Chapter 9. — Miracles — Definition Considered.
BOOK 2. — DIRECT EVIDENCE — EXTERNAL
CHAPTER 9. — MIRACLES — DEFINITION CONSIDERED.
THE discussions in our preceding chapters have all been preparatory to the main question; that is, they only pave the way to the more direct evidences by which the truth of Christianity is established. In examining these — which we may style the evidences proper, in contradistinction from such as are only preparatory — we find that our various eminent authors have adopted different plans of classification.
Stackhouse makes four divisions of the evidences of Christianity:
1. The character and behavior of the person professing to deliver a revelation from God.
2. The nature and residency of his doctrine.
3. The signs and tokens he gives of his divine commission.
4. The success and effects of his doctrine.
Richard Watson, following in the wake of Dr. Hill, divides the evidences of Christianity into three classes:
1. The External, including miracles and prophecy.
2. The Internal, derived from the consideration of the doctrines taught.
3. The Collateral, arising from a variety of circumstances which, less directly than the former, prove the revelation to be of divine authority. The definition this author gives of collateral evidence is too indistinct to be of practical use, in a subject of this kind. According to his definitions, it will often be difficult to distinguish his collateral from his external or internal evidence; but it will be quite plain that his collateral may always be included under his definition of external or internal evidence. Hence we dismiss the collateral division, as tending more to perplex than to assist. It must not, however, be inferred, because our authors adopt different divisions on this subject, that they differ from each other as to the evidences themselves. It is true that they vary as to their mode of presenting the subject; and some attach most importance to one class of evidence, and others to another class; but there is little or no difference as to the evidences set forth in the various systems, and especially is there no contrariety or opposition.
In our classification of the evidences of Christianity we pursue that plan which has been the most generally adopted by our eminent authors, because we consider it the most natural and convenient; hence we will embrace these evidences in two grand divisions, viz.:
The EXTERNAL and the INTERNAL.
But even when we adopt this division, which we deem the most unexceptionable, there is danger of allowing the two classes to interlock or run into each other. To guard against perplexity which might arise from this source, we should be as clear and explicit in our definitions as possible, and then be careful to adhere to them in our investigations as strictly as the subject will admit.
We thus define our classes:
1. External Evidence. — By this we mean all that evidence which is derived, not from the character of the revelation itself, but from outward facts and circumstances, which, though many of them may be recorded in Scripture, yet they make not an essential part of its doctrinal system, and are susceptible of proof, in part, from profane history and collateral testimony. Under this division we embrace the evidence from miracles, prophecy, and the success of Christianity.
2. Internal Evidence. — By this we mean all that evidence which is derived from the nature of the doctrines, the consistency of the writers, and effects of Christianity. Or more at large, under this division we embrace the evidence derived from the consistency of the different parts of the Bible — the excellency of its doctrines, their accordance with human nature, their transforming influence upon the heart and life, and the internal assurance of their truth, which they, through the Spirit, impart to all who believe and obey them.
We are now prepared to enter upon the consideration of the external evidences of Christianity. We begin with the subject of miracles. Among the arguments relied on for the truth of Christianity, none has been more prominently urged, or deemed more satisfactory and conclusive, than that which is founded on miracles. Fully conscious of the potency of this argument, the enemies of Christianity have taxed, to the utmost extent, their ingenuity and skill to set aside or ward off its force; but with how little success, a careful, though brief, examination will enable us to judge. That we may see the evidence from this source in its true light, there are three points necessary to be closely considered and clearly presented. The first point is the definition — we must have a clear conception of the character of a real miracle.
Secondly, we propose to show that such miracles are susceptible of clear and satisfactory proof.
In the third place, we propose to show that such miracles were performed, by divine interposition, in attestation of the truth of the Jewish and Christian revelations.
I. We inquire, first, what is a miracle? A clear and accurate conception of the definition will prevent confusion and perplexity in the investigation. The first import of the word miracle, from the Latin miraculum, is a wonder, or wonderful thing. Webster defines a miracle thus: “In theology (a miracle is) an event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event.” The “New American Cyclopedia” defines a miracle to be “a work of divine power, interrupting (or violating) the ordinary course of nature, and directly designed to attest the divine commission of him who works the miracle.”
