THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 109 
specially directs itself to two points, namely, were the witnesses 
deceivers ? and were they deceived? Firstly, were the witnesses 
to the alleged events deceivers? This is negatived by then 
character. Some of them were learned, others were “ unlearned 
and ignorant men”; but their religion had imbued them all with 
that strong love of truth which they taught. Babbage has 
shown that the improbability of the witness of five hundred* 
persons being false is enormous, even though the truthfulness 
of each was but moderate.t It is, besides, preposterous to 
suppose that a band of liars joined together to narrate a tissue 
of falsehoods most opposed to the feelings and prejudices of 
both rulers and people, that they should persist in teaching 
theset falsehoods at the cost of their own shame and disgrace 
and suffering and death, and that none of their many determined 
and able enemies should succeed in exposing any of their 
statements. ‘The idea appears too absurd for refutation, and (so 
far as Iam aware) the theory of imposture is not maintained, 
as a serious proposition by any objector in our time. 
Secondly, were the witnesses deceived? Were they the 
victims of enthusiasm and hallucination? This is negatived by 
the facts that they themselves were in many cases incredulous 
and slow to believe, that their conduct was marked by great 
sobriety, that the mention of the miracle in the course of the 
narrative comes in quite simply just like any other known fact,— 
there is no touch of sensationalism, there is not a trace of 
over-colouring, there is an entire absence of exaggeration. And 
it should be borne in mind that the testimony appealed to for 
the truth of the miracle connects itself with more than one of 
the senses —not with sight only, but also with hearing and 
with touch; and very sober and careful details are given in 
regard to place, time, and circumstance. These facts do not 
tally with the theory of hallucination. Nor would hallucination 
have continued unimpaired through many years of persecution 
and suffering—the faney would have worn away,—nor would 
relentless enemies, of whom there was no lack, have failed to 
expose the folly. The Lord’s Resurrection was believed, on the 
day of Pentecost, by three thousand Jews, within a very short 
time after the event occurred, and in the very place where it 
occurred. Peter’s hearers “could visit the sepulchre, cross- 
uw 1 (Oop aaaiae 
+ z.e., if each told the truth in ten statements out of eleven. 
t Certainly, they would not have mentioned the Lord’s prophecy of 
His Resurrection, had that Resurrection not taken place. 
