^9'>is^ "^ '^..w. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) O *2 1.0 I.I UAETA |25 ij 6" > // f HiolDgraphic Sdaices Corparation as WVT MAM STRIIT WIMTM,N.V. I4SM (7U)t73-4»0S '^W ^ ^^^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Instituta for Historical Microraoroductions / Institut Canadian da nticroraproductions historiquas Tachnical and Bibliographic No2««/NotM tochniquM at bibliographiqiiM Tlw institut* has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faaturat of this copy which may ba bilMiographicaHy uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagas in tha raproduction. or which may significantly changa tha usual mathod of filming, ara ehackad balow. D D D D D Colourad covers/ Couvart'jro da coulaur I I Covars damagad/ Couvartura ardommagia Covars rastorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura raatauria at/ou paiiiculAa Covar titia missing/ La titra da couvartura manqua r~| ColoMrad maps/ Cartas gAographiquas an couiaur Colourad ink (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ Encre da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blauj au noira) I — I Colourad plataa and/or illustrations/ Planchas at/ou illustrations mn coulaur Bound wHh othar matarial/ Rali4 avac d'autras documants r^ Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along intarior margin/ La n liura sarr4a paut cauaar da I'ombra ou da la distortion la long da la marga intMaura Blank laavaa addad during rastoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar posalMa, thasa hava baan omittad from fNmhig/ II sa paut qua cartainas pagaa blanehaa iJoutAas lors d'una raatauratHNi apy»a r ala a a n t dans la taiita, mais, lorsqua cala Atait poaalbla. cas pagas n'ont pas *t« filmAas. Additional commants:/ Commantairas supplAmantairas: L'Institut a microfilm^ la maillaur axampialra qu'il lui a 4tA posslbia da sa procurer. La« d4tails da eat axempiaira qui sent paut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographiqua, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthoda normale de filmage sent indiquis ci-dessous. t( n D D D D D D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pagas damaged/ Pagas andommagAes Pagas restored and/or laminated/ Pages restauries at'ou pellicuMes Pagas discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicoiorAes. tachaties ou piqu4ss Pages detached/ Pages ditichtes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ QualitA iniigala de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Adition disponible Pagas wholly or partially obacurad by errata slips, tissuaa, etc.. hava baan rafilmed to ensure tha beat poenlMa image/ Lee pagae totalamant ou partiaHement obs<:ureiaa par un faulNat d'errata. une pelure, etc., ont 4t* film4as A nouveau da fa^on A obtanir la mellleure image possible. This item is filmed at tha reduction ratio ehackad below/ Ca documam est filmA au taux da rAductton toidlquA el-daaaous. 1 P f ( b t s o f s (9 1 S T V d a b ri n n 10X 14X wx ax aix MX c J 12X MX MK MX MX MX ■iMiiiiilliiiiiii^^ iiii TtM copy fllmad her* hat \t—n raproducad thanks to tha ganaroaity off: Library of tha Public Archivas of Canada L'axamplaira film* fut raproduit grica k la g4n*roaltA da: La bibliothAqua das Archives publiquas du Canada Tha intagaa appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia conaMarlng tha condition and lagibillty of tha original cojiy and in kaaping with tha filming contr«.^t spacif icationa. Las imagas suh^antaa ont At* raproduitas avac la plua grand soln, eompta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da l'axamplaira film*, at an conformity avac las conditions du contrat da fiimaga. Original copiaa in printad papar covara ara fllmad beginning with tha front oovar and anding on ttta laat paga with a printad or llhiatratad impraa- ston, or tha back eovar wlian appropriata. All othar original copies ara fllmad iMginning on tha first paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- sion, and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraaaion. Tha laat racoi.'dac' frame on each microfiche ahall contain tha symbol ^-^^ (nneenlng "CON- TINUED"), or the aymbol y (meaning "END"), whichever appliea. Lea axemplaires orlginaux dont la couverture en papier est Imprimto sent fllmte en commen^ant par le premier plat at en termlnent soit par la damlAre pege qui eomporte une empreinte d'impreasion ou d'illustratlon, soit par la second plat, aalon le caa. Tous las autres exemplaires originaux sent filmte en commen^ent par la pramlAre page qui eomporte une empreinte d'impreaaion ou d'iliuatration et en terminant par la demMre paga qui eomporte une telle empreinte. Un dee symboiaa suPvants apparattra aur la denii4re Imege de cliaqua microfiche, seion le caa: la symbole -^> aignifia "A 8UIVRE", le symbole ▼ signifie "FIN". Mapa. piatae, cherts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratioa. Thoaa too large to be entirely included In one expoaura are fHmed beginning in the upper left hand comer, left to right and top to bottom, aa many framae as required. Tho followkig diagrama illuatrate the method: Lea cartaa. piancltaa, tabieeux. etc.. pnuvent Atre filmte A dee teux de rAductlon diff Arents. Lorsque le document eet trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un aaui clichA. II eat filmA A partir da I'angia aupAriaur gauche, de geuche A droite, et de haut en bee. en prenant la nombre d'imagna nAceaaaira. Lee diagrammes auivants illust^rant la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 B PB iSi1sr!auiK'!s&.r-ssa^«;luV-.-w;..^ MIRACULOUS AGENCY OONSIDIKXD AS A BASIS OF RELIGIOUS OPINION. » » » ji. Xj 23 c rr TJ 1E& 23 , BY JOHN MAHON, ESQ, B.A. « ♦« LONDON, C. W. : PRINTED AT THE '^ » r f /■. .i ■•{ T '' ■* H ^fl X) S3 ID I C -A. TIOIT To the Lord Bishop and Clergy of the Diocese of Huron this Lecture is (without permission) dedicated} because they are in some measure entitled to claim it as their ofTspring. It owes its origin to their unwillingness to acknowledge, perhaps their inability to appreciate, the groat advances which the human mind has made, under the influence of sound criticism, increasing physical knowledge and unfettered opinion. The periods over which the Biblical records extend are marked not by retrograde, but by improved systems of belief; for each succeeding century of Jewish History from Abraham to Christ shows a growth and improve- ment in both the form and spirit of Beligion and Worship ; and it ig surely not to be supposed that a final stop was put to all advances in Religious knowledge as soon as those records were concluded. It will not be endured much longer, that narrow sectarian interpretations of the Scriptures, and rigid intolerance of differing opinions, shall be imposed upon believers as subsatutes for those rational and enlarged views which are required an necessities by the existing condition of the world. Every enlightened well-wisher to the Episcopal Church of England must ^^itness with extreme regret the melancholy spectacle it presents at the present time ; torn with internal dissension —one section of it clinging with child-like tenacity to the tinsel gewgaws of rituals and ceremonials, whilst another section of it outrages the deepest religious aenti- ments of man by imputations upon God's Benevolence and Justice. Should this Lecture have the effect of recalling even a few to the paths of Nature, in their speculations upon religious subjects, the labours of the Lecturer will have been amply rewarded. Should he be disappointed even in this limited hope, he would wish it to be regarded as a respectful protest against the opinions, so hostile to i civilization, taught from the pulpits cf this Diocese. i M ' * ' s " if 'i »• . =^ * f. , 1^ » « ' . J ■;'«'"'; 5 ,-;«. i'si treat of te [obyii opini beset great tanc( Fact ooncK of a glorii If it such tion objec oam{ Bold tion; the ( const of B BtiU hith( what objec revei that oppr matt upon oono I ad appli Ofltt MffiACULOUS AGENCY CONSIDERED AS A BASIS OF RELIGIOUS OPINION. It will be admitted that there are many obstacles in the way of a satisfactory treatment of the subject of this Lecture. There is, in the first place, the difficulty of testing our proofs to the satisfaction of a reluctant audience, the difficulty of [obviating the prejudices of custom, and the hobt of prepossessions and preconceived opinions which follow in the train of an inherited faith. Another great difficulty besetting the treatment of this subject, is to be found in the fact that by far the greatest part of mankind, carried away by imagination, feels an insuperable reluc- tance to be withdrawn from its influence into the paths of Reason and Matter of Fact. By what arguments, by what appeals, are men to be wrought upon, whose consolation and spiritual happiness arc bound up with the doctrines and ceremonies of a religion founded upon miracles, and who consequently are persuaded that the glorification of God's name lies in super-natural rather than in natural agency. If it be asked why in the face of so many obstacles I ever thought of lecturing on Bttoh a subject, my answer is, that a man who is governed b; a controlling convic- tion must of necessity disregard obstacles, and push on in spite of ihem to his object; in addition to which consideration, it must be owned that times and cir- oamstanoes are now more favorable for inquiries of this kind than they used to be. Bold inroads are daily being made into the obscurest recesses of religious specula- tion ; the dreams of many a theorist have been forced to succumb to hard facts ; the circle of those who were formerly under the sway of mysterious feelings is constantly diminishing, while the circle of those who acknowledge the supremacy of Reason is daily extending. These things have made great changes, and augur still further and gr<)ater ones. Men are now more tolerant of discussion upon hitherto forbidden subjects, and they will listen with some degree of patience to what they would formerly have denounced as impious paradoxes. You will sometimes hear divines and religious persons say that they have no objection to discussion upon subjects of this kind, provided it is conducted in a reverential spirit. Now, if by the word " reverential," it is meant to be implied that there should be an abstinence from all coarse and sarcastic language, from all opprobious or disrespectful epithets, I am of the same opinion with them on that matter ; but if they mean to apply that term so as to place the slightest restraint upon the full and free investigation of facts and principlesi I own I should not conceive myself to be at all bound to be reverential in that sense ; at the same time I admit that good taste would require the avoidance of all direct and offensive application of peculiar individual opinions to the cherished theories and convictions of larM mauea of one's fellow-citizeiiB. 