The rationalists, thus encouraged by the mediating theologians, endeavored to explain the miraculous as something natural, while the natural philosophers as- serted that nature transfigured by spirit (the blending of the two in one) is the only true miracle. But thus the reality of the miracle (in the scriptural sense) was destroyed, and it was regarded simply as the symbolical expression of a speculative idea. See Schelling, Me- ihode, p. 181, 203; and comp. Bockshammer and Kosen- kranz, cited in Strauss, Dogmatik, p. 244 sq. [Bosk- shammer {Freiheit der Willens, transl. by Kaufman, Andov. 1840) says that what is willed in the spirit of truth and purity with a mighty will, is willed in the Spirit of God, and it is only a postulate of reason that nature cannot withstand such a will. Hence Christ is the great miracle-worker. Kosenkranz (Enci/kl. d. Theol. p. 160) defines miracle as nature determined by spirit; spirit is the basis of nature, and hence nature cannot limit it. This power was fully concentrated in Christ.] The natural interpretation of miracles rather served the purposes of rationalism, while the adherents of modern speculative philosophy gave the preference to the hy-
MIRACLES
318
MIRACLES
pothesis that the miracles related in Scripture are myths, because it is more agreeable to the negative tenilency of that school— that the antecedent improb- ability of a miracle taking ])lace must always outweigh that of the testimony in its favor being false ; and thus that the occurrence of a miracle, if not impossible, is at least incapaljle of satisfactory jjroof. Such is in the main the argument of Ilume, but it came more recently to be revived and assumed as an axiomatic principle by the so-called naturalistic, or, better, rationalistic I'aulus. and by tlie hisforico-crilical school, represented mainly by W'oolston, Strauss, and Kenan. " The fallacy of this objection," says dean JMansel, "consists in the circum- stance that it estimates the opposed probabilities solely on empirical grounds; i. e. on the more or less frequent occurrence of miraculous events as compared with false testimony. If it is ever possible that an event of com- paratively rare occurrence may, in a given case and un- der certain circumstances, be more credible than one of more ordinary occurrence, the entire argument falls to the groiuid in reference to such cases. And such a case is actually presented by the Christian miracles. The redemption of the world is an event unique in the •world's history: it is therefore natural to expect that the circumstances accompanying it should be unique also. The importance of that redemption furnishes a ' distinct particular reason' for miracles, if the divine purpose can be furthered by them. Under these cir- cumstances the antecedent probability is for the mira- cles, not against them, and cannot be outweighed by empirical inductions drawn from totally ditferent data, relating to the physical, not to the religious condition of the world. It must, however, be always remembered that abstract and general considerations like the above, though necessary to meet the unbelin-ing objections Avhicii are unhnppily rife on this subj.'ct, do not consti- tute the grounds of our belief in the miracles of Script- ure, especially those of Christ. The abstract argument is the stronghold of scepticism, and to deal with it at all it is necessary to meet it on its own ground. 0;i the other hand, the strength of the Christian argument rests mainly on the special contents of the Gospel nar- rative, particularly as regards the character of the Sav- iour jjortrayed in it, and the distinctive nature of his miracles as connected with his character, and on the subsecpient history of the Christian Church. It is far easier to talk in general terms about the laws of nature, and the impossibility of their violation, than to go through the actual contents of the Gospels in detail, and show how it is possible that such a narrative could have been written, and how the events described in it could have induenced, as they have, the subsequent history of the world, on any other supposition than that of its being a true narrative of real events. Accordingly we linil that, while the several attacks on the Gospel miracles in i)articular, with whatever ability they may have been conihicted, and whatever temporary popular- ity they may have obtained, seem universally destined to a speedy extinction beyond the possibility of revival, the general a priori objection still retains its hold on men's minds, and is revived from time to time, after re- peated refutations, as often as the changing aspects of scientitie progress appear to offer the opportunity of a plausible disguise of an old sophism in new drapery. The minute criticisms of Woolston and I'aulus on tlie details of the Gospel history are utterly dead and buried out of sight; and those of Strauss show plain indica- tions of being doomed to the same fate, though sujiport- ed for a while by a sjiurious alliance witli a popular philc>so!)hy. And the failure which is manifest in such writers, even while they conliue themselves to the mere- ly negative task of criticising I lie (iospel narrative, be- comes still more consiticimus wlien they proceed to ac- coiMit for the origin of Christianity by positive theories of tlieir own. The naturalistic theory of I'aulus lireaks down under the sheer weight of its own accumulation of cumbrous and awkward explanations ; while the