LECTURE VI.* EVIDENCE OF REVELATION FROM MIRACLES, AS S. JOHN, iii. 2. "No man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." IN my last Lecture, I discussed the difficulties felt in the present day in accepting the supernatural evidences alleged in support of the Christian religion, difficulties arising from anterior objections to the occurrence of anything miraculous in general, and on the supposition of the occurrence of a miraculous event, objections to the reasonableness of believing the occurrence on any amount of testimony. I now proceed to observe the way in which these evidences were regarded in ancient times. It is by no means in these later times only that the reception of the supernatural evidences of Christianity was met by objection. At the first promulgation of the Gospel these evidences met with a serious obstacle to their unqualified acceptance as proofs of the doctrine they were alleged to establish. But it was of an opposite kind to * Delivered on Sunday, March 3, 1878. that which they have to contend with now. The difficulty is now felt in believing in any miracle at all. The difficulty then arose from too great facility in believing in the performance of miracles, and from the prevalent notion that they might be wrought not only by God over all, but by the aid of demons, beings of superhuman ability, whose assistance might be obtained through sorcery and the practices of magical incantation. Of the almost universal prevalence of this belief it would be superfluous to bring forward any evidence.* The few who saw through the artifices of pretended magic, and * The tendency to this belief amongst the Hebrews is evident from the care taken in the Old Testament to condemn and suppress it. But there is nothing therein to countenance the supposition that any real operation of evil spirits was exercised in the practices of sorcery. The words in common use were employed, but these are significant of purely human artifices. They are expressive of wisdom or cunning, of the knowledge or interpretation of secrets, of whispering and muttering, of combining formulæ supposed to be potent for enchantment, and of ventriloquism. The "familiar spirit" which is found in our Bibles is entirely due to the fancy of translators, and expresses only ventriloquism. Aub was a leathern bottle first, then an inflated bag, and was used to signify the artificial inflation of themselves which the witches produced, giving a hollow sound to their utterances, and aiding their ventriloquism. This practice was also in use with the Pythoness, as scholars are aware. A woman who could practise this art was called a mistress of Aub," and this is rendered in the English Version as a woman who had a familiar spirit. Such was the Witch of Endor to whom Saul resorted. It is plain from the narrative that on that occasion Saul did not see the apparition himself, and that the frenzied woman had exceeded her own expectations. Saul had to ask what the woman saw, and the woman was terrified at the result of her own proceedings. If the apparition had any reality beyond the impression of her own heated imagination, it was due to no power of an evil spirit called into exercise by her. Whether the utterances of Samuel to Saul were in an external and audible voice, or were only subjectively perceived by him, assuming the reality to his perturbed mind of an external voice, it is not needful to inquire, nor how far the woman herself with her ventriloquism was the medium of conveying a warning of what was to happen. Saul's resort to this woman to call up Samuel illustrates the phrase "seeking to the dead." 66 disbelieved that it was attended by any superhuman assistance, or did not believe in the existence of the pretended demons, were fain for the most part to dissemble their unbelief, so closely was it connected in men's minds with that general scepticism which laid one open to the reproach, which was anciently regarded as the most odious of all accusations, the charge of Atheism. This odium that attended the profession of Atheism was not merely due to the influence of rulers who thought religious belief needful for keeping the common people in order, nor of priests whose worldly interests were wrapped up in the prevalent idolatrous rites, nor of fanatics who were devoted to the prevailing superstitions. It had its roots far deeper, namely, in that underlying persuasion of mankind in general, that the existence of all morality was dependent on the belief in a Divine Being, a power concerned with the interests of righteousness, embracing and overshadowing the several deities of the current mythology, but so connected in the popular apprehension with these specialized deities in all their grades, that the disbelief in the latter was supposed to involve the denial of the former. We see this exemplified in the accusation of Atheism which led to the condemnation of Socrates. And we see the dislike of incurring the odium of Atheism exhibited in the case of Celsus, whom Origen alleges to have been an Epicurean, but who in his attack upon the Christian religion dissembled this fact, lest, as Origen says, he should destroy the weight of his attack on Christianity. "For he knew," says Origen, "that if he had professed himself to be an Epicurean, he would have had no credit in accusing those whose belief at any rate included the existence of Providence, and of a God supreme over all existing M things."