristianity. While the beautiful moral teaching and evidenthonesty of the New Testament writers is the most persuasiveargument o the unlearned but single-hearted nquirer. Xor mustit be forgotten that the evidences or Revelation are cumulative,that they gain strength from eachother; and that, in consequence,the argumentrom Miracles s immenselytrongerwhenviewednconjunctionwith the rest, than when consideredseparately as in aninquiry of the presentnature.Cogencyf As the relative force of the separateevidencess different underMiracles,different ircumstances,o againhasoneclassof Miraclemoreoras roofs f lessweight than another,according o the accidentalchangeof times,supernatural , , , , , .agency, places,and personsaddressed. As our knowledgeof the systemvaries Qnature>an(j of ^e circumstances f the particular casevaries, soof coursevaries our conviction. Walking on the sea, or instance,or giving sight o onebornblind, would o us perhaps e a Miracleevenmore astonishing than it was o the Jews; the laws of nature

* beingat the present ay betterunderstoodhan ormerly,and thefables oncerning agicalpower eingno longer redited. On heotherhand, stilling the wind and waveswith a word mayby allbut eye-witnessese setdown o accident r exaggerationithout2 Hence it is that in the Scripture not a sufficientevidence f it, as beingicounts of Revelations to the prophets, vc. a sensibleMiracle is so often askedid given; as if the vision itself, whichwas the medium of the Revelation, was


25/69

NATURE AND USES OF MIRACLES. 359the possibility f a full confutation;yet to eye-witnessest wouldcarrywith it an overpoweringvidence f supernaturalgencybythe voiceandmannerhat accompaniedhe command,he violenceof the wind at the moment,he instantaneousffectproduced,ndother circumstances, he force of which a narration cannot fullyconvey. The same emark applies o the Miracle of changingwaterinto wine, to the cure of demoniacal possessions, nd of diseasesgenerally. From a variety of causes,hen, it happens hat Miracleswhich produced a rational conviction at the time when they tookplace, have ever since proved ather an objection o Revelation hanan evidence or it, and have depended n the rest for support; whileothers, which oncewere of a dubiousand perplexing character, havein succeedingAges come orward in its defence. It is by a processsimilar to this that the anomalous ature of the Mosaicpolity, whichmight once be an obstacle o its reception, s now justly alleged nproof of the very Miracles by which it was then supported.3 It isimportant to keep this remark in view, as t is no uncommon racticewith those who are ill-aifected to the causeof revealedReligion, todwell upon such Miracles as at the present day rather require thancontribute evidence,as f they formed a part of the present proof onwhich it rests its pretensions.*In the foregoing remarks, the being of an intelligent Maker has Miraclesbeen throughout assumed; and, indeed, f the peculiar object of a themselvesMiraclebe o evidencemessagerom God,t is plain hat it implies n? Jthe admission of the fundamental truth, and demands assent to Creator:another beyond it. His particular interference t directly proves,while it only reminds of his existence. It professes o be the signa-ture of God to a messagedelivered by human instruments; andtherefore supposes hat signature in some degree already known,from his ordinary works. It appeals o that moral senseand thatexperienceof human affairs which already bear witness to his ordi-nary presence. Considered y itself, it is at most but the token of asuperhumanbeing. Hence, though an additional nstance, t is nota distinct speci.es f evidenceor a Creator from that contained n thegeneral marks of order and design n the universe. A proof drawnfrom an interruption in the course of nature is in the same ine ofargument as one deduced rom the existenceof that course,and inpoint of cogencys inferior to it. Were a being who had experienceonly of a chaotic world suddenly ntroduced nto this orderly systemof things, he would have an infinitely more powerful argument orthe existenceof a designing Mind, than a mere interruption of that

3 See Sumner's " Records of Crea- \ve find in the Pentateuch,&c. It givestion," Vol. I. an account of the state of the world andof human nature entirely different from4 See Hume, On Miracles: "let us the present; of our fall from that state;examine those Miracles related in Scrip- of the age of man extended to near alure, and, not to loseourselves n too u-ide thousand years," &c. See Berkeley'sa jidd, let us confine ourselves to such as " Minute Philosopher," Dial. VI. au.


26/69

3GO ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES.systemcan afford. A Miracle is no argument o one who is deliber-ately, and on principle, an atheist.Yeteado Yet, thoughnot abstractedlyhe moreconvincing,t is oftensodoctrine. n effect, s beingof a morestrikingand mposing haracter. Themind, habituated o the regularity of nature, is blunted to the over-whelmingevidencet conveys;whereas y a Miracle t may beroused o reflection,ill mere conviction f a superhumaneingbecomes he first step towards he acknowledgment f a Supremepower. While, moreover, t surveys nature as a whole, it is notcapacious nough o embrace ts bearings, and to comprehendwhatit implies. In Miraculous displays of power the field of view isnarrowed; a detached portion of the divine operations s taken asan instance, and the Final Cause is distinctly pointed out. AMiracle, besides, s more striking, inasmuchas it displays the Deityin action ; evidenceof which s not supplied n the systemof nature.It may then accidentatty r ng conviction of an intelligent Creator;for it voluntarily proffers a testimonywhich we have ourselves oextort from the ordinary course of things, and forces upon theattention a truth which otherwise is not discovered, except uponexamination.Theymay And as t affordsa more striking evidenceof a Creator than thatmoral conveyed n the order and established aws of the Universe, still

