YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE MIRACLES OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR
Price 6s net
HISTORY, AUTHORITY,
THEOLOGY
Price 5s net
ST PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY
LONDON: JOHN MURRAY
ALBEMARLE STREET, W.

THE MIRACLES OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT

BEING THE MOORHOUSE LECTURES FOR 1914
DELIVERED IN S. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL
MELBOURNE

by ARTHUR C. HEADLAM, d.d.
PROFESSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY IN KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON
SOMETIME FELLOW OF ALL SOULS COLLEGE, OXFORD
AND PRINCIPAL OF KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON

LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.

FX35"

All BigMe Reserved.

CONDITIONS OF THE LECTURESHIP
[Extract from the Minutes of the Chapter of S. Paul's
Cathedral, Melbourne^]
MOORHOUSE LECTURESHIP
1. This lectureship shall be called the Moorhouse
Lectureship, in memory of the Australian episcopate of
the Right Rev. James Moorhouse, D.D., S. John's College,
Cambridge, Bishop of Melbourne, 1876-1886.
2. The annual income of the lectureship shall be the
interest upon a sum of £2000 l held in trust by the Trusts
Corporation of the Diocese of Melbourne for this purpose.
3. No lecturer shall hold the office more than twice, and
at least ten years shall elapse between the first and second
tenure. Any one in Holy Orders in the Church of England
at home or abroad, or in a Church in communion with her,
shall be eligible for election.
4. The electors shall be the Bishops of the metropolitan
sees of Australia and Tasmania and the Primate of New
Zealand; and the Archbishop of Melbourne shall hold the
office of chairman.
5. The subjects of the lecture shall be (1) the defence
and confirmation of the Christian faith as declared in the
Apostles' and Nicene Creeds ; (2) questions bearing upon
the history and authority of the Holy Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments ; and (3) the social aspects of the
Christian faith in their widest application.
1 A further sum of £1000 has been added to this endowment by-
Bishop Moorhouse, with a view to the occasional appointment of a
distinguished English scholar, and to cover the cost of travelling to
Australia.

vi CONDITIONS OF THE LECTURESHIP
6. The Lectures, not less than six in number, shall be
delivered annually in S. Paul's Cathedra], Melbourne, on
such days as the Archbishop of Melbourne may approve.
Each lecturer shall be required to publish his lectures in a
form approved by the electors at his charges within six
months of their delivery, and shall retain any copyright in
them. He shall present a copy to each of the electors, and
to every Diocesan Library in Australia, Tasmania, and New
Zealand. 7. It shall be lawful for a majority of the electors to
decide all questions arising out of the interpretation of these
conditions.

PREFACE
Of the following lectures Nos. I.-V, VIII., IX.
were delivered in S. Paul's Cathedral, Melbourne,
in my position as Moorhouse Lecturer. No.
VI. was delivered in the chapter-house at
Ballarat ; No. VII. in the chapter-house at
Melbourne as a special lecture to the clergy.
Several of the lectures were repeated at Sydney
and Brisbane, and again during my return
journey in Japan, at Kyoto in the Doshisha,
a university connected with the Congregational
Church, at Tokyo, and at the theological college
of Ikebukouro to the summer school of
Catechists. The Moorhouse Lectureship was founded by
the present Archbishop of Melbourne to com
memorate the episcopate in Melbourne of Dr
Moorhouse, afterwards Bishop of Manchester,
to whose intellectual ability and strong character
the Church of England in Australia owes so
much. Bishop Moorhouse himself added a
further endowment, the interest of which was
to accumulate so as to allow from time to time
the appointment of a lecturer from England.

viii PREFACE
It is to this provision and to the kindness of
the present Archbishop of Melbourne that I
am indebted for the privilege of delivering these
lectures, and for the opportunity thus given me
of becoming acquainted with the work of the
Church in Australia, with missionary problems
in Japan and Corea, and with the magnificent
accomplishments and still greater responsibilities
of the British Empire in many parts of the
world. I hope that my journey may have been
not without profit to the Church in Australia ;
it has certainly been of immense value to myself,
for it has given me an insight (which otherwise
I could never have hoped to obtain) into
problems of religion and civilization of very
varied kinds in Australasia and the Far East.
The existence of such an endowment as the
Moorhouse Lectures, and in particular the wise
provision of Bishop Moorhouse himself, are
calculated to be of great value both to the
Church in the colonies and the Church at home.
My task was set for me. I was particularly
requested to lecture on the subject of Miracles ;
and that relieves me of any responsibility I might
have had in attacking so difficult and important
a problem. The problem of miracles presses
very heavily on many minds at the present day,
and presents some of the most difficult and
important questions with which theology has
to deal. I can only hope that no imperfection

PREFACE ix
of treatment on my part will weaken the strength
of the case I have to present. For I cannot
help feeling that there are many signs that old-
fashioned dogmatic beliefs are passing away.
Science is ceasing to attempt to bind us to
a hard mechanical theory of nature. It is
gradually being recognized how untenable are the
conclusions which criticism once claimed to be
assured. The mathematical conception of a
Deity whom man has created in his own image
is making way for a fuller realization of what is
implied in the idea of a Personal God. The
difference in quality between the evidence for
miracles of the New Testament and that for
other similar phenomena makes the deductions of
Comparative Religion untenable. But although
these changes are taking place in contemporary
thought, it is only slowly that this becomes
realized, and many are still hampered by old-
fashioned views of God, or Nature, or the Bible.
I can only hope once more that no imperfection
of statement on my part will prevent the import
ance of these changes from being realized.
After I had left England, and just about the
time that these lectures were being delivered, a
controversy broke out in the Church which
touched some of the questions raised in the
following pages. I do not think that in the
course of it any new arguments or aspects of the
subject were presented. I have not therefore

x PREFACE
attempted, except in one or two footnotes, to
refer to it. I felt it better to leave my argument
to stand as it was originally written. Although
it does not approach the question of miracles
exactly in the same manner as it has since been
raised, I do not think that any point will be
found to have been passed over.1
It remains for me to express my thanks to
all those to whom I have been indebted for
help, and who have read in whole or in part
the proofs of these lectures ; especially to my
colleagues at King's College, Dr Caldecott,
Dr Nairne, Dr White, Mr Matthews, and Mr
Box ; and, on the scientific side, Professor
Jackson, Professor Halliburton, and Professor
Barkla, now Professor of Natural Philosophy
at Edinburgh. They have all been ungrudging
in the help they have given me, and have saved
me from many serious errors. I need not say
that they are not in any way responsible for
what I have said, nor does the assistance they
have given me necessarily imply adherence to my
argument. In some cases they have definitely
expressed their disagreement, and in many they
have helped me much by their friendly criticism.
I owe a special debt to my former secretary, the
Rev. Claude Jenkins, now librarian at Lambeth,
who has read the whole work in proof and
1 I have discussed the subject in this, its latest aspect, in
the Church Quarterly Review for October 1914.

PREFACE xi
corrected it with the greatest care ; and to my
old friend Dr Brightman, to whom I am indebted
for similar assistance when working at the
Epistle to the Romans, who has also read all
the proofs. He is a determined foe to all sloven
liness of expression, and has done his best to
correct my many imperfections.
A further debt of gratitude is due to the
many kind hosts and hostesses who entertained
me during my wanderings. The hospitality was
too constant and the numbers too great for me
to attempt to mention their names. I can only
assure them all of my gratitude, and of the kindly
remembrances that I have of them. These
lectures will always serve to remind me of friends
in many different parts of the world, and of
many different religious communities ; of our
fellow - countrymen in Australia with their
loyalty to the memories and religion of their
old homes; and of the keen and earnest Christians
of Japan, so eager to learn all that European
thought can give, and arduously working with
much of the old Samurai spirit to build up the
religion and morality of their country. A. C. H.
Whorlton, UthSept. 1914.

CONTENTS

PAOB
Preface . . . . . .vii
LECTURE I
THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
Scope of the Problem. The Teaching of the New
Testament. The Patristic Period — Origen and
Celsus. Apollonius of Tyana. S. Augustine and
S. Thomas Aquinas. Spinoza. The English Deists
— Woolston, Middleton, Hume, Butler, Paley.
German Criticism — Paulus, Schleiermacher, Strauss.
Modern Treatises — ' Supernatural Religion,'
Matthew Arnold, Huxley, Harnack . 1
LECTURE II
MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
Hume's Definition of a Miracle. Huxley's Criticism of
Hume. Laws of Nature as conceived by Hooker
and by Modern Science. The Uniformity of
Nature. The Mechanical Interpretation of Nature.
Are Miracles improbable on the Analogy of the
Development of the World ? The Modification of
the Scientific Attitude. Relation of Science to
Theology . . . . . .70
xiii

xiv CONTENTS
LECTURE III
MIRACLES AND GOD PAOB
Metaphysical Explanations of the Universe. Sensation
alism, Materialism, Pantheism. The Philosophy of
the Absolute. Mr Moberly in Foundations. Bradley.
Bergson. Theism. Grounds of our Belief. Anthro
pomorphism. God not Law but Wisdom, Freedom,
Purpose. Revelation. The Purpose of Miracles.
Miracles shewn by Experience to be necessary for
a Revelation . . . . . .115
LECTURE IV
THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
Recent Tendencies of Criticism. The Tubingen
School. Schweitzer ; The Quest of the Historical
Jesus. Result of New Discoveries. Constructive
Criticism. The Synoptic Gospels. Their Sources.
S. Mark. " Q." Their Dates. Their Text. Their
Trustworthiness. The Fourth Gospel. The Epistles
of S. Paul . . . . . .148

