WHAT DO THEY CONSIST? AND WHAT VIEW DO ITS WRITERS TAKE RESPECTING THEM?
Before entering on the general question of miracles, it is only reasonable
to inquire of the writers of the New Testament what they have to say on
the subject. Their opinion of the nature and character of the supernatural
occurrences which they have reported is certainly of more value than that
of all other writers put together. St. John and St. Paul must have been in
the habit of coming in contact with unbelievers. It would be most
important if we could ascertain the mode adopted by them of commending
Christianity to their acceptance, and what use was made by them of the
supernatural power with which they professed to be endowed.
First: It is impossible to read the New Testament without arriving at the
conclusion that the superhuman character which is ascribed to Jesus Christ
is perfectly unique, and differs entirely from that which is ascribed to
any other person. Others wrought miracles; but they were men like
ourselves. But in the person of Jesus Christ the supernatural is
represented as inherent. To say that he possessed the power of working
miracles, is an inadequate statement of the fact. Although he embodies the
perfection of human nature with all its finite limitations, the
supernatural and the divine take up their abode in his personality.
Whenever our Lord is represented as working miracles, he is always
represented as performing them by a power which was inherent in himself.
This is never once attributed to his followers. The supernatural action
which is ascribed to Jesus Christ must be viewed, as a case distinct and
separate, by itself. The miracles performed by him are not only
evidential, but also portions of his supernatural manifestation.
According to the author of the fourth Gospel, our Lord himself rarely
designated them by either of the three terms by which miracles are usually
designated in the New Testament, viz., signs, wonders, and mighty works
(σημεῖα, τέρατα, δυνάμεις). He almost uniformly called them “Works”
(ἔργα). An important distinction is here intended. Our Lord did not view
his miracles as a separate class of actions by themselves, but as portions
of his ordinary superhuman working, and as having a distinct relation to
his entire character. Four passages will be sufficient to show this
clearly. “The works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of
me.” “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” “If ye believe not me,
believe the works.” “Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for
which of those works do ye stone me?” When contemplated by others only,
they assume the form of signs and wonders: “Except ye see signs and
wonders, ye will not believe.” It is highly important that we should keep
steadily in view that the divine character attributed to Jesus is by no
means restricted to the performance of miracles; but that it extends
throughout his entire working, and that the two together constitute an
harmonious whole. It pertains no less to its moral and spiritual aspects,
than to the displays which he made of a power capable of controlling
nature. Even in this portion of his working, he draws special attention to
its moral and spiritual aspects. According to his view of his own mighty
works, they not only exhibited a power of controlling nature, but were
uniformly invested with a moral and spiritual environment. Throughout the
Gospels he is represented as exhibiting a greatness and dignity, a purity,
holiness, humility and benevolence, so far transcending that of other men,
as to constitute him what may be almost designated a moral and spiritual
miracle. Perfection in the moral and spiritual world is as essentially
superhuman, as power over nature is supernatural. In considering the
miracles which have been attributed to Jesus Christ, it is important to
bear in mind the manner in which they stand related to his entire
superhuman character. Otherwise we shall fail to observe the double aspect
which they bear. They were manifestations of the divine, which dwelt
within him, and also they possessed an evidential value.
I shall occasionally use the term “superhuman” instead of “divine,” as
applied to Jesus Christ, because for the purposes of this argument it will
be unnecessary for me to define the precise degree of divine character
which the evangelists intended to attribute to him. To ascertain this is
the proper function of the theologian, by comparing together the facts and
statements of the New Testament. It is sufficient for my present purpose
to observe that the perusal of the Gospels leaves the inevitable
impression on the mind that it was the purpose of their writers to depict
a divine character in union with a human one—a supernatural power acting
within the regions of the natural. This covers alike the aspects of
character presented of him both in the Synoptic and the Johannine Gospels.
