BOOKS.
THE MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.* Dn. HEA.DLA21 has published the lectures which lie gave last year in Melbourne on the Moorhouse foundation, and his reputation for sound learning and open-mindedness, no less than the interest of the question discussed, will ensure his book a wide public. Perhaps the choice of subject hardly shows his distinctive qualities at their best. To discuss the New Testa- ment miracles satisfactorily requires the trained faculties of a philosopher, a man of science, and a Biblical critic ; and Dr. Headlam, as befits a Professor of Dogmatic Theology, is in habit of mind positive and dogmatic; his statements are apt to be trenchant, and in handling an opponent this trenchancy sometimes degenerates into truculence. But there bad not been for some time a treatise upon miracles from the orthodox point of view, and in face of the many recent attacks it was right that the arguments should be restated.
The first three lectures, which take up half the book, are devoted to a history and criticism of the case against miracles. We imagine that most readers who are not materialists will assent to the majority of Dr. Headlam'a arguments, though without necessarily modifying their opinion about the unhis- torical character of certain alleged miracles. If, for example, miracles are defined, following Aquinas, as "events which happen by Divine power beyond the order commonly observed in Nature," and not as "contrary to the order of Nature," there is no reason for denying their a priori possibility. But mach a definition would not con- strain one to believe a recorded miracle which contravened some ascertained law of physics. Again, we assent without difficulty to Dr. Headlam's explanation of what is meant by the "uniformity of Nature "—namely, that "like causes produce like effects in like circumstances "; but this does not prepare us to admit the truth of a record which alleges the casual and unexplained introduction of an unlike cause producing an unlike effect. Dr. Headlam argues that it is not in the least certain that the sun will rise to-morrow. Some new cause may intervene. A genera- tion or two ago be would no doubt have urged that Joshua's stopping of the sun presented no difficulty to reason, because the introduction of a new cause—namely, the Divine answer to Joshua's prayer—producing the new effect of stoppage, satisfied the postulate of science that Nature is uniform. It is orthodox nowadays to interpret the passage as poetry, because we have a more intelligent idea of what the system of Nature really is, and we can form in consequence a better conception of the catastrophe that would have followed what is lightly spoken of as the introduction of a new cause. One other instance may be given of the possibility of assenting
• The Miracles of the Hem Testament. By Arthur C. Itesdlson. London John Murray. De. net.]
to Dr. Headlam's argument without being brought any nearer to an admission of what be wants to prove. He compares the coming of Christianity to the first coming of life upon the planet and the first coming of self-conscious thought; and he urges that the two earlier crises were accompanied by forces and powers of which there had been no previous experience :—
0 Broadly speaking, the claim of Christianity is much the same as this. It is that at a particular time in human history, a time for which preparation had been made, there occurred something of which there had been no experience ; that there came a change hi the aspects and powers and capacities of human nature, and that this change was accompanied by certain events contrary to all ordinary human experience!'
This analogy would certainly justify the belief in the occur- rence of remarkable events attending the birth of the Christian spirit, events which went far beyond all previous human experience; but would it justify the belief in events where already recognized causes did not produce their usual effects ? The acceptance of the possibility that wonderful events marked the epoch of the Incarnation does not make it lees necessary for the modern mind to scrutinize every miracle alleged; and to judge it according to what seems to be its spiritual value.
lathe second half of his treatise Dr. Headlam first examines the credibility of the Gospel narratives, giving a rapid sketch of the present position of the Synoptic problem, and the dates now generally assigned to the various sources, and then proceeds to show that miracles are freely recorded in all. He holds, and indeed it is now generally admitted, that the evidence for the miracles of healing is good evidence, and is corroborated by the claim of St. Paul, several times made in his Epistles, to similar powers. Dr. Headlam proceeds to argue that the difference between these and the other miracles—" wonders," as he calls them—is not one of evidence, but lies in the character of the event This is not altogether so. In the first place, when our Lord Himself speaks of His miracles, it is only works of healing that He refers to. These are also the only miracles attributed to Him by St. Peter in his Epistle, as they are the only miracles said to have been wrought by the Apostles in His name. Moreover, it is expressly said by St. Mark that the commission given by our Lord to the Apostles was "to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out devils." The evidence, again, for works of healing is cumulative ; but the other recorded miracles do not fall into any single class, and it is always open to doubt, as we have no direet evidence from eyewitnesses, whether one or another may not rest upon misunderstanding. The opinion, for example, is very general to-day among orthodox people that the miracle of the cursing of the fig-tree may be only a variant of the parable. It is equally legitimate, though it is less popular, to suggest that the story of the feeding of the multitude in the wilderness is coloured by the similar story about Elisha in 2 Kings iv. 42. Even Dr. Headlam agrees that the stories of the five thousand and four thousand are doublets. No doubt critics of these narratives have not always been very happy in the suggestions they have put forward to account for the miraculous element, especially in the large part they have assigned to coincidence ; and Dr. /bedlam is justified in the ridicule he pours upon many ef them; but, after all, it is no business of the critic to supply an origin for a narrative which, as it stands, be considers to be unhistorical. It is worth notice that the "wonders" for which there is best evidence in the text, such MI the stilling of the tempest, are those which do not contra- vene natural law, and would not, even now, be considered beyond the power of prayer. The most unsatisfactory part of Dr. Headlam's study of the evidence for the miracles is his treatment of those in St. John's Gospel. He admits that the criticism of the Gospel is "in a transition state," but he himself finds no difficulty about the miracles, because he accepts the authorship of John the son of Zebedee, who was an honest man, and meant to write true history. But what if, as most critics think, the author was not the son of Zebedee, though the book may include his reminiscences P In that case the miracles mast stand by their intrinsic credibility, and their marked difference in character from those in the earlier Gospels must weigh heavily against them. We agree with Dr. Headlam that it is unlikely that the miracles were con- sciously invented for their symbolic value ; but, abort of that, there was a very possible process of piecing together and
working up scattered hints and suggestions, which Dr. Abbott has illustrated in his discussion of the story of Iazarus. Dr. Headlam seems to refer to Dr. Abbott as though be accepted this miracle as historical: no doubt in Diateasarica he some- what modified his earlier view given in the Encyclopaedia Bildica, but in the later book he lays down "three conclusions that must be admitted by all," two of which are that "the omission of the raising of Lazarus, if it is historical, by the Synoptists, implies an astounding ignorance or an astounding suppression of fact," and that "it is almost incredible that such a researcher as Luke, who (alone of the Synoptista) mentions Martha and Mary, should have been ignorant of the fact, if it was a fact, that their brother was called Lazarus, and had been raised from the dead after lying four days in the grave."
Dr. Headlam's final chapter, being the least controversial and the most religious, is likely to prove the most attractive part of his book. He adopts here the following definition: "A miracle means really the supremacy of the spiritual forces of the world to an extraordinarily marked degree over the mere material "; and it is in this sense that the modern mind is always ready to accept the record of past miracles, and to look for them still. The miracles of healing in the New Testament are conspicuously of this character, and so they retain their hold upon belief, while mere wonders, such as changing water into wine, fail to interest except for their symbolism. We will conclude with another quotation from Dr. Headlam's last chapter, whieh most have been written in a very happy mood : "If I am asked whether this or that miracle is credible or not, the answer that I would give would be this I do not see that we can set any limits to the power of God's spirit: I cannot limit the power of God to suit the limitations of my own imagination. Only I would say to others that if this or that event seems to any one incredible, there is no reason why a man should feel compelled to say or think that he believes it."
Previous page