LECTURE V
THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
The Evidence of " Q." The Character and Evidence
of S. Mark. S. Matthew and S. Luke. S. John.
The Epistles of S. Paul. The Acts of the Apostles.
Summary ...... 182

CONTENTS xv

LECTURE VI
THE RESURRECTION
PAGE
Character of the Evidence. Testimony of S. Paul. The
Empty Tomb. The Appearances. The Moral
Evidence. Explanations. Theory of Harnack.
Fraud or Deception ..... 244

LECTURE VII
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
Character of the Evidence. The Text of the Narratives.
Importance of the Gospel 1'estimony. The Argu
ment from Silence. The Church Tradition.
Ignatius. Aristides. Justin Martyr. The Ascen
sion of Isaiah. The Odes of Solomon. Jewish
Calumnies. Explanations. The Place of the
Virgin Birth in Christian Theology . . 269

LECTURE VIII
EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
Character of our Evidence. Possibility of Explanations.
Theory of Matthew Arnold. Problem of Possession.
Miracles of Healing. The Mythopoeic Faculty.
Coincidence. Symbolical Interpretation. The
Feeding of the Five Thousand. Conclusion . 300

xvi CONTENTS

LECTURE IX
THE NATURE OF MIRACLES
PAGE
Summary of Preceding Lectures. Definition of Miracles.
What are They? Other Classes of Miracles.
Miracles of the Old Testament. Miracles of Church
History. Modern Miracles. The Evidential Value
of Miracles. At the Beginning of Christianity.
Value of Miracles at the Present Day . . . 329

Index  353

THE MIRACLES OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT
LECTURE I
THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
Scope of the Problem. The Teaching of the New Testa
ment. The Patristic Period — Origen and Celsus.
Apollonius of Tyana. S. Augustine and S. Thomas
Aquinas. Spinoza. The English Deists — Woolston,
Middleton, Hume, Butler, Paley. German Criticism —
Paulus, Schleiermacher, Strauss. Modern Treatises —
'Supernatural Religion,' Matthew Arnold, Huxley,
Harnack.
It is the purpose of these lectures to investigate
the questions raised in our minds by the word
"miracles," and in particular the miracles of
the New Testament. I do not propose to begin
by defining the word — a definition should come
at the end of a discussion, not at the begin
ning. I would prefer to state the problem in a
broader way ; for in investigating miracles we
are approaching what is fundamental.
The civilized world at the present time con-
A

2 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
sists of nations either nominally or really
Christian, and our modern civilization may be
not incorrectly called Christian. This civiliza
tion is at present confined to Christian countries,
or those that have come under Christian influ
ence ; and the proposition is at any rate tenable
that it is the creation of that higher ideal of life
which Christianity has inspired, and that it is
not improbable that civilization will be unable to
endure if its source of inspiration be taken away.1
Other religions coming into contact with Christi
anity either dwindle away or are transformed,
with the possible exception of Mahomedanism,
which appears to be the antithesis of what we
call civilization. None of them have shewn any
power either of creating or of maintaining such
a civilization as we now enjoy, for this appeals
for its existence to individual self-sacrifice.
Now this Christianity, as held and preached
by the great mass of its adherents, by whatever
name they call themselves — Catholic, Protestant,
Orthodox — claims to be the revelation of the
Son of God, who came into the world and in
1 The old civilization of Japan which has now passed
away must be classified with pre-Christian civilizations like
those of Greece and Rome. Its new civilization is a definite
imitation of Christian civilization, and it is an interesting
question how far it can be maintained and preserved apart
from the religious, moral, and philosophic principles that
created that which it has copied.

THE PROBLEM OF MIRACLES 3
the person of Jesus the Christ took upon Him
our human nature, and thus revealed to us the
true nature of God and the true destiny of man.
The beginnings of this religion are described to
us as a series of historical events, many of them
miraculous in character. Jesus is represented as
revealing Himself and the purpose of His Ministry
through the miracles that He worked, and in
particular we are told that after His Crucifixion
He rose again from the dead, and that His Resur
rection it was that finally convinced His disciples
of the reality of His Mission, and inspired them
to be preachers and evangelists of His Gospel.
Our problem is : Did these events happen ?
Their reality has been contested. It has been
maintained that they are impossible, that they
are relics of a superstitious and unscientific age,
and that therefore Christianity itself is either
untrue or only true in a relative sense ; while the
miraculous events which have been supposed to
be amongst its main credentials are one of the
chief reasons for disbelieving it. We have, in
fact, to decide between three main propositions.
It may be maintained that Christianity is not
true, and that the stories attached to its origin
are as valueless as the myths of the Greek,
Roman, or Indian religions ; or it may be held
that while Christianity presents true teaching
on spiritual or moral questions, the miraculous
events accompanying it are an accidental and

4 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
unfortunate addition which must be eliminated ;
or again it may be held that the Christian
religion is a true revelation of what is divine,
that the miracles accompanying it are historical,
and testify that it is in its origin not of this
world. I propose in the present lecture to begin by
examining the teaching of the New Testament
on miracles, and then to review the history of
opinion on the subject. This historical method
of treatment will enable us to see exactly the
difficulties that have been raised, and the
questions to which we must address ourselves.

The New Testament teaching on miracles
may be summed up in the words of S. Peter in
the Acts : " Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved
of God unto you by mighty works and wonders
and signs, which God did by him in the midst
of you, even as ye yourselves know."1 This
passage contains the three words used habitu
ally in the New Testament to describe what we
usually designate as miracles. They are, repara
"wonders," a-rjiiela "signs," and Swa/xeic "powers"
or " mighty works." To these we must add in
S. John's Gospel, epya " works." Often two of
1 Acts ii. 22.

NAMES OF MIRACLES 5
these words are combined, and in some cases,
as in the passage already quoted, three of them.
The term " wonders " expresses occurrences
marvellous in their character such as arouse
wonder in the beholder. Often we are particu
larly told that this was the effect of our Lord's
actions. It is pointed out as characteristic of
the New Testament that this term is never
used alone, but only in connexion with others.
We read of ' signs and powers,' of ' signs and
wonders,' of 'powers and wonders,' but not of
' wonders ' alone. And we may echo the remark
of Archbishop Trench that it is unfortunate
that the word habitually used in English
" miracle," as in German " Wunder," should be
one that emphasizes the abnormal character oi'
the events without any accompanying spiritual
and ethical associations such as are always present
in the Gospels.
By the use of the word 'sign,' the purpose
and significance of the act is insisted on. It is
definitely implied that such acts are to be looked
upon as the credentials of anyone who performs
them. S. John for this reason habitually speaks
of miracles as "signs," for they exhibited the
reality of our Lord's claim on which He insisted
so strongly ; and S. Paul speaks of the "signs
of an Apostle wrought in him." It may be
added that not all signs need be miraculous in
character, and that the word alone would not

6 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
necessarily imply a miracle. It may be noted
also that these two words ' signs and wonders '
are those regularly used in the Old Testament
for miracles.
The term " powers " or " mighty works " im
plies that a new and unusual power is at work in
the world. We find references to the 'power'
which went forth from the Lord. We find
used by S. Paul the paraphrase, ' in the power
of the Holy Ghost.' And it is definitely implied
in all cases that we have an exhibition of the
power of God in the world, or, as it is put more
particularly, the power of the Holy Spirit.
The term ' works ' in S. John is used specifi
cally, although not perhaps exclusively, for our
Lord's miracles as witnessing to the reality of
the Incarnation : " But the witness that I have
is greater than that of John : for the works
which the Father hath given me to accomplish,
the very works that I do, bear Avitness of me,
that the Father hath sent me." 1
Now, still avoiding definition, and postponing
for the present critical questions, we can have no
1 S. John v. 36 ; cf. x. 25, 32, 37. For the words used de
scribing miracles, see Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord,
Preliminary Essay, chapter i. It may be noted that this is
one of the points where the more accurate discrimination
of words in the Revised Version is a great gain. A general
account of the New Testament view of miracles will be
found in Wendland, Die Wunderglaube im Ckristentkum,
Chap. ii.

MIRACLES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 7
doubt that the New Testament appears to repre
sent our Lord as performing " works " which are
clearly what are commonly called miracles. They
are the work of God in the world, the work of
the Holy Spirit ; they are proofs and credentials
of the Ministry of Jesus. He appeals to the
miracles that He works. The fact of His miracles
was recognized by the multitude and by His
opponents. His followers were attracted by
them. Similar power is represented as exercised
by the Apostles, and for them also it was part
of the credentials of their ministry. We may
note further that while the Synoptic Gospels
simply and naturally represent our Lord as
working miracles and appealing to them, they
do so without any special emphasis ; they have
no doubt about them or their importance, but
they allow them to speak for themselves. In
S. John, on the other hand, the miracles are
particularly emphasized ; they are spoken of as
signs, and attention is drawn to them in our
Lord's own speeches in a manner different from
that of the other Gospels.
In the Synoptic narrative our Lord always
refused the demands of the people to give a
•sign,' "An evil and adulterous generation
seeketh after a sign ; and there shall no sign be
given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet." 1
Moreover, when a miracle is worked, the man
1 S. Matt. xii. 39.

