1
10
7
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/fb8c72ceaed855269677f11ed7fcc672.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mqCC-swd7Xxmrr2DvcI%7EGzCv9Tevq7GYCz9E40p8OfxwQb8wxQwPFeN0jE9rM5RURd18FABegxzMoxDZodqNAEeYbmJh%7ErfqStxgM0RLUwYX7jb%7EC0tkgZVDSpXJhx9scWF7ByQnjbiQ1VD6beqsUMxGZ0g%7ENDygdEfPpkDwIp%7E0TKYD5XM0RscdzYowzViXxML-ry0HVlYd1lZ9VECKp97oIeXZtqh518ObPWtBll8WTIvaGUT%7E4SHJ1rsx%7Efwxg91SV7EZMpLfGYU3iS5Bk%7EZOF2Xodcj1cR67FhvkuVBSYJsiGtrRsCAj5yd2Dm3JgLXAqwMceSd8ie6EzI2dTw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
92af1ef847474167df1cfd59a5c85d56
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
AN
ESSAY
* ON MIRACLES.
BY 'p
DAVID HUME.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION
Commenting upon the views of Campbell, Paley, Mill,
Powell, Greg, Mozley, Tyndall, Huxley, etc.,
1SY
JOSEPH MAZZINI WHEELER.
“Apologists find it much more convenient to evade the simple but
effective arguments of Hume than to answer them."—11 Supernatural
Religion," vol. i.,p. 78.
LONDON :
I
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1 882.
PRICE
THREEPENCE.
�BIBLE
ROMANCES.
By G. W. FOOTE.
1. —THE CREATION. STORY' ..................
2. —NOAH’S FLOOD
..................................
3. —EVE AND THE APPLE..........................
4. —THE BIBLE DEVIL..................................
5. —THE TEN PLAGUES
..........................
6. —JONAH AND THE WHALE..................
7. —THE WANDERING JEWS ..................
A—THE TOWER OF BABEL ..................
9.—BALAAM’S ASS.........................................
10. —GOD’S THIEVES IN CANAAN ...........
11. —CAIN AND ABEL ..................................
12. —LOT’S WIFE
..........................................
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
BIBLE ROMANCES—First Series—Containing the above Twelve
Numbers, bound in handsome wrapper. Is.
SECOND SERIES.
13. —DANIEL AND THE LIONS
..........
14. —THE JEW JUDGES
..........................
Id.
Id.
The SECOND SERIES will soon be completed in six
instalments.
Other Pamphlets by G. W. Foote.
Secularism the True Philosophy of Life.
and a Defence
...
...
...
An Exposition
Atheism and Morality
........................................... 2d.
The Futility of Prayer....................................... '
... 2d.
Death’s Test: or Christian Lies about Dying Infidels. 2d.
Atheism and Suicide. (A reply to Alfred Tennyson—Paet
Laureate)...
...
...
..
" ...
The God Christians Swear By
.............................. 2d.
Was Jesus Insane P
................................................. Id.
London: FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�INTRODUCTION.
When an author has the fortune to be attacked by every
succeeding writer upon the same subject for upwards of a
century, and when his opinions, so far from being crushed out,
become more widely spread by each “ refutation,” it induces
a supicion that “ sophisms ” so constantly refuted may be
truisms after all. This has been notably the case with the
essay here reprinted. Since its first publication in 1748 it has
been the bête noire of Christian controversialists. Campbell,
IPhley, De Quincey, Chalmers, Whately, Babbage, Mansel,
Mozley, and a shoal of ministerial minnows sailing in the
wake of these theological Tritons, have felt it incumbent
upon them to refute the “ sophisms ” of the sceptic Hume
Yet no one will say that unbelief in the miraculous is upon
the decline.. On the contrary, never were Christians less
anxious to insist upon the supernatural elements of their
îehgion, and never more willing to seek reconcilements with
science ; never were there so many trained minds with perfect
confidence that the uniformity of nature has never been dis
turbed by coups d’état célestes.
In truth, Hume’s argument, though so constantly assailed,
has never been refuted at all. It has been misapprehended
and evaded, but it remains as unanswerable as that of Arch
bishop Tillotson against the real presence. And this, because
m point of fact—the terms being rightly understood—it is a
truism. John Stuart Mill well says: “Hume’s celebrated
principle that nothing is credible which is contradictory to
experience, or at variance with laws of nature, is merely this
very plain and harmless proposition, that whatever is contra
dictory to a complete induction is incredible. That such a
maxim as this should either be accounted a dangerous heresy,
or mistaken for a great and recondite truth, speaks ill for the
state of philosophical speculation on such subjects-.” (“System
of Logic,” book 3, chap, xxv., sec. 2.)
Few essays so brief, for it must be borne in mind that the
first part contains the argument complete in itself, have been
so persistently misunderstood. The whole school of Christian evidence writers have either argued as it were an à priori
argument against the possibility of miracles, or as if it were
an argument against testimony being received for wonders •
whereas it is neither the one nor the other. Principal Campbell, as Mill points out, considered it a complete answer to
*
Hume’s doctrine (that things are incredible which are contrary
to the uniform course of experience) that we do not disbelieve.
* “ Logic.” See the “ Three Essays,” p. 217.
�2
merely because the chances were against them, things in strict
conformity to the uniform course of experience. Yet no one
would call an unusual combination which was found by experi
ence to occur among the whole number of possible cases a.
miracle, save in the popular, indefinite style of speech which
is totally unfit for theological, and still more for logical, pur
poses. And here lies the gist of the whole misunderstanding.
Everyone knows that both etymologically and popularly the
word miracle is equivalent simply to a wonder. But Hume’s
argument is not directed against the occurrence of wonders,
prodigies or unprecedented events; though it offers a criterion
by which the value of their evidence can be judged. He was
not such a simpleton as to contend, or intend, that no testi
mony could be sufficient to add to our knowledge of the laws
of nature. His argument is based on the theological definition
of miracles as infractions of the laws of nature by a super
natural being or beings exterior to those laws.
The essay has done much to modify the views of theolo
gians, and they have since its time done their best to class
their miracles under’ “unknown laws.” Yet Canon Mozley,
certainly the ablest late defender of miracles, admits that
“ their evidential value depends entirely upon their deviating
from the order of nature.” A miracle in the theological sense
denotes not simply the counteraction of one natural law by
another, which is not opposed to experience, but the suppres
sion of the law of uniformity of cause and effect, which ex
perience shows to be universal, and in which all other laws
are included. As Hume puts it, unless there were an uniform
*
experience against any miraculous event, “the event would not
merit that appellation.” If, by some unknown law, persons
could, under given c onditions, be raised from the dead, such facts,
however wonderful, would take their place in the vast scheme
of nature, and no more be properly entitled supernatural than
any other. But such an event is classed as a miracle, as our
essayist says, “ because it has never been observed in any age
or country.”
The instance of the King of Siam rejecting accounts of ice
has often, foolishly enough, been quoted against Hume by
opponents who failed to notice the distinction between a dis
covery of the laws of nature and their suspension. If we could
be taken to a region where the dead rise at command with the
same certainty that water freezes when the temperature is
below a certain point the fact would be indubitable, but the
miracle would be gone. We cannot admit a proposition as a
law of nature and yet believe a fact in contradiction to it.
We must disbelieve the alleged fact, or believe that we are
See Mill’s “Essay on Theism,” p. 222.
�8
mistaken in admitting the supposed law. In gaming the fact
the miracle is lost; because to this, the supernatural nature or
the fact, all testimony is incompetent. Mr. Vv. H. Greg
pointed out that the assertion of a miracle being performed
*
involves three elements, a fact and two inferences. It predi
cates, first, that such an event took place; second, that it
was brought about by the act and will of the individual to
whom it is attributed ; third, that it could not have been pro
duced by natural means. The fact may have been conectly o served, and yet either or both of the inferences be unwarranted;
or either inference may be rendered unsound by the slightest
deviation from accuracy in the observation or statement ot
the fact. Nay, any new discovery in science may show that
the inference which has hitherto appeared quite irrefragable,
was, in fact, wholly unwarranted and incorrect.
But it has been said : Assume a supernatural power and the
antecedent improbability of supernatural visitations is re
moved. Paley says, “ In a word, once believe that there is a
God, and miracles are not incredible.’’t To this assertion
Mill has been thought to lend his. authority. He endorses
Hume’s argument only as substantiating that ‘‘ no evidence
can prove a miracle to anyone who did not previously believe
the existence of a being or beings with supernatural power ;
or who believes himself to have full proof that the character
of the Being whom he recognises, is inconsistent with his
having seen fit to interfere on the occasion in question. +
Now this statement is inadequate. The existence of.God, if He
be the Supreme Cause of the order of the universe, is rather an
additional difficulty to those who think that order was created
by Him and subsequently disturbed. The argument against
miracles rests on our experience of the order of nature ; and
is, therefore, equally valid whether a cause of that order be
assumed or not. For the only test of the will or way of work
ing of such a cause is to be found within the order itself.
Any interference with that order still has to be. proved by
testimony; and the question remains whether it is more
credible that men have been deceived, or that the laws of
nature have been disturbed?
This last is the aspect of the argument which comes home
to the popular mind. Every individual has experience that
men lie and make mistakes ; none that miracles occur. Expe
riment upon experiment; the records of generation after
* “ Creed of Christendom,” vol. ii., p. 136.
+ Evidences of Christianity. “Preparatory Considerations.”
+ “System of Logic,” Bk. 3, ch. xxv., sec. 2. Dr. Farrar’s abuse
of Mill’s reasoning is well exposed by the author of “ Supernatural
Religion,” Pt. 1, ch. iii.
�4
generation; the very stability of our life depends upon and
confirms the belief m the uniformity of law
“In the
case of miracles, then,” says Professor Tyndall, “ it behoves
us to understand the weight of the negative before we assign
a value to the positive ; to comprehend the protest of nature
before we attempt to measure with it the assertions of
men. *
Paley’s supposition of “ twelve men whose probity and good
sense I had well known,” who should be ready, one after
another, to be racked, burnt or strangled, rather than give up
the assertion that they had witnessed miracles, does not even
meeu the case. For how could it be shown that it was impos
sible tor these twelve men to be deceived? Twelve infallible
men w ould be as incredible as any miracle they were supposed
to assert. Paley’s reference is simply a disingenuous attempt
to. imply that twelve good witnesses testified to the Christian
miracles at the time and in the place where they are said to
have occurred, and that they suffered on this account. Whereas
not one single original witness is known ; nor can even any
early Christian be proved to have suffered for his belief in
miracles.
Professor Huxley, who,, in his admirable little book on
Hume, very captiously, as it seems to me, takes exception to
iiume s defining miracles in their theological sense, agrees
that his arguments on the matter of testimony resolve them
selves into a simple statement of the dictates of common
sense, which may be expressed in this canon: the more a
statement of fact conflicts with previous experience, the more
complete must be the evidence which is to justify us in be
lieving it. It is upon this principle that everyone carries on
the business of common life. “ If,” continues the Professor,
a man tells me he saw a piebald horse in Piccadilly, I believe
~.lm w^hout hesitation. The thing itself is likely enough, and
there is no imaginable motive for his deceiving me. But if
the.same person tells me he observed a zebra there, I might
hesitate a little about accepting his testimony, unless I were
well satisfied, not only as to his previous acquaintance with
zebras, but as to his powers and opportunities of observation
in the present case. If, however, my informant assured me
that he beheld a centaur trotting down that famous thoroughrare, I should emphatically decline to credit his statement; and
this even if he were the most saintly of men, and ready to
suffer martyrdom in support of his belief. In such a case I
could, of course, entertain no doubt of the good faith of the
witness; it would be only his competency, which, unfortunately,
* “ Fragments of Science,” “ On Miracles and Special Providence ”
vol. ii., p. 33. 1879.
’
�5
has very little to do with good faith or intensity of conviction,
which I should presume to call in question.”*
The sceptic being securely entrenched in the first part of the
essay, the second carries the war into the supernaturalists’
camp. With the confidence of a thorough student of human
nature and historian, Hume gives his conviction that there is
not in all history an wholly trustworthy testimony to mira
culous events. Huxley says on this passage (page 10 of this
edition):—“ These are grave assertions, but they are least
likely to be challenged by those who have made it their busi
ness to weigh evidence and to give their decision under a due
sense of the moral responsibility which they incur in so
doing.”
Miracles are only alleged to have happened among people
devoid of scientific information and critical spirit. The learned
author of “ Supernatural Religion,” in his chapter on “ The
Age of Miracles,’’gives abundant proof that the miracles now
credited arose in a time of the grossest superstition, among a
people believing in the every-day operations of angels and
demons, full of religious excitement, and prone to exaggera
tion. In an age of science, where no one expects miracles,
they do not occur, and most are ready to take as evidence of
superstition the belief in any others than those in faith of
which they have themselves been reared. The same silent
process which has destroyed the belief in fairies and witch
craft has undermined all other supernatural beliefs, and they
only await the application of criticism to be levelled with the
dust. It is true the universe remains a mystery. In one
sense every atom is a miracle. It is so because man’s faculties
are finite and the relations of nature infinite. But the mystery
ef nature affords no ground for belief in miraculous events,
the only testimony for which has been handed down from
superstitious and ill-informed ancestors. It is rather a reason
for abiding by the only light we have—the light which comes
from reason and observation. The part of a wise man is to
study and investigate, and “ proportion his belief to the
evidence.”
There being slight variations in the various editions of the
Essay, the present text has been carefully compared with all
those in the library of the British Museum.
* “English Men of Letters : Hume,” p. 134.
�ON MIRACLES.
-------- ♦--------
PART
I.
There is in Dr. Tillotson’s writings an argument against the real
presence, which is as concise, and elegant, and strong as any
argument can possibly be supposed against a doctrine that is
so little worthy of a serious refutation. It is acknowledged on
all hands, says that learned prelate, that the authority, either
of the scripture or of tradition, is founded merely in the testi
mony of the apostles, who were eye-witnesses to those miracles
of our Savior, by which he proved his divine mission. Our
evidence, then, for the truth of the Christian religion is less
than the evidence for the truth of our senses ; because, even in
the first authors of our religion, it was no greater; and it is
evident it must diminish in passing from them to their disciples;
nor can any one be so certain of the truth of their testimony,
as of the immediate object of his senses. But a weaker evidence
can never destroy a stronger; and therefore, were the doctrine
of the real presence ever so clearly revealed in scripture, it
were directly contrary to the rules of just reasoning to give
our assent to it. It contradicts sense, though both the scripture
and tradition, on which it is supposed to be built, carry not
such evidence with them as sense, when they are considered
merely as external evidences, and are not brought home to
every one’s breast by the immediate operation of the Holy
Spirit.
Nothing is so convenient as a decisive argument of this kind,
which must at least silence the most arrogant bigotry and
superstition, and free us from their impertinent solicitations.
I flatter myself, that I have discovered an argument of a like
nature, which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an
everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and
consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures. For
so long, I presume, will the accounts of miracles and prodigies
be found in all history, sacred and profane.
Though experience be our only guide in reasoning concerning
matters of fact; it must be acknowledged that this guide is
not altogether infallible, but in some cases is apt to lead us
into errors and mistakes. One, who, in our climate, should
expect better weather in any week of June than in one of
December, would reason justly, and conformably to experience;
but it is certain that he may happen, in the event, to find
himself mistaken. However, we may observe, that, in such
a case, he would have no cause to complain of experience;
�7
because it commonly informs us beforehand of the uncertainty,
by that contrariety of events, which we may learn from a
diligent observation. All effects follow not with like certainty
from their supposed causes. Some events are found, in all
countries and all ages, to have been constantly conjoined to
gether : Others are found to have been more variable, and
sometimes to disappoint our expectations; so that, in our
reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable
degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest
species of moral evidence.
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.
In such conclusions as are founded on an infallible experience,
he expects the event with the last degree of assurance, and
regards his past experience as a full proof of the future
existence of that event.
In other cases he proceeds with
more caution: He weighs the opposite experiments: He
considers which side is supported by the greatest number of
experiments: To that side he inclines with doubt and hesi
tation ; and when at last he fixes his judgment, the evidence
exceeds not what we properly
probability. All probability,
then, supposes an opposition of experiments and observations;
where the one side is found to overbalance the other, and to
produce a degree of evidence proportioned to the superiority.
A hundred instances or experiments on one side, and fifty
on another, afford a very doubtful expectation of any event;
though a hundred uniform experiments, with only one that is
contradictory, reasonably beget a pretty strong degree of
assurance. In all cases, we must balance the opposite experi
ments, where they are opposite, and deduct the smaller number
from the greater, in order to know the exact force of the
superior evidence.
To apply these principles to a particular instance ; we may
observe that there is no species of reasoning more common,
more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that
derived from the testimony of men, and the reports of eye
witnesses and spectators. This species of reasoning, perhaps,
one may deny to be founded on the relation of cause and
effect. I shall not dispute about a word. It will be sufficient
to observe, that our assurance in any argument of this kind is
derived from no other principle than our observation of the
veracity of human testimony, and of the usual conformity of
facts to the reports of witnesses. It being a general maxim,
that no objects have any discoverable connexion together, and
that all the inferences which we can draw from one to another
are founded merely on our experience of their constant and
regular conjunction; it is evident that we ought not to make
an exception to this maxim in favor of human testimony,
whose connexion with any events seems, in itself, as liitJo
�8
necessary as any other. Were not the memory tenacious to a
certain degree ; had not men commonly an inclination to
truth and a principle of probity; were they not sensible to
snanie wh.cn detected in a falsehood : TiVere not these, I say,
discovered by experience to be qualities inherent in ’human
natuie, we should never repose the least confidence in human
testimony. A man delirious, or noted for falsehood and villainy
has no manner of authority with us.
’
And as the evidence, derived from witnesses and human
testimony, is founded on past experience, so it varies with
the experience, and is reg'arded either as a proof or a proba
bility according as the conjunction between any particular kind
of report and any kind of objects, has been found to be constant
or variable. There are a number of circumstances to be taken
into consideration in all judgments of this kind; and the
ultimate standard, by which we determine all disputes that
may arise concerning them, is always derived from experience
and observation. . Where this experience is not entirely uni
form on any side, it is attended with an unavoidable contrariety
in our judgments, and with the same opposition and mutual
destruction of arguments as in every other kind of evidence.
We frequently hesitate concerning the reports of others. We
balance the opposite circumstances which cause tiny doubt or
uncertainty; and when we discover a superiority on any side,
we incline to it; but still with a diminution of assurance in
proportion to the force of its antagonist.
This contrariety of evidence, in the present case, may be
derived from several different causes; from the opposition of
contrary testimony, from the character or number of the wit
nesses, from the manner of their delivering their testimony,
or from the union of all these circumstances. We entertain a
suspicion concerning any matter of fact when the witnesses
contradict each other, when they are but few or of a doubtful
character, when they have an interest in what they affirm,
when they deliver their testimony with doubt and hesitation’
or, on the contrary, with too violent asseverations. There are
many other particulars of the same kind, which may diminish
or destroy the force of any argument derived from human
testimony.
Suppose, for instance, that the fact which the testimony
endeavors to establish partakes of the extraordinary and the
marvellous, in that case, the evidence resulting from the testi
mony admits of a diminution greater or less in proportion as
the fact is more or less unusual. The reason why we place
any credit in witnesses and historians is not from any con
nexion, which we perceive a priori, between testimony and
reality, but because we are accustomed to find a conformity
between them. But when the fact attested is such a one as
�9
has seldom fallen under our observation, here is a contest of
two opposite experiences; of which the one destroys the othc-,
-as far . as its force goes, and the superior can only operate on
the mind by the force which remains. The very same principle
of experience, which gives us a certain degree of assurance in
the testimony of witnesses, gives us also, in this case, another
'degree of assurance against the fact which they endeavor to
establish; from which contradiction there necessarily arise a
•counterpoise, and mutual destruction of belief and authority.
“ I should not believe such a story were it told me by Cato ; ”
was a proverbial , saying in Rome, even during the lifetime
of that philosophical patriot (1). The incredibility of a fact,
at was allowed, might invalidate so great an authority.
The Indian prince who refused to believe the first relations
concerning the effects of frost reasoned justly, and it naturally
required very strong testimony to engage his assent to facts
which, arose from a state of nature with which he was un
acquainted, and bore so little analogy to those events of which
he had had constant and uniform experience. Though they
were not contrary to his experience, they were not conform
able to it (2).
But in order to increase the probability against the testi
mony of witnesses, let us suppose that the fact which they
n,inrm, instead of being only marvellous, is really miraculous,
suppose also, that the testimony, considered apart and in
itself, amounts to an. entire proof ; in that case there is proof
against proof, of which the strongest must prevail, but still
with a diminution of its force, in proportion to that of its
antagonist.
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm
and unalterable experience has established these laws, the
proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact is
as entire as any argument from experience can possibly ’be
imagined Why is it more than probable that all men must
y?e»
iea(l cannot of itself remain suspended in the air •
that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless
it be that these events are found agreeable to the laws of
nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in
other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed
a miracle if it ever happen in the common course of nature
It is no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should
•die on a sudden : because such a kind of death, though more
unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to
happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to
-Ute; because that has never been observed in any age or countrv
There must, therefore, be an uniform experience against every
miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that
appellation. And as an uniform experience amounts to a proof
�10
there is here a direct and full proof from the nature of the
fact against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof
be destroyed or the miracle rendered credible by an opposite
proof, which is superior (3).
.
The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy
of our attention), “ That no testimony is sufficient to establish
a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its false
hood would be more miraculous than the fact which it en
deavors to establish: And even in that case there is a mutual
destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an
assurance suitable to that degree of force which remains after
deducting the inferior.” When anyone tells me that he saw
a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself
whether it be more probable that this person should either
deceive or be deceived, or that the fact which he relates, should
really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the
other; and, according to the superiority which I discover, I
pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle.
If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous
than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can
he pretend to command my belief or opinion.
PART II.
In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed that the testi
mony upon which a miracle is founded may possibly amount to
an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would
be a real prodigy : But it is easy to show that we have been
a oreat deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never
was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.
*
For first, there is not to be found in all history any miracle
attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned
yood sense, education, and learning as to secure us against all
delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity as to place
them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of
such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind as to have
a o-reat deal to lose in case of being detected in any falsehood;
and at the same time attesting facts, performed m such a
public manner and in so celebrated a part of. the world, as to
render the detection unavoidable: All which circumstances are
requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men.
Secondly. We may observe in human nature a principle
which, if strictly examined, will be. found to dimmish ex
tremely the assurance which we might have from human
testimony in any kind of prodigy. The maxim by which we
commonly conduct ourselves in our reasonings, is, that the
objects, of which we have no experience, resemble those of
* The 1750 edition inserts: “ In any history.”
�11
which we have; that what we have found to be most usual is
always most probable; and that where there is an opposition
of arguments, we ought to give the preference to such of them
as are founded on the greatest number of past observations.
But though, in proceeding by this rule, we readily reject any
fact which is unusual and incredible in an ordinary degree;
yet in advancing farther, the mind observes not always the
same rule, but when anything is affirmed utterly absurd and
miraculous, it rather the more readily admits such a fact, upon
account of that very circumstance which ought to destroy all
its authority. The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from
miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency
towards the belief of those events from which it is derived.
And this goes so far, that even those who cannot enjoy this
pleasure immediately, nor can believe those miraculous events of
which they are informed, yet love to partake of the satisfaction
at second-hand or by rebound, and place a pride and delight
in exciting the admiration of others.
With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of
travellers received, their descriptions of sea and land mon
sters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men,
and uncouth manners ! But if the spirit of religion join itself
to the love of wonder, there is an end of common-sense, and
human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions
to authority. A religionist may be an enthusiast, and imagine
he sees what has no reality : He may know his narration to be
fal3e, and yet persevere in it with the best intentions in the
world for the sake of promoting so holy a cause: Or even where
this delusion has no place, vanity, excited by so strong a tempta
tion, operates on him more powerfully than on the rest of
mankind in any other circumstances; and self-interest with
equal force. His auditors may not have, and commonly have
not, sufficient judgment to canvass his evidence : What
judgment they have, they renounce by principle, in these
sublime and mysterious subjects : Or if they were ever so
willing to employ it, passion and a heated imagination disturb
the regularity of its operations. Their credulity increases his
impudence ; and his impudence overpowers their credulity.
Eloquence, when in its highest pitch, leaves little room for
reason or reflection, but addressing itself entirely to the fancy
or the affections, captivates the willing hearers, and subdues
their understandings. Happily, this pitch it seldom attains.
But what a Cicero or a Demosthenes could scarcely operate
over a Roman or Athenian audience, every Capuchin, every
itinerant or stationary teacher, can perform over the generality
of mankind, and in a higher degree, by touching such gross
and vulgar passions (4).
Thirdly. It forms a very strong presumption against all
�12
supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are observed
chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if
a civilised people has ever given admission to any of them,
that people will be found to have received them from ignorant
and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that in
violable sanction and authority which always attend received
opinions. When we peruse the first histories of all nations
we are apt to imagine ourselves transported into some new
world, where the w’hole frame of nature is disjointed and every
element performs its operations in a different manner from
what it does at present. Battles, revolutions, pestilence,
famine, and death, are never the effects of those natural
causes which we experience. Prodigies, omens, oracles,
judgments, quite obscure the few natural events that are
intermingled with them. But as the former grow thinner
every page, in proportion as we advance nearer the enlightened
ages of science and knowledge, we soon learn that there is
nothing mysterious or supernatural in the case, but that all
proceeds from the usual propensity of mankind towards the
marvellous, and that, though this inclination may at inter
vals receive a check from sense and learning, it can never
thoroughly be extirpated from human nature.
‘‘ It is strange,” a judicious reader is apt to say upon the peru
sal of these wonderful historians, “that such prodigious events
never happen in our days.” But it is nothing strange, I hope,
that men should lie in all ages. You must surely have seen
instances enow of that frailty. You have yourself heard
many such marvellous relations started, which, being treated
with scorn by all the wise and judicious, have at last been
abandoned even by the vulgar. Be assured, that those re
nowned lies which have spread and flourished to such a
monstrous height, arose from like beginnings, but being sown
in a more proper soil, shot up at last into prodigies almost
equal to those which they relate.
It was a wise policy in that false prophet, Alexander, who,
though now forgotten, was once so famous, to lay the first
scene of his impostures in Paphlagonia, where, as Lucian tells
us, the people were extremely ignorant and stupid, and ready
to swallow even the grossest delusion. People at a distance,
who are weak enough to think the matter at all worthy inquiry,
have no opportunity of receiving better information. The
stories come magnified to them by a hundred circumstances.
Fools, are industrious in propagating the imposture; while
the wise and learned are contented, in general, to deride its
absurdity, without informing themselves of the particular facts
by which it .may be distinctly refuted. And thus the impostor
above-mentioned was enabled to proceed from his ignorant
Paphlagonians to the enlisting of votaries, even among the
�13
Grecian philosophers and men of the most eminent rank and
distinction in Rome : Nay, could engage the attention of that
sage emperor, Marcus Aurelius, so far as to make him trust
the success of a military expedition to his delusive prophecies.
The advantages are so great, of starting an imposture among
an ignorant people, that even though the delusion should be
too gross to impose on the generality of them—which, though
seldom, is sometimes the case—it has a much better chance of suc
ceeding in remote countries, than if the first scene had been laid
in a city renowned for arts and knowledge. The most ignorant
and barbarous of these barbarians carry the report abroad.
None of their countrymen have large correspondence or
sufficient credit and authority to contradict and beat down
the delusion. Men’s inclination to the marvellous has full
opportunity to display itself. And thus a story, which is
universally exploded in the place where it was first started, shall
pass for certain at a thousand miles distance. But had Alex
ander fixed his residence at Athens, the philosophers of that
renowned mart of learning had immediately spread throughout
the whole Roman empire, their sense of the matter; which, being
supported by so great authority, and displayed by all the force of
reason and eloquence, had entirely opened the eyes of mankind.
It is true, Lucian, passing by chance through Paphlagonia, had
an opportunity of performing this good office. But, though much
to be wished, it does not always happen, that every Alexander
meets with a Lucian, ready to expose and detect his im
postures (5).
I may add as a fourth reason which diminishes the authority
of prodigies, that there is no testimony for any, even those
•which have not been expressly detected, that is not opposed
by an infinite number of witnesses ; so that not only the miracle
destroys the credit of the testimony, but even the testimony
destroys itself. To make this the better understood, let us
consider, that in matters of religion, whatever is different is
contrary, and that it is impossible the religions of ancient Rome,
of Turkey, of Siam, and of China should, all of them, be
established on any solid foundation. Every miracle, there
fore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions
(and all of them abound in miracles), as its direct scope is
to establish the particular system to which it is attributed; so
has it the same force, though more indirectly, to overthow every
other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys
the credit of those miracles on which that system was
established ; so that all the prodigies of different religions are
to be regarded as contrary facts, and the evidences of these
prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other.
According to this method of reasoning, when we believe any
miracle of Mahomet or any of his successors, we have for our
�14
warrant the testimony of a few barbarous Arabians : And on
the other hand, we are to regard the authority of Titus Livius,
Plutarch, Tacitus, and, in short, of all the authors and witnesses,
Grecian, . Chinese, and Roman Catholic, who have related any
miracle in their. particular religion; I say, we are to regard
theii testimony in . the same light as if they had mentioned
that .Mahometan miracle, and had in express terms contradicted
it, with the same certainty as they have for the miracles they
relate. This argument may appear over subtle and refined,
but is not in reality different from the reasoning of a judge
who supposes that the credit of two witnesses maintaining a
crime against any one is destroyed by the testimony of two
others who affirm him to have been two hundred leagues dis
tant, at the same instant when the crime is said to have been
committed.