of'Tod'1"6"* ore so does t of a Moral Governor. For, while nature attests thebeing of God more distinctly than it does his moral government,aMiraculous event,on the contrary, bearsmore directly on the fact ofhis moral government,of which it is an immediate nstance,while itonly implies his existence. Hence, besidesbanishing deasof Fateand Necessity,Miracles have a tendency to rouse conscience,oawaken o a senseof responsibility, o remind of duty, and to directthe attention o those marks of divine governmentalreadycontainedin the ordinary courseof events.5Hitherto, however,we have spokenof solitary Miracles; a systemof Miraculous interpositions, conductedwith reference to a FinalCause,supplies a still more beautiful and convincingargument forthe moral governmentof God.II.

ON THE ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF A MIRACLE,CONSIDERED AS A DIVINE INTERPOSITION.Miracles, In proof of Miraculousoccurrences,we must have recourse o thecannbefacts>ame ind of evidence s thatby whichwe determinehe truth ofi,'y0melnsnoyfistorical ccountsn general. For thoughMiracles,n consequenceTestimony,f their extraordinary nature, challenge a fuller and more accurate

* Farmer, On Miracles, Ch. T. Sec. 2.


27/69

ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES. 361investigation,till theydonot admitan investigation onducted ndifferent rinciples,-Testimony eing he only assignable ediumof proof for pastevents f anykind. And his being ndisputable,it is almost quallyso hat the ChristianMiraclesare attestedbyevidence even stronger than can be produced for any of thoseHistorical facts which \ve most firmly believe. This has been eltby unbelieverswho havebeen, n consequence,ed to deny theadmissibttityof even he strongest Testimony, if offered n behalf ofMiraculous events,and thus to get rid of the only meansby whichthey can be proved to have taken place. It has accordinglybeenasserted, that all events inconsistent with the course of nature bearin their very front, such strong and decisivemarks of falsehoodandabsurdity, that it is needless o examine he evidenceadduced orthem.6 " Where men are heated by zeal and enthusiasm," saysHume, with a distant but evident allusion to the Christian Miracles," there is no degree of human Testimony so strong as may not beprocured for the greatest absurdity; and thosewho will be so sillyas to examine he affair by that medium, and seek particular flawsin the Testimony, are almost sure to be confounded."7 Of these objection*antecedentbjections, hichare supposedo decidehe question, dmTssibiiTthe mostpopulars founded n the frequent ccurrencef wonderfulfestimontales in every Age and country, generally too connected withReligion; and since he more we are in a situation o examine heseaccounts, the more fabulous they are proved to be, there wouldcertainly be hencea fair presumption gainst he Scripturenarrative,did it resemble hem in its circumstances nd proposedobject. Amore refined argument s that advancedby Hume, in the first partof his Essat/ on Miracles, in which it is maintained against thecredibility of a Miracle, that it is more improbable hat the Miracleshould be true than that the Testimony should be false.This latter objection has been so ably met by various writers, Divinethat, thoughprior in the orderof the argumento the other,t need luse^t*not be consideredhere. It derives its force from the assumption,Miracles.that a Miracle is strictly a causelesshenomenon, self-originatingviolation of nature; and is solved by referring the event to divineagency,a principle which (it cannotbe denied) has originatedworksindicative of power at leas^ as great as any Miracle requires. Anadequateausebeing hus ound or the production f a Miracle,the objectionvanishes,as far as the mere question of power s con-cerned ; and it remains to be considered whether the anomalous factbe of such a character as to admit,of being referred to the SupremeBeing. For if it cannotwith proprietybe referred o him, itremains s mprobables f no suchagentwereknown o exist. At

6 I.E. it is pretended o try past toric,Ch.I.See.3.) SeeLeland's Sup-events n the principlesused n conjee- plement o View of DeisticalWriters,"turing future- viz. on antecedent proba- Let. 3.bility and examples. (Treatise n Rhe- 1 Essays, ol. II. Note L.


