The Supernatural in the New Testament, Possible, Credible, and Historical / Or, An Examination of the Validity of Some Recent Objections Against Christianity as a Divine Revelation

by C. A. Row

First; That every century from the second downwards has been characterized by a considerable amount of pretension to the possession of supernatural power; [pg 338] and during this period one section of the Christian Church claims to have actually wrought miracles.

Secondly; Several of these miracles, viewed merely as phenomena in outward nature, are precisely similar to those recorded in the New Testament.

Thirdly; When a miracle is alleged to have been performed at the present day, as has recently been the case in a neighbouring country, not only all unbelievers in the possibility of supernatural occurrences, but also all rational Christians concur in its summary rejection, not merely on the ground that the evidence is insufficient, but that the event is in itself incredible.

Fourthly; That rational men reject in a similar manner and for similar reasons the great mass of ecclesiastical miracles as unworthy of serious inquiry into their attestation.

With respect to the second point, I have already observed that if we view miracles merely as phenomena in external nature, and if a similar belief in a current supernaturalism, which we have seen to be one of the phenomena of human nature, prevailed in the Church, it was to be expected that the current forms of ecclesiastical supernaturalism would adopt those of the New Testament for their basis, and consequently that it would abound in narratives of resurrections from the dead and the cures of various diseases. This is actually the case. It may also not only excite our wonder that the model was not far more exactly copied, but that ecclesiastical, and especially monkish miracles, which constitute an overwhelming majority of the miracles of Church history, abound so largely in features which stand in such marked contrast to the miracles of the New Testament, their peculiar characteristics being the same as those of ancient supernaturalism, viz. the [pg 339] monstrous and the grotesque. This point is one which demands the serious consideration of unbelievers; for if, as they aver, they are both due to the action of the same causes, this diversity requires to be accounted for. The truth is, that with the exception that both series contain reports of miracles which are similar or mere objective occurrences, in other respects their characteristics differ widely.

With respect to the fact that rational men concur in the rejection of modern miracles, it should be observed that this is not because all supernatural events are believed to be incredible; but because the reputed events themselves possess characteristics which excite in us the gravest suspicions of their truth; and especially because by far the greatest number of them are well known not to have originated in mere credulity, but in actual imposture. Men or communities who have once lent themselves to the deliberate coining of miracles, are of blasted reputations, and whenever marvellous occurrences are reported by such persons, we are justified in rejecting them without further inquiry. It is evident that these are the grounds on which such stories are rejected, and not simply because they are supernatural, since those who believe in the supernaturalism of the New Testament concur with those who disbelieve in it, in thus rejecting them.

I must now briefly consider the general grounds on which we reject the great mass of ecclesiastical miracles, while we accept those in the Gospels as actual occurrences.

The general ground of our rejection of them is precisely the same as that on which we reject the supernaturalism of the ancient world. The only thing which distinguishes them from the latter, is that they [pg 340] contain a number of events which viewed as bare facts are similar to those recorded in the Gospels. In every other respect the contrast is complete. I shall only draw attention to a few considerations which might otherwise escape the notice of the reader.

The ecclesiastical miracles were not wrought in attestation that the person working them had a divine commission, but that a divine power permanently abode in the Church. The qualification which was thought necessary for the exhibition of this power was the possession of a great degree of reputed sanctity. The exercise of miraculous power was supposed to prove, not that its possessor had a divine commission, but that he was a saint. The saint was supposed to have in himself some inherent power of working miracles, bearing a considerable analogy to that which the woman with the issue of blood believed to be possessed by our Lord. A miraculous power in the shape of a virtue issued from the saint. Hence the supernatural power which was ascribed to dead men's bones and to relics. Such a supernatural power is devoid of everything which presupposes a divine purpose, and of all evidential value. Its frequency would destroy the nature of a miracle as an attestation of a divine commission, and involve an interference with the order of nature, which would destroy the sense of its regularity, the knowledge of which is so essential to our well being, as well as to the conception of a miracle. Moreover, the supernatural agency is not supposed to be due to the direct intervention of God, but to some imaginary virtue residing in man.

The ecclesiastical miracles of which we have anything like a detailed account, when they are not simply regarded as due to the direct sanctity of the person [pg 341] performing them, are never alleged to be performed in proof of a divine commission; but when they are asserted to have been evidential, they are affirmed to have been wrought in proof of some doctrine, or in favour of some particular party in the Church; or, what invests them with a still greater degree of suspicion, in favour of the power of a particular order. The last class of alleged miracles may at once be dismissed as due to simple imposture. The first are strongly contrasted with those of the New Testament, where we cannot find the account of a single miracle wrought in attestation of a doctrine, the one or two apparent exceptions being really performed to attest a divine commission. But when a miracle is wrought to prove an irrational doctrine, the credibility of the miracle perishes with the truth of the doctrine. We are, therefore, justified in rejecting the miracles whenever we have sufficient evidence that the doctrines which they were alleged to attest are untrue. Again: whenever a particular party alleges a divine attestation in its favour, its character may be known by its works. The parties in the Church who have claimed such miraculous attestation, have proved by their actions that the idea of a divine interference in their favour is incredible, as being inconsistent with the divine character.