8 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
who is healed is generally bidden to conceal the
fact. There is clearly a desire to emphasize
that our Lord avoided anything like a
thaumaturgic display. The wonders and signs
were (so it is represented) a part of the real
work of our Lord ; they were part of His
appeal, but only a part ; His witness was His
works as a whole, in their ethical, their spiritual,
as well as their marvellous character. The
conviction of His divine Mission was produced
by His authority, His words, His spiritual
influence, and the evidential value of His
miracles is heightened by the absence of any
disproportionate emphasis upon them in our
records. Finally, we have to recognize that the New
Testament speaks of lying miracles as well as
of true ones. Lying miracles are the sign of
Antichrist. "For there shall arise false
Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew
great signs and wonders ; so as to lead astray,
if possible, even the elect."1 "He whose
coming is according to the working of Satan,
with all power and signs and lying wonders,
and with all deceit of unrighteousness."2 "He
doeth great signs that he should even make
fire to come down out of heaven upon the
earth in the sight of men."8 Instances are
given in the stories of Simon Magus and of
1 S. Matt. xxiv. 24. 2 2 Thess. ii. 9. 3 Rev. xiii. 13.

MIRACLES IN THE FATHERS 9
Elymas the ^sorcerer.1 We need not at present
consider the significance of these texts, but we
are bound to note their occurrence.
To sum up, then : prima facie, the New
Testament represents the reality of the
miraculous work of our Lord and His disciples,
and" emphasizes it as a part, _but_a part only,
of the evidence of the truth of the Christian
message.

II

We now pass to the judgement on these
events in history. It must be recollected that
the situation with regard to miracles in the
Patristic period, and from then right onwards
through the Middle Ages, was very different from
what it is at the present day in cultivated,
scientific, or philosophical circles. For the
most part people could not conceive a world
in which miracles did not happen. The belief
was natural : it accorded with people's concep
tion of the universe and, as they believed, with
their experience. There was little or no
philosophy or science such as to make acceptance
difficult. There was, of course, the incredulity
and scepticism of a writer like Lucian, who
treated such manifestations as in all cases
the work of impostors or quacks. But his
1 Acts viii. 9 et seq. ; xiii. 8.

10 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
writings would never put any serious obstacle
in the way of religious belief. The situation,
in fact, which the Christian had to deal with
was one in which there were too many miracles.
There were miracles of the New Testament,
miracles of the Church ; there were miracles
of Paganism, and miracles of conjurors and
magicians. The Church did not disparage
miracles, but had never under such circumstances
laid undue stress on them. The argument from
miracles was not nearly so important to the
Apologists as the argument from prophecy, and
to the world the great argument was the
Christian life.1
There is indeed a regular appeal to miracles.
Tertullian, for example, tells us how " Christ
expelled devils from men with a word, restored
vision to the blind, cleansed the lepers and
reinvigorated the paralytics, raised the dead to
life again, made the very elements of nature
obey Him, stilling the storm and walking on the
sea, thus proving that He was the Logos of
God, that primordial first-begotten Word,
accompanied by power and reason and based
on spirit — the same who now and at all times
1 The fullest account of Patristic teaching on miracles is
given by Mozley, Bampton Lectures, Note 3, p. 195 (ed. v.).
See also Wendland, Wunderglaube, chapter iii., p. 25 ;
Lyttelton, The Place of Miracles in Religion, chapter iii.,
p. 81.

MIRACLES OF THE CHURCH 11
did all things by a word."1 The importance
of this passage is that it not only makes an
appeal to miracles, but also gives a scientific
theory about them. Jesus was the Logos, and
the Logos was the creator and sustainer of the
Universe. To this argument we may return
in a later lecture.
Quadratus also, an early Apologist, appealed
to the evidence of those still living who had been
witnesses of the miracles of our Lord, since
they had been cured by Him :
" Our Saviour's works were always before
men's eyes, for they were true. They were the
men who were healed, the men who were raised.
And these were not only seen when they were
being healed or raised, but were continually
before men's eyes, not only while the Saviour
sojourned upon earth, but, after He had departed,
they remained a long time, so that some of
them survived even to our own days." 2
But while Christian teachers appealed to the
miracles of our Lord, they appealed also with
equal confidence to the miracles of the Church
in their OAvn days :
"Even now ye may learn from the things
that take place before your eyes. For many
that have been seized by daemons throughout
1 Tertullian, Apologeticus, xxi.
2 Eusebius, H.E. IV. iii. 2. I have ventured to use the
translation of Mr Edghill (see below).

12 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
all the world, and even in your own city, have
been cured by many of our Christian folk
exorcizing them in the name of Jesus Christ
that was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Yea
these have cured, and even now do cure, those
whom all other exorcists and dealers in drugs
have failed to cure."1
But the real difficulty that was experienced
with regard to miracles was that miracles were
performed, or claiined to be performed, by the
heathen and the magicians, and many people
of not very reputable character. How then
was it possible to appeal to them ? The
situation is well represented to us in the
argument of Celsus, the great opponent of
Christianity in the second century, and in
Origen's reply.2 Celsus argued that no
evidence could be drawn from miracles, as there
was no means of discovering whether they were
the work of God or of evil poAvers. He draws
attention to the words of our Lord Himself
foretelling the coming of Antichrist with
signs and lying wonders, and very pertinently
asks the question : If miracles can be produced
alike by God and by evil powers, how can there
be any evidence that the powers we are dealing
1 Justin, Apol. ii. 6, trans. Edghill.
2 On Origen and Celsus, see Trench, On the Miracles, p. 60.
The chief passages are, Contra Celsum, I. lxvii., lxviii. ; II.
xlviii., liii.

ORIGEN AND CELSUS 13
with come from God ? There seems to be
some doubt whether Celsus was really sincere
in his argument, whether in fact he believed in
the heathen miracles ; but that does not
diminish its apparent effectiveness. In order
to explain the power that Jesus had of working
miracles, he says that He had hired Himself out
as a servant in Egypt on account of His poverty,
and having there acquired some miraculous
powers, returned to His own country highly
elated on account of these, and by means of
them proclaimed Himself as God. It must be
remembered that Egypt was looked upon as
the home of magical arts, and this story was part
of the legends, or rather perversions of history,
invented by the Jews and other opponents of
Christianity to throw discredit on its Founder.1
Origen meets this argument, and meets it
quite effectively, by an appeal to the moral
character of our Lord's works. The magicians
accomplished nothing, they merely produced a
thaumaturgic , display ; Jesus, like Moses, had
created a new nation : " Wickedness and
wrong," he said, "could not have led a whole
nation to rise not only above idols and images
erected by men, but also above all created
things, and to ascend to the uncreated ways
of the God . of the Universe." It is in the
whole life of Jesus, and the divine works that
1 Origen, Contra Celsum, I. xxviii. ; see pp. 287-289.

14 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
He accomplished, that the proof of His divine
origin must be found.
" The analogy," writes Origen, " would have
been a correct one if, like the jugglers, He had
performed his works only for show. But as it
is, none of the jugglers uses his performances
to call those who have seen them to lead a
better life, nor does he instruct those who are
astonished at his exhibition, in the fear of God,
nor does he attempt to persuade them to live
uprightly as men to be justified in the sight of
God. None of these things do the magicians,
for they are not able, and have no wish or desire
to work for the reformation of mankind. Their
lives, in fact, are full of most shameful and
infamous sins. But inasmuch as Jesus by the
miracles that He did called those who saw them
to a reformation of their moral life, was it not
natural for Him to exhibit Himself as a proof of
a most noble life, not only to His true disciples
but to all others ? so that His disciples too might
devote themselves to teaching men to live
according to the will of God, and that the
others being better instructed by His word and
by His life and miracles, of the right way to live,
might do all things with reference to pleasing
God, who is over all. If such then was the life
of Jesus, how is it reasonable for anyone to
compare Him to the sect of magicians, and not
believe in accordance with the promises that He
was God appearing in human form for the
well-being of our race."1
1 Origen, Contra Celsum, I. lxviii.

APOLLONIUS OF TYANA 15
The situation is not one that concerns us
directly at the present time, although as a
matter of fact it touches on an important side
of the problem. But the soundness of Origen's
argument must be emphasized ; it was believed
that miracles occurred : it was believed that
they might be the work either of a divine or of
a demoniacal agency. To decide between these
two Origen appeals, and appeals with complete
success, to the moral character of our Lord's
life and teaching, and to the beneficial and far-
reaching effects of His work upon the world.
This argument might be used with even greater
effect at the present day.1
Some eighteenth century and other writers
were accustomed to lay considerable stress on
the life of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus.
It was supposed to represent a rival to the life
1 There is a brilliant discussion on the evidential use of
miracles in the second century in Edghill, Revelation of
the Son of God, by a theologian and evangelist whose early
death has been one of the greatest losses the Church has
in recent years sustained. Mr Edghill's contention that
the appeal to miracles is not made apart from other argu
ments, and that greater stress is laid on prophecy, on the
life and teaching of the Lord, and on the power of the Gospel
as shewn by its influence on character, is substantially true ;
but I cannot but think that he underestimates the extent of
the appeal, and that there is a certain amount of confusion
of thought and of the overstatement natural in one who had
so great oratorical gifts.