28/69

3G2 ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES.this point, then, we proposeaking up the argument; and byexaminingwhat,Miraclesare in their nature and circumstancesreferableo divineagency,we shall be providinga reply to theformerof the objectionsust noticed,n which he alleged imilarityof att Miraculous narratives one to another, was made a reason fora commonejectionof all. And it is to an nquiryof this nature,that a memoir of Apollonius properly gives rise.AHMiracles n examiningwhat Miraclesmay properlybe ascribedo the"odivfneaWeeity,Hume uppliesswithanobservationo ust,whenakennagency. j(-s u\\ extent, that we shall make t the groundwork of the inquiryon which we are entering. As the Deity, he says,discovershimselfto us by his works, we have no rational grounds for ascribing tohim attributes or actions dissimilar from those which his worksconvey. It follows then, that in discriminating between thoseMiracles which can and those which cannot be ascribed to God, wemust be guided by the information with which experienceurnishesus concerninghis wisdom,goodness, nd other attributes. Since aMiracle is an act out of the known rack of divine agency,as regardsthe physical system, t is almost indispensable o show ts consist'ency with the divine agency,at least, in someother point of view;if (i.e.) it is to be recognised s the work of the samepower. Now,we contend that this reasonable demand is satisfied in the Jewishand Christian Scriptures, n which we find a narrative of Miraclesaltogether answering n their characterand circumstances o thosegeneral deaswhich the ordinary courseof divine providenceenablesus to form concerning he attributes and actionsof God.The While writers expatiate so largely on the laws of nature, theytrades6 altogether forget the existenceof a Moral system; a system, whichprofesso be houffh but partially understood, and but general in its appointmentsthe result of . "> . ' . 9 .,,.., * " ,the Moral as acting upon tree agents, is as intelligible in its laws and pro-system: visionsas the materialworld. Connectedith this Moral govern-ment, we find certain instincts of mind ; such as conscience, senseof responsibility,and an approbationof virtue; an innate desire ofknowledge, nd an almost universal eeling of the necessity fReligious observances: while, in fact, Virtue is on the wholerewardedand Vice punished. And though we meet with many andstriking anomalies,yet it is evident they are but anomalies,andpossibly ut in appearanceo, andwith referenceo our partialinformation.8

interfering These wo systems, he Physical and the Moral, sometimes ct inPhysical. unison,and sometimesn opposition o eachother; and as the orderof naturecertainly oes n manycasesnterferewith the operationof Moral aws, ase.g.whengoodmendieprematurely, r the giftsof natureare continuedo the bad,) here s nothing o shockpro-babilityn the deahata greatMoral bject hould e effected*y8 See Butler's " Analogy," Part I. Ch. III.


29/69

ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES. 363an interruption of Physical order. But, further than this, howeverPhysical aws mayembarrasshe operation f the Moral system,still on the whole hey are subserviento it; contributing, s isevident,o the welfareand conveniencef Man, providingor hismental gratification as well as animal enjoyment,sometimesevensupplying correctives o his Moral disorders. If then the economyof nature has so constant a reference o an ulterior plan, a Miracleis a deviation rom the subordinateor the sakeof the superiorsystem,and is very far indeed rom improbable,when a greatMoral end cannotbe effectedexceptat the expense f Physicalregularity. Nor can it be fairly said to argue an imperfection inthe divine plans, that this interferenceshould be necessary. Forwe must view the system of Providenceas a whole; which is notmore imperfect becauseof the mutual action of its parts, than amachine the separate wheels of which affect each other's move-ments.

Now the Miracles of the Jewish and Christian Religions must be Thats oconsideredas immediate effects of divine power beyond he action criterionof nature, or an importantMoral end; and are in consequencej?devidencaccounted or by producingnot a physical but a final cause.9 We Revelation.are not left to contemplate he bare anomalies,and from the merenecessityof the case to refer them to the supposedagencyof theDeity. The power of displaying hem is, according o the Scripturenarrative, intrusted to certain individuals, who stand forward astheir interpreters, giving them a voice and language,and a dignitydemanding our regard; who set them forth as evidencesof thegreatest of Moral ends, a Revelation rom God,-as instruments nhis hand of effecting a direct intercourse betweenhimself and hiscreatures,which otherwise ouldnot have beeneffected,-as vouchersfor the truth of a messagewhich they deliver.10 This is plain andintelligible; there is an easy connexion between the Miraculousnature of their works and the truth of their words the fact of theirsuperhumanpower is a reasonableground or belief in their super-human knowledge. Considering, hen, our instinctive senseof dutyand moral obligation, yet the weak sanction which reason gives tothe practice of Virtue, and withal the uncertainty of the mind whenadvancing beyond the first elementsof right and wrong; consider-ing, moreover, he feeling which wise men have entertained of theneed of someheavenlyguide to instruct and confirm them in good-ness,and that unextinguishabledesire or a divine messagewhich

3; xvii. 24; xviii. 36-39; 2 Kings i. 6, 38; xiii. 8-12; xiv. 3; Rom. xv. 18, 19;10- v. 15; xx. 8-11; Jer. xxviii. 15-17; 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Heb. ii. 3,Ezek. xyxiii 33; Matt. x. 1-20; xi. 3- 4; Rev. xix. 10.