6 Whether certain wonderful phenomena do or do not point to the secrets of another and a higher sphere— whether the mysteries of the inner spiritual life of man, which science cannot fathom, do or do not refer to that higher sphere, — these are matters upon which I am not going to indulge in affirmation or denial ; neither have I any wish or intention to attack or seek in any way to disturb that faith in miraculous agency which claims to be directly derived from a supernatural source as, for instance, from an immediate illapse of the Divine Spirit, or even from an irresistible intuition or instinctive feeling. With such direct channels of communi- cation between Heaven and individual mortals, I presume not to meddle. So long as the advocates of miraculous agency confine themselves within the fortress of a heavenly faith, they shall be unmolested by me ; but when they come forth into the field of natural and moral inquiry, and challenge discussion on these grounds they ought not in justice to be offended if their challenge is accepted. When they assert that the principles of science are in perfect accord with a belief in the infrac- tion or suspension of. natural law, or when they maintain that miracles may be ressonably accepted on human testimony, they descend from the i)latform of divin ity to that of natural and moral philosophy, and they must be prepared to submit l;heir arguments to the tests and principles applicable to those sciences. The sphere of supposed miraculous agency was much wider and more extensive in ancient times than in these our days of philosophical investigation. When a regular correspondence between the visible and invisible worlds was universally believed in, wonderful phenomena and singular events, not easily accounted for on natural principles, were at once referred to a supernatural source. Even natura; lightning was then ascribed to the direct action of Jupiter. The progress ot physical science and of the art of criticism has so far circhmscribed our belief on this subject that the difficulty of obtaining general credit for future miracles bids fair to be all but insuperable. There is indeed an inferior sort of miracle, whicli may be called a natural miracle. Any extraordinary occurrence is called miraculous in the sense of a natural miracle; such, for instance, as the establishment ot » railway or of an electric telegraph. There is around us plenty of*miraculou'^ things of this sort to excite wonder in us, independently of the miracles against which I am going to reason. You will often hear discussions among specu- lative people about the nature of life — about time or duration — about the creation and government of the world— about the substance as well as the origin oi 'hings. This universe, of which we form a part, is a palpable miracle iu this secondary sense, and every change in nature is an inscrutible mystery to us. All that we know are the facts of change, how a cause produces it« effect is incomprehensible ; we see the seed and place it in the soil, we know that the sun and moisture act upon it, but how these produce the tree, foliage, blossom and fruit, is a question we cannot solve. Other phenomena are called miraculous, chiefly on account of their rarity. Such would be the submergence of a continent, or the rapid extinctien of a whole race of people, but these things are miracles merely from the limitation of our faculties ; they would appear very natural if we had moreknowledgeof nature, of ourselves, and of the Providence of G-od. There are two points of view from which even supposed supernatural miracles may be regarded in some sort as natural events ; first, because they constitute a portion of human history, and next, because they must be referred to some general law, and; be considered as a matter of philosophy as well as religion, inasmuch as they are found in all regions, and among all nations. I know) indeed, that we haye invented nraci lomai ^niracl Christ ^fbeir i jihe ch ihe G ^fthose mould the Pj the mi the ol< march Isays t] ^'xAlexa vfhis fol ;J the pt mood moon Tho s Moun doves oracle before Herci mirac i origin r Mann tells 1 produ tende know milit) inglt with sohi( a "pi le secrets of ritual life of )here,— these lial; neither that faith in tural source eveu from an of communi. e> So long as fortress of a forth into »es© grounds^ When they n the infrac- oles may be >rm of divin id to submit ore extensive )n. When a universally untod for on Sven natural i progress ot our belief on miracles hidi iracle, whicL i miracnloui!! blishment ot f*miraculou> aoles against mong specu the creation he origin of miracle in ble mystery produces its e know that age, blossom miraculous, a continent, are miracles atoral if m S^od. There lies may be a portion of ral law, and as they are lye invented [1 sorts of tests by which we may discriminate, to our own satisfaction, the mirac^'^a \f our religion from the miracles of all other religions, but without any succtiss leyond our own circles, because the immutable principles of natural justice leclare agaijast any party being at the same time a principal and a judge In any case whatever, whether in law, in religion, or in common life. The late Theodore Parker, who profoundly investigated all historical facts bearing \ipon moral and religious questions, asserts that every known religion in the world, whether Fetichistic, Polytheistic or Monotheistic, ha& appealed to lis same authority of miracles, and he thence concludes that miracles in favor If any particular religion can prove nothing. *' The Jewish religion, according to le popular notion, began in miracles, continued in miracles, and will end in iiracles. The Mahomedans tells us the Koran is a miracle, its author had tiraculous inspiration, visions, and revelations. The writings of the Greeks, the Romans, the Scandinavians, the Hindoos, the Chinese and the Persians, are full of miracles. Above all, the Hindoo priests boast of surpassing the priests of the Christian and all other religions in the number, the magnitude and the antiquity of ^their niiracles." And here I may observe, that miracles are generally marked by jihe characteristics of the people among whom they are wrought. The miracles of #he Greeks were the product of a rich, lively and somewhat wanton fancy, whilst -those of the Romans were generally political in their tendency, and were often • moulded to suit some ambitious or national object. The miracles of what is called the Patristic period, that is of the first fivd centuries of our era, and also those of the middle ages, are of a peculiarly barbarous character. Many of the miracles of the old Testament have their parallels in Greek and Boman story. Bacchus, wh«n marching from Egypt to the conquest of India, divided the Bed Sea ; and Josephus 'says that a similar phenomenon took place at the passage of the Pamphylian Sea by ^Alexander the Great, when it parted and gave way of its own accord to him and his followers, the very waves marking out a path in order that nothing should hinder the purposed design of God in the overthrow of the kindom of Persia. In a jovial mood the same hero drew wine from a rock by a stroke of his rod, and the sun and moon were arrested by him to serve a particular purpose on his march to India. Tho speech of Balaam's ass had many parallels in Heathen antiquity. The cows of Mount Olympus distinguished themselves by supernaturally inspired orations ; the doves, the fountains, and even the oaks of Dodona, were known to deliver heavenly oracles ; and Xanthus, one of the horses of Achilles, predicted his master's death % before tho walls of Troy. There is also a tale, similar to that of Jonah, related o^ Hercules, who was enclosed three days in the belly of a whale. Some of the Jewish miracles have, under the influence of modern investigation, shrunk from their original dimensions into ordinary occurrences or common usages. The supply of Manna to the Jews in tho wilderness is no longer insisted on as a miracle. Josephus tells us that in his time it was found in great quantities in Arabia, and tho plant that produced it is now cultivated in Sicily and Southern Italy. A similar fate has at- tended the once famous miracle "pillar of fire" and "pillar of smoke," which is now known to have risen from a common usuge among eastern nations. It was a part of military discipline among the Persians and other nations of the East, when march- ing large armies through the deserts, to carry in the van during the night fires made with such combustible materials as would make a great flame, which was elevated so high as to be distinctly seen by all in the rear, and to appear in the distance as a " pillar of fire," thas serving to point out the line of march. In <;yrder to direct 8 this line during the day, such combustibles were burnt as to produce the greatest cloud or " pillar of smoke." This military usage is mentioned both by Herodotus and Quintus Curtius, and Alexander the Great himself adopted it from tne Persians. I will now proceed to a more formal discussion upon the principles of Logic and Philosophy— of the great question of miracle or no miracle. The first thing to be done in pursuit of our object is to define the meaning of the word " miracle." Now the meaning which I attach to that word in common language is this : — That it is something'Which is said to have been done which is totally opposed to all past experience ; but, in order to avoid cavilling, I will define it to be the sudden reversal or suspension of some one or more of the ascertained properties of matter by divine intervention for a special purpose. Properly speaking, this definition belongs neither to logic nor philosophy ; it is, in fact, a creature of theology. However, I am willing, for the sake of testing principles, to adopt it for the present. You