AjW^'-^^ -^ M^ THE HULSEAN LECT BOUGHT WITH THK INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF Henrg W. Sage 189X AJtif^ /a/y/g;; Cornell University Library BT 97.L99 The place of miracles in religion / 3 1924 007 941 309 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924007941309 THE PLACE MIRACLES IN RELIGION THE PLACE OF MIRACLES IN RELIGION THE HULSEAN LECTURES FOR 1891 BY THE RIGHT REV. THE HON. A. T. LYTTELTON, D.D. BISHOP OF SOUTHAMPTON LONDON JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET 1899 9 IT K. ^auS"! 1 O;cfot& HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY PREFACE The following lectures were in substance delivered in 1891 as the Hulsean Lectures for that year. I have withheld them from publica- tion in the hope that I might be able to expand them, so as to make them more worthy of the subject, of which they give httle more than a sketch. The pressure of other duties has made this impossible, and I have had to con- tent myself with rewriting a considerable part of the book and making a few necessary additions and corrections. The lectures are now offered as a very slight contribution to the history of Christian Evidence, a subject which deserves fuller treatment than, so far as my knowledge extends, it has yet received. A. S. The Castle House, Petersfield, March i8, 1899. CONTENTS PAGE I. Miracles in the Old Testament . , 1-37 Note on the Jewish Apocryphal Books 38-41 11. Miracles in the New Testament . 42-80 III. Miracles in the Early Church . . 81-118 IV. Miracles in Relation TO Modern Thought i 19-150 THE PLACE OF MIRACLES IN RELIGION Miracles in the Old Testament The object of these lectures is mainly histori- cal. Much has been written on the metaphysical and scientific questions connected with miracles, and on the credibility and critical character of the books which record them, and I do not propose to go over again this well-trodden ground except at the conclusion of this special investigation, when I shall attempt to point out its bearings on the whole controversy. Apart from these topics, there is a question which is often overlooked or treated only incidentally, and which is important enough to demand sepa- rate and detailed consideration. What place, as a matter of fact, did the Biblical miracles take B 2 Miracles in the Old Testament in the religious consciousness of those who stood nearest to them? In attempting to answer this question we shall have to consider two main topics ; first, the manner in which the miracles recorded in the Bible are said to have occurred, their number and their distribution over the whole period covered by the history ; and in the second place, the manner in which they were regarded and appealed to by the Jews and the early Christians. This second topic is the chief object of our investigation, but the first inquiry is necessary, though subordinate, to it. For we cannot appreciate the manner in which certain phenomena are regarded, till we know something of the mode of their occur- rence, the relation in which they stand to other historical phenomena. Before realizing the place of miracles in religion, we must realize their place in the history on which the Christian religion is based. If miraculous phenomena were few and insignificant, little could be in- ferred from the infrequency or the incidental character of the references to them ; but if they are said to have occurred frequently, and on a vast and striking scale, their subordinate place, as miracles, in the religious consciousness of the Jews and the early Christians has an obviously The enquiry historical important bearing on the whole subject of Christian evidences. For though the inquiry is chiefly historical, it has a dogmatic and specu- lative aspect. The place which miracles occu- pied in the religious consciousness of those among whom they were wrought, and of those who came immediately after them, is surely the place they were intended to occupy, and if later Christian thought has taken a different view of miracles from that of earlier ages the question arises whether it would not be well for us to return to the more primitive position. To that question the last lecture will be mainly devoted. The inquiry then is chiefly historical; but before entering upon it there are certain pre- liminary definitions and discussions which must be undertaken. First we must make clear the sense in which the word miracle is here employed. A strictly logical definition would lead us into philosophical discussions which are alien to our present purpose. It is enough to say in general terms that the word will here be used in the sense of occasional visible acts of power, beyond human experience to account for or human faculties to accomplish, though sometimes wrought through human agency; and these acts are impressed with the character of righteous- Miracles in the Old Testament ness, and are therefore in accordance with the general Hnes of God's moral government of the world. There are of course, besides the defini- nition, several important preliminary questions which would have to be discussed in any com- plete rationale of miracles : but as the subject is here limited we may assume them and pass them by. Thus we may assume the general historical accuracy of the Scriptural records ; in other words, we assume that the events described really occurred, although they were miraculous ^. Further, we may assume that, for the most part, they were miraculous. This is of course a debateable point. It is often urged that many, some would say most, of the events usually considered as miraculous were really normal phenomena, explicable by laws which are now known, though at that time unknown. It is urged, again, that some of the miraculous ^ It might be said that I am here begging the whole question, in assuming the authenticity of the miraculous records. Criticismj in the opinion of many, has proved that all these stories of miracles are the growth of later ages, and has therefore cut away the ground on which my investigation rests. This is not so. Criticism, whatever it has proved, has not proved that the Jews did not believe in the miraculous narratives of their own sacred books, and if they believed them I am entitled to ask, What place did their belief occupy in their religious consciousness ? That, and not the authenticity of the records, is the subject of this investiga- tion. The victory at Beth-horon incidents were not intended to be taken as historical facts, but were poetical embellishments of the narrative, and are to be understood meta- phorically or symbolically. Now it seems clear that both these positions may, to some extent, be accepted by the firmest believer in the inspira- tion of the Bible and in the direct intervention of God in human affairs, for they are really matters of interpretation. They do not affect the veracity or the good faith of the narrator, but they are questions as to what he actually meant to narrate. To take the second point first. It has usually been held, for instance, that an actual historical event is narrated in the passage which speaks of the sun standing still during Joshua's victory at Beth-horon\ But a study of the form in which the description is cast shows clearly, as I cannot but think, that it is a fragment of poetry inserted in the narrative 2, and is therefore no more intended to be taken as literal history than such passages as * the stars in their courses fought against Sisera ^,' or *the mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like young sheep *,' But if so, we are ^ Joshua X. 12, 13. ^ For similar fragments see Num. xxi. 17, 18, 27-30. " Judges V. 20. * Ps. cxiv. 4. 6 Miracles m the Old Testament justified in passing over the alleged miracle, on the ground, not that it is in itself more incredible than others, or that miracles do not occur, but that in this particular instance no miracle is intended by the narrator. There may, of course, be other cases to which the same explanation applies ; it is a question of interpretation, and each case must be decided on its own merits. Or, to go back to the first of the two positions referred to, it may be true that several incidents, which to the contemporary witnesses and to the Old Testament writers seemed to be miraculous, can now be explained by reference to known causes. Here also we have a question of inter- pretation, not however this time of the intention of the narrator, but of the actual fact which he narrates. We cast no doubt on the good faith of the writer of Exodus if, for example, we account for the passage of the Red Sea by normal causes : the fact remains the same though we interpret it differently \ ^ I may here anticipate somewhat the course of my argument to meet a difficulty which will occur to some at this point. It may be said that though the good faith of the narrator is not questioned, the view here taken denies implicitly the inspiration of passages in which the crossing of the Red Sea is claimed as a miraculous proof of God's special favour to Israel. I shall try to show that though constantly referred to as a proof of God's favour, its miraculous character is not appealed to. Whether the Psalmists, The miraculous and the supernatural 7 It seems clear, however, that after all such deductions have been made, there remains in the Old Testament a considerable number of miracles in the strictest sense of the word. Criticism may fairly resolve some of the narra- tives into poetry, rationalism may rightly assign causes for some events which were formerly inexplicable; but after all there is left a large element of the truly miraculous in the Old Testament history. To some minds this is a conclusive proof that the Old Testament is historically untrustworthy : but to discuss the ground on which this conclusion rests, the ante- cedent incredibility of miracles, is not within the scope of our present subject. I assume, therefore, that miracles actually occurred, and that for the most part those that are regarded as miracles by the writers really were miracles ; that is, they were events beyond any power within our normal experience to accomplish. There remains to be considered a distinction which is of vital importance to our subject, and especially to that of this first lecture^ the dis- tinction, namely, between miraculous events, as for instance, believed it to be a miracle or not, is immaterialj since they do not use it as a miracle, i.e. as a supernatural evidence of the Divine Presence. 8 Miracles in the Old Testament I have defined them, and the supernatural ^ gene- rally. It is of the essence of true religion to have a firm belief in the constant presence and agency of God, to see His Hand in all that happens in the world, to trace the fulfilment of His purposes in the course of history, the action of His love and providence in the movements of external nature. This sense of the Divine government of the world is often expressed in language which seems to ignore any secondary causes whatever, and to contemplate God as the sole and immediate cause of all mundane events. I am not now concerned with the accuracy or inaccuracy of such language ; I only wish to mark the distinction between this conception of Divine action and that involved in miracles. Belief in a supernatural Providence — as for want of a better term I must call it — is not at all identical with a belief in miracles. A constantly recurring miracle, or a standing miracle, is, to speak strictly, a contradiction in terms; but the Divine agency, as the religious mind conceives of it, is continuous. When our Lord declared * My Father worketh even until nowV He ^ I use the word ' supernatural* as a convenient expression for what is meant, though I am fully conscious of its vague and even misleading character. ^ John v. 17. God^s continuous government 9 would not be understood by any thoughtful mind to mean that there had been a ceaseless succession of miracles since the creation, for if ceaseless they would not be miraculous, but that God's power has been continuously put forth to sustain the universe which it was once put forth to create. This behef in God's contin- uous government of the world is what I mean by belief in the supernatural generally, and it is very important to keep it distinct from belief in the miraculous. For the supernatural, in this sense, neither affords the religious evidence which miracles afford to those who believe in them, nor interposes the obstacle to faith which miracles put in the way of those who disbelieve them. The conviction that God constantly acts upon the course of events, that He plans and directs and works whatever happens, is itself rehgion, but it is not a proof of rehgion or of revelation. And on the other hand it does not constitute a difficulty in religion. It contradicts no scien- tific facts; it is consistent with every detail of modern discoveries. The ground on which a sceptic urges that the necessity of believing in the occurrence of certain miracles is to him an argument against Christianity is that miracles go counter to experience ; however c lo Miracles tn the Old Testament this may be, the same could not be said of the belief in God's continuous government of the world, for the very reason that it is continuous and normal, and therefore part of our experi- ence, as the religious mind interprets it. But in spite of this obvious distinction be- tween a belief in the general action of Divine providence and a belief in miracles, the two are very easily confused. For a belief in the direct action of God leads naturally to language which gives the impression of the frequent occurrence of miraculous events : the whole atmosphere of history becomes charged with the supernatural, and every incident seems, in the narrating, to be a special miracle. This confusion is particularly likely to occur in studying the history of the Jewish race, as recorded in the Old Testament. For it may be confidently asserted that no race has had such a constant sense of God's presence and action as the Hebrew race. The Old Testa- ment is the most intensely supernatural book in all literature, or more accurately, the book which is most indifferent to the distinction be- tween the natural and the supernatural^- From ^ Cf. Coleridge, who speaks of " the habit, universal with the Hebrew doctors, of referring all excellent or extraordinary things to the great First Cause, without mention of the proximate and Jewish sense of Divine providence 1 1 beginning to end everything is ascribed to the direct interposition of Divine providence in the affairs of the chosen people. The whole nar- rative of the Creation, ignoring as it does all secondary causes, is intended to concentrate the mind on the immediate creative energy of the Almighty. And when in later times prophet or psalmist or historian looked back to the begin- ning of things, or around him at the course of the external world, it was still God and God alone that he saw behind the transparent veils of time and space ^. ' I am the Lord, that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone ; that spreadeth abroad the earth ; who is with Me^?' In such utterances as this there is clearly nothing inconsistent with the strictest scientific view of nature and natural laws, nothing logically involving a belief in instrumental causes — a striking illustration of which may be obtained by comparing the narratives of the same events in the Psalms and in the historical books ... the distinction of the providential and the fniraculous did not enter into their forms of thinking — at all events not into their mode of conveying their thoughts." Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, Letter II, quoted by Sayce, Higher Criticism. Preface to 3rd edition. ^ ' Omnia quae naturaliter fiunt Deus facere diciturqui naturam et facit.' Grotius in Jonah iv. 7, quoted in Church Quarterly Rev. xvii. 336. ^ Isa. xliv. 24. 12 Miracles in the Old Testament miraculous interposition. The Jewish language might be used by a student of nature who denied any interference with the laws of the universe, any interruption or suspension of their unvarying sequence. The same tendency is shown in the Jewish history, whether the events to be recorded are battles or legislation or measures of administra- tion. The plans of generals like Moses and Joshua, Gideon, Barak, and David, are ascribed to the direct inspiration of the Lord. If, for instance, we take into account the constant characteristics of the Jewish mind, it is impos- sible to say whether the directions as to the capture of Ai were conceived by the historian as actually given to Joshua by the voice of God, or as put into the mind of the chosen leader in a manner which a less religious writer would have ascribed to the instinct of mihtary skill. And just as the plan of battle came from God, so the results of the battles, the victories of the chosen race, are likewise ascribed to the direct interposition of the Almighty. ' The Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand^*; 'He smote many nations, and slew mighty kings ; Sihon king of the Amorites, and ^ Joshua xxi. 44. The mode of inspiration 13 Og king of Bashan ^' It is not necessary, from these and similar expressions, to infer that the Canaanites were conquered by visible and miraculous acts of Divine power; indeed, we know from the history that, except in a few specified cases, the enemies of the Israelites were defeated by apparently natural means; behind which, however, the historian and the psalmist saw the Hand of God, as he saw It behind the progress of the seasons and the gradual formation of the universe. Nor, again, are we compelled to beheve that, when the elaborate system of the ceremonial law is intro- duced by the words 'the Lord said unto Moses,' any actually spoken words are intended, or any transaction which can strictly be called miraculous. Moses was an inspired lawgiver, just as Joshua and Gideon were inspired leaders in war; but the mode of inspiration, the means by which the Divine providence put into their minds to plan battles and to frame laws in accordance with His purposes— this is hidden from us. The same is true of the prophets. The visions and messages which they saw and heard were, as Origen long ago taught^, seen and heard spiritually. There was no visible ^ Ps. cxxxv. 10, II. ^ C Celsum, i. 48, cf, 66. 14 Miracles in the Old Testament opening of the heavens, or audible voice, or tangible and material roll of a book, or coal from the altar, in the wonderful visions from which the prophets drew their inspiration. The whole is spiritual, subjective, as we should now say, though none the less real. When the historian tells us that * the word of the Lord came ' to a prophet, it is doubtful, indeed, whether he conceived it as an audible word or as a secret inspiration ^ : but it is surely not very important. Whether miracles be regarded as proofs of a revelation, or as a reason for rejecting it, there is no ground for treating the mode of inspiration, in such cases as these, as miraculous ; though the phrase used is- undoubtedly an indication of the overpower- ing Jewish consciousness of God's immediate agency. It may be said that we thus place Israel merely on a level with other nations, and reduce the sacred history to one instance among many of the general providence of God. No doubt many modern students of the Bible regard it in this way, but the view here taken by no means forces us to do so. In the first place, we ^ Cf. Sanday's Bampton Lectures, p. 146: 'We are not called upon to formulate a theory, for which the data are perhaps insufficient, as to the exact mode in which God conveyed His will to the prophets/ God^s dealings with Israel 15 have to remember that, though much that is at first sight miraculous may be otherwise explained, there remains a large element of miracle in the Jewish history which, to any one who accepts it, distinguishes that history from other national records. In the second place, the pecuhar character of the Divine dealings with Israel is not shown only or even chiefly in those incidents which we call miracles, but in the whole course of the history, and in the religious consciousness of the race. That Israel was 'a peculiar people,' 'chosen* by the Lord 'for His pecuhar treasure^/ is proved by the purpose impressed upon the events of Jewish history, by the circumstances which gradually separated them from other kindred races, by the destiny for which they were reserved, and above all by the unique character of their religious faith. We know that the Jews were the chosen race, not because wonders occurred during the course of their history, but because they were, as a matter of fact, singled out from other nations, trained and prepared for a great purpose, which was realized with ever-increasing clearness as the centuries passed, and fortified by a unique apprehension, which went 'from ^ Ps. cxxxv. 4. i6 Miracles in the Old Testament strength to strength ' as their experience grew of the true nature and character of God. Whether, in short, we consider the inspiration or the history of Israel, we are justified in regarding them as ' a pecuHar people.' ' He hath not dealt so with any nation : neither have the heathen knowledge of His laws^/ But direct and providential and peculiar as was the religious experience of the Jews, there is nothing in the record to show that the selection or the guidance or the inspiration waS; as a rule, accomplished by means strictly speaking miraculous. I have dwelt on this distinction, which when stated may seem no doubt obvious enough, partly because it is nevertheless often over- looked, but chiefly because of its bearing on our main subject. For the misconception of the Jewish mode of thought has led to the common view that the Old Testament is from beginning to end a miraculous history, and that to the Jew miracle constituted almost the whole of religion. What I have called the general atmosphere of the supernatural has produced an impression of continual miracles. From such an impression it is easy to go a step further and assume that ^ Ps. cxivii. 2o. Miracles rare in the O, T. 17 these miraculous events occurred without any purpose or plan, and thus the Old Testament becomes to many readers a record full of miracles scattered, in an aimless and perplexing way, over the whole course of Jewish history. From this point a mind imbued with modern modes of thought passes rapidly to the con- clusion that this series of purposeless wonders is due to the mythopoeic tendencies which were no less, or even more strongly marked in the Jewish than in other early religions. But a more accurate study of the Old Testament record will show the fallacy of this view. God is everywhere present in the history of Israel ; but miracles are strikingly rare. The mythopoeic tendency offers a very tempting explanation of what are assumed to be the facts ; the real objection to it, from a purely critical point of view, is that, if it existed, it acted so seldom and so fitfully. Before proceeding to examine the mode in which miracles occurred in Old Testament times, it should be noticed that the distinction here drawn, though to us important because of the use which modern criticism and modern apology have alike made of miracles, did not, so far as we can judge, occur to the Jewish D t8 Miracles in the Old Testament mind, at least during the period covered by the canonical writings of the Old Testament ^. We shall see how indiscriminately the writers class what we should call miracles with events in which we discern only the normal working of natural forces. At the most the Hebrew his- torian or prophet regarded miracles as only the emergence into sensible experience of that Divine force which was all along, though in- visibly, controlhng the course of nature. Here and there it comes to the surface in some especially striking display, but its energy is only apparently, not really intermittent. This makes it very difficult for us, with our wholly modern ideas of natural law and uniformity, to understand the Old Testament treatment of miracles. The Hebrew had, to say the least, a very defective conception of natural law, and all events ahke, miraculous and normal, were to him the works of God; and therefore, except in the comparatively rare cases of ' signs ' given for a special purpose, he did not pause to inquire whether they were exceptional or not. Thus our inquiry is based on assumptions which the Jew did not make, and indeed could ^ To the Apocryphal books, which contain the germs different conception of nature, I shall refer later. Two groups of miracles 19 not have understood ; we are examining into the occurrence of a class of phenomena which we are compelled to distinguish from other phenomena, but which he could not distinguish. This makes it legitimate and even necessary for us, though we grant the perfect good faith of the narrators, to criticize and in some cases to rationalize their apparently miraculous narra- tives, and to ascribe them to normal causes. The question had no interest to the Jew, and therefore he made no effort to explain what we cannot help explaining by reference to the ordinary forces of nature. But, as I have already said, it seems clear that such explana- tions will not cover all the alleged Old Testament miracles, and it is in consequence necessary to point out, in a brief summary, what are the actual incidents which must be recognized as miracles. They are, as has often been pointed out, mostly included in two great groups, and apart from these groups there are remarkably few certainly miraculous incidents. The inquiry into the historical miracles of the Old Testa- ment must begin where Bible history begins, with the Call of Abraham. Before that event, even if any miracles in the strict sense are included in what have been aptly called * the 20 Miracles in the Old Testament prehistoric traditions ^ ' of the early part of Genesis, it is, to say the least, very doubtful whether we are intended to take them as literal fact. But though history begins with Abraham, miracles do not. If we leave aside, for reasons already discussed, visions and messages and indications of God's direct guidance and inspira- tion, we find no miracle recorded in the Bible till we come to the time of Moses ^, and to that momentous epoch in the life of the chosen race when God revealed Himself to Israel by a new Name, and, by the hand of His appointed messenger Moses, delivered them from their Egyptian bondage. The incidents connected with the Exodus, including those of the wilder- ness and the conquest of Canaan, form the first great group of miracles. The other is of course the remarkable series of wonders that centre round the great prophetical figures of Elijah and Elisha. Apart from these two groups a ^ Bishop Ellicott in his Charge, 1891. ^ This must be, of course, to some extent a matter of opinioiij depending on the acceptance of the principles already discussed. Many, for example, will interpret such an incident as the multiplica- tion of Jacob's flocks as miraculous ; others will see in it only a sign of God's favour to the Patriarch, acting in no abnormal or miraculous manner. So with other incidents in the prae-Mosaic period ; but on any theory they must be acknowledged to be remarkably few. Craving for visible signs 21 few scattered miracles occur, but of these we need only now notice one class, namely, those ' signs,"* as they are specially called, which were granted in answer to direct petitions. Such were the two signs given to Moses to convince him and his people of the reality of his mission, the sign of the dew on Gideon's fleece, the sign of Hezekiah's dial. Now these incidents, which are by no means numerous, seem in themselves to be of a different character from most of the Biblical miracles, and the circumstances of their occurrence, and still more the manner in which they are referred to, place them in a class apart. They are, I beheve, to be regarded as con- descensions to human faithlessness and weak- ness, rather than as instances of God's normal method of revelation. We remember how strongly our Lord rebuked the similar demands made upon Him : His attitude towards the temper which craved for a visible sign of God's presence and favour is illustrated