1. The miracles ascribed to Jesus are,--
[Illustration: table 055]
[Illustration: table 056]
The healing power claimed for Jesus in the passages marked (a) embraces
all manner of sickness, disease, and derangement. Cures were effected by
his word or his touch, or upon the patient laying hold even of the hem
of his garment. The contemporaneous unbelief (Matt. xi. 20-24.) of his
pretensions, with such instances of superhuman power openly manifested
far and wide (Matt. iv. 23-25, and ix. 35) among the cities and villages
of Galilee, is the crowning marvel of all.
The special instances of his wonder-working and disease-curing power,
marked (6), (c), (d), and (e), comprise all that are recorded in the
four Gospels. The agreement between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, both as to
the incidents and the manner of narration, is most marked. The raising
of the son of the widow of Nain, the miraculous draught of fishes at the
calling of Peter, James, and John, a cure of dropsy and one of infirmity
are given by Luke alone. On the other hand, Luke has not the walking on
the sea, the feeding of the four thousand, the cursing of the fig-tree,
or the curing of the Canaanite's demon-possessed daughter, found in
Matthew and Mark. And Matthew alone narrates the catching of the fish
with the tribute money. But in the other instances the agreement between
them is almost complete--so complete as to suggest many questions as
to the real truth with reference to the compilation of the first three
Gospels, questions which probably will never be solved. What, however,
concerns the present purpose is that of the three the only eye-witness
is Matthew, The source from which Mark and Luke derived their
information is unknown, and ever will remain so. If not from Matthew
(always assuming him to be the writer of the first Gospel), or from
the same source as Matthew, it would be remarkable that their mode of
narrating these details was so similar to his. How far then, does John,
the other eye-witness, bear out Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Strange to
relate, he has not one word of the casting out of devils, or of the
cures of bodily distresses mentioned by the other three. Nor does he
confirm the raising of Jairus' daughter, although he himself and James
and Peter were the only three said to have been admitted by Jesus to
witness this event, nor the resuscitation of the son of the widow
of Nain, nor the calming of the storm, nor the feeding of the four
thousand, nor the cursing of the fig-tree, nor the fish with the tribute
money, nor the miraculous haul of fishes at his own calling to be a
disciple. The miracles he does mention are _seven in all, and of these
five are net in the other gospels_, although of the most striking
character. They are,
1. The raising of Lazarus, four days dead.
2. Turning water into wine.
3. Curing a nobleman's son, at a distance, of fever.
4. Curing a man blind from his birth.
5. Curing a man, at the pool of Bethesda, with an infirmity of
thirty-eight years' standing.
Of the twenty-four miracles recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John,
said to have been the eye-witness of all, confirms only two--viz., the
feeding of the five thousand, and the walking on the sea.
These two miracles are thus a chronological break, in all the Gospel
narratives, of the movements of Jesus, by which a clear comparison can
be made, thus:--
[Illustration: table 058]
[Illustration: table 059]
As to the subsequent events, from the entrance into Jerusalem to the
crucifixion, the four gospels agree in the main, though they differ in
several important particulars. But from the entrance into Jerusalem
back to the feeding of the five thousand, how utter the divergence! And,
again, from the feeding of the five thousand back to John's baptism,
how irreconcilable the accounts of the two professed eyewitnesses
represented as fellow-travellers over the greater part of the
journeyings mentioned! The first three gospels place all Jesus' ministry
and miracles, and the calling of his disciples, as to time, after John's
imprisonment, as to place, in Galilee and its neighbourhood, until he
went up once for all to Jerusalem, from which he never returned. John,
on the contrary, makes his ministry commence before the Baptist's
imprisonment, places the calling of two of the same disciples, Andrew
and Peter, while Jesus was a follower of the Baptist, and mentions three
or four visits to Jerusalem before the final entry on the back of an
ass. Moreover, the discourses recorded in John are very unlike the
discourses in the other three narratives, and, what strikes as very
remarkable, there are no parables in the fourth Gospel.
Here, then, are two witnesses, followers of Jesus, giving different
and irreconcilable accounts of his ministry, his wanderings, his public
utterances, his miracles; agreeing, indeed, thus far, that they both
record two of the last, but even with these two (see the two paragraphs
marked 9 and i above) at variance with each other in several details.
Of two ordinarily intelligent eye-witnesses can it be that one would
represent Jesus as "sending the multitude away," and the other as
"departing from them," and the multitude next day being in the same
place? or would one assert that he "constrained his disciples to take
ship" and the other that he left his disciples, and that they took ship
afterwards of their own accord? And yet this is what two, not ordinarily
intelligent--for as to that nothing is known--but divinely inspired and
divinely guided eye-witnesses affirm.