30/69

364 ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES.has led men n all ages o acquiesce ven n pretendedRevelations,rather than forego the consolation hus afforded them ; and again,the possibilityto say he least)of our beingdestinedor a futurestate of being, the nature and circumstances f which it may con-cern us much to know, though from nature we know nothing; con-sidering,astly, our experiencef a watchfuland mercifulProvi-dence, and the impracticability already noticed of a Revelationwithout a Miracle-it is hardly too much to affirm, that the Moralsystempoints to an interferencewith the courseof nature, and thatMiracles wrought rn evidence f a divine communication,nstead ofbeing antecedently mprobable,are, when directly attested, entitledto a respectfuland impartial consideration.Objections When the variousantecedent bjectionswhich ngeniousmen haveScripture urged against Miracles are brought together, they will be foundMiracles renearly all to arise from forgetfulness of the existence of Moral laws.11founded on J . n i i c i -i i "a forgetful- in their zeal to pertect the laws ot matter they most unpnuosophi-Moraftheally overlook moresublime ystem,whichcontains isclosuressystem. ]10(;on]y Of the Being but of the Will of God. Thus Hume, in apassageabove alluded to, observes, Though the Being to whomthe Miracle is ascribedbe Almighty, it doesnot, upon hat account,becomea whit more probable since t is impossible or us to knowthe attributes or actions of such a Being, otherwise than from theexperiencewhich we have of his productions n the usual courseofnature. This still reducesus to past observation,and obligesus tocompare,he instancesof the violation of truth in the testimony ofmen with those of the violation of the laivs of nature by Miracles,in order to judge which of them s most ikely andprobable." Herethe Moral governmentof God, with the course f'which the Miracleentirely accords, s altogether kept out of sight. "With a like heed-lessness of the Moral character of a Miracle, another writer, noto-rious or his rreligion,12bjectshat t arguesmutabilityn he Deity,and implies that the Physical system was not created good, asneedingmprovement. And a recentauthor adoptsa similarlypartial and inconclusivemodeof reasoning,when he confuses heChristian Miracles with fables of apparitionsand witches, and wouldexamine them on the strict principle of those legal forms whichfrom their secularobject go far to exclude all Religiousdiscussionof the question.13 Such reasoners eem to suppose, hat when theagencyof the Deity is introduced to account or Miracles, it is theillogical introduction of an unknown cause,a reference o a merename, the offspring perhaps of popular superstition; or, if morethan a name, to a cause that can be known only bv means of thePhysical creation; and hence hey considerReligion as founded inthe mere weaknessor eccentricity of the intellect, not in actualintimations of a divine governmentas conuuned n the moral world.

11Vince, On Miracles, Serm. I. 12Voltaire.13bemham, Preuves Judiciaires, Liv. VIII.


31/69

ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES. 3C5Froman apparentmpatiencef nvestigating systemwhich s butpartiallyrevealed,heyesteemhe awsof the material ystem loneworthy the notice of a scientific mind; and rid themselvesof theannoyancewhich the importunity of a claim to Miraculous poweroccasions hem, by discarding all the circumstanceswhich fix itsantecedentprobability, all in which one Miracle differs from another,the professedauthor, object, design, character, and human instru-ments.

When this partial procedure s resisted, he a priori objectionsof Enumera-sceptical writers at once lose their force. Facts are only so far cumstancimprobables they all underno generalule; whereast is as parts1sncl![ht'of an existing system that the Miracles of Scripture demand our Miraclesailattention, s resulting rom knownattributesof God,and corres-"n^wnponding to the ordinary arrangements f his providence. Even as attributesdetached events they might excite a rational awe towards the mys-terious Author of nature. But they are presented to us, not asunconnectedand unmeaningoccurrences, ut as holding a place nan extensiveplan of divine government,completing the Moral sys-tem, connectingMan with his Maker, and introducing him to themeans of securing his happiness n another and eternal state ofbeing. That such is the professed bject of the body of ChristianMiracles, can hardly be denied. In the earlier Religion it wassubstantially he same, hough from the preparatory nature of thedispensation,a less enlargedview was given of the divine counsels.The expresspurposeof the JewishMiracles is to confirm the naturalevidenceof one God, the Creator of all things, to display his attri-butes and will with distinctness and authority, and to enforce theobligation of Religious observances, nd show the sin of idolatrousworship.14 Whether we turn to the earlier or latter Ages ofJudaism, n the plaguesof Egypt; in the parting of Jordan, andthe arresting of the Sun's courseby Joshua; in the harvest thunderat the prayer of Samuel; in the rending of the altar at Bethel; inElijah's sacrifice on Mount Carmel; and n the cure of NaamanbyElisha ; we recognise his one grand object throughout. Not evenin the earliest agesof the Scripturehistory are Miracles wrought atrandom, or causelessly, r to amuse he fancy, or for the sake ofmeredisplay: nor prodigally,or the mereconvictionf individuals,but for the most part on a grand scale, n the face of the world, tosupplywholenationswith evidence oncerninghe Deity. Nor aretheystrewnconfusedlyver the faceof the history,beingwith ew-exceptionseducibleo three eras; the formationof the HebrewChurch and Polity, the reformation in the times of the idolatrousKino-sof Israel, and the promulgation of the Gospel. Let it beobserved,moreover,hat the powerof working hem, nsteadof


