A \ B \ C \ D \ E \ F \ G \ H \ I \ J \ K \ L \ M \ N \ O \ P \ R \ S \ T \ U \ V \ W \Z

Evidences of Christianity by William Paley

W >> William Paley >> Evidences of Christianity




To hear some men talk, one would suppose the setting up a religion by
miracles to be a thing of every day's experience: whereas the whole
current of history is against it. Hath any founder of a new sect amongst
Christians pretended to miraculous powers, and succeeded by his
pretensions? "Were these powers claimed or exercised by the founders of
the sects of the Waldenses and Albigenses? Did Wickliffe in England
pretend to it? Did Huss or Jerome in Bohemia? Did Luther in Germany,
Zuinglius in Switzerland, Calvin in France, or any of the reformers
advance this plea?" (Campbell on Miracles, p. 120, ed. 1766.) The French
prophets, in the beginning of the present century, (the eighteenth)
ventured to allege miraculous evidence, and immediately ruined their
cause by their temerity. "Concerning the religion of ancient Rome, of
Turkey, of Siam, of China, a single miracle cannot be named that was
ever offered as a test of any of those religions before their
establishment." (Adams on Mir. p. 75.)

We may add to what has been observed of the distinction which we are
considering, that, where miracles are alleged merely in affirmance of a
prior opinion, they who believe the doctrine may sometimes propagate a
belief of the miracles which they do not themselves entertain. This is
the case of what are called pious frauds; but it is a case, I apprehend,
which takes place solely in support of a persuasion already established.
At least it does not hold of the apostolical history. If the apostles
did not believe the miracles, they did not believe the religion; and
without this belief, where was the piety, what place was there for
anything which could bear the name or colour of piety, in publishing and
attesting miracles in its behalf? If it be said that many promote the
belief of revelation, and of any accounts which favour that belief,
because they think them, whether well or ill founded, of public and
political utility; I answer, that if a character exist which can with
less justice than another be ascribed to the founders of the Christian
religion, it is that of politicians, or of men capable of entertaining
political views. The truth is, that there is no assignable character
which will account for the conduct of the apostles, supposing their
story to be false. If bad men, what could have induced them to take such
pains to promote virtue? If good men, they would not have gone about the
country with a string of lies in their mouths.

In appreciating the credit of any miraculous story, these are
distinctions which relate to the evidence. There are other distinctions,
of great moment in the question, which relate to the miracles
themselves. Of which latter kind the following ought carefully to be
retained.