by the rarity of such signs in the Old Testament, and by the undefinable but surely unmistakeable tone of something derogatory to God and man with which they are mentioned. Such signs imply faithlessness ; they are rarely asked for, and reluctantly granted. They are markedly the 22 Miracles in the Old Testament exception and not the rule among the miracles of the Old Testament \ In the two great groups referred to, then, are chiefly contained the facts with which our inquiry has to deal. Apart from them, some twenty or thirty miraculous events, in the strict sense of the term, lie scattered over a period of 1,500 years. So far, then, from the Old Testa- ment being an unbroken record of marvels, we see that we were justified in saying at the outset that miracles in the Old Testament are strikingly rare. Further, a scrutiny of the con- ditions under which they occurred will guide us to some comprehension of their plan, the purpose for which they were wrought or sanc- ^ ' Isaiah's offer of a sign [to Ahaz] was one which the prophets of Israel used to make when some crisis demanded the immediate acceptance of their word by men, and men were more than usually hard to convince — a miracle such as the thunder that Samuel called out of a clear sky to impress Israel with God's opinion of their folly in asking for a king (i Sam, xii. 17) ; or as the rending of the altar which the man of God brought to pass to convict the sullen Jeroboam (i Kings xiii. 3) ; or as the regress of the shadow on the sun-dial, which Isaiah himself gave in assurance of recovery to the sick Hezekiah (Isa. xxxviii,) Such signs are offered only to weak or prejudiced persons. The most real faith, as Isaiah himself tells us, is unforced, the purest natures those which need no signs and wonders.' G. A. Smith, Isaiah^ vol. i. p. 113. For the essential inferiority of signs of this sort to spiritual and religious evidences, cf. Deut. xiii. 1-5, and the discussion of the passage in Westcott, Gospel of Life ^ p. 212, /. H. Newman s view 23 tioned. Contrary to a very common opinion, miracles in the Old Testament seem to be con- nected, not specially with the revelation of Divine truths, of which the great Hebrew prophets were the inspired channels, but with the great epochs of the national existence. The point can perhaps be best illustrated by quoting a statement of the opposite view of miracles to that here taken. Miracles, wrote J. H. Newman seventy years ago ^, are * vouchers for the truth of a message which ' the Jewish teachers 'deliver,' their ^express purpose is to confirm the natural evidence of one God/ they were * wrought for the most part on a grand scale, in the face of the world, to supply whole nations with evidence concerning the Deity,' and the plagues of Egypt *were directed against the prevalent superstitions of that country.' Now, if this view of miracles is true at all, it is only true in a very partial and subsidiary manner. Newman ignores what seems to have been the immediate object, or at least occasion, of these events, and concentrates his attention on a secondary and almost incidental result of their occurrence. And even of this he gives an exaggerated account. If the miracles of the Essays on Biblical and on Ecclesiastical MiracleSj pp. 19, 23, 35. 24 Miracles in the Old Testament Exodus were designed to convince ' whole nations' of the errors of their popular faiths, and to reveal to them the truths of the Divine Nature, it must be confessed that they signally failed in their object. So far as the record goes no change was wrought in the religion of Egypt or of the surrounding nations by any of the Old Testament miracles, and, with certain exceptions, it cannot be said that even among the Israelites themselves, either their object or their result was to provide proofs of revelation. In what way, as a matter of fact, were the belief in the unity of God, and in His purposes for Israel, the conviction of sin and the need of forgiveness, the realization of Divine holiness and justice, all the truths in short which constituted the religion of the Old Testament, in what way were these impressed upon the minds of the chosen people ? Taking the history as it stands, we find that they learnt it from a succession of teachers whom they believed to be prophets inspired by God—from Abraham and Moses, Samuel and David, Hosea and Amos, Isaiah and Jeremiah, till the Old Testament reaches its close in Malachi. Now in all this long line of teachers and lawgivers, can it be truly said that any relied chiefly on Teaching of the prophets 25 miracles to attest the truth of his message^? If we leave Moses, Elijah, and Elisha aside for the present, what miraculous attestation of prophetic teaching remains? One or two signs appealed to by Samuel, a remarkable group of wonders in the life of Daniel, and two undoubted miracles connected with the work and teaching of Isaiah. But, striking though these are, it cannot be said that the teaching of prophets depended for its proof on such miraculous incidents. Isaiah, for instance, had taught, without appeal to any miraculous confirmation of his utterances, for years before the truth of one of his messages was proved by the destruction of Sennacherib's army, and of another by the sign of Hezekiah's dial. Like Hosea and Amos, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah proclaimed his message, his revelation of the character and the will of God, independently of any visible signs and wonders. ^ We may carry the question still further if, as is surely right, we regard the Baptist as a prophet, though 'more than a prophet ' of the old dispensation. The complete absence of any claim to miraculous power in the Baptist's history, and the acquiescence of the people in that absence are very significant facts. ' Whole structures of popular objections fall before a simple statement like that in which the Evangelist undesignedly contrasts the ministry of the Baptist with the ministry of Christ. " John indeed did no sign " (John x. 41).' Westcott, Gospel of Life, p. 225. E 26 Miracles in the Old Testament Newman's account of miracles applies to those of Elijah and Elisha more than to any other of the miracles of the Old Testament. Of the scene on Mount CarmeH it might perhaps not untruly be said that it was a miracle 'wrought on a grand scale to supply a whole nation with evidence concerning the Deity'; though here again, in the most favourable con- nexion for Newman's purpose, we are conscious of the intrusion of a purely modern conception which does not harmonize with the ancient record. It was hardly 'evidence concerning the Deity' that was afforded by means of this miracle, but rather a sign of Gdd's presence with Elijah, and of His favour towards him. However, without pressing this distinction, it may be freely acknowledged that this and some of the other miracles connected with Elijah and Elisha were evidential. The proof of the prophet's mission was the direct object of the wonder worked by Elisha when he crossed the Jordan after Elijah's translation^, and the acknowledgement of Elijah's claim to be a 'man of God' was the result, if not the object, of the restoration of the widow's son 1 r Kings xviii, esp. vv, 24, 36, 37, 39. ^ a Kings ii. 14. Elijah and Elisha 27 to life^- At the same time, looking at this group of miracles as a whole, it is remarkable that they should be connected with those two men, of the whole line of Hebrew prophets, who had least the character of teachers and most that of statesmen and men of action. Elijah and Elisha, so far as we know, added scarcely anything to the Jewish conception of God's character^- They witnessed to God by their deeds rather than by their teaching, and the miracles which they wrought were parts of their lives, essential elements of their acts, rather than proofs of religious doctrines or ' evidence concerning the Deity ^' ^ I Kings xvii. 24. 2 Elijah's vision on Mount Horeb is a very noteworthy excep- tion to this statement; it marks a distinct stage in the national apprehension of the Mind of God. But it should also be remarked that * the still small voice * rebuked the prophet's desire for great signs and marvels, and revealed to him the gradual and patient, methods of the Almighty. It was a symbol of the normal, as opposed to the catastrophical theory of Divine action and Divine revelation (i Kings xix. 15 ff.). ^ The miracles of Elisha cannot be studied without recognizing that they are exceptional among Biblical miracles in that many of them seem to be purposeless isolated marvels, closely resembling those legendary wonders which have often naturally grown up round some striking historical personality. Old Testament criticism does not enter into the main scope of these lectures; otherwise it would be necessary to inquire how far this marked difference in character ought to lead a critic to reject this part of the Old Testament as unhistorical. For if it is once admitted that 28 Miracles in the Old Testament We are in altogether a different region when we go back to the great miracles of the Exodus criticism has a right to assert that there are in the BibHcal narrative later and legendary elements added to the earliest records, as for instance is held to be proved in the Book of Chronicles, no exception can be made in favour of miraculous narratives merely because they are miraculous. Once admit criticism into the study of the Bible, and miraculous events must stand their trial like the rest. But this is not a critical investigation, and the canonical books are here taken as we find them, without thereby prejudging any critical questions. The miracles of Elisha are just as much part of the books which the Jews accepted as inspired and authori- tative as are the miracles of Moses, and stand in a similar relation to the question. What place did miracles take in the religious thought of the Jewish race ? From this point of view two remarks may be made on the events in question. In the first place, the presence of this small group of miracles in the canonical Scriptures must be taken as qualifying and diminishing the contrast drawn between the miracles of the Bible and those of the Apocryphal and other non-canonical books. The miracles of Elisha, and perhaps a few others of a similar kind in the Old Testament, make the contrast less sharp than it would otherwise be ; although even in respect of this portion of the Bible there is a contrast, as will readily be seen on comparing the Elisha-narratives with the miraculous incidents, say in the Book of Tobit, or the evidential character of Elisha's marvels with Josephus' appeal to the evidential force of miracles. In the second place, the presence of miracles, bearing this character, in the canonical books makes the general attitude of the Jewish mind on the subject all the more remark- able and significant. Picturesque and popular though the narrative of Elisha is, there is no evidence that it impressed itself on the Jewish mind, or affected materially the Jewish conception of the meaning and function of miracles. The wonderful works of Elisha are never alluded to elsewhere in the Old Testament and only in one passage in the Apocryphal books (Ecclus. xlviii. 13-14), and their inclusion in the canonical record only serves to render more striking the general indifference of the inspired writers Miracles of the Exodus 29 and the Conquest. Here are no isolated and purposeless marvels, but a series of grand events bound up with the very life of the nation, and having as their declared object the deliverance of the people from bondage, and their separation from all other nations. This being the Divine purpose for Israel, we can see that, humanly speaking, the miracles of the Exodus were necessary for its accom- plishment. *I know that the King of Egypt will not give you leave to go, no, not by a mighty hand. And I will put forth My hand, and smite Egypt with all My wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go^.' The miracles of the Exodus are part of the history of the greatest epoch in the life of the nation. But though this is true of the greater number of these events, it is not true of all. The purpose of to the merely marvellous as such. For the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon, the lives of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, and Nehemiah are virtually as bare of miraculous incidents, in the strict sense of the word, as are those of any kings or teachers in our own annals ; and though the Chronicler did not shrink from altering the records on which he worked and from giving a later colouring to the historical events which he had to narrate, he adds, except in the one incident of 2 Chron. vii. 7 as compared with i Kings viii. 54, no miracle to his story. * Exod. iii. 19, 20. 30 Miracles in the Old Testament the passage of the Red Sea was different from the purpose of the transformation of Moses' rod into a serpent, though both were miracles. The one was designed to dehver Israel from the Egyptians, the other to attest the Divine mission of Moses. The fugitive of Midian was sent to his people furnished with certain signs as credentials, and they gave him their con- fidence on the strength, at the outset, of those signs. 