will ask, perhaps, why it is that this definition belongs neither to philosophy nor logic. The reason is this : — Science necessarily rejects from its consideration both ultimate and penultimate agencies— both original self-acting (Agencies, and also derivative agencies, such as spirits, whether good or evil. Science can only concern itself with essential physical conditions, or material agencies, and these it is under the necessity of assuming, as the causes on which the uniformities in natural phenomena invariably depend. Witliout this assumption it would have been impossible to carry on physical investigations to any useful purpose ; it would have been impossible to make any progress in Natural Philosophy, in any of its various branches— of Mechanics, Chemistry, Physiology, Astronomy, Geology, or any other of the Physical Sciences. Neither would it be possible, without this assumption, to investigate satisfactorily the ultimate grounds of moral principles— in fact there would be an end of all well- founded trust in evidence and testimony, and all confidence in the very records of History. However, taking this theological definition for what it is worth, let us examine it with a view to ascertain its real value, and how it can be sustained by reasoning. You will observe that in this theological definition there are contained two distinct branches or parts ; one of which consists in the assertion of a specific fact, namely, the reversal or suspension of some one or more of the known properties of matter ; while the other is expressive of an opinion as to how that reversal or suspension was eSiected. In the eye of theology the hypothesis contained in this definition is much more important than the asserted fact, for this last is regarded by it as important only because it is a necessary medium for manifesting the interposition of Deity ; and, therefore, it is that divines and theologians have manifested so strong a disposition to discuss the hypothesis before dealing with the fact itself. But, unfortunately, this can only be done in total disregard of the logical oi ler, which requires that the correctness of the supernatural supposition should not be mooted until proof of the fact had been given, when it would be time enough to enquire into the causation of so extraordinary a phenomenon. But bt the theologians act how they will in this matter, they cannot escape from the question which iHresents itself at the very threshold of this discussion, viz., can their definition be realized or sustained in either oi its parts. If it cannot, if neither the asserted fact, nor yet the a priori hypothesis, can be substantiated, then must the notion of supernatural manifestation in any case be discarded as unfounded and chimerical* In this state of matters, three very important questions arise for our decision* Ist. Are miracles possible ? 2nd. Are miracles susceptible of proof by human tent brai The 9 ) greatest lerodotus Persians, of Logic irst thing miracle." s:— That all past n reversal by divine t belongs )wever, I Yon will Qor logic, ultimate erfvative em itself lader the enomena physical nake any sohanics, Sciences. factorily allweU- oords of I, let UB lined by )ntained ' specific operties ersal or in this edbyit position ssted so t itself. 1 oiJer, not be mgh to v3t the aestion finition sserted ion of lerioal. Mision. human testimony ? And 3rd. What is the value of the hypothesis contained in the latter branch of the definition respecting divine interventions. 1st. Are miracles possible ? The answer must be, they are possible in one sense, not possible in another sense ; 'possible in a sense which is nothing to the purpose, impossible in the only sense that concerns us. Possibility is cither metaphysical or physical. In a metaphysical consideration everything that is conceivable is possible. In this sense it is possible that the sun may cease to shine ; that the earth may stop in its daily revolution ; that a bullet dropped from my hand may ascend instead of descending. Any of ; these suppositions is as conceivable as its opposite, and, therefore, in a metaphysical sense, as possible. But as metaphysical possibilities are equally available on every j side of a question, they are without force or value on any. We may, thereforci dismiss this possibility, and proceed to the other, namely, the physical possibility. > Are miracles physically possible ? The answer must be in the negative, for this reason, that miracles violate the law of nature, or, in other words, the law of matter and motion, and it is upon these laws that physical possibility depends. A miracle is physically impossible, because it attributes contradictory properties to ' the d ; in other words, that man is in a position to comprehend and embrace withfn his view, not only all the relations of the Deity to this globe' of ours, but also all his and our relations, to perhaps millions of other globes contained in the limitless expanse of the universe. The truth of the matter is, that this abstract probability, as it is called, is nothing but a baseless hypothesis, a mere naked supposition. L knoW; indeed, that hypothesis and supposition are sometimes very formidable things, as, for instance, when they are backed by the force and power of gbvernments, and the accessories of horse, foot, and artillery, of racks, prisons, tortures, and other instru- ments for operating upon the outward professions of men ; neither arc tbey to be despised, when, as in the -^resent day, they are only supported by social, civil, or political proscriptions ; Y , in the region of philosophy, they carry no weight, and in that of science, they are worthless, except as incitements to inquiry. AVTiat, in fact, is one man's supposition to another man ? Nothing whatever. Has it any binding power upon his reason or his conscience ? Not in the least. Those persona who are so fond of upholding the miracles of their own religion, and refuting those of their opponents, by attempting to show that the circumstances are worthy or unworthy, as the case may be, of Divine interference, seem to forget that when once we pass the limits of the natural, one thing is just as little susceptible of proof as another, and that the circumstances calling for the interposition of Deity are just as open to the judgment of the most illiterate peasant ns to that of the pro- foundest philosopher, or of tlio most learned divine. To be sure the peasant, if left to himself, will probably give the preference tu that miracle which is attended with the most utartling and fantastical circumstancer, while the philosonhor and divine will sanction the miracle that presents a more plausible appearance, and is connected directly or indirectly with some obviously good doctrine, or some sup posed mitral or benevolent design ; but these distinctions make no real difference in the cases ; all miracles quoad miracles are equally unphilosophical, all equally objectionable in the view of science. I confess that my chief objection to thi« arbitrary introduction of the Divine Being upon the stage of human argument is derived from the consideration, that it has the practical effect of placing the decision of the most important questions of Religion and Philosophy at the mercy of brute force; for some how or other the predominant party is always sure to hrivo God Almighty on its side, or, which is much the same thing, it has the means of forcing belief, or rather profession, into those channels most favorable to its own interests. I believe 1 might venture to assert, without fear of just contradiotion, ■^f 11 that there is not one dogmatical opinion contained in modern theology, and receiving the general sanction of christians, which has not been the result offeree, interest or oormptioii;. The best attested miracles in all history are, perhaps, those that were wrought at the tomb of the celebrated Jansenist, the Abbe de Paris. Their reality was testified to by men of all ranks and conditions— by lawyers, judges, physicians, and literacy and (scientific philosophers; but the party in whose favor the miracles were wrought was obnoxious to the Court of France, and the Court of Rome, and still more su to the Jesuit party, which then ruled both courts. The Jesuits acted on this occasion like good politicians and men of the world, who, conscious of having the game in their hands, were resolved not to lose it by giving their adversaries a chance. They declined arguing the question, but ordered that the tomb at which thb miracles were wrought should bo enclosed by a wall — a proceeding which occasioned the following epigram to be affixed to the enclosure, " De par le Roi, defense a Dieu, Pe faire miraoles en ce iieu," which may thus be translated into English, " Know all men by these presents, that the King, by his supreme decree, has forbidden Grod Almighty to perform any more miraoles in this place ;" — an epigram which shortly and pithily expresses the whole philosophy of this part of the case ; for God Almighty is seldom permitted to perform any miracles but what are suitable to the views of the party in power. Some of the most discerning of the theologians of the present day appear to be sensible that a strong current has 3et in in favor of the invariable uniformity of natural law, and therefore they are trying to find out some middle course, by which all arbitrary infractions may be excluded, and at the same time their favorite doctrine of special interventions may bo preserved. With this view Dr. McCosh has entered the field with a new theory, by which he hopes to effect this desirable object. He has written a work, entitled " The Supernatural in relation to the Natural,' ' and he there lays it down that there is a law for the Supernatural as well as for the Natural — for tho Exceptional as well as for the Regular. " God " (says he) "has so arranged his physical agents, that general laws everywhere prevail, but he has also disposed them so that, by their combination and coincidence, crossing or collision, they produce individual incidents." 1 shall not stop to discuss the question thus raised by Dr. McCosh, beoauso I aLi not only quite ignorant as to the nature and conditions of the law he alludes to, but I am entirely without the means of acquiring any reliable information respeot* ing it. While I congratulate Dr. McCosh on his good fortune in having such ready access to the regions supernatural, 1 must decline to follow him in his excursioi: beyond the sk.