The miracles recorded in the four gospels are all of a benevolent
character, except the cursing of the fig-tree and the permission given
to the devils to go into the herd of swine. But notwithstanding
"the good-will to men" thus displayed, the Gospels avow that Jesus'
wonder-working failed to convince or to captivate by far the greater
part of his contemporaries. Chorazin, Bethsaida, Tyre, Sidon, and
Capernaum are all denounced, and assigned a doom more terrible than
that of Sodom and Gomorrah, because of their unbelief. And against this
general contemporaneous unbelief what is there to place? The single
testimony of Matthew the publican for a score of miracles which he is
said to have witnessed, confirmed by the hearsay testimony of Mark
and Luke, but quite unsupported by the testimony of John the Galilean
fisherman, who is also said to have witnessed them. Again, the single
testimony of John, unsupported by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for five most
marvellous events, including the raising from the dead of a man who had
been some time buried. The united testimony, weakened by divergence in
detail, of Matthew and John, for only two of the alleged miracles, and
the hearsay account of Luke for the raising from the dead of the son of
the widow of Nain, quite unsupported by either Matthew or John. And then
recurs the question: Would an Almighty maker of the universe, wishing to
show compassion to his creatures, and to accredit, not only to the men
living at the time of his appearance, but to all subsequent ages, by
undoubted testimonies, a messenger from himself (the son of his own
right hand), and to accredit him, moreover, by such testimonies as were
most suited to the comprehension of men, have allowed the record of
these credentials, on belief or unbelief on which the eternal doom of
each individual man henceforth would depend, to rest on evidence so
worthless--taken at its very best--as this?
2. The following miraculous events are ascribed to the apostles:--
Acts ii. 1-13. The gift of tongues.
" ii. 43. Wonders and signs generally.
" iii. 1-11. Cure of lame man by Peter and John.
" v. 1-11. The yielding up the ghost by Ananias and Sapphira
at the word of Peter.
" v. 15, 16. Cures at the least shadow of Peter.
" v. 17-20. Opening of the prison for Peter and John by the angel
of the Lord.
" vi. 8. Stephen's wonders and miracles.
" viii. 5-8. Cures by Philip of unclean spirits, and of the palsied
and lame.
" ix. 13-22. Ananias cures Saul of blindness.
" ix. 32-35. Cure by Peter of one sick of the palsy.
" ix. 36-43. Peter restores Dorcas to life.
Acts x. 1-48. Angel-appearance to Cornelius; trance of Peter.
" xii. 7-10. Opening of the prison for Peter by an angel of the Lord.
" xiii. 8-11. Blinding of Elymas by Paul.
" xiv. 3. Signs and wonders generally by Paul and Barnabas.
" xiv. 8-10. Cure of a cripple by Paul.
" xvi. 16-18. Curing a damsel possessed by a spirit of divination.
" xvi. 25-27. Earthquake while Paul and Silas were singing praises
to God in the stocks at Philippi.
" xix. 6. Disciples at Ephesus speaking with tongues when Paul
laid his hands on them.
" xix. 11, 12. Diseases and evil spirits expelled by aprons and
handkerchiefs taken from Paul's body.
" xix. 15. Testimony of the evil spirit to Jesus and Paul.
" xx. 9-12. Restoration of Eutychus by Paul.
" xxviii. 4. Viper shaken off Paul's hand without hurting him.
" xxviii. 8. Bloody flux and other diseases cured.
These wondrous occurrences rest on the record of Luke alone. The earlier
portion, if not the whole of them, had taken place before the Gospels
were written. The gift of tongues would have been vividly present to
the minds of Matthew and John, who were among the recipients of this
marvellous endowment. Mark (Acts xii. 12) would certainly have
been aware of the grave events connected with the death-dooming,
life-restoring, prison-opening Peter. A single chapter at the end of the
gospel of either Matthew, John, or Mark would have been sufficient to
contain the confirmation of the more important of these wonders, and
surely so much might have been expected from the "divinely-chosen"
witnesses, those whose mission it was to declare the whole counsel of
God, to testify to each divine confirmation within their knowledge of
the truth of the Gospel. What, then, can be said of their silence? Who
was Luke that they should have left so important a duty to him?
Previous to Acts xvi. 10 (where the "we" in the narrative commences),
Luke was not, so far as can be gathered, an eye-witness of any of the
events he relates, and his informant is unknown. Nor does he profess
to have been an eye-witness of the Ephesian disciples speaking with
tongues, the cures, and the testimony of the evil spirit mentioned in
Acts xix. 6, 15. He was present at the restoration of Eutychus, but it
is not altogether clear whether he means to describe this as a miracle.