Although our Lord speaks of his actions by the common name of “works”
(ἔργα), when the sacred authors speak generally of miracles, they apply to
them, as I have observed, three distinct terms, signs, mighty works, and
wonders (σημεῖα, δυνάμεις, τέρατα). Each of these denotes different
aspects in which they contemplated miracles. The sign included the
supernatural fact wrought on external nature with the whole of its moral
environment. In this point of view, the “sign” was the direct proof of a
divine mission. It is worthy of observation that the author of the fourth
Gospel has uniformly described the supernatural actions which he has
ascribed to Jesus Christ by this term. The expression “mighty works” is
intended to bring under our notice the power which was displayed in the
performance of a miracle, thereby directly connecting it with a superhuman
agency. The term “wonder” contemplates a supernatural event in its simple
aspect as an occurrence pre‐eminently fitted to command attention to the
person who was capable of performing it. We may therefore conclude that
the writers of the New Testament considered that these were the three
special functions of miracles. It is quite possible that the same miracle
might have fulfilled all three at the same time: but as three such
functions of supernatural occurrences are distinctly stated, it is quite
conceivable that there were occasions when they were limited to some one
of these in particular.
It is evident that our Lord attached the highest importance to a miracle
contemplated as a “sign,” _i.e._ to the moral environment with which it
was connected. This, although more definitely brought out in St. John’s
Gospel, is also distinctly borne witness to by the Synoptics. It forms the
ground of the reiterated refusal of our Lord to comply with the demand of
the Pharisees that he would show some sign from heaven, as a proof of his
divine mission. His miracles combined in one the two conceptions of signs
and mighty works. None of them were mere prodigies devoid of a moral
aspect.
It is worthy of consideration whether our Lord’s primary purpose in
performing supernatural actions was always directly evidential. I have
already drawn attention to their twofold aspect, as divine manifestations,
and as evidential miracles. A considerable number of the miracles recorded
in the Gospels are represented as performed by him because he was moved
with compassion. These evidently belong to the former class of his
supernatural workings. But although this was their primary object it did
not deprive them of an evidential value. But there is also another
remarkable class of supernatural actions attributed to him, viz., those in
which he is recorded to have expressly forbidden the persons whom he
healed to publish the fact. As it is evident that these miracles could
only have become extensively known by the persons cured disobeying his
orders, it is clear that they could not have been directly performed for
evidential purposes, but were the manifestations of the divine which
resided in his person.
Such are the supernatural actions attributed to Jesus Christ in the New
Testament, respecting which as a whole, whether performed for purposes
avowedly evidential or not, he himself affirms, that they bore witness of
him, that the Father had sent him. Two other classes of miracles, affirmed
to have been performed by his followers, require notice.
The whole of these are stated to have been performed by a delegated power
and commission. The great majority of them are described as having been
performed in the name of Jesus Christ. They are affirmed to have been
performed for two purposes; to prove the divine commission of those who
wrought them, and to attest the reality of their Master’s resurrection, by
giving exhibitions of his present power. These therefore are distinctly
affirmed to have been evidential miracles. A few others were providential
interferences in favour of the infant Church. There is also another class
of supernatural actions referred to in the Acts of the Apostles, such as
the passing of St. Peter’s shadow, and the supposed supernatural effects
resulting from it, and the conveyance from St. Paul’s person of
handkerchiefs and aprons to the sick, and one or two other instances.
These involve special manifestations of supernatural power, and belong to
supernatural occurrences in their aspect of wonders, or very extraordinary
events, and as such were specially adapted for drawing attention to the
message of the Apostles. But the New Testament also affirms another and
very peculiar form of the manifestation of the supernatural, as then
actually existing in the Apostolic Church. I need hardly say that I allude
to the various gifts of the Spirit, with which large numbers of its
members believed themselves to be endowed. I shall not consider them any
further here, as it will be necessary for me to enter largely on the
subject in a subsequent portion of this work. Their use and purpose was to
lay deep the foundations of the Christian Church. All that will be
necessary in this place is to draw attention to them as a distinct order
of supernatural manifestations, to the existence of which the writers of
the New Testament are pledged.