I. It is not necessary to admit as a miracle what can be resolved into a
false perception. Of this nature was the demon of Socrates; the visions
of Saint Anthony, and of many others; the vision which Lord Herbert of
Cherbury describes himself to have seen; Colonel Gardiner's vision, as
related in his life, written by Dr. Doddridge. All these may be
accounted for by a momentary insanity; for the characteristic symptom of
human madness is the rising up in the mind of images not distinguishable
by the patient from impressions upon the senses. (Batty on Lunacy.) The
cases, however, in which the possibility of this delusion exists are
divided from the cases in which it does not exist by many, and those not
obscure marks. They are, for the most part, cases of visions or voices.
The object is hardly ever touched. The vision submits not to be handled.
One sense does not confirm another. They are likewise almost always
cases of a solitary witness. It is in the highest degree improbable, and
I know not, indeed, whether it hath ever been the fact, that the same
derangement of the mental organs should seize different persons at the
same time; a derangement, I mean, so much the same, as to represent to
their imagination the same objects. Lastly, these are always cases of
momentary miracles; by which term I mean to denote miracles of which the
whole existence is of short duration, in contradistinction to miracles
which are attended with permanent effects. The appearance of a spectre,
the hearing of a supernatural sound, is a momentary miracle. The
sensible proof is gone when the apparition or sound is over. But if a
person born blind be restored to sight, a notorious cripple to the use
of his limbs, or a dead man to life, here is a permanent effect produced
by supernatural means. The change indeed was instantaneous, but the
proof continues. The subject of the miracle remains. The man cured or
restored is there: his former condition was known, and his present
condition may be examined. This can by no possibility be resolved into
false perception: and of this kind are by far the greater part of the
miracles recorded in the New Testament. When Lazarus was raised from the
dead, he did not merely move, and speak, and die again; or come out of
the grave, and vanish away. He returned to his home and family, and
there continued; for we find him some time afterwards in the same town,
sitting at table with Jesus and his sisters; visited by great multitudes
of the Jews as a subject of curiosity; giving, by his presence, so much
uneasiness to the Jewish rulers as to beget in them a design of
destroying him. (John xii. 1, 2, 9, 10.) No delusion can account for
this. The French prophets in England, some time since, gave out that one
of their teachers would come to life again; but their enthusiasm never
made them believe that they actually saw him alive. The blind man whose
restoration to sight at Jerusalem is recorded in the ninth chapter of
Saint John's Gospel did not quit the place or conceal himself from
inquiry. On the contrary, he was forthcoming, to answer the call, to
satisfy the scrutiny, and to sustain the browbeating of Christ's angry
and powerful enemies. When the cripple at the gate of the temple was
suddenly cured by Peter, (Acts iii. 2.) he did not immediately relapse
into his former lameness, or disappear out of the city; but boldly and
honestly produced himself along with the apostles, when they were
brought the next day before the Jewish council. (Acts iv. 14.) Here,
though the miracle was sudden, the proof was permanent. The lameness had
been notorious, the cure continued. This, therefore, could not be the
effect of any momentary delirium, either in the subject or in the
witnesses of the transaction. It is the same with the greatest number of
the Scripture miracles. There are other cases of a mixed nature, in
which, although the principal miracle be momentary, some circumstance
combined with it is permanent. Of this kind is the history of Saint
Paul's conversion. (Acts ix.) The sudden light and sound, the vision and
the voice upon the road to Damascus, were momentary: but Paul's
blindness for three days in consequence of what had happened; the
communication made to Ananias in another place, and by a vision
independent of the former; Ananias finding out Paul in consequence of
intelligence so received, and finding him in the condition described,
and Paul's recovery of his sight upon Ananias laying his hands upon him;
are circumstances which take the transaction, and the principal miracle
as included in it, entirely out of the case of momentary miracles, or of
such as may be accounted for by false perceptions. Exactly the same
thing may be observed of Peter's vision preparatory to the call of
Cornelius, and of its connexion with what was imparted in a distant
place to Cornelius himself, and with the message despatched by Cornelius
to Peter. The vision might be a dream; the message could not. Either
communication taken separately, might be a delusion; the concurrence of
the two was impossible to happen without a supernatural cause.

Beside the risk of delusion which attaches upon momentary miracles,
there is also much more room for imposture. The account cannot be
examined at the moment: and when that is also a moment of hurry and
confusion, it may not be difficult for men of influence to gain credit
to any story which they may wish to have believed. This is precisely the
case of one of the best attested of the miracles of Old Rome, the
appearance of Castor and Pollux in the battle fought by Posthumius with
the Latins at the lake Regillus. There is no doubt but that Posthumius,
after the battle, spread the report of such an appearance. No person
could deny it whilst it was said to last. No person, perhaps, had any
inclination to dispute it afterwards; or, if they had, could say with
positiveness what was or what was not seen by some or other of the army,
in the dismay and amidst the tumult of a battle.

In assigning false perceptions as the origin to which some miraculous
accounts may be referred, I have not mentioned claims to inspiration,
illuminations, secret notices or directions, internal sensations, or
consciousnesses of being acted upon by spiritual influences, good or
bad, because these, appealing to no external proof, however convincing
they may be to the persons themselves, form no part of what can be
accounted miraculous evidence. Their own credibility stands upon their
alliance with other miracles. The discussion, therefore, of all such
pretensions may be omitted.