*es. I will tell you, however, what is said of the Doctor's argument by a philosopher and a scholar — by one whose position affords a reasonable guarantee that ho is noc an infidel, being a Fellow of the Roynl Society of England, and also a Fellow of the Geological Society of that country. I allude to David Page, whose admirable little work,on the Philosophy of Geology ,was published in England aboutr three years ago. After quoting the passage I have read to you from Dr. McCosh's work, he thus oomments upon it. This is the merest juggling with terms. Tho exceptional is either beyond tho province of law, or it is not. If it is beyond the province of law, it cannot possibly come within tho category of science ; if it ii not beyond tL ^ province of law, it must bo obedient to times and methods, howeves wide these times and complex these methods ; and this is merely saying, in othei wordi, that it is natural^ but to us, in tho meantime, ifuompreheimble. The ditpow of God's phyftioal agent's, which, by their corabinttion or ooinoidenoe, orosoing 1 12 \ collision, is, according to Dr. MoGosh's theory, productive of individual incident*— this disposal is in itself the very essence and establishment of lav. If thfiro be a disposal of these agents, such that they shall at one time or another, either by coin- cidence or uollision,be productive of certain results,that disposal must be a predisposal and every predisposal is by its very nature an establishment of law. It is true, that by their wide departure from th^ general order, such phenomena may at first sight appear preternatural, but nothing resulting from a predisposal of agency can be supernatural, and the seeming anomaly arises merely from our own impotence to comprehend the nature and complexity of the producing causes. Once destiuy the belief in the continuous operation of natural law, and appeal to " revolutions " and -^cataclysms," and you present a world of disorder, a Creator without a plan, and the human reason will then strive in vain to elaborate an intelligible systnn from phenomena over which no system prevails." Such is the opinion of this able writer and true philosopher upon supernatural agency ; aye, and such is the opinion of each and all of us, when our judgment is left to operate free from the influence of mystic impressions. Remember that the tens of thousands of miracles, of all the other various religions in the world, rest for their support upon this self-same hypo- thesis against which I am now contending. Now you have no hesitation in iNronoun- cing this hypothesis to be utterly worthless, when applied to the support of their miracleS) and the hundreds of millions of believers in those religions return you the compliment by pronouncing this same hypothesis as equally worthless when used to uphold the miracles of your religion. What is the value, I should like to know, of an hypothesis which is thus universally condemned in every instance where interest or prepossession does not prompt an opposite decision. But what matters the mere unsoundness of a principle, in comparison with the fr/ghtful practical consequences that flowed from the triumph of this particular hypothesis. As there never has been, and never can be found, a true criterion fbr distinguishing a suitable miracle from one of a different stamp, men were neces* sarily left, in times when miracles were in fashion, to their own fancies^ to choose what miracles they would accept, and what they would reject, as supports of the Christian system. The consequence of this state of things was, that in the days of superstition and ignorance, such a luxurious crop of barbarous miracles sprang up, that the law of nature was almost threatened with extinction. If I were to attempt to give you a hundredth part of the whimsical instances of asserted super- natural intervention, that were once universally believed in throughout Christen- dom, and which it would have been death by stoning or burning to express a doubt of, I should trespass unwarrantably upon your patience. It would, however, be a great mistake to suppose that the ridiculous miraeles I allude to were the mere offspring of Popery, for the germs of them had appeared coevally with the first preaching of Christianity. In the death struggle that took place between old Heathenism and young Christianity for the mastery of the world, (for thnt was the object of the contest, as it was to be the prize of the victor) each party vied with the othar in the fabrication of absurdities. In the early period of our era, men made little difference betwera the natural and the supernatural. The Christians repre- sented the heathen gods as evil spirits, who caused all the crimes of the world, and occasioned all public calamities, such as failures of crops, dearths, diseases, and all sorts of disastrous accidents. The Heathens were indignant at this wholesale denunciation of their religion, and, therefore, they resolvedi about tiie fourth century, toooUeot and oombine their soattered forees for a final anaolt upon 13 r? the whole Christian system. The Platonic, as well as the free-thinking philosophers of Heathenism, and also the initiated adherents of the ancient anperstitions, exhibited their magical powers before the Christians, appealed tc the oracles of their gods, to their mysteries and their miracles, and opposed a magical champion to f every apostle and martyr of the Christians. Uoth parties paraded a long array f of miraculous wonders, and claimed that their respective beliefs were visibly ^'authenticated by their displays of preternatural power. Thoodoret, the Church '!1iistorian, relates amongst other incidents of this contest, that Marcellus, a bishop ■!ln Syria, in the 4th century, attempted, with tbe help of the prefect, to bum a mple of Jupiter, but a black devil always extinguished the flames. The bishop, owever, caused a cask of water to be placed upcn the high altar, and, after a ))irayer and the sign of the cross, the water burnt like oil, and the idol temple was ftonsumed to ashes. Ennemoser, from whom I havf taken some of the above ^particulars, says, in his History of Magic, that in the 8th century, the Heads of ^e Church for .d it necessary to invoke the influence of superstition, to enable iliem to impose upon the world their dogmatic theories, which they were then ^"leeking to place upon a more systematic basis. Under their skilful management, fpie power and number of the devils grew just in proportion to the increasing lumbers and authority of the saints, and it might be truly said that the devils at ^that period played the chief part in the world's history. Everything which deviated ^om common life was set down as sorcery, and every one who distinguished himself ^|n any manner was condemned as a magician. There was some abatement of this ex- 'i|||essive absurdity during the Crusades,in the 11th and 12th centuries ; but in the 13th, ttpon the appearance of the Beguins, Lollards, Spiritualints, Wuldensesi Tezcrants %r Weavers, the insanity broke out afresh, and a regular crusade was directed gainst old women, who were considered to be demons disguised in the shape of ads and geese, while at the same time the devil waj supposed to appear among ihe male heretics in the forms of tom-eats and he>goats. As every absurdity must %ave its theory among divines and theologians, Pope Gregory thought it necessary ,%> give the philosophy of these strange appearances of his Satanic majesty and %is subordinates. So, in a letter to Prince Henry, son of the Emperor Frederick, ^e lays it down, that as Christ's death had destroyed the inner person of the devil, %e was reduced to the necessity of assuming such evil shapes as toads and geese, ^iom-oats and he-goats. The whole ceremonies of the Christ* an Church were at "^that time, according to the same author, directed to the controlling of evil sjoirits, ^and the discharge of justice consisted chiefly in the application of the Inquisition; and the theologian Raynaldus declares, that such numbers of men were ai'^ that Iperiod seduced to sorcery, especially in Germany and Italy, that the whole earth ust have been laid waste by the devil, hod not the guardians of the faith caused be burnt some thirty thousand heretical sorcerers in those two eountrieti. In 'the 14th and 16th centuries witchcraft rested on authority and law, on the spiritual ^ and secular powers. An accusation made upon suspicion, or out of mere enmity, W was held to be suflicient impeachment : this was followed by criminal trial, and the I trial by tha fire-death. It mattered not whether the accused confessed or not ; in ' the first case he was guilty, in the second he was a hardened sinner. About this \ period lived Innocent the Eighth, one of those able Popes who possessed more ambition and policy than genuine religion. He longed to see the secular power of princes made subject to the sacerdotal principle, and he thought he saw his way to oury out his purposes through Ih? means of « perseoution to be set on foot against 14 t i witches and sorcerers. Accordingly he raised a great outcry against the evil practises of witchcraft, and as there happened to appear just at the time a book called the " Witch Hammer,"— so called, because in it the three authors or com- pilers of it professed to point out effectual means for crushing and smashing all witches out ef existence— he took it and the composers of it under his especial patronage. By a Bull bearing date December 4, 1484, he created the three worthies his Commissioners for the carrying out of his beneficent purposes for the salvation of men. In this Bull his HoUncss expresses his profound grief that many persons, of both sexes, forgetful of their salvation, should mingle themselves with demons and paramour-devils, devils using devilish arts to torment men and animals, destroying the fruits of the earth in vineyards, gardens and meadows* He directs hb three Commissioners to expound the word of God in the affected parts of Upper Germany, to hunt out the sorcerers and to punish them by excommunication, censure and chastisement, by interdict, suspension and hanging. He orders his right reverend brother, the Bishop of Arasburg, not by any means, either of himsell' or by othersi