Inspiration and Interpretation Part 33

[580] Col. ii. 3.

[581] Heb. ii. 12, 13; quoting Ps. xxi. 23 and Is. viii. 17.

[582] 1 Cor. xii., xiii., xiv.

[583] Pseudo-Fell's _Paraphrase and Annotations_ on the New Testament, (Jacobson's ed.), _in loc._

[584] Professor Archer Butler, quoted in Professor Lee's _Discourses on Inspiration_, pp. 415-6.

[585] _Ibid._, p. 586.

[586] See above, pp. 132-7

[587] See the Appendix, (L).

[588] In the earlier part of the present Sermon many pa.s.sages have been re-written. What follows stands exactly as it was preached in 1851.

SERMON VII.[589]

THE MARVELS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE,--MORAL AND PHYSICAL.--JAEL'S DEED DEFENDED.--MIRACLES VINDICATED.

ST. MARK xii. 24.

_Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of G.o.d._

On a certain occasion, the Son of Man was asked what was thought a hard question by those who, in His day, professed "the negative Theology[590]." There was a moral and there was physical marvel to be solved. Both difficulties were met by a single sentence. The Sadducean judgment had gone astray from the Truth, (p?a??s?e our SAVIOUR said,) from a twofold cause: (1) The men did not understand those very Scriptures to which they appealed so confidently: and, (2) They had an unworthy notion of G.o.d'S power.--There are plenty of Sadducees at the present day among ourselves. They are as fond as ever of finding difficulties in the self-same Scriptures. They are to be met, I am persuaded, exactly as of old; by shewing that their error is still the fruit of their ignorance of Scripture; the consequence of their unworthy conceptions of G.o.d. I propose to ill.u.s.trate this on the present occasion. My subject, (one certainly not unsuited to the day,) is _the Marvels of Scripture_,--whether Moral or Physical. I would fain have discussed them apart; but I shall not have another opportunity. I must handle the whole subject therefore within the limits of a single Sermon: and by consequence I must be extremely brief.

Now, I venture to a.s.sume that whatever, from its extraordinary character, perplexes us in Scripture, is a difficulty only _to ourselves_; that moral Marvels and physical Miracles, alike, would cease to create any difficulty if we knew more about G.o.d. The Morality of the Life to come, I do believe will prove none other than the Morality of the life which now is; and so I presume that it may be their Divine Author's will, that the physical Laws of the Universe shall be eternal likewise. And yet, as no thoughtful man will probably be found to say that he thinks he knows as much about the nature of these last now, as he expects to know hereafter,--so it is to be presumed that a sublimer, and therefore a juster view of the relation in which the Creature stands to the CREATOR, will disclose to us much which, at present, we should be little prepared to admit, if it were speculatively presented to us, ("as in a gla.s.s, darkly,") respecting the Moral Government of G.o.d.

I. In the very fore-front, however, of what I have to say concerning those phenomena which are generally cited as the _Moral Marvels_ of Holy Scripture, I must freely declare my opinion that nothing is wanted but that the whole of the _historical_ evidence should be before us, in every case, in order that we might cease to look upon them as marvels at all. But so it is, that Scripture is severely brief: takes no pains to conciliate our good opinion: seems to care nothing either for our applause or our censure. Scripture, in short, has been made _an instrument of Man's probation_[591]. It is for _us_ to search curiously into the record; to take an enlarged view of times and manners; and finally, in the exercise of a generous Faith, to decide whether the difficulty is such as ought to occasion us any real distress. I proceed, in this spirit, to consider, as briefly as possible, the history of Jael; simply because I have heard stronger things said against _her_, than against any of the Worthies of old time who are mentioned with distinct approbation in the Book of Life.

1. Now, if you choose to consider Jael as one who lured a weary and unsuspecting soldier into her tent,--shewed him hospitality,--and when he was asleep, murdered him in cold blood,--you certainly cannot help recoiling from the inspired decision that, "Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be." But I take the liberty of saying that this is quite the wrong way to read her story. You must begin it from the other end.