II. It is not necessary to bring into the comparison what may be called
tentative miracles; that is, where, out of a great number of trials,
some succeed; and in the accounts of which, although the narrative of
the successful cases be alone preserved, and that of the unsuccessful
cases sunk, yet enough is stated to show that the cases produced are
only a few out of many in which the same means have been employed. This
observation bears with considerable force upon the ancient oracles and
auguries, in which a single coincidence of the event with the prediction
is talked of and magnified, whilst failures are forgotten, or
suppressed, or accounted for. It is also applicable to the cures wrought
by relics, and at the tombs of saints. The boasted efficacy of the
king's touch, upon which Mr. Hume lays some stress, falls under the same
description. Nothing is alleged concerning it which is not alleged of
various nostrums, namely, out of many thousands who have used them,
certified proofs of a few who have recovered after them. No solution of
this sort is applicable to the miracles of the Gospel. There is nothing
in the narrative which can induce, or even allow, us to believe, that
Christ attempted cures in many instances, and succeeded in a few; or
that he ever made the attempt in vain. He did not profess to heal
everywhere all that were sick; on the contrary, he told the Jews,
evidently meaning to represent his own case, that, "although many widows
were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three
years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land, yet
unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon,
unto a woman that was a widow:" and that "many lepers were in Israel in
the time of Eliseus the prophet, and none of them was cleansed saving
Naaman the Syrian." (Luke iv. 25.) By which examples he gave them to
understand, that it was not the nature of a Divine interposition, or
necessary to its purpose, to be general; still less to answer every
challenge that might be made, which would teach men to put their faith
upon these experiments. Christ never pronounced the word, but the effect
followed.*

_________

*One, and only one, instance may be produced in which the disciples of
Christ do seem to have attempted a cure, and not to have been able to
perform it. The story is very ingenuously related by three of the
evangelists. (Matt. xvii. 14. Mark ix. 14. Luke ix. 33.) The patient was
afterwards healed by Christ himself; and the whole transaction seems to
have been intended, as it was well suited, to display the superiority of
Christ above all who performed miracles in his name, a distinction
which, during his presence in the world, it might be necessary to
inculcate by some such proof as this.
_________


It was not a thousand sick that received his benediction, and a few that
were benefited; a single paralytic is let down in his bed at Jesus's
feet, in the midst of a surrounding multitude; Jesus bid him walk, and
he did so. (Mark ii. 3.) A man with a withered hand is in the synagogue;
Jesus bid him stretch forth his hand in the presence of the assembly,
and it was "restored whole like the other." (Matt. xii. 10.) There was
nothing tentative in these cures; nothing that can be explained by the
power of accident.

We may observe, also, that many of the cures which Christ wrought, such
as that of a person blind from his birth; also many miracles besides
cures, as raising the dead, walking upon the sea, feeding a great
multitude with a few loaves and fishes, are of a nature which does not
in anywise admit of the supposition of a fortunate experiment.

III. We may dismiss from the question all accounts in which, allowing
the phenomenon to be real, the fact to be true, it still remains
doubtful whether a miracle were wrought. This is the case with the
ancient history of what is called the thundering legion, of the
extraordinary circumstances which obstructed the rebuilding of the
temple at Jerusalem by Julian; the circling of the flames and fragrant
smell at the martyrdom of Polycarp; the sudden shower that extinguished
the fire into which the Scriptures were thrown in the Diocletian
persecution; Constantine's dream; his inscribing in consequence of it
the cross upon his standard and the shields of his soldiers; his
victory, and the escape of the standard-bearer; perhaps, also, the
imagined appearance of the cross in the heavens, though this last
circumstance is very deficient in historical evidence. It is also the
case with the modern annual exhibition of the liquefaction of the blood
of Saint Januarius at Naples. It is a doubt, likewise, which ought to be
excluded by very special circumstances from those narratives which
relate to the supernatural cure of hypochondriacal and nervous
complaints, and of all diseases which are much affected by the
imagination. The miracles of the second and third century are, usually,
healing the sick and casting out evil spirits, miracles in which there
is room for some error and deception. We hear nothing of causing the
blind to see, the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, the lepers to be
cleansed. (Jortin's Remarks, vol. ii. p. 51.) There are also instances in
Christian writers of reputed miracles, which were natural operations,
though not known to be such at the time; as that of articulate speech
after the loss of a great part of the tongue.

