* Miracles, p. 102. It is espectally the fault of the apologetic writers of the 18th cent. that they neglected this considera- tion. Itisa fault from which Paley is not entirely free, but it Appears most pisinly in books like Sherlock's Trial of the Wit-
Ms
nesses, which once had a wide vogue. t See Westcott, Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 155.
of Christ: this was continually put forward by the early Christian Apologists as chief among the credentials of the Gospel. Whether the reasoning of Nicodemus was logically valid or not, it un- questionably was accepted by thousands. ‘We know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these signs that thou doest except God be with him,’ Jn 3%. (See SIGN). And it was largely due to the miracles which (it was alleged) accom- panied the advent of Christianity, that Christian missionaries were able in the early ages to get a hearing for their message. But it has been urged that, granting the historical fact that this line of argument was once yery attractive, it ought now to be set aside, for it is quite fallacious and inade- quate. Miracles as credentials seem now to be at a discount, and the reaction against the exclusive attention to this aspect of their purpose which prevailed in the last century in English theology has perhaps gone too far. We have already said above that we do not claim for miracles that testi- mony to their occurrence is by itself sufficient to prove the existence of Divine power. ‘The possi- bility of a miracle implies the existence of God, and no testimony would be sufficient to convince one who did not recognize the Divine existence that a miracle had ever occurred (see ii. § 6).* But a difficulty emerges, even in the case of a believer in spiritual force, which must now be considered.
2. A miracle, i.e. an anomalous intervention of spiritual force indicating purpose, supposed to be established by testimony, would merely prove the energy of superhuman power ; it bears no necessary Witness to superhuman goodness. It might be of Satanie origin, not of Divine, and it is not a credential which ought, by itself, to inspire belief, for it may be a delusion of the Prince of lies, rather than a manifestation of Him who is the Truth. Indeed the advent of antichrist is to be ushered in ‘with signs and lying wonders’ (2 ΤῊ 2%). It is here that the context, so to speak, of the miracle is all- important. Miracula sine doctrina nihil valent is the principle which will resolve our difficulty. Certainly miracles, regarded merely as tokens of power, do not establish the goodness of the agent who works them; but if we are able to recognize this latter characteristic from the doctrines which he teaches, then the miracle will pronounce that those doctrines proceed directly from the Author of goodness. If the doctrine commends itself to the conscience as good, then the miracle seals it as Divine. As Pascal has it, ὁ Les miracles discernent la doctrine, et la doctrine discerne les miracles.’ ἢ And Pascal points out that this twofold test of power and of goodness, which must be applied to a miracle, is like the twofold test by which a prophet was to be tried according to the Penta- teuchal Law. A prophet was not to be regarded as speaking in the name of Jehovah if (a) his prophecy was falsified by the event (Dt 18%), or (b) if his teaching led the people into the ways of idolatry (Dt 13°), He was to be tried by his doctrine no less than by the superhuman prescience which he exhibited. And so a miracle is not only to be regarded in the light of a wonder; it is also a sign—a sign of the character of the agent from whom it proceeds, not only in itself but in all the circumstances which lead up to and result from it. So the reply to the frequent query, ‘Do the miracles prove the doctrine, or does the doctrine
* This is the contention of Spinoza: ‘Porro quamvis ex miraculis aliquid concludere possuinus, nullo tamen modo Del existentia ints possit concludi.’ As we agree with his con- clusion here, it is unnecessary to quarrel with the argument by which he reaches it, but we do not regard it as convincing.
+ Pensées * Des Miracles,’ a few pages in which there is perhaps more wisdom than in anything else ever written on the subject,
MIRACLE
MIRACLE
prove the miracles?’ is strictly this: Miracles are a proof of the Divine origin of a doctrine, provided the doctrine be in itself worthy of a Divine author. No miracle could justify us in acting or teaching contradictory to conscience, or in referring such teaching to God. But if the moral teaching of one who professes himself to be a messenger from God be of surpassing excellence, then His pos- session of superhuman power corroborates His authority and justifies His claim. If it be histori- cally true, e.g. that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then this fact ‘identifies the Lord of physical life and death with the legislator of the Sermon on the Mount. Miracle is the certificate of identity between the Lord of Nature and the Lord of Con- science—the proof that He is really a moral being who subordinates physical to moral interests.’ *