G.o.d p.r.o.nounces this woman blessed, and distinctly commends her for her deed. From this point you must start; remembering that _no action CAN be immoral which G.o.d praises_. The Divine sentence, instead of creating a difficulty, is, on the contrary, exactly the thing which removes it[592]. To weigh the story apart from this, (which is the prime consideration of all,) is like condemning the immorality of an executioner without caring to hear that he is but carrying out the sentence of the Lawgiver. Furnished with the clue of G.o.d'S approbation of Jael's deed, we retrace our steps, and reconsider the narrative. If all were still dark and hopeless, we might be sure that there are circ.u.mstances withheld, which if known would have made G.o.d'S justice clear as the light. But, as a matter of fact, it generally happens that, when we "know the Scriptures," the difficulty in great measure disappears; and I am going to shew that it is so on the present occasion.

I find that when the people of G.o.d were on their way out of Egypt into Canaan, they were indebted to one family (the Kenites) for kindness and help[593]. The head of that family was Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, high-priest of Midian,--in which land the LORD, from the burning bush, had commissioned the future Lawgiver of Israel to redeem His people from the bondage of Egypt. Jethro met them in the Arabian desert; became their guide[594] till they reached the promised Land; and with them entered the borders of their future possession. It was a covenant between the two races that they should share the goodness of JEHOVAH.

Accordingly, the Kenites made their settlement amid the Royal tribe of Judah; and it is easy to foresee how close a bond would spring up between the alien family and their avowed protectors, when, to the memory of past dangers shared together, was superadded the consciousness of present blessings;--especially in an age when the law of hospitality was held most sacred. How strong the bond became, the sequel of the story convincingly shews[595]. The children of Israel, at the end of a hundred and fifty years, find themselves cruelly oppressed by the most powerful of the Kings of the conquered but not extirpated race. G.o.d promises deliverance: and Deborah is raised up to organize the resistance against Jabin, "the captain of whose host was Sisera." Now, while Heber the Kenite is gone with the rest to the battle,--(for he had pitched his tent, remember, by Kedesh; and it was from Kedesh[596] that Deborah "sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam;")--while Heber, the husband, I say, is gone to the battle, and Jael the wife is left alone, distracted with anxiety, in the tent;--when, weak and unprotected woman as she is, she beholds the Captain of the hateful oppressor of G.o.d'S people hastening to her tent, slumbering at her feet, and unexpectedly within her power:--will you pretend that _she_, a Midianitess, is to blame if she yields to the strong impulse which prompts her to compa.s.s the man's downfall, as speedily as she may? "There was peace between Jabin the King of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite[597]," you will remind me. True: (between _Jabin_,--not between _Sisera_, by the way:) without this, the whole incident would not have happened. Sisera presumed on the peaceful relations which existed between his lord and Heber; and supposed that the sympathy of one alien race for another was to outweigh every other consideration. Yet, how stood the case? Heber had thrown in his lot, irrevocably, with the people of G.o.d; while Jabin had already utterly violated the conditions of peace. For twenty weary years, had Jael and her family shared the hards.h.i.+ps of that sacred line which Jabin had "mightily oppressed." All her life long[598], the highways have been unoccupied; and travellers have had to walk through by-ways; and the villages have been deserted by their inhabitants.

Archers have infested the very places of drawing water[599]. Meanwile, a sure word has gone forth from the Prophetess who dwells under the palm-tree between Ramah and Bethel on Mount Ephraim[600], to the effect that G.o.d will give a mighty victory this day to His people[601].

Moreover, Deborah, (to whom the children of Israel go up for judgment,) has foretold that the LORD will "_sell Sisera into the hand of a woman_[602]". How _can_ you marvel at the rest!... With a faith strong and undoubting as Rahab's, Jael,--weak woman as she is,--seizes the wooden tent-pin and the mallet, (the only weapons which are within her reach!); and, (somewhat as David afterwards employed a stone and a sling for the slaughter of the Philistine,) with these vile instruments, at one blow, she smites to the earth the enemy of G.o.d's people.... O, it was _not_ because she was treacherous, or because she was cruel!