16 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
of Christ, and it was argued that there was just
as much evidence for the one as for the other.
Such a position cannot now be maintained.
In fact, the contrast of the two might be
emphasized very much in favour of the historical
character of the Gospels. Apollonius lived in
the time of Domitian ; the Life was not written
until the beginning of the third century. It
was the product of the courtly, religious move
ment organized under the imperial ladies of the
Syrian emperors who took such an interest in the
ecclesiastical problems of the day. There may
have been some historical basis, but a large
portion of the Life is clearly as apocryphal as
the Apocryphal Gospels, with which it should
be compared. It contains obvious and frequent
anachronisms and contradictions ; the hero, for
instance, manages to reach the Indies by way of
the Caucasus. Some part of it seems definitely
moulded on the Gospels, not so much, apparently,
as a rival, but rather in the interest of religious
syncretism. It was not until the time of
Diocletian that Hierocles attempted to make
use of it as a rival to the Gospels. It is chiefly
remarkable as a monument of the superstitious
religious movement of the third century which
formed both the opportunity and the danger
of Christianity. It shewed what need there
was for a reconstruction of faith. It might
tempt the Church to conciliate the popular

S. AUGUSTINE 17
mind by descending from its lofty ethical and
intellectual position.

Ill

The first beginnings of a philosophical con
sideration of miracles may be found in S. Augus
tine, and his discussion of the subject demands
our attention. He shares in the normal position
of his time and appeals unhesitatingly not only to
the miracles of the Bible, but also to the current
ecclesiastical miracles. He demands, however,
and finds evidence for the latter, and the record
that he gives is of considerable interest. What,
however, is of importance in his writings is that
for the first time we find a discussion on the
subject in the light of a philosophy of nature.1
S. Augustine had clearly to meet some form
of scientific criticism ; there were people who
refused to believe in miracles, or who asked how
things so contrary to nature could happen. He
first of all draws attention to the fact that many
things are reported and believed in the world
which are very marvellous. If these things
happen, why should it not be believed that other
marvellous things happen ? You cannot, he
argues, explain them to me, and yet you believe ;
1 The chief passages in S. Augustine dealing with
miracles are De Civitate Dei, xxi. 4-8; xxii. 8-10; Contra
Faustwm, xxvi. {Opera, torn, ix., x.). B

18 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
why cannot you believe in these other wonders ?
Some of the instances he cites represent legend
ary stories of travellers, others are instances of
known phenomena, such as magnetism, which
the science of that day could not explain. To
these instances the answer that was made was :
It is quite true that these things cannot be
understood, but there is no reason for thinking
that they are against nature. " Our adversaries,"
says S. Augustine, "are in the habit of reply
ing, ' This is their natural property, their nature,
these are the powers naturally belonging to
them,' " and he admits that the reply is an
adequate one. But he proceeds : " if you believe
in acts which are so abnormal and unusual
merely because you say it is natural to them,
although you have no means of proving that it
is so ; why refuse to believe extraordinary events
when they are well attested and can be ascribed
to the work of God — Almighty, as you your
selves admit, and therefore able to do all things
— Himself the author of nature." But it is
argued against him : " These events you want
us to believe in are contrary to the natural
property of things." His reply is that we know
the nature of things may change ; " the nature
of things is one at one time, another at another—
why then should not God also be able to
change the nature of things?" And then he
goes on to a more profound thought. It has

MIRACLES NOT CONTRARY TO NATURE 19
been said that portents are contrary to nature,
but that is not really the case. Nothing can
happen contrary to nature. " How can anything
be contrary to nature which happens by the
will of God, since the will of such a Creator is
the nature of each thing. A miracle then is
not contrary to nature, but contrary to nature
as it is known." J And this thought is worked
out in another treatise more fully.
" But as to what is according to nature and
what against nature, men who err as you do
cannot know. According to the ordinary habit
of speech, that is said to be contrary to nature
which is contrary to nature as men know it.
. . . But God, who is the Creator and Founder
of all natural things, does nothing contrary to
nature ; for that will be natural to anything
which He may have done, from whom comes
every mode and number and order of nature.
And man himself does nothing against nature
except when he sins, and then he is recalled to
the order of nature by punishment. . . . But
we say not unsuitably that God does a thing
contrary to nature, which He does against what
we know in nature. For we give the name of
nature to the customary and well-known course
of nature. And when God does anything con
trary to this we speak of mighty works or
1 De Civitate Dei, XXI. viii. 2. Quomodo est enim contra
naturam, quod Dei fit voluntate, cum voluntas tanti utique
Conditoris conditae rei cuiusque natura fit ? Portentum ergo
fit non contra naturam, sed contra quam nota est natura.

20 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
miracles. But against the highest law of nature
which is far removed from the knowledge of
those who are irreligious or still weak, God does
nothing, inasmuch as He cannot do anything
against Himself." 1
The full value of this argument will be
brought out later when we discuss generally
the relation of miracles to ' nature ; ' but we may
note now that it represents an interesting histori
cal position. ' Nature ' is the Platonic method
of stating what we call 'Natural Law.' This
Platonic conception of Uniformity was partly
based on experience, partly the result of an
a priori philosophical conception. Against these
current Uniformitarian theories S. Augustine
1 Contra Faustum, xxvi. Quid sit autem secundum naturam,
quid contra naturam, homines qui sicut vos errant, nosse non
possunt. Dici autem humano more contra naturam esse, quod
est contra naturae usum mortalibus notum nee nos negamus.
. . . Deus autem Creator et Conditor omnium naturarum, nihil
contra naturam facit : id enim erit cuique rei naturale, quod
ille fecerit, a quo est omnis modus, numerus, ordo naturae.
Sed nee ipse homo contra naturam quidquam facit, nisi cum
peccat, qui tamen supplicio redigitur ad naturam. . . . Sed
contra naturam non incongrue dicimus aliquid Deum facere,
quod facit contra id quod novimus in natura. Hanc enim
etiam appellamus naturam, cognitum nobis cursum solitumque
naturae, contra quern Deus cum aliquid facit, magnalia vel
mirabilia nominantur. Contra illam vero summam naturae
legem, a notitia remotam, sive impiorum, sive adhuc infirm-
orum, tam Deus nullo modo facit, quam contra se ipsum
non facit.

S. THOMAS AQUINAS 21
argues that because a thing is strange and
wonderful that is no reason for disbelieving it ;
that there are good grounds for accepting the
faith and record of the Gospel ; that to anyone
who believes in God, the will or power of God
will seem an adequate cause ; that such a cause
is not contrary to nature, for nature is God's
will ; it is only contrary to nature as we know it,
and our knowledge is, and always must be,
incomplete. The influence of S. Augustine's teaching
lived on, and formed the basis of the scholastic
doctrine of miracles. We may take as a typical
mediaeval philosopher S. Thomas Aquinas, and
we shall find that he sees far deeper into the
conditions under which it is reasonable to believe
miracles than many modern writers. Probably
in what we may call academic circles, there was
during the Middle Ages a considerable amount
of free thought. Ansehn, for example, when
discussing the Atonement, refers definitely to
what unbelievers think and say. Mediaeval
philosophy was largely derived from Aristotle and
the Arabians, some of whom, such as Averroes,
had at any rate Pantheistic tendencies, even if
there was no more definite free thought. It was
thus necessary that an adequate philosophical
explanation should be found for miracles.
The Schoolmen believed in the Uniformity
of Nature, but not as modern science professes

22 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
to do, as the result of observation, but on a
priori grounds. Nature is what it is because
God has made it so, and having been made as
it is by God, that is what it must be. That
certain " natures " were produced by God was
voluntary on His part ; but, once having been
created with the properties He has assigned
them, it is a matter of necessity that certain
effects should proceed from them. That which
belongs to a thing by reason of its essential
principles must obtain by absolute necessity
always. It is important for us to remember
that this doctrine of the Uniformity of Nature
is not a discovery of modern science ; rather it
was deduced on a priori grounds from the
conception of the Divine nature, and thus pre
ceded and assisted the later development of
Natural Science.
Can God then change or interfere with this
order of nature ? The answer, according to
S. Thomas, is that He can.1 God has brought
all things into being, and therefore He who
created all things can produce directly the
effects of things which He has created. If we
examine nature we see that nothing invariably
1 The chief passages in S. Thomas Aquinas on miracles
are, Summa Theologiae, I. cv. ; CX. iv. ; Summa Contra Gentiles,
III. xcix.-cvii. Of the latter I have used the translation by
Rev. J. Rickaby, S.J., published under the title, Of God and
His Creatures.

MIRACLES THE WORK OF GOD 23
produces its proper effect ; it is prevented either
through lack of power or some more superior
power intervening.
" If, therefore, by the action of some created
power the natural course of events may be altered
from the usual to the unusual, and that without
any alteration of divine providence, much more
may the divine power sometimes do a thing,
without prejudice to its own providence, beyond
the course assigned to natural events by God.
This God does at times to manifest His power :
for there is no better way of manifesting the
subjection of all nature to the divine will than by
something being done at times beyond the course
of nature ; for thereby it appears that the course
of events proceeds from Him, and is not of
necessity of nature, but through free will. Nor
should this be accounted a frivolous reason to
allege, that God works some effects in nature to
the end of manifesting Himself to human minds,
since it has been shewn that all the material
creation is subordinated to serve the end of
intellectual nature, while the end of intellectual
nature itself is the knowledge of God. No
wonder then if some change is' wrought in
corporeal substance to afford intelligent nature
a knowledge of God."1
Following the teaching of S. Augustine, and
making use of the passage we have already
quoted, S. Thomas goes on to shew that the
things which God does beyond the order of
1 God and His Creatures (Contra Gentiles), III. xcix.