32/69

3GG ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES.beingassumedy anyclassesf men ndiscriminately,s describedas a prerogativef the occasionalrophets o the exclusionf thePriests and Kings; a circumstance hich, not to mention tsremarkablecontrast to the natural courseof an imposture, s deserv-ing attentionrom ts consistencyith the eading esign f Miraclesalreadyspecified.For the respective laimsof the Kings andPriests were already ascertained,when once the sacred officewaslimited to the family of Aaron, and the regal power to David andhis descendants; whereas extraordinary messengers,as Moses,Samuel,and Elijah, neededsome supernatural display of power oauthenticate their pretensions. In corroborationof this remark wemay observe the unembarrassedmanner of the Prophets in theexerciseof their professedgift; their disdain of argument or per-suasion,and the confidencewith which they appeal to thosebeforewhom hey arc said to have worked heir Miracles.Theseand similar observationsdo more than invest the separateMiracles with a dignity worthy of the SupremeBeing; they showthe coincidence f them all in one commonand consistentobject.As parts of a system, he Miracles ecommend nd attest eachother,evidencing not only general wisdom, but a digested and extendedplan. And while this appearance f design connects hem with theacknowledgedworks of a Creator,who is in the natural world chieflyknown to us by the presence f final causes, o, again, a plan con-ducted s thiswas, hrougha series f ages,evincesot thevaryingwill of successivendividuals, but the steady and sustained urposeof one SovereignMind. And this remark especiallyapplies o thecoincidence of views observable between the Old and New Testa-ment the latter of which, though written after a long interval ofsilence, he breaking up of the former system, a revolution in Reli-gious discipline, and the introduction of Oriental tenets into thepopular Theology, still unhesitatingly akes up and maintains theancient principles of Miraculous nterposition.An additional recommendation f the Scripture Miracles is theirappositeness o the times and places in which they were wrought;as, e.g. in the case of the plagues of Egypt, which, it has beenshown,15 ere directed against the prevalent superstitions of thatcountry. Their originality, beauty, and immediate utility, arefurther properties alling in with our conceptionsof divine agency.In their general characterwe discovernothing indecorous, ight, orridiculous; they are grave, simple, unambiguous,majestic. Manyof them, especially hose of the later dispensation,are remarkablefor their benevolent and merciful character; others are useful for avariety of subordinateurposes, s a pledgeof the certaintyofparticularpromises,r as comforting oodmen,or as edifying-heChurch. Nor mustwe overlookhe moral nstruction onveyedn

15See Bryant.


33/69

ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES. 367many,particularlyn thoseascribedo Christ, he Spiritual nter-pretationwhich theywill oftenbear,and the exemplificationhichthey afford of particular doctrines.16Accepting then what may be called Hume's canon, that no workcan be reasonably scribed o the agencyof God, which s altogetherdifferent rom thoseordinary works rom which our knowledge,fhim s originallyobtained, e haveshownhat the Miracles f Scrip-ture, far from being exceptionableon that account, are stronglyrecommended y their coincidencewith what we know from nature ofhis Providence and Moral attributes. That there are some fewamong them in which this coincidencecannot be traced, t is notnecessary o deny. As a whole they bear a determinate andconsistent character, being great and extraordinary means forattaining a great, momentous, nd extraordinary object.

We shall not however dismiss this criterion of the antecedent Tests,probability f a Miraclewith whichHumehas urnished s,without rom^urshowing that it is more or less detrimental to the pretensions f all knowledgeprofessedMiracles but those of the Jewish and Christian Revela-attributes,tions:-in otherwords, hat noneelseare likely to haveoccurred, iibutchbecause one else can with any probability be referred o the agencyscriptureof the Deity, the only known cause of miraculous nterposition, excluded.We exclude then

1. THOSE WHICH ARE NOT EVEN REFERRED BY THE WORKERS OFTHEM TO DIVINE AGENCY.

Suchare the extraordinaryworks attributed by some o Zoroaster; Miraclesotand, again, to Pythagoras, Empedocles,Apollonius, and others oftheir School; which only claim to be the result of their superiorwisdom,and were quite independentof a Supreme Being.'7 Suchare the supposed ffects of witchcraft or of magical charms, whichprofess to originate with Spirits and Demons; for, as theseagents,supposinghem o exist, did not make he world, there s everyreason for thinking they cannot of themselvesalter its arrange-ments.18 And those, as in someaccountsof apparitions,which aresilent espectingheir origin,andarereferredo God rom he merenecessity of the case.