There is also one further form of supernatural manifestation affirmed by
them, namely, a great moral and spiritual transformation effected in those
who cordially embraced the Gospel. This is most positively stated by St.
Paul to have been a fact constantly taking place under his own
observation. It is only necessary for me to notice its existence, as it is
a form of supernatural manifestation, the truth or falsehood of which
forms no portion of the present controversy.
Such then are the various forms of the supernatural, to the existence of
which the writers of the New Testament are pledged as objective facts. To
these only, and not to any conceivable or possible ones, is the defender
of Christianity committed. If their occurrence can be shown to have been
impossible, either on grounds of science or philosophy, or because human
testimony is of so fallible a character that it cannot establish the truth
of a supernatural occurrence, it follows that the whole of Christianity
must have been an invention of a purely human origin, that it can have no
claim to the designation of a divine revelation, and that it is hardly
possible to free its inventors from the charge of fraud. No mere paring
down of its supernatural elements will enable us to escape from this
conclusion.
I must now proceed to consider whether the writers of the New Testament
rest the truth of Christianity on the evidence of miracles alone, and what
position they occupy respecting it.
If we assume for the sake of argument that the fourth Gospel is the work
of the Apostle John, it is evident that neither Jesus Christ nor the
Apostle accepted the theory which has been propounded by some divines, and
readily accepted by unbelievers, that the evidence of his divine mission
was exclusively founded on the testimony of miracles. To state the point
distinctly:—This Gospel places the evidence afforded by our Lord’s own
divine person, _i.e._ the moral evidence of his mission, in the first
rank, and his miraculous works in the second.
As this is a point of considerable importance, and one to which its proper
weight has been seldom attached, I will enumerate the chief statements
made in this Gospel on this subject.
First: The author of the Gospel directly affirms that Jesus is “the light
of men;” and he himself distinctly affirms of himself, “He that seeth me
seeth Him that sent me.” “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever
believeth on me should not abide in darkness.” (John xii. 45, 46.) Again,
“I am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in
darkness, but shall have the light of life.” (John viii. 12.) It is
impossible to read these and kindred passages without feeling that our
Lord appealed to something else besides his miraculous works, viewed as
mere objective facts, as a proof of his divine mission. He evidently
places the highest proof of it in his great moral and spiritual
manifestation. He asserts the possession of an inherent illumination in
his own divine Person in union with the great truths which he enunciated,
and the entire course of his divine working. To a mind capable of
appreciating a manifestation of holiness, his person and divine working
would be self‐evidential. “He that seeth me, seeth Him that sent me.” It
is evident therefore that he considered the moral aspect of even his
supernatural works as an important portion of the evidence that he came
from God.
The fourth chapter of this Gospel contains an account of our Lord’s visit
to the Samaritans. He performed no miracle on this occasion. The
Evangelist tells us that many of them accepted him as the Messiah; and
expressly states that they affirmed that this was not on account of the
report of the woman as to his supernatural insight into her character; but
because they themselves had heard him, and on this account they had
arrived at the persuasion that was the Christ. There was something
therefore in his moral manifestation, even apart from his miracles, which
produced this persuasion. The Evangelist accepts this position as a
correct one. He has even gone further, and has attributed it in the same
chapter to our Lord himself. He makes him address the nobleman who came to
solicit his interference in behalf of his sick son with these remarkable
words: “Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.” (John iv.
48.) These words can only imply that, in the opinion of the speaker, there
was a moral and spiritual attestation of his divine mission, which stood
higher than objective miracles; and that those who witnessed it ought to
have received it as such.
