IV

SYNOPSIS.--A clearer conception of miracle approached.--Works of

Jesus once reputed miraculous not so reputed now, since not now

transcending, as once, the existing range of knowledge and

power.--This transfer of the miraculous to the natural likely to

continue.--No hard and fast line between the miraculous and the

non-miraculous.--Miracle a provisional word, its application

narrowing in the enlarging mastery of the secrets of nature and

life.

At this point it seems possible to approach a clearer understanding of

the proper meaning to attach to the generally ill-defined and hazy term

_miracle_.[27] Matthew Arnold's fantastic illustration of the idea of

miracle by supposing a pen changed to a pen-wiper may fit some miracles,

especially those of the Catholic hagiology, but, if applied to those of

Jesus, would be a caricature. In the New Testament a reputed miracle is

not any sort of wonderful work upon any sort of occasion, but an act of

benevolent will exerted for an immediate benefit,[28] and transcending

the then existing range of human intelligence to explain and power to

achieve. The historic reality of at least some such acts performed by

Jesus is acknowledged by critics as free from the faintest trace of

orthodox bias as Keim: "The picture of Jesus, the worker of miracles,

belongs to the first believers in Christ, and is no invention."

It has already been noted that a considerable number of the then reputed

miracles of Jesus, particularly his works of healing, do not now, as

then, transcend the existing range of knowledge and power, and

accordingly are no longer reputed miraculous. And one cannot reasonably

believe that a limit to the understanding and control of forces in

Nature and mind that now are more or less occult has been already

reached. It is, therefore, not incredible that some of the mighty works

of Jesus, which still transcend the existing limits of knowledge and

power, and so are still reputed miraculous, and are suspected by many as

unhistorical, may in some yet remote and riper stage of humanity be

transferred, as some have already been, to the class of the

non-miraculous and natural.

Dr. Robbins, Dean of the General Theological Seminary, New York, after

remarking that "the word _miracle_ has done more to introduce confusion

into Christian Evidences than any other," goes on to say: "To animals

certain events to them inexplicable are signs of the presence of human

intelligence and power. To men these miracles of Christ are signs of

divine intelligence and power. But how is miracle to be differentiated

from other providential dealings of God? Not by removing him further

from common events. Abstruse speculations concerning the relation of

miracles to other physical phenomena may be safely left to the

adjustment of an age which shall have advanced to a more perfect

synthesis of knowledge than the present can boast."[29]

The truth to which such considerations conduct is, that no hard and fast

line can be drawn between the miraculous and the non-miraculous. To the

untutored mind, like that of the savage who thought it miraculous that a

chip with a message written on it had talked to the recipient, the

simplest thing that he cannot explain is miraculous: "_omne ignotum pro

mirifico_," said Tacitus. As the range of knowledge and power widens,

the range of the miraculous narrows correspondingly. Some twenty years

since, the International Sunday-school Lessons employed as a proof of

the divinity of Christ the reputedly miraculous knowledge which he

evinced in his first interview with Nathanael of a solitary hour in

Nathanael's experience.[30] Since then it has been demonstrated[31] by

psychical research that the natural order of the world includes

telepathy, and the range of the miraculous has been correspondingly

reduced without detriment to the argument for the divinity of Christ,

now rested on less precarious ground.

Under such conditions as we have reviewed a miracle cannot always be one

and the same thing. Miracle must therefore be defined as being what our

whole course of thought has suggested that it is: in general, an elastic

word; in particular, a provisional word,--a word whose application

narrows with the enlarging range of human knowledge[32] and power which

for the time it transcends; a word whose history, in its record of

ranges already transcended, prompts expectation that ranges still beyond

may be transcended in the illimitable progress of mankind. Professor Le

Conte says that miracle is "an occurrence or a phenomenon according to a

law higher than any yet known." Thus it is a case of human ignorance,

not of divine interference.

On the other hand, we must believe that the goal of progress is a flying

goal; that human attainment can never reach finality unless men cease to

be. And so all widening of human knowledge and power must ever disclose

further limitations to be transcended. There will always be a _Beyond_,

in which dwells the secret of laws still undiscovered, that underlie

mysteries unrevealed and marvels unexplained. This will have to be

admitted, especially, by those to whom the marvellous is synonymous

with the incredible. We have not been able to eviscerate even these

prosaic and matter-of-fact modern times of marvels whose secret lies in

the yet uncatalogued or indefinable powers of the mysterious agent that

we name _life_: witness many well verified facts recorded by the Society

for Psychical Research.[33] How, then, is it consistent to affirm that

no such marvels in ancient records are historical realities? Nay, may it

not be true that the ancient days of seers and prophets, the days of

Jesus, days of the sublime strivings of great and lonely souls for

closer converse with the Infinite Spirit behind his mask of Nature,

offered better conditions for marvellous experiences and deeds than

these days of scientific laboratories and factories, and world-markets

and world-politics?

Miracles and Supernatural Religion · 第 26 / 52 题