The Supernatural in the New Testament

erence to the supernatural, it will be necessary to take a brief vi

s present themselves

n what sense are miracles

s devoid of all moral environmen

tements or moral truth

are they related to our reason; and if in any sense they

en I come to consider the objections that can be urged against the possibility and credibility of miracles. A few preliminary observations, however, will be necessary for the purpose of putting the reader in possession of some of the mos

his earthly life and ministry. It is a revelation of the divine shining forth in the human. I have already adduced some of the affirmations of the sacred writers on this subject. It would be easy to multiply them indefinitely. Perhaps it would be impossible to express the position which they take on this subject in

ho unites in himself the divine and human, Jesus Christ. God, when he effected the work of creation, made a manifestation of himself which chiefly revealed his power and wisdom. When he effected the Incarnation he made an additional manifestation [pg 069] of himself which chiefly revealed his moral character and perfections. The four Gospels contain the historical account of this manifestation,

t is the manifestation of a supernatural and superhuman being appearing within the sphere of the natural and the human. It cannot be too carefully observed throughout this entire controversy that the character which is ascribed t

introduction of a new one; all such results are unquestionable manifestations of supernatural agency, but they differ wholly in conception from what we usually designate by the term miracle. The Incarnation, therefore, ought not to be placed on the same [pg 070] footing as miracles, which are supernatural occurrences, ha

ose of proving anything. But, as we have seen, the sacred writers and our Lord himself assert that in a certain sense it was self-evidential. "For the

t by a truth derived from a supernatural source of information, or one respecting a supernatural being or occurrence: but what a supernatural truth can be contradistinguished from other kinds of truth is far f

ground for affirming that occurrences which we designat

says he, "supposes the case, that if a person of evident integrity and loftiness of character had appeared eighteen centuries ago announcing himself as pre-existing from all eternity, the Son of God, the maker of the world, who had come down from heaven, and had assumed the nature of man, in order to be the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, and so on, enumerating the other doctrines of Christianity; Dr. Mozley then adds, what would be the inevitable conclusion of sober reason respecting that person? The neces

d be come to when a man, looking like one of our own selves, and only exemplifying in his life and [pg 072] circumstances the ordinary course of nature,

such affirmations as were made by Jesus Christ respecting himself would have been visible miracles wrought in confirmation of them. This, however, is not necessarily its m

cter of Jesus to have been historical, that if he had made such assertions respecting himself prior to the performance of his first miracle at Cana, they would have been utterly unworthy of serious attention. It must be readily admitted that if they had been affirmed of himself by an ordinary man like ourselves, no affirmation of his would have been

s respecting himself would stand in a wholly different position from those of any other man. He could neither deceive nor be deceived. When he made

s true on his assurance that they are so, exactly on the same principles as we accept the truths of physical science although we ourselves are ignorant of the processes by which they are arrived at. To state the position generally, it is quite rational to accept the affirmations of those who possess full knowledge of any subject of which we ourse

nse miracles are a proof of th

the truth of a divine commission. From this we argue to the tr

us some proof of the reality of the fact. Your claim is far too lofty to be admitted as valid on your simple affirmation. The question then is, how is such a claim to be tested? I reply by the person who makes it performing some action which is adequate to prove that the Great Governor of the Universe ratifies this claim. He mu

it be of any avail if it were a bare objective fact in external nature, devoid of its moral and spiritual environment. What is required is some direct manifestation of the divine on the sphere of the human and the natural. It must, in fact, exactly fulfil the character so often a

abstractedly conceivable, but which have no bearing whatever on the miracles in question. Thus it has been frequently urged that to enable us to be certain that an alleged miracle is really due to supernatural agency, a jury of savants ought to be impanelled, before whom the worker of the miracle should exhibit his miraculous operation. They are to subject it to a variety of sc

all only observe that the entire plausibility of this position arises from its being stated in an abstract or general form. We cannot help seeing in reference to the chief miracles recorded in the New Testament, such

e alleged fact should not only have been brought about by supernatural causes but previously ann