* And again he says to Celsust: "You who in your work do not betray the Epicurean, but affect to believe in Providence, have no right to ask how God knew all things pertaining to men, and did not set them right, nor by Divine power rid them all of wickedness ?" Now it is plain that this prevailing belief in the magical performance of miracles, and in the assistance rendered by demons to those who wrought these supposed works of wonder, must have afforded a great opportunity to the enemies of the Gospel of discrediting the supernatural evidences adduced by its advocates. And this was the more available as a ground of objection, because, as we shall see by-and-by, the Christian Apologists, instead of repudiating all belief in the supernatural character of the pagan miracles, seem to have generally admitted that they were performed by a real magical power and the aid of demons. We know the use made by the Jews of this belief, from their accusing our Lord of casting out evil spirits by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. The Jews afterwards appear to have accounted for our Lord's miracles by pretending that He had surreptitiously become possessed of the true pronunciation of the Incommunicable Name by the use of which as a charm His miracles were accomplished. And we may observe the way in which the objection was employed by pagan opposers of the Gospel, from the allegations of Celsus, who both maintained that our Lord wrought His miracles by * Ηδει γὰρ ὅτι ὁμολογῶν Ἐπικούρειος εἶναι, οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι τὸ ἀξιόπιστον ἐν τῷ κατηγορεῖν τῶν ὁπώς ποτε πρόνοιαν εἰςαγαγόντων, καὶ Θεὸν ἐφιστάνTwv Tols ovσi. Origen, adv. Celsum, i., p. 8. Cantab. 1677. † Σοὶ δὲ, μὴ πάνυ ἐμφαίνοντι διὰ τοῦ συγγράμματος τὸν Επικούρειον, ἀλλὰ προσποιουμένῳ πρόνοιαν εἰδέναι, οὐκ ἐπίσης λελέξεται, κ.τ.λ. iv., p. 163. jugglery,* and, building upon the Gospel story of the flight into Egypt, asserted that he had there acquired a knowledge of certain powers, by means of which, on his return to Judea, he tried to prove that he was a God†— powers, as we shall see, supposed to be demoniacal. The wonder is that amid this prevalent belief, not repudiated by the Christian Apologists, the Gospel miracles should have had any share, as no doubt they had a great share, in producing the rapid spread and ultimate diffusion of the Christian religion. This could only have been in consequence of a clear perception that the Gospel miracles were wholly different in kind, and entirely distinguished in the manner of their performance, from the works of the magicians. Had this not been clear, the pretensions of our Lord and His Apostles to work by Divine power, apart from all the arts of sorcery, and in a way beyond * Ως γοητείᾳ δυνηθέντος ἃ ἔδοξε παράδοξα πεποιηκέναι.—Orig. adv. Celsum i., p. 7. † Φησὶ γὰρ “ αὐτὸν σκότιον τραφέντα, μισθαρνήσαντα εἰς Αἴγυπτον, δυνάμεών τινων πειραθέντα, ἐκεῖθεν ἐπανελθεῖν, Θεὸν δι ̓ ἐκείνας τὰς δυνάμεις ἑαυτὸν ἀναγορεύοντα.” i., p. 30. See on this subject the note of Edmund Law in his Considerations on the Theory of Religion, pp. 120–2, 4th edition. As a reason why the Christian miracles were not more regarded by many of the heathen, he specifies the following: "1. They might allow them to be true, yet on account of the old intercommunity of deities and multiplicity of demons, for some time draw no consequence from them, in prejudice to their own way of worship. 2. Multitudes of like nature reported among themselves might make others at a distance be looked on as less extraordinary. 3. The Atheistic notions prevalent amongst some who had the best opportunity of being informed about them might lead them to reject all such on principle. 4. Their usual way of attempting to account for these from such an unmeaning cause as magic must, in a great degree, defeat the effects which they would otherwise have had upon them. 5. The numberless false ones of all kinds propagated over the pagan world, and which had first brought the whole system into disrepute, might induce them to view all others in the same light, and not think any of them worth a serious examination." |