Important as are the inquiries which I have hitherto prosecuted, it is obvious that they do not lead to any positive conclusion, whether certain miraculous accounts are true or not. However necessary a direct anomaly in the course of nature may be to rouse attention, and an important final cause to excite interest and reverence, still the quality of the testimony on which the accounts rest can alone determine our belief in them. The preliminary points, however, have been principally dwelt upon, because objections founded on them form the strong ground of unbelievers, who seem in some degree to allow the strength of the direct evidence for the Scripture Miracles. Again, an examination of the direct evidence is less necessary here, because, though antecedent questions have not been neglected by Christian writers 1, yet the evidence itself, as might be expected, has chiefly engaged their attention 2. Without entering, then, into a minute consideration of the facts and arguments on which the credibility of the Sacred History rests, I proceed to contrast its evidence generally with that produced for other miraculous narratives; and thus to complete a comparison which has been already instituted, as regards the antecedent probability and the criterion of Miracles.
For the present, then, I forego the advantage which the Scripture Miracles have gained in the preceding Sections over all professed facts of a similar nature. In reality, indeed, the very same evidence which would suffice to prove the former, might be inadequate when offered in behalf of those of the Eclectic School or the Romish Church. For the Miracles of Scripture, and no other, are unexceptionable, and worthy of a Divine Agent; and Bishop Butler has clearly shown, that, in a practical question, as the divinity of a professed Revelation must be considered, even the weakest reasons are decisive when not counteracted by any opposite arguments 3. Whatever evidence, then, is offered for them is entirely available to the proof of their actual occurrence; whereas evidence for the truth of other similar accounts, supposing it to exist, would be first employed in overcoming the objections which attach to them all from their very character, circumstances, or object. If, however, it can be shown that the Miracles of Scripture as far surpass all others in their direct evidence, as they excel them in their à priori probability, a much stronger case will be made out in their favour, and an additional line of distinction drawn between them and others.
The credibility of testimony arises from the belief we entertain of the character and competency of the witnesses; and this is true, not only in the case of Miracles, but when facts of any kind are examined into. It is obvious that we should be induced to distrust the most natural and plausible statement when made by a person whom we suspected of a wish to deceive, or of relating facts which he had no sufficient means of knowing. Or if we credited his narrative, we should do so, not from dependence on the reporter, but from its intrinsic likelihood, or from circumstantial evidence. In the case of ordinary facts, therefore, we think it needless, as indeed it would be endless, to inquire rigidly into the credibility of the testimony by which they are conveyed to us, because they in a manner speak for themselves. When, however, the information is unexpected, or extraordinary, or improbable, our only means of determining its truth is by considering the credit due to the witnesses; and then, of course, we exercise that right of scrutiny which we before indeed possessed, but did not think it worth while to claim. A Miracle, then, calls for no distinct species of testimony from that offered for other events, but for a testimony strong in proportion to the improbability of the particular fact attested; and it is as impossible to draw any line, or to determine how much is required, as to define the quantity and quality of evidence necessary to prove the occurrence of an earthquake, or the appearance of any meteoric phenomenon. Everything depends on those attendant circumstances, of which I have already spoken,—the object of the Miracle, the occasion, manner, and human agent employed. If, for instance, a Miracle were said to be wrought for an immoral object, then of course the fact would rest on the credibility of the testimony alone, and would challenge the most rigid examination. Again, if the object be highly interesting to us, as that professed by the Scripture Miracles, we shall naturally be careful in our inquiry, from an anxious fear of being biassed. But in any case the testimony cannot turn out to be more than that of competent and honest men; and an inquiry must not be prosecuted under the idea of finding something beyond this, but to obtain proofs of this.