Treachery and cruelty were not the vices to which a dweller in tents (and she a woman!) was p.r.o.ne, when a thirsty soldier begged a draught of water; and most a.s.suredly, had she been either, she would not,--she _could_ not, have won praise from G.o.d! (Witness G.o.d'S wrath against David in the matter of Uriah, because _he_ had no pity[603]; as well as dying Jacob's denunciations against Simeon and Levi because "instruments of cruelty" were "in their habitations[604].") O no! It was because she beheld in the slumbering captain at once the enemy of her own afflicted race,--and of G.o.d'S oppressed people,--and above all of G.o.d Himself.

_That_ was why "she put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workman's hammer!" ... The fight, you are requested to remember, had been a tremendous fight; and the battle, as she thought, was yet raging.

Reuben, and Dan, and Asher had kept aloof from the encounter;--the first, in his rich pasture-land east of the Jordan, abiding "among the sheepfolds, to hear the bleatings of the flocks;" the two others, intent on their maritime pursuits. Only some of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Mana.s.seh[605], had been found willing to throw in their lot with the two northern tribes of Zebulun, and Naphtali,--who had "jeoparded their lives unto the death." And the battle which these had fought had been the LORD'S; and as many as had taken part with them, were considered to have come "_to the help of the LORD_." Such then was the quarrel which Jael had made her own; and such the spirit in which she had done her wild deed of una.s.sisted prowess!

To appreciate her constancy and courage, you may not overlook how fearful were the odds against the cause she was espousing: on the oppressor's side, nine hundred chariots of iron; whereas, "was there a s.h.i.+eld or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?" It had been so terrific a day, that if the LORD had not been on their side,--if the stars in their courses had not fought for Israel,--how could Sisera have possibly been overcome? But the very river was employed to sweep the enemies of Israel away,--"that ancient river, the river Kishon!" ... Now I boldly ask you, if the Angel of the LORD may curse bitterly the inhabitants of Meroz, "because they came not to the help of the LORD,"--(pray mark that phrase; for it shows exactly in what light the conflict was regarded!)--"_to the help of the LORD_ against the mighty;"

shall we wonder if, by the Spirit of G.o.d, Deborah the prophetess proclaims "blessed above women in the tent" Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite to be;--the undaunted one by whose right hand the captain of all that mighty host had been slain? Find me another "_woman in the tent_"

who may be compared with _her!_ ... Or rather, (for _that_ is the only question,) shall these words embolden us to impeach the morality of Holy Writ?... I am sure there is not one of you all who really thinks it. She was--was she not?--a courageous, a faithful, and (according to her light,) a strictly virtuous woman. She was content to risk _all_, "as seeing Him who is invisible:" and to _believe_ that "they that be with us are more than they that be with them[606]." From the unmistakeable evidence of her uncompromising boldness in a good cause, her unwavering faith, her readiness to cast in her lot with the people of G.o.d,--no one but a hypocrite will turn away to criticize the details of her deed by the Gospel standard of Grace and Truth. "He asked for water, and she gave him milk." What would you have had her do? It is by no means certain that she foresaw the deed which was to follow, and which _cannot_, (from the nature of the case,) have been the result of a preconcerted plan. The impulse to terminate the tyranny of Canaan, and the sufferings of her adopted people, as well as to decide the fortune of that critical day, by slaying one whom she regarded as the enemy of G.o.d Himself, may have seized her while she stood in the door of the tent,--weighing Sisera's pet.i.tion against Deborah's prophecy. Be this as it may,--would you have had the woman connive at Sisera's escape,--the enemy of G.o.d'S people, when G.o.d Himself had unexpectedly put him into her power?

It will a.s.sist us to understand this story, that we should bear in mind how it fared with Ahab, King of Israel, in the matter of Ben-hadad, King of Syria, as recorded in the xxth chapter of the First Book of Kings.

"Thus saith the LORD," (was the Divine sentence,) "_Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction_, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people[607]." It is quite evident that as the _enemy of G.o.d_, in the strictest sense, each fresh oppressor of Israel was regarded; and that, as the enemy of the LORD G.o.d of Israel, Sisera was summarily slain by the Kenite's wife.