16Jones, On the Figurative Language 18 Sometimes charms are representedof Scripture, Lect. 10. Farmer, On Mir- as having an nherent virtue, independentacles, Ch. III. Sec. 6, 2. of in visible agents, as in the account givenby Josephus f Eleazar'sdrawing out aw See, n contrast, Gen. xl. 8; xli. 16; devil through the nostrils of a patient byDan. ii. 27-30, 47; Acts iii. 12-16; xiv. means of a ring, which contained in it a11-18; a contrast sustained, s these drug prescribed y Solomon. Joseph.passageshow, or 1500 ears. Antiq. VIII. 2, Sec.5. SeeActs viii. 19.


34/69

ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES.2. THOSE WHICH ABE UNWORTHY OF AN ALL-WISE AUTHOR.

As, for example,he Miracles f SimonMagus,whopretendediecouldassumehe appearancef a serpent, xhibithimselfwith twofaces, and transform himself into whatever shape he pleased.19Such are most of the Miracles recorded n the apocryphal accountsof Christ:20 .g. he sudden easing f all kinds of motionat hisbirth, birdsstoppingn the midstof their flight, men at tablewiththeir hands o their mouths yet unable to eat, &c.; his changing,Avhen child,his playmatesnto kids,andanimating lay iguresofbeasts ndbirds; the practice ttributedo him of appearingo hisdisciplesometimessa youth,sometimessan oldman,sometimesas a child, sometimes arge, sometimes ess, sometimesso tall asto reach the Heavens; and the obeisance aid him by the militarystandardswhen he was brought before Pilate. Of the same cast isthe storyof his picturepresentedy Nicodemuso Gamaliel, hichwhen piercedby the Jews gave forth blood and water. Under thishead of exception all many of the Miracles related by the fathers:21e.g. that of the consecratedbread changing into a live coal in thehands of a woman,who came to the Lord's supper after offeringincense o an idol; of the dov%ssuing from the body of Polycarpat his martyrdom; of the petrifaction of a fowl dressedby a personunder a vow of abstinence ; of the exorcism of the demoniac camel;of the stonesshedding ears at the barbarity of the persecutions ofinundations rising up to the roofs of churcheswithout entering theopen doors; and of piecesof gold, as fresh as from the mint, droptfrom heavennto the laps of the Italian Monks. Of the samecharacter are the Miracles of the RomishBreviary; as the prostra-tion of wild beastsbefore the martyrs they were about to devour;the Miraculous uniting of two chainswith which St. Peter had beenat different times bound; and the burial of Paul the Hermit bylions. Suchagain are the Rabbinical Miracles,as that of the flieskilled by lightning for settling on a Rabbi's paper. And theMiracles ascribedby some to Mohammed,as that the trees wentout to meet him, the stones aluted him, and a camelcomplained ohim.22 The exorcism n the Book of Tobit must here be mentioned,in which heEvil Spirit who s in lovewith Sara s drivenawaybythe smellof certainperfumes.23 ence he Scriptureaccounts f Eve'stemptation by the serpent; of the speaking of Balaam's ass; ofJonah and the whale; and of the Devils sent into the herd of swine,areby themselvesore or less mprobable,eingunequaln dignity

19 Laving ton, Enthusiasm of Meth. 23 It seems to have been a commonand Papists comp. Part III. Sec. 43. notion that possessed ersons were be-20 Jones, On the Canon, Part III. loved by the Spirit that distressed them.21 Middleton, Free Inquiry. See Philostr. IV. 25. - Gospel of the23 The offensiveness f these,and many Infancy, XIV.- XVI. XXX1I1. Justinothers above nstanced, consists n attri- Martyr, Apol. p. 113, Ed. Thirlb. \Vebuting moral feelings to inanimate or find nothing of this kind in the accountirrational beings. of the Scripture demoniacs.


35/69

ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES. 369to the rest. Theyare hen supportedy the systemn which heyare found, as being a few out of a multitude, and therefore butexceptionsand,as we suppose, ut apparentexceptions)o thegeneralule. In some f them, oo,a furtherpurposes discernible,whichof itself reconciless to the strangenessf their first appear-ance,and suggests he possibilityof similar reasons,hough unknown,being assigned n explanation of the rest. As the Miracle of theswine, the object of which may have been o prove o us the realityof demoniacalpossessions.21Miracles of merepower, evenwhen connectedwith someultimateobject, are often improbable for the same general reason, viz. asunworthy of an All-wise Author. Such as that ascribed o Zoro-aster,2'' f Buffering eltedbrasso bepoured ponhis breastwith-out injury to himself. Unless indeed heir immediate designbe toexemplify the greatness of God, as in the descent of fire fromheavenupon Elijah's sacrifice, and n Christ's walking on the sea,28which evidently possessa dignity fitting them to be works of theSupreme Being. The propriety indeedof the Christian Miracles,contrasted with the want of decorum observable in those elsewhererelated, forms a most striking evidence f their divinity.Here, too, ambiguousMiracles ind a place, t being antecedentlyimprobable hat the Almighty should rest the credit of his Revela-tion upon eventswhich but obscurely mplied his immediatepresence.And, for the sameeason,hoseare n somemeasuremprobablewliich are professedby different Religions; because rom a divineagent may be expected distinct and peculiar specimensof divineagency. Hence the claims to supernatural power in the primitiveChurch are in general questionable, s restingupon the exorcismofEvil Spirits, and the cure of diseases;works, not only less satis-factory than others, as evidence f a Miraculous interposition,butsuspicious rom the circumstance,hat they were exhibited also byJews and Gentiles of the sameage.27 In the plaguesof Egypt andElijah's sacrifice,which seem to be of this class, there s a directcontest between wo parties; and the object of the divine messengeris to show his own superiority in the very point in which his adver-sariesry their powers. Our Saviour's seof the clay n restoring