One of the best attested miracles in all profane history is
that .which Tacitus reports of Vespasian, who cured a blind
man in Alexandria by means of his spittle, and a lame man by
the mere touch of his foot; in obedience to a vision of the god
Serapis, who had enjoined them to have recourse to the
Emperor for these miraculous cures. The story may be
seen in that fine historian (6); where every circumstance
seems to add weight to the testimony, and might be dis
played at large with all the force of argument and eloquence
if anyone were now concerned to enforce the evidence of that
exploded and idolatrous superstition. The gravity, solidity,
age, and probity of so great an emperor, who, through the
whole course of his life conversed in a familiar manner with
his. friends and. courtiers, and never affected those extra
ordinary airs of divinity assumed by Alexander and Demetrius:
The historian, a cotemporary writer noted for candor and
veracity, and withal the greatest and most penetrating genius
perhaps of all antiquity; and so free from any superstition and
credulity that he even lies under the contrary imputation of
Atheism and pro.faneness : The persons, from whose testimony
he related.the miracle, of established character for judgment
and veracity, as we may well presume; eye-witnesses of the
fact, and confirming their verdict after the Flavian family
were despoiled of the empire, and could no longer give any
reward as the price of a lie. TJtrumque, qui interfuere, nunc
quoque memorant, postquam nullum mendacio pretium. To which,
if we add the public nature of the facts as related, it will ap
pear that no evidence can well be supposed stronger for so
gross and. so palpable a falsehood.
There is also a memorable story related by Cardinal de
Betz, which may well deserve our consideration. When
that intriguing politician fled into Spain to avoid the perse
cution of his enemies he passed through Saragossa, the capital
�15
of Arragon, where he was shown
^n^was well known
had served seven years as a doo_ - p ,
devotions
to everybody in
at that chnrch. He had bee
ri1bbin" of holy oil upon,
a leg; but recovered that limb by the rub
Jwo leUgiP’Thids mirade X vouched by all the canons3 of the
the relator was also cotemporary.to the&nius;
S7X°x^":"r<; i :«»:
r»e“ardS»
-to give any credit to it ^d conseq
CO]lsidered justly,
of anv concurrence m the holy traua.
f+li..Atl,re
“ ? Z accSly to ^■s^)rro^^^ree''^S^'^OQfr SavSy^and
its falsehood through all the °irc^s^an
k
Y
£
mediately present, by reason of the bigotry, 1g°^^0C™0^
ss-sssaaxgs
by any human testimony, was more propeily a subject o
^Tteh^XieXalabreater number of miracles ascribed
to o“^E those which were lately ;
to have been
wrought in France upon the tomb of Abbe Pans,
ta
Jansenist, with whose sanctity the people ^re s° 1on deluclecL
Whp pnri-no- of the sick, giving hearing to the deal ana si&m io
S bhnd wire everywhere talked of as the usual effects of
Iw hSv sepulchre. But what is more extraordinary; many
oflh^miraclto were immediately proved upon the spot^before
iudo-es of unquestioned integrity, attested y
rnoqf
Stand distinction. in a learned Xid N^r is ftis alb
l^SX^ofSem w^pSisSd and disperse'd everywhere ;
nor were the Jesuits though a learned body supP°rted
in
oivil magistrate, and determined enemies to those opimonsi
whose favor the miracles were said to h^7^eei».g^ll we
.able distinctly to refute or detect them ( ).
�16
XIS>of^fiSp°A±Z?i1Ce5 agreeiag t0 the “r-
tb?utao?tnSie.U^ jusf; bTu?e some huma“ testimony has-
distance have been able to determine between them ? The
contrariety is equally strong between the miraclesTreated bv
or
th“e deUYered by MariaUa’ Me'
country, his family, Or himself, or in any other way§strikes in
with his natural inclinations and propensities
But what
greater temptation than to appear a missionary, a prophet an
d±Zad0^?m uaVeU? Wh0^uld not encounter man?
ter ?°%r ?fdh^U1pV inporde.r to attaiu so sublime a charac°
?y t^e help of vaW and a heated imagination ainf? the 5? made a ?onvert of himself and entered^seriously
into the delusion; who ever scruples to make use of pious
frauds m support of so holy and meritorious a cause ?
lhe smallest spark may here kindle into the greatest flame
because the materials are always prepared for it. The avicbum
genus aurwularum(8), the gazing populace, receive greedily
motesUwondSmatl°n’ whatever soothes superstition, and prol
St?EeSi ?f this nature have in a11 ages been
detected and exploded in their infancy? How many more have
been celebrated for a time, and have afterwards sunk into
negiect and oblivion? Where such reports, therefore, fly
about, the solution of the phenomenon is obvious, and we iudge
m conformity to regular experience and observation when we
account for it by the known and natural principles of credulity
and delusion. And shall we, rather than have a resource to so.
natural a solution allow of a miraculous violation of the most
established laws of nature ?
i I need not mention the difficulty of detecting a falsehood in
any private or even public history, at the time and place where
it is said to happen, much more where the scene is removed to
ever so small a distance. Even a court of judicature, with all
�17
the authority, accuracy, and judgment, which they can employ,
find themselves often at a loss to distinguish between truth
and falsehood in most recent actions. But the matter never
comes to any issue if trusted to the common method of alter
cation and debate and flying rumors ; especially when men’s
passions have taken part on either side.
In the infancy of new religions the wise and learned com
monly esteem the mattei- too inconsiderable to deserve their
attention or regard. And when afterwards they would will
ingly detect the cheat in order to undeceive the deluded multi
tude, the season is now past, and the records and witnesses, which
might clear up the matter, have perished beyond recovery.
No means of detection remain but those which must be
drawn from the very testimony itself of the reporters : And
these, though always sufficient with the judicious and know
ing, are commonly too fine to fall under the comprehension of
the vulgar.
_ Upon the whole, then, it appears that no testimony for any
kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability much less
*
to a proof; and that, even supposing it amounted to a proof,
it would be opposed by another proof; derived from the very
nature of the fact which it would endeavor to establish. It is
experience only, which gives authority to human testimony;
and it is the same experience, which assures us of the laws
of nature. When, therefore, these two kinds of experience are
contrary, we have nothing to do but subtract the one from
the other, and embrace an opinion either on one side or the
other with that assurance which arises from the remainder.
But according to the principle here explained, this subtraction
with regard to all popular religions, amounts to an entire
annihilation; and therefore we may establish it as a maxim that
no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle
and make it a just foundation for any such system of
religion (9).
I am the better pleased with this method of reasoning, as X
think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends or
disguised enemies to the Ghistian religion, who have under
taken to defend it by the principles of human reason. Our
most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason, and it
is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial, as it is
by no means fitted to endure. To make this more evident, let us
examine those miracles related in scripture, and not to lose our
selves in too wide a field, let us confine ourselves to such as we
find in the Pentateuch, which we shall examine according to
the principles of these pretended Christians, not as the word
or testimony of God himself, but as the production of a mere
* The first two editions read; “ Can ever possibly amount.'
�18
human writer and historian. Here, then, we are first to con
sider a book presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant
people, written in an age when they were still more barbarous
•and in all probability long after the facts which it relates,
corroborated by no concurring testimony, and resembling those
fabulous accounts which every nation gives of its origin.
Upon reading this book, we find it full of prodigies and
miracles. It gives an account of a state of the world and
of human nature entirely different from the present: Of our
fall from that state : Of the age of man extended to near a
thousand years : Of the destruction of the world by a deluge :
•Of the arbitrary choice of one people as the favorites of heaven
and that people the countrymen of the author: Of their deliver
ance from bondage by prodigies the most astonishing imagin
able : I desire anyone to lay his hand upon his heart and after
serious consideration declare whether he thinks that the false
hood of such a book, supported by such a testimony, would be
more extraordinary and miraculous than all the miracles it
relates ; which is, however, necessary to make it be received
according to the measures of probability above established.
What we have said of miracles may be applied without any
variation to prophecies; and indeed all prophecies are real
miracles, and as such only, can be admitted as proofs of any
revelation. If it did not exceed the capacity of human nature
to foretel future events, it would be absurd to employ any
prophecy as an argument for a divine mission or authority
from heaven; so that, upon the whole, we may conclude that
the Christian religion not only was at first attended with
miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any
reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to
•convince us of its veracity: And whoever is moved by Faith to
assent to it is conscious of a continued miracle in his own
person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding,
and gives him a determination to believe what is most con
trary to custom and experience.
NOTES.
(1) Plutarch, in vita Catonis Min. 19.
*(2) No Indian, it is evident, could have experience that water
did not freeze in cold climates. This, is placing. nature in a
situation quite unknown to him, and it is impossible for him
to tell a priori what will result from it. It is making a new
experiment, the consequence of which is always uncertain.
One may sometimes conjecture from analogy what will follow;
but still this is but conjecture. And it must be confessed, that
in the present case of freezing, the event follows contrary to
�19
Ihe rules of analogy, and is such, as a rational Indian would
not look for. The operations of cold upon water are not
Gradual according to the degrees of cold, but. whenever it
comes to the freezing point the water passes m a moment
from the utmost liquidity to perfect hardness. Such an event
therefore may be denominated extraordinary, and requires a
pretty strong testimony to render it credible to people in a
warm climate ; but still it is not miraudous., nor contrary to
uniform experience of the course of nature in cases where all
the circumstances are the same. The inhabitants of Sumatra
have always seen water fluid in their own climate,.and the
freezing of their rivers ought to be deemed a prodigy: but
they never saw water in Muscovy during the winter; and
therefore they cannot reasonably be positive what would there
be the consequence.
(3) Sometimes an event may not, in itself, seem, to be con
trary to the laws of nature, and yet, if it were real, it might, by
reason of some circumstances, be denominated a miracle, be
cause, in fact, it is contrary to these laws. Thus, if a person,
claiming a divine authority, should command a sick person to
be well, a healthful man to fall down dead, the clouds to pour
rain, the winds to blow—in short, should order many natural
events which immediately, follow upon his commandthese
might justly be esteemed miracles, because they arereally, in this
case, contrary to the laws of nature. For if any suspicion remain
that the event and command concurred by accident there is no
miracle and no transgression of the laws of nature. If this
suspicion be removed, there is evidently a miracle, and a trans
gression of these laws; because nothing can be more contrary
to nature than that the voice or command of a man should have
such an influence. A miracle may be accurately, defined, a
transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the
Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent. A miracle
may either be discoverable by men or not. This alters not its
nature and essence. The raising of a house or ship into the
air is a visible miracle. The raising of a feather, when the
wind wants ever so little of a force requisite.for that purpose,
is as real a miracle, though not so sensible with regard to us.
(4) The many instances of forged miracles, and prophecies,
and supernatural events, which, in all ages, have either been
detected by contrary evidence, or which detect themselves by
their absurdity, mark sufficiently the strong propensity of
man kind to the extraordinary and the marvellous., and ought
reasonably to beget a suspicion against all relations of this
kind. This is our natural way of thinking, even with regard
to the most common and most credible events. i^For instance,
there is no kind of report which rises so easily and spreads so
quickly, especially in country places and provincial towns, as
�20
those concerning marriages; insomuch that two young persons’
n^Sr1!,00^1011 “?ver see each Other twice, but thePwTole
“fh’kborhood immediately join them together. The pleasure
so interesting, the^ntefiSenceAnd
of r.6 • 1Ug k Plece reporters of it, spread of propagating it and
being the first
hSeXS1 ¿ST
“,r “of rnse
evidenc? Bn „S
confirmed by some greater
inel^n fi. D noV?6 Sfme Pa?sions, and others still stronger
ino- tv'+p e generality of mankind to the believing and reportm&ade^V116 Sre&teSt vebemence and assurance all religious
(5)It may here perhaps be objected that I proceed rashlv
Mvenrf mJ motions of
-erely froâ the aecS
given ot Mm by Lucian, a professed enemy. It were indeed,
foil 6 Wisbed tbat some of the. accounts published by his
contSSbSiaCCO^P neS had remained- The oppositio? and
as^X hvZf? J6 Character aHd conduct of the same man
Hfe m^ohbwnrï - ?b°r aU
as strong’ even in common
two ZÎin T * mSe ^l1^0118 matters, as that betwixt any
two men m the world—betwixt Alexander and St. Paul for
instance. See a letter to Gilbert West, Esq., on the conver
sion and apostlesMp of St. Paul.
4
oonver
aoSuSÏ’X VespP
Suetoaius
“““IF the seme
ri„^j^^SA%°^:jra8yr^ei1 by Mons. deMontgeron, counsellor
or judge of the Parliament of Paris, a man of figure and cha
racter, who was also a martyr to the cause, and is now said to
be somewhere m a dungeon on account of his book.
/here is another book, in three volumes (called “Recueil des
Miracles de 1 Abbe Pans ”), giving an account of many of these
miracles and accompanied with prefatory discourses, which
XiVerp ^Iel1 Wri-jt.en-1 Tbere runs’ however, through the
whole of these a ridiculous comparison between the miracles
SaV-f an<l th?S%0f tbe Abbé’ therein it is asserted
that the evidence for the latter is equal to that for the former •
Übu
etesfr-onyof men could ever be put in the balance
with that of God himself, who conducted the pen of the
inspired writers. If these writers, indeed, were to be con
sidered merely as human testimony, the French author is very
moderate m his comparison, since he might, with some appear
ance of reason, pretend that the Jansenist miracles much
surpass the others in evidence and authority. The following
circumstances are drawn from authentic papers inserted in the
above-mentioned book.
Many of the miracles of Abbé Paris were proved immediately
by witnesses before the officiality or bishop’s court at Paris»
under the eyes of Cardinal Noailles, whose character for in
tegrity and capacity was never contested even by his enemies»
�21
His successor in the archbishopric was an enemy to the
Jansenists, and for that reason promoted to the see by the
•Court. Yet twenty-two rectors or cures of Paris, with infinite
earnestness, press him to examine those miracles, which they
assert to be known to the whole world, and indisputably certain:
But he wisely forbore.
The Molinist party had tried to discredit these miracles in
-one instance, that of Madamoiselle le Franc. But besides that,
their proceedings in many respects are the most irregular in the
world, particularly in citing only a few of the Jansenist’s wit
nesses, whom they tampered with: Besides this, I say they
•soon found themselves overwhelmed by a cloud of new witnesses
one hundred and twenty in number, most of them persons of
•credit and substance in Paris, who gave oath for the miracle.
This was accompanied with a solemn and earnest appeal to the
Parliament. But the Parliament were forbidden by authority to
meddle in the affair. It was at last observed that where men
are heated by zeal and enthusiasm there is no degree of human
testimony so strong as may not be procured for the greatest
absurdity : And those who will be so silly as to examine the
affair by that medium, and seek particular flaws in the testi
mony, are almost sure to be confounded. It must be a miser
able imposture indeed that does not prevail in that contest.
All who have been in France about that time have heard of
the great reputation of Mons. Heraut, the Lieutenant de Police,
whose vigilance, penetration, activity and extensive intelligence
Fave been much talked of. This magistrate, who by the nature
of his office is almost absolute, was invested with full powers
on purpose to suppress or discredit these miracles; and he
frequently seized immediately and examined the witnesses
.and subjects of them; but never could reach anything satis
factory against them.
In the case of Madamoiselle Thibaut he sent the famous
■de Sylvia to examine her, whose evidence is very curious. The
physician declares that it was impossible she could have been
so ill as was proved by witnesses, because it was impossible
she could in so short a time have recovered so perfectly as he
found her. He reasoned like a man of sense from natural
•causes ; but the opposite party told him that the whole was a
miracle, and that his evidence was the very best proof of it.
The Molinists were in a sad dilemma. They dared not
assert the absolute insufficiency of human evidence to prove a
miracle. They were obliged to say that these miracles were
wrought by witchcraft and the devil. But they were told that
this was the resource of the Jews of old.
No Jansenist was ever embarrassed to account for the
cessation of the miracles, when the churchyard was shut up
by the king’s edict. It was the touch of the tomb which
�22
produced these extraordinary effects ; and when no one could
approach the tomb, no effects could be expected. God indeed
could have thrown down the walls in a moment; but he is
master of his own graces and works, and it belongs not to us
to account for them. He did not throw down the walls of
every city like those of Jericho on the sounding of the rams’’
horns, nor break up the prison of every apostle like that of
St. Paul.
No less a man than the Due de Chatillon, a duke and peer
of France of the highest rank and family, gives evidence of a
miraculous cure performed upon a servant of his, who had
lived several years in his house with a visible and palpable
infirmity.
I shall conclude with observing that no clergy are more
celebrated for strictness of life and manners than the secular
clergy of France, particularly the rectors or cures of Paris
who bear testimony to these impostures.
The learning, genius, and probity of the gentlemen, and the
austerity of the nuns of Port Royal, have been much celebrated
all over Europe. Yet they all give evidence for a miracle
wrought on the niece of the famous Pascal, whose sanctity of
life, as well as extraordinary capacity, is well known. The
famous Racine gives an account of this miracle in his famous
history of Port-Royal, and fortifies it with all the proofs which
a multitude of nuns, priests, physicians and men of the world,
all of them of undoubted credit, could bestow upon it. Several
men of letters, particularly the Bishop of Tournay, thought
this miracle so certain, as to employ it in the refutation of
Atheists and Freethinkers. The Queen-Regent of France,
who was extremely prejudiced against the Port-Royal, sent
hei’ own physician to examine the miracle, who returned an
absolute convert.. In short, the supernatural cure was so uncontestable that it saved for a time that famous monastery
from the ruin with which it was threatened by the Jesuits.
Had it been a cheat, it had certainly been detected by such
sagacious and powerful antagonists and must have hastened
the ruin of the contrivers. Our divines who can build up a
formidable castle from suoh despicable materials, what a pro
digious fabric could they have reared from these and many
other circumstances which I have not mentioned!—How oft
would the great names of Pascal, Racine, Arnaud, Nicole, have
resounded in our ears ? But if they be wise, they had better
adopt the miracle as being more worth a thousand times than
all the rest of their collection. Besides, it may serve very
much to their purpose. For that miracle was really per
formed by the touch of an authentic holy prickle of the holy
thorn, which composed the holy crown, which, etc.
(8) Lucret, iv., 594.
�('9'1 I beg the limitations here made may be remarked when
I say that a miracle can never be proved so as to be the founda
tion of a system of religion. For I own, that otherwise there
may possibly be miracles or violations of the usual course of
nature, of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testi
mony, though perhaps it will be impossible to find any such in
51 ¿he recordsP of history. Thus, suppose all authors m all
languages agree that from the 1st of January 1600, there was
a total darkness over the whole earth for eight days: SuPPos®
that the tradition of this extraordinary event is still strong and
lively among the people, that all travellers who return from
foreign countries bring us accounts , of the same tradition
without the least variation or contradiction: It¡is evident that
our present philosophers, instead of doubting that fact,
to receive it for certain, and ought to search for the causes
whence it might be derived. The decay, corruption, and dis
solution of nature, is an event rendered probable by so many
analogies, that any phsenomenon which seems to have a
tendency towards that catastrophe, comes within the reach
of human testimony, if that testimony be very extensive and
U1 But^uppose that all the historians who treat of England
should agree, that, on the 1st of January 1600, Queen Eliza
beth died; that both before and after her death she was seen
by her physicians and the whole court, as is usual with person»
of her rank; that her successor was acknowledged and pro
claimed by the Parliament; and that, after being interred a
month, she again appeared, took possession of the throne, and
governed England for three years : I must confess I should be
surprised at the concurrence of so many odd circumstances,
but should not have the least inclination to believe somiraculous an event. I should not doubt of her pretended
death and of those other public circumstances that followed
it: I should only assert it to have been pretended, and that.it
neither was nor possibly could be real. You would m vam
obiect to me the difficulty and almost impossibility of deceiving
the world in an affair of such consequence ; the wisdom and
integrity of that renowned queen; with the little or no advantage which, she could reap from so poor an artifice: All
this might astonish me; hut I would still reply that the
knavery and folly of men are such common phenomena that
I should rather believe the most extraordinary events to arise
from their concurrence than admit so signal a violation ot the
laws of nature.
,
~
But should this miracle be ascribed to any new system of
religion men in all ages have been so much imposed on by
ridiculous stories of that kind, that this, very .circumstance
would be a full proof of a cheat, and sufficient with all men of
�24
sense not only to make them reject the fact, but reject
it without farther examination. Though the being to whom
the miracle is ascribed be in this case Almighty, it does not
upon that account, become a whit more probable ; since it is
impossible for us to know the attributes or actions of such a
Benig, otherwise than from the experience which we have of
ms productions m the usual course of nature. This still
reduces us to past observation, and obliges us to compare the
instance of the violations of truth in the testimony of men
with those of the violation of the laws of nature by miracles
m order to judge which of them is most likely and probable’
As the violations of truth are more common in the testimony
concerning religious miracles than in that concerning any
other matter of fact; this must diminish very much the
authority of the former testimony, and make us form a
general resolution never to lend any attention to it, with
whatever specious pretext it may be covered.
‘■’•Lord Bacon seems to have embraced the same principles
of reasoning:—“ We ought,” says he, “to make a collection
or particular history of all monsters and prodigious births or
productions, and in a word of everything new, rare, and extra
ordinary m nature. But this must be done with the most
severe scrutiny, lest we depart from truth. Above all every
relation must be considered as suspicious which depends in
any degree upon religion, as the prodigies of Livy: And no less
so, everything that is to be found in the writers of natural
magic or alchemy, or such authors, who seem, all of them to
have an uncontrollable appetite for falsehood and fable.”
hacienda enim est congeries sive historia naturalis par
ticulars omnium monstrorum et partuum naturse prodio-i®sorum; omnis denique novitatis et raritatis et inconsueti
in natura. Hoc vero faciendum est cum severissimo delectu, ut constet fides. Maxime autem habenda sunt pro
suspectis quae pendent quomodocunque ex religione, ut prodigia Livn: Nec minus quae inveniuntur in scriptoribus ma^iae
naturals, aut etiam alchymiae, et hujusmodi hominibns; qui
tanquam proci sunt et amatores fabularum.”—“Nov Organ ”
lib. 2., Aph. 29.
° ”
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.CL
�A new edition, the best ever issued, printed in large type, on good
paper, Is.; cloth gilt, Is. 6d.
THE AGE OF REASON.
Complete, with Preface by C. Bradlaugh.
In Two Volumes, neatly bound in cloth, 8s.; or in Forty-Six Numbers,
2d. each.
THE
DEVIL’S
PULPIT:
BEING
Astronomico-Theological Discourses.
By the Rev. ROBERT TAYLOR, B.A., of St. John’s
College, Cambridge,
Author of the “ Diegesis,” “ Syntagma,” &c.
(Reprinted verbatim from Richard Carlile's original edition.)
Paper Covers, Is.; Cloth Gilt. Is. Gd.
The True Source of Christianity;
0r5 A Voice from the Ganges.
By
AN
INDIAN
OFFICER.
“ This is a reprint of a very scarce work. The author gives a
thorough analysis of the Gospels, and shows how they differ
from each other and from authentic history ; traces the obliga
tions of Christianity to Pagan and Rabbinical teaching, and the
close resemblance of many of its doctrines to the tenets of the
Essenes : examines the prophetical claims of the Evangelists on
behalf of Christ ; and freely criticises, although in no ungenerous
spirit, the moral and religious ideas of Christ himself. He does
all this with considerable aid from authoritative scholars, and his
numerous quotations will be especially valuable to the amateur
champions of Freethought in their contests with the representa
tives of Christianity. We cordially recommend this little volume
of 138 pages which is one of the cheapest shilling’s-worth we
have yet seen.”—Freethinker.
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St.,E.C.
�THE FREETHINKER.
Edited
PUBLISHED
by
G. W. FOOTE.
EVERY
THURSDAY.
Price One Penny.
THE FREETHINKER is first of all aggressive. It wages relent
THE
THE
THE
THE
THE
less war against Superstition in general, and against Christian
Superstition in particular. No personal attacks, however,
will. he made, except when the practical rights of Freet&iukers are assailed, in which case retaliation is only a form
of Self-defence; or when persons and principles are s0 closely
identified that both must be struck together.
FREETHINKER assists the propaganda of heresy by fur
nishing hints to those engaged in it as to the policy they
.. should pursue. Special attention is given during the summer
months to out-door advocacy.
FREETHINKER is not full of long, lumpy articles. It is
something between English and American journalism, and,
without being trivial, as smart as the editor can make it.
Under the head of “ Acid Drops ” the reader will find some
racy paragraphs on orthodox ideas and practices ; jvhile under
the head of “ Sugar Plums ” will be found succinct records of
the progress of Freethought in all parts of the world whence
such information can be obtained. American and European
papers are laid under contribution.
FREETHINKER, in order to stimulate the courage and
activity of all workers in the good cause, from time to time
gives biographical sketches of those heroes and martyrs of
progress who in past days made greater sacrifices for freedom
than are now either necessary or possible.
FREETHINKER keeps a sharp eye on professional Chris
tians (priests, parsons, preachers or lecturers), and does its
utmost to catch them tripping in their advocacy or public
conduct, and to expose them before the world.
FREETHINKER also does its best to employ the resources
of Science, Scholarship, Philosophy, and Ethics against the
claims of the Bible as a Divine Revelation; and it does not
scruple to employ for the same purpose any weapons of ridi
cule or sarcasm that may be borrowed from the armory of
Common Sense.
A copy sent weekly for one year, post free, for (i.s\ Qcl.; six months, ?js.?>d.
Freethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
An essay on miracles
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hume, David [1711-1776]
Wheeler, Joseph Mazzini [1850-1898]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Publisher's advertisements inside front cover and inside and on back cover. "With an introduction commenting upon the views of Campbell, Paley, Mill, Powell, Grey, Mozley, Tyndall, Huxley, etc. by Joseph Mazzini Wheeler". [Front cover]. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N315
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (An essay on miracles), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Miracles
Superstition
Miracles
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3bd413bc9b9136c9350c942f884bb14b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=DFwfTh7KhDtGQVS9xtQD%7EYD50nCLl6Wp8Qwuf8gnvAv-nXL%7EK8oSXa6QRfiVNxtICKUAzGfpnaroXX7erhKGCnHihcOopPVH0TPQeupnipwJL-DFoG0Cq8I%7E-MeDHylxqvKAxSddKSbukPmxbzjpn0CZyjVmRWILkTS6owlVLVIhrjgpzi3gLuUqEovz7BisUi4geX9SVMMJK9eZiQRjTI%7EH7WBWqpD64Hyz9jQi0JIXPIRFxEMhuc9MTvuNItUIYwF%7EyV891NJFl8Pw-nlTAEtcsEDDzEiaVuVanghGvKKOKT%7E6WW9WSQutdQMe5FmZkHKLpLO0OdsqQLk%7EeuOx8w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8a58bb5f61a55e45602cfb8ee694b46c
PDF Text
Text
������������������������������������������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Les miracles de Notre-Dame de Lourdes: Defi Public a la libre pensee Guerison de Juliette Fournier
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Artus, E.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Paris
Collation: 58 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. First page, in front of title page proper, entitled 'Defi Public'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Victor Palme
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1872
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G3523
Subject
The topic of the resource
Miracles
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Les miracles de Notre-Dame de Lourdes: Defi Public a la libre pensee Guerison de Juliette Fournier), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
French
Conway Tracts
Miracles
Notre-Dame de Lourdes
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a3ae4ff0e5d35c4d022abcc15ebc0653.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=jYFAG33gUwd4HyBlc35bdBcnkSs8TU2ryIuoH3IuvTG1UGL08jbnJFue23FCeS6U0OK3RyUdbXqie65NQTz6jSHfPQ4vtui0p5Kcfk5QDzpQ6605NQ1FWJL0c7W9hQx8pAotwvHQs7EVV3aZHdHNXUknZroiCY7ljq48gKSS86yaPq8gcEmLIsEZL-TpB8dfD566TBFAcLXCiLIqVf%7Eu978k659KGEvghXxslUVrWL1Hqjy%7E7m8D%7EQgNGb4Kkp38qsNQpMsemmTEuokF55ov2svVEbMxw6Jv4-IMEV8oypgvTGRPMiBXu66BAdlyO2R3-PQmsCqaV-sb9JUWM5CzdA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ac75ee40aac35dcedc6682aabfaf73a9
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
Myth
AND
MIRACLE
A Nev lecture
BY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1886.
�INTRODUCTION.
The following is reprinted from the
It is a report, evidently not in full, but probably
containing the best and freshest portions, of a lecture
delivered in the Boston Theatre on Sunday evening,
October 11, by Colonel R. G. Ingersoll, the great
American orator, whose Freethought discourses are
more popular in the United States than the addresses
of any Christian speaker, not even excepting Ward
Beecher.
The audience was very enthusiastic,
and crowded the theatre to the very doors.
�Myth and Miracle.
Ladies and Gentlemen :—What, after all, is the
object of life j what is the highest possible aim ? The
highest aim is to accomplish the only good. Happi
ness is the only good of which man by any possibility
can conceive. The object of life is to increase human
joy, and the means, intellectual and physical develop
ment. The question, then, is, Shall we rely upon
superstition or upon growth ? Is intellectual develop
ment the highway of progress, or must we depend on
the pit of credulity ? Must we rely on belief or
credulity, or upon manly virtues, courageous investi
gation, thought, and intellectual development f For
thousands of years men have been talking about
religious freedom. I am now contending for the
freedom of religion, not religious freedom—for the
freedom which is the only real religion. Only a few
years ago our poor ancestors tried to account foi
what they saw. Noticing the running river, the
shining star, or the painted flower, they put a spirit
in the river, a spirit in the star, and another in the
flower. Something makes this river run, something
makes this star shine, something paints the bosom of
�4
that flower. These were all spirits. That was the
first religion of mankind—fetishism—and in every
thing that lived, everything that produced an effect
upon them, they said, “This is a spirit that lives
within.'” That is called the lowest phase of religious
thought, and yet it is quite the highest phase of religi
ous thought. One by one these little spirits died.
One by one non-entities took their places, and
last of all
WE HAVE ONE INFINITE FETISIl
that takes the place of all others. Now, what makes
the river run ? We say the attraction of gravitation,
and we know no more about that than we do about
this fetish. What makes the tree grow ? The
principle of life—vital forces. These are simply
phrases; simply names of ignorance. Nobody knows
what makes the river run, what makes the trees
grow, why the flowers burst and bloom—nobody
knows why the stars shine, and probably nobody
ever 'will know.