The only others of which he was an eye-witness are the casting out of
the spirit of divination (Acts xvi. 16-18), and what are mentioned in
chap, xxviii. His reference to the "spirit of divination" as a real
power shows that he was imbued with the common superstition, that he
recognised the "abominations of those nations" denounced by Moses. In
chap, xxviii. the innocuous viper can scarcely be regarded as a miracle,
and possibly the bloody flux and other diseases may have given way
to other treatment over and above the praying and laying on of Paul's
hands. The general contradiction between Luke in the Acts and Paul in
his Epistles with reference to Paul's movements, will be fully detailed
in considering the testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus.
At the very best, therefore, scarcely any one of the apostolic miracles
can be said to rest on the testimony of a single eye-witness. They are
discredited by the silence of the actual eye-witnesses, Matthew and
John, whose records, it is here assumed, exist; and Luke's credibility
is, moreover, greatly affected by the serious conflict of testimony
between himself and Paul. (See Chap. V.)
The healing power claimed for the apostles quite rivals that of Jesus.
Cures were effected by the least shadow of Peter, and by "handkerchiefs
and aprons from Paul's body." Two of the miracles, however, differ from
those of Jesus in that they are of a vindictive nature. These are
the doom of Ananias and Sapphira, and the blinding of Elymas. A more
effective weapon for priestly domination and exaction than the sudden
death of Ananias and Sapphira--no time for repentance allowed--because
they deceived the apostles as to the price their property fetched, could
not have been devised. Peter's question, "Sold ye the land for so much,"
shows the inquisitorial tendency, so wonderfully developed under the
Christian name among all sects and creeds in later times. So far as can
be gathered from the Gospels, the fare on which Jesus and his disciples
lived was a poor one. Bread and fish are mentioned; wine only once, at
the last supper; but this is not confirmed by John. And how their food
was come by is left doubtful. Luke states that certain women followed
Jesus, who ministered to him of their substance. And John relates that
as soon as the raising of Lazarus from the dead became known, the chief
priests sought to arrest Jesus, when he went away to the city Ephraim,
near to the wilderness, and there continued with his disciples. Here was
a remarkable shrinking from the chief priests of one who had power to
restore life to the dead. Six days before the Passover he came again to
Bethany, where he had supper with the raised Lazarus and his sisters,
Martha and Mary. Martha served; Mary anointed his feet with costly
ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair. Judas Iscariot grumbled at
the waste: "Why," he said, "was not this ointment sold for three hundred
pence and given to the poor?" Jesus replied that she had done it against
the day of his burying. The narrator--John, as we assume, a companion of
Jesus--adds, "This he said not that he cared for the poor, but because
he was _a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein_." Most
marvellous! for what do such expressions as to the vocation of Judas
imply? Was he but a type of those who, under the authority of the name
and supernatural pretensions of his master, under various lofty titles,
from "holy" to "reverend," with intensifying adjectives prefixed, have
since imposed upon mankind, controlled rulers and deluded nations,
opposed freedom and denounced enlightenment, for the sake of their
order, their influence, their position, their emoluments?
But, in whatever way they maintained themselves, their life was a poor
one. "The Son of man had not where to lay his head." When, therefore,
the apostles found that their testimony to the resurrection of Jesus
brought about such a result as is described Acts iv. 32-35, the change
must have been a most agreeable one to them. "And the multitude of them
that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of
them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; and they
had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of
the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and great grace was upon them
all. Neither was there any among them that lacked; for as many as were
possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the
things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet; and
distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."
Here were they (assuming Luke's account to be true) leaders of a
communistic society, where all were well cared for, instead of earning
a hard livelihood as fishermen, or wandering about Galilee and Judea
as mendicants or otherwise; and even with the persecution it is said to
have brought from the Jewish rulers, the change must have been in every
way preferable. What more favourable opportunity than this could have
been found, "while they were giving themselves continually to prayer and
the ministry of the word," too busy even to attend to the distribution
of charity, to settle the accounts they were to propagate of Jesus' life
and teaching, his miraculous deeds, his resurrection and ascension,
and to mould them, so far as possible, in accordance with the Jewish
prophecies of the Messiah? But whether the wonders of the four gospels
originated thus or otherwise, Truth, ever triumphant in the end,
confounds the devices of designing, as well as the illusions of
weak-minded men, and reveals to her worshippers the flaws and the
hollowness that invariably characterise evidence in support of
superhuman pretence, intended to exercise sway over the consciences of
men.