24 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
nature are not contrary to nature, for that
cannot be contrary to nature which comes from
God, who is the author of nature. While it is
thus laid down that God can directly interfere
with the order of nature as we know it, and the
possibility of miracles is admitted, the extent to
which this is possible is limited. " So far as
the order of nature depends on the first cause,
God cannot act contrary to it : He can only
interfere with secondary causes."1 He cannot
alter that which depends on the first cause or
essential nature of things, because that is Himself,
and He cannot act against Himself. But he can
produce secondary causes Himself, for they are
not part of Himself but the result of His actions.
A miracle is defined as follows : —
" Things that are done occasionally beyond
the usual established order of events are
commonly called miracles. . . . An event is
wonderful relatively to one man and not to
another. The absolutely wonderful is that which
has a cause absolutely hidden. This then is the
meaning of the word ' miracle,' an event of itself
full of wonder, not to this man or that man only.
Now the cause absolutely hidden to every man
is God, inasmuch as no man in this life can
mentally grasp the essence of God. Those
1 Summa Theologiae, I. cv. vi. Prout ordo rerum
dependet a prima causa, non potest Deus contra ordinem
rerum facere : prout vero dependet a qualibet secundarum
causarum, praeter ordinem rerum facere potest.

MIRACLES AND THE WILL OF GOD 25
events then are properly to be styled miracles,
which happen by divine power beyond the order
commonly observed in nature."1
It is interesting to hear that Coleridge used
to contrast the greatness of Aquinas' teaching
on miracles with the inadequacy of many modern
thinkers. And it is interesting to note further
that neither Aquinas nor Augustine would have
anything to say to such a definition as that
miracles are a violation of the order of nature.
They recognize that, properly speaking, no varia
tion from the law of nature is possible — for
nature is what is, whether we look upon it as
the sum of observed things or as the Will of
God. Looking upon law as derived from God,
they do not speak of any violation of law,
but they observe in nature that, as it seems,
one law interferes with the working of another
law, and therefore, they argue, there is no
reason why that which is the highest law of all,
the ultimate nature of things unknown to us,
the Will of God Himself, should not be more
powerful in itself than secondary manifestations
of law. In this there is nothing derogatory to
the dignity of God if He seems to interfere with
the laws which He has made, for He does it
that intelligent beings may learn about Him.
We shall have later to examine this conception
1 God and His Creatures, III. ci.

26 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
of law, and to see within what limitations a
scheme like this of the universe may be held ;
but it must be recognized that from the point of
view of religion — and it is, of course, from that
point of view that Aquinas approaches the
question — he brushes away many cobwebs which
have been created by later and less capable
thinkers.

IV

The first writer who definitely and deliber
ately attacked belief in miracles was Spinoza.
He was born in 1634, and his Tractatus
Theologico-Politicus — the work of his which
chiefly concerns us — was published anonymously
in 1670 ; he died in 1677.
" The masses," he tells us, " think that the
power and providence of God are most clearly
displayed by events that are extraordinary and
contrary to the conception they have formed of
nature, especially if such events bring them any
profit or convenience ; they think that the clearest
possible proof of God's existence is afforded when
nature, as they suppose, breaks her accustomed
order ; and consequently they believe that
those who explain or endeavour to under
stand phenomena or miracles through their
natural senses are doing away with God and
His providence." 1
1 Spinoza's Works, translated by Elwes, i., p. 81.

SPINOZA 27
People imagine two powers, God and Nature.
God they think is like a royal potentate ; Nature
consists of force and energy. Men imagine that
God has arranged everything for their sole
benefit, and
"this idea is so pleasing to humanity that
men go on to this day imagining miracles,
so that they may believe themselves God's
favourites, and the final cause for which God
created and directs all things." 1
He then goes on to lay down the following
propositions : —
" 1. That nature cannot be contravened, but
that she preserves a fixed and immutable order.
2. That God's nature and existence, and con
sequently His providence, cannot be known from
miracles, but that they can all be much better
perceived from the fixed and immutable order
of nature. 3. That by the decrees and voli
tions, and consequently the providence of God,
Scripture means nothing but nature's order
following necessarily from her eternal laws."2
These propositions Spinoza seeks to prove by
deductive reasoning based on the nature of
God. "Nothing is necessarily true, save only by
divine decree. . . . The universal laws of nature,
therefore, are decrees of God, following from
1 Spinoza's Works, translated by Elwes, i., p. 82.
2 Ibid., i., p. 82.

28 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
the necessity and perfection of the divine nature.
Hence any event happening in nature which
contravenes nature's universal laws would
necessarily also contravene the Divine decree,
nature, and understanding ; or if anyone asserted
that God acts in contravention to the laws of
nature, he, ipso facto, would be compelled to
assert that God acted against His own nature —
an evident absurdity. . . . Nothing, then,
comes to pass in nature in contravention to
her universal laws, . . . whatsoever comes to
pass, comes to pass according to laws and rules
which involve eternal necessity and truth,
although they may not all be known to us,
and therefore she keeps a fixed and immutable
order." For these reasons
"miracles are only intelligible as in relation
to human opinions, and merely mean events of
which the natural cause cannot be explained
by a reference to any ordinary occurrence, either
by us, or, at any rate, by the writer and narrator
of the miracle." 1
Miracles, then, give us no knowledge of
God, for God is really only law.
"Miracles in the sense of events contrary
to the laws of nature, so far from demonstrating
to us the existence of God, would, on the
contrary, lead us to doubt it, where, otherwise,
we might have been absolutely certain of it, as
1 Spinoza's Works, translated by Elwes, i., pp. 83, 84.

THE NATURE OF GOD 29
knowing that nature follows a fixed and immut
able order." :
The conception that Spinoza formed of God
is further worked out in his Ethics, and a
good deal more will be found about miracles in
his Correspondence with Oldenburg. ' God '
he defines as a Being absolutely infinite — that
is, " a substance consisting in infinite attributes
of which each expresses eternal and infinite
essentiality." 2 " Besides God no substance can
be granted or conceived." 8 " Whatever is is
in God, and without God nothing can be or be
conceived."4 "God acts solely by the laws of
His own nature, and is not constrained by any
one."6 And Spinoza goes on to say that in the
ultimate end of things, everything must be as
it is, for everything is in God, and nothing can
exist in any way but as it does exist. He
therefore shews in his view the impossibility of
freedom in the world. \
For the present we may confine ourselves to-
certain preliminary observations on this system.
It is obvious that the whole force of Spinoza's
argument depends upon the conception or
definition of God with which he starts. He
1 Spinoza's Works, translated by Elwes, i., p. 85.
3 Ibid., ii., p. 45, definition vi.
3 Ibid., ii., p. 54, prop. xiv.
4 Ibid., ii., p. 55, prop. xv.
5 Ibid., ii., p. 59, prop. xvii. •

30 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
assumes that God is everything, and everything
is God. And then he proceeds to prove that
nothing can be except through God. He
assumes that God must be as He is, and then
proceeds to prove that nothing can be except
as it is ; he assumes that all things are God,
and that God cannot change, and then proves
that there can be nothing which does not
proceed by the laws of things which are the
Laws of God. It is a criticism which has been
made against any form of deductive reasoning,
that it can never prove anything but what is
already contained in the premisses. This seems
to be obviously true with regard to all Spinoza's
deductions as to the character of nature.
He assumes everything he wishes to prove.
His whole argument depends upon an a priori
conception which he has formed as to what
Nature and God are. All this seems to him to
be in accordance with reason, but he does not,
and cannot give, any reason for this belief. His
so-called arguments are purely tautological.
Moreover, this conception of his — which may
without injustice be described as Pantheistic
— involves certain very definite consequences.
If it takes away the possibility of miracles
happening, it also takes away the possibility of
freedom existing in any form. This must be
recognized as a necessary deduction from the
premisses, and must be accepted by those who

ORIGIN OF SPINOZA'S SYSTEM 31
are attracted by the apparent certainty of
Spinoza's methods. For Spinoza's conclusions
are the inevitable result of his premisses. In
fact, they are but the repetition of them in
a different language ; but the premisses them
selves are assumed, and no reason for their
truth is ever given except the fact that they
are so.
And the source of this a prio?'i conception
of God and Nature is not far to seek. The
early triumphs of science were made in
the regions of Mathematics, Mechanics, and
Astronomy. Mathematics appeared to give an
example of rapid, accurate, and certain reasoning,
and naturally directed men's minds to a particular
method of thought. Mathematical science,
therefore, was supposed to be a true representa
tion of things as they are. Hence the con
struction of the universe was conceived on a
mathematical and mechanical basis, and this
origin of his views is recognized by Spinoza
himself. He discusses various reasons that have
led men to form different conceptions of the
universe, and then proceeds as follows : —
" Men laid down as an axiom that God's
judgements far transcend human understand
ing. Such a doctrine might well have sufficed
to conceal the truth from the human race from
all eternity, if mathematics had not furnished
another standard of verity in considering solely

32 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
the essence and properties of figures without
regard to their final causes."1
It was, then, on a mathematical basis that this
hard, rigid system was built up, and we have
not yet realized the immense difference in our
conception of God and Nature that has been
produced by the very different aspects of
Nature which later scientific discovery and
research has placed before us.
But Spinoza's system is of the greatest
importance, for it is the most perfect and
complete representation of these attempts to
explain things by a spiritual monistic principle.
So Dr A. S. Farrar writes :• —
"The central principle of his philosophy,
the pantheistic disbelief of miraculous interposi
tion, which has subsequently entered into so
many systems, was first clearly applied to
theology by him. Wherever the disbelief in
the supernatural has arisen from a priori
considerations, and expressed itself, not with
allegations of conscious fraud against the
devotees of religion, nor with attempts to
explain it away as merely mental realisifa, but
with assertions that miracles are impossible,
and nature an unchanging whole ; this disbelief^
whether insinuating itself into the defence of
Christianity, or marking the attack on it, has
been a reproduction of Spinoza."2
1 Spinoza's Works, translated by Elwes, ii., p. 77.
2 A. S. Farrar, Bampton Lectures, p. 160.

