« ZurückWeiter »
wrought in the cause to which these visions relate; or, to speak more properly, the same historical authority which informs us of one, informs us of the other. This is not ordinarily true of the visions of enthusiasts, or even of the accounts in which they are contained. Again, some of Christ's own miracles were momentary, as the transfiguration, the appearance and voice from Heaven at his baptism, a voice from the clouds on one occasion afterward, (John xii. 28,) and some others. It is not denied, that the distinction which we have proposed concerning miracles of this species, applies, in diminution of the force of the evidence, as much to these instances as to others. But this is the case, not with all the miracles ascribed to Christ, nor with the greatest part, nor with many: Whatever force therefore there may be in the objection, we have numerous miracles which are free from it; and even these to which it is applicable, are little affected by it in their credit, because there are few who, admitting the rest, will reject them. If there be miracles of the New Testament, which come within any of the other heads into which we have distributed the objections, the same remark must be repeated. And this is one way, in which the unexampled number and variety of the miracles ascribed to Christ strengthens the credibility of Christianity: For it precludes any solution, or conjecture about a solution, which imagination, or even which experience; might suggest concerning some particular miracles, if considered independently of others. The miracles of Christ were of various kinds,* and performed in great varieties of situation, form, and manner ; at Jerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish nation and religion ; in different parts of Judea and Galilee ; in cities and
* Not only healing every species of disease, but turning water into wine (Juba ii.); feeding multitudes with a few loaves and fishes (Matt. xiv. 15; Mark vi. 35, Luke ix. 12; Joba vi. 5.); walking op the sea (Matt. xiv. 25.); calming a storm (Matt. viii. 26; Luke viii. 24.); a celestial voice at his baptism, and miraculous appearance (Matt. üi. 16; afterward John xii. 28.); his transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1-9; Mark ix. 2; Luke ix. 28; 2 Peter i. 16, 17.); raising the dead in three distinct instances (Matt. 11. 18; Mart vi 22; Luke viü. 41; Luke vii. 14 ; Joho xi.)
villages ; in synagogues, in private houses ; in the street, in highways; with preparation, as in the case of Lazarus ; by accident, as in the case of the widow's son of Nain : when attended by multitudes, and when alone with the patient ; in the midst of his disciples, and in the presence of his enemies ; with the common people around him, and before Scribes and Pharisees, and rulers of the synagogues.
I apprehend that, when we remove from the comparison, the cases which are fairly disposed of by the observations that have been stated, many cases will not remain. To those which do remain, we apply this final distinction; “ that there is not satisfactory evidence, that persons, pretending to be original witnesses of the miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undertaken, and undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and properly in consequence of their belief of the truth of those accounts."
But they, with whom we argue, have undoubtedly a right to select their own examples. The instances with which Mr. Hume has chosen to confront the miracles of the New Testament, and which, therefore, we are entitled to regard as the strongest which the history of the world could supply to the inquiries of a very acute and learned adversary, are the three following:
I. The cure of a blind and of a lame man of Alexandria, by the emperor Vespasian, as related by Tacitus ;
II. The restoration of the limb of an attendant in a Spanish church, as told by cardinal de Retz : and,
III. The cures said to be performed at the tomb of the abbe Paris, in the early part of the present century.
1. The narrative of Tacitus is delivered in these terms : “ One of the common people of Alexan.
dria, known to be diseased in his eyes, by the admonition of the god Serapis, whom that superstitious nation worship above all other gods, prostrated himself before the emperor, earnestly imploring from him a remedy for his blindness, and entreating that he would deign to anoint with his spittle his cheeks and the balls of his eyes. Another, diseased in his hand, requested, by the ad. monition of the same god, that he might be touched by the foot of the emperor. Vespasian at first derided and despised their application ; afterward, when they continued to urge their petitions, he sometimes appeared to dread the imputation of vanity; at other times, by the earnest supplication of the patients, and the persuasion of his flatterers, to be induced to hope for success. At length he commanded an inquiry to be made by the physicians, whether such a blindness and debility were vincible by human aid. The report of the physicians contained various points ; that in the one the power of vision was not destroyed, but would return it the obstacles were removed; that in the other, the diseased joints might be restored, if a healing power were applied ; that it was, perhaps, agreeable to the gods to do this ; that the emperor was elected by divine assistance ; lastly, that the credit of the success would be the emperor's the ridicule of the disappointment would fall upon the patients. Vespasian, believing that every thing was in the
power of his fortune, and that nothing was any longer incredible, whilst the multitude, which stood by, eagerly expected the event, with a countenance expressive of joy, executed what he was desired to do. Immediately the hand was restored to its use, and light returned to the blind man. They who were present relate both these cures, even at this time, when there is nothing to be gained by
Now, though Tacitus wrote this account twentyseven years after the miracle is said to have been performed, and wrote at Rome of what passed at Alexandria, and wrote also from report and al, though does not appear that he had examined.