IV. To the same head of objection, nearly, may also be referred accounts
in which the variation of a small circumstance may have transformed some
extraordinary appearance, or some critical coincidence of events, into a
miracle; stories, in a word, which may be resolved into exaggeration. The
miracles of the Gospel can by no possibility be explained away in this
manner. Total fiction will account for anything; but no stretch of
exaggeration that has any parallel in other histories, no force of fancy
upon real circumstances, could produce the narratives which we now have.
The feeding of the five thousand with a few loaves and fishes surpasses
all bounds of exaggeration. The raising of Lazarus, of the widow's son
at Nain, as well as many of the cures which Christ wrought, come not
within the compass of misrepresentation. I mean that it is impossible to
assign any position of circumstances however peculiar, any accidental
effects however extraordinary, any natural singularity, which could
supply an origin or foundation to these accounts.

Having thus enumerated several exceptions which may justly be taken to
relations of miracles, it is necessary, when we read the Scriptures, to
bear in our minds this general remark; that although there be miracles
recorded in the New Testament, which fall within some or other of the
exceptions here assigned, yet that they are united with others, to which
none of the same exceptions extend, and that their credibility stands
upon this union. Thus the visions and revelations which Saint Paul
asserts to have been imparted to him may not, in their separate
evidence, be distinguishable from the visions and revelations which many
others have alleged. But here is the difference. Saint Paul's
pretensions were attested by external miracles wrought by himself, and
by miracles wrought in the cause to which these visions relate; or, to
speak more properly, the same historical authority which informs us of
one informs us of the other. This is not ordinarily true of the visions
of enthusiasts, or even of the accounts in which they are contained.
Again, some of Christ's own miracles were momentary; as the
transfiguration, the appearance and voice from Heaven at his baptism, a
voice from the clouds on one occasion afterwards (John xii. 28), and
some others. It is not denied, that the distinction which we have
proposed concerning miracles of this species applies, in diminution of
the force of the evidence, as much to these instances as to others. But
this is the case not with all the miracles ascribed to Christ, nor with
the greatest part, nor with many. Whatever force therefore there may be
in the objection, we have numerous miracles which are free from it; and
even those to which it is applicable are little affected by it in their
credit, because there are few who, admitting the rest, will reject them.
If there be miracles of the New Testament which come within any of the
other heads into which we have distributed the objections, the same
remark must be repeated. And this is one way in which the unexampled
number and variety of the miracles ascribed to Christ strengthen the
credibility of Christianity. For it precludes any solution, or
conjecture about a solution, which imagination, or even which experience
might suggest, concerning some particular miracles, if considered
independently of others. The miracles of Christ were of various kinds,*
and performed in great varieties of situation, form, and manner; at
Jerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish nation and religion; in
different parts of Judea and Galilee; in cities and villages; in
synagogues, in private houses; in the street, in highways; with
preparation, as in the case of Lazarus; by accident, as in the case of
the widow's son of Nain; when attended by multitudes, and when alone
with the patient; in the midst of his disciples, and in the presence of
his enemies; with the common people around him, and before Scribes and
Pharisees, and rulers of the synagogues.

_________

* Not only healing every species of disease, but turning water into wine
(John ii.); feeding multitudes with a few loaves and fishes (Matt. xiv.
15; Mark vi. 35; Luke ix. 12; John vi. 5); walking on the sea (Matt.
xiv. 25); calming a storm (Matt. viii. 26; Luke viii. 24); a celestial
voice at his baptism, and miraculous appearance (Matt. iii. 16;
afterwards John xii. 28); his transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 18; Mark ix.
2; Luke ix. 28; 2 Peter i. 16, 17); raising the dead in three distinct
instances (Matt. ix. 18; Mark v. 22; Luke vii. 14; viii. 41; John xi.).
_________


I apprehend that, when we remove from the comparison the cases which are
fairly disposed of by the observations that have been stated, many cases
will not remain. To those which do remain, we apply this final
distinction; "that there is not satisfactory evidence that persons
pretending to be original witnesses of the miracles passed their lives
in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undertaken and
undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and
properly in consequence of their belief of the truth of those accounts."