There are two horizons that have never been passed
by man—origin and destiny. All human knowledge
is confined to the diameter of that circle. All
religions rest on supposed facts beyond the circum
ference of the absolutely known. (Applause.) What
next ? The next thing that came in the world—the
next man—was the myth-maker. He gave to these
little spirits human passions; he clothed ghosts in
flesh; he warmed that flesh with blood ; and in that
blood he put desire—motive. And the myths were
born, and were only produced through the fact of
the impressions that Nature makes upon the brain of
�5
man. They were every one a natural production,
and let me say here to-night that what men call
monstrosities are only natural productions. Every
religion has grown just as naturally as the grass;
every one, as I said before, and it cannot be said too
often, has been naturally produced. All the Christs,
all the gods and goddesses, all the furies and fairies,
all the mingling of the beastly and human, were
produced by the impressions of Nature upon the
brain of man—by the rise of the sun, the silver dawn,
the golden sunset, the birth and death of day, the
change of seasons, the lightning, the storm, the
beautiful bow—all these produced within the brain of
man all myths, and they are all natural productions.
(Applause.)
There have been certain myths universal among
men. Gardens of Eden have been absolutely universal
—the Golden Age, which is absolutely the same thing.
And what was the Golden Age born of ? Any old
man in Boston will tell you that fifty years ago all
people were honest. (Applause). Fifty years ago
all people were sociable—there was no stuck-up aris
tocracy then. Neighbors were neighbors. Mer
chants gave full weight. Everything was full length;
everything was a yard wide and all wool. (Applause).
Now everybody swindles everybody else, and calls it
business. (Applause). Go back fifty years, andfyoh.
will find an old man who will tell you that there
was
A TIME WHEN ALL WERE HONEST.
Go back another fifty years, and you will find
another sage who will tell you the same story;
�6
Every man looks back to his youth—to the golden
age ; and what is true of the individual is true of the
whole human race. It has its infancy, its manhood,
an d, finally, will have an old age. The Garden of
Eden is not back of us. There are more honest men,
good women, and obedient children in the world to-day
than ever before. The myth of the Elysian fields is uni
versally born of sunsets. When the golden clouds
in the West turned to amethyst, sapphire andpurple?
the poor savage thought it a vision of another land
—a land without care or grief; a world of perpetual
joy. This myth was born of the setting of the
sun.
A universal myth all nations have believed in
floods.
Savages found everywhere evidences of
the sea having been above the earth, and saw
in the shells souvenirs of the ocean's visit. It
had left its’ cards on the tops of mountains. The
savage knew nothing of the slow rising and sinking of
the crust of the earth. He did not dream of it. We
now know that where the mountains lift their granite
foreheads to the sun, the billows once held sway, and
that where the waves dash into white caps of joy the
mountains will stand once more. Everywhere the
land is, the ocean will be; and where the ocean is, the
land will be. The Hindoos believe in the Flood mythTheir hero, who lived almost entirely on water, went
to the Ganges to perform his ablutions, and, taking
up a little water in his hand, he saw a small fish, that
prayed him to save it from the monster of the river,
and it would save him in turn from his enemies. He
did so, and put it into different receptacles until it
�7
grew so large that he let it loose in the sea ; then it
was large enough to take care of itself. The fish told
him that there was going to be an immense flood, and
told him to gather all kinds of seed and take two of
each kind of animal of use to man, and he would come
along with an ark and take them all in. He told him
to pick out seven saints. And the fish towed the ark
along tied to its horns, and took them in and carried
them to the top of a mountain, where he hitched the
ark to a tree. (Applause.) When the waters receded,
they came out and followed them down until they
reached the plain. There were the same number—
eight—in this ark as there were with Noah.
I find that the myth of the Virgin Mother is uni-'
versal.
THE VIRGIN MOTHER IS THE EARTH.
1 find also in all countries the idea of a Trinity.
In Egypt I find Isis, Osiris and Horus. This idea
prevailed in Central America among the Aztecs. We
find the myth of the Judgment almost universal. I
imagine men have seen so much injustice here that
they naturally expect that there must be some day of
final judgment somewhere.
(Applause). Nearly
every Theist is driven to the necessity of having
another world in which his God may correct thb mis
takes he has made in this. We find on the walls of
Egyptian temples pictures of the judgment—the
righteous all go on the right hand, and those un
worthy on the left.
The myth of the Sun-god was universal. Agni
was the sun-god of the Hindoos. He was called
�8
the most generous of all gods, yet he ate his
own father and mother. Baldur was another sun
god ; he was a sun-myth. Hercules was a sun
god, and so was Samson. Jonah, too, was a sun-g’od,
and was swallowed by a fish. • So was Hercules, and
a wonderful thing is, that they were swallowed in
about the same place, near Joppa. Where did the
big fish go ? When the sun went down under the
earth, it was thought to be followed by the fish,
which was said to swallow it, and carry it safely
through the under-world. The sun thus came to be
represented as the body of a woman with the tail of
a fish, and so the mermaid was born. (Applause).
Another strange thing is that all the sun-gods were
born near Christmas.
The myth of Red Riding Hood was known am ong
the Aztecs. The myth of the Eucharist came from
the story of Ceres and Bacchus. When the cakes
made by the' product of the field were eaten, it
was of the body of Ceres, and when the wine
was drunk, it was the blood of Bacchus. From this
idea the eucharist was born. There is nothing original
in Christianity.
Holy water! Another myth. The Hindoos
imagined that the water had its source in the
throne of God. The Egyptians thought the Nile
sacred, Greece was settled by Egyptian colonies, and
they carried with them the water of the Nile; and
when anyone died the water was sprinkled on him.
Finally Rome conquered Greece physically, but
Greece conquered Rome intellectually.
(Loud
Applause).
�9
This is the myth of holy water, and with it grew
up
THE IDEA OF BAPTISM.
and I presume that that is as old as water and dirt.
(Applause.)
The cross is another universal symbol. There
was once an ancient people in Italy before the
Romans, before the Etruscans. They faded from the
world, and history does not even know the name of
that nation. We find where they buried the ashes of
their dead, and we find chiselled, hundred of years
• before Christ, the cross, a symbol of hope of another
life. We find the cross in Egypt, in the cylinders
from Babylon, and, more than that, we find them in
Central America. On the temples of the Aztecs we
find the cross, and on it a bleeding, dying god. Our
cross was built in the Middle Ages.
When Adam was very sick he sent Seth, his son,
to the Garden of Eden. He told him he would have
no trouble in finding it; all he had to do was to
follow the tracks made by his mother and father when
they left it. (Applause.) He wanted a little balsam
from the tree of life that he might not die. Seth
found there a cherub with flaming sword, who would
not let him pass the door. He moved his wing so
that he could see in, and he saw the tree of life, with
its roots running down to hell, and among them Cain,
the murderer. The angel gave Seth three seeds, and
told him to put them in his father’s mouth when he
was buried, and to watch the effect. The result was
that three trees grew up—one pine, one cedar, and
�10
•one cypress. Solomon cut down one of these trees
to put in the temple, but it grew through the roof and
he threw it into the pool of Bethesda. When the
soldiers went for a beam on which to crucify Christ
they took this tree and made a cross of it. Helena,
the mother of Constantine, went to Jerusalem to
find this cross. She found the two crosses also
that the thieves were crucified on. They could
not tell which was which, so they called a sick
woman, who touched them, and when she touched
the right one she was immediately made whole.
Such is myth and fable. The history of one reli
gion is substantially the history of all religions. In
embryo man lives all lives. The man of genius knows
within himself the history of the human racej he
knows the history of all religions.
The man of
imagination, of genius, having seen a leaf and a
drop of water, can construct the forests, the rivers
and the seas. In his presence all the cataracts fall
and foam, the mists rise and the clouds form and
float. To really know one fact is to know its kindred
and its neighbors. Shakespeare, looking at a coat
of mail, instantly imagined the society, the conditions
that produced it, and what it, in its turn, produced.
He saw the castle, the moat, the drawbridge, the lady
in the tower, and the knightly lover spurring over the
plain. He saw the bold baron and the rude retainer,
the trampled serfs and all the glory and the grief of
feudal life.
The man of imagination has lived the life of all
people, of all races. He has been a citizen of Athens
in the days of Pericles; has listened to the eager elo
�11
quence of the great orator, and has sat upon the
cliff, and with the tragic poet heard “ the multitu
dinous laughter of the sea?" He has seen Socrates
thrust the spear of question through the shield and
heart of falsehood—was present when the great man
drank hemlock and met the night of death tranquil
as a star meets morning. He has followed the peri
patetic philosophers, and has been puzzled by the
sophists. He has watched Phidias, as he chiselled
shapeless stone to forms of love and awe. He has
lived by the slow Nile, amid the vast and monstrous.
He knows the very thought that wrought the form
and features of the Sphinx. He has heard great
Memnon’s morning song—has lain him down with
the embalmed dead, and felt within their dust the
expectation of another life, mingled with cold and
suffocating doubts—the children born of long delay.
He has walked the ways of mighty Rome, has seen
great Caesar with his legions in the field,
has stood with vast and motley throngs and
watched the triumphs given to victorious
men, followed by uncrowned kings, the cap
tured hosts and all the spoils of ruthless war.
He has heard the shout that shook the Coli
seum s roofless walls when from the reeling gladiator’s
hand the short sword fell, while from his bosom
gushed the stream of wasted life. Ho has lived the
life of savage men—has trod the forest’s silent depths,
and in the desperate game of life or death has matched
his thought against the instinct of the beast. He
has sat beneath the bo-tree’s contemplative shade,
rapt in Buddha’s mighty thought, and he has dreamed
�12
all dreams that Light, the alchemist, hath wrought
from dust and dew and stored within the slumbrous
poppjds subtle blood. He has knelt with awe and
dread at every prayer ; has felt the consolation and
the shuddering fear; has seen all the devils; has
mocked and worshipped all the gods; enjoyed all
heavens, and felt the pangs of every hell. He has
lived all lives, and through his blood and brain have
crept the shadow and the chill of every death, and
his soul, Mazeppa-like, has been lashed naked to the
wild horse of every fear and love and hate. The
imagination has a stage within the brain, whereon he
sets all scenes that lie between the morn of laughter
and the night of tears, and where his players body
forth the false and true, the joys and griefs, the care
less shallows and the tragic deeps of human life.
(Tremendous applause.)
Through with the myth-makers, we now come to
the wonder-worker. There is this between the miracle
and the myth—a myth is an idealism of a fact, and a
miracle is a counterfeit of a fact. There is some
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MYTH AND A MIRACLE.
There is the difference that there is between fiction
and falsehood, and poetry and perjury. (Applause).
Miracles are probable only in the far past or the very
remote future. The present is the property of the
natural. (Applause). You say to a man,“ The dead
were raised 4,000 years ago.” He says,(C Well, thatfs
reasonable.” You say to him, “ In 4,000,000 years
we shall all be raised.” He says, “ That is what I
believe.” Say to him, “ A man was raised from the
�13
dead this morning,^ and he will say, “ What are you
giving us ?” (Laughter). Miracles never convinced
at the time they were said to have been performed.
[The speaker here spoke of several instances related
in the Bible sustaining this statement.] He con
tinued : John the Baptist was the forerunner of
Christ. He was cast into prison.
When Christ
heard of it he “ departed from that country/'’ After
wards he returned, and heard that John had been be
headed, and he again departed from that country.
There is no possible relation between the miraculous
and the moral. The miracles of the Middle Ages
are the children of superstition. In the Middle Ages
men told every thing but the truth, and believed every
thing but the facts. The Middle Ages—a trinity of
ignorance, mendacity and insanity! There is one thing
about humanity. You see the faults of others but not
your own. A Catholic in India sees a Hindoo bowing
before an idol, and thinks it absurd. Why does he
not get him a plaster-of-paris Virgin, and some beads
and holy water? Why does the Protestant shut his eyes
when he prays ? The idea is a souvenir of sun-worship,
which is the most natural worship in the world.
Religious dogmas have become absurd, The doctrine
of eternal torment to-day has become absurd—(ap
plause)—low, grovelling, ignorant, barbaric, savage,
devilish—(great applause)—and no gentleman would
preach it. (Applause).
Referring to the demonstrations of science, he
said :
Science, thou art the great magician ! Thou alone
performest the true miracles. Thou alone workest
�14
the real wanders. Fire is thy servant, lightning thy
messenger. The waves obey thee, and thou knowest
the circuits of the wind. Thou art the great philan
thropist. Thou hast freed the slave and civilised the
master. Thou hast taught man to chain, not his
fellow-man, but the forces of Nature—forces that have
no backs to be scarred, no limbs for chains to chill
and eat—forces that never know fatigue, that shed
no tears—forces that have no liearts to break. Thou
gavest man the plough, the reaper, and the loom—
thou hast fed and clothed the world. Thou art the
great physician. Thy touch hath given sight. Thou
hast made the lame to leap, the dumb to speak, and
in the pallid cheek thy hand hath set the rose of
health. “ Thou hast given thy beloved sleep ”—a
sleep that wraps in happy dreams the throbbing
nerves of pain. Thou art the perpetual providence
of man—preserver of life and love. Thou art the
teacher of every virtue, the enemy of every vice.
Thou hast discovered the true basis of morals—the
origin and office of conscience—and hast revealed
the nature and measure of obligation. Thou hast
taught that love is justice in its highest form,
and that even self-love, guided by wisdom, em
braces with loving arms the human race. Thou
hast
SLAIN THE MONSTERS OF THE PAST-
Thou hast discovered the one inspired book. Thou
hast read the records of the rocks, written by wind
and wave, by frost and flame—records that even
priestcraft cannot change—and in thy wondrous scales
thou hast weighed the atoms and the stars. Thou
�15
art the founder of the only true religion. Thou art the
very Christ, the only Savior of mankind! (Applause.)
Continuing, he said :—Theology has always been
in the way of the advance of the human race. There
is this difference between science and theology,__
science is modest and merciful, while theology is ar
rogant and cruel. The hope of science is the perfec
tion of the human race. The hope of theology is the
salvation of a few and the damnation of almost every
body. As I told you in the first place, I believe
in the religion of freedom. 0 Liberty, thou
art the god of my idolatry. Thou art the only
deity that hates the bended knee. (Applause.) In
thy vast and unwalled temple, beneath the roofless
dome, star-gemmed and luminous with suns, thy
worshippers stand erect. They do not bow or cringeor crawl or bend their foreheads to the earth. The
dust hath never borne the impress of their lips. Upon
thy sacred altars mothers do not sacrifice their babes,
nor men their rights. Thou takest naught from man
except the things that good men hate -/the whip, thechain, the dungeon-key. Thou hast no kings, no
popes, no priests to stand between their fellow-men
and thee. Thou hast no monks, no nuns, who, in thename of duty, murder joy. Thou carest not for forms
nor mumbled prayers. At thy sacred shrine hypocrisy
does not bow, fear does not crouch, virtue does not
tremble, superstition'’s feeble tapers do not burn, but
Reason holds aloft her inextinguishable torch, while
on the ever-broadening- brow of science falls the
ever-coming morning of the ever-better day. (G-reai
Applause.)
�INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS
By G. W. FOOTE.
Being a faithful history of the deaths of the most eminent
Freethinkers of all ages, and a triumphant answer to the
lies and misrepresentations of Christian apologists. No pains
have been spared to give the most precise particulars from
original sources, and this work will be a standard one on the
subject. Every Freethinker should have a copy, and keep it
constantly by him.
List of Freethinkers dealt with—
i Frederick the Great Mirabeau
Lord Amberley
Lord Bolingbroke i Gambetta
Robert Owen
Isaac Gendre
i Thomas Paine
Giordano Bruno
Henry Thos. Buckle Gibbon
Shelley
Lord Byron
Goethe
Spinoza
Richard Carlile
Henry Hetherington j D. F. Strauss
John Toland
Professor Clifford
Hobbes
Van ini
' Austin Holyoake
Anthony Collins
Volney
I Victor Hugo
Condorcet
Voltaire
, Hume
Robert Cooper
James Watson
Danton
Littre
Harriet Martineau John Watts
Diderot
, Thomas Woolston
, J. S. Mill
George Eliot
“ Special thanks are clue to Mr. G. W. Foote for his new pamphlet.
The sketches of the various Freethinkers are very readable, and a
double end will be achieved in refuting pious slanderers and reviving
the memories of our dead.’-—National Reformer.
“Mr. Foote's little manual cannot fail to be of great service in re
futing the ancient and silly death-bed argument. . . . We should be
gratified to hear that the little book meets with an extensive sale.”—
Secular Review.
“Mr. Foote is in his element in Infidel Death-Beds, and his care
fully-stated facts about the last hours of well-known unbelievers
ought to be in the hands of every Freethinker.”—- Our Corner.
Price Sixpence.
Superior Edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth. One Shilling.
Letters B G. Jesus Christ.
to W. FOOTE.
y
SOMETHING
STARTLING
Price
AND UNIQUE.
Fourpence.
Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Myth and miracle : a new lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Reprinted from the Boston Investigator. Publisher's advertisements on back cover. No. 53a in Stein checklist.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N376
Subject
The topic of the resource
Mythology
Miracles
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Myth and miracle : a new lecture), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Freedom of Religion
Miracles
Mythology
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0ef00a56358c371dd0147b1baf9b4af9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=U6JPNnNrISutUexXDobGpJ4h5xo9s-tA1YoHkNgLapZBFGMf4f%7EZMlk-w2AUuclrGjR8PS2BgTmwPsTSqocffITWq7FWJv5nkwKPCRARK09jxV8p0JFZ9DxoIurBYBVN9pLRWwEAc6-i1hCuPmYk4AjE8maCPD1cCjfN1--hZ0xitEh0qd5yOeG65d3roZZCC0-w4jwPDsUlDMClFTjhTUSXQc6csyf4leB8nxyL%7EOb02S6JfMfM4OcMdLe0GX5cLb2KyEEwgjodjeAsYlRGlEWz-rlKOD07fU-rF9yjKUv0QiH29ZpzUBnevya%7EGSpJUNTVC4XZJ1VGTv1qA4fEpg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
69ae636699fbbf3ac96d9834abc60846
PDF Text
Text
MIRACLE
By C. KEGAN PAUL
It is needful that a layman who enters on a subject
which might well demand the pen of a professed theo
logian, should give his reasons for the following pages.
Shortly after I joined the Catholic Church, it so
chanced that an essay written by me when I was only
feeling my way towards the light, fell into the hands of
one who, still a sceptic, was longing to believe. He
sent a message to the following effect: “ Tell him that
if there be a revelation of the Truth at all, I am con
vinced that it is to be found in the Catholic Church ; I
shall read with interest whatever more he may write on
the subject, but I trust he will never attempt to mini
mize the miraculous.”
To do this was indeed the last thing that would
occur to me ; the evidence for recent miracles was
among the causes which had brought me into the
Church, and the existing supernatural order had helped
me not a little to accept the record of it through history
and as revealed in the Canon of Holy Scripture. Scarce
any sentence in Cardinal Newman’s writings had ever
struck me more than this : “The Catholic Church is
hung with miracles,” and it had enabled me to grasp
�1
Miracle
the truth that exceptions to what we call law are
potentially present in all law, that miracle is among
the evidences that we are not guided and governed by
a system of levers, screws, and wheels linked together
by an iron and unchanging necessity, but by the hand
of a Father ; a hand firm yet pliant, strong yet elastic,
behind which is will, swaying circumstances, yet allow
ing itself to move at times in accordance with them ;
no mere force set in motion once for all, careless of
what may stand in the way.
But though there was no temptation to deny miracle,
the message seemed to call foi- a statement of its claims.
There was in the mind of the speaker a feeling, whether
or not founded in fact, that miracle is ignored, slurred
over, and kept in the background ; that its existence is
to be apologized for, rather than paraded; is a difficulty
in the way of, not a testimony to, the Christian faith.
The kind of argument which I might endeavour to
place before my kindly adviser, should the occasion
offer, gradually took shape, and while I may not doubt
that my matter must be a mere commonplace to the
clergy, that which has occurred to one lay mind may
help other such under like circumstances. It may
enable them to see that the Catholic Church, mirror on
earth of God’s external government, is indeed a realm
of order and law, but manifesting constantly the
presence of a living Ruler, guiding it through the ages;
no mere jostle of atoms which, that they may move at
all, have gradually accommodated themselves to one
fixed, unalterable course.
Before entering on the subject it is necessary to
define our terms. It is undoubtedly true that the Latin
word nnraculuwi does not necessarily imply supernatural
�Miracle
3
agency, but our whole argument is based on the exist
ence of that agency. It is enough for us that miraciilum
may imply the supernatural, and we use the word only
in that sense. So far as we can approach a definition
by the use of synonymous terms, we seek information
from Holy Scripture, and find that the events, which in
common speech are called miracles, are therein named
wonders or prodigies, signs, powers, and works.
Catholic writers, as well as the late Dr. Trench—
whose work on our Lord’s miracles is worthy of atten
tion and respect, though it is occasionally disfigured
by Protestant prejudice and not always theologically
accurate—are careful to note, following Origen, that the
word “wonders” is never applied to them but in conjunc
tion with some other name, as though to show us that
the mere wonder is not the chief feature in a miracle.
“ Not that the miracle, considered simply as a wonder,
as an astonishing event which the beholders can reduce
to no law with which they are acquainted, is even as
such without its meaning and its purpose ; that purpose
being forcibly to startle men from the dull dream of a
sense-bound existence, and however it may not be in
itself an appeal to the spiritual in man, yet to act as
a summons to him that he now open his eyes to
the spiritual appeal which is about to be addressed
to him.” 1
Not all signs are miracles, but all miracles are signs,
some to confirm those who deliver a message in God’s
name, some to reveal the more immediate presence or
power of God, some to strengthen or reward individual
faith or piety.
They are described also as powers ; that is, powers
of God, evidences, according to Catholic theologians,
1 Trench, On the Miracles, popular edit., p. 3.
�4
Miracle
that new powers have entered into our world, and are
working thus for the good of mankind ; and the word
“ works ” is used, “ as though the wonderful were only
the natural form of working for Him who is dwelt in by
all the fulness of God.”
Trench’s description of a miracle is interesting : “An
astonishing event which beholders can reduce to no law
with which they are acquainted ” ; but it is inadequate,
since his description would let in the wonders of hyp
notism, clairvoyance, palmistry, etc. ; some of them
referable to law partially understood, some apparently
diabolic miracles, of which Trench is of course not
speaking. The words, however, do not in any case
form a definition, nor can we call such any of the
modes in which they are spoken of in Holy Scripture.
Just as creeds were only needed as doubts grew, and
would have been superfluous when all men believed ; so
before men had grasped the idea of the general unifor
mity of nature, before they spoke of laws of nature—by
which they do not mean law at all, but only ascertained
order—there could be no definition of what is beyond
nature, in itself only another name for the ordinary and
orderly working of God.
“Laws of God,” says Trench, “exist only for us,”
and he quotes St. Augustine : “ The will of God is the
nature of each created thing.”
“That will,” Trench continues, “being the will of
highest wisdom and love, excludes all wilfulness ; it is
a will upon which we can securely count ; from the
past expressions of it we can presume its future, and so
we rightly call it a law. But still from moment to
moment it is a will ; each law, as we term it, of nature
is only that which we have learned concerning this will
in that particular region of its activity. To say then
�Miracle
5
that there is more of the will of God in a miracle than
in any other work of His, is insufficient?’
St. Augustine, in the fourth century, seems to have
been the first writer who found it necessary to define,
or lay down a canon of, miracle. He takes the miracle
at Cana, and asserts that the change of water into wine
is God’s ordinary work in the ripening of grapes, and
their fermentation in the wine vat. Goethe, though
with an ironical and subrisive intention, has adopted
this view in the words he puts into the mouth of
Mephistopheles in Auerbach’s Keller:
Der Wein ist saftig, Holz die Reben,
Der holzerne Tisch kann Wein auch geben ;
Ein tiefer Blick in die Natur,
Hier ist ein Wunder ; glaubet nur.1
Kingsley quotes this again in Alton Locke, as well as
the words of St. Augustine, and puts the argument in
his own phrase, thus : “ Allow Jesus to have been the
Lord of Creation, and what was He doing then but
what He does in the manufacture of every grape, trans
formed from air and water even as that wine in Cana.”
In the same way St. Augustine speaks of the miracle
of Aaron’s rod that budded, reminding us that it is by
the power of God that every tree does the same ; the
whole natural order is in absolute dependence upon
God.
But take it in his own words in his treatise on the
Trinity :
“Who draws up the sap through the root of the
vine to the cluster, and makes the wine, save God
who, while man plants and waters, gives the increase ?
1 The wine is sap, and wood the vine,
The wooden table can give us wine ;
Search Nature well with earnest eyes,
Believe, and miracles arise.
�6
Miracle
But when at the command of the Lord the water was
made wine with unwonted quickness, the Divine Power
was declared, as even fools allow. Who in their
wonted fashion clothes the trees with leaf and flower,
save God ? Yet when the rod of Aaron the priest
budded, the Godhead, as it were, spake with doubting
man. . . . When such things happen in, as it were, a
kind of river of events which glide and flow from the
hidden to the seen, and the seen to the hidden in a
beaten track, they are called natural; when, in order
to warn men, they are brought about with unwonted
change, they are called miracles.”
According to this, one form of miracle, though not
at all the most surprising, is the direct revelation of
that which is ever taking place in what we call time,
but as time does not exist for God, rapidity or slowness
of His action has no meaning; He is never rapid and
is never slow, save to our apprehension ; He simply
does.
Dr. Trench works out this thought, showing that,
e.g., many of the plagues of Egypt were the natural
troubles of the land, quickened into far direr than their
usual activity. And again :
“ It is no absolute miracle that a coin should be found
in a fish’s mouth, or that a lion should meet a man and
slay him, or that a thunderstorm should happen at an
unusual period of the year, and yet these circumstances
may be so timed for strengthening faith, for punishing
disobedience, for awakening repentance; they may
serve such high purposes in God’s moral government,
that we at once range them in the catalogue of
miracles.”
St. Thomas Aquinas defines a miracle as “an effect
which is beyond the order or laws of the whole of
�Miracle
7
created nature ”—prcrter ordinem totius natures creates,1
but qualifies this to some extent in the work Contra
Gentiles : “ Those are rightly to be termed miracles
which are wrought by Divine power, apart from the
ordei' usually observed in nature.” 2
If now we attempt to classify miracles, we may dis
cover that in these also God acts by rule, and in a
manner antecedently probable ; that we shall not find
any such acts as are ascribed to their gods by men
who do not understand who and what God is—that
is to say, acts that are puerile, exaggerated, and mon
strous. We shall find no stories
Of maids with snaky tresses, or sailors turned to swine,
nor such as those of the Infancy of Jesus in the spuri
ous Gospels, at once trivial and malignant.
But before we affront the question of concrete
miracles, there is a region of wonder to be examined,
of enormous importance, if less capable of classification.
In the ecclesiastical order there are not only sacra
ments, capable of strict definition, but also what are
called sacramentals, whose nature can less be reduced
to rule and classification, as prayer, and alms, the
confession at Mass and in the Office, the blessing by
bishops and abbots, holy water, blessed ashes, palms,
candles, and the like.
So there exists, apart from concrete miracles, the
miraculous, by which term may be designated such a
state of things as we find in the Book of Genesis and
other portions of the Sacred Narrative, when God and
His angels converse familiarly with man ; or such
occurrences as those in the giving of the Law to Moses
who with the elders of Israel went up into the Mount:
1 Summa, i. ex. 4,
2 Contra Gentiles, i. 102.
�8
Miracle
“ and they saw the God of Israel.” Again, at the
Birth and Death of Jesus the invisible world became
visible, and in closer contact with everyday life.
Angels thronged round His cradle and His grave, and
the heart of the distant East was moved at the flashing
of a new star. Just in the same way, in the later
history of the Christian Church there have been periods
specially marked by the wondrous; by visions and
dreams as distinguished from concrete miracles, though
these were not wanting at such crises. At the time
that the great monastic orders were founded ; in the
lives of certain saints, notably St. Dominic, St. Francis,
and St. Teresa ; in some places, as Florence in the
thirteenth century, visions of Christ, our Lady and the
angels have revealed the nearness of the spiritual
world. In these later days, again, the apparitions at
Paray-le-Monial and at Lourdes, apart from the special
miracles there vouchsafed, bring the same truth before
the mind in an age which seemed in danger of for
getting the very existence of the supernatural.
But when closely considered, the supernatural would
seem to underlie and pervade the natural world in
some such manner as the nervous system underlies our
natural bodies, and can be manifested to and recognized
by those who seek it with intelligence at any time and
in any place ; but it is especially gathered up and
knotted together in ganglia, so that in such bundles
of nerves it becomes almost impossible not to perceive
it. The ganglia of the supernatural, so to speak, are
found at certain points of the world’s history, and we
can understand the reason for some of them, as at the
call of Abraham, the Birth of our Lord, the perfecting
the organization of the Church, the development of the
Regular Orders. Perhaps only when time is swallowed
�Miracle
9
up of eternity shall we be able to see the whole anatomy,
as it were, of the Church, and to understand the place
of all the main centres of the supernatural, why and
where they came into prominence and vision.
Now the record of these wondrous occurrences is
imperfect ; we are told that God spoke with Adam,
with Noe, with Abraham, but not the manner of the
interview ; we know not whether He manifested Him
self in some visible form or infused into heart and
conscience the knowledge of His will. We hear of
angels, but the descriptions seem to imply now man,
now God Himself, now, and this especially in the New
Testament, bright beings, neither God nor man, “ with
the power of a divine nature, and the compassionate
tenderness of a kindly human heart.” Still less we know
not whethei' our Lady’s alleged delivery of the rosary
to St. Dominic, of the scapular to St. Simon Stock, of
the habit to the Servite Fathers, were what we call, in
modern philosophic language, objective or subjective,
or whether it were on the confines of both, the vision
being subjective, but tangible objects remaining in the
hands of the recipients. We know not, and perhaps
we shall never know ; yet a few words may be per
mitted on the subject, which may aid in clearing the
difficulty.