Chrysostom says: “A miracle is a demonstration of the divine dignity.” Augustin argues that a miracle is not against nature in its highest aspect; for “how is that against nature which comes from the will of God, since the will of such a great Creator is what makes the nature of every thing?” He adds: “In miracles, God does nothing against nature; what is unaccustomed may appear to us to be against nature, but not so to God, who constituted nature.”
Aquinas says: “Miracles are all things done by divine power, beside the order commonly preserved in the course of affairs.”
Lord Bacon asserts: “There never was a miracle wrought by God to convert an atheist, because the light of nature might have led him to confess a God; but miracles are designed to convert idolaters and the superstitious, who have acknowledged a Deity, but erred in his adoration, because no light of nature extends to declare the will and worship of God.” Spinoza says: “A miracle signifies any work, the natural cause of which we cannot explain after the example of any thing else to which we are accustomed; or, at least, he who writes about or relates the miracle cannot explain it.’”
Miracles have been defined, “from their cause, as a work of direct divine energy; from their characteristics, as compared with natural events, as superseding or violating the ordinary laws of nature; from their immediate effects, as producing wonder, and an impression of the divine presence; and from their final cause, as designed, according to some, to evoke faith, and, according to others, to accredit the miracle-worker.” Horne defines a miracle to be “an effect or event contrary to the established constitution or course of things, or a sensible suspension or controlment of or deviation from the known laws of nature, wrought either by the immediate act, or by the assistance, or by the permission of God.” Dr. Samuel Clarke defines thus: “A miracle is a work effected in a manner unusual, or different from the common and regular method of providence, by the interposition of God himself, or of some intelligent agent superior to man, for the proof or evidence of some particular doctrine, or in attestation of the authority of some particular person.”
From the authorities above presented, it will appear that the writers upon this subject have deemed a correct conception of the import of the term miracle a matter of importance in the discussion. The definitions given vary but little in substance, except that some are more extended than others. The definition given by Dr. Samuel Clarke is, perhaps, more extended than any of the preceding, and is in perfect accordance with the acceptation of the term, as used by theologians generally; but his definition, as also most of those we have cited, seems to embrace more than the term itself necessarily implies.
If we attempt to analyze the term, it is clear that the first element in the import of miracle is, that it is a work of the divine power, and which nothing but the divine power can effect. For illustration, creation is a work which nothing but the divine power can effect; hence every manifestation of creative power embraces this element of the miraculous. But there is another element in the definition of a miracle, and that is, that this divine power be exerted, in a way, contravening the ordinary process of nature, or in opposition to the regularly established order of things. Now it is clear that many things are done by the power of God, and which nothing but the divine power can effect, that are not miraculous. The planets are wheeled in their orbits; the influence of the seasons is kept up, and the forest and the field are clothed with verdure and plenty; and all this by the power of God, which alone is adequate to the performance of these wonders; and yet there is no miracle in these wonderful displays of divine energy, simply because the power is exerted according to an ordinary established plan, which we style the order or laws of nature. To raise a dead Lazarus at a word is no more an exertion of the divine power than to cause the sun to rise in the east; yet the one is a miracle and the other is not, because the one is effected by an immediate exertion of power, in an extraordinary way, and the other by the exertion of the same power in the ordinary course of nature.
Again, although it may be true that all the miracles of Scripture were performed (according to Dr. S. Clarke’s definition) “for the proof or evidence of some particular doctrine, or in attestation of the authority of some particular person,” yet it does not appear to us that these circumstances are essential to the nature of a miracle. We here beg leave to ask, How can we certainly know that God might not perform a miracle for some other purpose, of which we have no conception? And would not the same divine act, performed out of the ordinary plan, or in contravention of the regular course of nature, be equally miraculous for whatever purpose it may have been performed? We think, at the outset of this discussion, the term miracle should be divested of all extraneous encumbrances, and taken according to its own essential elements.
According, then, to our views of the import of the term, we define it thus: A miracle is a work of God, which nothing but divine power can effect, performed in contravention of the ordinary course, or the laws of nature. With this definition of a miracle before us, we cannot question the validity and force of miraculous testimony. A miracle is, in effect, the testimony of God. It is the voice of God speaking through his mighty deeds. Just as we read the existence and attributes of Deity through the works of nature, so