But, inasmuch as this expresses the value of human testimony in its highest or ideal form, a form which is never realized in experience, the true result will be different,--there will always be a negative result= [-y]; much or little according to the circ.u.mstances, but always enough to turn the balance _against_ believing a miracle.
"Or in other words," said Hume, popularizing his argument, "it will always be more credible that the reporter of a miracle should tell a falsehood, or should himself have been the dupe of appearances, than that a miracle should have actually occurred--that is, an infraction of those natural laws (any or all) which compose what we call experience. For, a.s.sume the utmost disinterestedness, veracity, and sound judgment in the witness, with the utmost advantage in the circ.u.mstances for giving full play to those qualities; even in such a case the value of affirmative testimony could, at the very utmost, be equal to the negative value on the other side the equation: and the result would be, to keep my faith suspended _in equilibrio_. But in any real case, ever likely to come before us, the result will be worse; for the affirmative testimony will be sure to fall in many ways below its ideal maximum; leaving, therefore, for the final result a considerable excess to the negative side of the equation.
SECTION II.
OF THE ARGUMENT AS AFFECTED BY THE COVERT LIMITATIONS UNDER WHICH IT IS PRESENTED.
Such is the Argument: and, as the first step towards investigating its sanity and its degree--its kind of force, and its quant.i.ty of force, we must direct our attention to the following fact, viz., that amongst three separate conditions under which a miracle (or any event whatever) might become known to us, Hume"s argument is applied only to one. a.s.suming a miracle to happen (for the possibility of a miracle is of course left open throughout the discussion, since any argument against _that_ would at once foreclose every question about its communicability),--then it might happen under three several sets of circ.u.mstances, in relation to our consciousness. 1st, It might happen in the presence of a single witness--that witness not being ourselves. This case let us call Alpha.
2dly, It might happen in the presence of many witnesses,--witnesses to a vast amount, but still (as before) ourselves not being amongst that mult.i.tude. This case let us call _Beta._ And 3dly, It might happen in our own presence, and fall within the direct light of our own consciousness. This case let us call _Gamma._
Now these distinctions are important to the whole extent of the question. For the 2d case, which is the actual case of many miracles recorded in the New Testament, at once cuts away a large body of sources in which either error or deceit could lurk. Hume"s argument supposes the reporter of the miracle to be a dupe, or the maker of dupes--himself deluded, or wishing to delude others. But, in the case of the thousands fed from a few loaves and small fishes, the chances of error, wilful or not wilful, are diminished in proportion to the number of observers; [Footnote: "In proportion to the number of observers."--Perhaps, however, on the part of Hume, some critical apologist will say--"Doubtless he was aware of that; but still the reporters of the miracle were few. No matter how many were present, the witnesses for us are but the Evangelists." Yes, certainly, the Evangelists; and let us add, all those contemporaries to whom the Evangelists silently appealed. These make up the "mult.i.tude"
contemplated in the second case.] and Hume"s inference as to the declension of the affirmative _x_, in relation to the negative _x_, no longer applies, or, if at all, with vastly diminished force. With respect to the 3d case, it cuts away the whole argument at once in its very radix. For Hume"s argument applies to the _communication_ of a miracle, and therefore to a case of testimony. But, wherever the miracle falls within direct personal cognizance, there it follows that no question can arise about the value of human testimony. The affirmative _x_, expressing the value of testimony, disappears altogether; and that side of the equation is possessed by a new quant.i.ty (viz., ourselves--our own consciousness) not at all concerned in Hume"s argument.
Hence it results, that of three possible conditions under which a miracle may be supposed to offer itself to our knowledge, two are excluded from the view of Hume"s argument.
SECTION III.
WHETHER THE SECOND OF THESE CONDITIONS IS NOT EXPRESSLY NOTICED BY HUME.
It may seem so. But in fact it is not. And (what is more to the purpose) we are not at liberty to consider it any accident that it is not. Hume had his reasons. Let us take all in proper order: 1st, that it seems so; 2dly, that in fact it is not so; and 3dly, that is no accident, but intentional.