We may be content to leave the question of objec
tiveness and subjectiveness on one side, when the Saint
who has given us the most remarkable, if short, detail
of his own experiences was unable to resolve the
problem. St. Paul tells us that he—for no one has
ever doubted that he spoke of himself—was caught up
into the third heaven, and heard words which it was
not allowed him to utter, also that he had visions and
revelations more than others ; but he goes on to say
�IO
Miracle
that he knows not whether he was then in the body or
out of the body, whether the visions and his transpor
tation to heaven were or were not objective. But that
which was objective remained : the thorn in the flesh,
however the words be interpreted, some sharp bodily
ailment, visible, tangible to himself, and probably also
to others. So St. Francis and other saints who have
been marked with the stigmata, down to this century,
in which Maria Morl, the ecstatica of the Tirol, bore
the same signs of her suffering God, would all have
been content to leave unanswered.the question whether
their visions were of the bodily or mental eye, but
there was no doubt at all that the wounds were out
ward facts, wherewith they were marked as sharers in
the Passion of Jesus.
Indeed, we may go further and say that tangibility
and visibility, according to the senses, have nothing to
do with reality. Our Lord’s wounds were as real on
His risen Body when Thomas did not see them as
when he was graciously permitted to behold and touch ;
He was as truly the Christ when He walked with the
disciples to Emmaus, and their eyes were hoklen that
they knew Him not, as afterwards when He made
Himself known to them in the breaking of bread ; He
was as truly existent when invisibly, intangibly He
passed the sealed stone and closed doors, as when, in
the sight of crowds, He hung upon the Cross.
It will probably have struck all thoughtful persons
that the conception of angels as represented in art was
of slow growth and late development. But if in our
day God were pleased to allow us, as He has from time
to time allowed certain of the saints—for instance, St.
Philip Neri and St. Frances of Rome—to see our
Guardian Angel, it would be almost as great an
�Miracle
11
astonishment as to see him at all, were we not to see
him like the angel of some well-known picture, or at
least like some abstraction and combination of many.
And this, although we know and believe the Church’s
doctrine that an angel is pure spirit, bodiless, im
palpable, therefore only seeming to be in human form,
with those added qualities which denote swiftness and
strength and unceasing watchfulness. It stands to
reason that if a being always waiting in God’s presence
to do His will, “ glorious, benignant, beautiful,” manifest
himself to man, it must be under a form in which man
has already conceived of him, else he will rather terrify,
or make no impression at all. Hence when converse
with angels was frequent, and no ideal portraits had
been made of those bright spirits, Abraham and the
other Patriarchs, Manoah and young Tobias, saw them
in the forms of men ; and only by after events, or upon
some wondrous act of the Angel, did the recipient of
these gracious visits recognize what they were.
So with apparitions of Christ and our Lady. It is
most natural that Christ should appear either as the
Babe of Bethlehem, or as He who treads the wine-press
of the Cross ; as the thorn-crowned Martyr, or the King
of Glory, appearing, according as the needs of those to
whom He comes require that He should be seen.
Our Lady comes as the Virgin of the Annunciation,
the Mater Dolorosa and Maria Assumpta ; the elderly
woman bowed with sorrow, who bends over her Son in
Francia’s Pieta, or the Virgin ever fair and young as
Murillo imagined her, with the crescent moon beneath
her feet; or again, as she showed herself to Bernadette
Soubirous at Lourdes.
Much more is all this true of God Himself—that
Being without body, parts, or passions—if He talk or
�12
Miracle
live familiarly with man. If on Him be laid no inherent
necessity in regard to Himself, there is an inherent
necessity in regard to us. We know ourselves as the
crown of His creation, hence we can only think of God
as one of whom our souls are like, but greater, wiser,
nobler than we, and if He talk with man it must be as
a man talketh with his friend.
So much it was well to say about the borderland
of wonders which are yet not concrete miracles, but
it is enough to indicate the explanation which woultl be
given, where any is possible or desirable. The border
land of wonder, though only revealed through chinks,
is yet sufficiently disclosed to show how near are the
worlds of sight and faith, how interchangeable is one
with the other, so that even in this life the mists which
hide the supernatural may and do clear away. We
cannot always perceive the gulf which exists between
the objective and the subjective, between body and
spirit, and when we do see it, may understand that only
to us is that gulf impassable. Past, present, and future
are one and the same to God, the unchangeable
everlasting Now.
Concrete and definite miracles arrange themselves,
for the most part, in special groups, as may be easily
seen by any one who will take the trouble' to make lists
of those occurring in the Bible, in ecclesiastical history,
or in any collection of the Lives of the Saints. We
may take, as typical of such groups, unexpected births ;
healing from sickness, with or without the use of
natural means ; raising from the dead ; the change of
substance, as of water into wine ; or of property, as
when the axe-head rose to the surface of the pool.
There are again others which seem to stand alone, only
because we are unaware of instances of the same kind,
�Miracle
T
for it cannot be supposed that all miracles have been
recorded, as when the walls of Jericho fell at the
blowing of the trumpets ; there are others wherein
a wondrous gift abides in the matter of the miracle,
which is continuous, and not confined to a single mani
festation. Such are those wherein Elias and Eliseus
caused meal and bread and oil to multiply as long as
f need required, or that in which the blood of St.
Januarius continues to liquefy, so often as the conditions
of its first liquefaction are repeated ; or that of the oil
which still continues to flow from the bones of St. Wal
burga, who died in the eighth century, and from those
of St. Nicholas of Bari, in the fourth. If we classify the
instances of miracle in several groups, their repetitions
under like circumstances at various periods in the
world’s history may help us in a degree to understand
both the ordinary rule of God, and the rule, so to speak,
of the exception ; remembering that the ultimate rule
of God is always and only His good pleasure and His
sovereign will.
But there is one miracle which cannot be classified,
and falls into no group: alone in the world’s history,
it is like the sun which God has set in the firmament
for the light of our system. This is, of course, the
/ miracle of the Incarnation, when, by the glad co
operation of Mary, she, the one sinless and stainless
creature, became the Mother of her God—she,
Pattern of seraphs, only worthy ark
To bear her God athwart the floods of time.
In speaking of other wonders, whereat men stumble,
Cardinal Newman has well said that all is as nothing in
comparison with this • “ no miracle can be so great as
that which took place in the holy house at Nazareth.”
�M
Miracle
And with the same thought Dr. Trench says, “ The
great miracle is the Incarnation ; all else, so to speak,
follows naturally and of course.”
But though this be so, there are still certain events
recorded in Holy Scripture which have been called
“ preludings of the Incarnation,” some of which, foretold
by the Prophets, and having in their days found a first
accomplishment, were afterwards regarded as having
their complete fulfilment only in the Birth of Christ.
In these events God would seem to show His abiding
sway over the life, and reproduction, and births of men.
It is of Him that one marriage is fruitful and another
is not: “ Children and the fruit of the womb are an
heritage and gift that cometh of the Lord.” And this
fact, which we are apt to forget, He from time to time
accentuates, as it were, by the births of children when
such seem unlikely or impossible. Isaac, for instance,
was born when it appeared almost against the course
of nature that he should be, and the birth was heralded
by the message of an angel; Samson, not, so far as we
hear under the same circumstances of extreme unlikeli
hood, but still against hope, after a similar angelic
word. The High Priest, Heli, foretold the birth of
Samuel, Eliseus that of the son of the woman of Sunam.
An angel, again, declared that St. John Baptist should
be born when Zachary and Elizabeth were well stricken
in years, and that event immediately heralded the
Nativity which, as has been said, stands alone.
Closely connected with this is that class of miracles
which is concerned with restoration to life at the Divine
word, whether spoken by the Lord Himself, by His
Prophets, or His Saints. Elias restored the widow’s
son, Eliseus the boy given so strangely to the Sunamite
woman. In these there was, as it were, a struggle
�Miracle
15
between death and life, death retreated unwillingly.
Not till the Lord of life came could any speak abso
lutely, so that the power might work without hindrance.
Jesus alone could say, “ Damsel, arise,” or “ Lazarus,
come forth,” with the same calmness with which He
said all else that passed His gracious lips ; Him alone
can we address :
Thou madest Life in man and brute ;
Thou madest Death ; and lo, Thy foot
Is on the skull which Thou hast made.
But the gift was afterwards bestowed upon the Saints
in much the same manner as it had been on the Prophets.
St. Benedict, in the sixth century, did not say to the
peasant who implored him to give him again his dead
son : “ Go thy way, thy son liveth,” like his Master, but
he prostrated himself on the body of the child in prayer,
and the child’s soul came back again. And in the
fifteenth century, St. Casimir the King raised a girl to
life by the touch of his body, and a boy carried to the
tomb of St. Peter of Luxembourg was restored, though
in his case the skull had been fractured and the brain
in part dashed out.
This brings us to those miracles which cause so great
perplexity in these later days: those which are wrought
by relics—that is, to put it plainly, by the material con
tact of the body of a dead Saint, or a portion of it, or
the touch of some garment from the sacred body. The
sanctity of relics is brought out but little in the Old
Testament, but coming into strong prominence in the
New, it has remained with the Church to this day, and
relics are one of the two main channels in which God’s
power is manifested to man. The instance in the Old
Testament is so typical that it may well be quoted at
length, especially as it is one of the most wonderful
�16
Miracle
works wrought by relics : “ And Eliseus died and they
buried him. And the rovers from Moab came into the
land the same year. And some that were burying a
man saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre
of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of
Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his
feet.”
Of course the central point of all such wonders is the
healing touch of the garments worn by our Blessed
Lord, whether those spoken of in the Gospels, or,
if we may trust imperfect evidence, a coat worn by
our Lord, and now preserved at Treves ; but closely
linked with these are the handkerchiefs which had
touched the body of St. Paul, and healed the sick to
whom they were applied. It must be remembered that
the miracles wrought by such relics, the Holy Coat or
a thorn from the Crown worn on the Cross, or a frag
ment of the Cross itself, or the relics of the Saints, are,
conversely, testimonies to the authenticity of the relics
themselves.
This class of miracles is especially interesting, as it
is that to which more than any other the Church has
set her seal, not only as happening in times past, but as
existing down to and in our own days. She has made
miracles the test, or at least one of the tests of sanctity.
Every man or woman admitted into her calendar of
Saints must have two proved miracles to his or her
account, and these are necessarily for the most part
connected with relics.
Another class is associated with objects, not relics,
into which, under certain conditions, the gift of healing
is infused. For Naaman the Syrian healing power
was infused into the waters of Jordan only, the rivers
of Syria being powerless in his case. The Pool of
�Miracle
Siloam was troubled each day for the first who stepped
into it, and in that case our Lord revealed the power
of God that underlay the waters, by healing directly
without their aid. The works done at certain fountains
are attested by many scientific men, who believe their
virtue, in spite of preconceived ideas—whether, as at
St. Winifred’s Well, the powers of the waters have been
known and proved through centuries, or have been
manifested but recently, as at Lourdes or Oostacker.
Indeed, not to specify every class under which
miracles may be grouped, it is not too much to say
that there are few such occurrences which have not a
prototype in the Old Testament, a fulfilment in the
New, a repetition in the Lives of the Saints and the
history of the Church ; and if in some cases the exact
counterpart is not found in later history, it is only
because the Lives of the Saints are so crowded with
miracle, that it is not always possible, as it is not
necessary, to find among so great a treasure the exact
detailed equivalent. But the parallels which present
themselves without difficulty will show at once what
is meant.
The Prophet Habacuc was carried from Judasa to
Babylon by the Angel of the Lord, that he might feed
Daniel in the den of lions with the pottage which he
was bearing to the reapers at home; and in like manner
Philip the Deacon was transported from Gaza to Azotus.
Elias gained abundance of rain ; so did St. Scholastica,
the sister of St^Benedict. If Elias and Eliseus multi
plied meal and oil, thus anticipating our Lord’s
miracles of the loaves and fishes ; so after Him did
St. John Joseph of the Cross multiply food so lately as
the early part of the eighteenth century, and St. Agnes
of Montepulciano in the thirteenth.
�i8
Miracle
If the Three Holy Children walked unharmed in the
midst of the burning fiery furnace ; so St. Lucy re
mained unscathed, though resin and oil were poured
on the fire into which she was thrown, and St. Cecilia
remained a day and a night in an hot-air bath heated
seven times beyond its wont ; so too St. Peter Gonzalez
lay on hot burning coals uninjured, to save the soul of
a woman who tempted him to sin.
The face of Moses beamed with rays of light when
he came out from the more immediate presence of God,
in prophecy of that Transfiguration of Jesus which the
disciples saw upon the mountain ; and so the face of
St. Francis Caracciolo, in the seventeenth century,
emitted brilliant beams of light before the Blessed
Sacrament.
Moses struck the rock in the desert, so that there
flowed a rill for the refreshing of Israel ; and St. Isidore
of Madrid in time of drought made the sign of the
Cross on dry ground, and pierced the soil with his ox
goad, so that thence flowed waters which run even till
this day and are endowed with healing virtue.
St. Hyacinth, in the thirteenth century, walked the
waters of the Dnieper, as our Lord walked the waves
of the Galilaean Lake ; but he bare the image of our
Lady and the Sacred Host in his hands, so that He
who trod the wraves before him, and stretched out His
hand to St. Peter as he was sinking, was really the
power who held him up.
At the outset of this essay words vgere cited from
Cardinal Newman, as introducing the subject. The
whole passage may be quoted as summing up the
argument :
“ The Catholic Church from east to west, from north
to south is, according to our conceptions, hung with
�Miracle
19
miracles. The store of relics is inexhaustible ; they
are multiplied through all lands, and each particle of
each has in it at least a dormant, perhaps an energetic
virtue of supernatural operation. At Rome there is the
True Cross, the crib of Bethlehem, and the chair of
St. Peter ; portion of the crown of thorns are kept at
Paris ; the holy coat is shown at Treves ; the winding
sheet at Turin ; at Monza, the iron crown is formed
out of a nail of the Cross, and another nail is claimed
for the Duomo of Milan ; and pieces of our Lady’s
habit are to be seen in the Escurial. The Agnus Dei,
blessed medals, the cord of Francis, are all the medium
of divine manifestations and graces. Crucifixes have
bowed the head to, and Madonnas have bent their eyes
upon, assembled crowds. St. Januarius’s blood liquefies
periodically at Naples, and St. Winifred’s Well is the
scene of wonders even in an unbelieving country.
Women are marked with the sacred stigmata ; blood
has flowed on Fridays from their five wounds, and their
heads are crowned with a circle of lacerations. Relics
are ever touching the sick, the diseased, the wounded,
sometimes with no result at all, at other times with
marked and undeniable efficacy. Who has not heard
of the abundant favours gained by the intercession of
the Blessed Virgin, and of the marvellous consequences
which have attended the invocation of St. Antony of
Padua ? These phenomena are sometimes reported of
saints in their lifetime, as well as after death especially
if they were evangelists or martyrs. The wild beasts
crouched before their victims in the Roman amphi
theatre ; the axe-man was unable to sever St. Cecilia’s
head from her body, and St. Peter elicited a spring of
water for his jailer’s baptism in the Mamertine. St.
Francis Xavier turned salt water into fresh for five
�20
Miracle
hundred travellers ; St. Raymond was transported over
the sea on his cloak ; St. Andrew shone brightly in the
dark ; St. Scholastica gained by her prayers a pouring
rain ; St. Paul was fed by ravens, and St. Frances saw
her Guardian Angel.”
Cardinal Newman then discusses the reasons for
disbelief in miracle since Biblical, or at least since
Apostolic days, which we may condense, but using
his own words.
“ Both they [the opponents] start with the miracles
of the Apostles ; and then their first principle or
presumption against our miracles is this, 1 What God
did once, He is not likely to do again.’ They say, it
cannot be supposed He will work many miracles ; we,
it cannot be supposed He will work/ew.”
Again :
“They do not say, ‘St. Francis, or St. Antony, or
St. Philip Neri did no miracles for the evidence for
them is worth nothing,’ or, because what looked like a
miracle was not a miracle ’: no, but they say, ‘ It is
impossible they should have wrought miracles.’”
Again :
“ Catholics hold the mystery of the Incarnation, and
the Incarnation is the most stupendous event which
ever can take place on earth ; and after it, and hence
forth I do not see how we can scruple at any miracle on
the mere ground of it being unlikely to happen. No
miracle can be so great as that which took place in the
holy house of Nazareth ; it is infinitely more difficult to
believe than all the miracles of the breviary, of the
martyrology, of saints’ lives, of legends, of local tradi
tions put together ; and there is the grossest incon
sistency on the very face of the matter, for any one so
to strain out the gnat and swallow the camel as to
�Miracle
21
profess what is inconceivable, yet to protest against
what is surely within the limits of intelligible hypo
thesis. If, through divine grace we once are able to
accept the solemn truth that the Supreme Being was
born of a mortal woman, what is there to be imagined
which can offend us on the ground of its marvellous
ness ? . . . When we start with assuming that miracles
are not unlikely, we are putting forth a position which
lies embedded as it were, and involved in the great
revealed fact of the Incarnation.”
So much is plain at starting ; but more is plain too.
“ Miracles are not only not unlikely, they are
positively likely ; and for this simple reason, because,
for the most part, when God begins He goes on. We
conceive that when He first did a miracle, He began a
series ; what He commenced, He continued ; what has
been, will be. Surely this is good and clear reasoning.
. . . Our first principles that miracles are not unlikely
now is not at all a strange one in the mouths of those
who believe that the Supreme Being came miraculously
into this world, miraculously united Himself to man's
nature, passed a life of miracles, and then gave His
Apostles a greater gift of miracles than He exercised
Himself. So far on the principle itself ; and now, in
the next place, see what comes of it.
“This comes of it, that there are two systems going
on in the world, one of nature, and one above nature ;
and two histories, one of common events, and one of
miracles ; and each system and each history has its own
order.”
And as a conclusion of what he has said we find this
clear statement :
“ For myself, lest I seem in any way to be shrinking
from a determinate judgement on the claims of some
�22
Miracle
miracles and relics . . . and to be hiding particular
questions in what is vague and general, I will avow
distinctly that, putting out of the question the hypo
thesis of unknown laws of nature (that is, of the
professed miracle being not miraculous), I think it
impossible to withstand the evidence which is brought
for the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius at
Naples, and for the motion of the eyes of the pictures
of the Madonna in the Roman States. I see no reason
to doubt the material of the Lombard crown at Monza,
and I do not see why the holy coat at Treves may not
have been what it professes to be. I firmly believe that
portions of the True Cross are at Rome and elsewhere,
that the crib of Bethlehem is at Rome and the bodies
of St. Peter and St. Paul also. I believe that at Rome
too lies St. Stephen, that St. Matthew lies at Salerno,
and St. Andrew at Amalfi. I firmly believe that the
relics of the saints are doing innumerable miracles and
graces daily, and that it needs only for a Catholic to
show devotion to any saint in order to receive special
benefits from his intercession. I firmly believe that
saints in their lifetime have before now raised the dead
to life, crossed the sea without vessels, multiplied grain
and bread, cured incurable diseases, and superseded
the operation of the laws of the universe in a multitude
of ways.”
And here our essay might close, but that we must not
press the argument too far, and that we are bound to
consider if there be any—and, if any, what—difference
between ecclesiastical miracles and those recorded in
the Scriptures. We answer that there is no difference
in principle ; it is of faith, that God who worked
hitherto in that manner still continues to work. But
there is a difference in detail. The Scriptural miracles,
�Miracle
one and all, rest on divine faith, and each must be
accepted without doubt. But although miracles out of
Scripture become the object of private faith, no Catholic
is bound to believe in any particular miracle of this
kind ; but he cannot without unsound doctrine deny
that miracles have occurred since the Apostolic age.
Every Catholic again “ owes respect to the judgement
of high ecclesiastical authority ; but within these limits
he is left to the freedom and the responsibilities of
private judgement.”
Enough, however, has surely been said to show that
if we reject not one here or there, on which it may be
right that we suspend our judgement, but whole classes
of miracles, because of their unlikelihood, we cut the
ground from under all others of the same class. And if
we rest our belief on evidence, it is impossible to have
more than exists in the case, especially, of modern
miracles, which have been examined for processes of
canonization or beatification. No legal tribunal sifts
facts in a more thorough mannei' than does the Congre
gation of Rites.
It is possible to say consistently : There is no such
thing as miracle ; the universe is a mere mechanism,
which came into action none knows how, but at any
rate acts by changeless law ; it is not possible to say
that it once existed, but ceased at this or that precise
period, and the reign of changeless law now obtains.
What is this but to take the finger and guidance of God
away from His creation, and to say that the heart of the
universe has ceased to beat ?
If it be true that “every fatherhood is of God,” and
that all rule, authority, and power are signs of Him ; so,
conversely, must it be true that all that we call good
government, order, and rule in a family or a state shows
�24
Miracle
forth the mode in which He directs His creation. And
that is the best government in which the ordinary
operations of life go on unmarked and evenly, but in
which the master or ruler manifests his authority from
time to time, whether in the way of change, or evidence
of direct governance. That rule is not best which is
merely mechanical, but that which shows itself as order
tempered by love, regularity varied by change.
We cannot expect that all can actually witness the
evidence of God’s interference in His world, any more
than all the many jnillions of an earthly sovereign can
see his progress and his state. But they know that his
pageants and processions take place from time to time,
he flashes a message of condolence in calamities, he
exercises now and then his prerogative of mercy, he
dispenses honours and rewards ; many are gratified by
the favours given to one.
And so with God’s governance. We believe that our
King rules, and does honour to His saints, and to the
crowd here and there because of His saints. Round
such and such a holy well or image His powers cluster
and throng ; here and there, now and then, bright
angels who always “ stand in order serviceable ” flash
into sight, or show without vision that they are present.
It is a part of His order now and then to break His
order, to prove that it rests upon His will. We know
Him in the constant succession of light and dark, in the
steady sequence of cause and effect, in all the order
which He called good; and we know Him also in
miracle and wonder, underlying His law from the
beginning; the visible evidence of eternal power,
infinite wisdom, everlasting love.
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY, LONDON.
U.—March, 1908.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Miracle
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Paul, C. Kegan (Charles Kegan) [1828-1902]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1908]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1551
Subject
The topic of the resource
Miracles
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Miracle), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Miracles
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/df8acab6fece22ea724b30d8139724f5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=DpT-lXzaErTbqX%7EvTCldp%7EmnHkQUknu5V2n6QXPiYjcIA3%7E59%7EPJbOIEaXlYBkEUC0V7UHGtaPWi9iYdyiUp1T5HrVGeySQbkLOsrEp80prUp2WUVajjbVWZvXz4lP7RrvfREoXwTrYkQuMCIw6AD50WCY1zPPcS6Ea9o7oLqEDxml9-%7ESFqhkDEkCCXQcun3H8eBgqTzsj3p14OlN8jV8UqON7eQP-QTZeErr0G4WBvBqadCRZTdSCatnyaAORbGFRVdTq-BtYAd3YZIuaqVtI-BPHAF1EVrQkvrovc3gj%7E7os3U46MCes7hvFLN3RfBJY97g8ABX2QLNx7SjGEyw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6783c720d543e0a4499830762789d5e5
PDF Text
Text
COMMON SOURCE OF ERROR IN
I SEEING AND BELIEVING. .
ytrfutt
DELIVERED BEFORE THE
SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY,
ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE,
ON
SUNDAY AFTERNOON, 27th FEBRUARY, 1881,
By H. MAUDSLEY, M.D.,
IConban:
PUBLISHED BY THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
1881.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
�Works by the same Author:
“The Pathology of Mind.” Being the Third Edition of the Second
Part of the “ Physiology and Pathology of Mind,” re-cast, much
enlarged, and re-written. In 8vo, price 18s.
“ The Physiology of Mind.” Being the First Part of a Third Edition,
revised, enlarged, and re-written, of “ The Physiology and Pathology of
Mind.” Crown 8vo, 10s. 6d.
“Body and Mind:” An Inquiry into their connection and Mutual In
fluence, especially with reference to Mental Disorders. Second
Edition, enlarged and revised, with Psychological Essays added.
Crown 8vo, 6s. 6d.
Macmillan & Co., London.
SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
To provide for the delivery on Sundays in the Metropolis, and to encourage
the delivery elsewhere, of Lectures on Science,—physical, intellectual,
and moral,—History, Literature, and Art; especially in their bearing
upon the improvement and social well-being of mankind.
THE SOCIETY’S LECTURES
ARE DELIVERED AT
ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE,
On SUNDAY Afternoonsy at FOUR o'clock precisely.
(Annually—from November to May.)
Twenty-foub Lectures (in three series), ending 24th April, 1881, will
be given.
Members’ annual subscription, £1, entitles them to a ticket, transferable
(and admitting to the reserved seats), and to eight single reserved-seat
tickets, available for any lecture.
Tickets for each series (one for each lecture)—
To the Sixpenny Seats—2s., being at the rate of Threepence each
lecture.
For tickets, and the printed Lectures, and for list of all the Lectures
published by the Society, apply (by letter) to the Hon. Treasurer,
Wm. Henry Domville, Esq., 15, Gloucester Crescent, Hyde Park, W.
Payment at the door :—One Penny ;—Sixpence ;—and (Reserved
Seats) One Shilling.
�SYLLABUS.
1. The influence of preconceived idea and of feeling to vitiate observation.
Illustrations:
а. Illusions of Sense.
б. Hallucinations of Sense.
c. Erroneous observation.
d. Miracles.
2. The influence of feeling and belief to vitiate reasoning.
a. Individuals.
b. In communities.
3. The relation of feeling to intellect in the progress of the race.
�I
H
?!
�COMMON SOURCE OF ERROR IN
. SEEING AND BELIEVING.
PROPOSE not in this lecture to enumerate and discuss all the
mistakes which we are liable to make when we see and draw
conclusions from what we see—all the fallacies, that is to say, to
which observation and reasoning are exposed; I purpose only to
note and illustrate now one very common and prolific source of
wrong observation and inference. It is certain we do not see and
judge rightly by instinct; too often, although we have eyes, we
see not truly, and although we have reason, we use it to come to
wrong conclusions. Reason, we know, man claims as his almost
exclusive prerogative, defining himself—for he has that advantage
over other animals—as pre-eminently the reasoning animal; and
one need not cavil at the definition so long as it is not understood
to mean that everybody reasons rightly, or even commonly bases
his beliefs upon reason. To say of the great majority of persons
that they reason at all in the highest sense of the word is to say
what is not true, since their opinions are plainly either got by
inheritance, or engrafted by education, or moulded by particular
life-experiences, or imposed by authority of some kind, and are
then worn by them, as they wear their clothes, after the fashion.
Governed by their habits of opinion as they are by their habits of
life they find it as hard a matter to change the one as to change
the other. If all men reasoned truly and adequately on every
subject, it is evident that all men would be agreed, which is not
quite the case; we should not be meeting here this afternoon to
broach opinions which will not be perhaps in harmony with those
which have been preached from a thousand pulpits this morning;
the heresy of yesterday would not be, as it often is, the common
sense of to-day, and the common sense of to-day the nonsense of
to-morrow ; the majority would not have found it necessary to
stone, burn, poison, cut asunder, crucify, or otherwise silence the
voices of the few who, in the succession of the ages, have not
I
�6
Common Source of Error in
failed to appear from time to time to inspire and to raise men to
higher planes of thought and duty; the world would have been
without the history of its noble army of martyrs of humanity.
This being so, it is a good thing, I think, from time to time to
make a particular study of the common errors to which we are
liable in observation and thinking, and to take note how far
wrong they may carry us. My attention is drawn often and
forcibly to this matter, because, in the course of my professional
work, I meet with persons who, of sound understanding in respect
of all ordinary matters, entertain some extraordinary delusions in
respect of one or two subjects, and cannot be convinced of their
errors by the plainest evidence and argument. Naturally one asks
oneself how it comes to pass that they form and entertain notions,
which are absurd to the common sense of mankind, holding to
them in the face of conclusive disproof, and notwithstanding that
they cannot find a single person in the world to agree with them.
The vulgar saying is that they have “ lost their senses,” but it is
not so; their senses are in full work, but somehow they fail to
perform their proper offices. In seeking the explanations of these
remarkable distractions of mind one comes to perceive that, after
all, these people have only carried to an extreme pitch, to an
insane height, a kind of faulty observation and reasoning which
is common enough among persons who are not in the least out of
their minds. ’Tis not true perhaps, as is sometimes said, that
everybody is a little mad, but it is true that everybody makes day
by day the same sort of errors in observation and reasoning as
those which lead madmen to their delusions.
I go at once to the heart of what I have to say by laying down
the broad proposition that in looking at things a person sees what
he believes he sees, not necessarily that which really is: his notion
of what he sees may correspond with the reality or not, but in
any case he does not see the reality purely; he sees it through the
idea or notion which he has of it. Had I been born blind, and
were my eyes opened at this moment for the first time to see a
human face before me, I should not know it to be such by my
sense of sight alone: I know a human face, when I see it, only
because of the training in seeing which has been going on ever
since I was born, the unceasing, if unconscious, education which
I have had. The idea has been organised gradually in my mind—
abstract, so to speak, from a multitude of impressions—and when
it is stirred into activity by the proper impression made upon
sight it instantly interprets that impression, so that I recognise
�s
Seeing and Believing.
7
the object. If my idea were very active and at the same time
*
did not fit the reality, it might mislead sight, making me mistake
the identity of a face which I saw—just as Don Quixote, possessed
with his fixed idea of giants and enchanted castles, mistook the
sails of a windmill for the arms of a giant—or even, in a more
extreme case, making me actually see a face where there was no face
at all. You have perhaps seen a person who has been put into
what is called the mesmeric state and noticed the extraordinary
illusions which he can be made to suffer: the operator bids him
take a glass of simple water, assuring him at the same time that it
is exceedingly bitter and nasty, and he forthwith spits it out as if
it were poison, with every expression of disgust; he is told that a
wasp is buzzing about his face and he instantly makes frantic
movements to strike it away; he is introduced to a stranger as his
mother or sister and he immediately embraces her. There is
scarcely a mistake of sense, however extravagant, of which he
may not be made the victim if he is duly susceptible and the
operator skilful and confident. Now what is it which takes place?
This: the idea suggested by the operator becomes so very active
in the subject’s mind, takes such exclusive possession of it, that all
other ideas are inhibited or silenced; they are inactive, in abey
ance, asleep, so to speak, unable therefore to comment upon or
correct it; accordingly the person sees, hears, or otherwise per
ceives all impressions through the active idea, which interprets
them instantly into the language of its own nature; being the
only part of the mind which is then sensible to stimulus and in
function, it cannot of necessity reveal anything which it does notice
but in terms of itself. The person does not see the real thing but
his notion of what the real thing is ; and that does not in this
case accord with what really is. Here then is an experiment
which plainly shows us that an idea in the mind may reach such a
pitch of exclusive activity as to put to silence other ideas and to
completely befool the senses. It is what happens also to the mad
man who, having the delusion that he is the victim of a malignant
persecution, sees or hears his persecutors pursue or threaten him
where no one else can see or hear anything of them.