to make known publicly to the accused the charge against him ; nor by any means to weaken or restrict the power of the said Apostolic Commissioners ; nor to resist their orders, let the rank, office, privileges, nobility or consideration of the accused be whatsoever they might, under the penalty of incurring the indignation of the omnipotent God, and of his blessed apostles Peter and Paul. By the same Bull the Pope annihilated all the judicial forms heretofore deemed necessary for the protection of innocence, deprived the condemned of all power of appeal, and even himself of all power of pardon. With this besom of destruction in their hands, the worthy Commissioners went to work with a will, sweeping before them high and low, prince and noble, middle class, citizen and peasant, without regard to age, sex, or condition. A universal panic seized upon all classes of people, and thousands of innocent victims were consigned to the flames, in order that, amidst the general terror, kings might be made to tremble at the power of a Pope. Why have I gone into this distressing detail ? — why have I dwelt so long upon these foul blots uix)n our common nature ? Most assuredly I have not done so from any wish to lower or depreciate it in the eyes of my hearers, but I have done so in order to impress upon their minds this undoubted truth, attested by all experience, that man, by confounding the supernatural with the natural, and by thus losing the true perception of the natural law, sinks rapidly into intellectual darkness, loses the kindly and generous instincts of his nature, becomes an animal of prey, delighting in blood, and finally reaches that depth of callous wickedness in which he can even exult with savage joy over the dying agonies of his nearest, and of those who should be, his dearest kindred. We will now proceed to the remaining question, which I proposed to discuss in connection with this subject of miraculous agency considered as a basis of religious opinion, can a miracle be proved by human testimony ? We have already seen that Paley's alleged antecedent probability is a mere hypothesis, unsupported by either fact or proof of any kind ; and we have also seen that a miracle is a physical impossi- bility, and therefore a non-existent thing in the eye of science and logic. This being the state of the case, it must appear a very superfluous proceeding to take up your time by entering into a labored argument to show that a physical impossibility cannot be proved by a merely moral probability — in other words that a heavier body cannot be outweighed by a lighter one. However, as this argument is different in form, if not fn substance, from the one wo have been considering, it will bo worth ^iffi 15 inst the evil time a book aors or corn- smashing all his especial hree worthies le to give a little attention to it. I would first warn you, however, against the immon mistake of confounding together a fact, in its natuie miraculous, and a fact hich is only extraordinary and unaccountable. This caution is necessary at the esent time, when many divines and theologians, in their anxiety to ward off or stpone the coming conflict between the principles of science and some of the principles of the popular religion, would so modify the definition of miracle as to he salvarioD ^i^stroy its nature and reduce it to a merely extraordinary event. But candor and lany persons ^^^^'^ ^°^ ^^^^ dealing compel us to reject these efforts at compromise at the expense with demons ^ principle. The sacerdotal power having gained the mastery of the world, by md animals foeans of miracles, cannot now be permitted to turn round and cashier that old He directs iMitablished venerated word, and explain it away into an unmeaning sound; that rts of UpDer W*''*^'^ indeed be a shameful trifling with the convictions and feelings of mankind— pl vile paltering in a doable sense — it would be to apply to the principles of truth and religion the maxims of convenience adopted by the architect who Inocks down the scaffolding when the building is erected. What is the <||^erence between a miraculous event and one merely extraordinary ? The itinction is this, that the miraculous fact necessarily implies an opposition invariable experience. The event that is only of an extraordinary character oes not imply anything of the kind. The miraculous event, at all times, belongs the class of experimental facts ; the extraordinary fact is not discovered to be of llhat class, until it has ceased to be extraordinary. I know that it has often liappened, that men have been so situated as to be unable, from their ignorance and ^experience, to distinguish ibotween the^e two very different things. But the Vnhappy circumstances in which men sometimes find themselves placed cannot alter |he nature of things. When a fact, however extraordinary, but short of being iraculous, is alleged to have happened, such an alleged fact amounts to no more amunication, e orders his er of himself St him; nor amissioners ; sideration of B indignation By the same lecessary for appeal, and their hands, e them high Jgard to age, id thousands »,. t the general fP'*" *^^^' *^** ^°^® property of matter not hitherto known has been discovered, or have I gone il blots uix)n l» to lower or npress upon it man, by i« the true 38, loses the . delighting lie can even who should ► discuss in af religious y seen that i by either sal impossi- This being ke up your Hty cannot met body liffercnt in bo worth that aome new combination of material forces has taken place, or else that some dexterous individual has availed himself of the known properties of matter, in such jp. way as to give the appearance of being miraculous to effects which, when displayed in their true character, are found to have nothing miraculous about them, except the skill and dexterity exhibited in their 'production. Suppose, that, long before the possibility of transmitting news by telegraph was dreamed of by the rest of -the world, some few scientific persona having discovered the electrical secret, .i were able to supply correct information of transactions happening thousands of miles off in a few moments of time, and supposing thati on the strength of the appa- , rently supernatural f jwer implied in such extraordinary knowledge,a Divine mission [to establish a new religion wore claimed by them, and admitted by great numbers [>f people, is it not evident that such a religion would be founded on false ^pretences, and that the claim to Divine revelation would be a fraud ? When Columbus was crossing the ocean, on his great yoyage of discovery, he was able to quell a mutiny of his sailors by means of his superior knowledge of astronomy, which enabled him to foretell an eclipse of the sun that was to happen the next day. When the mutineers found that the event corresponded with the prediction, they immediately returned to their duty, and were ready to worship Columbus as a Bupernaturally gifted person. Suppose he had taken advantage of this disposition, to establish a new religion of his own invention, is it not clear that such a religion would have been merely human— the result of fraud and imposture ? Suppose, •gain, that this room were filled with men and womeot not one of whom had ever 16 1 1 li I • I't heard or read of the wonderful feats of legerdemain, and that in such a state of igno- noranoe and inexperience, a skilful juggler were to appear amongst them, and perform some of those astonishing tricks, which can stagger and confound even persons who have often seen similar performances— is it not evident here, too. that, if the juggler should establish a religion on such a foundation, it would be an imposition and a cheat ? In all these cases the occurrences in question are only natural events, though having the appearance, to uninformed persons, of being preternatural. Having cleared our path of this difficulty, which often encumbers the subject we are discussing, I now return to the question, can a miracle be proved by human testimony ? This leads us directly to the celebrated argument of Hume — an argument which has so perplexed the orthodox, that they have been occupied ever since it was first started in efforts to refute it. They have sent forth against his little Essay almost innumerable answers, of all sorts— mathematical, moral, logical, mystical and philosophical, and all equally without effect. "A miracle," says Hume, " is a violation of the laws of nature ; and, as a firm and unalterable experience has established those laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the Aict, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined, and, there- fore, no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endea^ vours to establish.'^ Although Hume was the first to present this argument under a precise formula, and to follow it out to its ultimate results, yet the principle upon which it rests had been tacitly adopted by several previous inquirers, and implied through the course of their reasonings. For instance, it underlies the whole of Dr. Conyers Middleton's very liberal treatise on the miraculous powers of the early Church. In one part of that treatise, having occasion to notice some very absurd miracles of the renowned Symeon Stylttes which are recorded by the Ohurch historian Theodorot, and for which said miracles a Church of England clergyman, Dr.Chapman,was stoutly oontending,he proceeds thus : "Dr.Chapman,by contending that we have no better evidence for the very existence of Stylites than we have for his miracles, means, I suppose, that we have the same evidence fbr both, namely, the testimony of the same Theodoret, which he imagines to be as good in one case as in the other ; not reflecUi^ thai the same witneta, of whatever character HB MAT BE, vnll necessarily Jind a very different degree of credit^ according to the different nature of the facts which he attests, and THAT THOUGH CREDIBLE IN SOME HE MAT BE JCSTLT CONTEMPTIBLE IN OTHERS." The Same argument is directly and tersely put by Soame Jenyns, in his work in fHvor of the Internal Evidence of the Christian religion. He was contemporary with Hume, but whether his work preceded that of Hume or not, I cannot say. The argument I allude to is as follows : — " It is impossible," says he, *' that history can afford us any certain proof of a miraculous and supernatural