21 Divine Legation, Book IX. Ch. V. -31; Mark vi. 52. We read of thetr , T ,,_ power to " move mountains," but evi-"> Brucker, Vol. I. p. 147.dently as a proverbial xpression. Thex Power over the elements onveyed transfiguration,f it needbe mentioned,tUemost striking proof of Christ's mission has a doctrinal sense, and seems besidesfrom the God of nature, who in the Old to have been ntended to lead the mindsTestament s frequently characterised as of the Apostles to the consideration of theruling the sea, winds, &c. Ps. Ixv. 7; Spiritual Kingdom. One of Satan's'.xxvii. 19; Job xxxviii. 11, &c. It is temptationswas to induceour Lord tosaid, that a drawing of feet upon the work a Miracle of mere power. Matt.water was the hieroglyphic for impossi- iv. 6, 7. See Acts x. 38, for the generalbility. Christ moreover designed, it character of the Miracles.appears, o make rial of his disciples' 27JNIiddleton.tillingfleet,Orig.Sacr.faith bv this Miracle. See Matt. xiv. 28 II. 9, Sec. 1.PI. 2s


36/69

370 ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES.sighthasbeen ccountedor ona similar rinciple,uchexternalmeans eingn repute monghe Heathenn their pretendedures.

3. THOSE WHICH HATE NO PROFESSEDOBJECT.Hence suspicions thrownonall miraclesscribedy theApocry-phalGospelso Christnhis nfancy; or,being rior o hispreaching,theyseemo attestnodoctrine, ndarebut distantly onnectedithany object.-Thoseagainon whichan objectseemso be orced.Hencemanyharmonizing n oneplan arrest the attention morepower-fully hana detachedndsolitaryMiracle, sconvergingo onepoint,andpressing ponour notice he end or which heyarewrought.Thisremark, s far as t goes,s prejudicialo the Miraclewrought(as t is said) n Hunneric's ersecution,ong after the real ageof

Miracles was past; when the Athanasianconfessors re reported tohave retained he power of speechafter the loss of their tongues.Those, too, must be viewed with suspicionwhich are disjoinedfrom human nstruments,and are made he vehicleof no message;wsince,according o our foregoingview, Miraclesare only then divestedof their a priori improbability when furthering some great Moralend, such as authenticatinga divine communication. It is an objec-tion then to those ascribed to relics generally, and in particularto those attributed to the tomb of the Abbe Paris, that they areleft to tell their own story, and are but distantly connectedwithany object whatever. As it is, again, to many tales of appari-tions, that they do not admit of a meaning, and consequentlydemand at most only an otioseassent,as Paley terms it. Hencethere s a difficulty in the narrative contained n the first verses ofJohn v.; because we cannot reduce the account of the descent ofthe angel nto the water to give it a healing power under any knownarrangementof the divine economy. We receive t, then, on thegeneral credit of the Revelationof which it formspart.29For the same reason,viz. the want of a declared object, a pre-judice is excitedwhen the professedworker is silent, or diffident asto his own power; since our general experience f Providence eadsus to supposehat Miraculous powerswill not be committed o anindividual who s not also prepared or his office by secret nspira-tion. This speaks strongly against the cures ascribedby Tacitusto Vespasianus,and would be an objection to our crediting theprediction uttered by Caiaphas, f separated from its context, orprominently rought orward o rest an argument pon. It is ingeneral a characteristic of the Scripture system, that Miraclesand nspirationgo together.30-With view o specifyhe objectdistinctly, ome ave equired hat the Miracleshouldbewrought

28Farmer,On Miracles,Ch. V. by Griesbach. The mineral spring ofBethesda is mentioned by Eusebius as29The verse containing the account of celebrated even in his day.the Angel is wanting in many MSS. of 30Douglas's Criterion. Warburton,authority, and is marked as suspicious Serin, on Resurrection.