I now go a step further and note that something of the same
sort takes place in dreams. When we are asleep we see nothing
* The common saying that “seeing is believing” may then be applied
in a double sense—not Sone in the understood sense that we believe by
what we see, but also in the sense that we see by what we believe.
�8
Common Source of Error in
outside us; our eyes being shut it is impossible we should; never
theless we do see very remarkable scenes if we dream, seeing them
too as if they were outside us and more vividly perhaps than we
do see real things when we are awake. What happens is that the
thoughts of the dreamer as they occur to him become instantly
visible as sensory presentations ; the idea of a thing, so soon as it
becomes active, takes form as the sensible object, is translated into
the outward reality; the idea of a person, for example, becomes
the seen person, the idea of a voice the heard voice, bo before the
dreamer’s eyes as a visible pageant, a scenic show, moves the train
of succeeding ideas; it is as if each vague thought which came
into the mind as we walked along the street absorbed in reverie
was visible as an actual scene ; in which case it is plain we
should be surrounded by an ideal world which would be the real
world to us, while the real world would be faint and shadowy or
quite unperceived. Now this happens the more easily in dreams
for two reasons—first, because the active idea has for the time
almost exclusive possession of the mind, the rest of it being asleep,
and, secondly, because the closure of the senses by sleep to all
outward things, preventing that distraction of them by other
objects which is taking place more or less during waking even in
the deepest reverie, leaves them at the mercy of the idea. Here
there is another instance where an idea or notion vividly experi
enced imposes itself upon sense, becomes an actual hallucination.
Take another case: people don’t see ghosts nowadays when they
go through churchyards by night, as they used often to do in olden
times. Why is that ? ‘ It is because, not believing in ghosts, they
do not expect to see them: they have not in their minds the idea
of a ghost which may step solemnly forth from behind a tombstone
or glide away like a guilty thing ashamed. ’Tis an instance of the
excellent philosophy which is never wanting in Shakspeare, that
he makes Hamlet see his father’s ghost at midnight, when the air
is bitterly cold, not a mouse stirring, on the lonely and rocky
platform before the castle of Elsinore, after he had been informed
in solemnly impressive tones of its previous appearances, when he
himself is there in a tremor of expectation to see it, and immedi
ately after Horatio’s exclamation “ Look, my lord, it comes! ”
Again: there is an event which has happened sometimes to
dying persons, well fitted to make a solemn and startling impres
sion on those about them. When at the point of death or nearly
so, the dying person, gazing intently before him, as if he saw some
one there, may pronounce suddenly the name of a long dead
�Seeing and Believing.
9
relative, exclaim perhaps “ Mother,” and soon after expire. Natu
rally people suppose that the spirit of his dead mother has appeared
to him, and are happy to think that he has joined in a better world
those who were taken away from him in this world. So they take
comfort to themselves when they lose by death one who is near
and dear to them in the belief that although he shall not return to
them they shall go to him. That may or may not be, but certainly
the apparition is not proof of it, since it is no more than one of
the hallucinations which a dying person is liable to have; for when
he is near death and the failing functions of his brain portend
their near impending extinction, wandering thoughts of the far
distant past, impressions of childhood perhaps, seemingly long
effaced, but never actually effaced, may flicker in the mind and,
taking visible form as thoughts take form in dreams, be seen as
visions. You will remember that Shakspeare makes Falstaff,
when dying in a London tavern after a life of the most gross
debauchery, a worn out old libertine, go back in this way to the
memories of more innocent days and “babble of green fields.”*
These broken reversions, as I may call them, are the last ebbing
functions of the brain which, as Shakspeare puts it, then
“ Doth by the idle comments that it makes
Foretell the ending of mortality.”
I might go on to multiply instances of this production of hallu
cination by idea, since they are to be met with in all quarters.
You have heard perhaps that there has lately been an apparition
of the Virgin Mary at Father Ignatius’s Monastery of Llanthonev
Abbey, which was seen first in a meadow by four boys of the
Abbey, after that by a brother of the Abbey, and last of all
by Father Ignatius himself. This is his account of what he
saw:—
“ About eight o’clock on Wednesday evening, the 15th inst. (after
the last service of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin) we all.
* It is very doubtful, however, whether Shakspeare ever wrote what is
now the received text. In the first authentic edition (1823) the words
were not “ ’a babbled of green fields,” but “ a table of green, fields,” which
was nonsense. It was changed by an anonymous critic to “ ’a talked of
green fields,” which Theobald altered into" the present reading. Thirty
years ago, however, an annotated copy of the edition of 1632 was found,
which, among a great number of corrections of the text, substituted for
“ ’a table of green fields,” the words “ on a table of green frieze ”—z.e.,
“ His nose was as sharp as a pen on a table of green frieze.” Dr. Newman
makes use of these discrepancies for the purposes of his argument in
Grammar of Assent (p. 265), and it is from him that I quote them.
�10
Common Source of Error in
came to the porch door. I held the processional crucifix. With
me were the brothers, Mr. Bouse, and a gentleman from Oxford
who had visited the Monastery for the purpose of endeavouring
to see the vision. The boys were kneeling in front of us, Sister
Janet was kneeling in the meadow. It was a very wet night. We
were singing the ‘Aves.’ We had sung three ‘Aves’ in honour
of the Holy Trinity, and we had just finished a fourth to the
Blessed Virgin, when, all of a sudden, when I was not expecting
anything of the kind, I saw a tremendous outburst of light from
the dark, heavy clouds over the farm building. It seemed to
burst right upon the buildings. The light was all in bulging circles.
In the very centre of the light there appeared, coming down upon
us, a human form. It was a very commanding, stately figure.
I could only see sideways. The face was turned towards the bush.
I could only see it momentarily, as it were in the ‘ twinkling of an
eye.’ But in that moment it stood out so distinctly and startling
that I am sure that it was darker than the light. Had it been
clothed in cloth of silver, or cloth of gold, it might have produced
the same effect—the darkness against the light. There was an
intense reality about the figure. It was momentary, as I before
said, and yet it seemed that it might have been an hour’s vision,
so intensely real was it. In the majesty of the figure, and in its
being dark against the light, it reminded me of Dore’s picture,
‘ The triumph of Christianity over Paganism.’ There were
flashings of light about the figure. In a moment, as I looked, it
vanished. Before it vanished it had appeared as if it would have
descended upon the church door or the church roof. I feel sure
that it must have been the figure of the Blessed Virgin, because,
although I could not discern the dress it wore, I could see that it
was fully draped; whereas in the visions which others have seen,
when they have seen a male figure, it has always appeared with
simply a cloth round the loins, as our Lord is represented in
baptism, and at other times. I also feel sure that it was the
Virgin, because the figure appeared immediately after we had
sung the ‘ Ave ’ in her honour. The figure also had its face
turned towards the bush, where our Ladye had first been seen. I
have further confirmation in the fact that about two or three,
minutes afterwards the Blessed Virgin’s figure was seen by the
gentleman who was watching with us, and by one of the boys,
nearer to the ground.” *
South Wales Daily News, September 13th and 27th, 1880.
�Seeing and Believing.
11
“ These,” he says, “ are extraordinary and absolute facts. The
sceptic may and will scoff, but his scoffing will not explain or
diminish the truth or supernatural character of these absolute and
incontrovertible facts * * * No amount of contradiction, ridicule,
or unbelief can alter the fact that Monday, August 30th, 1880, be
tween the hours of 9 and 11 a.m., the Blessed Virgin appeared in
dazzling light to four boys and did what no earthly being could do
before their eyes.” With such positive and incontrovertible testi
mony of eye-witnesses, are you of so little faith as to doubt that
the Blessed Virgin appeared ? Probably you have great doubts, as
I have; and perhaps I may venture to think that I shall carry your
sympathetic doubts with me in my sceptical interpretation of
another vivid vision of an apparition in circumstances particularly
favourable to its occurrence.
The vision in this case happened to a woman whom we may
believe to have been predisposed in some measure to hallucination,
since we are told of her that she had once had seven devils cast
out of her.; a story which, in modern scientific interpretation,
means that she had once been insane and had recovered. • In all
likelihood, therefore, she was one of those persons, susceptible or
sensitive, as mesmerists call them, whose unstably balanced nervecentres were easily liable to take on that sort of irregular action
which issues in hallucination and delusion. The woman I refer
to is Mary Magdalene, who visited the sepulchre of Christ on the
third day after His burial, and who, according to the gospel of St.
John, saw two angels in white sitting, the one at the head and the
other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain. I say accord
ing to John, because the stories of the resurrection told by the
writers of the different gospels differ considerably in details;
amongst other things, not agreeing as to whether there was one
angel or whether there were two angels, or as to the persons who
saw the apparition or apparitions. Discrepancies in the stories of
supernatural phenomena are not of course to be wondered at;
they are the natural results of an inspiration more than natural
pouring itself into natural channels. Those, however, whose
understandings are informed by observation and experience of
nature, not by inspiration from outside nature, may suspect
perhaps that Mary Magdalene, having an excitable brain, was the
victim of a hallucination. She ran to the sepulchre in hot excite
ment, eagerly expectant to see something extraordinary, and she
saw something extraordinary: a flitting impression on sight, pro
bably the “ linen clothes lying there, and the napkin that was
�12
Common Source of Error in
about the head not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped
together in a place by itself,” suggested two angels, and the ideas
of the angels so suggested took visible form, dominating the sense,
just as the gleaming whiteness of a tombstone suggesting the idea
of a ghost to the walker through a churchyard by night was trans
formed instantly into a ghost.
This dominion of the idea over the senses, which has its con
summate effect in the production of hallucination, is really the most
fruitful source of error and defect in common observation, an ever
active, and never to be neglected, cause of fallacy. Men see not
the reality purely, but see it in the coloured light of the notions
which they have of it. Hence no two persons see an event exactly
alike; two witnesses go into the witness-box and give widely dif
ferent accounts of the same transaction at which they were present
together; two newspaper reporters, of different politics, believing
themselves sincere and truthful, send home to their respective
employers nearly opposite accounts of the same occurrences ; in
each case there is the individual mind behind the eye. Has any
one got a belief, no matter how he got it—whether through his
understanding, as he flatters himself he gets all his beliefs, or
through his feelings, as he actually gets most of them—his mind
yields willing access to all facts which are in keeping with it, and
very unwilling access to any fact which does not consist with it,
insomuch that the belief comes to determine much of what he sees,
to govern his actual observation of things. The stronger, more
over, the feeling associated with a preconceived idea or belief, the
more completely does it rule sense and vitiate observation. What
infatuated lover ever fails to see “ Helen’s beauty in a brow of
Egypt?” What excited onlooker at a spectacle of horror could
ever give an accurate account of it ? At one time it was a firmlyrooted superstition that the wounds on the body of a murdered
person would bleed afresh when the murderer was made to touch
the corpse, and witnesses testified frequently to having seen that
happen. Two respectable clergymen, for example, swore at a trial
in the time of Charles I. (1628-9) that the body having been taken
out of the grave and laid on the grass, thirty days after death, and
one of the parties accused of murder required to touch it, “the
brain of the dead began to have a dew or gentle sweat arise on it,
which increased by degrees till the sweat ran down in drops on
the face; the brow turned to a lively flesh-colour, and the deceased
-opened one of her eyes and shut it again ; and this opening of the
eye was done three several times ; she likewise thrust out the ring,
�Seeing and Believing.
13
Or marriage finger, three times, and pulled it in again; and the
finger dropped blood from it on the grass.” Here was evidence
against the accused which, if true, must have convinced even him
that he ought to be hanged. Of course, it was not true; the
witnesses, however, were not wilfully or wittingly deceiving, they
were themselves deceived; they saw not the real thing, but the
imagination of what the real thing was. One may be permitted
to judge, by this example, of the value of the unsifted testimony
of the believer who has seen a miracle. ’Tis not that he has
really seen a miracle, but that he has made a miracle of what he
has mis-seen.
,lt may be urged perhaps in respect of miracles that it is ex
tremely improbable, if not impossible, that several persons attest
ing them could be deceived in the same way at the same time. On
the contrary, nothing more easy in certain circumstances : a great
wave of emotion passing through a number of people, as emotion
does pass by the quick infection of sympathy, will carry belief with
it and make them see and testify to a quite impossible occurrence.
Hence miracles have always abounded where there was a great
fever of religious enthusiasm. The greater the heat of feeling the
less the coolness of observation and the more plentiful the mira
cles. Hay, it needs not much heat of feeling to see a miracle if a
number of persons be collected together intently expecting to see
something extraordinary happen: the ghost seldom fails to appear
where the spectators are gathered together to see it. Every
religion has had its miracles and its multitudinous witnesses to
them. We do not believe it any the more on that account; we
ought indeed to believe it rather the less, since the miracle is pre
sumption, if not proof, of bad observation by the witnesses. The
lowest religion will have the most miracles, a higher religion will
have few of them, and the highest of all will probably have none
at all. What we may fairly conclude from the testimony of hot
believers is that, by reason of their strong belief, they were not
witnesses to be depended upon, as observers. The interest of
miracles at this day, I take it, is not that which could attach to an
occurrence out of the fixed order of nature, but that which attaches
to the study of the defective, irregular, or actually morbid action
of the human brain, especially under conditions of unusual excite
ment ; it is not whether the body of a dead man which had lain in
the grave until it had begun to putrefy came to life again, but why
people thought and said so. When the belief in miracles has
become extinct they will be received by psychology into its domain
�14
Common Source of Error in
and they will be of lasting interest there. Indeed, it will be a
most instructive study of the future to elucidate and set forth the
exact relations of beliefs in supernatural phenomena to defective
or morbid functions of the brain. Supernaturalism will take its
proper place as an interesting chapter in psychology.
Thus much then with regard to the action which idea may exert
upon the senses; an action plainly so strong sometimes as to sub
due them into a complete subjection to it. In any case it is almost
impossible for one who has a preconceived notion in his mind to
help seeing in an event that only which is agreeable to the notion,
that which sorts or suits with it. Those who have not thought of
this tendency as an active source of fallacy in observation, and
realised how deeply, widely, constantly and unconsciously it works
are not qualified to weigh the value of testimony; they are like
those who should accept without question an assertion that the
trees and grass were blue from one who was looking at the country
through blue spectacles. To denote, moreover, this action of idea
upon sense vaguely as imagination or even as mental carries us no
further forward; to rest satisfied there is simply to make a word
do duty for a conception; there is neither explanation nor definite
meaning in the statement. Whether we like it or not, we shall
have to acknowledge, first or last, that the process is at bottom
physical, and that we can have no explanation worth thinking
about until we find out what the physical basis is. Unhappily we
are yet a long way from that discovery; we must be satisfied for
the present to figure grossly to ourselves what takes place in the
intimate, most delicate and hidden operations of nerve molecules,
by the help of conceptions derived from the grosser operations in
physics which we can observe and manipulate. When the impres
sion on sense vibrates to the same note as the idea, we may say, it
is perceived and intensifies the idea—that is to say, is assimilated
mentally; when it does not vibrate in unison with it there is no
response, it is not perceived; the active idea responds to the note
that is in harmony with it, just as the string of a harp gives back
in consonant vibrations its proper note when that note is struck
near it.
I proceed now to mark the operation of the same sort of error
in the higher region of thought—in reasoning, that is, about what
we get from the senses when we have got the facts correctly.
Even then we are liable to go all wrong in the opinions or infer
ences which we form. The predominant bias sways the judgment.
Two persons shall have the same facts presented to them, and
�Seeing and Believing.
15
shall not differ as to the facts, yet it is notorious that they will,
according to the bias of their respective opinions, feelings, interests,
differ widely in the conclusions they draw from them, just as two
judges will give very unequal sentences for the same kind of
offence. How is it that the one sees a conclusion plainly and
thinks the other, who does not see it, blinded by prejudice to the
most obvious truth ? The reason of course is that each looks at
the circumstances from his own standpoint, and sees only or
mainly that which is in accord with the bias of his mind, over
looking that which is not; he sees vividly the reasons which
support his opinion, and which the other sees dimly or not at all;
he sees only dimly, or not at all, the reasons which go counter to
it, and which the other sees vividly. Now, how would a third
person,'undertaking to bring these two to the same conclusion, go
about to accomplish it ? Certainly he would not treat them as
purely reasoning beings, and encourage them to go on arguing, by
which they would only heat themselves the more, but he would
handle each as if he was anything but an exact reasoning being;
he would not consider only the truth of what he had to say to
him, but would take account of his feelings, principles, prejudices,
character, and endeavour to bring this truth into the best relations
possible with these predominant lines of disposition, making it
pleasing or agreeable—that is to say, able to agree—and so to get
it accepted; he would in fact persuade by agreeing more than by
convincing, remembering the adage—
•
“ A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.”
Dealing in this insinuating way with both he brings them gently
and skilfully over their difference to the same conclusion, and that
the right conclusion if the affair be properly managed. One must
have the feelings of a person engaged in favour of reason before he
can see reason, must prejudice him in favour of an argument
before he can feel the force of it. Is not this a proof how very far
man is from being the good reasoning machine which he imagines
himself?
There is not a day, not an hour of the day perhaps, in any
one’s life which does not yield examples of this sort of biassed
or one-sided perception and reasoning. The moods of the moment
notably colour strongly our views of the character or issue of an
event, notwithstanding that the dry light of reason ought to
demonstrate a plain and certain conclusion. Optimism or pessi
mism is a matter of temperament, not of reason; life-despair may
�16
Common Source of Error in
be the intellectual expression, and suicide the outcome in act, of
deranged organic feeling in a sadly tuned temperament. In that
extreme state of morbid depression of mind which we call
melancholia the sufferer cannot perceive a ray of hope, a glimmer
of comfort anywhere; he sees every undertaking, every scheme,
moving towards the same goal of ruin; he can follow the argu
ments which prove that his fears are groundless, but they produce
no effect upon him ; they reach his understanding, but they do
not touch his gloom-enshrouded heart, and accordingly they “ no
more avail than breath against the wind.” Assuredly we credit
ourselves with a great deal larger measure of reason in the forma
tion and change of our beliefs than ever enters into them. On
the one hand, strong and convincing argument will sometimes not
compel belief; on the other hand, a change will sometimes take
place in an individual’s belief, while the reasons in favour of it are
as strong as ever; as Cardinal Newman has remarked, he does
not know how or when the belief has gone, but he finds out some
day that it is gone ; the perception of the old argument remains,
but some change in feeling in himself arising out of condition, age,
interests, occupation, &c., has worked a change of belief.
I shall not go on now to give any more illustrations from
individual experience, because I am anxious, in the time which
remains at my disposal, to point out how this source of error
in reasoning infects the belief of whole peoples, and leads them
to the most illogical conclusions. Do we not oftentimes see
nations swept by epidemics of feeling and belief, good or bad?
Have wars been rational undertakings, or have they not been, in
nine cases out of ten, the results of insane suspicion and insaner
folly ? When one looks quietly back at the history of man’s
thoughts and doings upon earth, considering at the same time
his claim to be pre-eminently a reasoning animal, it is impossible
to help being amazed at the utterly irrational belief which pro
fessedly rational beings have formed and sincerely cherished.
More wonder, perhaps, that as they were so irrational as to form
and hold them they were ever rational enough to get rid of them.
It may be said, no doubt, that as they got better knowledge they
abandoned them, but I doubt whether knowledge has nearly so
much to do directly with human progress as we are in the easy
habit of assuming. It has always been as positive a piece of
knowledge as it is now that every one must die—that to be mortal
is not to be immortal—and that when a person is dead and buried
he does not come to life again ;■ that certainly is as long and sure
�Seeing and Believing.
17
an experience as human beings have had, since it dates from the
beginning of experience ; yet, in spite of that experience, the
greater part of those ranking amongst the most civilized and
enlightened of the earth, and marking therefore the highest water
mark of human progress, solemnly believe at this moment that
there have been men’ who have not died, and others who, after
being dead, have come to life again. And at great expense, and
through many perils, they send missionaries into all parts of the
earth to teach that wisdom to those whose sad ignorance of it
they compassionate. The very creed of the Christian is that the
God whom he worships became a man, was crucified on the cross,
died and was buried, and on the third day rose again and ascended
into heaven. That is a matter of solemn belief, but can we truly
say that it is a matter of rational knowledge ? Looked at in the
dry light of the understanding, we must admit that there could
not well be a doctrine more improbable, more revolting to reason.
How it strikes the unbiassed minds of those who have not been
trained from youth upwards to accept it we know by the experience
of the Jesuit missionaries in China, who found the dogma of a
crucified God so great an obstacle in the way of conversions that
they quietly suppressed it; they preached Jesus Christ triumphant,
not Jesus Christ crucified. It is beyond question then that there
is in man a power deeper and stronger than knowledge which
decides in some cases what he shall believe, and that the most
complete contradiction of observation and reason which it is
possible to conceive can be accepted as a solemn truth, if it be in
harmony with the prevailing tone or feeling of mind. Thereupon
all the powers of the understanding are brought into play, not to
prove it by a searching trial of its worth, but in order to find out
reasons why it should be believed. Meanwhile, all the reasons in
the world against it will not seriously touch it so long as there is
no fundamental change of feeling: when that takes place, how
ever, the whole fabric of belief tumbles easily to pieces without
any serious assault being made upon it. So far from rational im
probability being a difficulty to theological faith, the greater the
mystery the greater the faith of the true believer, until he reaches
the logical climax of sublime credulity in the acceptance of
Tertullian’s maxim—Credo quia impossibile est, I believe it because
it is impossible.
Look back for a moment at the beginnings of Christianity.
How little had knowledge to do with its origin and progress! It
was born of the heart, not of the understanding of mankind, in the
�18
Common Source of Error in
stable not in the Academy or the Lyceum. The great and learned
of that time looked down on it with scorn as a pernicious supersti
tion, and it found acceptance among the poor and ignorant, the
publicans and sinners.
*
Let us note well the meaning of that:
the greatest revolutionary—or rather evolutionary—force which
has moved human society was not the product of the intellect, but
was an outcome of a glowing feeling of the universal brotherhood
of mankind; a feeling so deep and strong and true that it has
inspired and kept alive to this day many beliefs which outrage the
understanding. Can we believe then that the next great revolu
tionary force which shall move society afresh will spring from the
understanding and be governed by its rules? It needs little
reflection, I think, to show that a great social reform will never
come from a Senate or a House of Lords or other sort of upper
chamber, however cultivated and benevolent its members. No;
the impulse will come deep out of the heart of the people,
announcing itself many times beforehand no doubt in blind
yearnings, in wild explosions of social discontent, perhaps in reck
less uprisings of turbulence and violence, a great unreflecting
force, which it should be the function of intelligence to guide in
the right way. You may stop a revolution which has been
hatched in the intellect, by cutting off the heads of the few who
have knowledge; you will never stop a revolution which has been
bred in the heart of the people by cutting off their heads. Instead
of denouncing •wildly the social interest and visionary aspirations
which find outlets in communistic, socialistic, nihilistic, and
similar doctrines and disorders, it would be more wise to try to
understand their meaning; since it may be they are the blind,
* “ It is profitable to remind ourselves,” says Dr. Newman, “ that our Lord
Himself was a sort of smith, and made ploughs and cattle-yokes. Four
Apostles were fishermen, one a petty-tax collector, two husbandmen, one
is said to have been a coachman, and another a market gardener.” Peter
and John are spoken of as “ illiterate men and of the lower sort.” Their
converts were of the same rank. They are, says Celsus, “ weavers, shoe
makers, fullers, illiterate clowns.” “Fools, low-born fellows,” says
Trypho. “ Men collected from the lowest dregs of the people; ignorant,
credulous women; ” “ unpolished, boors, illiterate, ignorant even of the
sordid arts of life; they do not understand civil matters, how can they
understand divine ? ” says Coecilius. “ They deceive women, servants and
slaves,” says Julian. The Fathers themselves give similar testimony as to
their brethren. “ Ignorant men, mechanics, and old women,” says Athenagoras. “They are gathered,” says Jerome, “not from the Academy or
the Lyceum, but from the low populace.” Of meaner sort and more de
spised than the Communisis of Paris; and yet they overturned the world!
�Seeing and Believing.
19
instinctive, dimly prophetic impulses of a truth which, coming
from the suffering and brooding heart of society, lies deeper than
knowledge and which knowledge will one day have to reckon
with. No man’s intellect measures his character; from the un
fathomed depths of his being comes not only that which he shall
feel and do but in great measure also that which he shall think.
So it is with humanity as a whole. It is feeling which inspires
and stirs its great pulses, the intellect fashioning the moulds into
which the feeling shall flow. How momentously important then
that the people should have understanding, should learn know
ledge, so that neither craft of superstition, nor craft of ruler, nor
any other craft may again take possession of its forces and turn
them to its profit!
We are so comfortably confident of the stability of our progress
in these days that we do not give the heed we should to the lessons
of the past and consider seriously, as we might well do from time
to time, to what destructive issues uninstructed popular feeling
may one day carry us. There can be little doubt that each of the
mighty nations of the past believed that its kingdom would endure
and that it was impossible its gains should ever be lost to man
kind. But Home, and Greece, and Egypt are now but the
shadows of great names, and the once powerful Empires of the
East have disappeared so completely that even the places where
their mighty cities stood are hardly known. We may be sure that
there were sagacious men in each of these dead nations who fore
saw the end, perceived the causes that were leading straight to it,
and raised their unregarded voices in warning to the people. But
it is the eternal fate of Cassandra to be unheeded. In vain are the
most obvious truths preached to a people possessed by an impulse
of feeling with which, they are not in harmony; the nation which
is declining to its fall is as deaf to the admonitions of the few
thoughtful men who perceive and try to stay its course of folly
as it is blind to the plainest lessons of its own experience;
elementary principles of morality and the commonest maxims of
prudence go down alike before the current of feeling, and the
audacious charlatan who most cleverly flatters, fans, and directs
its sentiments is acclaimed and obeyed as a hero. This has
always been so, and it would be taking much too hopeful a view
of human nature to believe that it will not be so again. In spite
of all the gains of modern knowledge, which we think so certain,
but which, after all, are the real work and possession of only a
few, it is not at all out of the range of possible occurence that a
�20
Common Source of Error in
great turbid wave of superstition may overflow and overwhelm our
civilization, as other civilizations have been overwhelmed before it.
Do you think perhaps that the foundations of modern knowledge
are laid so deep and sure that it is incredible that they should ever
be swept away? Well, it is a very sanguine belief: one might
have thought it as sure a truth as could well be that a person once
dead will not come to life again, but while multitudes believe the
opposite of that very plain experience, are the foundations of
belief so very sure ? Men are not moved by knowledge, let me
say again, but by feeling, and were a strong wave of superstitious
feeling to pass through them they would see and believe nothing
that was not in harmony with it, would see and believe every
thing that was in harmony with it, would move on, until it was
spent, a huge devastating force, so far as pure reason was
concerned.
There is something too much of complacent self-deception in the
loud praise which we give to pure truth and in the high-flown devo
tion which we loudly profess to it; we make up by our theoretical
enthusiasm for it for much practical dislike and intolerance of it.
Truth is not so acceptable as illusion, since we live in perpetual
illusion, deceived and deceiving. We seem what we are not, and
make others believe that we think them what they are not. No
one speaks the truth sincerely to another, or talks of him in his
presence as he does in his absence. There is no one who would
not think himself grossly insulted if he had truth told of him, nor
would any one who adopted the practice of speaking the truth
always find it easy to keep himself out of an asylum. We hate the
speaker of truth, although the truth which hurts our self-love may
be most useful to us; and love the flatterer, although we know the
flattery to be false and injurious. The ardent profession which
we make of a love of pure truth is itself a comfortable illusion
which we create for ourselves. From cradle to grave we are occu
pied—wisely, I dare say—in nursing our illusions, putting away
one, when we have worn it out, to take up another more fitting
the new desires which experience and years give us. If a person
really believed at the outset of life, as he knows at the end of it,
that all is vanity and vexation of spirit, would he have sufficient
motive to live ? Had there been no illusory prospect of Elysian
fields, or happy hunting grounds, or other sort of paradise beyond
the miseries of this world, where those who had suffered much and
unjustly here might hope to find recompense, one may doubt
almost whether faith in virtue could have been kept alive, whether
�Seeing and Believing.
21
the social organism, would have held together ; at any rate, thou
sands of dreary lives would have been more dreary than they were,
thousands of self-sacrifices of work, of wealth, of duty, would never
have been made, the hopes, aspirations, and' prayers which have
consoled and sustained thousands of heavy-laden hearts would not
have been. What then will be the consequence if science, as it
seems to threaten, shatters these hopes as illusions ? Will the
multitude be able to bear the pain, to face the fearful void, of so
great a loss ? Will man be able to live what the Bishop of Peter
borough has described lately as “ a joyless existence, uncheered by
the hope of a happier hereafter, undignified by the consciousness of
divine descent and the heirship of immortality,” if science makes
him sincerely realise, as it seems to be going to work to do, that
he has no hope whatever of a happier hereafter, that his descent is
not divine but simian, that his last heirship is the corruption of
the grave ? Will not the bereaved people, craving for something
to satisfy the needs of the heart which knowledge cannot give, fly
for refuge in despair to some creed or church in which they may
find again the hopes, and consolation, and support of which they
have been robbed ?
Here lies the strength of the position of the Church of Rome.
Possessing an organization the most complete which the world
has ever known, served by its ministers with a devotion which
counts nothing gain that is not its gain, inspired with the theory
that the meanest human soul is worthy of all its energies, it offers
what seems a safe haven of refuge in the midst of the surging tur
moil of doubts, perplexities, and despair, the perfect rest of absolute
truth delivered into its keeping from the beginning: Come unto
me, might be its cry, all ye that are weary of spirit, with many
doubts and heavyladen of heart with the burden of your fears,
and I will give yon rest.