Be so good as to remember also, that forgiveness of enemies is strictly a _Christian_ duty. You have no right to expect to find the brightest jewels of the kingdom of Heaven glittering on the swarthy brow of an Arabian wife in the days of the Judges. "Grace and _Truth_ came by JESUS CHRIST[608]." You cannot expect to find the wife of Heber the Kenite more truthful than Sarah, and Rebekah, and Rachel,--or even than Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and David: neither should you be so unreasonable as to expect that the G.o.d of Truth will award praise and blame to His creatures by a higher standard of Morality than He has seen fit, at any given period, to allow. A perfectly enlightened conscience, no doubt, will never consent to lie. A Christian woman in Jael's place, ought not, of course, to be guilty of Jael's deed. But you are forgetting the time of the world in which _your_ lot is thrown. I say nothing of the circ.u.mstances of terror under which _she_ acted,--_she_ was _forced_ to act. How could she tell that Sisera would not awake ere she should strike the blow,--or at least before she could achieve his death? What if a company of Jabin's host should come up to the tent-door, the instant she had done the deed, and inquire after Sisera?

Suppose the issue of that day's encounter should prove disastrous, what would be her own and Heber's fate?... Feel a little for the poor wife,--for the lonely, helpless "woman in the tent,"--_not_ entirely for the fierce soldier against whom you have heard the LORD'S decree of death!... O ye, who, living in the full blaze of Gospel light, in cold blood can reject the doctrine of the Atonement, and deny the LORD who bought you, and teach that the Bible is "like any other book;" who can make light of its Inspiration, and evacuate its Prophecy, and idealize its Miracles; who with your lips can profess the Church's doctrines, and with your pens can deny them;--go _ye_ and prate of Morality, and Honesty, and Truth! _We_ shall heed mighty little your opinion of Jael's conduct, and of the Divine Commendation which it met with. I believe that, instead of suspecting the morality of the Bible in this instance, there is hardly an honest Christian heart among us, but cries out, on the contrary,--"_So_ let _all_ Thine enemies perish, O LORD! But let them that love Him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might."

2. There is no time to consider, as I fain would, any other story; that of Jacob for example. It is quite amazing to hear the presumptuous speeches concerning that great Saint, in which good men sometimes permit themselves: as if the sum total of Jacob's history were _this_:--that he once obtained an ungenerous advantage over his Brother, and then shamefully deceived his blind and aged Father. Whereas those were the two great blots in an otherwise holy life! actions which were followed by severe, aye lifelong punishment.--But I must not enter on Jacob's history,--even to shew you that a careless reader overlooks certain circ.u.mstances which go a very long way indeed to excuse the actions just alluded to. I prefer reminding you that since, at Bethel, G.o.d blessed the exile's slumbers with a glorious vision, and most comfortable promise, on his first setting out for Haran; and again at Jabbok, as well as at Mahanaim, blessed him with a vision of Angels, and a renewal of the blessing, on his return; _from this point_, as before, it will be our wisdom to reason; and we shall reason backwards. Had Scripture been quite silent in all other respects, such proofs of the Divine approval ought to be enough to convince a believing heart that the only thing wanting must be fuller details,--more evidence,--in order to shew us that the Patriarch _deserved_ the SPIRIT'S praise. But in truth, in Jacob's case, the details are abundant and the evidence decisive.

3. Of all the other (so called) difficulties which occur to my memory,--as the extinction of the Canaanites, (who yet were _not_ extinguished,)--the Sacrifice of Isaac, (who yet was _not_ sacrificed,)--the life of David;--I have only to say that before you can pretend to have an opinion upon the subject you must be sure that you "know the Scriptures:" else, I make bold to say, you will inevitably err in your cogitations concerning them. Thus, men are heard to insinuate astonishment that the King who so basely compa.s.sed Uriah's death should have been "a man after G.o.d'S own heart:" whereas the Hebrew original, (as they would know, _if they knew the Scriptures_,) conveys nothing of the kind; while the murder of Uriah is found to have drawn down upon David unmitigated wrath and terrible punishment from the right Hand of Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.

II. Turn we now, briefly, to the physical Marvels which are described in the Bible; and chiefly those which occur in the Old Testament.