In John vi. 30, ff., a remarkable dialogue is described as taking place
between our Lord and the Jews on this very subject. The Jews demand of him
to work some distinct sign in proof of his divine mission. Let it be
observed that the demand of a sign, here stated to have been made, is of
precisely the same character as similar statements which are made by the
Synoptics on the same subject, and shows that a common conception,
underlies them all. “What sign,” say they, “showest thou then, that we may
see and believe thee? what dost thou work?” They then proceed to define
the particular sign which they wish to see exhibited, by making an
invidious comparison between his miracles and those of Moses, viewed as
mere objective facts. In reply our Lord does not appeal directly to even
the miracle of which the Evangelist had just described the performance;
but throughout the remainder of the chapter, he proceeds to draw attention
to the moral and spiritual aspects of his working. “Moses gave you not
that bread from Heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from
Heaven; for the bread of God is he which cometh down from Heaven, and
giveth life unto the world,” &c.
In chapter vii. (17, 18) our Lord affirms: “If any man will do his will,
he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of
myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory; but he that
seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness
is in him.” Here the affirmation is clear and distinct that there is a
moral and spiritual element in our Lord’s person and teaching, which
jointly with his miraculous works bear witness to his divine character.
The testimony given by the one is convergent with that of the other. This
the following affirmation of our Lord most strongly asserts. “I am one who
bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me hath borne witness of
me,” that is to say, His moral and spiritual manifestation is in a certain
sense evidential; and the Father who sent him bore a concurrent testimony
of his supernatural work.
On similar principles our Lord reasons with the Jews in the eighth chapter
of this Gospel. In reply to the charge that he performed miracles by the
aid of the evil one he affirms, that his own absolute sinlessness,
constitutes a complete answer to it. “Which of you convinceth me of sin?
and if I say the truth why do ye not believe me?” (v. 46.) We have here a
direct appeal to men’s moral and spiritual perception, as an independent
witness to the truth of his teaching; and the affirmation that a being who
is not simply good and holy, but perfectly sinless, is worthy of absolute
credence. In other words, he does not rest the truth of his teaching on
miracles wrought to confirm his different utterances, but on the inherent
truthfulness of a sinless character. The moral aspect of his works is the
predominant one.
In the fourteenth chapter of this Gospel we have the following remarkable
declaration, which puts the whole subject in the clearest light. Philip
says to him; “Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” Jesus said unto
him, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me,
Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father: Believest thou not that
I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you,
I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the
works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, or else
believe me for the very works’ sake.” (vs. 8‐11.)
This passage contains several most important considerations directly
bearing on this subject. I will mention them in order. First—
Philip asks for his complete conviction, a visible miracle in the form of
an appearance of God, such as was recorded in the Old Testament as having
taken place at Sinai.
Secondly. Our Lord affirms that the manifestations of his character made
in his person and work during his previous acquaintance with him were the
truest manifestations of the person, character and being of the Father.
Thirdly. That the words which he spake and his entire working, possessed
an evidential character as proving that he came from the Father: and that
his moral and spiritual perfections were such as to entitle his
affirmation to be received on his own word.
Fourthly. That if Philip was unable to receive them on this evidence,
which occupied the highest place, then he was entitled to be believed on
the evidence of his supernatural works, “If ye believe not me, _believe
the works_.”
This entire passage makes it clear that in the mind of our Lord the moral
evidence afforded by him constituted a most important portion of the
attestation of his divine mission. Nor was its value confined to those who
witnessed it during the time of his personal ministry, but he viewed it as
extending to all time. This is made clear by his reply to Thomas in
reference to his demand to be allowed to handle his risen body. “Thomas,
because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed, Blessed are they who have
not seen, and yet have believed.” (xx. 29.)
With these statements before us, unless we reject the authority of this
Gospel, it is clear that those Christian writers who have asserted that
the evidence of the Christian revelation rests exclusively on miracles as
objective facts are in error.
But the same Gospel refers us no less distinctly to the miracles of our
Lord as very important evidences of his divine mission, although they are
subordinated to those we have been considering. One or two further
references will be sufficient.
