CHAPTER XIX. THAT THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES ARE PROBABLY TRUE. (_A._) THEIR CREDIBILITY. They present few difficulties; the casting out of evil spirits. (_B._) THEIR TRUTHFULNESS. (1.) General marks of truthfulness. (2.) Special marks of truthfulness. (_C._) THEIR PUBLICITY. (1.) They occurred in public. (2.) They were publicly appealed to. (3.) They were never disputed. (4.) The silence of classical writers. (_D._) CONCLUSION. Futile attempts to explain them away, the subject of modern miracles. Having discussed in the last two chapters the Resurrection of Christ, we pass on now to the other New Testament miracles, and will consider in turn their _credibility_, their _truthfulness_, and their _publicity_. (_A._) THEIR CREDIBILITY. Now with one exception, the casting out of evil spirits, the miracles present scarcely any difficulty provided miracles at all are credible, which we have already admitted. Most of them, especially those of healing, were very suitable from a moral point of view, while that they were meant to confirm Christ's teaching and claims is beyond dispute. Not only do all the Evangelists declare this, but Christ Himself though He refused to work a miracle when challenged to do so--He would not work one _to order_, as we might say--yet appealed to His _public_ miracles in the most emphatic manner. Thus, when St. John the Baptist sent messengers to inquire whether He was the Messiah, His only answer was, 'Go your way, and tell John the things which ye do hear and see; the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up,'[330] etc. And this is specially important because Christians would not have _invented_ an incident which shows that Christ's own messenger had (apparently) lost faith in Him. Yet it is not easy to separate his question from the reply which it received; while if we admit that Christ gave this reply, it seems to settle the question as to His working miracles. [Footnote 330: Matt. 11. 4; Luke 7. 22; see also Mark 2. 10; John 5. 36.] And He afterwards condemned Chorazin, and other cities, in the strongest terms, because, although He had done so many miracles there, they had not repented; which again shows both the publicity of the miracles, and their intended evidential value.[331] And this passage also is very important, since its genuineness is confirmed by the fact that not a single miracle is recorded as having been worked at Chorazin. Yet, if the Evangelists (or anyone else) had invented the saying, they would surely have invented some miracles there to justify it. If on the other hand, they did not invent it, and the words were actually spoken by Christ, is it conceivable that He should have blamed these cities for not believing on Him in spite of His miracles, if He had done no miracles?