dispensation, because a fact unlikely to be true can neeer be demonstrated by a relation that is possible io be falH." The celebrated Cardinal de Retz announced a similar opinion when he said " that it was not necessary, in order to disprove a miracle, to be able to trace it through all the circumstances of knavery and oredality that produced it." Jeremy Taylor subscribes to the same principle in his Liberty of Prophesying. " Although," says he, " the argument drawn from miracles is good to attest a holy doctrine, which by its own worth will sustain itself after way is a little made by miracles, yet of Hs^ and by its own rqmtation it wiU not support any fabric; fbr instead of proving a dootrine to be tme, it makes that miraoke themielTet are nspeeted (o be res on Pi well this! havj cm] Qto\ his meni , stispl 17 » [i be illuaions if they be pretended in behalf of a doctrine which wo think we have i reason to account false." Again, Bishop Newton, the great evangelical authority i on prophecy, goes the whole length of Hume's doctrine, for he recommends all I Protestant Christians to reject miracles, nay, ten thousand miracles, let them be ever so well attested, if they sanction any doctrines contrary to truth, reason or morality, and this advice he gives on the very sufficient ground that otherwise they would never have done examining miracles. Even so early as the fourth century, which was emphatically an age of miracles, St. Chrysostom adopted the sensible maxim of the Greek philosopher, '* reasons for wise men, Tuirucles for fools;" for he says in one of 1 his works thuc "miracles are proper only to excite sluggish and vulgar minds, that ' men of sense have no occasion for them, and that they frequently carrj some untoward . .suspicion along with them.'' I have always considered it a matter to be regretted that Hume should have adhered so rigidly to the resolution he had formed in the outset of his career, never to notice any animadversions on his works, nor to answer any of the arguments of his adversaries ; the world was thus deprived of the advantage of seeing how so acuto and original a genius would have unfolded, illustrated and enforced his own theory against the numerous objections levelled against it. To one of his opponents, Prof. Campbell, who had taken Hume's silence as a slight, he wrote an apologetic letter, in which he states in what way that iirgument had first occurred to him. " It may, perhaps, amuse you to learn the first hint of that argument you have so ttrenuously attacked, and you will probably think that it savours of the sophistry 6f its origin. I was walking in the cloisters of the Jesuit College of La Fleche, a town in which I passed two years of my youth, and engaged in a conversation with Oft Jesuit of some parts and learning, who was relating to me, and insisting upon, if wme nonsensical miracle performed lately in their convent, when I was tempted to ; dispute against him ; and as my head was full of the topics of my treatise of human nature, which I was at that time composing, this argument immediately occurred Jto me, and I thought it very much gravellei my companion; but, at U?t, he f^^ftbserved that it was impossible for that argument to have any solidity, brcause it /Operated equally against the gospel as tlie Catholic miracles, which observation I liioaght proper to admit as a sufficient answer." Hume's essay would undoubtedly Jhave given a death blow to miracles, had interest and prejudice stood aloof, and had candour and fair play been alone consulted. But the Clergy saw the loop-hole ;;Which his popular mode of treating the subject afforded them, and they did not fail ■^^to take i.dvantage of it. They cavilled about the word experience, and they "wvilled about the word miracle, until thoy succeeded in raising such a cloud around w subject that the original drift of the discussion was completely obscured and lost ight of; and this they did, although it was as clear as a sunbeam that they were themselves unable to advance a single step in their own argument without indirectly . admitting Hume's definitions to be correct. ! Those writers who have undertaken to refute Hume's reasonings on the subject of miracles, have almost invariably fallen into the mistake of supposing that he contended against the metaphysical possibility of such violations of the Jjf laws of nature ; whereas nothing was further from his intention, or more repugnant ■ to his habit of thought, than to speculate upon possibilities which, ho owns, can S never be fathomed by man so long as he remains* ignorant of the ultimate springs ■of causation. What Hume contended against, and, in my humble judgment, sue. ■oeasfiilly, is the rredibiUty of miracles, or the possibility of establishing them upon 18 ^ill!. human testimony, for, be it remembered, that the abstract possibility of mir^les, and the possibility of establishing them upon human testimony, are quite diflferent things. He demanded the rejection of all alleged miraculous facts, on the ground of there being, from the constitution of the human mind and the circumstances in which we arc placed, a necessary preponderance of argument against their credi- bility. The arguments from experience in favour of nature's uniformity he placed in one scale, and the argi^ments in favour of the truth of testimony he placed in the other, and as he found that the latter were outweighed by the former in a decisive manner; he felt himself compelled, as a reasonable being, to reject them with as little hesitation as he would an assertion contradictory of the evidence of his senses. Now, the question to be considered here, is not whether such a conclusion is recon- cilable with the previous views of the great bulk of the Christian world, but whether it is or is not agreeable to reason, and favorable to the development of truth. Is it possible to entertain a doubt upon the matter ? All the conclusions that we are capable of forming on matters of fact, are reducible to two classes, namely, such as are derived from observation upon subjects that are uniform, and such as are derived from observation upon subjects that are found to be various* Under the former class are ranged all our judgments upon the laws and common operations of nature, as the succession of day and night, the descent ©f heavy bodies and the like, and under the latter class are ranged our judgments upon all other matters of fact. Now the process by which we form conclusions as to facts of this latter l^ind, is by collecting together into one sum all those instances in which we have perceived them to exist in a certain way, and into another sum all those instances in which we have observed them to exist in a different way, and then comparing these sums together, in order to determine the ratio which they bear to each other. If the instances on each side be equal in number, we conclude that the general nature of the fact is uncertain ; when they are unequal, we con' elude that that is the more general nature of the fact, which is conformable to the side on which the excess lies ; and our conclusions become so much the stronger, as the instances on one side are found to be more numerous than those on the other. To apply this rule to the case of testimony : as the instances in which testimony has been found to correspond with reality are more numerous than those in which it has been found to be at variance with it, our conclusions in favour of the truth of testimony in general, is to be considered as more probable than the opposite one, by as much as the instances of its correspondence with reality are judged to exceed those of its non-conformity with it — yet, as the instances in which testimony has been found to be at variance with reality are exceedingly numerous, there must, of course, be a proportional abatement of the credit that would have been due to it, had there ^een no such instances of variation. The whole fabrio of our belief, except in respect of facts which are the immediate objects of perception, rests upon the assumption that the future will correspond with the past. Thus we believe that testimony in general will be true, because in general we have found it to be so, and in any particular instance we judge that it will correspond with] analogous cases in our past experience. So far, our conclusions are unattended with serious difficulty, though still subject to be often mistaken. But serious difficulties do arise when this principle, or this assumption of the correspondence of the figure with the past, is supposed to be upoa opposite sides; on one side challenging our belief of an alleged act, on the grovnci of its being supported by past experience of the truth of testi- 19 inir^les, ) different le ground itances in leir oredi- he placed ised in the I decisive n with as [lis senses. 