* Tacit. Hist. lib. iv.
the story, or that he believed it (but rather the contrary,) yet I think his testimony sufficient to prove that such a transaction took place : by which I mean that the two men in question did apply to Vespasian ; that Vespasian did touch the diseased in the manner related; and that a cure was reported to have followed the operation. But the affair labours under a strong and just suspicion, that the whole of it was a concerted imposture brought about by collusion between the patients, the physician, and the emperor. This solution is probable, because there was every thing to suggest, and every thing to facilitate, such a scheme. The miracle was calculated to confer honour upon the emperor, and upon the god Serapis. It was achieved in the midst of the emperor's flatterers and followers ; in a city, and amongst a populace, beforehand devoted to his interest, and to the worship of the god; where it would have been treason and blasphemy together to have contradicted the fame of the cure, or even to have questioned it. And what is very observable in the account is, that the report of the physicians is just such a report as would have been made of a case, in which no external marks of the disease existed, and which, consequently, was capable of being easily counterfeited, viz. that in the first of the patients the organs of vision were not destroyed, that the weakness of the second was in his joints. The strongest circumstance in Taci. tus's narration is, that the first patient was notus tabe oculorum,” remarked or notorious for the disease in his eyes. But this was a circumstance which might have fouud its way into the story in its progress from a distant country, and during an interval of thirty years; or it might be true that the malady of the eyes was notorious, yet that the nature and degree of the disease had never been ascertained; a case by no means uncommon. The emperor's reserve was easily affected; or it is possible he might not be in the secret. There does not seem to be much weight in the observation of Tacitus, that they who were present, continued even then to relate the story when there was nothing to be gained by the lie. It only proves that those who had told the story for many years per
sisted in it. The state of mind of the witnesses and spectators at the time, is the point to be attended to. Still less is there of pertinency in Mr. Hume's eulogium on the cautious and penetrating genius of the historian; for it does not appear that the historian believed it. The terms in which he speaks of Serapis, the deity to whose interposition the miracle was attributed, scarcely suffer us to suppose that Tacitus thought the miracle to be real: “ by the admonition of the god Serapis, whom that superstitious nation (dedita superstitionibus gens), worship above all other gods." To have brought this supposed miracle within the limits of comparison with the miracles of Christ, it ought to have appeared, that a person of a low and private station, in the midst of enemies, with the whole power of the country opposing, him, with every one around him prejudiced or interested against his claims and character, pretended to perform these cures, and required the spectators, upon the strength of what they saw, to give up their firmest hopes and opinions, and follow him through a life of trial and danger; that many were so moved, as to obey his call, at the expense both of every notion in which they had been brought up, and of their ease, safety, and reputation ; and that by these beginnings a change was produced in the world, the effects of which remain to this day : « case, both in its circumstances and consequences, very unlike any thing we find in Tacitus's relation.
II. The story taken from the Memoirs of Cardinal de Retz, which is the second example alleged by Mr. Hume, is this : “ In the church of Saragossa in Spain, the canons showed me a man whose business it was to light the lamps; telling me, that he had been several years at the gate with one leg only. I saw him with two."*
It is stated by Mr. Hume, that the cardinal, who relates this story did not believe it : and it no where appears that he either examined the limb, or asked the patient, or indeed any one, a single question about the matter. An artificial leg, wrought with art, would be sufficient, in a place where no such
* Liv. iv. A, D, 1654,