We have several declarations on this subject in the fifth chapter. “My
Father worketh hitherto, and I work. The Son can do nothing of himself,
but what he seeth the Father do; for whatsoever things he doeth, these
also doeth the Son likewise.” (vs. 17, 19.) “The works which the Father
hath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me that
the Father hath sent me.” (ver. 36.)
Here a plain parallel is drawn between the whole course of our Lord’s
working and that of the Father. In this working he evidently intended to
include his miracles. Taken in combination with his entire character the
speaker affirms that they form a conclusive proof that the Father had sent
him. He subsequently draws attention to the evidence afforded by his
miracles as such, “and the Father himself which hath sent me hath borne
witness of me.” (ver. 37.)
So again in the tenth chapter, “The works that I do in my Father’s name,
they bear witness of me,” (ver. 25.) A little further on the moral aspect
of his miracles, and their close connection with his entire working is
distinctly brought forward. “Many good works have I showed you from my
Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?” (vs 37, 38.) “If I do
not the works of my Father, believe me not, but if I do, _though ye
believe not me, believe the works_, that ye may know and believe, that the
Father is in me, and I in him.” (vs. 37, 38.) No words can bring out more
strongly the weight which our Lord attached to the moral aspect of his
miracles as proofs of his divine mission.
In the fifteenth chapter we have our Lord’s own reflections on the
evidences which he had afforded of his Messianic character, during his
entire ministry. “If I had not done among them the works which none other
man did, they had not had sin; but now they have both seen and hated both
me and my Father.” (ver. 24.) Here the miracles are classed with the other
exhibitions of our Lord’s divine character; and attention is especially
drawn to the moral aspect of his entire working as in the highest degree
evidential. “They have seen and hated both me and my Father.” It is worthy
of remark that while our Lord uniformly spoke of his miracles as part of
his general working, by which he manifested his divine character, the
Evangelist himself almost invariably calls them “signs.” This is brought
out when he gives us his own reflections on the results of his public
ministry. “Though he had done so many signs(2) before them yet they
believed not on him.” (xii. 37.) So again, “many other signs truly did
Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this
book: but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God.” (xx. 30, 31.) In both these passages our Lord’s
miracles are evidently referred to. They are pronounced to be both
evidential of his divine mission, and at the same time to be
manifestations of his character. The Evangelist while contemplating them
as miracles never loses sight of their moral aspect.
In the Synoptic Gospels one allusion is made to the evidential purpose of
a particular miracle which is worthy of notice. Generally speaking they
are viewed by the authors of these Gospels as simple manifestations of his
divine character. On this occasion, when his power to forgive sins was
questioned, he directly performed a miracle to prove that he possessed it.
“But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive
sins, he saith to the sick of the palsy, I say unto thee, arise, and take
up thy bed and go thy way into thine house.” In this case it is clear that
the purpose of performing the miracle was not to prove the truth of any
doctrinal statement which he had made; but to establish the reality of his
divine authority and commission.
While it is quite true that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels have not
enunciated the purpose of our Lord’s miracles in the formal manner in
which it is done in St. John’s Gospel, it is clear that they must have
taken the same view of their general character. In fact the evidential
purpose of their performance is less clearly stated in them than in the
fourth Gospel. All four Gospels view his miracles only as a portion of his
superhuman manifestation, and are ignorant of that broad distinction which
has been laid down between them and the other portions of his divine
working. They are in fact included under it; and it is the concurrence of
both together, and the moral aspect thereby impressed on the whole, which
proves him to be the Christ.