*
It is admirably adapted by its organi
* “ Thus it is sometimes spoken of as a hardship that a Catholic is not
allowed to inquire into the truth of his Creed; of course he cannot if he
would retain the name of believer. He cannot be both inside and outside
of the Church at once. It is merely common sense to tell him that, if he
is seeking, he has not found. If seeking includes doubting, and doubting
excludes believing, then the Catholic who sets about inquiring thereby
declares that he is not a Catholic. He has already lost faith.”
J. H. Newman, Grammar of Assent, p. 184.
“ For, since we have the truth, and truth cannot change, how can we
possibly change in our belief, except indeed through our own weakness
or fickleness.” p. 186.
�iMMMiMM*
22
Common Source of Error in
zation, its ordinances, and its doctrine to respond to all the appeals
of the weak side of human nature. And I make no doubt many
will flee to it in the coming conflicts. But not of the people, we
may predict; not of the masses which constitute the foundation
and strength of the social organism. Its converts will come from
the tired votaries of fashion, weary of the dreary frivolities of
their lives, and eager to replace their exhausted desires by new
sentiments; from those who are educated enough to perceive
difficulties and perplexities of thought, without being courageous
and capable enough to face them sincerely and to think them out
thoroughly; from those again who, in the mortal struggle of new
thought for existence, have not the strength of understanding and
character to stay through the course, but falling by the wayside,
eagerly in their need lay hold of the helping hand which authority
holds out to them. These and the like are the classes from which
its converts will mainly come. The strong pulsations of popular feel
ing which make themselves felt in different nations, have no affini
ties with the Church of Rome nor has it shown the least sympathy
with them ; on the contrary they are essentially hostile to it, since
it has committed what seems to an outsider the fatal mistake of
allying itself with caste, privilege, power, and of alienating the
great liberal forces with which lies the determination of the
future : Catholic in name it has lost all claim to be Catholic in
fact. It is a rash thing to prophesy, but if I may venture a
prophesy here, it is that it will be by these great popular forces,
not by the knowledge of the learned, that it will be overthrown in
the final struggle. The French Revolution, momentous as an
event, was perhaps more momentous as a prophesy.
If what I have said thus far be true, what is the function of
those who have faith in the future of mankind, who are sanguine
enough to nurse enthusiastic hopes of its glorious destiny ? As
suredly to work well together, while it is time, to enlighten the
giant, so that when he puts forth his strength he may use it wisely,
to give him the understanding to direct his might in the right way.
Although intellect does not move the world it should guide directly
the forces which do move it, and so modify indirectly, as it will by
degrees, the deeper sources in which they take their instinctive
origin. One thing is certain whatever else may be doubtful: that
the true and honest method to pursue is directly the opposite of
that which the Churches have striven to enforce; it is not to incul
cate credulity, to stifle doubt, to foster prejudice, in order that the
beliefs which are may continue to be. That method we know to be
�Seeing and Believing.
23
false. It is to seek truth and pursue it, at whatever cost, whether
it bring us sorrow or joy, peace or tribulation. Doubt, be it never
so disquieting, must go before enquiry, and enquiry before the
discovery of new truth. Scepticism is guilt in the eyes only of those
who fear truth, since it is the essential prerequisite of it. It is
impossible to foresee what fate the future has in store for the race
of man on earth; one may fain hope a more peaceful and happy
career than that which he has had in the past, since to look back
through his history from the beginning unto now is to look back
through succeeding chapters of wars, treachery, tortures, cruelties
and atrocities of all sorts and degrees by which “ man’s inhumanity
to man” has “made countless thousands mourn;” a spectacle of
horrors so appalling that, could we compass it in imagination, it
might well warrant the belief, if matters ended now, of a malevo
lent, not a benevolent, scheme of creation. We shall do well to
cherish the hope, or if not the hope the illusion, that matters will
not end here; that a brighter day will come when knowledge and
peace shall spread through the whole earth, and man’s humanity
to man leave few to mourn; that the past traditions of a golden
age, when all was plenty and peace, and the later aspirations for
a Paradise to come, in which sorrow and sin shall be no more,
may be not entire fable and illusion, but essentially dim fore
feelings, the prophetic instincts, of that which one day shall have
a measure of fulfilment upon earth.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Common source of error in seeing and believing: a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, St George's Hall, Langham Place, on Sunday Afternoon, 27th February 1881
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Maudsley, Henry [1835-1918]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 23 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Contains bibliographical references. Publisher's series list on unnumbered pages at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Sunday Lecture Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1902
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G3424
Subject
The topic of the resource
Miracles
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />Public Domain Mark This work (Common source of error in seeing and believing: a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, St George's Hall, Langham Place, on Sunday Afternoon, 27th February 1881), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christian church
Fallacies
Miracles
New Testament
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b997da15acf609e1f0c60d392d1f99a3.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=IJJSRKw41-%7EvYBcTgSXnkMWHdoI40T8u2t9qG6CHrSw4CW7x1b8I2bEfCuaNF5xJQbWi6boAH%7ExPvrP3F5pQ2SGRdmOERu0rstEghkRrEKV5o8ovQvau4p3RdsINUi8vxNkKNglv25H1YVBD28V-eJQp%7EHuhHiKSHziSIsd6B380t4uCOp%7Ex5GYU9E0b4sdDQqg---GL7zyo6RdgxdEM75Shs-E21e5ECzTKIMXs5WZ%7E4QFPH720Y8nKhB2oC0NdH1FAYTfLdBjTE3kM7iHddZMOTw4BcOvgahTSfURZZT%7EJivL-Jp9jNHy%7EE73erKeqbU38Vk3c27nG%7E7oP086E4g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c0b44a88985f12c821fcd9d7abae5dd8
PDF Text
Text
I
CONCERNING MIRACLES.
By THOMAS BREVIOR.
Reprinted from the “ Spiritual Magazine,” October, 1872.
---------- ♦----------“ Absolutely speaking, in the strict and philosophical sense, either nothing is
miraculous, namely, if we have respect to the power of God; or, if we regard
our own power and understanding, then almost everything—as well what we call
natural as what we call supernatural—is in this sense really miraculous; and it
is only usualness or unusualness that makes the distinction."—Dr. Clarke On
the Attributes, &c.
“ God’s miraculous interpositions may have been all along, by general laws
of wisdom." “ There may be beings to whom the whole Christian dispensation
may appear as natural as the visible known course of things appears to
us.”—Butler’s Analogy.
“ Miracles imply no suspension of the laws of nature . . The interposition
of superior power implied in a miracle, too, may be entirely natural.”—
Dr. Price, Four Dissertations.
“ A miracle may be said to take place when, under certain moral circum
stances, a physical consequent follows upon an antecedent which general
experience shows to have no natural aptitude for producing such a consequent;
or, when a consequent fails to follow upon an antecedent which is always
attended by that consequent in the ordinary course of nature.”—Smith's
Dictionary of the Bible.
The recent correspondence on Miracles in the Spiritual
Magazine is but one of many illustrations which this subject
presents of the truth of the statement of the late Professor De
Morgan, that the greater part of the controversies of mankind
are due either to ambiguity in the use of terms or to the
assumption of certain “ first principles” adopted as self-evident
truths. Indeed, it not infrequently happens, as in the subject of
the present inquiry, that these too fruitful sources of misunder
standing and of error run into each other; that the common
term is used in different senses by different writers because in
truth it does not simply represent an alleged fact, but the philo
sophy, theory, or belief which those writers severally entertain
concerning it. Hence, there are writers who, like Mr. Atkinson,
A
�recommend that wo should abandon the term “miracle” altogether.
The suggestion, however, apart from all other considerations, is
impracticable; the term is too deeply rooted in our thought and
language to be voted out of use. It is true that, after all the
controversies on this question, no common agreement has been
reached as to what constitutes a miracle: it is vain in this matter
to appeal to the authority of lexicographers or to begin by
defining terms, for the term is the symbol we use to express
the outcome of the whole matter as it finally presents itself to
our minds; nor, as it seems to me, can we all use the same term
in the same sense, and in no other, so long as our conclusions on
the subject designated by it are so widely different.
Must then all attempt at agreement be abandoned as hope
less? Must this confusion of tongues ever prevail, so that, like
the builders of Babel, we may not understand each other’s speech,
and when we ask for brick receive a stone ? I hope we arc
not so shut up in this dilemma, but that some way out of it may
be found. Suppose that instead of defining our term at the
outset, and implying thereby a foregone conclusion, we in the
first instance consider whether or no there is reasonable ground
for believing that as a matter of fact any such events as have
been called miracles have taken place, apart from any theory or
inferences, or reference to the question whether they should be
called miracles or not;—questions to be reserved for subsequent
consideration.
And I suppose it will be generally conceded, and even
insisted on by the unbelievers, that we should if possible test
the question by reference to facts of the present, rather than
those of the past; as the former are more open to investi
gation : living witnesses can be confronted and cross-examined,
their qualifications ascertained, and their evidence compared and
sifted. There is also this further advantage, that whatever may
have been the case with regard to past ages, the present is cer
tainly not marked by excessive credulity on the subject, but is
by comparison scientific and enlightened. How are facts of this
class to be determined ? How are any facts of which our know
ledge depends on the senses to be determined? First, by
observation (which may include experiment), and secondly, by
testimony. All possible evidence of such facts may be comprised
under these two heads ; the former is evidence at first hand, and
can be had only by those who were present at the time and place
where the event took place, or could be witnessed. Their state
ments on the subject is testimony, and though this second-hand
evidence is inferior to the other, it may be so strong as to leave
us without reasonable doubt—so strong indeed, that the life or
death of men is determined by it.
�3
The evidence of modern u miracles” is of both kinds,
and of both in the strongest degree. Take, for example, the
recent Report of the Committee of the London Dialectical Society.
This Committee report that they received evidence from 33
persons who described phenomena which they stated had occurred
within their own personal experience. The Committee further
received written statements relating to the phenomena from 31
persons. These phenomena include nearly the whole range of
what is called “ spiritual manifestations,” and which need not
here be enumerated. No exception can be taken to the
witnesses, among whom arc persons of high social standing,
members of the learned professions, and men who have achieved
marked distinction in literature and science ; and their testimony
is corroborated by the Committee, who state that “ a large
majority” of their members “ have become actual witnesses of
several phases of the phenomena without the aid or presence of
any professional medium, although the greater part of them
commenced their investigations in an avowedly sceptical spirit.”
And this evidence is but a small fraction of the entire body
of evidence relating to the phenomena which has been pouring
in without intermission from every class and every land for the
past quarter of a century. In short, as Professor Challis has
said, “ the testimony has been so abundant and consentaneous
that either the facts must be admitted to be such as they are
reported, or the possibility of certifying facts by testimony must
be given up.” So far as concerns the facts in question, the last
alternative is indeed adopted by the sturdy, thorough-going
sceptic, for he feels truly that it is the only consistent ground
left for him to take. Why docs he prefer to occupy so ex
treme and desperate a position, rather than admit the alleged
facts, supported as they are by the testimony to like facts of men
of every age and creed ’? The answer is, that to admit them
would be to admit the existence of u miracles,” and that miracles
are impossible. If we ask why impossible, we are told that
they are contrary to the Order of Nature, that they are a violation
of the laws of Nature, that these laws are proved by the constant
and uniform experience of mankind, and that they are never
departed from.
Here we approach the heart of the question, the alleged facts
are rejected, not because of the insufficiency of the evidence, but
because it is thought they conflict with a preconceived theory of
the Order of Nature. Let it be shown that miracles, or spiritual
manifestations, belong to this established “ Order;” that like the
winds and tides and seasons they are subject to the operation of
natural laws; that, in fine, they are only a branch of natural
science, and the philosophy of our time would lay down its
A 2
�4
weapons of attack and welcome tills wido extension of tlie
domain of science.
In this temper of mind, however, we sec only the illustration
of that fallacious principle of reasoning pointed out by Professor
De Morgan, of testing alleged facts not by their proven evidence,
but by their supposed harmony or disagreement with assumed
“ first principles,” or “ self-evident truths ;” a principle always
arrayed against every new and great advancement of human
knowledge, for in every age men have regarded the established
theory of the universe as the Order of Nature, and as a conse
quence have held that whatever could not be brought into
harmony with such theory must be false. One would have
thought that in these days when the inductive philosophy is so
extolled, that its practice would not be so widely departed
from as it is when the evidence is presented of facts which run
counter to existing theories. The sceptical philosophy of our
time will not even entertain the discussion of a “ psychic force,”
still less of an invisible intelligence from behind the veil
which controls and governs it; in its view Spiritualism is a
strange portentous apparition, and our philosophers will not “ as
a stranger give it welcome,” lest they should “ entertain an
angel unawares.” Miracles, angels, spirits, these are terms the
sceptical philosophy would banish from its vocabulary. The
belief in these, and especially as having any place or part in our
midst now, is regarded as a vulgar superstition which science
has exploded, and philosophy is in no hurry to confess its
mistake in this respect and to read its recantation.
But here, to the wise caution given by an inveterate sceptic
to distinguish carefully between facts and inferences, I may add
that it is unphilosophical to reject any fact because of the
inference to which that fact may lead. The first essential to
determine is whether the alleged occurrences arc truly facts ;
and until this point is decided any question as to their cause or
as to the name by which they should be designated is premature,
and confuses the enquiry.
And if, divesting our minds for the time of all other con
siderations, we limit our enquiry to this single issue, the point is
surely not difficult to determine. The motion of heavy bodies
and the production of sounds without muscular contact or
mechanical contrivance, and the employment of these as a code
of signals by which questions arc answered and communications
spelt out, facts correctly given wholly unknown at the time to
any one present; the elevation of the human body, and its
suspension or movement in the air without visible or tangible
support; the introduction of fruits, flowers, birds, ice, snow,
and other objects into closed rooms previously searched and
�5
locked; the appearance of hands not appertaining to any human
being in the flesh, but life-like in appearance and mobility, and
which have been grasped by some of those who witnessed them;
the application of red-hot coals to the hands and heads of
persons without pain or scorching; the elongation and contraction
of the human body; the playing airs on musical instruments
with no person touching them; the speaking fluently in languages
utterly unknown to the speaker; the information of future events,
which have taken place at the very hour and even minute that
had been foretold; the production of writings and drawings
without human intervention, and “ in so short a time and under
such conditions as to render human agency impossiblethese
things and much more of the like kind are none the less matters
of observation because they arc unusual. It requires no great
scientific training to see whether a table is in motion or at rest;
whether a man is standing on the ground or in the air ; whether
in a closed room some object (sav for instance a cocoa-nut, as
happened to the writer of this article), is at your request placed
in your hand, and which you know was not there before ; and
though we have the testimony of an F.S.A., a barrister-at-law,
and other witnesses, that burning coal was placed on their heads
and hands without scorching or pain; yet we suppose Hodge
the ploughman could as well testify to such a fact if it occurred
in his experience as could the President of the lloyal Society.
Now, whether these things, are true is not a matter of
speculation to be settled on a priori grounds by a considera
tion of probabilities; the typical instances enumerated are not
hypothetical; they are all affirmed in evidence before the Com
mittee of the Dialectical Society, and as stated by the Committee,
u many of the witnesses of the more extraordinary facts arc of
high character and great intelligence;” and in this respect they
are representatives of hundreds of witnesses to facts of the same
kind all the world over. Moreover, many of these facts are
demonstrable, because reproducible.
In what other way can such facts be proved, nay, what kind
of proof can be imagined as applicable to them, save that of
observation and testimony? If this kind of evidence be not
valid, to what other court can the appeal be made? Am I
referred to the “ Laws of Nature?” What are these laws but
simply observed facts which, as we are told, “ a uniform
experience has established,” and which it is further said u are
never departed from?” This, indeed, is the standing philo
sophical objection to miracles and to Spiritualism. But if
observation, the evidence of the senses, and the testimony
founded thereon are impugned as delusive and untrustworthy,
what reliance can we place on these “ Laws of Nature,” which
�6
rest on the same foundation ? If it be replied that in this case
the evidence is so much stronger than the other, the principle of
our argument is conceded. It is then a question only of degree;
and if there is any insufficiency in the evidence, or any fatal
flaw in it, let it be pointed out after careful review (as far as
practicable) of all the evidence in the case. Till this is done, I
feel justified, both from many years’ personal investigation and
from careful survey of the evidence, in considering these startling
facts of our time as fully proved. At all events in reasoning with
Spiritualists (for whom this paper is chiefly written) I may with
out further reference assume them as the basis of my argument.
The “ Laws of Nature”—this phrase, so constantly dinned
into our ears,—is again a term used with such difference of
meaning, and with such difference in the ideas which underlie it,
as to cause much misunderstanding in controversies on this
question. What do we mean by Nature? I do not ask what
is Nature ? that is another question. I remember in my youth
to have met with a hymn to Nature in a Socialist hymn-book,
which began with the couplet:—
What Nature is no mortal knows,
And, therefore, none can tell.
But I suppose even our logical poet would admit that if we
employ the term Nature we may tell what we mean by it.
“ Oh, we all understand well enough what we mean by it,” says
the simple reader. Don’t be too sure of that, my friend. I
know of no term more elastic or more variously employed in
philosophical discussion. It is the master-word; understand
clearly what a writer means by it and you have a clue to his
whole system of philosophy ; it is the key-stone of the entire
edifice. This whole question of miracles, I am convinced, turns
upon the conception we entertain of Nature, and all our talk
about its laws and order, and about what is possible and im
possible, is so much beating the air until we arrive at some
common understanding on this point.
In particular there are two widely different conceptions of
Nature, with of course corresponding differences of signification
in their employment.
There are many, and even some Spiritualists, who by Nature
mean not alone the physical universe with all that appertains to
it, its solids, fluids, gases and ethers, its minerals and metals, its
flora and fauna, its elements, products, forces and phenomena,
however widely extended and variously distributed, which is the
conception of Nature commonly entertained, but who in their
idea of Nature include all existence, all being, all that is or can
be ; natural law with them means only that all things act
according to their own nature and constitution, whatever those
�1
may be. Of course in this view there can be no miracle, nothing
supernatural: all is Nature—Nature is the all.
Is there, then, no God? Or is God only a part of Nature ?
Are the lines of His being (so to speak) parallel, and con
terminous with it? Is His existence so bound up with Nature
that were it not, He, too, would cease to be? Or, while
imminent in Nature does He infinitely transcend it; Nature
being only the theatre of His operations, the one actuality shaped
by Him out of an infinite range of possibilities, and its laws but
the methods of His eternal wisdom?
*
The whole question of
Atheism or Theism is involved in the enquiry. The former
language is that of Atheism or of Pantheism, and in no other
sense can it be intelligently and consistently employed. Those
who inconsiderately adopt it should at least understand what it
implies and whither it is drifting them. Far from placing
Spiritualism on better terms with science and philosophy it is
alien to both, no less than to religion, and to the genius of
Spiritualism itself.
On the other hand the acknowledgment of God is the
admission of the supernatural, the cause and source of Nature,
• This is finely rendered by Mr. Palgrave in his poem, “The Reign, of
Law,” quoted by Dr. Hooker in his Presidential Address to the British
Association for the Advancement of Science. I give the concluding stanzas :—
To matter or to force
The All is not confined ;
Beside the law of things
Is set the law of mind ;
One speaks in rock and star,
And one within tho brain,
In unison at times,
And then apart again ;
And both in one have brought us hither.
That wo may know our whence and whither.
The sequences of law
We learn through mind alone;
We see but outward forms,
The soul the one thing known :—
If she speak truth at all,
The voices must be true
That give these visible things,
These laws, their honour due,
But tell of One who brought us hither,
And holds the keys of whence and whither.
O shrine of God that now
Must learn itself with awe!
O heart and soul that move
Beneath a living law !
That which seem’d all the rule
Of Nature, is but part;
A larger, deeper law
Claims also soul and heart.
'I'lie force that framed and bore us hither
Itself at once is whence and whither.
�8
its root and stay. Were Nature eternal and self-sufficient,—a
self-existing, self-adjusting machine, evolving its laws and forces
from itself as a spider spins its web out of its own bowels, and
with nothing superior to itself, a miracle were impossible; but if
it be derived and dependent, a divine picture-writing, a manifes
tation of the Great Creative Spirit, a vesture woven in the loom
of Time by which we visibly apprehend Him who is invisible,
and if miracle is an outbirth from the supernatural, an action
originating from a sphere beyond and above the range of natural
law,—then Nature is a perpetual miracle, and in this respect
the type of all miracle.
So much will perhaps be generally conceded, but there are
some who find the miracle not in the cause, but in the effect; to
them miracle is simply a synonyme for marvel; thus Carlyle, in
a burst of admiration, speaks of the human hand as “miraculous,”
and Mr. Atkinson insists that “ all Nature is miraculous,” which
it truly is in this sense also as in the other. Indeed (still speaking
in this sense), we may add that the common miracles of Nature
are more miraculous than any other. Moses saw a bush that
burned with fire and was not consumed, but in this glorious
summer time every bush burns with a divine fire and is not
consumed. ' Jesus fed a multitude with five loaves and a few
We may not hope to read
Or comprehend the whole
Or of the law of things
Or of the law of soul:
E’en in the eternal stars
Dim perturbations rise,
And all the searchers’ search
Does not exhaust the skies :
lie who has framed and brought us hither
Holds in His hands the whence and whither.
He in His science plans
What no known laws foretell;
The wandering fires and fix’d
Alike are miracle:
The common death of all,
The life renew’d above,
Are both within the scheme
Of that all-circling love;
The seeming chance that cast us hither
Accomplishes His whence and whither.
Then, though the sun go up
His beaten azure way,
God may fulfil His thought
And bless His world to-day ;
Beside the law of things
The law of mind enthrone,
And, for the hope of all,
Reveal Himself in One ;
Himself the way that leads us thither,
The All-in-all, the Whence and Whither.
�9
small fishes; but what is this to Nature’s daily miracle of
feeding all the countless multitude of men and the cattle on a
thousand hills ? The germination of seed, the growth of plants,
the building up of the human body from the almost invisible
nucleated cell, life and death, birth into the natural world, birth
into the spiritual world, we may call these the most miraculous
of miracles. Think of it; with every beat of the clock a child
is born, a man dies I What is the raising of a dead man in his
natural body to the resurrection of the spiritual man out of the
natural body, which occurs at the death of every man? Were
it not that custom dulls the fresh eye of wonder, every green
blade, every leafing tree would be a miracle. Goethe forcibly
expresses this when he represents Mepliistophiles tapping wine
from a table, with the exclamation to Faust:—Wine is sap, and sap is wood,
The table yieldetli wine as good;
Have faith, and here’s a miracle.
In the absence of experience both would seem equally miracu
lous. To the untutored savage a balloon, a comet, a steam ship,
an eclipse, are miracles. Are we, then, to conclude with some
that the miracle is simply the extraordinary and unexpected, and
of which the cause is to us unknown ? If so, the miracle lies
not in the outward fact, but in ourselves. It is relative only, a
synonyme for ignorant wonder. That which is a miracle to-day
may be no miracle to-morrow; as soon as we understand it it
ceases to be a miracle; so that beginning with finding miracle
everywhere, we may end by finding it nowhere. Or, without
pushing our conclusion so far, shall we take the middle course,
and say that a miracle is only the marvellous and exceptional—
that which so far transcends common-place as to excite astonish
ment, as when we say that the Apollo Belvidere is a miracle of
art, or Shakespeare a miracle of genius ? The bolder conclusion
seems the more logical and consistent, but neither is satisfactory ;
both alike empty the miracle of all significance; but we may
take the hint which they suggest, and see if we cannot find in
human nature a key which may unlock the mystery.
Man stands as the middle term between God and Nature;
by his body he is allied to Nature, by his spirit he claims kin
ship with God, for God is Spirit. In him the two worlds of
matter and of spirit meet and blend. Hemmed in by the limita
tions of his physical nature, subject to the laws of matter and the
conditions of time and space, he yet infinitely transcends them.
In vain does Nature oppose her barriers of mountain and of
wave; in vain hide her secrets in farthest star or deepest
mine; he sails the wave, pierces the mountain, aud links
together islands and continents.
Mightier magician than
�10
Prospero, he bids his faithful Ariel fly, and she outdoes the boast
to put a girdle round the earth in forty minutes. The old earth
unrolls for him the record of her history; the sunbeam yields its
secret; Orion and the Pleiades are known to him. Higher than
wing of bird ever soared, deeper than plummet ever sounded,
reaches and pierces the aspiring, penetrating mind of man.
He is the divine vice-gercnt on earth: Nature’s lord and king.
Even the grave holds not from him her secrets; he studies the
laws of intercourse with the spirit-world and holds converse
with the mighty dead. Is he not then essentially above Nature—
supernatural ? In this inquiry he and the laws of his being
must be taken into the account. In conquering Nature by his
so potent art does he violate her laws, or does lie harmoniously
co-operate with them ? In fine, is not man a free intelligence in
Nature, comprehending more and ever more of the elements and
forces around him, unharnessing them, yoking them together,
varying their combinations, arranging, directing, controlling
them ; knowing what they can do for him, and making them
do it? We do not, however, call this miracle, for he is still
operating from within the realm of Nature.
But, now,
Nature asserts her claim over all of him that belongs to
her, but even in this her final victory man gives the crowning
proof that he is not her thrall. Liberated from the bondage
of Nature and mortality he is now the free citizen of a
higher world, a member of that glorious company of im
mortals whom no man can number. Of the laws of that
spirit-country whither he has migrated; of the new powers he
is able to wield; of the new possibilities that lie before him,
we can know but little ; it may not be in our power to realise
them, till we, too, enter on our glorious inheritance. But this
we know, that he is free from the infirmities and limitations of
the body; from the illusions of sense; from subjection to those
laws of space and time which had chained him down to earth.
Even while a denizen of Nature, his achievements were all of
the spirit, the body simply being his instrument and organ of
communication with his fellows and with the outer world : the
true man, acting from behind the mask of clay, being invisible;
the spirit being known to us, as spirit can be alone known, by
its manifestations. How puerile, then, the objection that spirit
cannot act upon matter, when in every act and movement
of the body the contrary is demonstrated. The subtle links
between spirit and matter are indeed but imperfectly appre
hended, but from daily experience we know that they exist, and
many of us have like evidence that such links may be established
when the spirit is no longer a tenant of the mortal form.
Everywhere Science finds traces of the reign of law : in the
�11
winds and tides, in the spinning, weaving and building of insects, in
the flight of birds, in the path of comets, and of cosmic orbs. She
Looks through natural forms,
And feds the throbbing arteries of Law
In every pulse of Nature and of Man.
That the laws of Nature are universal and uniform in their
operation, that like causes produce like effects, are propositions
that need not the elaborate apparatus of argument and illustra
tion sometimes employed to set them forth. No one for example
disputes that oxygen and hydrogen always form water when
combined in certain proportions, and in none other. What
merchant would engage in foreign trade unless assured that his
ships would swim ? What husbandman would sow were he not
certain that every seed brought forth fruit after its kind ? If the
food of to-day might to-morrow be poison, what an agonising
uncertainty would be our daily lifeI If we are faithful to
Nature, Nature is faithful to us. But docs this beneficent
constancy of Nature preclude the agency of those who have
passed beyond Nature—an agency analogous to our own? How
is the Order of Nature hereby infringed? What law of hers
does this violate? Let us bear in mind that the laws of
Nature are not all on one common level, but move on
different planes of action, at different elevation, and by
gradual ascent—the principle or law which governs these
laws being that the lower is ever subordinate to the higher.
Thus the law of mechanical cohesion is overcome by the higher
law of chemical affinity ; and chemical affinity which resolves
the human body into its constituent elements is held in check by
the law of life, which maintains the physical structure in its
integrity; and as we have seen in man, the animal is subordinate
to the spiritual. It is this which constitutes him the roof and
crown of things, in apprehension so like a God. Our treasure,
however is contained in earthen vessels ; we here, as in a glass,
darkly see only the shows of things, but in its own proper realm,
emancipated from the body and from the bondage of sense, the
spirit discerns things as they truly are: it is in the world of
essences and causes. With larger knowledge, clearer vision,
freer movement, Nature lies below it; it deals with the laws and
forces of a higher world, and to which all laws of physics arc
subordinate; so that, working on the secret affinities and hidden
springs of Nature, with subtler chemistry, more potent magnetism,
with elements and forces at command, beyond our grasp, Nature
becomes plastic to the regulating and formative power of spirit;
it dominates matter, produces in it changes and transmutations
so confounding to previous ideas as to constitute what has
been called “ The Despair of Science.” Operating on lines
�12
of causation inaccessible to us, and forming new conjunctions
of causes, what we find impossible may be easy to the spirit,
and effects familiar to the scientists of the inner world, when
manifested in the material sphere, be as strange, startling, in
explicable to us, as are the highest exploits of science to the
untutored savage.
If I am told that this is contrary to the Order of Nature, or
at all events a deviation from the ordinary course of Nature, I
shall not contest the point, which may prove only a question of
the nature and fitness of terms. A universal and consentaneous
testimony might be cited to show that at all events it is not
contrary to all human experience, not even in this enlightened
nineteenth century, and that therefore it must be accepted as a
part of that larger Order of the Divine Economy of which
Nature is but a subordinate member, and in which Nature and
the Supernatural arc included.*
If on the other hand, as some contend, miracles lie within
the Order of Nature, then we must so extend our conception of
Nature as to comprehend in it at least all ranks and orders of
created beings, including the great realm of spirit with all its laws
* The folly of dogmatising on the laws and possibilities of Nature, of
which we know so little, and assuming that these laws are a finality, is
humorously illustrated by Mr. Kingsley in his Hater Babies, which I cite for
the benefit of those “Land babies” for whom this charming fairy tale was
written :—“ And Tom?
“ In fact the fairies had turned him into a water baby.
“A water baby? You never heard of a water baby. Perhaps not.
That is the very reason why this story was written. There are a great many
things in the world which you never heard of; and a great many more
nobody ever heard of.
“ ‘ But there are no such things as water babies.’ How do you know that?
Have you been there to see ? And if you had been there to see, and had seen
none, that would not prove that there were none.