MECHANICAL UNIFORMITY 33
But not only is this the case with regard to
pantheistic philosophy ; it is true also of more
modern systems. Here at the very beginning
of the modern era of scientific discovery, we
find the absolute uniformity of nature asserted,
not as the result of scientific investigation but
as something known on a priori grounds and
proved by methods which, as we shall see, the
later philosophy of nature looks upon as entirely
unsubstantial. Nothing can shew us more
clearly how this conception of the uniformity
of nature was not the creation of Natural
Science, but has been throughout assumed.
It was the inspiration of Natural Science, not its
result ; it goes back to the Stoic and the
Platonist. It has its starting-point in the
nature of things, or the being of God. We
shall have eventually to investigate the state
ment made in the name of science that no
violation of natural law is possible. To help
us in our investigation we must realize that
such a dictum is not a conclusion of science,
which has in fact no method of arriving at any
such conclusion at all, but an assumption built
up on certain a priori methods of thought
which are entirely inconsistent with the true
methods of science.

34 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM

We now come to that movement of free-
thought which prevailed in England in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and is
generally called Deism. Nominally it maintained
a belief in God as a Creator and First Cause, of
whom we might learn by means of reason and
natural religion ; but it denied divine provi
dence, and in particular denied the possibility of
a revealed religion. Really the tendency was,
under the name of Natural Religion, to develop
into almost complete scepticism and materialism.
If the rise of the movement may be traced origin
ally at any rate to political events, its form was
undoubtedly the outcome of that conception of
nature which the science of the time had created.
This conception had a twofold origin. We
have already described the development of that
a priori method of thought which was due
originally to Descartes, which proceeded by
deductive methods and was carried to a logical
conclusion by Spinoza with his conception of
rigid law and uniformity. On the other side
were the new-born scientific studies of which
Bacon was the prophet if not the father, which
led to the foundation of the Royal Society,
which were typified by the astronomical theories
of Kepler and culminated in the natural

THE ENGLISH DEISTS 35
philosophy of Isaac Newton. These earliest
scientific investigations were, it may be
remarked, mathematical, astronomical, and
mechanical. They all seemed to corroborate
that theory of the universe which described
nature in the terms of rigid law and harmonized
with the a priori speculations of the philosophers.
Thus arose that conception of rigid mechanical
law which has formed such a dominant feature
in the thought about Nature during the last
two hundred years.
A rigid separation between the ideas of God
and of Nature arose. The science of that day had
nothing to tell of origins, or of development,
it had no conception of a world that had slowly
grown into being ; its ideas were purely static.
So it needed a beginning. God, therefore, was
represented as having created the world and
given it laws. Once created, Nature pursued
its way without God. That theory of law which
seemed to have been found in the fields of
Astronomy was transferred gradually to other
departments of nature. Law prevailed likewise
in human life and in the human mind. Man
must guide himself by the laws of nature ; God
had made the world, which was governed by the
laws He had made, and in these laws, and these
laws only, could we learn about Him. He could
not have revealed Himself, and there was no
reason that He should do so ; revealed religion,

36 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
it was generally argued, was the invention of
priests and prelates in their own interest.
The religious movement began on a priori
grounds, just as the science from which it
started was a priori; but in the realms both
of science and of religion it tended more and
more to become inductive. As Sir Leslie Stephen
says, the tendency of the discussion was to pass
to historical criticism. A movement which had
begun by asserting that there was no possibility
of revelation, failed when it attempted to prove
that there had not been a revelation. The
science which had started on an a priori basis
produced an empirical science of the human
mind which went far to overthrow its founda
tions. The philosophy of Hume when once
understood destroyed the supposed scientific
basis of the philosophy of Spinoza, and the
whole conception of natural law.
There are three works which particularly
demand our notice : Woolston's Discourses on
Miracles, Conyers Middleton's Free Enquiry
into the Miraculous Powers which are supposed
to have subsisted in the Christian Church, and
Hume's Essay on Miracles.
Woolston's six discussions were published in
1727 and the two following years. They
contained the bitterest attack which had yet
appeared on the Christian religion, and were
remarkable for their humour and for a most

WOOLSTON 37
mordant power of satire. Each discussion was
dedicated to a bishop, and there is hardly
anything in the English ' language more biting,
more subtle, or more impudent in its irony
than these dedications. Their sale was immense
— Voltaire was in England when they were first
published, and informs us that it reached 30,000
copies. Other evidence shews that this state
ment was certainly not exaggerated ; and it was
from them as also from Middleton that the great
French infidel learnt much of the manner and
method of his attack upon Christianity. Wool-
ston was fined and imprisoned for the publica
tion, and died in prison.
Woolston's ^hesis was that the miracles were
not to be taken as history, but were only
allegories to be understood in a spiritual sense.
Our Lord's " whole life in the flesh is but Type,
Figure and Parable of His mystic and spiritual
life and operations in mankind." "Neither the
Fathers, nor the Apostles, nor even Jesus Him
self meant that the miracles, as recorded in the
Evangelists, should be taken in a literal sense,
but in a mystic, figurative, and parabolic one."
Whether or no he really held this belief may
be doubted. Probably it was originally sincere,
but by the time he came to write these dis
cussions all genuine religious belief had been
overwhelmed by the bitterness which misfortune
and perhaps ill-treatment had aroused. At any

38 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
rate under the cloak of this theory he delivered
a violent attack upon the historical character
of miracles, which he described as " full of
Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities."
No doubt his criticism in some cases seems effec
tive, but it must be remembered that a sufficiently
unsympathetic critic is able to make any story
or history that has ever appeared seem ridiculous
and absurd. Woolston found it necessary to
ascribe the origin of miracles to direct imposture.
The raising of Lazarus, for example, was "a
monstrous imposture," and " this piece of fraud "
was an article in the indictment against our
Lord. As an illustration of his style and methods,
may be taken his account of the Resurrection.
This is put into the mouth of a Jewish rabbi,
who describes it as the "most notorious and
monstrous imposture that ever was put upon
mankind." It was a fraud that was arranged by
Jesus and carried out by His disciples. He
had prophesied that He would rise again on the
third day, but the fulfilment was frustrated by
the sealing of the tomb, and the knowledge
that the chief priests would come to see the
expected resurrection. " But notwithstanding
this precaution in sealing the stone — the best
that can be taken against fraud — Jesus' body
was privately slipped off early in the morning
of the day before, and the Resurrection pretended

MIDDLETON'S FREE ENQUIRY 39
by His disciples." The guards were bribed or
intoxicated, and the deceit acquiesced in by
Pilate. The stories of the appearances, it was
quite easy to invent. As for the acceptance of
the belief, that is quite natural. " Why it has
been believed through these latter ages of the
Church is no wonder at all. The priests had
their interest in it ; the ignorant and super
stitious had their comfort in it ; and the wise
and considerate, for fear of persecution, dared
not enquire into the grounds of it."
The whole thing was a fraud kept up to
start and establish the priesthood. The writer
was determined to insult and defy the bishops to
do their worst.
" My heart aches a little for our divines,"
he says, " . . . what must they then do ?
Why, they must give up their religion along
with their Church, and go with me to the Fathers
with their mystical interpretation of the whole
story of Jesus' Resurrection."
Middleton's Free Enquiry was published in
1747. It was an attack on the miracles of the
first three centuries, mainly in the interests of
Protestantism. Anglican divines had appealed
to these centuries in corroboration of their
doctrinal position, and there was a tendency to
accept and defend the existence of miracles in
the Early Church for a certain time.

40 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
Middleton is severe on the difficulty of
drawing a line as some do in the third, others in
the fourth or fifth century, and would solve
this problem by denying all ecclesiastical miracles.
Their growth is explained by a general attack
on the credulity and want of intelligence of the
Fathers who supported them. The effect of the
work was first of all to make Gibbon join the
Roman Church on the ground that there was as
good evidence for later miracles as for earlier,
and ultimately to become a freethinker on the
ground that the same arguments might be used
against Scripture as had been used against the
Fathers. How far Middleton himself had drawn
these conclusions we do not know, but he is
considered by Leslie Stephens to be one of the
few divines who can fairly be accused of conscious
insincerity. Like Woolston he ascribes the
testimony of miracles to direct imposture.
"The sole inference," he says, "which reason
would teach us to draw from an attestation of
miracles so conspicuously fabulous, is that the
same witnesses are not to be trusted in any, as
being either incapable from a weakness of
judgement of discerning the truth and proba
bility of things, or determined by craft and
fraud to defend anything that was useful to
them."1 Men of sense know, "on subjects of
a miraculous kind, how forcibly the prejudices
1 Middleton, Free Enquiry, p. 187.