It has been important to ascertain what are the views of the writers of
the New Testament on this subject, because it has been strongly asserted
by authors on both sides of the controversy that the doctrines of
Christianity are proved by miracles, and that they can rest for their
attestation on no other evidence. The precise value of this position I
will consider in the following chapter. It must, however, be observed that
this is not the view taken by the writers of the New Testament. There is
not a single miracle recorded in it which is alleged to have been
performed with the direct purpose of proving the truth of a single
doctrine properly so called. Those wrought by our Lord are uniformly
represented as having been performed in proof of his divine mission, or as
an essential portion of the manifestation of the divine which dwelt within
him. As such they were signs, precisely in the same manner as the
performance of those actions which can only be performed by man are signs;
that is, they are proofs of the presence of man. In the same manner the
actions performed by our Lord are signs and proofs of the presence of the
divine man Jesus Christ. If our Lord was in truth what he asserted himself
to be, supernatural manifestations would be the concomitants of his
presence.
In exact conformity with these facts as we find them in the Gospels is the
direct dogmatic statement made by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
on this subject. After having asserted in the first chapter that divine
revelation is made in the person of Jesus Christ, and that God speaks to
man under the Christian dispensation “in him, who is the brightness of his
glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by
the word of his power,” the author proceeds to compare it with the former
dispensation, and to give us his views of the evidence on which it rests.
“How,” says he, “shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which
at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by
them that heard him. God also bearing them witness both by signs and
wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according
to his own will.” (ii. 3, 4.)
These words distinctly inform us what were the writer’s opinions as to the
nature of the evidences on which Christianity rests. First, it reposes on
the testimony of Christ respecting himself. Secondly, it is confirmed by a
number of miracles wrought by God. This view is strictly in accordance
with our Lord’s own affirmation respecting it as recorded in the fourth
Gospel, “I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me
hath borne witness of me.” (viii. 18.)
With respect to numerous miracles recorded in the Acts of the Apostles,
they are affirmed to have been performed for purposes directly evidential,
not however to prove the truth of any doctrine, but of our Lord’s
Messianic character. The affirmations on this point are express. “In the
name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.” (iii. 6.) “His name,
through faith in his name, hath made this man strong.” (iii. 16.)
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made
that same Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (ii. 36.)
Of the fact of the resurrection, they affirm that they were witnesses; and
that the miraculous powers imparted to them were the consequence of that
event, and a proof of its truth.
The nature of the other supernatural occurrences affirmed in the New
Testament must be fully considered hereafter. There remain however two
further statements, made by the sacred writers respecting this subject,
which require to be briefly noticed here. First, although the Gospels
affirm that John the Baptist had a divine commission to announce the
immediate setting up of the kingdom of the Messiah, and even to point him
out, they expressly assert that he performed no objective miracle in
confirmation of it. His prophetical assertions rested for their
verification on their fulfilment only, _i.e._ on the immediate appearance
of a person who united in himself all the attributes of the Messiah. The
following was the line of argument adopted by those who believed his
testimony: “John did no miracle, but all things that John spoke of this
man were true.” Secondly, while in the Apostolic Epistles, miracles are
stated to have been performed by our Lord, and supernatural powers no less
clearly asserted to have been at that very time actually present in the
Church, there is only one miracle which is directly referred to in proof
of the divine mission of Christ. I need not say that this is the greatest
of all the miracles recorded in the Gospels, viz. his resurrection from
the dead. On this their unanimous testimony affirms that Christianity
rests. This is the one final and decisive proof of our Lord’s divine
mission. On its truth they affirm that their claims as divine teachers
stand or fall. His resurrection from the dead puts all his other miracles
in the back ground in point of evidential value. According to their
statements it constitutes the one great assurance that God has given unto
all men that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord and Christ.
It follows, therefore, that if this one miracle can be proved to have been
an historical fact, it carries with it the entire force of all the
remaining miracles of the New Testament. But it leaves entirely untouched
the moral aspects of our Lord’s divine character. These, I may say,
constitute a standing miracle which will continue to speak for itself in
all time. This evidence is again and again referred to by the writers of
the Apostolic Epistles. The two constitute one harmonious whole. To the
latter of these it is impossible to do more than refer in the present
work; I have already devoted a distinct volume to the examination of its
evidential value, in which I have examined Christ’s witness to himself;
here I must confine myself to the consideration of the witness borne to
him by the Father.