I am about to speak of Miracles in general; but it may be convenient to say a few words first about certain mighty transactions which eclipse, by their vastness or their strangeness, most isolated events. Thus, as the Nativity, Temptation, Transfiguration, Resurrection, Ascension, of our LORD, together with the Coming of the HOLY GHOST, eclipse in a manner the other Miracles of the New Testament,--so the Temptation of our first Parents, the Flood, the destruction of Sodom and the fate of Lot's wife, the burning bush, the Plagues which prepared the way for the Exode, the crossing of the Red Sea, the Manna, and the brazen Serpent; Balaam's a.s.s, and the fate of the walls of Jericho; the history of Jonah, and of Daniel among the lions:--events like these stand out from the Old Testament narrative and challenge astonishment.

Of all these latter events, viewed as difficulties,--(for it is as difficulties _in the way of Revelation_ that we are now expected to look on Miracles,)--you are requested to observe that they enjoy, one and all, the confirmation of _express citation in the New Testament_. I am saying that either St. Paul, or St. Peter, or St. James, or (above all) our Blessed LORD Himself, appeal to, or else explain, every one of these marvellous pa.s.sages in Old Testament History. And this is the only remark I propose to offer concerning any of them. It will certainly prove unavailing to convince a certain cla.s.s of persons of the historical reality of the Deluge, to find that our SAVIOUR, that St.

Peter, and St. Paul, have all spoken of it as an actual event:--Men who are disposed to reject the story of the dumb a.s.s speaking with man's voice, will not perhaps believe it one whit the more because they find it appealed to by St. Peter[609]:--and the Divine exposition offered by CHRIST Himself of Jonah, three days and three nights in the fish's belly, will not, it may be feared, reconcile others to an event which strikes them as being too improbable to be true. But _this_, at least, will infallibly result from the discovery:--men will perceive that they must positively make their election; and either accept the Bible as a whole, or else reject it as a whole; for that there is no middle course open to them. The New Testament stands committed irrevocably to the Old.

Every Book of the Bible stands committed to all the other Books. Not only does our LORD quote the Canon in its collected form, and call it "the Law and the prophets,"--or simply ? ??af?, "the Scripture,"--and so set His seal upon it, as one undivided and indivisible roll of Inspiration; but He and His Apostles single out the very narratives which the imbecility of Man was most likely to stumble at, and employ them for such purposes, and in such a manner, that escape from them shall henceforth be altogether hopeless. To eliminate the marvels of Scripture, I say, is impossible; for a Divine Hand has been laid upon almost every one of them. The subsequent references are not only most numerous, but they run into the very staple of the narrative,--and will not,--_cannot_ be eradicated.

I question whether all students of the inspired page are aware of the extent to which what I have been saying holds true. Let me only invite you to investigate the structure of the Bible under this aspect, and you will be astonished at the result. For you will find that the system of tacit quotation and allusive reference is so perpetual, that it is as if the design had been that the fibres should be incapable of being disentangled any more. Balaam's story for example in the Book of Numbers, is found alluded to in Deuteronomy, in Joshua, in Micah, in Nehemiah; by St. Peter, by St. Jude, and by St. John in the Apocalypse[610].--The Exodus, with its attendant wonders, is alluded to in Joshua, and in Judges, and in Job, and in the Psalms; in Amos, and Isaiah, and Micah, and Hosea, and Jeremiah, and Daniel; in Kings, in Samuel, in Nehemiah; and in the New Testament repeatedly[611]. The Evangelists quote one another times without number. In the Epistles, the Gospels are quoted upwards of fifty times; and St. Peter quotes St. Paul again and again. It is a favourite device of these last days to hint at the allegorical character of the beginning of Genesis. But I find upwards of thirty references in the New Testament to the first two Chapters of Genesis[612]. Certain parts of Daniel have incurred suspicion,--for no better reason, as it seems, than because certain persons have found it hard to believe that Prophecy can be "an antic.i.p.ation of History[613]." Now it is strange certainly to find a thing objected to for being what it is: and "Prophecy is nothing _but_ the history of events before they come to pa.s.s,"--as Butler remarked long ago[614]. Waiving this, however, you are requested to observe that our SAVIOUR quotes from _those very parts of Daniel which have been objected to_. You cannot get rid of those parts of Daniel therefore. You are not to suppose that the Bible is like an old house, where a window may be darkened, or a door blocked up, according to the caprice of every fresh occupant. The terms on which men dwell there are that every part of the structure shall be inhabited; and that every part shall be retained in its integrity. What I am insisting upon is, that the sacred Writers plainly say,--We stand or we fall together. They reach forth their hands, and they hold one another fast. They rehea.r.s.e comprehensive Genealogies,--they furnish a summary view of long histories,--they enumerate the various worthies of old time, and cite their deeds in order. They recognize one another's voices, and they interpret one another's thoughts, and they adopt one another's sayings. Verily the Bible is _not_ "like any other Book!" The prophets and Apostles and Evangelists of either covenant reach out one to another; and lo, among them is seen the form of One like the SON of G.o.d.... How far it may be rational _to reject the Bible_, I will not now discuss: but it is demonstrable that a man cannot accept the Bible, and straightway propose to omit from it one jot or one t.i.ttle of its contents. As for abstracting from Scripture the marvels of Scripture, it is precisely for the protection and preservation of _them_, as I have been shewing, that the most curious and abundant provision has been made.