al. It is also mighty in those regions where the union takes place between mind and matter, but the chief miracles recorded in the Gospels belong to a wholly different order of occurrence. If they took place as they are reported, no one possessed of common sense can doubt as to whether they were due to supernatural agency. It is no less cle

e lays his hand on one whom I have known to be blind for the last twenty years, tells him in the name of Jesus Christ to receive his sight, and he forthwith receives it. There is probably no person

lly considered hereafter. For my present purpose it will be sufficient to fall back on the decision of common sense, that he who can restore

currences devoid of all moral environment,

is quite foreign to the present discussion, which is limited to the truth or falsehood of those contained in the New Testament. The most important of these are not mere displays of power, but have an unquestionable moral environment impressed upon them, and they profess to have been wrought for a definite end and purpose. This is less distinctly marked in some of the miracles recorded in the Old Testament, but with them I have no present concern. It will be sufficient to observe that while many of them [pg 078] were unquestiona

igious value which does not contemplate him as being a moral agent and a being on whose actions a moral character of some kind must be impressed. Consequently an act entirely devoid of all moral aspect cannot prove that it has resulted from direct divine intervention. The difficulty has originated from dividing into

ant point for our consideration. Can abstract doctri

t exceptions are those which were performed to attract attention to the divine message, to assist in the foundation of the Church, or to bear witness to the truth of the Resurrection. These last were in fact attestations to the reality of the Messianic character of Jesus Christ, which is the highest conceivable

tand to supernatural manifestations. As on such a subject it will be impossible to lay down a general rule

hat of o

st intimate knowledge of God, and of the great realities of the [pg 080] spiritual world. "We speak," says he, "that we do know, and testify that we have seen." "I speak that which I have seen with my Father." Throughout the Synoptics likewise he is represented as having the most entire knowledge of both spiritual and moral truth, and as teaching direct

and faith, and in representing the two as standing in opposition to each other, and belonging to wholly different regions of thought. Nor can it be denied that they have received much encouragement to do this by the indistinct or misleading statements of some Christian writers on the subje

or perception of which we are destitute, or who have seen phenomena which we have not seen, is an act in conformity with our highest reason. A constant effort has been made by unbelievers to confound faith with credulity: Faith is not credulity, but the acceptance of truth on adequate evidence, and the rejection of mere affirmation, when the evidence is ina

are even able to appreciate the nature of the processes by which they have been arrived at, but because they are affirmed by persons who have afforded evidence that they possess a high order of knowledge on that subject. The same is true throughout the whole of the higher departments of science. We may call this an act of faith if we like, but it is also an act of

ourselves are ignorant of the processes by which it has been arrived at, so we accept the affirmations of such a p

s are made respecting high mysteries incomprehensibl

denial. None of the affirmations of Jesus Christ partake of this character. They are mysteries only in the sense that they ran up into spheres of thought which transcend the limits of human knowledge. But this is done by all ultimate philosophical and scientific truths. If it be urged that some of them are difficult or incapable of definition, the same is true of not a few of the conceptions of science. It is also true that they respect truths with which we could not be acquainted apart from [pg 083] such a revelation as that made in the person of Jesus Christ; but this is true of the phenomena of Creation likewise. We do not acquire a knowledge of

mations of those who claimed a commission from Jesus Christ to publis

other foundation than the fulness of their knowledge of the subjects on which they spake, whether acquired by ordinary or by supernatural means, and on their veracity, when they affirm that particular truths were within the limits of their knowledge. Thus St. Paul claims acceptance for the things which he asserted because he had

performed them, they also proved that they were fully instructed in its terms, and entitled to credit within its limits. But the extent of their enlightenment can only be inferred from the nature of the commission itself, and from the facts and phenomena of the New Testament. It has been an idea widely spread that inspiration must confer a general infallibility. The inference that a

dependent on its truth, or to draw attention to their message. The supernatural gifts so frequently referred to in the epistles, are affirmed to [pg 085] have been designed for the building up of the Church into a distinct community, and when that purpose was accomplished they were to cease. Being functional, the enlightenme