1 is recon- forld, but opment of ondusions vo classesi iform, and le various* 1 common \, ef heavy ;8 upon all as to facts tstances in ler sum all way, and rhich they e conclude al, we con' able to the trongeri as the other, testimony e in which the truth ■posite one, I to exceed imony has re must, of 1 due to it, our belief, rests upon telieve that it to be correspond usions are mistaken. Mumption be upoa st, on the of testi- mony — and on the other side challeDging our disbelief of the sanie alleged fact, on the giound of its being opposed by our pasi. experience in respect of the operations of the law of nature. This case, when analysed, amounts to one of opposing experiences, or rather of analogies of experience. Direct perception we are not supposed to have in either instance. When a fact deposed to by a witness is believed on the strength of his- testimony, the belief is not founded on any perception we have of its conformity with reality, but upon the inference 'which our judgment, such as it is, draws from past perceptions. Men have no difference about their perceptions, but only about the inferences to be drawn from them. The agreement ; of testimony with reality, in a majority of instances, is an inference resulting from past perceptions. The utter incapacity of a horse, or a dog, to hold a rational discourse, is, likewise, an inference resulting from past perceptions. So far, there is no difficulty, because there is no collision- The difficulty ari^. :; when infer- ences, each of which is supposed to rest upon past experience, are found to be 'incompatible with each other, and it becomes necessary to reject either of them . iFor instance, it is asserted by a person, who, on ordinary occasions, would be cou ■ jlidered trustworthy, that he heard a horse, or a dog, hold a rational conversation ji^ith a human being. In this case, while confining out "^iews wholly to the inferences ^from past perceptions respecting testimony in general, and respecting the testimony on other occasions of this particular witness, we should be inclined to credit his assertion, and, consequently, to believe that such a conversation had taken place, l^nt when we direct our attention t« the inferences from past perceptions respecting {he capacities of the lower animals, we are led to correct our first impression, and Id disbelieve the testimony to so extraordinary a fact. In every such instance the eonclusion we come to is formed upon a comparative view of the two experiences, \ Ihat which we have, or suppose we have, respecting the character of the witness, and i^at irhioh we have, or suppose we have, respecting the nature of the fact. WLen , ;0n any particular instance, we disbelieve the testimony, we do so, or at least profess liko do so, either on the ground of some specific cause of untrustworthiness on the : |>art of the witness, or on the ground of some presumptive cause of untrustworthi- Bess, arising from the nature of the fact deposed to. In the latter case, when no iq;ecial cause of untrustworthiness connected with tho character of the witness is ^|)erccptible, and yet the fact deposed to is of such a nature as to raise the strongest !; jpresumption of there being a latent cause of untrustworthiness on the part of the "witness ; in such a case the opposition of the two experiences creates a complication /which enables the propagators uf delusive systems to gain a triumph over truth and Mature. In all cases of incompatibility between the assertions of men and the laws ^f nature, no hesitation could exist as to the choice of the alternative, if reason lone were allowed to guide us. In the experiments upon bodies, the result is Ifimple, is open to inspection, ««nd is always the same. But how are we to experiment upon humi^n testimony ? how are we to reach with certainty the secret motives that ^^ay actuate a mnn in giving his testimony on any particular occasion ? £ven Iwhere ordinary facts are the subject of it, the correspondence between assertion and freality is uncertain enough — what must it be in cases where miraculous events are ooncemed ? Our conclusions in favour of the truth of testimony in general, must, [therefore, fall short, in point of probability, of our conclusions in favour of the Inniformity of the law of nature by the amount of the abatements occasioned by those countervailing circumstancAs affecting the credibility of the former, but not lat of the latter. The quantum of probability in favour of the truth of testimony 20 may be usoertained by totting up on one side the supposed instances of ita correspon* dence with reality, and on the other side those ins-tances of its non-conformity with it, and then substraoting the latter from the former, the difference giving the quantum required. On the other hand, the process for ascertaining the probability (or, more properly speaking, the certainty) of our conclusions respectbg the opera- tion of natural laws, is of a more simple and of a much more satisfactory character —a totting up of instances of uniform result with an opportunity of increasing the sum (if that were necessary) by as many experiments as could be crowded into the space of the longest lilb. Cast a ball of iron a million of times upon the water, in every case it will sink, not float— repeat the experiment ten million, or ten thousand million of times, and the result will always be the same. Take, on the other hand, ten thousand instances of testimony. In seven thousand of these it will probably be found to tally more or less with the fact—in three thousand not to tally. The probability in favour of the truth of testimony is, therefore, at the rate of seven to three — while that in favour of the uniformity of nature's law is as ten thousand millions, or ten thousand billions, to nothing. The probability in the latter case is always at the highest point of proof— that of absolute certainty — whereas testimonyi varying from the confines of moral certainty to that of absolute uncertainty, the general probability in its favour cannot be more than average rate, and inasmuch as an average rate taken from two extremes cannot be equal to the highest extreme the probabilities in favour of the truth of testimony cannot, in the nature of things, ever equal the probabilities in favour of the uniformity of natural law. It is to be observed that in thus taking together all sorts of testimony, or rather testimony upon all sorts of subjects, and giving the advocates of miracles the benefit of the average thus struck, we arc dealing far more liberally with them than we need to do. All the instances in which testimony has been found to correspond with reality, have reference to subjects the very opposite of the miraculous, while there is not a single case of the latter kind which has been established beyond controversy. So that in every case of alleged miracle there is not only complete proof against it, derived from the nature of the fact itself, but also entire proof against it from the ascertained character of past testimony upon that particular class of subjects. A natural question here presents itself, viz. : how happens it that when human testimony, and the recognized course of nature, come in conflict with each other, as they do in all miraculous relations, men should be so willing to adopt that side which has no probability whatever to support it against that side which is supported by absolute certainty. Surely there is hero an apparent perversity in human nature that requires to be accounted for. The mystery will be solved by reflecting that, however ready we may be to reject the testimony of physical nature in favour of man's testimony, 'tis always under the implied condition, that the preference we give shall not be abused to the establishing of any thing for a truth or a fact that runs counter to our opinions, our interests, or our prejudices. All the. religions parties that divide and distract the world arc agreed in crying up testimony as the grand criterion for trying the truth of miracles, because each of them is sensible that it will stand in need of it for the support of its peculiar theories. This is all very well, so long as they confine themselves to generals. But as soon as they descend to particulars, and find that testimony happens to be on the side of an adver- sary,then the case is altogether altered ; the law of nature then resumes its ascendancy and the reserves and limitations with which the word of erring man ought to be 21 urrespon* nity with ving the robability ihe opera- character sasing the I into the water, in thousand hand, ten obably be illy. The P Beyen to thousand «r case is «stimony» ainty, the inasmuch it extreme of things, , or rather racles the bhem than orrespond )us, while id beyond r complete itiro proof particular en human 1 other, as b that side supported aan nature sting that, favour of ference we I fact that 3. religious ony as the is sensible This is all Dn as they f an adver- iBcendanoy ught to be 4 received, are alone insisted on. A man against whom no special cause of untrust* worthiness on tho score either of capacity or integrity, can be alleged, deposes as an eye witness to a fact of a miraculous nature. Immediately the little religious world mov- ing round the particular system of dogmas io which the supposed miracle if favour- able, clamours to know on what ground a fact so satisfactorily proved can be honestly rejected— they boldly challenge investigation into the character of their witness, and In the event of its not being specially impeached, they triumphantly appeal to the truth of a religious system, authenticated by a miracle so irresistibly attested. In the meantime, strange to say, the convictions of the rest of the world are not in the least disturbed by this new and wonderful event ; on the contrary, instead of being welcomed into the fraternity of miracles, it is treated quite cavalierly ; it is pronounced to be a gross imposition, and its boasted eyewitness an impudent impostor. No inquiry, no investigation, is deemed necessary for this summary condemnation. In fact the seemiug respect which is paid to testimony, is owing to its accommodating character in affording to every sect and party, a plausible ground for its belief of those doctrines which it has previously resolved to uphold. In the case of miracles, too, as in other cases, men are prone to judge by the result. The miracle of a triumphant religion appears, in the estimation of the world, as different from what the same miracle appears when the religion is ob«!olete or declinihg, as the potent minister of a great nation when at the zenith of his authority docs from the same man after ho has been contumeliously hurled from ^, power. With what an air of authority does the miracle march forward that is ^» going to support a prevailing religion; and with what shamefacedncss and timidity '1^ it shrinks from the public gaze, when its patron religion is out of favour. The ' countless miracles that flourished in the palmy days of Catholicism, and were never questioned, were their pretensions one jot more legitimate than they are now ? No, t certainly ; the laws of nature do not fluctuate, but men will not see the faults of a victorious party. As tho world goes, the law of miracle is the law of the strongest 5 % for nothing but force, physical or moral, could realize (especially in an enlightened M age) such an absurdity as that of a miraculous fact being successfully established by ^ human testimony. It is a law, or immutable condition of nature, that if two-thirds % in volume of hydrogen be brought in contact with one of oxygen, whilst the two 1 1^ gases are in an electrified state, water will be the result. Now, suppose a person # comes to me, and informs me, and is backed in his assertion by ten or twenty others, 3' that he and they saw a man who, whilst he observed every condition of the experi- ment, produced, by