HUME 41
of education, a superstitious turn of mind, the
interests of party, or the views of ambition are
apt to operate on a defender of these miracles,
which the government and religion of his country
are engaged to support." 1
Whilst the works of Middleton and Woolston
are forgotten or almost forgotten, the name of
Hume has survived as that of the most acute
and most famous of all sceptics. His Enquiry
concerning the Human Understanding, which
contained an essay on Miracles, was published
in 1748. Its argument consists of two main
divisions : First, he argues that " a miracle is a
violation of the laws of nature," and as the
evidence in favour of the laws of nature is
greater than that in favour of any miracle, there
never has been (he first wrote ' there never can
be') any testimony sufficient to establish the
reality of one.
"A miracle is a violation of the laws of
nature ; and as a firm and unalterable experience
has established these laws, the proof against a
miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as
entire as any argument from experience can
possibly be imagined. . . . There must,
therefore, be a uniform experience against every
miraculous event, otherwise the event would not
merit that appellation. And as a uniform experi
ence amounts to a proof, there is here a direct
and full 'proof,' from the nature of the fact,
1 Middleton, Free Enquiry, p. 229.

42 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
against the existence of any miracle ; nor can
such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered
credible, but by an opposite proof, which is
superior."1 The plain consequence is (and it is a maxim
worthy of our attention), " That no testimony is
sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the
testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood
would be^more miraculous than the fact which
it endeavours to establish." 2
In the second part he proceeds to examine
the character of the evidence for miracles, and
shews that as a matter of fact none of the
alleged evidence is such that it is possible to
rely upon it.
" As the violations of truth are more common
in the testimony concerning religious miracles
than in that concerning any other matter of
fact, this must diminish very much the authority
of the former testimony, and make us form a
general resolution never to lend any attention
to it, with whatever specious pretence it may be
covered."8 The examination of Hume's position must
be reserved for a later lecture. It is sufficient
at present to remind ourselves that Hume's
general philosophy had entirely destroyed that
1 Hume, Enquiries, ed. Selby-Bigge, p. 114.
2 Ibid., p. 115. 3 IUdi p 129.

BUTLER 43
conception of the law of nature which he des
cribes miracles as violating. He aimed at
making his reasoning demonstrative and epi
grammatic, and by that attempt he made it
less strong than otherwise it might appear to be.
The real point of his argument is that we should
not believe such things as miracles unless Ave
have good evidence ; that in many cases evidence
for miracles connected with religion is avowedly
untrue ; and that therefore we should hesitate
before Ave are prepared to accept any miracles.
Stated in that form it becomes a wise caution,
and reminds us that clearly we should not accept
testimony until we have thoroughly tested it.
The eighteenth century produced two of
the best-known English Apologists — Butler and
Paley. Bishop Butler published his Analogy
in 1736, Archdeacon Paley his Evidences in
1794. The former deals with the Deist contro
versy in its earlier a priori period, the latter sums
up the Christian apologetic literature in relation
to the question of testimony which marked the
latter development of the movement.
Butler is spoken of with respect, even by
those who are least inclined to accept his teach
ing. It is generally admitted that as against
the Deists his arguments were singularly effective ;
but it is asserted that he only succeeds inasmuch
as he shews that it is no more difficult to believe
a revealed religion than a natural religion. And

44 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
it has been argued that the logical conclusion
would be that it is equally difficult to believe
either. This sometimes seems to suggest that
those who argue in this manner have not read
the Analogy. The above description does not
in the least represent the main point of the
argument. Butler's argument is not confined
to the proposition quoted above ; what he does
argue is that there is no pre-supposition from
the analogy of nature itself against the Christian
scheme of things. The argument of the Deists
had been : If you study nature — by which they
meant the sum of existing things — you will see
that it makes Christianity absurd or impossible.
The point of Butler's argument is to prove that
that is not so. So with regard to miracles he
argues that, considering the vastness of nature,
considering the wide extent of what we do not
know, considering the value and power of the
Christian religion, we cannot say on a priori
grounds that there is any reason for not accept
ing them. Again, with regard to evidence, all
human testimony may be vitiated by fraud or
credulity, but that does not prevent us from
guiding our life upon testimony. Because some
miracles are based upon fraud and credulity, we
cannot argue that all miracles are ; we must
examine in each particular case. He seems
almost to have discounted, before it appeared,
Hume's celebrated argument.

PALEY 45
Neither the philosophy nor the apologetics
of Paley are in good repute at the present time,
and probably the retention of his Evidences as
a text-book when his whole scheme of things is
so little in accordance with present methods of
thought is unfortunate ; but it must be recognized
that his arguments were singularly conclusive
for the time when he wrote. Stripped of all
adventitious additions, the final argument
then used against miracles always ultimately
reduced them to fraud. None of the later or
more refined forms of criticism had arisen, and
against the contemporary methods of arguing
Paley 's Evidences were entirely sound. Certainly
few people at the present day would feel it pos
sible to accept the eighteenth- century position.
Both Butler and Paley put the argument from
miracles and from prophecy in the forefront.
Paley seeks to give a demonstrative character
to his reasoning, which is really never possible
when dealing with subject-matter such as we
are considering. No logical demonstration
seems quite convincing when we are dealing
with the realities of life. At the present time
the spiritual and moral arguments would be put
first. But that must not blind us to the fact
that the English Church came out of the long
controversy with the Deism and Scepticism
of the eighteenth century triumphant, and
that the sober, if limited, theology of that

46 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
period prepared the way for wider spiritual
revivals.

VI
We now pass to Germany. Whilst in the
eighteenth century England was in the van of
destructive criticism and free-thought, that
position passed to others towards the end of that
century, partly, perhaps, owing to the rise of
personal religion with the series of great religious
movements which began with Wesley, partly
owing to the revulsion of feeling aroused by the
excesses of the French Revolution, which on the
intellectual side was largely the result of the
destructive philosophy of the English Deists,
popularized and internationalized by the brilliance
of the great French sceptics. During the
nineteenth century all the developments of
rationalism had their origin in Germany, and
the English liberal theologians have confined
themselves to the task of copying German
criticism — generally just about the time when
its inadequacy has been discovered.
It would be impossible to range over the
whole field, and for the particular purpose of
dealing with the question of miracles in
Germany, as opposed to the more general
question of biblical and historical criticism, it
Avill be convenient for us to confine ourselves

PAULUS 47
to three names — Paulus, Schleiermacher, and
Strauss. Paulus Ave can take as a typical rationalist.1
For forty years he was Professor of Theology
at Heidelberg, where he died in 1851 at the
age of ninety. His commentary on the Gospels
Avas published in 1800, and his Life of Christ
in 1828. His philosophical inspiration was due
to Spinoza, whom he interpreted as a Deist rather
than a Pantheist. He was a believer in Christi
anity, and the problem before him was to reconcile
the historical truth of the life of Jesus with the
denial of the miracles. From Spinoza he had
learned two points which were to him of primary
importance. One — " that unexplained altera
tions of the course of nature can neither over
throw nor attest a spiritual truth " ; the other,
"that everything that happens in nature
emanates from the omnipotence of God."2
We notice at once a fundamental difference
of atmosphere from that of the English contro
versy. It was assumed in England that miracles
were the best method of proving a revelation,
and it was considered necessary to disprove the
miracles in order to disprove the revelation.
1 I have unfortunately not had access to Paulus' own
works. The following account is based on Schweitzer,
The Quest of the Historical Jesus, chapter v. See also Trench,
On the Miracles, pp. 74-78.
2 Schweitzer, op. cit., p. 51.