CHAPTER II.

But they with whom we argue have undoubtedly a right to select their own
examples. The instances with which Mr. Hume has chosen to confront the
miracles of the New Testament, and which, therefore, we are entitled to
regard as the strongest which the history of the world could supply to
the inquiries of a very acute and learned adversary, are the three
following:

I. The cure of a blind and of a lame man of Alexandria, by the emperor
Vespasian, as related by Tacitus;

II. The restoration of the limb of an attendant in a Spanish church, as
told by Cardinal de Retz; and,

III. The cures said to be performed at the tomb of the abbe Paris in the
early part of the eighteenth century.

I. The narrative of Tacitus is delivered in these terms: "One of the
common people of Alexandria, known to be diseased in his eyes, by the
admonition of the god Serapis, whom that superstitious nation worship
above all other gods, prostrated himself before the emperor, earnestly
imploring from him a remedy for his blindness, and entreating that he
would deign to anoint with his spittle his cheeks and the balls of his
eyes. Another, diseased in his hand, requested, by the admonition of the
same god, that he might be touched by the foot of the emperor. Vespasian
at first derided and despised their application; afterwards, when they
continued to urge their petitions, he sometimes appeared to dread the
imputation of vanity; at other times, by the earnest supplication of the
patients, and the persuasion of his flatterers, to be induced to hope
for success. At length he commanded an inquiry to be made by the
physicians, whether such a blindness and debility were vincible by human
aid. The report of the physicians contained various points: that in the
one, the power of vision was not destroyed, but would return if the
obstacles were removed; that in the other, the diseased joints might be
restored, if a healing power were applied; that it was, perhaps,
agreeable to the gods to do this; that the emperor was elected by divine
assistance; lastly, that the credit of the success would be the
emperor's, the ridicule of the disappointment would fall upon the
patients. Vespasian believing that everything was in the power of his
fortune, and that nothing was any longer incredible, whilst the
multitude which stood by eagerly expected the event, with a countenance
expressive of joy, executed what he was desired to do. Immediately the
hand was restored to its use, and light returned to the blind man. They
who were present relate both these cures, even at this time, when there
is nothing to be gained by lying." (Tacit. Hist. lib. iv.)

Now, though Tacitus wrote this account twenty-seven years after the
miracle is said to have been performed, and wrote at Rome of what passed
at Alexandria, and wrote also from report; and although it does not
appear that he had examined the story or that he believed it, (but
rather the contrary,) yet I think his testimony sufficient to prove that
such a transaction took place: by which I mean, that the two men in
question did apply to Vespasian; that Vespasian did touch the diseased
in the manner related; and that a cure was reported to have followed the
operation. But the affair labours under a strong and just suspicion,
that the whole of it was a concerted imposture brought about by
collusion between the patients, the physician, and the emperor. This
solution is probable, because there was everything to suggest, and
everything to facilitate such a scheme. The miracle was calculated to
confer honour upon the emperor, and upon the god Serapis. It was
achieved in the midst of the emperor's flatterers and followers; in a
city and amongst a populace before-hand devoted to his interest, and to
the worship of the god: where it would have been treason and blasphemy
together to have contradicted the fame of the cure, or even to have
questioned it. And what is very observable in the account is, that the
report of the physicians is just such a report as would have been made
of a case in which no external marks of the disease existed, and which,
consequently, was capable of being easily counterfeited; viz. that in
the first of the patients the organs of vision were not destroyed, that
the weakness of the second was in his joints. The strongest circumstance
in Tacitus's narration is, that the first patient was "notus tabe
oculorum," remarked or notorious for the disease in his eyes. But this
was a circumstance which might have found its way into the story in its
progress from a distant country, and during an interval of thirty years;
or it might be true that the malady of the eyes was notorious, yet that
the nature and degree of the disease had never been ascertained; a case
by no means uncommon. The emperor's reserve was easily affected: or it
is possible he might not be in the secret. There does not seem to be
much weight in the observation of Tacitus, that they who were present
continued even then to relate the story when there was nothing to be
gained by the lie. It only proves that those who had told the story for
many years persisted in it. The state of mind of the witnesses and
spectators at the time is the point to be attended to. Still less is
there of pertinency in Mr. Hume's eulogium on the cautious and
penetrating genius of the historian; for it does not appear that the
historian believed it. The terms in which he speaks of Serapis, the
deity to whose interposition the miracle was attributed, scarcely suffer
us to suppose that Tacitus thought the miracle to be real: "by the
admonition of the god Serapis, whom that superstitious nation (dedita
superstitionibus gens) worship above all other gods." To have brought
this supposed miracle within the limits of comparison with the miracles
of Christ, it ought to have appeared that a person of a low and private
station, in the midst of enemies, with the whole power of the country
opposing him, with every one around him prejudiced or interested against
his claims and character, pretended to perform these cures, and required
the spectators, upon the strength of what they saw, to give up their
firmest hopes and opinions, and follow him through a life of trial and
danger; that many were so moved as to obey his call, at the expense both
of every notion in which they had been brought up, and of their ease,
safety, and reputation; and that by these beginnings a change was
produced in the world, the effects of which remain to this day: a case,
both in its circumstances and consequences, very unlike anything we find
in Tacitus's relation.