1st. Hume seems to contemplate such a case, the case of a miracle witnessed and attested by a mult.i.tude of persons, in the following imaginary miracle which he proposes as a basis for reasoning. Queen Elizabeth, as every body will remember who has happened to read Lord Monmouth"s Memoirs, died on the night between the last day of 1602 and the first day of 1603: this could not be forgotten by the reader, because, in fact, Lord M., who was one of Her Majesty"s nearest relatives (being a younger son of her first cousin Lord Hunsdon), obtained his t.i.tle and subsequent preferment as a reward for the furious ride he performed to Edinburgh (at that time at least 440 miles distant from London), without taking off his boots, in order to lay the earliest tidings of the great event at the feet of her successor. In reality, never did any death cause so much posting day and night over the high roads of Europe. And the same causes which made it so interesting has caused it to be the best dated event in modern history; that one which could least be shaken by any discordant evidence yet discoverable. Now, says Hume, imagine the case, that, in spite of all this chronological precision--this precision, and this notoriety of precision--Her Majesty"s court physicians should have chosen to propagate a story of her resurrection. Imagine that these learned gentlemen should have issued a _bulletin_, declaring that Queen Elizabeth had been met in Greenwich Park, or at Nonsuch, on May-day of 1603, or in Westminster, two years after, by the Lord Chamberlain when detecting Guy Faux--let them even swear it before twenty justices of the peace; I for one, says Hume, am free to confess that I would not believe them. No, nor, to say the truth, would we; nor would we advise our readers to believe them.
2dly. Here, therefore, it would seem as if Hume were boldly pressing his principles to the very uttermost--that is, were challenging a miracle as untenable, though attested by a mult.i.tude. But, in fact, he is not. He only seems to do so; for, if no number of witnesses could avail anything in proof of a miracle, why does he timidly confine himself to the hypothesis of the queen"s physicians only coming forward? Why not call in the whole Privy Council?--or the Lord Mayor and Common Council of London--the Sheriffs of Middles.e.x--and the Twelve Judges? As to the court physicians, though three or four nominally, virtually they are but one man. They have a common interest, and in two separate ways they are liable to a suspicion of collusion: first, because the same motives which act upon one probably act upon the rest. In this respect, they are under a _common_ influence; secondly, because, if not the motives, at any rate the physicians themselves, act upon each other. In this respect, they are under a _reciprocal_ influence. They are to be reasoned about as one individual.
3dly. As Hume could not possibly fail to see all this, we may be sure that his choice of witnesses was not accidental. In fact, his apparent carelessness is very discreet management. His object was, under the fiction of an independent mult.i.tude, to smuggle in a virtual unity; for his court physicians are no plural body in effect and virtue, but a mere pleonasm and a tautology.
And in good earnest, Hume had reason enough for his caution. How much or how little testimony would avail to establish a resurrection in any neutral [Footnote: By a neutral case is meant, 1st, one in which there is no previous reason from a great doctrine requiring such an event for its support, to expect a resurrection; 2dly, a case belonging to a period of time in which it is fully believed that miraculous agency has ceased.] case few people would be willing to p.r.o.nounce off-hand, and, above all, on a fict.i.tious case. Prudent men, in such circ.u.mstances, would act as the judges in our English courts, who are always displeased if it is attempted to elicit their opinions upon a point of law by a proposed fiction. And very reasonably; for in these fict.i.tious cases all the little circ.u.mstances of reality are wanting, and the oblique relations to such circ.u.mstances, out of which it is that any sound opinion can be formed. We all know very well what Hume is after in this problem of a resurrection.
And his case of Queen Elizabeth"s resurrection being a perfectly fict.i.tious case, we are at liberty to do any one of three different things:--either simply to refuse an answer; or, 2dly, to give such an answer as he looks for, viz., to agree with him in his disbelief under the supposed contingency; without, therefore, offering the slightest prejudice to any scriptural case of resurrection: i.
e., we might go along with him in his premises, and yet balk him of his purpose; or, 3dly, we might even join issue with him, and peremptorily challenge his verdict upon his own fiction. For it is singular enough, that a modern mathematician of eminence (Mr.
Babbage) has expressly considered this very imaginary question of a resurrection, and he p.r.o.nounces the testimony of _seven_ witnesses, competent and veracious, and presumed to have no bias, as sufficient to establish such a miracle. Strip Hume"s case of the ambiguities already pointed out--suppose the physicians really separate and independent witnesses--not a corporation speaking by one organ--it will then become a mere question of degree between the philosopher and the mathematician--seven witnesses? or fifty?
or a hundred? For though none of us (not Mr. Babbage, we may be sure) seriously believes in the possibility of a resurrection occurring in these days, as little can any of us believe in the possibility that seven witnesses, of honor and sagacity (but say seven hundred) could be found to attest such an event when not occurring.
But the useful result from all this is, that Mr. Hume is evidently aware of the case _Beta_, (of last Sect.) as a distinct case from _Alpha_ or from _Gamma_, though he affects blindness: he is aware that a mult.i.tude of competent witnesses, no matter whether seven or seven hundred, is able to establish that which a single witness could not; in fact, that increasing the number of witnesses is able to compensate increasing incredibility in the subject of doubt; that even supposing this subject a resurrection from the dead, there may be a.s.signed a quant.i.ty of evidence (_x_) greater than the resistance to the credibility. And he betrays the fact, that he has one eye open to his own Jesuitism by palming upon us an apparent mult.i.tude for a real one, thus drawing all the credit he can from the name of a mult.i.tude, and yet evading the force which he strictly knew to be lodged in the thing; seeking the reputation of the case _Beta_, but shrinking from its hostile force.
SECTION IV.
OF THE ARGUMENT AS AFFECTED BY A CLa.s.sIFICATION OF MIRACLES.
Let us now inquire whether Hume"s argument would be affected by the differences in miracles upon the most general distribution of their kinds.
Miracles may be cla.s.sed generally as inner or outer.
I. The inner, or those which may be called miracles for the individual, are such as go on, or may go on, within the separate personal consciousness of each separate man. And it shows how forgetful people are of the very doctrines which they themselves profess as Christians, when we consider, on the one hand, that miracles, in this sense, are essential to Christianity, and yet, on the other hand, consider how often it is said that the age of miracles is past. Doubtless, in the sense of external miracles, all such agencies are past. But in the other sense, there are distinct cla.s.ses of the supernatural agency, which we are now considering; and these three are held by many Christians; two by most Christians; and the third by all. They are
a.--_Special Providences:_ which cla.s.s it is that many philosophic Christians doubt or deny.
b.--_Grace:_ both predisposing [by old theologians called _prevenient_] and effectual.
c.--_Prayer considered as efficacious._
Of these three we repeat, that the two last are held by most Christians: and yet it is evident that both presume a supernatural agency. But this agency exists only where it is sought. And even where it _does_ exist, from its very nature (as an _interior_ experience for each separate consciousness) it is incommunicable.
But that does not defeat its purpose. It is of its essence to be incommunicable. And, therefore, with relation to Hume"s great argument, which was designed to point out a vast _hiatus_ or inconsistency in the divine economy--"Here is a miraculous agency, perhaps, but it is incommunicable: it may exist, but it cannot manifest itself; which defect neutralizes it, and defeats the very purpose of its existence"--the answer is, that as respects these interior miracles, there is no such inconsistency. They are meant for the private forum of each man"s consciousness: nor would it have met any human necessity to have made them communicable. The language of Scripture is, that he who wishes experimentally to know the changes that may be accomplished by prayer, must pray. In that way only, and not by communication of knowledge from another, could he understand it as a practical effect. And to understand it not practically, but only in a speculative way, could not meet any religious wish, but merely an irreligious curiosity.
As respects one great division of miraculous agency, it is clear, therefore, that Hume"s argument does not apply. The arrow glances past: not so much missing its aim as taking a false one. The _hiatus_ which it supposes, the insulation and incommunicability which it charges upon the miraculous as a capital oversight, was part of the design: such mysterious agencies were _meant_ to be incommunicable, and for the same reason which shuts up each man"s consciousness into a silent world of its own--separate and inaccessible to all other consciousnesses. If a communication is thrown open by such agencies between the separate spirit of each man and the supreme Spirit of the universe, then the end is accomplished: and it is part of that end to close this communication against all other cognizance. So far Hume is baffled. The supernatural agency is incommunicable: it ought to be so. That is its perfection.
II. But now, as respects the other great order of miracles--viz., the _external_, first of all, we may remark a very important subdivision: miracles, in this sense, subdivide into two most different orders--1st, _Evidential_ miracles, which simply prove Christianity. 2d, _Const.i.tuent_ miracles, which, in a partial sense, _are_ Christianity. And, perhaps, it may turn out that Hume"s objection, if applicable at all, is here applicable in a separate way and with a varying force.
The first cla.s.s, the evidential miracles, are all those which were performed merely as evidences (whether simply as indications, or as absolute demonstrations) of the divine power which upheld Christianity. The second cla.s.s, the const.i.tuent miracles, are those which const.i.tute a part of Christianity. Two of these are absolutely indispensable to Christianity, and cannot be separated from it even in thought, viz., the miraculous birth of our Saviour, and his miraculous resurrection. The first is essential upon this ground--that unless Christ had united the two natures (divine and human) he could not have made the satisfaction required: not being human, then, indeed, he might have had power to go through the mysterious sufferings of the satisfaction: but how would that have applied to man? It would have been perfect, but how would it have been relevant? Not being divine, then indeed any satisfaction he could make would be relevant: but how would it have been perfect?
The mysterious and supernatural birth, therefore, was essential, as a capacitation for the work to be performed; and, on the other hand, the mysterious death and consequences were essential, as the very work itself.