“ ‘ But a water baby is contrary to Nature.’ Well, but, my dear little man,
you must learn to talk about such things, when you grow older, in a very
different way. You must not talk about ‘ain’t’ and" ‘can’t’ when you speak of
this great wonderful world around you, of which the wisest man knows only
the very smallest corner, and is, as the great Sir Isaac Newton said, only a child
picking up pebbles on the shore of a boundless ocean. You must not say that
this cannot be, or that is contrary to Nature. You do not know what Nature is,
or what she can do ; and nobody knows ; not even Sir Roderick Murchison, or
Professor Owen, or Professor Sedgwick, or Professor Huxley, or Mr. Darwin, or
Professor Faraday, or any other of the great men whom little boys are taught to
respect. They are very wise men ; and you must listen respectfully to all they
say, but even if they should say, which I am sure they never would, ‘ that
cannot exist; that is contrary to Nature.’ You must wait a little and see; for
perhaps even they may be wrong.
“ Wise men are afraid to say that there is anything contrary to Nature,
except what is contrary to mathematical truth, but the wiser men are the less
they talk about ‘cannot.’ That is a very rash dangerous word that ‘cannot,’
and if people use it too often, the Queen of all the Fairies is apt to astonish
them suddenly by showing them, that though they say she cannot, yet she can,
and what is more will, whether they approve or not.”
�13
and forces and modes of existence and operation; a startling inno
vation, and leading to ambiguity and confusion. But if we con
ceive of the spiritual world as discrete from Nature, constituting
another and a higher Order, then we are justified in applying
the terra supernatural to that other-world Order, and to miracles
as acts proceeding from it; this being not only the more con
formable to common usage in thought and speech but also the
more correct and philosophical. Bushnell, confirming his defi
nition by reference to the etymology of the terms in question,
says “ Nature is that created realm of being or substance which
has an acting, a going on, or process from within itself, under
and by its own laws, . . . or, a scheme of orderly succession,
determined from within the scheme itself. . . . That is super
natural, whatever it be, that is eithei’ not in the chain of natural
cause and effect, or which acts on the chain of cause and effect in
Nature from without the chain. Thus if any event transpires
in the bosom, or upon the platform of what is called Nature,
which is not from Nature itself, or is varied from the process
Nature would execute by her own laws, that is supernatural, by
whatever power it is wrought.”
Our investigation then has conducted us to this point, that
a miracle is the intervention by supernatural agency in the
ordinary sequences of Nature producing effects which would
not otherwise have taken place. It is not, therefore, an effect
without adequate cause, but only of a cause operating from
beyond and above Nature, possibly by laws and through links
of connection with which we are either imperfectly acquainted
or wholly ignorant. As remarked by an eminent mathematician :
“ A miracle is not necessarily a violation of any law of Nature,
and it involves no physical absurdity. As Brown well observes,
4 the laws of Nature are surely not violated when a new antece
dent is followed by a new consequent; they arc violated only
when the antecedent, being exactly the same, a different
consequent is the resultso that a miracle has nothing in its
nature inconsistent with our belief of the uniformity of Nature.
All that we see in a miracle is an effect which is new to our
observation, and whose cause is concealed. The cause may be
beyond the sphere of our observation, and would be thus beyond
the familiar sphere of Nature: but this does not make the
event a violation of any law of Nature. The limits of man’s
observation lie within very narrow boundaries, and it would be
arrogance to suppose that the reach of man’s power is to form
the limits of the natural world. The universe offers daily proof
of the existence of power of which we know nothing, but whose
mighty agency nevertheless manifestly appears in the most
familiar works of creation. And shall we deny the existence of
�14
this mighty energy, simply because it manifests itself in dele
gated and feeble subordination to God’s omnipotence? . . .
If we define a miracle as an effect of which the cause is
unknown to us, then we make our ignorance the source of
miracles, and the universe would be a standing miracle.” *
From this view some important consequences would seem to
follow. It brings the whole question of miracles, past and present,
under one general and comprehensive view, and supplies their
law on general principle. It enables us to understand how they
may be associated with different and even conflicting religious
faiths. Able and learned men have thought it necessary to show
(often in spite of evidence to the contrary) that Roman Catholic
and Pagan Miracles must be spurious, because it has been thought
that miracles were evidence of the Divine authority of the worker
or visible agent, and of the truth of all his doctrines and teachings,
or at least of the general truth of the system in attestation of
which the miracle was considered to be wrought. But we may
now see that miracles furnish no such evidence. Were Pio Nono
suddenly endowed with the power of speaking in unknown
tongues—say in the Chinese language—what evidence could that
be of Papal infallibility, or of the dogma of transubstantiation ?
Were a Hindoo philosopher to walk upon the sacred Ganges as
upon dry land, what proof could that be of the metempsychosis ?
What miracle could prove two and two to be more than four, or
less than four ? Or how could it effect any belief we may enter
tain as to the duration of the world, or the origin of species, or
any theory either of physics or of metaphysics to which it does
not stand in immediate relation ? What proof or confirmation
of ethical or religious truth could we derive from witnessing a
miracle except in so far as it proved the reality of spirit existence,
or was in some way related to that belief? Could any heathen
miracle make it right to offer human sacrifices to appease the
anger of the gods ? Or could any miracle make the parable of
the good Samaritan more true, or endow it with more persuasive
efficacy ? The Bible itself exemplifies this : it shows that
miracles in themselves are no evidence of divinity or of truth,
but only of power: that they may be magical, demoniacal, and
even diabolical, as well as divine. The first miracle it records—
that of the talking serpent—was satanic, andoneof the latest visions
the New Testament records, is that of unclean spirits working
miracles. If Moses and Aaron wrought miracles before Pharoah,
“ as the Lord had commanded,” “ Pharoah also called the wise
men and the sorcerers and the magicians of Egypt; and they
also did in like manner with their enchantments.” Nor does it
* Passages from the Life of a Philosopher.
By Chakles Babbage.
�15
affect the point that in this trial of strength the wise men, the
magicians, and the sorcerers were ultimately vanquished. If
“ the spirit of the Lord caught away Philip,” it was “ the
Devil” who took up Jesirs “into an exceeding high mountain,
and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of
them.”* The Evangelist who records this, represents Jesus as
saying, “ There shall arise false Christs and false Prophets, and
shall show great signs and wonders, inasmuch that were it
possible, they shall deceive the very elect,” and Saint Paul
speaks of “ Him whose coming as after the working of Satan,
with all power and signs and lying wonders.” If, then, miracles
are no certain credentials of a divine authority, no infallible
test of truth, what purpose do they serve ?
The New Testament speaks of miracles as “powers” or
“ mighty works,” “ wonders,” and “ signs.” The latter is the
more common and characteristic term. Miracles are the sign of
a presence and a power that is not of earth, of a world beyond
Nature, of a life beyond the present; they evidence that we are
indeed—
Moving about in worlds not realised.
Phenomena, otherwise the most trivial, acquire deep significance
when we realise them as spirit-manifestations, tokens and
greetings from those who have o’erlcaped this bank and shoal of
Time, and thus—
Shame the doctrine of the Sadducee.
They are voices of the night, messenger-birds that come to us
across the deep sea of Time, from the further shore, and tell us
of that miracle country—that spirit-world whither we are
bound. Miracles may have also other significations which we
need not here consider, but this I take to be their main, primary,
universal signification • and especially is this their chief value
and significance in our day of doubt and denial as to all
spiritual things.
Miracles are not the special product of any clime, race, creed,
or period ; they are not governed by considerations of geography,
or of ethnology. We cannot put up a fence anywhere and say,
“ This sacred enclosure is a magic circle in which miracles were
once common, but they have never occurred since, and never
have occurred, and never can occur outside it.” The spirit
world underlies Nature, and overlaps it; and wherever at any
time there are suitable conditions may sensibly manifest its
presence. We are now living in the midst of those experiences
in which the infant religions of the world were cradled. Trances,
* Whether these narratives are or are not historical does not affect the
present question. In any case they illustrate the Bible view of miracles—the
only point for which they are here cited.
�16
visions, healings, converse with spirits, communications from
the invisible world, and manifestations of supernatural power:—
these are familiar and avowed experiences in our time, as in
past ages. Their correspondence with those of the primitive
Christians is admitted even by those who believe in neither.
Renan in his Life of Jesus, says:—u For nearly a century
the Apostles and their disciples dreamed only of miracles.”
“ The disciples deemed it quite natural that their master should
have interviews with Moses and Elias.” “ The compilers of the
Gosepls were living in this respect in a world analogous to that
of the ‘ Spiritualists’ of our time.” Of, course, M. Renan does
not believe in any such world. In a later work, The Apostles, he
tells us, “ It is an absolute rule in criticism to deny a place in
history to narratives of miraculous circumstances. Such facts
have never been really proved. All the pretended miracles
near enough to be examined arc referable to illusion or imposture.
If a single miracle had ever been proved, we could not reject in
a mass all those of ancient history, for admitting that many of
these last were false, we might still believe that some of them
were true.” That is just the contention of “ the Spiritualists of
our time,” who from their own experience know that all miracles
arc not “ referable to illusion or imposture
and who find that
their experiences in the nineteenth century illustrate those of
“ the Apostles and their disciples” in the first century, that the
present and the past shed light upon each other.
11A miracle in Paris before experienced savans would put an
end to all doubt,” says Renan. I more than doubt it. To
say nothing of the Apostolic miracles, even the lesser' marvels
of Spiritualism in our own day, attested by such savans
as Alfred Russell Wallace, Professor De Morgan, and half-adozen Fellows of the Royal Society, backed by a crowd of
witnesses from the learned professions and from all ranks of
society, and from everv civilized land, does nothing of the kind.
Were an indubitable miracle to take place before a company of
the most experienced savans of Paris, as M. Renan suggests,
what would happen ? Simply this: that the Members of the
Institute, the Fellows of the Royal Society, and other learned
bodies, would tell them plainly it was all imposture or delusion.
If it were a miracle of vision it would be an hallucination; if
one of hearing, they would be told it was probably a disease of
the auditual nerve, or the miracle would be explained 'as a
nervous epidemic, or automatic cerebration, or past ideas
renovated, or possibly as due to hypnotism, oi' electro-biology.
They would be reminded that anyhow it could not be a
miracle, because a miracle is impossible, and not to be estab
lished by any amount of testimony. Finally, it would be insisted
�17
that if the miracle was to be believed, it must be done over
again, and as often as might be required, and under such test
conditions as the more experienced savans should impose. When
M. Renan tells us “ miracles never happen,” he may be right
if he means only that they never happen before some collective
body of “ experienced savans” for they never place themselves
in the way of their happening; and if brought before them by
one of their number they refuse to even listen to such matters,
as did the American Association for the Promotion of Science
when invited by Professor Hare and the Spiritualists of
AA ashington, and as the Royal Society has done more recently in
refusing even to hear a paper on “ Pyschic Force” read before it
by Mr. Crookes ; but if M. Renan means that no experienced
sayans in our day testify to such facts as were formerly called
miracles, then he manifests an ignorance of the subject that
would be strange in so learned a man, were it not, alas! so
common.
Dr. Littledale, writing in the Contenrporary Review for August,
1872, on “ The Rationale of Prayer,” in reply to Professor
Tyndall, says on this point:—
u I employed myself some time ago in speculating as to what
would be the practical result on modern unbelief of a public revival
of miracles. I have put before me the hypothesis of my being
myself invested with a supernatural power of healing, and have
asked myself what would come of it, assuming that the number and
notoriety of the cures forced the physicists to take the matter up
and inquire into it, instead of dismissing it with contemptuous
incredulity. And I became satisfied that unless the power were
universal and persistent in me, that is, that no case failed under
any conditions, its evidential value would be superciliously
disregarded. The objectors would insist on God’s working so
as to please them. They would require a variety of specified
conditions to be fulfilled in every instance, bargaining for the
nature and duration of the disease, the character and number of
the witnesses to be present, the uniform repetition of the cure
under carefully diversified circumstances, and the like. Then,
if God did not choose to submit Himself to such critics, or with
drew after a time the power conferred, they would look to the
cessation of the miracle, not to its previous persistence, and
reject it accordingly as a mere abnormal phenomenon not de
serving of serious attention. While, on the other hand, even if
it did continue, they would, I am convinced, ascribe it to the
discovery on my part of some hidden pathological law, and
would deny the existence of any superhuman causation. The
Evangelists are careful to let us know that the miracles they
ascribe to Christ were so far from converting His chief opponents
B
�18
that they merely embittered their hostility. And I consequently
do not believe for a moment that even if the proposed experi
ment (a ward in an hospital to be specially prayed for) were one
which is lawful for a Christian to try, if it were carried out to
the letter as suggested, and if the tabulated result exhibit an enor
mous percentage of cures in the favoured ward, that the hyperdogmatic asserters of the impossibility of miracles would be
convinced. They would whisper about that one of the physicians
had got a secret specific somehow, and was in league with the
parsons to palm off his success as theirs. And they would
probably point their remarks by showing how very conceivably
that trick might have been played when chloroform was dis
covered but not yet currently known.”
In terms almost identical with those of Renan, Strauss
assures us, 11 There is no right conception of what history
is, apart from a conviction that the chain of endless causation
can never be broken, and that a miracle is an impossibility. ”
But, now, are we quite sure that miracle is a breach in the
continuity of causation? Do we know the whole chain from
end to end? or, Do we see only a few of its lower links, the
higher, invisible to mortal ken, reaching, it may be, beyond
the realm of Nature, and producing effects we term miraculous?
Biishner sneeringly asks, “ Do not the table-spirits belong to the
order of miracles?” and in a very different spirit, Cudworth
argues, “ Though all miracles, promiscuously, do not immediately
prove the existence of God, nor confirm a prophet, or whatso
ever doctrine; yet, do all of them evince that there is a rank
of invisible, understanding beings, superior to men, which
atheists commonly deny.” The sneer of the atheist, and the
argument of the philosopher might alike suggest to the brilliant
Frenchman and the learned German that their objection to
miracle is based on an entire and fundamental misapprehension
of its nature, that it is not a synonym for a break in the chain
of endless causation; and with the rectification of that fatal
error their objection to miracle disappears: it has no longer a
foothold on the earth.
The supernatural is as much in harmony with law as is the
natural. The intervention of spiritual agency in Nature, acting
upon forces and in ways unknown to us and thereby producing
effects contrary to common experience, as when what we call
solid matter is made to pass through solid matter, is no more a
violation of law, or a break in the chain of endless causation,
than when man intervenes in Nature and employs the electric
current to transmit a message to the Antipodes.
That mistrust and doubt, especially when these are of the
will, rather than of the understanding, are real powers of
�19
hindrance in all spiritual working; and that such powers are
intensified by union and brought to a focus, is certain. Even
the Master Miracle-worker, in the midst of a sceptical com
munity, “could do no mighty works because of their unbelief.”
So far were His miracles from being acts of omnipotence, that He
expressly insists on their limitations, and on the conditions—
spiritual and physical—necessary to their performance,—faith,
prayer, fasting, unity, harmony. No doubt it was to the
observance of these divine laws, to His habits of solitude,
meditation, and prayer; His perfect trust in God, and His
oneness with the Father, that He was able to perform those
beneficent mighty works that were indeed a sign to that
faithless and perverse generation. Doubtless there was also
conjointly in Him what may be called an organic fitness—a
harmony of the entire nature, an openness to the highest influx,
the natural body itself being pre-eminently a temple for the
Divine Spirit; so that both spiritually and physically, and in an
especial manner, He was thus constituted the living organ and
medium of its communication and power. And if now, as we are
told, “ such things never happen,” let it, among other things, be
remembered that such a personality is never found, that such a
life is never lived. When our “ experienced savansn are thus
open to influx from the Heavens, and attain that moral and
spiritual union with God which Christ exemplified, and to which
His true disciples aspire, they may realise the truth of His words,
“ The works that I do shall ye do also, and greater than these ;”
and of His promise to be in the midst of those who were gathered
together in His name; and understand how the great Pentecostal
outpouring occurred, when “ the disciples were all with one
accord in one place.”
To our “ experienced savans” however, I am aware such
language is like talking in an unknown tongue.
Spiritual
insight indeed is rarely found in men profoundly penetrated
with a sense of their own learning and wise in their own
conceit. It is true now, as of old, that spiritual mysteries are
often hidden from these wise and prudent persons and revealed
to fishermen, and even unto babes. Scholarship may teach us
of the past, and science of the facts of Nature and her methods,
but spiritual arcana are beyond their province. Philology and
mathematics will not help us to any knowledge of the laws,
forces, and relations of the spiritual world, and the most
experienced savant may be stone-blind to the simplest facts
concerning it; as indeed he is when he seeks to test and gauge
those facts by the laws and methods of purely natural science,
except in so far . as they relate to phenomena and effects of
spiritual action within the range of physics.
�20
While we contend that there is no antecedent impossibility
in miracles; that, like other facts, they may be established on
sufficient evidence ; that they violate no law of the Divine Order,
when we take a comprehensive view of that Order as including
both the natural and the spiritual universe with which they may
be coeval and co-extensive; they at the same time become
divested of that false and superstitious character which in a
scientific age has so impeded their reception.
I trust that the time is not far distant when this whole
subject will be reconsidered on larger grounds than those on
which it is now generally discussed, and apart from any bearings
it may be supposed to have on theories and systems on either
side. It may be that our definitions may have to be corrected
and our theories revised, and that our systems may be found
partial and incomplete; but let us take all facts into the
account and resolve to follow Truth whithersoever it may lead
us, and I apprehend we shall be on the high road to a better
understanding of the rationale of miracles, past and present.
Note.—I have abstained from direct discussion of the New Testament
miracles (to which, in consideration of this subject, our thoughts naturally
revert) as their adequate discussion would demand much fuller treatment than
is here possible. I would, however, recommend the reader desirous of prosecu
ting this enquiry to Trench’s Notes on the Miracles, especially to the Introduction,
which gives a historical and critical review of the objections to them. It is a
pity this Introduction is not published as a separate essay in a cheap form for
more extensive circulation.
In reply to Hume and more recent objectors to miracles, see an able paper
by Alfred Russell Wallace, read before the Committee of the London Dialectical
Society, and published in The Spiritual Magazine, No. 3, Vol. VII., New Series.
Printed by Thomas Scott, Warnick Court, Holborn.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Concerning miracles
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Brevior, Thomas
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 20 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Reprinted from the Spiritual Magazine, October, 1872. Includes bibliographical references. Printed by Thomas Scott, Holborn. Author is pseudonym of Thomas Hooper.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1872]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5330
Subject
The topic of the resource
Miracles
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Concerning miracles), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Miracles
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9e1401b6b6d1449b8a5a0f910fb268ac.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=YKRqO-KNwZ91nfHEeaepb7FFUY7pJD-OELjd8OW5HHGOre-sipPU%7EV0kvP8hYKsCxXN3JPas-TjyTwZlq6OoTPVxrmk-RZAPeMJlST9-voNaIB0khCJEb6%7E6VJ9lqUtQ8kI8qZIxDbBU9N0QbOBPiZ0b-NyYgGdwpsR2GxlHmE6Ngl07KpGJTFkBCURvfMTkHrxP6GXWLKEsDgsPU92niha0nZgVOK43i-sXPAmP4HHkCkUXGCNdYO1TAVA6qhZgSHC2UytI03nQm8uAAbxlnFQh0DTthgafnO3MmRxN5PolajagAOBXZqu8OSMuQrXQiD-G6-YpOhvjh6ryAo4QoA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4d681fcc93c5dc3474fa32d72a74be0a
PDF Text
Text
^A/b/2-
DR CARPENTER AT SION COLLEGE;
OR, THE
VIEW OF MIRACLES
TAKEN BY
MEN OF SCIENCE.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SOOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E. ■
1874.
Price. Sixpence.
�7
�DE CAEPENTEE AT SION COLLEGE ;
OR,
THE VIEW OF MIRACLES
TAKEN BY
MEN OF SCIENCE.
HE following correspondence originated from the
sending to Divinity
the
Tnotice which aappeared ProfessorIndex, copy of atime
in The
a short
since, of a lecture delivered by Dr Carpenter at Sion
College, on “The Reign of Law,” particularly in
relation to the efficacy of prayer, before an audience
two-thirds of which consisted of clergymen. As
exception has been taken to the notice referred to by
some who were present at the meeting, on the ground
that it was not strictly accurate, it may be well to
give the reader an authoritative summary of the
Doctor’s line of thought, by way of introduction to
the general discussion of the subject which succeeds.
No report of the lecture appeared in the English press
at the time, and no formal minutes were kept of the
proceedings by the officials of Sion College. It may
just be premised, further, that while the lecture went
to show that there was no proof of the uniformity of
law observable in the physical universe being in the
least altered by prayer, Dr Carpenter left his hearers
to infer, by natural sequence, that no evidence exists
of the course of physical nature ever having been
interrupted preternaturally from any cause whatso
ever. This latter principle underlies the whole argu
�4
On the View of Miracles
ment of the lecture, and interlaces Dr Carpenter’s
thought throughout. It may be otherwise defined
thus. The structure of the Universe seems, from all
that can be known of it, to be incompatible with the
occurrence of physical miracle ; and the investigation
of this principle will be chiefly kept in view by the
present writer.
Dr Carpenter began by expressing his entire
agreement with Dr Chalmers and other theologians
who have known what science means in regarding
“ the laws of nature ” as simply our expressions of
the uniformities observable in the phenomena of the
universe. The lecturer referred specially to Dr
Chalmers’s sermon, entitled “The Constancy of Nature:
a Testimony to the Faithfulness of God.” He showed
that the whole of our action in the world proceeds
upon the assumption of this uniformity; and whilst
he did not question that the Deity could depart from
it if he so determined, he did emphatically question
whether we had any ground to expect that he ever
would, in accordance with human entreaty.
“If the whole scheme of creation,” argued Dr
Carpenter, “ has been devised with a view to the
highest happiness and welfare of God’s creatures, any
departure from that scheme must be for the worse.
And so, if I ask God for something that I think would
be better for me, it must be at the expense (even
supposing that I should really be the better for it) of
some one else. But any one who really believes in the
infinite paternity of God would shrink from impor
tunity for any change that he may desire for himself;
just as much as a child who trusts implicitly in the
wisdom and affection of an earthly father will abstain
from importuning him, when told that what he asks
would be bad for him.”
“To importune God for any departure from his
uniform course of action seems to me tantamount to
saying either that we know better than he does what
�Taken by Men of Science.
$
is good for us, or that, knowing that his way is best
in the end, we prefer the immediate gratification of
our own selfish desires.”
“ In earlier times pestilences were supposed to be
punishments inflicted by the vengeance of an offended
Deity, who was to be propitiated by prayers and
sacrifices. Now, we regard them as the result of
habitual violations of the laws which God enables us
to read in the course of nature ; and when such occur,
we set ourselves to find out the misdoing and endea
vour to correct it.”
The Doctor then narrated a very remarkable case,
which occurred at Baltimore in the Cholera Epidemic
of 1849. “Though the Poor-House,” he said, “was
supposed to have been free from any special liability
to its attack, and there was no prevalence of cholera
in the town, yet at two or three miles distance from
Baltimore, and in an open salubrious situation, there
was a most fearful outbreak in this Poor-House,
thirty dying in a day out of about eight hundred.
This was traced to a defect of drainage, which was
at once rectified, and immediately the plague was
stayed.” With reference to this Dr Carpenter
asked:—“ Does any gentleman in this room believe
that, if all Baltimore had gone down on its knees for
a week, God would have been moved to avert the
visitation ? ” His argument was that, “ in regard to
the course of nature, it is for the man of science to
study the uniformities of the Divine action, and to
bring down his own into accordance with it.” He
drew, however, “a broad line between the action of
Deity in the physical universe and his spiritual agency
on the mind of man.” “ The religious experience of
ages,” he said, “sanctions the idea that prayer for
enlightenment to know the will of God, and for
strength to enable us to do or bear it, has an effect—■
how or
we cannot tell; and to this view he gave
his entire assent. “ Such prayer,” he maintained,
�6
On the View of Miracles
“ is in accordance with the deepest religious instincts,
and is expressed in the noblest passages of sacred
literature.” “ But, in regard to the work of life,” he
contended “ that laborare (on the highest principles of
action) est orare. ”
One clergyman said, at the close of the lecture,
that if Dr Carpenter’s position were correct he might
as well shut up his church. He said : “ I ask God
for things I want, and I expect to get them.” But
this did not seem the general impression, which was,
that “ prayer does not change the course of nature,
but that, in the ordination of Divine Providence,
Prayer is a condition of our obtaining what we ask.”
In a letter written afterwards by Dr Carpenter to
a friend, containing comments on this latter view of
prayer, he says: “ This is as much as to say that if
we did not ask we should not receive (yet we are told
that material blessings are bestowed alike on the just
and the unjust, on the thankful and the unthankful).
I should call this the mechanical theory of Prayer.
It puts us in the condition of children just learning to
talk, who are made to say ‘ Ta! ’ for a cake or a
sweetie; and it seems to me to lower the spiritual
value of prayer to the material, instead of raising the
material to the spiritual—or, as Miss Cobbe said to
me, to bring God down to us, instead of trying to lift
ourselves to God.”
“ Mr Llewellyn Davies expressed his general ac
cordance with me; and I had subsequent communi
cations from other clergymen to the same effect. I
believe that liberal and thoughtful men generally
would accept these conclusions, if not trammelled by
the letter of Scripture. Many have revolted at the
parables of the Unjust Judge and the Importunate
Widow, and of the Friend who yields to importunity
what he will not give to friendship; as conveying a
low idea of the Divine Fatherhood. Their best inter
pretation has, I think, been given by Robert Collyer
�Taken by Men of Science.
7
(of Chicago), in an admirable sermon entitled “ Knock
ing at the Gate of Heaven,”—their lesson being that
nothing good or great can be got without persevering
effort.”
Letter from the Lev. Dr ----- , Professor of Theology, to
Mr M---- .
----- College, 14 March, 1874.
My dear Mr M----- ,
If the report [from The Index] of which you have kindly
sent me a copy be correct . . . there must have been a most
melancholy exhibition of bigotry, narrowness and fanaticism.
. . . What a god in knowledge Dr Carpenter must be to
be able to use such words as:—“Nature represents a
kingdom of orderly evolution which has never been invaded
by anything preternatural or supernatural, and all liturgies,
litanies, collects, and prayers that were ever uttered never
had influenced—never could influence—the course of this
universe, nor mankind, nor a single individual in the slightest
degree.”*
Do you really think Dr Carpenter knows the entire history of
nature and humanity from the beginning down to this time,
so exactly as to be able of knowledge to affirm that ? If he
do not, such a statement, scientifically considered, is the pro
duct either of ignorance or fanaticism. If this be what is
called “Truth, whatever be the consequences,” the so-called
scientists are as self-deluded as they are fanatical—viewed
from the point of view of sober science. The paper you have
sent has supplied me with another proof that there are no
men more narrow and incapable of reasoning outside their own
limited department than the “scientists.” They are con
stantly protesting against metaphysics, philosophy, faith, &c.,
and yet they are perpetually making a system of the
universe out of the wee bit of earth to which they have
devoted special attention. Speaking solely from a scientific
point of view, I maintain that statements like Dr Carpenter’s
are as unscientific and fanatical as the crudest assertions ever
enunciated by a preacher. There is now far more real
scientific sobriety and caution in believing than in unbelieving
circles. Fanaticism is fast becoming—as has been foretold—
the specialty of those who do not believe. Excuse me
expressing myself plainly. I do so as a thinking man, not as
* These words are cited from the notice in The Index.
�8
On the View of Miracles
a Christian teacher. Wishing that you yourself may soon
again pass from darkness to the true light of life in Christ,
I am, &c.,
---------- .
Letter from Mr M---- to Dr------ .
B----- , 19 March, 1874.
My dear Dr----- ,
. . . The report of the proceedings at Sion College, which
I forwarded you, is substantially correct on the main points,
though faulty in omitting to record that one-third of the
audience was composed of laymen, in erroneously stating that
bishops were present, and in making too much of the protests
uttered by the clergy. Moreover, it puts the argument
of Dr Carpenter too baldly, and without due qualification.
The lecturer did not deny the possibility of Deity effecting a
physical miracle or acting discordantly with the uniform
operation of material law, though he asserted that there was
no ground to expect that the Deity ever would depart from that
uniformity in accordance with human entreaty. Again, in justice
to the Doctor it should have been stated in the report, that
he admitted prayer to be efficacious in the spiritual sphere as
far as to enable us to obtain “enlightenment ” respecting “the
will of God” and “ strength to do or bear it.”
Now one point is clear. Dr Carpenter practically recog
nises interference with the uniform operation of the laws of
nature as a conception at variance with the perfect wisdom
and beneficence he would attribute to the Deity; for he says
in his own account of the lecture written to a correspondent:
“If the whole scheme of creation has been devised with a
view to the highest welfare of God’s creatures, any departure
from that scheme must be for the worse.” In this view I entirely
concur, notwithstanding the epithets with which you gratui
tously bespatter the lecturer and the scientific laymen present
who shared his opinions. As for some of the worthy clergy
men present, their uneasiness under the statements to which
they listened is far from unaccountable. They are not accus
tomed to be contradicted by their people, and perhaps many
of them had not imagined that it was possible for their fond
traditions and devout faith in the miraculous, to receive so
rude a shock from the inexorable conclusions of science. Such
conclusions tended to disturb their faith, which is usually felt
by them to be consoling and strong in proportion as it is not
subjected to the test of historic criticism and to the antisupernatural analyses of science.
�Taken by Men of Science.
9
While virtually at one with Dr Carpenter on this head, I
should be disposed to define my position without his qualifying
considerations. He admits that whatever the Deity may have
the power to will, there is no proof that he has ever performed
a miracle in answer to human entreaty,—and I would venture
to add that there is no real proof that he ever performed a
miracle under any other condition. I believe nature to be a
system of orderly evolution, and in the very essence of the
constitution of the universe, the possibility of what is popu
larly understood as supernatural or miraculous interference
with its laws is necessarily precluded. Nature would cease
to be nature, and the universe to be the universe, on any
other supposition. This is the inductive view of the matter,
which one, unsophisticated by theological bias, instinctively
arrives at, as the result of intelligently observing the struc
ture, phenomena, and laws of the universe. And in this view
we are impregnably supported by the experience of the greatest
thinkers of modern days and by the testimony of all verifiable
history, as distinguished from incoherent, contradictory, and
half-mythical records which belong to unscientific and super
stitious times, and which relate, for the most part, to com
munities notoriously credulous and unacquainted with the
simplest facts of natural science. Niebuhr has played con
siderable havoc with some pleasant stories in the early history
of Rome; and, much to the dismay of those who have been
indulging similarly happy illusions affecting the professed
biographies of Jesus and his apostles, Strauss, Bauer, Schenkel, Meredith, Scott, and others have demonstrated many
historical statements in the four Gospels to be not only irreconcileable with each other, but incapable of proof. The
authenticity of these Gospels touches the very core of the
question of miracles, for they are claimed to be an inspired
history of a supernatural revelation from God; and for this
reason I must ask your permission to submit a few remarks
on these venerated documents in connection with this
subject.