his sole volition out of the contact of the two substances, wine instead of water, and he calls upon mc to accept the miracle upon this testimony. Can I do so ? Assuredly not, because the uniform production of water from tho above experiment attests the existence of a cause uniform in its operation, a cause the existence of which never could have been discovered or established by mere testimony, nor by anything short of direct experiment ; liow, he who asserts that a miracle has taken place, asserts the existence of a counter cause of sufficient force to hinder or counteract the operation of the original cause, but unfortunately assertion or testimony is not the appropriate mode of proof in the case, either of a cause, or a counter-cause, for nothing can prove the existence of either the one or the other, but experiment duly made. What a precious medley natural philosophy would be if the establishment of its principles were dependent upon mere testimony; why we "should have as many and as many variable philosophies as there are prejudices, or interests, or fanoies^ 1 22 * 1 • fi I i ill among men. The absurdity of trusting to assertion in matters of science waa well exemplified by the proceedings that took place upon the question submitted by Charles II., to the philosophical society of his day. That waggish monarch requesteik the Philosophers to decide how it happened if a person took a vessel containing a certain quantity of water, and weighed it with the water, and if he afterwards put a fish into it, that the vessel, the water, and the fish would weigh no more than the vessel and the water did before the fish was put into it. The philosophers mot in consultation upon this important question, and many solutions of it were proposed without any satisfactory result. At last one of the society, more skeptical or better informed than the rest, proposed that the fact itself should b« tested by experiment; upon which all the other philosophers appealed to his Majesty's assertion, and even expressed their fears that it might be nnstrued into treason if they denied or doubted it. But the skeptical member of the society persisting in his opinion, and alleging that even a king's assertion could avail nothing in a question of philosophy, the rest with much reluctance acquiesced, and tested the royal assertion by experiment, when they found that the merry monarch had been only (to use a vulgar phrase) taking a rise out of them, for it then appeared that the vessel, the water, and the fish weighed more than the vessel and the water, just by the weight of the fish. The old question I know will here be put ; will you limit the power of God t Cannot God, the author of nature, alter or suspend his own laws if he thinks fit ? Aye ! if he thinks fit— that is the whole question, not to be decided by an appeal to his power but his will ; and this drives us back again upon the ante- cedent probability of God's interference, which I have already discussed. I have not said any thing in this lecture upon the subject of psychological miracles, that is miraculous effects produced u])on the feelings and mental opera- tions through the medium of visions, experiences, extasies, and other convulsive, throes of the spirit. I have abstained from doing so because these supposed miracles are not susceptible, either of proof or disproof, and are therefore undeser- ving of any consideration in a logical or philosophical point of view. Unfortunately, physiologists and psychologists have been much less successful in tracing the mental phenomena to their sources than the natural philosophers have been with respect to the physical, so that these marvellous and reputed miraculous effects 8till belongs to the department of mysticism, where enthusiasts and politically inspired religionists may safely parade all sorts of incomprehensible things without the fear of contradiction. You will often hear, from the pulpits of our town, many glorious things preached about the regeneration of the Spirit and about being born again, which would indeed be real miracles if they were true in any practical sense. You will also hear many wonderful things proclaimed respecting the effects of a saving faith ; but you will never, I warrant i1;, be favored with any intelligible definition, or any tangible test, whereby you may difitinguish the happy possessors of those inestimable blessings from those miserable beings who possess them not. If you will be advised by me, you will not press the clerical gentlemen for farther satisfaction upon these points, for if you do you will probably be either put off with some unmeaning generalities, which may disturb your peace and harass your minds, or else you will be amused with some delusive indications, which, if you act upon tiicm as true, may cause you very serious monetary embarrassment by leading yon to trust where trust may be min, for between you and me the doctrines I am speaking of amount to something very like this : that piety towards Qod may .liifi' ;« 28 wag well itted by monaroh a vessel ind if he Id weigh into it. on, and !t. At ;he rest, vhich all izpressed nied or opinion, istion of assertion (to use a sssel, the le weight power of ws if he icided by the ante- hological il opera* nvulsive, supposed undeser- tunatcly, icing the een with s effects olitically I without rn, many ing born sal sense. !cts of a telligible )s8e8sors lem not* ' further put off ass your 1, if you ment by ootrines Jodmay be perfectly compatible with a quantum aufficit of rascality towards men. Nothing can be more misplaced and unfounded than the lamentations which we so constantly hear respecting the want of faith now in the world. Credulity, not skepticism, has over been, and probably will ever be, a leading characteristic of mankind. Neither nations nor individuals ever abandon long-established or heredi- tary systems of belief, until forced to do so by the pressure of over-ruling circumstances. Even now, when old creeds and old religious theories have, in a great measure, lost their primitive vitality, and whilst so many amongst us are sensible that tlicse ancient institutions are now sustained from views of expediency and from the fear of consequences, rather than from a conviction of their truth, even now we arc anxiously sighing for something whereon to pin our faith without compromising our understandings. Every man who reads history with reflection and intelligence, must be sensible that systems and institutions miscalled divine, because connected with religion, although more permanent than political constitu- tions, are yet not exempt from the principle of mutation and decay attached to every- thing human. The absurd and incomprehensible dogmas, as well as the selfish and grasping interests that gather around spiritual establishments, never fail to grow and accumulate until they smother and crush their supporters. Thus Heathenism fell under the weight of its fables and its absurdities. Judaism proved unequal to the burden of its rites, its ceremonies, and its priesthood. Ultra-Catholicism yielded under the pressure of the Trauds and the follies it was necessitated to uphold, and more than one modification of existing Protestantism give tokens of a similar catastrophe from like causes. In fact, every system and every institution built upon any other foundation than that of Nature necessarily contains within itself the unfailing causes of decay and dissolution. Methods as unnatural ^and preternatural as those that gave birth to it must be continually hauV recoiSrse to, in order to secure it any degree of permanence, and after all there will always remain an appeal against them to the physical laws of nature, which will prove too hard for them at last. In pro- portion as men advance in art, science, literature and civilization, the uniformity and durability of nature's laws will contrast mrre and more favourably with materials BO frail and fluctuating as the speculations of human beings necessarily are upon supernatural subjects. In every age and country in which the idea is yet unrealized of the sequence of events founded upon the principle of invariable law* we must expect to hear more or less of the appearance of the Deity upon this earthly scene. But as soon as the true scientific principle is generally recognized, the old religious theory of causation will be disregarded, and the direct operation of the Deity will cease to be appealed to. In other words, the religions principle itself, varying with the spirit of the age, will, from having been the most passionate sup- porter of miraculous agency, ultimately become its deadliest enemy. If divines and theologians will ignore such facts and principles as I am now adverting to— if they will shut their eyes to the palpable changes, and the rapid progress of public opinion, in these matters — ^if they will persist in treating us like children, or semi- oivilized men and women, still doling out to us old worn-out dogmas and threadbare metaphysico-religious subtleties; if they will continue on, regardless of all remonstrance and all entreaty, in this senseless course, they will soon have to face the inevitable consequences ; they will be lefb stranded upon a desert shore, naked of all authority and influence, there to preach up the beauties of their obsolete theology to the tumultuous waves, while the rest of the civilized world, with other |! ill 4 -mmm 24 I W il> It IV ' 1. flit I eadors, and with happier prospects, will seek the consolations of a religion more consonant than theirs to enlightened reason and an advanced humanity. Then shall we be able to study the engima of our destiny, and to contemplate the doctrines of the immortality of the soul and a future state, freed from the horrors of inextin- guishable fires— then shall we be able, not only to say, but to feel, with the last great patriot statesman of ancient Rome,— "The soul, secured ia her existence, smiles At the drawn dagger, and defes its point. The stars shall fade away, the sun itseif Grow dim with age, and nature sink in years, , But thou shalt flourish in inunortal youth, Unhurt amidiit the war of elements, The wreck of matter, and the crush of worlds." v: It . if'' I lit m: ill' 'FRBB titxaa " STBAM PRINTINO ESTABLISHMENT, LONDON, 0. W. WW* ^on more h Than doctrines if ineztin- last great PPPP^IfP ,!|llllHI|^^,l|ll!jl!IIJ