1. The miracles, properly so called, whether of the Old or New Testament, have lately been cavilled at with exceeding bitterness[615].

That they are sufficiently attested, is allowed[616]; the objection is a (so called) Philosophical one, and is briefly this,--that the Laws of Nature being fixed and immutable, it is contrary not only to experience, but also to reason, to suppose that they have ever been suspended, or violated, or interrupted. Events "contrary to the order of Nature,"--events which would introduce "disorder" into Creation,--are p.r.o.nounced incredible.--This is a very old objection; but it has been lately revived. I will dispose of it as briefly as I can.

You are requested to observe then, that this difficulty,--(such as it is,)--is entirely occasioned by the terms in which it is stated. _Who_ ever a.s.serted that Miracles are "violations of natural causes[617]?"

"suspensions of natural laws[618]?" Who ever said that the effect of Miracles is to "interrupt"--"violate"--"reverse,"--the Laws of Nature?

Why a.s.sume "contrariety" and "disorder" in a ??s?? which seems to have had no experience of either?

But G.o.d is, I suppose, superior to His own Laws! He is not the creature of circ.u.mstances,--even of His own creating. Supreme is He in Creation,--albeit in a manner which baffles thought. He does not even suspend His Laws, perhaps, so much as fulfil them after a Diviner fas.h.i.+on;--somewhat as He was fulfilling the Mosaic Economy even while He seemed to be violating one or other of its sanctions. He does not reverse or disorder the fixed course of Nature, so much as rise above it, and shew Himself superior to it. He does not disturb anything, but our notions of His mode of acting. G.o.d coming suddenly to view in Nature, (which is an essential part of the notion of a miracle,) occasions perplexity, it is true; but only because we do not understand fully either Nature or G.o.d. "We know Him not as He is, neither indeed can know Him." While of Nature, we know nothing but a few Laws which we have discovered by a long and laborious induction of phenomena. In fact, this whole manner of speaking concerning the Creator of the Universe, with reference to the Laws which He is found to have prescribed to things natural, has, I suspect, some great foolishness in it: for, even if we do not so far dishonour G.o.d as to imagine that He is subject to Law, yet we seem to imply that we think ourselves capable of understanding the relation in which He stands to Law. Whereas, the very notion of Law may be utterly inapplicable to G.o.d,--who is not only its first Author, (as He is indeed the first Author of all things,) but the very source and _cause_ of it also. So that what are Laws to ourselves may be not so much as Law at all to G.o.d; but, (if I may so speak,) something which depends on "the counsel of His will," and which, (considered as a restraining cause,) is to Him as if it were not. There can be no miracles with G.o.d[619]!

Briefly then:--That He who, (surely I may say _confessedly_,) is above Law, when He manifests Himself in the midst of Creation, should act in a manner which defies conception; and yet should disturb nothing, reverse nothing, violate nothing;--(except to be sure, possibly, certain preconceived notions of His rational creatures;)--in _this_, I say, there is surely nothing either incredible or absurd.