Pagan, Jewish, and Christian writers alike, nearest to the
days of Jesus and his apostles knew nothing of the four
gospels. Moreover, as to the writing spoken of in the alleged
works of a certain Christian Bather, under the title of
‘ Memorials of the Apostles,’ there is no proof that these
‘ Memorials ’ ever existed; no trace of them can be found; and
it is quite possible that the single reference to them in early
Christian literature may be spurious. But even granting that
such ‘ Memorials ’ were genuine and authentic, there is nothing
to show that they were identical with the Gospels in the main,
or that they substantiate the claims of the latter. In no
�io
On the View of Miracles
instance do the Fathers for the first 150 years mention
Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, or quote words which can,
beyond dispute, be verified as of the authorship of the
“Evangelists.” There is no proof that the Gospels, in their
present shape, or in any real shape, were known to the
Fathers during the period above stated. Not till the time of
Irenceus (A.D. 180) does the doctrine of the Divine origin of the
Gospels begin to be propounded and believed, and even then Christians
were greatly divided as to which Gospels, and how many, were worthy
their acceptance. Nor can it be denied that the second
century was pre-eminent in Christendom for “pious frauds”
in connection with the “ sacred” records of the church,—these frauds being shamelessly practised and justified because
calculated to advance the material and external interests
of the Christian faith. A hundred years from the death of
the oldest apostle was surely a sufficiently long space,—
under such lax ideas of honesty as then prevailed among
Christian writers,—to bring to maturity a considerable
crop of fictitious narratives; and it is well known that tales
of this kind abounded in those times, respecting Jesus and
his immediate followers. A distinguished Church of England
theologian writes:—“Books, countless in number, were
written [in post-apostolic times], professing to give a history
of Jesus and his apostles. The authorship of these was attri
buted to Christ himself, or to some of his apostles and their
companions : our four Gospels were selected from this countless
number.” By.whom were they selected? When were they
selected? Why were they selected? Let Mosheim answer
these questions. “ As to the time when, and the persons by
whom, the books of the New Testament were collected into
one body, there are various opinions, or rather conjectures, of
the learned ; for the subject is attended with great and inexplicable
difficulties to us of these latter times.'’*
What then can really be known of how and by whom these
selected gospels were composed ? Is there no unmistakeable
source of information open to us as to when and how they
came into existence, and when and how the original autographs
of them were lost ? Such autographs are unknown to history.
The very earliest MS. of the gospels the world has, as yet,
had access to, is dated no further back than the beginning of
the fourth century.
Even orthodox theologians of repute saw away the branch
to which they cling, by the admissions which facts compel
them to make concerning the impenetrable obscurity and, I
might add, the strong doubtfulness in which the origin of the
gospels is shrouded. The late Dean Alford, in his ‘ Critical
* Eccles. Hist., vol. i., p. 93.
�Taken by Men of Science.
II
Introduction to the Greek text of the New Testament,
writes: “The Christian world is left in uncertainty
what its Scriptures are as long as the sacred text is full of
Various readings. Some one MS. must be pointed out to us which
carries the weight of verbal inspiration or some text whose authority
shall be undoubted, must be promulgated. But manifestly neither
'of these things can ever happen. To the latest age the reading of
■some important passages will be matter of doubt in the church,
and there is hardly a sentence in the whole of the
FOUR GOSPELS IN WHICH THERE ARE NOT VARIETIES OF
DICTION IN OUR PRINCIPAL MSS., BAFFLING ALL ATTEMPTS
to decide which was its original form.” A frank con
cession truly for a learned exegetical theologian who,
notwithstanding, strangely adhered to the notion that the
gospels were miraculously inspired!
Canon Westcott, who has bestowed, if possible, even more
attention upon the question of New Testament canonieity,
speaks in yet more decisive terms on this point. “It is cer
tainly remarkable,” he says, “that in the controversies of the
second century, which often turned upon disputed readings of
the Scripture, no appeal was made to the apostolic originals; the
few passages in which it has been supposed that they are referred to,
will not bear examination.”* Orthodox critics themselves being
witnesses, therefore, there is no evidence that the gospels
were written by those whose names they bear; there is a total
absence of contemporary testimony in their favour, and no
proof whatever in the next two generations, that the books
were veracious, or written by the persons to whom they are
ascribed. Canon Westcott himself admits that clear quota
tions from the gospels do not occur till the time of Ireneeus
(a.d. 180), Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 220), and Origen
(a.d. 250).
The accepted doctrine of the New Testament, as containing
a supernatural revelation, then, seems simply “to have had
its origin in tradition for at least the first hundred and
seventy years of the Christian era; for the following one
hundred and thirty years it was a matter of speculation, among
men whose ignorance was only equalled by their superstitious
credulity; and, finally, it was decreed to be a divine truth by
a majority of votes in one of those turbulent assemblies of
bishops, which too often had to be dispersed by military force,
after terrible rioting, which was sometimes attended with
bloodshed.”
Until the third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) numerous
gospels and epistles were in circulation and use among the
Christians, all claiming equally to be of inspired authority.
* Art. Smith’s Diet, of the Bible,vol. ii., p. 506.
�12
On the View of Miracles
By the bishops assembled at that Council a catalogue of the
books to be chosen and recognised as canonical, was drawn
up and passed, because found to serve best the ends of the
theological party then in power. All other books that
seemed to clash with the dogmas of this ruling party were
promptly burned. After much episcopal wrangling at the
*
Council on the subject, the number of gospels to be included
in the Canon was limited to four, with the consent of the
majority of the bishops, for the following ingenious reason,
which proved to be irresistibly conclusive to their orthodox
minds! Irenaeus was reported to have said, two centuries before :
“ It is impossible that there could have been more or less than
four. For there are four climates, and four cardinal winds,
and the church is spread over the whole earth ; but the gospel
is the pillar and foundation of the church, and its breath of
life. The church, therefore, was to have four pillars, blowing
immortality from every quarter, and giving life to men.”
Hence we happen to have inherited four gospels instead of
forty or fourscore I
Yet on the foundation of this arbitrary, conflicting, and
unproveable collection of narratives, you and your orthodox
friends expect Dr Carpenter to believe in the miracles ascribed
to Jesus and his colleagues, and you charge the Doctor with
“ narrowness, bigotry, and fanaticism ” because he rejects all
past accounts of miracles as improbable. We, who are called
rationalists, disbelieve in miracles (1) because it is of the
nature of supernatural interposition, were such to occur, to
introduce confusion and ruin into the whole indissolubly
connected chain of causes and effects throughout the Uni
verse ; and (2) because there does not exist in support of
religious miracles, or any other sort of miracles, any proof to
satisfy a mind free from traditional or sentimental fetters, and
bent on reaching fact by the only legitimate method—the
inductive method. I should be willing to leave it to any
twelve unprejudiced men of thought and judgment to decide
whether fanaticism lies in believing in miracles on the sandy
foundation of “pious frauds,” obscure superstitions, and con
flicting statements, pertaining to an age and a people remark
able for credulity and ignorance; or whether it lies in
rejecting tales of the miraculous, and trusting to the uniform
“Reign of Law” as essential to the well-being of the Uni
verse at all times and in all regions. If the question be
which side lays itself open to the imputation of fanaticism, I
should imagine the charge would most apply to those who
are satisfied to believe in stories of miracles which are said to
Draper’s Hist, of the Intel. Devpt. of Europe, vol. i., pp. 301-302.
�Taken by Men of Science.
T3
have happened nearly 2,000 years ago, on the authority of very
remote, incoherent, and unverifiable hearsays, coming down
from peasants living in ignorant times. The real fanatics are
surely those who, while so readily taking in those crude
narratives of far-off days, could not be convinced of the
supernatural occurring now, by almost any amount or kind
of testimony. How shall we characterise so singular a mode
of reasoning, except as fanatical ? Proof for an alleged miracle
in the nineteenth century, before it could be received by the
orthodox, must be indisputable; but the most hazy, mythwoven, and incongruous evidence is quite sufficient in their
view to support the affirmation of many miracles having taken
place among illiterate enthusiasts in the first century.
“Dq you really think Dr Carpenter knows the entire history
of nature and humanity from the beginning down to this
time so exactly as to be able of knowledge to affirm that ?
[viz., that a miracle never happened.] ” Such is your
question ; and it contains an intended quietus for the ration
alist which won some Evangelical fame for John Poster sixty
years ago, and the reply has been already given. There is no
proof that the regular course of nature has ever been departed
from, and yet the proof ought to be demonstrable in pro
portion to the extraordinary phenomena to which you invite
our credence. Nay, your question can be matched by another.
Do you really think that the planet Jupiter has the alterna
tion of day and night like our Earth ? Do you really think
that Neptune is influenced by the law of gravitation like this
“ wee bit of earth ” ? Can you say you know such to be the
case ? Have you personally been close enough to these stars,
and had such opportunities of studying their movements, that
you can demonstrate the assertion, of your knowledge, respecting
them ? Have you seen day and night on Jupiter ? Do you
possess tangible evidence that the laws of gravitation extend
to Neptune ? You know you cannot point to the clear evi
dence of your senses in proof of these things; and yet you are
prepared to assert emphatically that the phenomena I have
described belong as much to other planets as to our own.
You have the analogy of material law within the range of
your personal observation to guide you, and the tested con
clusions of science deepen your sense of the universality and
uniformity of law in its operations. But suppose I were to
hurl at you, for your supposed assertions about Jupiter and
Neptune, the ecclesiastical thunderbolt you aim at Dr
Carpenter and other men of science—whose pure, life-long and
successful devotion to the study of nature merits for them the
profoundest respect—for their denial of miracles, what then ?
And yet men of science have simply reached their conclusions as
�14
On the View of Miracles
to the order of nature excluding the occurrence of miracles
by the same inferential kind of reasoning which might lead you
to venture statements about something going on hundreds of
millions of miles away. There is, however, this difference. While
theologians and men of science in the case supposed would
equally base their reasonings on their convictions of an universal Cosmos, Dr Carpenter and his friends have had much
more experience than professors of theology in observing
the processes of nature, a higher scientific culture and a more
extensive and subtle apparatus for conducting scientific
research. _ Consequently I should feel quite as much justified
in accepting the statement of Dr Carpenter in his challenging
the proof of miracles, as I should in accepting your version of
certain natural events happening in very distant parts of the
universe. What think you now of the severe judgment you
have passed on scientific men as applied to yourself, mutatis
mutandis? “If he do not [i.e., know, by a personal inspection,
all departments of the Universe from the beginning, &c.] such
a statement [i.e., as the one the Doctor makes against
the occurrence of miracles], scientifically considered, is the
product either of ignorance or fanaticism. . . . The socalled scientists are as self-deluded as they are fanatical.
. . . No men more narrow and incapable of reasoning out
side their own limited department.”
Of course theologians (I suppose on Paul’s principle of him
that is spiritual being at liberty to judge all things) are
eminently capable of estimating accurately the profound
analysis of science, their “department” being so proverbially
expansive—especially where creeds, like high walls, attract
their, gaze to the vast range of metaphysico-theological
inscriptions written in these creeds—and shut out the region
beyond! A Pisgah-like prospect certainly, compared with
the “limited ” vista of science which has the grave disadvan
tage of beihg encompassed by no stereotyped creeds—
inventions so admirably adapted to enlarge human thought
and inspire a bold and wholesome love of ‘ ‘ truth, regardless
of consequences !! ”
I have seen, in my time, a good deal of philosophico-theological gymnastics performed round that word ‘ ‘ experience,”
as used by Hume tn relation to the subject of miracles. But
I have yet to find the dilemma in which that philosopher
put his supernaturalist critics, effectually answered by them.
■“ It is more probable (said he) that human testimony should
be false than that a miracle should be true; ” or as Paley
repeats Hume’s objection:—“It is contrary to experience
that a miracle should be true, but not contrary to experience
that testimony should be false.” This objection to miracles
�Taken by Men of Science.
i5
advanced by Hume before science had so completely disclosed
to us the uniform orderly development of nature as it has
since done—I say again has never been really confuted by
theology, but, on the other hand, has been confirmed by the
ever-accumulating verities of science.
Both on the principles, then, of true philosophy—the
philosophy of scientific fact — and on the principles of
scholarly historical criticism, the fairly intelligent mind of
our day, apart from traditional prejudices, cannot but have a
predisposition to trust the order of the universe as an uniform
whole, and as all-sufficient for every need of our race, and to
disbelieve in the aberglaube of supernaturalism.
When any class of men take it upon them to assert that
something miraculous took place somewhat frequently, 2,000
years ago in Palestine among a few obscure Jewish peasants,
of whom contemporary history says nothing, and of whom
trustworthy history takes no account for more than a century
afterwards ; when any class of men insist on our faith in this
preternatural interference on the authority of the most
unsatisfactory evidence ever produced—evidence which never
can be verified; when any class of men maintain that our
escape from eternal misery or eternal annihilation, as the case
may be, depends on our reception of vague and unverifiable
allegations about events avowedly contrary to the known laws
of nature and to the sum of trustworthy human experience,
and more particularly in the most enlightened ages and
countries, then unquestionably a very grave onus of proof
rests upon these believers in miracles. For my part I
unhesitatingly own that I regard miracles as impossible,
unnecessary, and superstitious, and while I see startling
presumption in any party proclaiming the necessity of
believing in them on a basis so frail—not to say illusory—as
the authority on which they are made to stand, I find every
thing harmonious with reason and with accredited and sober
human experience in the position of those of an inductive
habit of mind who disbelieve them.
Your mode of treating the subject calls to one’s mind the
legal exigency in which the policy is resorted to of abusing the
plaintiff’s attorney. You denounce the honest truth-seeking
“scientists,” as you call them, who have no creed to main
tain for pay, and who have consequently vastly less tempta
tion than theologians in the Christian sects have, to stick to a
dogma because it is the shibboleth of a party. We have had
enough of denunciation and reproach from orthodoxy. What
we want is honest and earnest discussion from your side; not
elaborate metaphysical dialectics or effusions of pious senti
ment, which are quite irrelevant, but calm, logical statements
�16
On the View of Miracles
offact in reply to the historical and scientific statements of fact
put forth by learned sceptics. Yet if we invite you to answer
Dr Carpenter and Professor Tyndall with science for science,
you choose either to evade the real point at issue or to assume
a scornful attitude and refuse our reasonable demand as if it
were malicious and profane. If we ask you to reply to
Spinoza’s ‘Tractatus Theologico-Politicus,’ or Strauss’s ‘‘T/ife
of Jesus,’ or Colenso’s ‘Pentateuch,’ you simply point us to
Neander’s ‘Life of Christ,’ or ‘Aids to Faith,’ or to the
paltering lectures of the “Christian Evidence Society,” and
you go your way, reminding us that our “stale objections”
have been “answered over and over again.” But we will
continue to proclaim our dissatisfaction till the whole question
of the Christian miracles is dealt with by you in a purely
inductive fashion, and the scorn or pity you affect towards
“ scientists ” and “unbelievers” we will only regard as marks
of a weak cause. I recommend to your attention the reply
of Herder, in his ‘ Survey of Spinozism, ’ to the habitual
carping of priests at science in all ages. He argues truly
that just in proportion as physical science has progressed,
men’s ideas of God and nature have been purified and raised,
and the old fancies of “the faithful” respecting the universe
as subject to blind and arbitrary control, have been dispelled.
“The forces of nature,” he says, “are eternal as the God
head in which they inhere. All is, was, and ever will be in
conformity with beneficent, beautiful, necessary law, twin
sister of eternal power, mother of all order, security, and
happiness.”
How different this view from the persistent attempts of the
guardians of ecclesiastical interests everywhere, who can with
difficulty be got to speak kindly of the most disinterested and
reverent attempts to unveil the operation of natural law, unless
the. scientific student happen to profess unquestioning belief in
their metaphysical speculations at the same time. It has rather
been the habit of orthodoxy to refer to the framework of life
around us as God-forsaken, or as containing, at best, a cold,
marred, distant, and unsatisfying revelation of the First Cause;
and this disposition of priests to undervalue revelations of
universal law through science has usually been associated with
a tendency on their part to be most dogmatic and earnest
about things that are most inscrutable—most confident in
their hair-splitting definitions of what is most indefinable.
One of your ablest theological colleagues, I remember some
time ago, charged disbelievers in his view of the supernatural
with ‘ ‘ imprisoning God within a vast and immoveable system
of natural laws.” A strange and, I fear I must say, an
ungrateful conception for any man to have of the system of
�Taken by Men of Science.
*7
the Universe as based upon law,—so constant, progressive, and
infinite in its evolutions. Might we not, with some propriety,
reply: “Orthodox theologians have imprisoned God in a
narrow creed, and represented him as if he were a mere
impersonation of dogmatic theology, or a President of an
Ecclesiastical Assembly ?” Any one who considers the move
ments of the Almighty as unnaturally restrained. because
directed by invariable laws, indicates a state of mind very
becoming, perhaps, a retained counsel defending a cape in
which he has some substantial interest; but, in my . judg
ment, neither philosophical nor religious. The very principle
of undeviating uniformity which you and your friends oppose,
the loftiest scientific minds unite in acknowledging to be the
highest mark of infinite wisdom and goodness. Without it
prudent forethought in the conduct of human affairs would be
impossible. Have you ever been conscious of any experience
material, intellectual, or spiritual that can be proved to be
above and beyond the direction of fixed natural law ? Your
birth, your education, your physical and mental growth, the
formation of your religious convictions, the influences you
have exerted and received in your intercourse with your
fellow creatures ; your work as a Christian teacher—have not
all these things been under the dominion of natural law?
And have you felt the more on that account your legitimate
freedom and happiness limited ? Well, then, you have but
to project your finite experience, in these respects, upon an
infinite scale, to form some idea (remote, I admit, but suf
ficiently clear for the purpose of the present argument) of how
compatible the control of eternal and fixed law is with the
freest movements of the First Cause.
If English Church and Chapel-goers were to trouble them
selves less about what is beyond the sphere of rational proof,
and were to occupy themselves more with the study of
natural law, upon co-operation, with which the true regene
ration of humanity depends ; if the principles of natural
morality had always held sway as the religion of churchism
has done; if science and philanthropy had always wielded
among the masses as wide an influence as theology and priest
craft have done, there would now be immensely less social
vice, physical misery, and intellectual and moral degradation ;
better sanitary regulations; a nobler bodily and mental
organisation in our fellow creatures ; a keener appreciation of
aesthetics; a livelier sense of mutual obligations between
capital and labour, between the governing and the governed,
and between parents and children; a wider diffusion of useful
knowledge, and a worthier conception of religion.
I shoidd like to refer, in concluding my remarks on the
�18
On the View of Miracles
chief theme of Dr Carpenter’s lecture, to a concession which
he makes to orthodoxy, and to which I am obliged to take
exception. The Doctor admits that prayer is efficacious in the
spiritual sphere, as far as to enable us “to obtain enlighten
ment ” as to “the will of God and strength to do or bear it.”
This concession is remarkable as showing wherein the lecturer
is illogical and unscientific in the application of his principle
of natural law. He thinks that there is “ a spiritual action
of Deity on the mind of the devout petitioner.” He accepts
the testimony of “the Religious Experience of ages” in
support of this supposed direct operation of God on the devout
mind, and he writes in the letter quoted from at the beginning
of this paper, as if he held this direct operation of God as
outside the realm of law ; and yet, while finding it convenient
to bow to the authority of “the Religious Experience of
ages” on this head, he inconsistently rejects the very
same testimony in past times, where physical miracle is
concerned. To be logical, he ought to yield to the “sanc
tion” of the “Religious Experience of ages” equally for
both kinds of preternatural interference, or for neither; for
the testimony is equally weak or strong,—just as we may
please to regard it—for both. If “the Religious Experience
of ages ” may not be trusted by a scientific man when fer
vently adduced in support of the disturbance of physical law,
why should it be trusted when it asserts the influence of
prayer, in modifying the application of law in spiritual
matters? I venture to believe that neither in “Sacred
Literature ” nor in Ecclesiastical History can there be found
a single instance in which “Enlightenment” or “strength”
was ever realised by Saints—Catholic or Protestant,—as a
preternatural result of prayer, and which could not be
realised without it. Intense religious susceptibility will
readily catch fire, in certain moods of the mind, under any
pious act, whether secluded meditation or the strain of a
farm'liar hymn or an impressive sermon ; and the glow of the
feeling, thus excited, will communicate itself to the intellect
and the will, and create a spiritual atmosphere in which
spiritual objects will be vividly realised and spiritual pur
poses vigorously executed. The reflex influence of religious
enthusiasm when directed by pure desire to know and do what
is deemed right, will always be great upon the mind. But
for Dr Carpenter to admit ‘ ‘ the spiritual agency of Deity in
the mind of man,” as he expresses it, as if it were beyond law,
while “the action of Deity in the physical universe” as
according to law, is plainly a begging of the . question.
The
mind of man,”—whatever that may be—is a part of the
Universe, and if the Universe throughout be “a system of
�Taken by Men of Science.
19
orderly evolution,” the harmony of the Universe is broken if
we allow the spiritual department to be independent of law
and the physical to be under law; and surely such a conclusion
is quite contrary to the tendency and teaching of science.
The simple fact seems to be that Dr Carpenter has studied
law as evinced in physical science ; but with the characteristic
modesty of one who knows his own class of subjects well, but
who has not, perhaps, paid the same attention to the quality
of evidence furnished by ecclesiastical history in favour of
the efficacy of prayer for spiritual guidance, he excusably
hesitates, and especially with the solemn array of “the
Religious Experience of ages ” before him, to affirm, that pre
ternatural events may not have occurred in that experience.
It is not improbable, however, that had his analysis of
Ecclesiastical testimony been as thorough as it has been of
physical phenomena, he would not have been so timid in extend
ing the application of uniform law to the spiritual sphere, and
in excluding therefrom the efficacy of prayer as an agent
capable of inducing the direct action of the Deity. The early
history of all religions, it is now well understood, should be
received with extreme caution ; first, because sound modern
criticism has demonstrated that many of the narratives in the
so-called “Sacred Literature” of nations are incapable of
positive authentication both as to authorship and contents •
secondly, because the “sacred ” and “profane ” literature alike
which details “ the Religious Experience of ages,’’pertains, in
variably, to times, places, and societies, in which imagination has
played a mightier part than reason, and in which credulity
and priestcraft, with their attendant fanaticisms, have been
signally rampant. Indeed, one might safely add, without the
least disparagement of any existing sect of religionists, that
those who profess to rely on prayer in our time, as influencing
the Deity, to impart “enlightenment” and “strength” in
the spiritual sphere, are not, as a rule, persons the Doctor
would think pre-eminently distinguished for historic and
scientific attainment, or for the judicious management of their
faculties.
I must add a word on the concluding sentence in your
letter : ‘ ‘ Wishing that you yourself may soon again pass from
darkness to the true light of life in Christ.” The wish I
cannot doubt is sincere, but it surely is one of the marks of
an arrogant system to assume, as orthodoxy always does, that
one is only in a state to have a long face pulled at him, and to
be sighed over if his theory of the Universe be not according
to the Thirty-nine Articles, the Confession of Faith, or some
other sectarian creed. Again, I affirm that in this world of
varying religious ideas, where so-called “believers” are more
�20
On the View of Miracles
affected, I make bold to say, by sentimental associations than
by deep and rational convictions, and where it is not easy
for most men to find time and ability to struggle through the
stumbling blocks theologians have placed between them and
simple religious truth, it would be a slur on eternal justice
that men should be judged in relation to their moral state or
their future destiny, by their intellectual apprehension of the
things they hold to be religious. I have said elsewhere in this
series, and I make no apology for repeating the declaration
that I know no infidelity but treachery to conscience, and no
orthodoxy but loyalty to conscience. I have felt honoured
and privileged at home and abroad by the intimate friendship
of men of all the principal sects of Europe and America, and
of men standing very sincerely aloof from all, and the im
pression has been forced upon me by my study of character
generally, that in few cases is the ordinary moral conduct of
men influenced by their theological theories and Church prac
tices ; that while it is the tendency of exciting religious dogmas
and ceremonies to spoil the class who yield themselves up
absorbedly to them, the mass of well-meaning people happily
let creeds and churches sit very lightly on them, and depend
most for guidance on those principles of common sense and
human morality which imbue well-governed minds in all
countries.
You wish that I “ may soon pass out of darkness." If my
own consciousness may be allowed to attest the nature of my
changed theological perceptions (unless you suspect “the
natural man”—that much abused Pauline phrase—now rules
within me!) I can assure you that the very opposite of dark
ness would more fitly describe my condition. I have indeed
realised, most fully, in my experience, that description in the
Epistle in a sense not intended by the author: I have “passed
from darkness to marvellous light,” and the light shines
brighter and brighter every day. “ Life in Christ ?” What
is it ? Where shall I find it ? How shall I be sure that in
accepting it according to Evangelicals. I ought not rather to
have sought it among High Churchmen, or Broad Churchmen,
or Unitarians? All these sections of Christians invite us
“unbelievers” to share this life in Christ, and at the same
time involve us in a maze of bitter controversy as to which
party has the genuine thing to offer. You tell me to accept
the Christ of the New Testament. But is it to be the Christ
of the Gospels, the miracle-worker, or the Christ of the
Epistles—the atoning sacrifice for human sin? Am I to
follow the Christology of the Synoptic gospels or that of the
fourth gospel ? The Christology of Paul or of Peter ? Perhaps
you reply that I am mainly to follow the teachings of Christ.
�Taken by Men of Science.
21
But it cannot be proved that the words ascribed to Jesus
were ever used by him, and even if they were, some of his
precepts are for our age utterly impracticable. What Christian
citizen in our day pretends to follow carefully the mode of
life laid down by Christ? Who “takes no thought for the
morrow?” It is only by taking thought that the progress of
the world can be advanced. Who, among even the most
ardent of Christian enthusiasts are willing now “to make
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake?”
Perhaps you intend by “life in Christ” moral likeness to
Christ. But the question arises, in what are we to be like
Christ ? Are we to be like Christ in all that he clid or only in
those things we ourselves think good and excellent ? Does
the Christianity of Christlikeness include cursing fig-trees for
not having fruit on them out of their season? Does it
include whipping those we think impious with a whip of
small cords ? Does it include denouncing the inconsistent
as “whited sepulchres,” “hypocrites” and a “generation of
vipers ?” Does it include saying to one’s mother, when she
has failed to appreciate him, “Woman, what have I to do
with thee, mine hour is not yet come ?” Does it mean that
we are to tell women of other districts, when they ask for our
benevolence, “ it is not meet to take the meat of the children
and cast it to the dogs ? ” Does it include that we are to
exercise our powers to destroy 200 swine belonging to an
unoffending man ? Or does it mean that. we are to be so
little the friends of temperance as to produce 200 gallons of
good wine for our guests after they have already well drunk?”*
Whatever view, therefore, we take of “life in Christ,” we
shall meet with grave difficulties in forming a clear and defi
nite idea of what it means, and that consideration, if there
were no other, is sufficient to show that a religion so exten
sively the subject of dispute, and open to such conflicting
interpretations, was never intended to be as an organised and
a stereotyped system, the supreme, final, and exhaustive
revelation of moral and religious truth to mankind. Let it
not be understood that I undervalue the elevated tone of
spirituality and consecration attributed to Jesus in the gospels.
He, at all events, seems, above most, to have lived up to his
lights. Human life is incalculably enriched by many of the
sayings and doings ascribed to him in the New Testament.
But as far as these sayings are wise and good they contain
nothing original, and as far as the doings are noble and
historically true they are not without parallel. There is
something even broacler and more in harmony with the devout
* ‘ The Impossibility of Knowing what is Christianity,’ p. 12.
�22
On the View of Miracles, &c.
and cultured aspirations of humanity as a whole, than “life
in Christ.” I accept Jesus only as one of many prophets and
teachers necessary to the full discipline and development of
my intellect, conscience, heart, and will; but while pro
foundly grateful for the instructions of all great and good
men, I bind myself to accept implicitly and without qualifica
tion the teaching of none. Under the guidance of the best
judgment and sense I can command, I strive to discriminate
and arrive at a just conviction. The higher lights of the
nineteenth century enable me to see defects in the utterances
and conduct of the greatest sages of antiquity which their
standard of things—necessarily vague—-precluded them from
detecting. I believe in the gradual evolution of knowledge
and the gradual uplifting of the race in every department,
through human agency and in harmony with fixed law.
Owing to the natural limitation of men’s faculties, right views
in one direction will be mixed up with wrong views in another
direction, in the most valuable contributions to human
enlightenment and progress. But assertion, hypothesis and
theory in the advancement of knowledge, are sifted and
improved upon by successive great minds from age to age, and
thus the revelation of law, in its manifold applications, goes
on; man’s recognition of the vital importance of law is
quickened and deepened, and the general improvement of
mankind is the result. Life, according to the most philoso
phical understanding and practice of law in its varied relations
and bearings, is a far more healthful, rational, and useful
kind of life than the “life” which is limited by what was
thought, said, or done by “Christ,” or by any other single
man, be he ever so great or good.
Yours, &c.,
M. M.
PRINTED BY C. TV. KEYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Dr. Carpenter at Sion College; or, the view of miracles taken by men of science
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 22 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Remarks and a correspondence on a lecture given at Sion College by W. B. Carpenter on "The Reign of Law." Includes bibliographical references. The piece is signed 'M.M'. KVK gives the author as William Benjamin Carpenter.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
M., M.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1874
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Subject
The topic of the resource
Miracles
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (Dr. Carpenter at Sion College; or, the view of miracles taken by men of science), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1612
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Miracles
Science