ganic laws are subordinate to organic, and organic laws to moral, in the plan and working of the universe,* and that the lower are not dishonored, but rather glorified by a fellowship, even of subordination, with the higher. Alone in their sphere the laws or forces of inorganic matter act invariably, but when matter is made organic by life, higher laws prevail and the lower succumb. In obedience to the same principle, organic laws must yield to moral; for according to God's plan all other ends are tributary to moral ones in his creation. "The great purpose of God," says Dr. Channing, "in establishing the order of nature, is to form and advance the mind; and if the case should occur in which the interests of the mind could best be advanced by departing from this order, or by miraculous agency, then the great purpose of the creation, the great end of its laws and regularity, would demand such departure; and iniracles, instead of warring against, would concur with nature."+ Dr. Chalmers maintains that, properly speaking, miracles do not disturb the constancy of nature-do not suspend the law of cause and effect. "A miracle," he remarks, "is no infringement of the order of cause and effect, for this special intromission of the Divine will is the introduction of a new cause, making the causal antecedent different from what it was before." "As the en trance of new personalities into the world," says Schenkel, "does not involve the destruction of those already present, so neither does the entrance into the world of absolute creative acts by the hand of God involve the destruction of existing natural connections." Again, "it cannot in fact be seen how the connection and order of nature should be destroyed by the creation of some loaves immediately by the power of God, in place of their being prepared by the hand of the baker, or by his freeing some persons who were sick from their disease by his direct agency, instead of their being healed by the virtues of medicine." "But the laws of experience, on which in *Compare Nitzsch, Studien und Kritiken, 1843, p. 39; Trench," Notes on the Miracles," p. 21, sq., and Wardlaw, cited above. Dudleian Lecture at Cambridge. "Institutes of Theology," vol. i. p. 170, note. Christliche Dogmattik, vol. i. p. 258 and 259. general our knowledge rests, how in the world," inquires Rothe, "can they be endangered by acts supernaturally wrought, if these acts offer themselves expressly to experience as not caused by the course of nature?"* This much is certainly true, that miracles do not shake in the least degree the great principle that every change has a cause, and that the cause being the same in all respects the effect will always be the same. The tie which binds together cause and effect is not therefore severed by any miracle however surprising. We have now considered the principle reasons which are said to render the occurrence of miracles incredible, or to the last degree improbable, and have found them to be unsatisfactory. Nay more, they are overbalanced by a general presumption of some miraculously attested revelation from God. Of some such revelation, not of many such, and these disconnected, inharmonious, clashing. Hence the propriety of scrutinizing carefully the testimony for alleged miracles. Indeed, the objections which have been noticed, while they utterly fail of establishing a presumption against the occurrence of miracles in general, do seem to justify a very cautious sifting of the testimony in support of particular ones, lest counterfeits be welcomed as genuine. We propose therefore to examine by some care a few of those narratives of miracles wrought by Christ which are contained in the four Gospels. In making this examination, we shall refer very often to the naturalistic and mythical explanations of the record, and will therefore briefly characterize these two methods of interpretation. The naturalistic method, assuming the impossibility of miracles, undertakes to show that the writers of the four gospels nowhere ascribe any to Christ. The mythical hypoth , p. * Studien und Kritiken, 1858, p. 29. We shoud be glad to translate pages from this article, but can only commend it to the attention of our readers. + See a beautiful passage in Channing's Dudleian Lecture, Works, vol. iii, p 119. We would also refer to Mansel on "Miracles," in "Aids to Faith," Heurtley on Miracles," in " Replies to Essays and Reviews," Philippi, Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, i. p. 24, sq. Schmid (C. T.) "Biblische Theologie des N. T." § 17 p. 85, sq., as presenting the argument for miracles in a clear light. These are mentioned as a part of the recent literature of the subject. esis, on the other hand, admits that the evangelists do ascribe miracles to Christ, but, denying the possibility of their occurrence, maintains that the marvellous stories recorded in the gospels were originated by the early Christians, who took the liberty of attributing to Jesus, the Messiah, such works as in their opinion befitted his character and office. At the head of the naturalistic interpreters stands the name of Paulus, and at the head of the mythical, that of Strauss. We shall have occasion frequently to give the opinions of these men. The Miracles of Christ may be divided into two classes, viz : those wrought upon human nature and those wrought upon the material world. We shall take them up in this order; and, I. Miracles on Human Nature. For the sake of clearness this large class of miracles may be subdivided into sections, as follows: Section I. Healing Mortal