2. So much, to say the truth, seems to be admitted, by all but professed Atheists. But then, certain formulae have been invented to bridge over the difficulty, which Miracles are supposed to occasion, which I cannot but think are just as objectionable as unbelief itself.

By way of saving the credit of "the Laws of the Universe," a kind of compromise has been discovered; to which I do not find that G.o.d has been made any party.

The idea of Law, which has been falsely declared to be only now "emerging into supremacy in Science[620]," seems to have usurped such a dominion over the minds of a few persons, superficially acquainted with Physical studies, that Miracles can be only tolerated on the supposition that they are "the exact fulfilment of much more extensive Laws than those we suppose to exist[621]." We are kindly a.s.sured that what we call a Miracle is not "an exception to those laws which we know, but really the fulfilment of a wider Law which we did not know before[622]." Men are eager to remind us that this is the view of Bp. Butler[623], (whom every one, I observe, is fond of having for an ally.) Thus, a very recent writer says,--"What we call interferences may, (as Bp. Butler observed long ago,) be fulfilments of general laws not perfectly apprehended by us[624]."--But I cannot find that Bp. Butler anywhere says anything of the sort. What Butler says, is,--that we know nothing of the laws of storms and earthquakes,--tempers and geniuses;--yet we conclude, (but only from a.n.a.logy,) that all these seemingly accidental things are the result of general laws. Now, (he proceeds,) since it is only "from our finding that the course of Nature, in some respects and so far, goes on by general laws, that we conclude this of the rest;"--it is credible "that G.o.d'S miraculous interpositions may have been, all along, in like manner, _by general laws of WISDOM_." Butler says that it "may have been by _general laws_," "that the affairs of the world, being permitted to go on _in their natural course_ so far, should, just at such a point, have a new direction given them _by miraculous interposition_." He does not say, you observe, that those "miraculous interpositions" are "the exact fulfilment of _much more extensive Laws_ than those we suppose to exist;" (as if _a larger induction_ were all that was needed, in order to get rid of the obnoxious word "Miracle:")--not, that Miracles may be "fulfilments of general laws _not perfectly apprehended by us_;" (as if the only thing wanted, were an enlargement of the human formula, in order to bring a miraculous interposition within the definition of an extraordinary phenomenon.) Such notions belong altogether to the inventors of calculating machines; whose speculations, even concerning Divine things, clearly cannot soar above their instrument[625]. It is called the "argument from laws intermitting[626];" and evidently reduces a miracle to a phenomenon of periodical recurrence. The aloe, watched for ninety-nine years and observed to blossom in the hundredth, is (according to this view) an emblem of the const.i.tution of Nature at last interrupted by a Miracle.

I will not waste your time further with this view of the subject, having exposed its fallacy. Station yourself, in thought, at the grave of Lazarus; and see him that was dead and had been four days buried, come forth bound hand and foot with grave-clothes;--and then prate of any "general Laws," except those "OF WISDOM," to as many as you can get to listen to you. A "miraculous interposition," (as Butler phrases it,) has given a new direction to affairs which, so far, had been permitted to go in their natural course. That "general Laws" of inscrutable Wisdom determined such a "_miraculous interposition_"--is a position which, so far from objecting to, I embrace with both the arms of my heart[627].

3. Another favourite recipe there is for escaping from the bondage of Miracles, which is so childish, that it would seem scarcely to deserve notice: but that it has been largely resorted to by writers of whom the world thinks highly. Those men, in a word, try to _explain them away_ where they can: where they cannot, they _pare them down_ as much as they are able, or rather as much as they dare. Demoniacal possession?

Symptoms like those described are known to accompany epilepsy. Manna?

Something like it falls in the wilderness of Sinai to this hour. The Red Sea parted? Well, but a strong East wind blew all night. Stilling the storm, and healing Peter's wife's mother? Every storm is stilled if let alone; and a fever will burn out, often without occasioning death. The miraculous draught of fishes, and the stater in the fish's mouth?... but you can readily supply a suggestion for yourselves.