'Aaron spake all the words which the Lord had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people. And the people beheved^' In this respect, as I have already pointed out, these miracles of Moses rank with Gideon's fleece and Hezekiah's shadow on the dial, as signs given in answer to a special petition : they are condescensions to human weakness and faithlessness. Only a few, how- ever, of the miracles of the Exodus bear this character. The plagues, the miracles of the desert, the crossing of the Jordan, and the fall of Jericho, are far more than proofs of Moses' mission ; they are acts of God's favour and of His vengeance. And even as proofs their scope is strictly limited. They are cre- dentials of a mission, not vouchers for the truth * Exod. iv. 30, 31. Credentials of a mission 31 of a revelation. It was in order to win the trust of the people whom he was to lead that Moses was * charged ' with signs from God : but the full revelation of Sinai came after- wards, and it was proclaimed with no appeal to miraculous signs, but on the strength of its own truth and majesty alone. From a study, then, of the way in which the Old Testament miracles are said to have occurred, we may infer that their primary and essential object was to carry out the Divine purposes : they are integral parts of the history of the call, separation, and preservation of the chosen people : that a secondary result was to illustrate and explain the revelation of God made through His messengers, Moses and the prophets, and that in some few cases, and those by no means the most important, they served as credentials of a prophet and attestations, not so much of the truth of his message as of the authority of his mission^. This infer- ence is confirmed by an examination of the manner in which the Old Testament writers, and especially the prophets, appeal to the miraculous events of Jewish history. The only miracles appealed to, or even referred * Cf. Robertson Smith, Prophets of Israel^ pp. 15, 16. 32 Miracles in the Old Testament to in the Old Testament are those of the Exodus. No later wonders, not even the re- markable miracles of Elijah and Elisha, are even mentioned by any writers except the histo- rian who records them. But the prophets and psalmists are full of references to the signs and wonders in Egypt, and — though by no means so frequently — to the miracles of the desert and the conquest. They do not, however, appeal to these events as proving, by their preter- natural character, the Divine origin of the law, or as having any direct evidential relation to the truths of their religion. The appeal is rather intended to remind their hearers of God's special favour to His people. ' I will make mention of the lovingkindnesses of the Lord, and the praises of the Lord, according to all that the Lord hath bestowed on us ; and the great goodness towards the house of Israel, which He hath bestowed on them. . . . He remembered the days of old, Moses, and His people, saying, Where is He that brought them up out of the sea , . . that divided the water before them, to make Himself an ever- lasting name ^ ? ' This is a typical instance of the prophetical appeal to miracles : it is con- ^ Isa. Ixiii. 7, 11 ff. Prophetical appeal to miracles 33 fined to those of the Exodus, and it is intended to recall the pre-eminent privilege of Israel in the favour of God. And in this respect no distinction is made between the miracles and the other events in which that favour was shown. If the Psalmist records God's * signs in Egypt, and His wonders in the field of Zoan^/ he commemorates in the same breath the conquest of Canaan, the division of the country among the tribes^, the glorious reign of David ^, the recall from the Captivity *. All rank equally as great and signal favours of God towards His people; no special stress is laid on some of these events because they are miracles, still less are they used as proofs or attestations of the revelation which God was making of Himself throughout the whole course of Jewish history. The method of the inspired writers is indeed very different from that of our evidential divines. When the prophets would convince their hearers of the righteous character, the power and the wisdom of Jehovah, it is not to any exceptional or abnormal marvels that they appeal, but to the ordinary course of nature, the creation and sustainment of the ' Ps. Ixxviii. 43. '* Ibid. v. 55. 3 Ibid. Ixxviii. 72. * Ibid. cvi. 46 f. 34 Miracles in the Old Testament universe by God alone. ' There is none like unto Thee, O Lord ; Thou art great, and Thy name is great in might. . . . Among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their king- doms, there is none like unto Thee. . . . Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. He hath made the earth by His power, He hath established the world by His wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by His discretion. When He uttereth His voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; He maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of His treasures^.' This characteristic of Old Testa- ment theology is specially noticeable in that book which more than any other Jewish writing deals with the philosophical problems of natural religion. There is no allusion to miracles, as we understand the word, in the Book of Job, but the power, the wisdom, the inscrutabihty of God are shown in the normal processes of the world which He created, and which He alone comprehends. ' Behold, God is great, ^ Jer. X. 6-14. The Book of Job 35 and we know Him not, neither can the number of His years be searched out. For He maketh small the drops of waters : they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abund- antly. . . . God thundereth marvellously with His voice; great things doeth He, which we cannot comprehend. For He saith to the snow, Be thou on the earth : likewise to the small rain, and to the great rain of His strength. . . . Then the beasts go into dens, and remain in their places. Out of the south cometh the whirlwind : and cold out of the north. By the breath of God frost is given : and the breadth of the waters is straitened. . . . Hearken unto this, O Job: stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God^' In short, the God of the Old Testa- ment is One whose true revelation is in the natural, not the supernatural : ' Doch Deine Boten, Herr, verehren Das sanfte Wandein Deines TagsV What proof, then, had the Jew of the revela- tion which is contained in his Scriptures ? What were the Hebrew * evidences of religion'? The question is a natural one for us to ask, * Job xxxvi. 26— xxxvii. 14. 2 /-^^^/^ 36 Miracles in the Old Testament for we can hardly conceive of a revelation unsupported by external proofs, but we shall find no answer in the Old Testament. Apart from the special ' signs ' already discussed, the only proof or guarantee of the Divine origin of a message delivered through the prophets was the fulfilment of the prediction : * If thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken ? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken ^.' But even this test seems to have been httle regarded ^, and is very rarely mentioned. Twice in the history of Israel are we enabled to watch the development of a crisis in which the mere word of a prophet was opposed to all that seemed most probable, all that the nation feared or hoped. During such a crisis, if ever, we should have supposed that the prophet would have appealed to the visible proof of miraculous works to support the authority of his message. But neither when Isaiah was sustaining the king and the nation under the prolonged suspense of Sennacherib's threats, nor when ^ Deut. xviii. 21, 22. ^ Cf. the earlier passage, Deut. xiii, 1-6, already referred to. Prophecy and Jewish religion 37 Jeremiah, against the whole nation, and against the rival voices of the false prophets^, counselled reliance on Babylon rather than on Egypt, was any appeal made to miracles or to any external proof whatever. The guarantee of the revela- tion made through the prophets and teachers of Israel was their own transparent sincerity and overwhelming conviction, and the accord- ance of their message with the witness of the Holy Spirit in men's hearts. In a word, prophecy, not miracle, is the true basis of Old Testament religion, and the proof of the inspira- tion of prophecy is the inspiration itself, its echo in the conscience, and the seal which God finally set to it in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. In all else, in the works of God in nature and still more in the occasional wonders which He wrought for His people, the Jewish teachers saw ' but the outskirts of His ways ^ ' ; beyond and above them were the constant marvels wrought, *not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts ^' ' For Jeremiah's method of dealing with false prophets see ch. xxiii, and especially ver. 22, The proof of a prophecy, in the widest and truest sense, was its moral force and influence. 2 Job xxvi. 14. ^ Zech. iv. 6. 38 Miracles in the Old Testament Note on the Jewish Apocryphal Books. The Jewish Apocryphal books do not substantially disturb the conclusions reached from a study of the canonical books of the Old Testament. During the interval between Malachi and the Baptist the Jewish mind did not learn to look upon miracles as the proof of revelation, or as the chief means by which God showed His favour to His people. The fine enumera- tion of the Divine works in Ecclesiasticus^, like similar passages in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Job, contains no miracles, and Baruch only alludes to the * signs and wonders' of the Exodus as Jeremiah does, and indeed in words taken from that prophet^. Nor can there be said to be in the Apocrypha any evidential use of miracles. The difference in regard to miracles between the Apocryphal and the canonical books of the Old Testament is threefold, (i) The writers of the post- captivity period naturally dwell more than their pre- decessors on the historic glories of Israel, and on the great heroes of that history, and in doing so lay more stress on the miracles that some of them wrought than do the canonical writers^. (2) There is a strong tendency in some of the Apocryphal writers to invent miracles of an obviously legendary kind. This is not indeed by any means constant or universal. Ben Sira adds no miraculous incidents to the deeds recorded of the Jewish heroes ; and while the writer of the Book of Wisdom lets his fancy run riot among the plagues of Egypt and the miracles of the desert, the first book of the Maccabees is absolutely destitute of signs and wonders. On the ^ Ecclus. xlii. 15 — xliii. 33. ^ Baruch ii. 11. ^ See especially Ecclus. xlviii. 13, 14 ; also xlvi. 4, 16, 17, 20 ; xlviii. 3-5, 23 ; 3 Mace. ii. 2 ff., vi. 2 fF. The Apocryphal Books 39 other handj the mythopoeic faculty is seen busily at work in Tobitj 2 and 3 Maccabees, and Wisdom, in a way which, almost unparalleled in the canonical books, is very similar to the later developments of Rabbinical fancy. The contrast between these books and the reticence and dignity of the Old Testament is almost as significant as the contrast between the canonical and the Apocryphal Gospels. (3) The development of Jewish thought in these directions seems to have coincided with a certain growth in the realization of natural law, which, though not universal or uniform, may be traced in several of the non-canonical writings, especially in the Alexandrian Book of Wisdom. Interest in the study of nature had increased, as may be gathered from a comparison of Solomon's attainments described in Wisdom^ with the scanty enumeration in the Book of Kings ^, and with it a clearer conception of natural law dawned on the Jewish mind. This may be traced not only in the writers who had come into contact with Greek thought, for the repeated references, in Wisdom ^ to the reversal of natural law in the Egyptian plagues and other wonders may be paralleled from the purely Jewish Enoch literature *, and the idea of the normally ' Wisd. vii. 17-ai. ^ I Kings iv. 29-34. ^ Wisd. xix. 6, 18, 20 : ' The whole creature (iCTiais) in his proper kind was fashioned anew (avaiOiv)^ serving the peculiar command- ments that were given unto them. . . . The elements were changed in themselves by a kind of harmony. . . . The fire had power in the water, forgetting his own virtue : and the water forgat his own quenching nature.' Cf. also Wisd. xvi. 17-25. * Enoch Ixxxix. 26 : * The sea gathered itself together and re- sumed its own nature suddenly, and the water swelled and rose till it covered those wolves.' (Mr. Charles' translation.) Cf. the enumeration of miracles connected with the Exodus in Pi'rqe Abothj V. 5-7, 9, and the comments of R. Obadiah of Sforno, and 40 Miracles in the Old Testament unvarying order of nature which underlies these passages is strongly shown in the elaborate attempt to describe the * laws ' of the heavenly bodies which occupies one section of Enoch ^; and it is found in Ecclesiasticus'*, as well as in the later canonical writings ^ But it is the Book of Wisdom which most clearly shows the change in the Jewish attitude towards the miraculous. God, says the writer, * who made the universe out of formless matter,* might have exercised His almighty power and have punished the Egyptians by the miraculous creation of monstrous beasts to slay them ; but He did not because ' He has ordered all things in measure and number and weight*/ We may see in such a passage as this the germ of the tendency which, fostered by contact with Greek and Roman thought, led Josephus on the one hand to minimize and rationalize the miracles of the Old Testament, narrating them in an obviously apologetic tone ^, and on the other to exaggerate their evidential character as credentials of the prophets ^ Miracles, to Josephus, are evident violations of the order of nature, and as such can be used to prove what would be other- R. Israel. ' God wrought great signs and wonders contrary to the nature of things, such as the plagues of Egypt, and the miracles of the Red Sea, &c.' This, though the comment of a later writer, may represent an earlier Jewish view of miracles. (Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, pp. 81-84.) ^ Enoch Ixxii-Ixxix ; cf. ii. i, a ; Ixxx, 7. ^ xvi. 26. ^ Ps. cxiviii. 6. * Wisd. xi. 17, 20. Cf. Speakers Commentary in loc. ; * He loves the ordered regularity of the Kosmos.* '"* See his treatment of the passage of the Red Sea, Ant. II. xvi. 5 ; of the passage of the Jordan, V. i. 3 ; of the miracle at Beth-horon, V. i. 17 ; of Elijah's translation, IX. ii. 2. ^ Cf. the signs of Moses, II. xii. 3, 4 ; the miraculous thunder of Samuel, VI. iv. 6 ; Elijah's fire from heaven, IX. ii. 1. Josephus 41 wise incredible. His theory, which seems to anticipate the eighteenth century view, is stated in its crudest form in connexion with the sign of Hezekiah's dial : * Things that are beyond expectation, and greater than our hopes, are made credible by actions of a like nature ^.' It does not seem, however, that Josephus represents the popular view of miracles among the Palestinian Jews, either in his own day or at the time of our Lord's ministry. Like the pseudo-Solomon of the Book of Wisdom, Josephus was deeply influenced by Hellenic philosophy and cul- ture ; to the popular Jewish mind at the close of the old dispensation miracles were still what we have seen they were to the writers of the Old Testament, parts of God's general treatment of His people, marks of His favour, modes of His manifestation, and only in a very subordinate degree evidences of the truth of His reve- lation. * ^«/.X. ii. X. II Miracles in the New Testament In the last lecture I called attention to the extreme rarity of miracles in the period covered by the Old Testament, and from a study of the manner of their occurrence and of the references to them in the prophetical writings, I inferred that the Old Testament miracles were hardly, if at all, intended as evidence of a revelation, but were rather integral parts of that revelation, Divine acts, not proofs. To-day we come to the question, How far does the New Testament confirm or modify or contradict this inference ? In one respect there is a marked difference between the miracles of the Old and those of the New Testament. Very rare in the whole period that preceded the birth of Christ, in the seventy years after that event they abound. The actual narratives of miracles in the Gospels and Acts do not indeed amount to any very large number, though the two or three years of our Our Lord^s miracles 43 Lord's ministry probably include as many miracles related in detail as the whole Old Testament period. But over and over again, both in the Gospels and the Acts, short summaries of miracles are given which show that those which occurred were out of all pro- portion to those which are actually narrated. And this miraculous character pervades all parts of the history, and is found, so far as we can judge, in every record and every traditional source embodied in the Gospels. The simplest, and probably the earliest, Gospel is, if anything, fuller of miracles than the others ; the latest and most profound record of Christ's teaching lays the greatest stress upon the * signs ' which ac- companied it. Again, it has often been pointed out that our Lord's teaching is closely bound up with His miracles. But it is not, I think, so commonly noticed that the miracles not only illustrate and explain the teaching, but are inseparable elements in our conception of the character of Christ. He represents to us the ideal of love and compassion : His own follower described Him as one who ' went about doing good ^.' But does not this conception to a very large extent rest on the miracles which * Acts X. 38. 44 Miracles in the New Testament He performed? ' He went about doing good/ What content can be given to this description except that of the following words, ' heahng all that were oppressed of the devil ' ? The example of the life of Christ, which has been the main- spring of a moral revolution in the world, con- sists chiefly of miraculous works. The modern tendency is to reject miracles and to confine Christianity to the * following the blessed steps of His most holy life ' ; but if the miracles are discarded, the steps which we can trace are very few and faint, and the example, apart from the teaching and from the lesson of His death, grows dim as we strive to realize it^. The importance of miracles in the life of Christ may be further inferred from the promi- nent place they occupy in His commission to His Apostles. And on scrutinizing the Acts and Epistles we are led to think that miracles were quite as numerous in the Apostolic ministry and in the life of the early Christians as in the life and ministry of Christ. They were indeed clearly intended to continue His mighty works^ both in degree and in kind. * As * Cf. '^\zs,%^Acta Apostolorum^ Proleg. § 4, p. 9 : *Omnino id pro comperta re habere debemus, nuUam unquam de Christo discipu- lisque vel sermonem vel scriptum fuisse, quin quaedam miracula contineret.' The Apostolic commission 45 My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you \' That these words are not to be limited to spiritual gifts and powers is proved by the terms of the earlier commission which He gave to them. It is a recapitulation of the works which He Himself had wrought : 'Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely ye received, freely give^.' But there is an important exception. He did not commission them to exercise authority over the forces of nature, to still the storm or to change the substance of material things, and we find little trace of such miracles in the Apostolic history. This indicates the general character of the miraculous powers of the Apostles. In their origin, as in their exercise, they were dependent on Christ, and were, as a rule, limited to the express terms of His command. We must bear this in mind when we come to con- sider the appeal made to their own miracles by the Apostles. At present it is important to recognize that in these gifts, as in everything, the paramount authority of Christ over His Church is preserved. The facts of the New Testament miracles are too well known to need further discussion ; but * John XX. ai. ^ ji^tt. x. 8. 46 Miracles in the New Testament there are two observations with regard to the manner in which they are said to have occurred which have an important bearing on our main subject. In the first place we have to notice that our Lord's miracles are sometimes ascribed, not to definite and specially exerted acts of will, but to a power inherent and almost, if we may so say, involuntary. I need not dwell on the familiar incident of the woman with the issue of blood, except to notice the language in which St. Mark describes it. Our Lord, he says, 'perceived in Himself that the power proceed- ing from Him' (literally 'the power from Him') 'had gone forth ^.' The phrase seems to indi- cate that the Evangelist conceived Christ's miraculous power as an influence radiating from Him, not needing to be summoned by definite acts of will. The same conception appears in St. Luke also. ' Power came forth from Him, and healed them all ^' ' The power of the Lord was with Him to heaP.' Even if the less remarkable reading be adopted and the passage rendered, ' the power of the Lord was present to heal them,' it equally seems to imply that there was something involuntary in our Lord's miraculous power, I am not of course * Mark v. 30. ^ Luke vi, 19, ^ Ibid. v. 17. Miracles and faith 47 suggesting that any part of our Lord's work was uncontrolled by His all-holy will ; the greatest of His miracles, as He Himself declared, depended entirely on His own voluntary power. ' I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again ^/ But subject to the general control of His will, His miracles seem to have been due to the abiding Divine force inherent in Him, essential to His nature^, and going forth from Him in influence on the external world and on the souls and bodies of men. This leads us to the second observation I have to make. For if this is so, it is especially remarkable that this inherent power was limited, as it undoubtedly was, not by any occasional acts of will, but by the spiritual condition of those around Him. Nothing is more empha- sized in the Gospels than the fact that the miracles of healing depended on the faith of the recipient, or of his friends. This is so marked a feature of the miracles which are ^ John X. 18. ^ Cf. Gore, Bampton Lectures, p. 48 : ' Christ's miracles in fact appear as laws of His nature : there is a healing power or *' virtue" which goes out from Him, occasionally even without any special action of His will, as when He perceived that some one had touched Him, for virtue had gone out of Him.' The whole passage should be studied in connexion with the remarks in the text. 48 Miracles in the New Testament narrated at length, that we may infer that, in the cases where they are merely summarized or casually mentioned, faith, though not specified, was a condition of the cure. The power, inherent in Him though it was, did not flow forth indiscriminately on all, but only on those who by a personal or vicarious act of will had so followed, or come, or been brought to Him, that they had given a proof of their faith. And this limitation was not imposed on His power by special acts of choice, varying in particular cases, but seems to have been a pre-existent and essential condition of it. At Nazareth we are not told that as the result of their unbelief He would, but that He 'could do there no mighty work^.' Now it has sometimes been inferred from this that the Gospel miracles were only subjective phenomena, like faith-healing, due to the great wave of rehgious emotion caused by the presence of Christ's Personality. I do not here wish to enter on the general questions raised by this theory : for the present I will only point out that it does not meet the facts. For two striking exceptions are made to the rule that faith was required from those who witnessed and from those who were the subjects * Mark vi. 5. Christ and evil spirits 49 of Christ's miracles. The great signs in which He showed His power over the forces of nature were not only independent of any acts of faith in those who saw them, but were sometimes wrought, as is significantly pointed out by the Evangelists, in face of their unbelief and terror^. And a certain class of miracles of heahng displays the same independence of the faith of the recipient. Evil spirits at once confess the presence of their Lord, and in many cases are cast out with no requirement of faith from the sufferer's friends. The forces of evil, like those of nature, were unconditionally subject to Him: and their outcries seem to show that the inherent power by which His miracles were performed directly and necessarily affected the evil spirits in His presence. The impression left by a careful study of the Gospel miracles is that the Evangelists wish to depict One before whose indwelling majesty the powers of nature and the most evil influences of the spirit of wickedness bowed in immediate submission, and whose Divine virtue and loving force could be resisted, and often were resisted, by the freedom of man's will alone. I should not have thought it needful to dwell ^ Mark iv. 6 ; vi. 51 f, ; Luke v, 4 ff. 4t> « 50 Miracles in the New Testament so long on the mere facts of the miraculous element in the New Testament but for recent utterances which seem to show that the im- mense distinction between the miracles of the Old and those of the New Testament is not always clearly grasped. There are signs that the old ' mythical ' theory of Christ's miracles is being revived, but under a different phrase- ology. They are now said to be not mythical, but legendary and poetical embeUishments of the narrative. Now we have seen that we need not shrink from admitting the poetical character of some of the apparently miraculous narratives in the Old Testament, and if similar character- istics can be fairly detected in any of the miraculous incidents of the New Testament by all means let criticism point them out, and we will accept those incidents as poetry and not as history. But is it not trifling with words to call the miraculous narratives of the Gospels and Acts poetical? In the Old Testament the distinction is one of form, which can be appre- ciated even in a translation ; but can the closest inspection of the original detect poetical form in such narratives as the feeding the 5,000, or the centurion's servant, or the raising of Lazarus? And if it is said that the poetry Miracles not legendary 51 consists^ not in the form of these episodes, but in the matter, that is only another way of saying that this sort of criticism will not except miracles as historical, however historically narrated. It is equally vain to attempt to prove that the miracles are legendary, or mere illustrations of the narrative. You have in the Gospels and Acts a number of incidents narrated in the same tone, with the same historical and topographical circumstances, and relating to the same histori- cal personages. What reason can be given for calling some of these incidents legendary and others historical ? Absolutely none, except that some are miraculous and others are not. But the a priori incredibility of miracles to which appeal is thus made is a matter, not for historical or literary criticism to decide, but for physical science and philosophy. To call the vast ma- jority of the New Testament miracles legends or illustrations, in contrast to the history in which they are found, is therefore to push criticism beyond its proper scope, and to confuse and discredit it as a scientific study. In view of such theories let us recall the evidence on which the miraculous character of the New Testament history rests. That character is not contained only in the actual 52 Miracles in the New Testament narratives themselves, but colours and impreg- nates the whole history. It is shown by the attitude of the Jewish people, who, ready as they undoubtedly were to accord a somewhat contemptuous belief to miracles in general, saw in Christ's miracles no mere magic, but a new revelation. *What is this? a new teaching] with authority He commandeth even the un- clean spirits, and they obey Him ^/ It is contained in the very structure of the EvangeKc records, for as the critics confess, the miracu- lous cannot now be extricated from the rest of the history : it has suppHed the very form of St. John's Gospel, which is governed and de- fined by the miraculous incidents on which many of the discourses depend. And above all, it is contained in the historical delineation of our Lord Himself, who accepted the belief in His miracles and the vast distinction between His works and other wonders, who used them as means of impressing His character and display- ing His love, who incorporated them into His teaching. In a word, obliterate the miraculous from the New Testament, and you obliterate Christ. I have dwelt thus on the circumstances and * Mark i. 27. Impression produced by miracles 53 the evidence of the New Testament miracles partly because the extent and nature of the miraculous element in Christianity seems, in spite of its obviousness, to be insufficiently realized, and partly because a firm grasp of the facts is necessary if we would appreciate the manner in which the New Testament writers deal with miracles, and the place which they assign to them. For when we turn from the actual facts to the impression they made on those who witnessed them, and to the manner in which our Lord and His Apostles speak of them, we are conscious of an unexpected and perplexing hesitation and reticence. Even among the Jews, deeply as they were moved by the miracles, which seemed to them different from all others, they did not, it is clear, always or even generally produce conviction. The Pharisees found it easy to ascribe them, or to pretend to ascribe them, to Beelzebub ^ ; Herod, in a very significant phrase, declared his belief that God had raised John the Baptist from the dead, and that, as a result of the special rela- tion implied by such an act, miraculous powers worked in him ^. In neither case could miracles by themselves prove that the worker was Divine, * Matt. ix. 34. '^ Mark vi. 14. 54 Miracles in the New Testament or even that He was the Messiah. And though the multitude, less prejudiced than the Pharisees, were inclined to infer the Messiahship of our Lord from His miracles, it is clear that there were difficulties in the way, and the proof was neither convincing nor lasting. On the one hand some would lay the weight of proof on the number rather than on the character of the miracles. * When the Christ shall come, will He do more signs than those which this man hath done ^ ? ' The question shows that however genuine the miraculous works, the worker was not thereby proved to be the Messiah. On the other hand, many were led by the prophetic indications in the Old Testament to demand some miracle different in kind, a special sign, unmistakeable and overwhelming, of a Divine commission^. 'What sign showest Thou?' 'What doest Thou for a sign, that we may see, and beHeve Thee ^ ? ' Our Lord, in one of His answers to this per- sistent demand, acknowledges that His miracles were not signs in this sense. ' There shall no sign be given unto this generation *.' Probably ^ John vii. 31. ^ Ibid, ii, 18. ^ Ibid. vi. 30. * Mark viii. 12. The exception given in Matt. xii. 39, *the sign of the prophet Jonas/ whatever it may mean, cannot refer to those of Christ's miracles which we are now discussing. The Resurrec- tion must be considered apart. How far a ground of belief? 55 the Jews themselves hardly knew what they wished for, for an absolutely convincing sign seems, as we come nearer to it, to elude our grasp ; it is an impossibility ^ But at all events all the indications in the Gospels show that the miracles were not such signs. They did not convince, and were not intended to convince, those who had no eye for the moral and spiritual proofs of Christ's Divinity. Hence we are pre- pared for the final failure of the miraculous works, culminating though they did in the pre-eminent sign of the raising of Lazarus, to produce faith. 'Though He had done so many signs before them, yet they beHeved not on HimV The Apostolic writers also show a certain apparent inconsistency in dealing with miracles. On the one hand they are unquestionably re- garded as to some extent a ground of belief. Thus St. John connects the first ' sign ' at Cana with the manifestation of Christ's glory and the behef of His disciples ^ : and in summing up his Gospel he declares that he selected certain ' signs,' * that ye may believe that Jesus is Christ, ^ Cf. Romanes, Thoughts on Religion^ p. 147 : * I doubt whether it is logically possible for any form of objective revelation of itself to compel belief in it.' 2 John xii. 37. ^ Ibid. ii. 11. 56 Miracles in the New Testament the Son of God'.* The same appeal to the evidence of miracles is made by St. Peter in his earliest addresses recorded in the Acts. 'Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by powers and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you^': and in his address to Cornelius our Lord's miracles are mentioned as part of the whole series of events to which the Apostles bore witness, though no stress is laid on their evidential character ^. Again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews the Apostles' miracles are claimed as a Divine confirmation of the Gospel preached by them : ' God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to His own will*,' a passage which resembles the summary at the close of St. Mark's Gospel, ' the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by signs following^.' But though these appeals to the evidential force of miracles cannot be overlooked or explained away, on the whole what strikes even a casual reader of the Acts and Epistles is the remarkable rarity of ^ John XX. 30 f, ^ Acts ii. 22, to which may be added iii. 13 (see Blass, in loc). ^ Acts X. 38. * Heb. ii. 4. ' Mark xvi. 20. Modern treatment of miracles 57 allusions to miracles, not only as proofs of the Gospel, but even as mere events connected with it. I have quoted, I beheve, all the plain appeals to miracles as evidence of the truth of the Gospel that are to be found in the speeches and writings of the Apostles ; and though there may be others, it is certain that they are very few. I do not of course forget that the New Testament writings are not formal theological treatises, still less apologetic statements of the evidences for the Gospel; but still they do contain specimens of Apostolic preaching and teaching, and whereas the references to miracles are very few, there are passages in which the absence of all mention of them is very signifi- cant. In considering this let us bear in mind how miracles are commonly treated by modern apologists. For instance, one great writer^ gives as the ' distinct particular reasons for miracles, to afford mankind instruction additional to that of nature, and to attest the truth of it' Another^ lays down that * miracles are necessary as the guarantee and voucher for a revelation.' Another^ calls them 'the most striking and con- ^ Butler, Analogy^ Pt, ii. ch, a, ^ Mozley, Bampton Lectures, p. 5. ^ Newman, Essay on the Christian Miracles^ pp. 7, 10. I 58 Miracles in the New Testament elusive evidence/ and declares that ' the peculiar object of a miracle is to evidence a message from God.' Now contrast with such language as this the Apostolic method of presenting Christ- ianity. In the two typical speeches in which St. Paul commends faith to the heathen world, when we should have thought the fullest ex- position of the evidences of Christianity, to use the modern phrase, was needed, we find no reference whatever to the miracles of our Lord, or to those of the Apostles. At Lystra the argument is that of natural religion : the preacher appeals only to the witness borne by the normal operations of God's providence, ^ rains and fruitful seasons,* and this although he had himself just worked a miracle in their presence^. At Athens he proclaims the mes- sage of repentance, and here also it is based on natural religion, though with a difference. Before the cultured Greeks he points to the natural and normal witness to God borne by the heart of men, and by the consciousness ot filial dependence on Him ^ No doubt he ends by an appeal to the Resurrection : but the Resurrection, though the greatest of miracles, demands separate treatment, and I am now ^ Acts xiv. 17. ^ Ibid. xvii. 27 f. Non-miraculous evidence 59 dealing with the other ' signs ' of Christ and His followers. In the same way the controversial triumphs of St. Stephen are ascribed not to the ' great wonders and signs ' which he wrought, but to ' the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake ^.' In the Epistles also the evidence of Christianity is in several places summarized with no allusion to miracles. The stress is laid on prophecy, on the personal knowledge of Christ, on the glory which was revealed in Him, but not on the wonderful works which He wrought. The mystery, St. Paul declares, ' now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith 2.' It is to the mani- festation of the Life as a whole that St. John witnesses, not to this or that proof or sign of it : ' The life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us V The most formal state- ment of the evidences of the Gospel is given in the Second Epistle of St. Peter, in which the writer contrasts with ' cunningly devised fables ' the twofold proof of the faith which he preached. ^ Acts vi. 8ff. =" Rom. xvi. 26. « i John i. 2. 6o Miracles in the New Testament On the one hand he appeals to his own personal knowledge of the ' majesty ' of Christ manifested especially in the Transfiguration : on the other hand to 'the word of prophecy, made more sure^.' But to miracles, either Evangelical or Apostolic, he makes no appeal. No reference again is made to signs and wonders in several descriptions of the Christian life and of the various aspects of Christian work. The gifts of which St. Paul speaks in the Epistle to the Romans, and which differ according to the grace given to each, are prophecy, and minis- try, and teaching, and exhortation, and ruling : but he omits the healings, and exorcisms, and tongues^. So to the Corinthians he enumerates^ the various trials and privileges in and by which the Christian minister makes proof of his voca- tion, but among them the power of miracles finds no place. Later on in the letters in which the fullest account is given of the ministerial life and work, and the fullest directions for the due fulfilment of the various ministerial func- tions, the same omission is noticeable : the Pastoral Epistles contain no reference to mira- culous gifts. And when, like St. Paul, St. Peter 1 2 Pet. i. 16-21. a Rom. xii. 6 flf. ^ 3 Cor. vi, 4-10. Assertion of miraculous powers 6r has to remind his readers of the responsibility attaching to the gifts which they had received, he divides them into the two classes of speaking and ministering \ and ignores, so far as we can judge, the power of working miracles which was equally an endowment of the Apostolic Church. Now if 'signs and wonders' had been con- fessedly rare and casual phenomena in the early days of Christianity, we could infer nothing from the rarity with which they are appealed to by the Apostles. But, as we have seen, they were constant and notorious accompani- ments of Apostolic preaching, and they con- stituted a very large part of the external and commonly known facts of our Lord's life. In face of the prominence of miracles in the history of Christ and of His Church, we are bound to try to account for the secondary and obscure place they occupy in the teaching of the Apos- tles. It is not that the miraculous powers, which are so strongly asserted in the Gospels, are denied or the evidence for them weakened in the Epistles. There is no difference of tone between the Gospels and the Epistles on the subject. With unhesitating readiness and cer- tainty of his readers' agreement, St. Paul refers ^ I Pet. iv. lo, II, 62 Miracles in the New Testament to miracles as to well-known and undeniable facts, and it is remarkable that these references occur in each of the four undoubted Epistles. Alike in writing to the Romans, the Corin- thians, and the Galatians^, he confidently claims the evidence of miracles for his own Apostolic authority: and indeed speaks of them as the essential signs of an Apostle. * Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and powers ^' There can be no question as to the Apostle's conviction of his own miraculous power, or of his unhesitating belief in the miraculous gifts of the Church, e. g. of Corinth, as a body. But definite and clear as his conviction is, there is a certain limitation and qualification in his method of appealing to these powers. They are appealed to, not as evidences of the Gospel revelation, but as credentials of the Apostle. On each occasion, when St. Paul asserts his claim to work miracles he is enforcing his right to the position of an Apostle as against those who denied it : miracles seem to have been the recognized test of Apostolic authority. Now, on what was this based? Was it based > Rom. XV, 18 f. ; i Cor. xiv. 18 j z Cor. xii. 12 ; Gal. iii. 5. * a Cor. xii. 12. Apostolic credentials 63 on the inherent evidential force of miracles, on the preternatural character which pointed directly to a special Divine commission ? The references to it do not support such a view, but rather suggest that miracles were regarded as Apostolic credentials because they were con- tained in our Lord's commission to His Apostles. Just as we shall see that His own miracles were regarded by Himself as the fulfilment of pro- phecy, so the Apostolic miracles were * the signs of an Apostle,' because they fulfilled His prophetic commands. Little or no stress is therefore laid on their intrinsic force as pre- ternatural events, and they are not appealed to by the Apostles as evidences of revelation ^. It is also probable that miracles, in the strict sense, formed only one element in the * signs ' ^ The chief apparent exception is Rom. xv. i8, where miracles are said to have been wrought through St. Paul 'for the obedience of the Gentiles.* The whole passage, how^ever, primarily deals with St. Paul's claim to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, and the declaration * I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ ' (ver. 19) cannot mean that he had convinced them of the truth of the Gospel by the evidence of miracles. ' St. Paul's Apostolic labours are a sign of commission because they have been accompanied by a manifestation of more than natural gifts ' (Sanday and Headlam, in loc). In Gal. iii. 5 the miracles which St. Paul declares he worked among them are not appealed to as evidences at all, but are apparently described as gifts conferred by him upon the Church. 64 Miracles in the New Testament which followed the preaching of an Apostle. Spiritual miracles, conversion, outbreaks of re- ligious energy, are apparently included in the manifestations of the new life. This is borne out by the well-known passage in which St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, deals with the whole question of spiritual gifts, with their use and regulation by the Church. In the hst of x«/3t(T/xara there given ^, it is noticeable that what we should call miraculous gifts are in no way exceptional : they neither stand first, as more marvellous, nor are they in a separate class : they are simply enumerated along with the gifts of wisdom and knowledge and faith. And when the Apostle has to decide upon the relative importance of these various gifts there is no question that to him the moral and spiritual manifestations stand higher than the merely physical wonders : prophecy is pre- ferred to tongues, and love is more excellent than either^. With regard to the special miracle of the tongues, if St. Paul regards it as a miracle at all, it is difficult to say whether he ascribes to it any evidential force whatever. The passage is obscure, but it is at least a tenable view that when the Apostle declares that 'tongues are ' I Cor. xii. 8-1 1 ; cf, vv. 28 fif. ^ Ibid. xiv. i. The problem to be solved 65 for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbeheving ^/ he means not a convincing proof but a sign of judgement: inasmuch as the plain preaching of the Gospel has not been received by them they shall only hear what they cannot understand ; even as our Lord spoke in parables that those who heard might not understand. Thus explained, the passage shows that this special miraculous gift, so far from being a proof of the Christian revelation, was simply one of the manifestations which accompanied the Christian life, with no evidential force what- ever. But it also undoubtedly proves the exist- ence of miraculous gifts in the early Church, and thus presents in a striking form the problem which has to be solved. How can we reconcile the undoubted recog- nition of miracles by the Apostles, and the wonderful frequency of their occurrence since the beginning of our Lord's ministry, with the singular rarity of any appeal to them as evidence, and the hmitation, in most cases, of that appeal, when it is made, to the establishment of Apos- tolic authority rather than the truth of the Gospel ? It may be answered that the crowning miracle ^ I Cor. xiv. 32. K 66 Miracles in the New Testament of the Resurrection was the central point of the Apostles' teaching, and that they made it the sole evidence of Christianity : it was mere superfluity to appeal to other miracles in the presence of this surpassing marvel. Now it is of course true that the Resurrection was the central topic of the Apostles' teaching; but it is not quite true that it so absorbed all other miracles that they were altogether over- looked. In the narrative treatment of our Lord's life this was not so : the lesser miracles are carefully described at great length in the Gospels, and even in the Acts St. Peter, in recapitulating the main outlines of the Gospel story, refers to them. * He went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with Him\* Undoubtedly, however, when the doctrines of Christianity are in question, the Resurrection, and the Resurrec- tion alone of all Christ's miracles, is the core of ApostoHc teaching. But is it therefore true to say that the Resurrection was presented chiefly as an evidence of Christianity, or was regarded mainly as a proof of our Lord's Divinity? Now undoubtedly there are some passages in which the writers appeal to the * Acts X. 38. The Resurrection 67 evidence afforded by the Resurrection. Thus at Athens St. Paul brings his speech to its chmax with such an appeal. God, he says, will judge the world 'by the Man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead^' Again, in the solemn opening of the Epistle to the Romans, our Lord is said to have been 'declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead ^! In two other passages in which the Resurrection seems to be contemplated as a ground of belief, it is belief in God rather than in the Divinity of Christ; we 'beheve on Him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead^.' And St. Peter declares that Christ ' was foreknown indeed before the founda- tion of the world, but was manifested at the end of the times for your sake, who through Him are believers in God, which raised Him from the dead, and gave Him glory; so that your faith and hope might be in GodV But these are, I believe, the only places in which the Resurrection seems to be appealed to as an evidence of the faith: at all events it cannot ^ Acts xvii. 31. ^ Rom, i. 4. ^ Rom. iv. 24, * I Pet, i. 20, 21. 68 Miracles in the New Testament be said that, on the whole, this is a prominent aspect of that unique event in the Apostolic teaching. The Resurrection is the centre of their teaching, but it is taught, not as the proof of doctrine, but as itself doctrine, as the truth in which all other Christian truths find their climax and interpretation. It would be a very meagre and imperfect, even a false, account of the Apostles' treatment of the Resurrection, to say that it was to them only a * sign ' proving the truth of Christ's teaching. I venture to say that that is the least significant aspect of the Resurrec- tion in the New Testament^. St. Paul indeed treats it as a proof, or rather as a pledge ^ : but it is a pledge of our own resurrection, not of the Divinity or of the truth of Christ. Or again, as we have already seen, it is taken as throwing light on God's character, as being an essential part of His self-revelation in Christ. ' Now the God of peace, who brought again from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep with the blood of the eternal covenant, even our Lord Jesus Christ, make you perfect in every good thing ^' ^ Cf. Westcott, Gospel of Life^ pp. 233 f. : * The Resurrection itself was the message, not as being an overwhelming wonder, but so far as it was recognized as the beginning of a new life (Acts xiii. 33).* * I Cor, XV. 20, ^ Heb. xiii. 20. The Resurrection a doctrine 69 Again, it is frequently treated as the great instance of the fulfilment of prophecy. * We bring you good tidings of the promise made to the fathers, how that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that He raised up Jesus ^/ But chiefly it is as an integral part of Christ's manifestation, essential to His manifold offices and work, that the Resurrection is proclaimed by the Apostles. His Divine nature necessitated it. * Him God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that He should be holden of it^.' It is part of our conception of the Incarnation and of His relation to us. *Ye were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God^.' It is essential to the priestly office of remission of sins : ' Him did God exalt with His right Hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance unto Israel, and remission of sins^.' And in thus presenting the Resurrection as the main doctrine of the faith, so far from relying on it to produce conviction of the truth of the Gospel, the Apostles ^ Acts xiii. 32 f. ^ Ibid. ii. 24. ^ Rom. vii. 4. * Acts v, 31. 70 Miracles in the New Testament found it, both among Jews and Gentiles, a diffi- culty and a stumbling-block. How could that be intended primarily as a proof of Christianity which was received by the Athenians with mockery ^, which was thought * incredible ' by Agrippa ^, which provoked Festus to call St. Paul ' mad V which was the ground of the Sadducean hostility to the Gospel*, which was denied or explained away by prominent teachers among the Corinthians^? We see, then, that the Resurrection was taught as the main doctrine, the completion and crown of the truth in Christ Jesus, that it was received with the greatest incredulity and derision, that it was very rarely appealed to as a proof of Christ's Divinity or of the truth of His teaching. The Resurrection, in a word, is Christ, not evidence for Christ. The Resurrection is the chief miracle of Christi- anity, but it only makes more apparent the problem we are considering. Why were miracles at once so firmly believed, and so rarely relied upon as the chief evidence or even as an evidence at all of the Christian faith ? The answer is to be found in our Lord's own teaching about miracles. Like the Apostles, 1 Acts xvii. 32. 2 Ibid. xxvi. 8. " Ibid. xxvi. 24. * Ibid. iv. 1, 2 ; V. 17. ^ I Cor. xv. 12, Chrisfs answer to the Baptist 71 our Lord certainly occasionally appealed to them as proofs of His mission. Thus, in re- buking His disciples for their want of faith, He pointed to the miracle of the loaves as a proof of His power to provide for their wants ^ He deliberately intensified the marvellousness of the raising of Lazarus in order to strengthen His Apostles' faith, ' I am glaa for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent that ye may believe^/ And on two occasions He seems to have pointed forward to the Resurrection, though in a very mysterious manner, as a 'sign' to the Jews^. There are, however, few if any other instances, except one or two sayings which I will discuss later, of a definite appeal to the evidence afforded by His miracles. It may be thought that the answer to St. John the Baptist's inquiry * is an appeal of this kind. But is it not clear that our Lord was here pointing to His miracles, not as being in them- selves and because of their astonishing cha- racter proofs of His mission, but as fulfilling the Messianic prophecies ? His answer is a direct reference to two passages of Isaiah, in which 1 Matt. xvi. 8 ff. ^ John xi. 6, 15. ^ Matt. xii. 39 f. ; xvi. 4 ; cf. John ii. 18-22. * Matt, xi. a-6. 72 Miracles in the New Testament the Messiah's work is foretold^, and the miracles fulfil this and other similar prophecies, not because they are mighty and inexphcable works, but because they manifest the mercy and love of Christ. The inclusion of the words *the poor have the Gospel preached to them' is a proof that our Lord was not appealing to the miraculous, but to the beneficent character of His works. The same appeal is made by St. Matthew when he assigns as the object of our Lord's miracles of heahng 'that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, Himself took our infirmities and bare our diseases ^.' There are, then, very few direct appeals to the witness of miracles by our Lord Himself And on the other hand He explains this reticence by numerous sayings in which the essential in- feriority of the evidence of miracles is plainly asserted. Even when he seems to rely on miracles to produce belief, as in the case of Lazarus ^ it should be remembered that no miracle was necessary for the first impulse of * Isa. XXXV. 5, 6 ; Ixi. i. ** Matt. viii. 17. 3 St. Augustine points out that it was not to produce, but to confirm belief that our Lord appealed to the miracle of Lazarus : ' quamvis tali verbo usus sit, quasi tunc credere inciperent ' {In loh. Evang, tractat. xlix. 11). Nicodemus 73 faith in the disciples. No sign was given before that night's intercourse with Jesus which knit the foremost Apostles to His side and caused Andrew to proclaim that he had 'found the Messiah^.' And although a secret sign was given to the prejudiced Nathanael and he believed, our Lord is careful to point out the relative inferiority of such evidence. 'Thou shalt see greater things than these/ i.e. spiritual signs, 'the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man ^.' The note thus struck is maintained throughout our Lord's teaching. If there oc- curred a momentary access of unreasoning belief in Him because of the signs which He did, the Evangelist adds that 'Jesus did not trust Him- self unto them ^' ; knowing, it would seem, how weak and transitory such conviction must ever be. And when immediately afterwards the visit of Nicodemus is narrated, with his assertion that the signs proved their worker to be * a teacher come from God S' it is impossible not to see in our Lord's discourse a rebuke of the attitude of mind thus shown in the ' teacher of Israel' as in the crowd that thronged Jerusalem. * John i. 38-41. ^ Ibid. i. 48, 50 £ " Ibid. ii. 23 ff. * Ibid. iii. 2. 74 Miracles in the New Testament Belief based on mere signs will carry a man but a very little way. Divine things are not to be judged in this fashion, but can only be ' spirit- ually discerned ^.' ' Except a man be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God^': he has no right to assess the claims of Christ to be a Divine Teacher. The inferiority of ' signs and wonders ' as the basis of belief is again implied in the answer to the appeal of the nobleman at Cana : ' Except ye see signs and wonders ye will in no wise believe ^.' When He enumerates the various kinds of witness borne to Him, the witness of miracles is quite subordinate *. First there was the witness of the Baptist, and then above that, for that is of man and these are of God, are 'the works which the Father hath given Me to accomplish.' But beyond and above both these is the witness of the Father Himself, and the witness of the Scriptures: the voice of God in the testimony of pro- phecy. The passage no doubt recognizes miracles, or rather works, for the word must not be limited to miraculous signs, as evidence, but evidence of an inferior kind: and this is supported by many sayings of a like import. 1 I Cor. ii. 14. ^ John iii. 3. 3 Ibid. iv. 46. * Ibid. v. 31-40. Inferiority of miracles 75 The appeal is made to them only in the last resort, when belief had not been accorded to Christ's own personal word. ' I told you, and ye believed not : the works that I do in My Father's name, these bear witness of Me\' And again, 'though ye believe not Me, believe the works ^/ The same declaration is made to His own disciples : * Beheve Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me : or else believe Me for the very works' sake V The 'sayings' of Christ are more than once placed above His works as witnesses to Him. ' He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him ^' It is true that a responsibility lies on those who rejected the witness of the works : ' If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they had not had sin ' : but first comes the responsibility of re- jecting His words : ' If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin ^.' The ' John X. 25. ^ Ibid. x. 28. ^ Ibid. xiv. II. ' Ibid. xii. 48. * Ibid. XV, 22, 24. As Bp. Westcott points out (in loc), while * the works' are characterized as those 'which none other man did,' the 'words ' are left undefined. ' The works of Christ might be compared with other works ; His words had an absolute power.' 76 Miracles in the New Testament whole attitude of our Lord towards miracles may in short be expressed in the words of His declaration to Thomas : * Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have beheved \' Faith based on visible signs is not rejected; for * those that come ' to Him, however they may be drawn, He ' will in no wise cast out^ ' ; but far better is it to believe as the Samaritans believed, ' because of His word ^.' When, however, we infer, from a study of our Lord's treatment of miracles, that they ought not to be regarded as mainly intended for evidences of the Gospel, we may be met with the objection that this view deprives miracles of all rational explanation whatever. If they are not proofs of a revelation, what are they? The answer is to be found in Christ's words: they are 'signs following them that beheve*.' I say these are Christ's words, for, though the passage containing them is almost certainly no part of the Gospel to which it is appended, who would have put into His mouth so unexpected a phrase? He would surely have been made to say 'these signs shall follow » John XX. 29. ' Ibid. vi. 37, 3 Ibid. iv. 41 f. * Mark xvi. 17. Signs of an Apostle 77 and support your preaching, shall corroborate your doctrine.' Instead of that He declares that miraculous signs shall be the accompaniments, or even the consequences, not the causes of behef. 'These signs shall follow them that believe.' Wonderful powers shall result from the new life imparted by the Holy Spirit : they shall be the outcome and manifestation of the new birth : the faith aroused by Apostolic preach- ing shall be followed not produced, by victories over physical evil, as well as over spiritual wickedness. And therefore they were regarded as ' signs of an Apostle.' The wonders accom- panying Apostolic preaching were not only, or even mainly, miracles worked by the Apostle, but miraculous powers bestowed, as a result of his preaching, upon those who heard and believed him. They were indeed * signs of an Apostle,' because they were bestowed in accord- ance with the order of Apostolic ministry marked out by Christ Himself. They followed no irregular or unauthorized course ; for the life of which they were partial manifestations flowed in Divinely-ordained channels, and quickened with its regular workings the Divinely-fashioned body of Christ. Therefore, whether we consider the miracles 78 Miracles in the New Testament of Christ or those of His Church, we see that they were not intended to compel a reluctant belief. Sometimes they may indeed have aroused attention and thus brought men to Christ; now and then perhaps they supplied a real ground and starting-point for faith. The natures of men are various, and God draws them to Him by various means. But, as our Lord showed when He refused to work miracles in order to produce belief in those who would not believe on His word, this was not the purpose and object of miracles ; they were rather integral parts of the Divine manifestation, necessary results of the special presence of God in His world. We come back in short substan- tially to the conclusion reached from a study of the Old Testament miracles. We saw that they were acts of God in the process of redeeming His people and of preparing them for the Divine purposes. And the miracles of the New Testa- ment are likewise acts of redemption, necessary results of the relation between God and His Church. They differ indeed from those of the Old Testament in that since the time when God led Israel out of Egypt with a mighty hand the relation had become more close, more vital. In the person of Christ, God tabernacled among Christ the evidence of Christianity 79 men, and miracles, part of the visible outcome of this Divine indwelling, became therefore for the time continuous, instead of rare manifesta- tions of His presence. But the same principle is exemplified under both dispensations. In neither are miracles intended as proofs to con- vince the incredulous. In the New as in the Old Testament the evidence of revelation is to be sought elsewhere. By itself a miracle has no moral and therefore no evidential force. The only test for distinguishing Divine from Satanic miracles is that of the moral character and purpose of the worker : and therefore mira- cles depend for all their force upon a previous appreciation of the character and personality of Christ. Here then is the final and paramount evidence of Christianity. To the demand for a sign, a demand which He declared to be in itself sinful, Christ would return no clear answer except the declaration that He Himself was the true sign offered for their behef. 'A greater than Jonas is here^.' No miraculous gift of manna, but the living Bread from heaven, should be their sign. ' I am the Bread of Life ; . . . but I said unto you that ye have seen Me, and yet believe not^' The vision of Christ is the source ^ Matt. xii. 41. 2 John vi. 35 f. 8o Miracles in the New Testament of a Christian's belief. Think of the doubtful and complex systems of evidence based on external signs and wonders, and then turn to the transparent simplicity of the process of Christian faith and its reward, a process which centres in the person of Jesus Christ. 'This is the will of My Father, that every one who beholdeth the Son, and beheveth on Him, should have eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the last day \' The pride of man's intellect, craving for a ' rational guarantee ^/ must submit to the method of personal knowledge and obedient intercourse with Christ : we must learn to believe because *we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world ^.' * John vi. 40. ' Mozley, On MiracleSj p. 25. ^ John iv. 42. Ill Miracles in the Early Church In the first two lectures we have examined the position of miracles in the Old and New Testament, and the nature of the appeal made to them by the prophets, by our Lord, and by His Apostles. Now it may be urged that this is inadequate inasmuch as the Bible does not yield, and was not intended to yield, a very definite answer to an inquiry into the evidential methods of Christianity. It is too unsystematic and fragmentary ; it does not contain a complete account of the spread of the Gospel, still less of the arguments and proofs by which it was supported. This is true : but the evidence can be partially supplemented by examining the methods of the Christian writers who succeeded the Apostles. It must, of course, be remem- bered that they also were mostly unsystematic, and that the evidences of Christianity were only by degrees drawn out in regular and philoso- M 82 Miracles in the Early Church phical form. Still the methods used by the Apologists of the first four centuries, if ex- amined with due caution, will throw back some light on what is left obscure in the Apostohc age. I propose, therefore, in this lecture to investigate the use made of miracles by the early Apologetic writers, in order to ascertain their view of the evidences of Christianity, and how far it coin- cided with the methods of proof adopted by our Lord and His Apostles. Even within the limits indicated, I am only too conscious that the survey must be hasty and superficial. In considering the question of miracles in the early Church, there are two topics to be dis- tinguished. First, we have to ask how far the miraculous powers of the Apostles were con- tinued in the later period : for the answer must needs throw light on the second or main subject of our investigation. The behef in contemporary miracles must have affected the use made by the Fathers of the miracles of our Lord and His Apostles. Till we know how far miracles were regarded as common events we cannot appre- ciate the view taken of the Biblical * signs and wonders.' I shall first shortly inquire into the Patristic belief in contemporary miracles, and then consider the place which the Biblical Belief in contemporary miracles 83 miracles occupied in the religious system of the early Apologists and theologians. The question of the existence of miracles in the early Church is complicated by the vague language used by many of the writers. When Clement of Rome ^ and Ignatius ^ speak of the gifts of the Holy Ghost poured out upon the Church of their times, it is impossible to say whether they meant what we should call mira- culous gifts: indeed the very fact of the am- biguity shows how little stress in those early days was laid on the miraculous character of such phenomena. Again, several writers use contradictory language on the subject, at one time apparently admitting that no contempo- rary miracles were wrought, and again claiming for the Church at least some supernatural powers. But certain facts seem to stand out. In the scanty records of Christian literature before the time of Justin Martyr that remain to us, no clear reference to contemporary miracles is found. Whether the striking Apology ' Ad Cor. i. 2 eiprivrj ^aOeta /tai \tirapai i^iZoro Trdffiv, ical aKopiajoi TTii^os ei? dyaOonouav, «at irKrjpTjs IIvevfxaTos 'Ayiov €Kxv Hal rats kot* avrov irpd^fffi K7}T€{>0T}y bpav ycvSfifva xal yivSfieva, ijirep fnyifXTTj «at dXijOiardTrj dnSSet^ts Kal vfitvj ^s vofuiofiev, ^avi^ffCTat, Just. Mart. Apol. i. ch. 30 ; cf. Dial. ch. 69. Arnobius 97 miracles were foretold also. And when the further thought crosses his mind that the pro- phets themselves needed some credentials, he points indeed to their miracles, i. e. probably to those of Moses, but he appeals not to their pre- ternatural but to their moral and religious forced Here we have the two essential elements in the Patristic treatment of Christian miracles: the stress laid on their moral character, and their complete subordination to prophecy. Even when a writer like the late Apologist Arnobius com- pletely neglects prophecy, and rests his proof almost wholly on Christ's miracles, he is careful to point out that they differed from magic, not only by the absence of any external aid and of ceremonials, but by their beneficent character. This indeed was their object, 'that hardened and unbelieving men, from the kindness of His works, might learn to apprehend the nature of the true God ^.' Arnobius, however, stands alone in his exclusive appeal to miracles. No doubt ^ KatTOi 7€ /cat hid rds bvvdfieiSj ds kirereXovv, iriffTeveaOai SiKaioi ^v, fij) d^iokuyov rivds dvvdfxiojs avTOvs koI Tepaarictiv TrpayfmTQjv pieTaKivrjcrdvTOJv enl tcL ovtoj ^iva Koi aKK6rpia rwv aw- rp6v itap^ 'lovbaiois irpncjyqrwy, ^ojv'aiws not twv fi^r^ avrSv, 4} Kal npb Mcovaeojs, Orig. c. Cels. i. 49 ; cf. ii. 28, and the order of the evidences enumerated, iii. 33 ; viii. 9. ^ Td ycLp xapa/cTT/pt^oj' t^v BeSr-qTa, 7j vepi fX€\K6vT0)v kffrlv diray- ycKiaj ib. vi. 10 ; cf. Just. Mart. Apol. i. 12 oirep 6€ov epyov kari, TTplv ^ y^viaOai diccTv «al ovtojs betxOijvai yevofjuvov ojs trpodpijTai. ^ "On fi^v oDv x^^oi*^ f^^^ TVs, trais ovk €t«(5s, on TrapeTxev eavTov ov ptovov toTs yvrjaiots avTOV pua.$rjTah^ aXK^ teal rots \onroTs Trap6.8€iyp.a dpiffrov $iov ; iva Kal ... 01 \oiiToi, ttX^ov SiSaxOivTcs diro TOV \6yov /cat ^^ous, ^ Kal rwv irapa^S^ojv aiy XP^ Piovv, Travra irp&TTaai /car' dva(popdv rod dpiaxeiv ry kvi ttcuti Oew, ib. i. 68. I04 Miracles in the Early Church wrought, not by Him, but in His Name, the wisdom and knowledge manifested in Him, and the profound truths which a spiritual insight can discover in the Scriptures \ So far Origen teaches what his predecessors taught, what our Lord and His Apostles taught. Miracles have evidential force, but it is of an inferior kind. The true proofs of Christianity are moral and spiritual. But it will be noticed that he does not, like Tertullian and Irenaeus, lay stress on the revelation of the Logos, the creative Word, by means of the visible works of Christ. Here is a defect in Origen's teaching which impairs the value of his treatment of miracles. In his hands they are in danger of becoming mere signs, unconnected with the character and functions of the Lord who worked them. The fact is that Origen was confronted with a new difficulty, and he went the wrong way to meet it. For the first time in the history of Christianity miracles, so far from being a con- vincing proof, were used as an argument against the Gospel. Hitherto it had been easy to refute the charge that they were due to magic, and Origen himself refutes it. But Celsus advanced a more subtle and more enduring objection. ^ Orig. c, Cels. iii. 33. Miracles not contrary to nature 105 God, he argued, cannot will anything contrary to nature, and such a miracle as the Resurrection is contrary to nature \ In his immediate answer to this, Origen shows his grasp of the highest principles of rehgious philosophy. God, he agrees ^, will do nothing contrary to nature, but He may go beyond nature, in the usual sense of the term. He is not bounded by our experience or by our preconceived ideas of what He ought to do, and to bestow a higher life upon man is within His power and His purposes. Here again we must look at the moral character of the ^ VloTov ycip ffwfia Ti&vrr} hia OeS;. 'AAA.' ovti ye rd. aiuxpd d Bibs dvyaraij ovbk rd, irapcL (pvffiv ^ovXerai, Orig. c. Cels, v. 14. ^ Ou« €(s dTOiioira.ri)v ye dvaxojp'r]atv dvaxojpovfiev, Xkyovres on trdv bvvarov to) tfe^* otSap.ev yap olkovhv tov irdvj ovfc eirl ratv dvvndpKTOJV ^ ovd' em Twv ddiavo-/}Twv. ^afi^v 5^ /cat, otl ov Svvarai atffxpoi' o 6e6sj eirel effrai 6 Beb^ Svvdfxevos fi^ etvat BeSs' el yap ai^xp^v ti dp^ 6 6e6Sf ovK eun 0€6s. 'Enel SI nBrjffiv, oTi koi rd irapd vfftv tis t^v KaKiav Xeyetf Kai 7Jp.eTs Kiyofiev, on ov povkerai rd irapd v