37/69

ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES. 371after the deliveryof the message.31A message eliveredanindefinite time after the Miracle, while it cannot but excite atten-tion from the general eputationof the messengeror an extra-ordinary ift, is not soexpresslytampedwith divineauthority,aswhen t is usheredn by hisclaiming, nd ollowed y hisdisplaying,supernatural powers. For if a Miracle, once wrought, ever aftersanctions he doctrines taught by the person exhibiting it, it mustbe attendedby the gift of infallibility; a sustainedMiracle is incon-sistent with that frugality in the application of power which isobservable n the general course of Providence.33 On the otherhand, whenan unambiguous iracle,having been irst distinctlyannounced,s wrought with the professedobject of sanctioningamessage rom God, t conveysan irresistible evidenceof its divineorigin. Accidents thus excluded, nd he final causendissolublyconnectedwith the supernaturalevent. We may remark that theMiraclesof Scriptureweregenerallywroughton this plan.33 Inconformity to which, we find moreover hat the Apostles, &c. couldnot work Miracles when tliey pleased;M a circumstance more con-sistent with our ideas of the divine government,and connecting heextraordinary acts more clearly with specific objects than if thesupernaturalgifts were unlimited and irrevocable.Lastly, under this head we may notice Miraculous accounts,which, as those concerning Apollonius, may be separated rom anarrative without detriment o it. The prodigies of Livy, e.g. formno part in the action of the history, which is equally ntelligiblewithout them.35 The Miraculous events of the Pentateuch, on thecontrary, or of the Gospels and Acts, though of course they maybe rejected togetherwith the rest of the narrative, can be rejected nno other way; since hey form its substanceand groundwork,and,like the figure of Phidias on Minerva's shield, cannot be erasedwithoutspoilinghe entirecomposition.3631Pleetwood, Farmer, and others. as being the sealof its divinity, and assuch3- The idea is accordingly discounten- needednot in every nstance to lie markedanced, Matt. vii. 22, 23; Heb. vi. 4-6; out as a supernatural gift. Miracles in'

33St. Mark ends his Gospel by say-

.inffs xx. s-LL; Acts xiv. d, ace. are expressly sam to oe special, ana were34E.G. Acts xx. 22, 23; Phil. ii. 27; 2 intended to put particular honour on the'im. iv. 20. In the Book of Acts we Apostle; Cf. Luke vi. 19; viii. 46, which


38/69

S72 ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES.4. THOSE WHICH ARE EXCEPTIONABLE AS REGARDS THEIR OBJECT.

Miracles If the professedbjectbe rifling and unimportant;as n many^sufficiente^ate(l J neFathers,.g.Tertulliau'sccountf the vision f anobject. Angel o prescribeo a femalehe exact engthandmeasuref herveil, or the divine admonition which Cyprian professes o havereceived to mix water with wine in the Eucharist, in order to renderit efficacious.37Among these would be reckoned the directionsgiven o Moses elative o the furnishingof the Tabernacle,ndother regulations f the ceremonialaw, were not further andimportant bjectshereby ffected; uchas,separatinghe Israelitesfrom the surroundingnations, mpressingupon them the doctrine ofa particularProvidence,refiguringutureevents,&c.

Miracles wrought for the gratification of mere curiosity are refer-able to this head of objection. Hence the triumphant invitationswhich some of the Fathers make to their heathen opponents toattend their exorcismsexcite an unpleasant feeling in the mind, asdegrading a solemnspectaclento a mere popular exhibition.Those, again, which have a political or party object; as the curesascribed o Vespasianus, r as those attributed to the tomb of theAbbe Paris, and the Eclectic prodigies-all which, viewed in theirbest light, tend to the mere aggrandizementof a particular Sect,and have ittle or no reference o the good of Mankind at large. Ittells in favour of the Christian Miracles, hat the Apostles, generallyspeaking, were not enabled o work them for their own personalconvenience, o avoid danger, escapesuffering, or save life. StPaul's preservation rom the effectsof the viper's bite on the Isle ofMelita is a solitary exception o this remark, no mention being madeof his availing himself of this Miracle to proselyte the natives to theChristian faith.38For a similar reason, hosebear a less appearance f probabilitywhich are wrought for the conviction of individuals. We havealready noticed the contrary character of the Scripture Miraclesin this respect: e.g. St. Paul's Miraculous conversiondid not endwith itself, but wapi1ollowed by momentous and inestimable con-sequences.39Again, Miracles attended the conversions of the^EthiopianEunuch, Cornelius,and SergiusPaulus; but these wereheads and first fruits of different classes of men who were in timeto be brought into the Church.40Miracles with a bad or vicious objectare laden with an extremeantecedent mprobability; for they cannotat all be referred to the

observed,hat the discoursesf Christso ^ Rev. . BlancoWhite,AgainstCa'li-constantly row out of his Miracles,hat olicism, Let. 6. The Breviary Mira ieswe can hardly admit the former without form a striking contrast to the Christianadmitting the

12276472 the life of apollonius of tyanaeus jh newman

Documents