Sicknesses. Jo. iv: 46–54; Matt. viii: 14-17; Mr. i: 29-34; Luke iv: 38-41; Luke xiv: 1-6; Matt. viii: 5-13; Luke vii: 1-10. We begin with the Healing of the Nobleman's Son, related by John iv: 46–54: (a.) This miracle is not identical, as a few interpreters have supposed, with the healing of the centurion's servant, recorded by Matthew viii: 5-13, and Luke vii: 1-10. For while there are but two points of coincidence, viz: that in both cases the person cured was in Capernaum, and the miracle described was wrought from a distance; there are many points of difference, e. g., in the former narrative Christ is said to have been at Cana, but in the latter at Capernaum; in the former he is said to have wrought the miracle just after his return from the passover through Samaria, in the latter just after his coming down from the place of his "Sermon on the Mount;" in the former the person healed is called a son of the petitioner, in the latter a servant of the petitioner; in the former the petitioner is denominated a βασιλικος, in the latter a ἑκατονταρχος; in the former he appears to be a Jew, in the latter he is a Gentile; in the former he is represented as a man of weak faith, in the latter as a man of great faith; in the former Christ virtually refuses to go with him to his house, in the latter he offers to go thither with him. These points of difference are so many and so important as to preclude the hypothesis of a single miracle being the basis of narratives so unlike. We must therefore examine the narrative of John by itself. (b.) The naturalistic interpretation of John's record is clearly untenable. For, according to this interpretation, Jesus merely assures the father that his son's life is out of danger— "thy son liveth"-without intimating any agency of his own in the case. By his accurate knowledge of disease, it is supposed, he was able to infer from the nobleman's description of his son's state that the crisis was now reached, and that the issue must be favorable. But this view of the narrative does not accord with the final remark of John: "This is again the second sign-on usios, which Jesus did," compared with the first response of Christ to the nobleman; "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." For the word "sign" is here used by the evangelist to signify no less than what Christ had spoken of as "signs and wonders." The nobleman had, indeed, a kind of faith when he first applied to Jesus for help, and this faith had become yet stronger when he believed the word of Christ: "thy son liveth;" but it was very imperfect and liable to be shaken until he learned that the fever departed at the very time when Jesus uttered that decisive word then "he believed and all his house" thus verifying exactly our Saviour's remark: "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." Moreover, this view does not accord with the impression which seems to have been made on the nobleman's mind by the reply of Christ: "Thy son liveth." Just before this reply he pleads with all a father's heart: "Come down, ere my child die;" he feels that something must be done, or his son will surely die; but hearing the word of Jesus, he at once believes it. Was that word the mere utterance of a medical opinion? or, was there in it a pledge of healing by the power of Christ? If the latter-if there was that in the tone and emphasis of Jesus which af firmed a miraculous interposition on his part-we can under stand its effect; but if it was the former, we cannot. Nor does this view accord with the wisdom and rectitude for which Christ was preeminent. To pronounce safe the life of one who was in a high fever and seemingly at the point of death, and especially to do this without seeing the sufferer, can hardly be vindicated as a prudent act, however great the pathological knowledge of the physician. Much less, if a miracle of knowledge be excluded, can such an act be reconciled with the spotless integrity of Jesus. An assurance so positive as to satisfy the father* presupposes for its basis either divine knowledge or moral recklessness. (c.) The mythical interpretation is likewise untenable. Admitting that the writer of the fourth gospel means to record a miracle in the passage before us, this interpretation impeaches his testimony by asserting, (1) that believers in Jesus as the promised Messiah, would naturally assume his superiority to all the ancient prophets in working miracles, and would therefore ascribe to him every sort of miracle fitted to excite special wonder; and (2) that in the case of Naaman, the Syrian, a supernatural cure was effected by bathing in the Jordan, while the prophet, at whose word the miracle was wrought, remained at a distance in his own house. To surpass this Old Testament miracle Jesus must effect as great a cure from a distance, by his mere word: he was therefore presumed to have done this, and a story embodying the presumption was by degrees put in circulation. Against this view may be urged, (1.) The style of the narrative before us. For this bears all the marks of truth; it is simple, minute, graphic, objective. It says nothing of the motives of Christ or of the nobleman; it eulogizes neither, criticizes neither; it confines itself to a bare recital of the events as they transpired. We are unable to detect the slightest effort to do more than this or less than this. (2.) The contents of the narrative. A fever is by no means * The father did not return till the next day. Did the next day begin at even tide, so that the nobleman reached Capernaum late in the evening? MEYER. |