ins for consideration, Can

for such a purpose. It is true that Jesus Christ, as the great legislator of the kingdom of heaven, gave an authoritative utterance to many moral precepts as the laws of his kingdom. This royal right of legislation was inherent in his Messiahship. But to give utterance to moral truths in a legislative capacity, has no connection with attempting to prove

ther kinds of knowledge. Its great principles require to be enunciated, and to be worked out to their special applications. But the principles themselves, as far as their binding power is concerned, must ultimately rest on the internal perceptions of our moral and spiritual being. A miracle,

e, moral sense, or the principles which are the foundation of our moral perceptions. The fact that many men through a long course of evil get morally blinded does not alter the case. It only exemplifies a remarkable sayin

wer, which is able to make obedience to the moral law a possibility; [pg 087] to supply a motive of sufficient potency to make us capable of resisting the vehemence of our passions; and one which is able to lift the morally degraded from their degradation, and to strengthen the holy in their holiness. According to the teaching of the New Testament, this c

or power. Thus it by no means follows that because men possess in their mental constitution the great principles on which scientific truths are based, each man is able to reason them out for himself. The most highly gifted man would make slow progress without a teacher. As I have already observed, moral truth is c

ion, Are miracles objects of faith? and if they are so in a

t miracles in the present age has led many able men to deal thus illogically with them, and to represent them alternately as evidence and as objects of faith

e been only referred to incidentally, and which only partially treat of the supernatural elements of Christianity. This question will be discussed more fully whe

tradicts the first principles of our reason, even if it were s

perfect, yet as it is the only instrument that we possess for

on to reason, that it is a legitimate branch o

efuses to authorise do not orig

base them on evidence of some kind which is satisfactory to themselves:

o our reason, yet it is perfectly rational to believe in man

an experience are not contrary to our reason: and it is perfectl

em is highly rational, when the knowledge of those from whom we derive our information is adequate: and consequently that faith is a principle co-exte

ns will suffice in thi

nductive and deductive reasoning, but our intuitions, our forms of thought, those powers of our mind, which whether intuitional or instinctive, form the foundation of many of our most important conviction

rational, and things directly contradictory to reason. The existence for example of a square circle is a thing absolutely incredible, and while thus contradictory to reason, it is impossible to accept it by faith. So would any doctrine which in a similar manner contradicted the first principles of our ration

tion, or accept them on the testimony of others. Until they have been brought within our knowledge in this way, no amount of reasoning could lead to their discovery. In a similar manner with respect to several

separate from our reason, and in a certain sense opposed to it; and that things which cannot be subjects of rational conviction may yet be the objects o

he first principles of our rational convictions, such as our belief in the existence of an external world, or in the truth of experience, is an a

h it is given within the knowledge of the informant? If it respects a fact, has he witnessed it, or received it from others who have? Are his powers of observation good and his judgment sound? Is he worthy of credit? The determination of these and similar points is the proper office of our rational powers, yet the acceptance of the fact is an act of faith. When our reason is satisfied on all these points, faith becomes an

timony. A large portion of the business of life is conducted on this principle. A man is ignorant on some subject, or he distrusts his own judgment respecting it: he consults one who knows, or on whose judgment he relies. For example: let us suppose that I have a bottle full of a certain substance; I do not know whether it is a medicine that I am in need of, or a deadly poison. I consult my chemist, and without hesitation I act on his opinion. In all such cases

t we can do in such cases is to repeat words, but if they have no definite meaning we cannot believe them: for the act of faith or conviction is founded on the affirmation that the two terms of a particular proposition agree. It is quite true that the facts and statements of the New Testament run up into principles which transcend our limited power of reason; but this is common to it, and every system of science or philosophy; and forms no peculiarity of religion. I am far from wishin

unsupported by any account of faith as given in the New Testament, which again and again assumes the contrary position. Faith is the acceptance of truths which lie beyond the sphere of our personal knowledge on an adequate attestation. I

as objects of faith, and at the same time as possessing an evidential value. We accept them as we do all other adequately attested facts, and reason on them in the same manner as we do on other facts. This is the precise

g