Now, therefore, having made this distinction, we may observe, that the first cla.s.s of miracles was occasional and polemic: it was meant to meet a special hostility incident to the birth-struggles of a new religion, and a religion which, for the very reason that it was true, stood opposed to the spirit of the world; of a religion which, in its first stage, had to fight against a civil power in absolute possession of the civilized earth, and backed by seventy legions. This being settled, it follows, that if Hume"s argument were applicable in its whole strength to the evidential miracles, no result of any importance could follow. It is clear that a Christianized earth never can want polemic miracles again; polemic miracles were wanted for a transitional state, but such a state cannot return. Polemic miracles were wanted for a state of conflict with a dominant idolatry, It was Christianity militant, and militant with childlike arms, against Paganism triumphant. But Christianity, in league with civilization, and resting on the powers of this earth allied with her own, never again can speak to idolatrous man except from a station of infinite superiority. If, therefore, these evidential miracles are incommunicable as respects their proofs to after generations, neither are they wanted.
Still it will be urged--Were not the miracles meant for purposes ulterior to the transitional state? Were they not meant equally for the polemic purpose of confuting hostility at the moment, and of propping the faith of Christians in all after ages? The growing opinion amongst reflecting Christians is, that they were not: that the evidential miracles accomplished their whole purpose in their own age. Something of supernatural agency, visibly displayed, was wanted for the first establishment of a new faith. But, once established, it was a false faith only that could need this external support. Christianity could not unroot itself now, though every trace of evidential miracle should have vanished. Being a true religion, once rooted in man"s knowledge and man"s heart, it is self-sustained; it never could be eradicated.
But, waiving that argument, it is evident, that whatever becomes of the evidential miracles, Christianity never can dispense with those transcendent miracles which we have called _const.i.tuent_,--those which do not so much demonstrate Christianity as _are_ Christianity in a large integral section. Now as to the way in which Hume"s argument could apply to these, we shall reserve what we have to say until a subsequent section. Meantime, with respect to the other cla.s.s, the simply evidential miracles, it is plain, that if ever they should be called for again, then, as to _them_, Hume"s argument will be evaded, or not, according to their purpose.
If their function regards an individual, it will be no just objection to them that they are incommunicable. If it regards a mult.i.tude or a nation, then the same power which utters the miracle can avail for its manifestation before a mult.i.tude, as happened in the days of the New Testament, _and then is realized the case_ Beta _of Sect. II_, And if it is still objected, that even in that case there could be no sufficient way of propagating the miracle, with its evidence, to other times or places, the answer must be,--
1st. That supposing the purpose merely polemic, that purpose is answered without such a propagation.
2dly. That, supposing the purpose, by possibility, an ulterior purpose, stretching into distant ages, even then our modern arts of civilization, printing, &c., give us advantages which place a remote age on a level with the present as to the force of evidence; and that even the defect of _autopsy_ may be compensated by sufficient testimony of a mult.i.tude, it is evident that Hume himself felt, by his evasion in the case of the imaginary Elizabethan miracle proposed by himself.
RECAPITULATION.
Now let us recapitulate the steps we have made before going on to the rest.
We have drawn into notice [Sect. II.] the case _Beta_,--overlooked by Hume in his argument, but apparently not overlooked in his consciousness,--the case where a mult.i.tude of witnesses overrules the incommunicability attaching to a single witness.
2dly. We have drawn into notice the cla.s.s of internal miracles,--miracles going on in the inner economy of every Christian"s heart; for it is essential to a Christian to allow of prayer. He cannot _be_ a Christian if he should condemn prayer; and prayer cannot hope to produce its object without a miracle. And to such miracles Hume"s argument, the argument of incommunicability, is inapplicable. They do not seek to transplant themselves; every man"s personal experience in this respect is meant for himself alone.
3dly. Even amongst miracles _not_ internal, we have shown--that if one cla.s.s (the merely evidential and polemic) are incommunicable, _i.e._ not capable of propagation to a remote age or place, they have sufficiently fulfilled their immediate purpose by their immediate effect. But such miracles are alien and accidental to Christianity. Christ himself reproved severely those who sought such signs, as a wicked, unbelieving generation; and afterwards he reproved, with a most pathetic reproach, that one of his own disciples who demanded such a sign. But besides these evidential miracles, we noticed also,
4thly. The const.i.tuent miracles of Christianity; upon which, as regarded Hume"s argument, we reserved ourselves to the latter section: and to these we now address ourselves.
But first we premise this
_Lemma:_--That an _a priori_ (or, as we shall show, an _a posteriori_) reason for believing a miracle, or for expecting a miracle, will greatly disturb the valuation of _x_ (that is, the abstract resistance to credibility), as a.s.sumed in Hume"s argument. This is the centre in which we are satisfied, lurks that p??t?? ?e?d?? which Hume himself suspected: and we add, that as a vast number of witnesses (according to a remark made in Sect. II.) will virtually operate as a reduction of the value allowed to _x_, until _x_ may be made to vanish altogether,--so in the reverse order, any material reduction of value in _x_ will virtually operate exactly as the multiplication of witnesses; and the case _Alpha_ will be raised to the case _Beta._