Copyright (c) 2007. bestextbooks.com. All rights reserved.

Kenneth Morris - "The Crest Wave of Evolution"

Various - "Scientific American Supplement, No. 829, November 21, 1891"

J. W. Dafoe - "Laurier: A Study in Canadian Politics"

John O'Rourke - "The History of the Great Irish Famine of 1847 (3rd ed.) (1902)"

Obituary: Donald Westlake
Articles published by guardian.co.uk Books

Theatre review: Three Women, Jermyn Street, London
Obituary: Prolific crime novelist, Oscar-nominated screenwriter and man of many pseudonyms

Obama to feature in Marvel comic

We do not know the women's names, but their voices are quite distinct. All are pregnant. But while the first woman awaits the birth of her baby with a moon-like serenity, the other two are not so lucky. One, whose previous pregnancies have failed to go to term, is experiencing a heartbreaking late miscarriage; the other is a young student whose accidental pregnancy will end in her child being put up for adoption.

Sylvia Plath's only play was never intended for the stage, being broadcast instead on BBC radio in August 1962. Less than six months later, Plath killed herself, but not before the burst of astonishing creative energy that produced her extraordinary, terrifying Ariel poems.

Anyone who knows Plath's poetry will see the connection between Three Women and Plath's subsequent poems, particularly in the way she talks about the agony of childbirth, the rush of love for this tiny alien being, and both the wonder and wounded rawness of motherhood. It is a beautiful piece, full of startling imagery that draws you in through the sheer intensity of its femaleness, and because it so precisely articulates the emotions that are often thought but seldom voiced by women - certainly not in the early 1960s - about men, motherhood and our relationship to our bodies.

It's been 20 years since there has been an attempt at a professional stage version and - in a theatre world that happily accepts the poetic offerings of Sarah Kane and Debbie Tucker Green, or the staged possibilities of The Waves, one of Plath's own inspirations for the piece, I see no reason why it shouldn't be brought to life. Sadly, it doesn't breathe here, in a production by Robert Shaw that is clearly a labour of love, but which never finds a way to give the internal a physical reality. Plath's poetry, like most babies, is more robust than it appears - and won't break if treated with a little less reverence and considerably more grit.

Instead, what we are offered is tinkling piano music, mournful mood lighting, an innocuous pale setting, as well as three perfectly good but indisputably ladylike performances that capture none of the wounded redness of Plath's poetry, and do her the disservice of making her sound bleached and somewhat prissy. It's a pity. What might have been a wonder ends up a mere curiosity.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds