i 
 
 Dyson 
 
 Brahmic Doq-ma*b 
 
 BLI263 
 
 .D99 
 v. 3 
 
BEAHMIC DOGMAS. 
 
 BY 
 
 THE REV. S. DYSON. 
 
 PART III. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter III. 
 
 A MIRACLE IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY, 
 
 § 1 This Brahmic Dogma is opposed 
 
 to Brahmic Revelation 1 
 
 § 2 The assertion, irrespective of 
 
 Brahmism, cannot be proved 6 
 
 § 3 The Nature of Scripture 
 
 Miracles 10 
 
 § 4 Function and position of Miracles 
 
 in the Christian Religion 12 
 
 CALCUTTA: 
 Published at 10 Hare Street. 
 
 Frice two pice,. 
 
BRA 
 
 MAS. 
 
 (PART III.) 
 
 Chapter III. 
 
 A MIRACLE IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY. 
 
 § 1. This Brahmlc Dogma is opposed to Brahmic Revelation, 
 
 Tliis assumption in tlie Bralimo creed is fundamental. It 
 is asserted even in the enunciation of those doctrines which, 
 on the face of them, seem to imply a supernatural oj^eration. 
 The prophets of God, however startling and irregular in their 
 manifestation and coiu^se, are all, Babu K. C. Sen informs 
 us, * ''the sequence of a regular and constant law which re- 
 gulates the moral interests of mankind." "Wherever and 
 whenever peculiar circumstances demand a great man, the very 
 pressm-e of that demand drags him forth perforce. " This very 
 "short and easy way" of accounting for the character and 
 effects of the life of Jesus Christ, for instance, cannot be jus- 
 tified by any fair survey of the facts of Jewish and Gentile 
 History, f but folio w^s necessarily and legitimately from the 
 primary assumption that all the fundamental doctrines of 
 Brahmism are primitive and self-evident convictions of the 
 hmnan mind, and that the impossihiUty of a miracle is one of 
 them. 
 
 This alleged primitive conviction is unquestionably clear, 
 decisive, and of very extensive range. The proposition, — a 
 mii^acle is an im230ssibility — is so brief that we are in some 
 danger of not duly realizing the comprehensiveness of the pre- 
 dication. Our imagination needs to be furnished with a variety 
 of concrete details involved in this short statement, in order 
 that the magnificence of the assertion here advanced may in 
 some measm-e be a2:)prehended. Every event of a supernatural 
 origin and character which has been and is alleged as a fact is, in 
 this proposition, formally afiirmedtobe o. fiction. All the mii-acu- 
 
 * Great Men. Englisli Edition, pp. 64-67. 
 
 f Nor, equally as little will it account for the uprising and career of 
 Kapoleon Buonaparte, whom Bahu K. C. Sen, instances as a Great Man 
 in another department, and therefore as an illustration of this alleged Law 
 of Great Men. 
 
2 BraJiniic Dogmas. 
 
 lous occuiTences alleged to have accompanied tlie life of Jesus 
 Christ, and the sj-read of Christianity; all the mu^acles recorded in 
 the Hindu Shasters ; all the miracles handed down by Mussulman 
 Traditions; all tlie miracles, accounts of which are current among 
 other portions of the himian race, savage or civilized, whether of 
 the Old or New ^Vorld, are, one and all, pronounced to he 
 fictions, and that on the basis of this a priori assumption that 
 the impossibility of a miracle is a " primitive and self-evident 
 conviction established in the constitution of men. " 
 
 Even supposing that Brahmos were not acquainted with 
 or do not believe in the unanimous testimony of Universal 
 History, as to the asserted existence of miraculous ele- 
 ments in human religions, yet they cannot refuse assent to 
 the overwhelming sensible and direct evidence of the prevalence 
 of the Hindu religion, which is saturated with Supernatm^alism, 
 in the midst of which they are passing thoii' lives. Every 
 evening around their homes the air resounds with the beating 
 of gongs and blowing of shells in worship of various idols, 
 representations of deities, whose lives are asserted to be 
 mii'aculous. In truth it is wearisome and superfluous to dwell 
 on this point. ] n whatever direction we extend our view, and 
 however far back we look into the records of history, to 
 learn the character of the religious practices of mankind, we 
 are confronted with this phenomenon, asserted reaJitu of mir- 
 acles. And it would be altogether ii-relevant, besides being tm- 
 true^ if it were asserted that this phenomenon is confined to 
 savages and illiterate men, or people of former ages. No de- 
 gree of mental endowment, no extent and depth of learning, 
 no holiness of life and devotion to Grod, can be claimed for any 
 portion of the human family which has not been owned and 
 exhibited hymen who have accepted the Cluistian Revelation, 
 the essential and constituent elements of which are Diiraculous. 
 
 Now this phenomenon of miracles, which has always 
 characterized tlie religious history and condition of mankind, 
 is universal, and, like every other incontestable and world-wide 
 fact, recpiires an adequate cause. Wliat is that cause r* If we grant 
 that the Bvalimo Somaj lias, as in duty bound, carefully studied 
 and truthfully reported, tlie " self-evident convictions" of the 
 human mind, then this phenomenon of themiraculuos is an 
 appalling mystery. " The impossibility of a miracle is a self- 
 evident conviction of the human mind," says the Brahmo Somaj ; 
 but acceptance of miracles is the universal characteristic of 
 all religions, which, again say the Brahmos, are only the 
 product of the constituti(jnal and natural religious instincts of 
 the human mind. Can we conclude that men, all their life- 
 long, ha\e deliberately stifled this self-evident conviction; — 
 
Brahmic Dogmas. 3 
 
 that liaving tlie conviction, tliey have, with an unintentional 
 unanimity and uniformity, — which itself is an astounding 
 miracle — smothered this conviction ? Or can we conclude 
 that, although they posssessed this self-evident conviction, yet, 
 somehow, strangely, they were not aware of it Y This would 
 not be a miracle indeed ; it would be a preposterous absurdity. 
 Or must we suppose that this conviction does exist germinally 
 and potentially but is not recognized till it is pointed out ? This 
 may be true, but if so, it would be tantamount to an ad- 
 mission of an external revelation, and opens questions as to 
 the authority and trustworthiness of the revealer which, 
 in their being discussed, would imply both the need and pos- 
 sibility of mn-acles. Or finally, should we not ratlier con- 
 clude from this undeniable universal phenomenon that the 
 possibility of miracles is a belief, certainly not in violation of 
 but rather in harmony with the primitive and self-evident 
 convictions of the human mind, and that the Brahmo Somaj 
 has not dealt faithfully with its own professed authoritative 
 Revelation? 
 
 But the reader may reasonably urge that it is scarcely 
 fair to adduce patent facts which certainly, taken by themselves, 
 seem conclusive ; and totally to ignore the facts which Brahmos 
 adduce in favoiu^ of their dogma of human nature. These 
 also, it may be urged, should be referred to and their worth 
 estimated. A decision based on ex parte statements only cannot 
 be- worth much. 
 
 But, the Brahmos adduce no facts. They bring forward no 
 eiyidence. They dogmatically and oracularly assert, and there an 
 end. 
 
 Should any, however, urge, by way of parrying our conclu- 
 sion, that so many of the alleged miracles are absurd, or immoral, 
 or puerile, or unsupported by evidence, that we may reasonably 
 conclude that no miracle is deserving of credence, and that all 
 are fictions. Very well. Be it so. We do not endorse this rea- 
 soning; counterfeit coin proves the existence of genuine. 
 But we may legitimately show that its consequences are very 
 damaging indeed to the pretensions of the Brahmo Somaj. 
 Be it so that these alleged miracles are generally unworthy 
 of credit; the fact remains that men have accepted them, 
 and therefore argues a strong predisposition, sometimes 
 amounting to credulity, in the human mind to accept any 
 thing which pretends to be supernatural however feebly 
 supported by evidence, and all the more cogently proves 
 the falsehood of the Brahmic dogma. For it must be 
 understood, it is not a question at all concerning miracles, 
 whether possible or impossible, which is now being dis- 
 
4 Brahmic Dogmas, 
 
 cussed, Lilt a question concemiug the existence of a " self- 
 evident conviction of the human mind," which Brahmos assert 
 and wliich we, on the testimony of universal consciousness, 
 deny. It would be altogether iiTelevant to the decision of 
 fhis issue to enter upon enquiries, as to the range of the oper- 
 ation of the laws of natiu-e, or the competency of himian 
 testimony. The simple question is this; Is the Dogma, that 
 a miracle is an impossibility, a radical and fundamental con- 
 viction of the hinnan wind or not ? Trustworthy evidence is to 
 be found in the practically unanimous witness of contemporary 
 and past credible History, and that evidence oveiwhelming- 
 ly proves that this dogma of the Brahmo Somaj is false. 
 
 The very fact that various attempts in various directions 
 have been made by disbelievers in Chiistianity to shew that 
 mii'acles are impossible, is a striking illustration of the ig- 
 norance or unfaithfidness which characterizes the Brahmic in- 
 terpretation oi their own Revelation — himian natui^e. If only 
 the" sliort and easy method" of disposing of mu^acles, which 
 the Brahmos have struck out, could be depended on by 
 truth-seeking souls, how much heart-ache, and anxious 
 thought, and painful and laborious searching should we all be 
 delivered from ! The Supernatural claims of Chiistianity, 
 even if no selfish and worldly interests were concerned, are, 
 it must be confessed, a tremendous difficidty, and if disbe- 
 lievers could only produce for us some probably true theory 
 of its falsity, which is not encompassed with greater and more 
 ditficidties than the tlieory which it is to supersede, there might 
 be some hope of this troublesome, obtrusive, and pertinacious 
 Christianity being silenced ! * But disbelief is ahrai/s boastful 
 of what it is going to accomplish, and its predictions are in- 
 
 * AVc have just and reasonable ground of complaint with reference to 
 the mental attitude towards Christianity which l^rahmos and most anti- 
 christian theists maintain. It is equivocal and, upon any intelligible and 
 consistent view of Christianity indefcnsil)le. If subjected to the test of 
 fair reasoning, it cannot be shewn to be consistent, either with the supposition 
 that Christianity is historically false, or that it is historically true. It is 
 impossible to define arid characterise the state of mind of lirahmos in re- 
 ference to the historic reality of the person and life of Jesus Christ. It is 
 impossible to say what they believe, and what not, and on what grounds. 
 But the historical facts of Jesus Christ's Life do not depend upon our sub- 
 jective not iojis. any more than any other historical Fncts do. "Tliis ambi- 
 guous failli could never hold a place in a disciplined mind but by an act, 
 repeated from day to day, and similar to that of a man who should refuse 
 to have the shutters removed from the windows on that side of his house 
 whence he might descry the residence of his enemy. IF Christianity be 
 historically true, it must be granted to demand mcjre than a respectful 
 acknowledgment tliat its system of ethics is i)ure ; or, were it hist(H-ically 
 false, we ought to think nurselves to be outraging at once virtue and 
 reason in allowing its name to pass our lips." I. Taylor's i</i}ri/n<il 
 Chrifitmnity. p. Hf). 
 
Brahmic Dogmas, 5 
 
 variably falsified, * But if the Brahmic assertion coiilcl only 
 be suhsfantiated, what a simple thing would be tlie demolition 
 of Christianity ! No need of this extensive and difficult re- 
 search into the laws of nature ; no need of this laborious 
 collection of facts to construct a platform strong enough to 
 support the conclusion of the impossibility of miracles ; no 
 need of hunting up and arranging instances of the mendacity 
 of men and the falsity of human testimony ; no need of 
 weaving subtle metaphysical arguments to shew that it is 
 incredible that Grod should piu-pose to make a revelation and 
 that miracles should be employed to make an alleged revela- 
 tion credible, &c., &c.; all this labour would be superfiuous. A 
 little ciu-sory examination of own self-evident convictions only is 
 requisite, and lo ! There it is ; — a miracle is an impossibility ! 
 
 Now as all this learned investigation and metaphysical 
 argumentation would be unnecessary, if the Brahmic dogma 
 were a fact, it is plain that Brahmos, on their own i^rineiples, are 
 precluded from resorting to these methods, valid or not, to 
 establish the truth of this dogma. But it is a remarkable 
 and noteworthy fact, that when challenged to prove the truth 
 not only of this but of all their distinctive dogmas, the Brahmos 
 never do appeal to that very revelatien of Human Nature on 
 whose declarations theii' dogmas are professedly based. They 
 invariably have recourse to various metaphysical reasonings based 
 generally on an assumed adequate knowledge of the character 
 and proceedings of the Supreme Being. "There is a natural and 
 legitimate revolt in man" says Mr. Ilutton f '' against any su- 
 pernatiu^alism which does not do full justice to nature," audit is 
 one satisfying evidence of Christianity, in congruity with its 
 claim to a supernatiu-al origin, that it does recognize and provide 
 for all the real wants and religious instincts of Himian Natm^e. % 
 
 *'^ " It is most instructive to consider how many predictions of tlie enemies 
 of Christianity between Julian and Strauss liave ignominiously failed. Take 
 for example, the boasted historic discrepancies and asserted "immoralities" 
 to be found in the Bible. Many of them have been reiterated by all infidel 
 writers from the earliest times till now. Many of them are just the same 
 in the '• Phases" of Mr. Newman, in the "Age of Eeason," of Thomas Paine 
 in Bolingbroke, in Celsus. As a fact^ the objections do not prevail against 
 the persuasion which the New Testament somehow inspires, that it is history, 
 and true history, not fiction nor a lie. " If the Bible," says Paine, " perish, 
 from an exposure of the absurdities and errors, which fill it, mind, it is not 
 ony fault." Poor soul ! — " 'Tis sixty years since;" and in that time, the Bible has 
 found its way into scores of new languages and dialects of man, Christianity 
 has dotted over the earth with its missionary stations, schools, and churches, 
 and now presents a picture of unwonted activity of 7>;YY>>«(7aw^Z/i-7M in nearly 
 every community that professes it !" Defence of the Ecl\j)se of Faith, p. 159. 
 
 t Hutton's Essays. Vol. I. p. 130. 
 
 X See the Rev. J. Angus' Essay. Man a witness for Christianity. Faith and 
 Free Thought, p. 137. 
 
6 Brahniic Dogmas. 
 
 But what are we to tliink of Bralimism, whicli is confess- 
 edly based on "the primitive and self-evident convictions of 
 human natm^e," and which yet in all its defences and apolo- 
 gies eifJier ignores these self-evident convictions altogether, or 
 plays "fast and loose" with them just as it serves its turn, — 
 just as they seem to support or oppose a foregone conclusion? 
 
 § 2. TJie assertion, irrespective of Bralimism, cannot he proved. 
 
 However, following the Brahmos in their abandonment of 
 theii^ professed Bevelation, and tm-ning aside fi'om the question 
 Avhether the impossibility of a mii-acle is a primitive conviction 
 of the human mind or not, the discussion of impossibility of 
 miracles does not, as we j)roceed to shew, improve the j^osition 
 of the Brahmos. Grranting, as Baboo K. C. Sen, does abun- 
 dantly grant, that the Laws of Nature are called so only me- 
 taphorically and improperly, and are only human generalizations 
 of observed facts, regidar established modes in which Grod 
 operates, not independent agents and causes, — it cannot be 
 proved, either by examination of our own minds, or by any 
 extensive induction of events in Nature, that the Author of 
 Natiu-e can not interpose, for any reason whatever, to suspend or 
 modify those laws, which He Himself has imposed and enforces. * 
 No extensive and profound acquaintance with physical science 
 and no subtle analysis of the human mind can invalidate this 
 conclusion. No induction, however far-reaching and extensive, 
 can establish the conclusion that miracles are impossible. A 
 miracle is very highly improbable, but whether Grod has 
 wrought a miracle or not is a dilferent question altogether 
 from the question whether Grod can work a miracle or not. 
 
 " Unbelievers use the antecedent argument from the order 
 of nature against our belief in miracles. Here, if they only 
 mean that the fact of that system of laws, by which physical 
 natm-e is governed, makes it antecedently improbable that 
 an exception should occur in it, there is no objection to the 
 argument ; but if, as is not uncommon, they mean that the 
 fact of an established order is fatal to the very notion of an 
 exception, they are using a presumption as if it were a proof. 
 They are saying, — What has happened 999 times one way 
 cannot happen on the 1000th time another way, because what 
 has hajfpeiiod 999 times one way must happen in the same 
 way on the lOOUth. If, however, they mean that the order of 
 
 * Law can only prevent miracles by ^^coinpeUin;/ and making necessaiy 
 the succession of nature, i. e. in the sense of causation ; but science has itself 
 proclaimed the truth that we see no causes in nature ; that the whole chain of 
 physical succession is to the eye of rcasf)n a rope of sand, consisting of 
 antecedents and consequents, but without a rational liuk or trace of necessary 
 connexion between them." Mozley. On Mlraclrs. \). 3!'. 
 
Brahtiuc Doynms. 7 
 
 nature constitutes a necessity, and that a law is an unalterable 
 fate, this is to assume the very point in debate, and is much 
 more than its antecedent probability. 
 
 "Facts cannot be proved bypresumptions, yet it is remark- 
 able that in cases when nothing stronger than presumption 
 was ever professed, scientific men have sometimes acted as if 
 they thought this kind of argument taken by itself decisive 
 of a" fact which was in debate. " * 
 
 The phrase '^ order of nature^ ^ is used in two distinct senses, 
 and it is necessary to specify which of these is intended, when 
 a mii^acle is asserted to be a violation or contradiction of the 
 order of nature. It may mean arrangement, the beautiful 
 complicated and subtle adjustment of component parts; or it 
 may mean simply uniform continuance and recurrence. In the 
 former sense, as signifying harmonious sj^stem, it is plain the 
 miraculous does not contradict the order of natiu-e. The 
 w^orking of some intricate machine, c. g., a locomotive steam- 
 engine, is intentionally stopped for some purpose by the driver; 
 no one imagines that the exquisite contrivance and design of 
 the machinery is affected. This remains just as it was. The 
 order of nature as signifying mutual relation and adjustment, 
 in the same w^ay remains as striking and as wonderful, 
 w^hether in a few instances, the action of nature is or is not 
 interrupted by a competent agent for an adequate pm^pose. 
 What a miracle does oppose, undoubtedly, is the order of 
 nature in the second sense specified. The expectation of a re- 
 currence of similar phenomena, which we all unavoidably 
 entertain, and which serves as the practical basis for carrying- 
 on the affairs of life and himian society, is unquestionably 
 disturbed by a miracle, and constitutes a presimaption, and a 
 strong one, against it. t The natiu"e of this Expectation or 
 Belief in the Uniformity of Nature's operations has been 
 explained by Bishop Butler + We expect that the futiire will 
 be lilxe the past. The fact that we all have this expectation is 
 obvious. But it is not so very clear on what this expectation 
 itself is based. If we propose the further question — Why do 
 w^e expect the futm-e to resemble the past ? On what ground 
 of reason can we justify this expectation? The answer to this 
 question will determine the mental character of this belief, and 
 what is the real worth of the presumption against miracles 
 which grows out of it. It will be found that no such ground 
 of reason is producible. If for the nonce we suppose w^e can 
 trace this belief to some rational principle on which it is 
 
 * Newman's Grammar of Assent, p. 376. 
 
 f See Mozley's Bampton Lectures on Miracles. 3rd Ed. p. 43. 
 
 :j: Analogy. Introduction. 
 
8 Brahmic Day mas. 
 
 gi'oundod, tliis principle will be ascertained, on careful ex- 
 amination, either to assume the fact of the belief, or in another 
 form to re-state it ; but it will not bo found to justify it, or 
 account for it. 
 
 "What ground of reason, then, can we assign for our expec- 
 tation that any part of the course of natiu-e wdll the next 
 moment be like wliat it has been up to this moment, i, e., 
 for our belief in the uniformity of natiu^e ? None. No de- 
 monstrative reason can be given, for the contrary to the occiu-ence 
 of a fact of nature is no contradiction. No probable reason 
 can be given, for all probable reasoning respecting the coiu^se of 
 natiure is founded ujwn this presumption of likeness, and 
 therefore cannot be the foundation of it. No reason can be 
 given for this belief. It is without a reason. It rests upon 
 no rational groimd and can be traced to no rational princijile. 
 Everything connected with himian life depends upon this belief, 
 every practical jolan or pm^pose that we form implies it ; every 
 provision we make for the future, every safeguard and caution 
 we employ against it, all calculation, all adjustment of means 
 to ends, suj^pose this belief; it is this principle alone 
 which renders om- experience of the slightest use to us, and with- 
 out it there would be, so far as we are concerned, no order of 
 natm*e and no laws of natiu'e ; and yet this belief has no more 
 producible reason for it, than a speculation of fancy. A na- 
 tural fact has been re2:)eated ; it wall be repeated : — I am conscious 
 of utter darkness when I try to see why one of these follows from 
 the other : I not only see no reason but I perceive that I see 
 no]ie, though I can no more help the expectation than I can stop 
 the circidation of my blood. There is a premiss and there is a 
 conclusion, but there is a total want of connection between the 
 two. The inference, then, from the one of these to the other 
 rests upon no ground of the understanding ; by no search 
 or anal}^sis, however subtle or minute, can we extract from any 
 coiTier of the limnan mind and intelligence, however remote, 
 the very faintest reason for it." 
 
 " This belief not having itself its foundation in reason, 
 the ground is gone upon which it could be maintained that 
 miracles as opposed to the order of iiature were opposed to 
 reason. Tliere being no producible reason wliy a new event 
 sliould be like the liitherto course of nature, no decision of 
 reason is contradicted by its unlikeness. A miracle in being 
 02)posed to our experience is not oidy opposed to necessary 
 reasoning, but to any reasoning. Do I see by a certain per- 
 ception the connexion between these two — It has happened 
 so ; it will happen so ; thou may I reject a new reported fact 
 which has not happened so, as an impossibility. But if I do 
 
Brahmic Dogmas. 9 
 
 not see tlie connexion between these two by a certain perception, 
 or by any perception, I cannot. For a miracle to be rejected 
 as such tliere must at any rate be some proposition in the mind 
 of man which is opposed to it : and that proposition can only 
 spring from the quarter to which we have been referring, viz., 
 that of elementary experimental reasoning. But if this experi- 
 mental reasoning is of that natiu'e which philosophy describes 
 it as being of, /. e., if it is not itself a process of reason, how 
 can tliere from an irrational process of the mind arise a propo- 
 sition at all, — to make which is the function of the rational 
 faculty alone ? There cannot ; and it is evident that the 
 miracle does not stand in any opposition whatever to reason." * 
 
 The logic of unbelief, as Mr. Mozley remarks, wants a 
 nnivcysal proposition but no such j)roposition is forthcoming 
 or producible. As regards Deism, or antichristian Theism of 
 whatever form or shade, very slight consideration will make it 
 clear, that the mere assertion of a supj'tosed unkerml proposition 
 in reference to the impossibility of miracles is just suicidal. 
 No Theist m suck can, without laying himself justly open to 
 the charge of self-contradiction, profess to believe that a miracle 
 is im2:)0ssible. 
 
 " In a word," says Paley, " once believe there is a God, 
 and miracles are not incredible."! It should seem that there 
 could not, in reason, be any controversy on this subject 
 with the Brahmos, and we must suppose that it has arisen 
 from the fact, that they have not patiently and thoughtfully 
 traced the implications of their own creed, and the implications 
 of this denial of the possibility of miracles. Brahmos accept, 
 as we shall see, the Christian Doctrine of Creation, which 
 must be recognized as having the nature of a miracle. Belief 
 in the fact of creation certainly implies a belief in the possi- 
 hiUfy of a mii^acle either at the commencement or dming a 
 course of natm^e. % 
 
 * Mozley, On Miracles, p. 30 and p. 38. Where also a long interesting 
 quotation is given from Hume's Enqninj, Sect. IV. ea:2Jressing in- other words 
 the view of the text. 
 
 t Paley 's Evidences. Introduction. 
 
 _ X " Strauss avowedly, and very many modern opponents of Christianity, 
 tacitly assume the principle of the impossibility of a miracle ; that is, they 
 reduce every thing to the uniformities of present experience, and then decide easily 
 enough, that what professedly presents phenomena at variance with that ex- 
 perience, is to be rejected. Having laid it down as an axiom that a miracle 
 is imjjossiMe, Christianity, of course must be false. But it is in vain to reason 
 in this way until the impossibility of miracles has been distinctly proved. 
 But then, it is well to remind the Deist (or Brahmo) that when it is proved 
 that we must take the uniformities of present experience as an invariable 
 standard; — that we must assume that nature fiever varies, never has varied, never 
 will vary beyond the limits of present experience ; — that the antecedents and 
 consequents we see now have always followed, and will always follow, one 
 
10 Brahmic Dogmas. 
 
 The fallacy of Jlfun^'s well kno^Ti dilemma concerning 
 miracles and testimony has been clearly exposed by many 
 competent A\Titers, some of whom have shared his philosophical 
 opinions, and we think very few persons, who are anxious to 
 maintain their character for honesty and learning, will be 
 found now-a-day to rest much upon it. * 
 
 § 3 The Nature of Scripfure Miracles. 
 
 "We have now, under this section, examined two points; first, 
 whether the impossibility of mii^acles is a self-evident con- 
 \4ction of the human mind or not, and secondly^ whether mii'- 
 acles are possible or not. Many things may reasonably be 
 believed to be possible, but wliicli never have and never will 
 become actual facts. If the question of the actual occurrence 
 of miracles be mooted, it must be mentioned, that, as far as we 
 are concerned, the question must be restricted to Scriptui'e 
 miracles (xclusivchj. If these are proved to be fictions, no other, 
 we are certain, will smwive enquiry and discussion. And apart 
 from the practical interest of the Christian religion, we do not 
 think it worth while to discuss the subject in the interest of 
 mere speculation. 
 
 Such, then, being the range of the enquiry, we are hound 
 to accept and profess that view of miracles which Scrijitiu'e 
 reveals, and, that being done, have a right to assert that those 
 objections only of disbelievers, which are directed against that 
 view of mu-acles which Christians are requii-ed to believe, are 
 relevant and deserving of consideration. 
 
 Now there are three terms, which are consistently employed 
 
 throughout Scripture to denote mbacles. These terms are not 
 
 synonymous but complementary. Each regards miracles 
 
 from a different stand-2')oint, exhibits them in a separate aspect, 
 
 and indicates a different element in theu- constitution. These 
 
 thi'ee terms are " marvel, " " mighty worh,^' and " siyn.^' The 
 
 another ; — that the orif/lnafiofi of the present sTStcm, or, in fact, any condition 
 of things at variance with our pi'csent experieuce becomes an absurdity. Every 
 immediately ^?r<?<:YYZ//i/7 generation — the men of yesterday, the day before 
 that, and so on, ad infinltuvi — have as much reason to argue in the same 
 manner as we do ; and there is left nothing for us but a blank Atheism or an 
 equally blank Pantheism_ "with an eternal recurrence of similar phenomena 
 or an eternal succession of finite cycles of similar phenomena." Defence of 
 '•The Eclipue ofFa'iilC. p. 154. 3rd Ed. Most of the objections and arguments ad- 
 vanced Ijy antichristian theists against Christianity arc xvicidal. A little con- 
 sideration by the Brahmos would make it plain to them that they cannot con- 
 sistently hold tills doctrine of the impossibility of miracles, and ah'io the 
 doctrine of Creation. Would that the Brahmos Averc better acquainted with 
 their own system and creed ! 
 
 Ibitler's Analof/y Part II. Chapter 2. See especially Ecl'qyse of Faith, p. p. 
 213— 24G. 
 
 ♦ J. 8. Mill's Lof/ie Vol. II. Book, III. Chapter 25, Newman's drammar 
 of Aftsejit. Chapter 8 p. 20H, and for a full and complete discussion, Warring- 
 ton's Can we believe in Miracles 1 Chapter II. p. GI. 
 
Brahmic Dogmas. X\ 
 
 complete conception of a Scripture miracle is obtained, not 
 from (n}y one, but from a eonihi nation of all three. 
 
 Miracles are described as, " marveh^^ with respect to tlieir 
 effect, as extraordinary occurrences in arousing attention and 
 enquiry. They are phenomena in human experience. 
 
 Miracles are described as, " mighty ?rorh.<i,'^ with respect to 
 the agency by which they are brouglit about. They are 
 asserted to have a special cause. Divine action. They are effects 
 of special Divine action. 
 
 Miracles, again, are described as, " signs,^^ with respect to 
 their piu'pose. They are wrought for an end which is something 
 beyond and higher than themselves. They are an instrument 
 for the attainment of moral ends. 
 
 These three terms, then, are not designations of different 
 kinds or sorts of miracles, but indicate constituent elements of 
 every miracle, each of which is essential to the nature and con- 
 ception of a Scripture miracle. Any objection against miracles 
 considered in one of these aspects only, while the others are 
 tacitly ignored, is then, confessedly, an objection with which we, 
 as Christians, are not concerned. It is an objection to what 
 Scripture does not ask us to believe in. If an objector has in his 
 mind " marvels^' only, and were to ask whether we should not 
 disbelieve any story of such marvellous phenomena as are re- 
 corded in the Grospels occmTing now-a-days, on the ground 
 of their extreme improbability, even if supported by strong evi- 
 dence, we may answer in the affirmative, safely enough. We 
 are not required by the Bible to believe in mere " marvels," 
 but in marvels, wrought hy an adequate cause, for a sufficient end. 
 Supply these elements, and the marvel becomes credible. — Or, 
 again, objections urged against mu^acles, on the mere ground 
 of their infringing the uniform laws of nature, are not valid 
 against Scripture miracles, for these miracles do not belong 
 exclusively to the physical world, but also to the moral. It 
 is in theii' relation to the moral world, (indefinitely higher than 
 the physical,) that the purpose of their occurrence lies. * Now 
 
 * " It must be observed, too, that it is not only the physical occurrence 
 itself which in the case of these miracles has to be reduced to the order of 
 nature, but the physical occurrence as corresponding to and fitting in with a 
 command, an announcement, a whole set of pretensions on the part of the 
 person who is the agent or centre of them. Should the question e. g., ever be 
 raised, whether the miracle of our Lord's Resurrection was a fact ultimately 
 referrible to natural law ; the fact a'oout which the question would lie, i. e., 
 about which we should have to inquire whether it might be ultimately natural 
 or not, would be, not the simple resurrection of a man from the dead, but that 
 resurrection as coinciding with the whole nature, mission and office of Christ, 
 His whole character, life and ministry, as well as with the previous announce- 
 ments of the events. It is impossible not to see, even when the occurrence 
 itself is of the most marvellous kind, how immensely this correspondence to 
 a notification and adaptation to a whole set of circumstances add to the 
 
12 Brahmic Dogm cm . 
 
 most of tliG objections, wliicli are popularly urged against 
 miracles, are really objections to tlie objector's own one-sided 
 and iuconijilete notion of Avliat a Scriptiu-e miracle is, and are 
 often comj^letely dissipated and shewn to be iii-elevant, as soon 
 as the missing and complementary elements are added. We 
 must rigidly adhere to the definition which Scriptm-al induc- 
 tion fm'nishes us, n'z. ; a miracle is a marvellous phenomenon^ 
 brought about J>i/ special Divine agency, for the attainment of 
 moral ends. All these elements must be fully considered before 
 the question of theii' credibility can be finally decided on. 
 
 § 4 Function and position of Miracles in the Christian Religion. 
 
 It is a disadvantage, arising from the unalterable nature 
 of the human mind, that the many and varied proofs of the 
 Divine origin of Chiistianity, which are all mutually con- 
 sistent and congruous, and to be regarded as simidtaneously 
 converging to one point, can only be exhibited in successive 
 lines or chains ; and not unfrequentlj^, in consequence, the 
 conclusion is often assumed to rest on the single line of evi- 
 dence to which the attention is for the moment directed, while 
 the others are temporarily out of view. This condition of 
 things is not only a serious difficidty to the honest enqiurer, 
 but also gives room and presents a temptation to the prejudiced, 
 to attack these various catence of proofs separately and inde- 
 pendently, and very often, on inconsistent and mutually 
 destructive principles. The evidence of Christianity presents 
 itself to us in the same way as that by which our firmest con- 
 victions in other matters are reached, not in the Avay of a 
 sequence of evidences, but in the way of the congruity of co- 
 ordinate evidences, meeting in the conclusion. Om' deepest 
 convictions in all other analogous matters are the product of 
 independent causes, which are so felt to fit into each other, 
 that each, as soon as it is seen in combination, authenticates 
 the other.* In the present case, it has been too much the custom to 
 view the miracles recorded in the New Testament as isolated 
 facts out of all connexion with the Life and Character of the 
 Author of Christianity on the one side and Avith the history 
 and present position of Christianity on the other. The right 
 
 snpornaluralncs.s of the miraclo, and to its incxplicaltlcncss upon natural 
 gnniuds. Because all this points, upon the arguuieut oi' design or coiuciilencc, 
 to an especial interposition of God, as distinguished from unknown physical 
 causation. Tliose circumstances of a miracle which distinguish it from an 
 isolated marvel arc also great evidences of its supernatural character. No 
 physical explanation of it as an isolated marvel is an explanation of those 
 circumstances which distinguish it from a marvel. Mozley, On Miracles. 
 Pref. p. XVr. 
 
 ♦ See Newman's flrammar of Assent, Chapters VIII, IX. I. Taylor's Res- 
 toratiori of BcVuf. p. 94 and p. 211. 
 
Brahmic Boc/mas. 13 
 
 position to take in viewing tliese miracles is, not on the plane 
 of oui' mundane experience and in reference to our worldly 
 life, but on that which was occupied by the Founder and 
 Promulgator. We should, in that case, view them in connection 
 with their actual history, and regard them in their true 
 relation, — their relationship to the Infinite. Viewing them 
 in their connection with that discernment of the whole scheme 
 of Christian Redemption and of the far-reaching and unchanging 
 realities of this vast moral and religious system, which 
 Christ and the Apostles possessed ; viewing them, that is, 
 simply in relation to the circumstances in which they arose, 
 they are no longer stupifying and irritating marvels, to which 
 we find it difficult to yield assent and the evidence of which we 
 yet cannot get rid of, they are the natural and reasonable 
 outcome of the impulses of' human affections and sympathy 
 combined with the consciousness of union and fellowship with 
 the Supreme Will. The " mighty works" are in strict harmony 
 with the tone, demeanour, language, and teaching ; and this 
 congruify between the two exercises a persuasive force ; and 
 is intelligible, on one suj^position o)iIy viz., that He is what He 
 Himself with the modesty and firmness of conscious truth 
 asserted Himself to be — the Grod-man. Hence, as is natural 
 and satisfactory^ these " mighty works" are in strict keeping 
 with that supposition, possessing distinguishing characteristics 
 which mark them off by a broad line of demarcation from those 
 miracles which are the products of human imagination', — such 
 as are to be found in the " Gospel of the Infancy,^'' the Hindu 
 Pm-anas, and the classical mythologies. They are not por- 
 tents, nor things monstrous, nor theatric displays, nor grotesque 
 exhibitions. They are the outcome of that, in the presence 
 of which, the distinction of natiu-al and supernatm^al is ob- 
 literated, by the ceaseless outflowing of ichieh this world per- 
 sists, viz., a Personal Will, at once perfectly intelligent, ahsolntely 
 good, and infinitely powerful. We have not before us in the 
 Gospels such a conception only as the mind of that age was 
 able to frame, — a Thaumaturgus, — a wonder worker, astounding 
 the multitude, by unintelligible sombre mysteries of magic ; 
 but we have a conception of a distinct individuality in whose 
 coiu'se of life and ethical teaching, love was the substance, and 
 the sujDernatui'al faculty, the secondary but congruous adjunct. * 
 
 * "When we object to tlie use often made of these 'jvorJis' it is only because 
 they have been forcibly severed from the whole complex of Christ's life and 
 doctrine, and presented to the contemplation of men apart from these ; it 
 is only because, when on his head are many crowns, one only has been singled 
 out in proof that he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The miracles have 
 been spoken of as though they borrowed nothing from the truths which tliey 
 confirmed, but those truths every thing from the miracles by which they were 
 
14 Brahmic Dogmas. 
 
 It is not a matter of opinion, but an undeniable fact, that 
 the Gospels do convey and have convej^ed to all Chi'istianized 
 nations, however different may be theu* ideas in other matters, 
 nay, not merely that, these Gospels convey to every one who reads 
 them, the idea of a Person, characterized by unity, harmony of 
 character, • consistency of pm^pose, coherence of principle. Now 
 this dramatic conception was utterly beyond the range of the 
 imagination as well of writers as of readers of the age in which 
 the Gospels originated. And this harmony of elements, which 
 constitutes the idea of Jesus Clmst,which the child perceives and 
 manhood does not revise or reject, comprises the ordinary as well 
 as the extraordinary ,the natural and suj)ernatiu'al, alike. T//e most 
 striking i/lastrations of the moral fitness of the character are often 
 most clearly exJiibited in those portions of the narrative ichich des- 
 cribe miracles in detail. There are no seams in the history to be dis- 
 cerned indicating where the spurious has been added to the genu- 
 ine. The texture of the history combines the web of the natm-al 
 with the woof of the supernatural. Let Christianity solve 
 its own problem, and there are no perplexities and contradictions. 
 The personal character of Christ and the mii'aculous adjuncts 
 are in perfect congruity. * 
 
 confirmed ; when indeed the true relation is one of mutual interdependence, 
 the miracles proving the doctrines and the doctrines approving the miracles, 
 and both held together for us in a blessed unity, in the person of Him who 
 spoke the words and did the works, and through the impress of highest holiness 
 and of absolute truth and goodness, Avhich that person leaves stamped on 
 our souls ; — so that it may be more truly said that we believe the miracles for 
 Christ's sake, than Christ for the miracles' sake," Trench, 6?m the Miracles, p. 9-4, 
 6th Ed. 
 
 * We may, of course, apply /c;;^^ to this narrative, and arbitrarily reject the 
 colierlng mass of the supernatural ; but then, the credit of the narrative 
 is irreparably destroyed. You cannot maintain the cloth, and also tear 
 asunder the warp and the woof, Tlie narrative may contain elements of truth, 
 but we cannot recognize them, We have no evidence of any portion being 
 true. We shall have no right nor any preience of right to cite words from the 
 Gospels as if they were the utterances of Christ. Baboo K, C. Sen, in his 
 '■Addresses' continually cites the Gospels as being an authentic and trust- 
 worthy record 'Of what Jesus Christ really said. A very full outline of the 
 life of Jesus Christ may be gathered from his Lectiire, Jesus Christ : Europe 
 and Asia, delivered May 5th, 18(>(), and he expresses "the profoundest 
 reverence for the cluiracter of Jesus and the lofty ideal of moral truth 
 which he taught and lived" and " it was to impress his (Jesus') moral excel- 
 lence on his countrymen that he delivered that speech."(page 4), AVhat the moral 
 reason however demands, as in the precisely analogous case of M, IkMian's 
 concessions and panegyrics, is, not merely that these admissions should be 
 carried to the natural and logical consequences, but that they should have so7iie 
 cojtf/ruif;/ as related to the real evangelical Person. The strange, not to say 
 grotescjue disagreement between Baboo K. C. Sen's real mental attitude 
 to the historical characteristics of Jesus Christ and these rhetorical encomia, 
 which was disclosed in his subseciuent Lecture on Grent Men, delivered 
 Sop, 1800, has rather been aggravated by all his succeeding deliverances. 
 Thus in his last Lecture, (Juspinif/ofi, .January 25th, 187:5) we find 
 him quoting certain words as really authentic and uttered by Jesus 
 
Brahmic Dogmas. 15 
 
 And from tliis elevated but true view of the* nature of 
 tlie connexion of Miracles with the Divine Revelation of 
 
 Christ, aad inferring- from tlicra, as follows ; — '"They furnish the most 
 conclusive evidence of the impossibility of charg-ing that great prophet with 
 a proud attempt to arrogate Divinity." We ask Baboo K. C. Sen on what 
 evidence he concludes that these are the very words which Jesus Christ uttered ? 
 We would challenge him to give his reasons for quoting the words of the 
 Gospel at all as if he knew them to be trustworthy evidence of the existence 
 of a Jesus Christ, and accepting thcin as authentic reports of what Jesus 
 Clirist said, even supposing such a person did exist. Whatever be the evi- 
 dence, if it is valid, it is valid for mucli more than the passages which he 
 quotes. The substantial truth of the whole record, ordinary and miraculous 
 elements equally, rests on the same grounds. Passages cannot, honestly and 
 with any regard for the laws of historic evidence, be accepted or rejected 
 arbitrarily, according to our preconceived notions. It is simply a question of 
 objective historical fact, and a 2^f'if>)'i notions cannot avail to reverse or mo- 
 dify the course of history. ^^;;v'or/ notions are either altogether irrelevant, 
 or, if relevant, they apply to the history as a whole. 
 
 Maintaining that the rejection of the supernatural portions of the 
 memoirs of Jesus Christ as unhistorical and the acceptance of the moral 
 and spiritual parts as historically true cannot be justified by the principles of 
 sound criticism, let vis enquire further whether such a process if applied to the 
 Life of Christ, as the Brahmos seem to apply it, will present us as a residuum, 
 with a historical reality. We submit the following brief ramarks to their 
 serious and candid consideration. 
 
 The portraiture of Jesus Christ, depicted in the Gospels, is not that of a 
 character artificially delineated by the composers of the Gospels. It is the 
 combined results of the actions and of the teaching which have been ascribed 
 to him, each of which stands in the closest relation to the other. The most 
 supernatural portions of the character present us with the same moral aspects 
 as the ordinary ones. Both the supernatural and ordinary narratives are 
 indelibly stamped with the impress of the same moral character. The moral 
 teaching is most intimately connected with the supernatural element, and 
 this latter constitutes the larg'er portion of the Gospels. If these are di- 
 vorced from each other, the proportions of the character are destroyed. The 
 moral teaching grows out of the supernatural element and if the latter is 
 eliminated as false, a large portion of the other cannot be true. There re- 
 mains no solid foundation of historic fact. Again, even supposing that the 
 miraculous element could be eliminated from the narratives of the Gospel, 
 which it cannot, yet the character of the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be divested 
 of this element. The entire person and work of Jesus Himself essentially 
 belongs to the region of the supernatural. There is not such diluting or 
 retrenching, cutting or paring away of the miraculous element possible, as 
 will bring the person of Jesus Christ as it is portrayed in the Gospel, within 
 the region of the natural. This is abundantly manifest as the outcome of 
 the processes of excision which M. Eenan applied to the Gospel History. 
 He rigidly excludes the whole of the miraculous stories as unhistorical, on 
 the foregone, unproved conclusion that the miraculous as snch cannot be true. 
 When this has been done, he is still confronted with certain aspects of the 
 character of Christ and His moral teaching which admit of no natural ex- 
 planation. After all, Jesus Christ is, to all intents and purposes,a moral miracle. 
 M. Eenan practically admits, as Baboo Keshub Chunder Sen does expressly^ 
 that he was the greatest man that ever lived. If siicli a man was produced 
 in the moral atmosphere of the Judaism of the first thirty years of the first 
 century, such a person, growing up under these influences to such greatness, 
 is an exception to the moral laws of the universe, and constitutes a moral 
 miracle. It is as great a violation of one class of laws as the cure of a man 
 born blind by a word is of those of physical nature. The question, then, 
 which is proposed to the honest and thoughtful consideration of Brahmos is : — 
 Can they propound a consistent Jivmanitarian theory of the life and character 
 
16 Brahmic Dogmas. 
 
 Christian ify, and of supernatural power with the character and 
 life of Jesus Christ we are able to understand, what is other- 
 
 of Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the Gospel, aud justify their professed reverence 
 for Him ? (See Eow's JSIoral Teachmg of the New Testament, Ch. VI. from 
 ^vhich the above remarks are condensed.) 
 
 Perhaps, again, they may allege that they accept the trustworthiness of 
 the Records on precisely the same evidence as Christians do, but they differ 
 from them as to the ifitej'pretation. 
 
 'Now after striking out the word 'j)rou(r from the passage quoted above, 
 since it is an assumption of the point in dispute aud therefore unwaiTanted, we 
 can assure our Brahmo friends that the humanitarian interpretation of these 
 records cannot be established by any fair and scholarly and consistent explan- 
 ation of the whole. Putting aside the fact of the uniformity of the interpretation, 
 accepted by all branches of the Christian Church, who have scarcely one other 
 thing in common, it is conclusively established that the Divinity of Christ 
 is taught in the New Testament by the researches of scholars in Germany, 
 n'JiO are iyifdels. They looked upon the n-hole record as false, no matter for 
 what reasons, but they would have laughed to scorn the shallowness of any 
 student attempting to prove that the doctrine of Christ's Divinity was not 
 taught, nor Intended to be taught in the Gospels. The Unitarian theories of 
 Belsham and his co-adjutors are simply demolished and utterly expelled from 
 the domain of scholarly criticism. If the Brahmos do not accejDt this state- 
 ment, let them produce for us a revised edition of the Unitarian Translation, 
 and we shall have a second decisive proof of the untenableness of their posi- 
 tion. In the present advanced stage of Biblical criticism we may afford to 
 smile at or pity Baboo K. C. Sen's complacent dogmatism in asserting the 
 inqiosaihiUty of cliarging Jesus Christ with claiming Divinity. 
 
 The range of discussion with reference to the Historic reality of the 
 Gospels lias been gi'catly narrowed in modern times, and mainly, if not al- 
 together, through the antagonism of antichristian scholars. The succession of 
 antichristian advocates have done " yeomans service" to the cause of Truth, 
 although, like Nebuchadnezzar, " they meant not so neither did their heart 
 think so. (Is.X,7). The ribaldry of Voltaire was refuted by the Rationalists, the 
 Rationalistic Theory was eft'ectually demolished aud ridiculed by Dr. Strauss, 
 and his mythic theory is again formally and somewhat indignantly rejected 
 by M. Rcnan, who demands the Historic licality of the person of Christ. 
 
 He himself, however, violates the established chronology of Jesus' Life, 
 and while excvsinr/, really accnses Him of wilful and conscious imposture. 
 (Sec I. Taylor's Restoration of Belief, p. 36.5. Hutton's Essays. Vol. I. Ch. 
 VIII. M'Cosh's Christianity and Positivism. Ch. VIII. p. 220 &c.) As appears 
 in the record of the progress of many physical science, we are thus gra- 
 dually and certainly approximating by the method of exhaustions, to the trne 
 and sinyle issue, viz., Atheism or Christianity. 
 
 The two questions, of the JIi.s-toric Jteality of Christianity as of Divine ori- 
 gin, and of the Tn.y)iration of the canonical books, are separable, and in this 
 discussion of the solution of the historical problem of Christianity should bo 
 separated. The former (piestion is logically prior. We cannot infer the historic 
 truth of the Gospel from the alleged and assuuied inspiration of the books 
 which bring it to our knowledge. The discussion of the various theories 
 of Insj)ijTition is not by any means unimportant in its place, but when 
 the sul.)stantial truth of the orthodox theory of Christianity as a historic 
 fact is im]mgued, and a Humanitarian Theory is substituted, the inspiration of 
 the records must be waived l)y the Christian advocate as not first in the order 
 of enquiry and importance, and as not. Ijcing essentially connected with what 
 is really a question of matter of fact, to be determined liy the application of the 
 Laws of Historical Criticism, which are resorted to in all similar cases. It is dis- 
 helievers, and not })elievers, who need the ins|)irati()n of these books to bolster up 
 their case. It is they who always lay stress upon {\\vJ/i.y>iration of theDocuments, 
 and on that ground adduce minute discrepancies, <?.^. the genealogies of Matthew 
 aud Lvke. which may or may not affect our view of the fact of Inspiration, 
 
Bvalunic Dogmas. IT 
 
 wise on tlie establisliod principles of liuman nature, simply 
 inexplicable, viz., the (jeneral sobriety of tone wliich characterizes 
 the New Testament Narrative, and, along with that, the pa licit j/ 
 of references to miracles in the apostolic Epistles. Excepting 
 the resurrection of Jesus Christ, * whicli is asserted or implied 
 in e^'^ry book, there are as many us fox rteen hooks out of the 
 whole number whicli constitute the Canon of the New Testa- 
 ment, which, as containing no allusion to miraculous elements, 
 may be designated iioii-siqjernatHral. This fact, which has not 
 been adequately recognized, shews of itself that the writers were 
 not men of heated imagination, unthinking enthusiasts, who 
 lived in a wonder- world, and were blind to the dull and sober 
 realities of this practical life. A careful study of the books 
 from this point of view only will disclose that there are re- 
 ferences to miivacles, but only as there has been the perform- 
 ance of miracles, when there is sufficient cause ; and when these 
 references are made, they are made, with a quiet tranquil 
 assurance, as to well-known notorious occurrences, and ^the 
 writer immediately passes on to earnest moral and religious 
 admonitions bearing on the predominant end, — ^practical spi- 
 ritual religion, f 
 
 but wliicli have veiy little influence indeed upon the general liistorical 
 accuracy oit\\Q records. (Vide Newman's Phase's of Faith, passhn). In the 
 discussion with Humanitarians, we abandon, as non-essential, the doctrine 
 of Inspiration, and challenge them to meet the general historical argument for 
 the substantial truth of the orthodox theory of Christianity. If the Christian 
 Records are generally trustworthy and the historical testimony reliable, (and 
 if it is not, we may give up all belief in any history), the facts substantiated 
 are not upset by the allegation of minute difficulties at specific points or 
 ambiguities in the documents. These may be examined, when and after the 
 main question has been settled ; — 7iot before. 
 
 * The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from death is the corner-stone and 
 key-stone of the Christian Religion ; upon the assumption that this was a 
 real historical fact Christianity is based and built. Now if any consistent 
 theory can be devised, which harmonizes mth the established facts of history, 
 which requires not a flagrant violation of the established laws of human 
 nature, which does adequately and harmoniously account for the phenomena 
 of Christianity, and yet assumes that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from 
 the dead did not occur, was not a fact but a fiction ; Christianity cannot sur- 
 vive. Its disappearance from the face of the earth may be a matter of time, 
 perhaps, but its life is doomed. Let then some of our disbelieving, subtle, 
 learned Bengalis attempt the overthrow of Christianity. We promise them 
 they will succeed ; if they can devise such a theory as will satisfy the re- 
 quirements we have mentioned. Christianity has ever courted enquiry, in 
 every generation it has been subjected to sifting enquiry by learned, acute and 
 hostile minds, and yet Jesus Christ's dominion is now the greatest, extensively 
 and intensively, in the world. What is impracticable and irresistible is 
 voluntary, stolid, callous indifference, — but it is a terrible condition for those to 
 be in who are guilty of it. 
 
 f We have only cursorily alluded to this noteworthy and evidential feature 
 of the New Testament Records ; but those who wish to see the proof of it, in 
 elaborate and illustrative detail, in a separate examination with reference to 
 these points only of the varied treatises which constitute the inspired 
 
18 Brahmic Dogmas. 
 
 There is another distinguishing feature of Mii-acles as 
 connected with Clmstianity, which even at the risk of being 
 tedious, we cannot forbear alluding to. We have abeady point- 
 ed out, and the fact itself is sufficiently obvious, that all the 
 great religions which have dominated the human race, have 
 had miraculous elements connected with them. So far, on this 
 surface view, Chi'istianity is identical with, for instance, Hin- 
 duism and Traditional Mahomedanism ; but a closer examina- 
 tion will reveal a radical snidfaiidafnoifal difference. Mii'acles, 
 along with other evidence in consistenctj irith them, were, in the 
 origin, proofs upon which the claims of Christianity to men's 
 assent were based. Miracles were, as it has been said, the 
 great bells of the universe, which were rung to call attention 
 to the doctrine incidcated, but, more than that, they were the 
 credentials to which the Author of Chiistianity appealed in 
 attestation of his authority and divine commission. Whether 
 these mu-acles were realities or impositions is a question which 
 we may legitimately and ought to investigate, but this fact 
 cannot be denied, that a jjvofession of ability to work miracles 
 and the acceptance of this profession as real, were main elements 
 of the whole cause of the spread of Christianity. It is not 
 contended that these mii'acles are not also vehicles of spiritual 
 teaching, but it is contended that they were prominently at 
 the commencement evidences, submitted to disbelievers, to gain 
 a hearing and generate conviction. 
 
 Now we maintain that in this respect Christianity stands 
 alone. Nothing of this character can be, with historic truth, 
 alleged of any other religion. The miracles of Hinduism 
 are part of the religion believed ; they are accepted because 
 of a prior belief in the religion. The Hindu miracles 
 do not support the Hindu Religion but the Hindu religion 
 supports them. Hindus believe in Hindu mii^acles because 
 they are Hindus to begin with. In the same way, the mira- 
 cles attributed to Mahommed in the Mahomedan Tradi- 
 tions are the work of Mahommedan believers. * As soon as 
 
 oaiion, arc referred to I. Taylor's Restoration of Belief, pp. 101-211. We hearti- 
 ly recommend this book to those educated Kiudus wlio imagine there is nothing 
 in the historical argwnent for the Divine origin of Christianity. 
 
 * "Mahometanism, indeed, cstahlishcd itself in the Avorld without even any 
 pretence on the part of its founder to miraculous powers. But the triumph of 
 Mahometanism over human belief, striking as it has been, cannot blind us 
 to the fact that the belief of the Mahometan is in its very principle irrational, 
 because he accepts Mahomet's supcrnatui-al account of himself, as the con- 
 ductor of anew dispensation, upon Mahomcfs own assertion sim])ly joined to 
 his success. But this belief is in its very form irrational, and Avhat ever may 
 be The ai)parent present strcngtli and proirptH-.ts of Mahometanism, this defect 
 must cling to its very foundation, with this corollary attaching to it, viz., that 
 if the law of reason is allowed to work itself out in the history of human 
 religion?, the ultimate dissolution of the Mahometan fabric of belief is 
 
Brahmic Dogmas. J 9 
 
 both Hindu and Mahommedan miracles are subjected to the 
 severe test of historical criticism, to which the Christian miracles 
 have all along been subjected, they fall to the ground. Both 
 these series of miracles viz ; Hindu and Mahomedan, stand on 
 the same foundation, and are the product of similar facts and 
 tendencies of the human mind. It is because there is in the 
 human sonl a dee}) ineradicable conviction that mu*acles are the 
 authentic and hcconiing adjimcts and credentials of any religion 
 claiming to he of Divine Origin that these miracles have been 
 advanced and accepted. "Were the Brahmic interpretation of 
 the " self-evident convictions" of the human mind correct, the 
 miracles, which Mahomed himself disclaimed, could never have 
 been invented by his followers to do him honor. 
 
 On the whole, as Brahmos themselves exhibit no facts in 
 proofs of their allegation, so also, against them, we allege, 
 that world-wide facts in every age, not only disprove it, but 
 also conclusively shew that the possibilitg of miracles is "a 
 fundamental and self-evident conviction of the human mind." 
 
 certain, because its very existence is an oflEence against that law. But 
 the belief, . of the Christian, at all events, is in form, a rational 
 belief, which the Mahometan's is not ; because the Christian believes in a 
 supernatural dispensation, upon the proper evidence of such a dispensation, 
 viz. the miraculous. Antecedently, indeed, to all examination in the par- 
 ticulars of the Christian evidence, Christianity is the only religion in the 
 world which professes to possess a body of direct external evidence, to its 
 having come from Grod. Mahometanisrn avows the want of this ; and the 
 pretensions of other religions to it are mockery. One religion alone produces 
 a body of testimony —testimony doubtless open to criticism — but still solid, 
 authentic, contemporaneous testimony, to miracles — a body of evidence 
 which makes a stand, and upholds with a natural and genuine strength 
 certain facts. 
 
 And in this distinction alone between Mahometanism and Christianity, 
 we see a difEerent estimate of the claims of reason, lying at the foundation 
 of these two religions and entertained by their respective founders. Doubtless 
 the founder of Mahometanism could have contrived false miracles had he 
 chosen, but the fact that he did not consider miraculous evidence at all 
 wanted to attest a supernatural dispensation, but that his word 
 was enough, shews an utterly barbarous idea of evidence and a total 
 miscalculation of the claims of reason which unfits his religion for the 
 acceptance of an enlightened age and people ; whereas the Gospel is adapted 
 to perpetuity for this cause especially, with others, that it was founded upon 
 a true calculation, and a foresight of the permanent need of evidence ; 
 our Lord admitting the inadequacy of His own mere word, and the ne- 
 cessity of a rational guarantee to his revelation of His own nature and 
 commission, "If I had not done among them the works that none among 
 them works that none other man did, they had not had sin ;" " The works 
 that I do bear witness of Me, that the Father hath sent me." Mozley, Ofi 
 Miracles p. 24. 
 
 Calutta, 
 
 S. D. 
 July 1873. 
 
1 
 
 nlf I'l?" ^''?"°'"^' Semmar^-Speer Libfar, 
 
 012 01152 6821 
 
 ENGLISH BOOKS AND TRACTS FOB SALE 
 ^t \0 HARE STREET. CALCUTTA. - 
 
 -0- 
 
 Faith and Victory, by Mrs. Mullens 
 
 Brahmic Intuition, by the Rev. S. Dyson 
 
 Character of Christ, an Evidence of His Divi- 
 nity, &c. by the Rev. E. Storrow 
 
 Conflict of Christianity and Paganism, by Dr. 
 Murray Mitchell 
 
 Doctrine of the Holy Trinity in Unity, 
 by the Venerable Archdeacon Pratt 
 
 Authenticity of the Old Testament and of 
 
 tlie Gospel History, by the Rev. C. B. Lewis 
 
 Expulsive Power of a New Affection, by the 
 Rev. Dr. Chalmers 
 
 Hall's Refutation of Hindu Philosophy 
 
 Letters on the Evidence of Christianity, by 
 Philalethes, second edition, half bound 
 
 On the spirit in which Religious Enquiries 
 should be prosecuted 
 
 Paley's Morality of the Gospel 
 
 Prayer ; its Practicability, Utility and Nature 
 by the Rev. J. Vaughan 
 
 Prize Essay on Vedantism, &c., by the Rev. J. 
 Mullens, D. D. 
 
 The Atonement, by the Rev. J, Wenger D. D. 
 
 True Revelation, by the Rev. S. Dyson 
 
 Vaughan on Fulfilled Prophecy, Illustrated 
 
 Verification of Scripture History, by the Rev. M. A. 
 Sherring M. A. 
 
 Wliat think ye of Christ ? by the Rev. 
 J. Vaughan 
 
 Brahmic Dogmas, by Rev. S. Dyson, Part I. 
 
 Do. Do. Part II. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (» 
 
 '6 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 ij 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Phot 
 
 omount 
 
 am 
 
 Bind 
 
 phlet 
 
 er 
 
 t-i«ylord Bros., Inc. 
 
 Mak 
 
 ers 
 
 ^yiacuse, N.Y 
 
 Pat. No. 877188 
 
k.^