48 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
Paulus, however, was of opinion that miracles
were of no value as a proof, that they were in
fact a detriment to the Gospel narrative, and
it was necessary in the cause of truth to
eliminate them.
He recognizes as an incontrovertible fact that
the writers of the Gospel narratives believed in
miracles. That was natural, he held, to their
stage of culture ; but it simply arose through
their ignorance of secondary causes, where our
superior knowledge and insight can shew how
they made their mistake. And it is our duty
to explain the miracles, for we know the real
causes of things. Miracles of healing were
worked by the influence of spiritual power on
the nervous system, or by medicine and other
secret remedies which our Lord was acquainted
with, and others did not know. When the
Twelve were sent forth they healed the sick
by the use of oil — a well-known remedy.
Demoniacs were dealt with by sedatives. The
stilling of the waves arose from the fact that
just at that moment the boat came under the
shelter of a hill. As regards the feeding of the
five thousand, "when Jesus saw the multitude
an hungered, He said to His disciples, ' We will
set the rich people among them a good example
that they may share their supplies with the
others, and He began to distribute His own
provisions, and those of the disciples, to the

THE RESURRECTION 49
people who were sitting near them. The
example had its effect, and soon there was
plenty for everyone."1 The raisings from the
dead were deliverances from premature burial.
The explanation of the Resurrection Avas that
our Lord was not really dead. He revived in
the tomb, an earthquake rolled away the stone,
He escaped and put on the clothes of a gardener.
The following is the explanation of the words
of Thomas : —
" Thomas was not present at this first
appearance, and at a later interview was suffered
to put his hands into the marks of the wounds.
It is a misunderstanding to see a reproach in
the words that Jesus addresses to him. What,
then, is the meaning of ' Blessed are they that
have not seen and have believed'? It is a
benediction on Thomas for what he has done
in the interests of later generations. 'Now,'
Jesus says, 'thou, Thomas, art convinced
because thou hast so unmistakably seen Me.
It is well for those who now or in the future
shall not see Me ; for after this they can feel
a firm conviction, because thou hast convinced
thyself so completely that to thee, whose hands
have touched Me, no possible doubt can remain
of My corporeal reanimation.' Had it not
been for Thomas' peculiar mental constitution,
we should not have known whether what was
seen was a phantom or a real appearance of
the reanimated Jesus." 2
1 Schweitzer, op. cit, p. 52. 2 Op. cit., pp. 54, 55.
D

50 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
Strangely enough the only miracle that
Paulus retains is the miraculous birth.
" It is true that there is one miracle which
Paulus retains — the miracle of the birth, or at
least, the possibility of it ; in the sense that it is
through holy inspiration that Mary receives
the hope and the power of conceiving her
exalted Son, in whom the spirit of the Messiah
takes up its dwelling. Here he indirectly
denies the natural generation, and regards the
conception as an act of the self-consciousness
of the mother." 1
It may be noted how remarkable is the
contrast presented by different points of view.
To the normal religious mind the miraculous is
natural, to many it seems the only means of
authenticating a revelation. To Paulus, on the
other hand, and to those who are influenced by
the same mental conception, miracles are
considered as impossible and inconsistent with
the religious idea. It is necessary, therefore,
as we have seen, to eliminate them in the cause
of religion. We shall examine later Paulus'
premisses ; it is at any rate almost universally
admitted that however plausible in one or two
cases his explanation may appear, the attempt
that he has made to carry out his rationalistic
explanation consistently throughout has demon
strated its falseness. We have always a natural
1 Schweitzer, op. cit., pp. 51, 52.

SCHLEIERMACHER 51
feeling of respect for anyone, even if Ave think
him wrong-headed, who has had courage to
work out his theory consistently; for this,
Paulus must have our respect and our thanks.
He has steadily and systematically attempted
to explain away the miracles of the New
Testament while retaining his belief in its
general historical character. Take one or two
isolated miracles and it is possible to rationalize
them, but attempt to apply such a system to
the whole number, and the result is a picture
which, to any person of literary insight or
intelligence, becomes impossible.
Schleiermacher represented the constructive
religious speculation of Germany as against the
rationalist movement, and from his chair at
Berlin he dominated the religious thought of the
time.1 The problem he always had before him
was to reconcile the claims of religion with the
dominant philosophical system of the day. To
those inspired by Spinoza and by Hegel, there
was no place for any form of supernaturalism in
their philosophical system. He therefore built
up his religion primarily on the basis of feeling.
He looked upon the whole of nature as
representing the will of God, and the problem
1 On Schleiermacher, see Wendland, Der Wunderglaube im
Christenlhum, p. 39 ff. ; Trench, p. 70; Schweitzer, p. 62. The
most important place where he treats the subject is in Die
Christliche Glaube, sect. 47.

52 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
before him was to harmonize the idea of
religious revelation with the conception of a
fixed and determined order of nature. He asks
what is a miracle, and says that its only meaning
is that of a sign or intimation. It is an
intimation of immediate relationship to what
is infinite and universal.
What we have to realize then about a miracle
is that it need be a miracle only as regards the
religious sense. Enough that some event has
happened of such a character as to be a sign to
the person of religious instincts that he is
brought in relation to the infinite God. That
may be quite possible without any infringement
of the order of nature. All that is necessary is
that the cause of the miracle should be some
thing with which we are unacquainted, some
deeper unknown cause which makes the event
have the appearance of being a violation of that
order. The whole of nature is inspired and
represents the work of God. Therefore nature
could be so arranged that when and hoAV it Avas
necessary the religious sense should be stirred
up by a miraculous event. Thus from the side
of religion, a miracle is a miracle or sign ; from
the side of nature, there is no breach in order
and uniformity.
That being the point of view from which
Schleiermacher approaches history, we need not
be particularly concerned with the manner in

THE RESURRECTION 53
which he deals with the miracles, and the more so
because Schleiermacher had little or no historical
sense. He was a philosopher and a theologian
who approached the study of the Gospels as
much from the definitely theological point of
view as any mediaeval Schoolman. Moreover,
his Life of Christ was not published until 1864,
although the lectures were delivered more than
thirty years before, and was then clearly out of
touch with the development of criticism.
There are just one or two points of interest
to notice. Throughout his writings Schleier
macher, as a philosopher, preferred the Gospel
of S. John to the others. It was more in accord
ance with his theological conception, and he
assumed that Avhat seemed to him sound as
theology was equally sound as history. He
therefore is prepared to accept any miracle that
occurs in that Gospel, while for those in the
Synoptists he can always assume that the
narrators have made some mistake. He is,
still, to a certain extent, under the influence of
rationalism ; some miracles he explains away.
As it did not matter from his particular point
of view whether a miracle really happened or
how it happened, he is quite prepared to believe
that the Resurrection may have been either a
return to consciousness from a trance state, or
a supernatural restoration to life. On the othei
hand, the important point for him is that, however

54 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
it happened, Christ in a bodily form appeared
to His disciples. There must be no sign of
docetism, nothing unreal in the bodily appear
ance. The name of David Friedrich Strauss is
known as that of the first modern critic who
attacked the life of our Lord in a spirit of
complete disbelief. So far rationalism had been
content to accept the life as a whole, but to
eliminate any particular incident that seemed
displeasing from its particular point of view.
Strauss turned upon the life of Christ the
same spirit of historical criticism which was
being applied to the early histories of most
nations of antiquity, and no longer content with
merely eliminating the marvellous, resolved the
narrative as a whole into poetry and myth.
To him it was not merely the supernatural
which Avas mythical, it was the life of Jesus as
a whole ; for it was the translation into story of
the Messianic idea.
He published his first Life of Jesus in 1835.
It was received, as is well known, with indigna
tion, and he found himself banned by all the
theologians of the time. His second Life,
addressed to the public, and not to theologians,
appeared in 1864. His object was to do for
Germans what Renan had done for Frenchmen.
He has not changed his point of view ; he has
merely strengthened it, and put it in a new

STRAUSS 55
form. The main point for us is his relation to
the miraculous, and he is perfectly frank as
to his attitude. His aim is to destroy the
miraculous. Our sole consideration must be
that ' in the person and acts of Jesus no super-
naturalism shall be suffered to remain.' 1 ' He
who would banish priests from the Church must
first banish miracles from religion.' 2 " If we
enquire how such heterogeneous elements could
have mingled with the religion of Jesus, and
have been retained in it, we shall find the cause
to be the very same as that which to us con
stitutes the chief offence of all ancient religion,
namely, belief in the miraculous."3 "And
clearly, so soon as Christianity ceases to be
thought miraculous, the clergy must cease to
seem the miraculously gifted persons they have
hitherto represented themselves."4 With this
avowed and definite purpose in view he is
particularly severe on all those who say that
their aim in investigating the life of Christ is a
purely historical one. He does not claim that
he is a person inspired only by the spirit of
unbiassed research. " Christianity is so living
a power, and the problem as to its origin so
rife in important consequences to the immediate
present, that the student must be literally stupid
whose interest in the determination of such
1 Strauss, New Life of Jesus, I. xii. 2 Op. cit., p. xvi.
3 Op. cit., p. xv. 4 Op. cit., p. viii.

56 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
a question can be strictly confined to the
historical." x And again, " Our great and
common aim is not so much to resuscitate an
obliterated history, as to assist the human mind
in emancipating itself from the oppressive
thraldom of creeds ; and I fully coincide in
thinking historical enquiry, together with
general philosophical education, to be the best
means of effecting this object."2
If such was Strauss' point of view at starting,
it is obvious that he would succeed in attaining
his end ; and this frank confession of a clear
headed thinker is important enough for our
purpose. There is a conception abroad that
theologians and investigators of the early history
of the Church are to be divided into two classes :
those who are free and unbiassed in their investi
gation, and those who are trammelled and bound
by the necessity of supporting the existing state
of belief. Such a picture is an incorrect one.
Of course, it is true that in norma] times the
great body of persons accept the beliefs in
which they are brought up, and the natural
tendency of the ordinary theologian is to accept
the traditional theology. But even this is not
an entirely true picture ; even in times Avhen
there is little general controversy, every able man
who studies theological questions studies them
in a spirit of research as well as of belief. He
1 Strauss, op. cit., p. x. 2 Op. cit., pp. x., xi.

THEOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS 57
is always anxious to find out more exactly what
is true, and there is a continuous transformation
or development of belief going on. There was
just as much unbiassed historical research in
Newman as there was in Baur.
It is, however, a fundamental mistake to
imagine that there is any less degree of bias
in the spirit of revolt than in the spirit of acqui
escence. Strauss did not disbelieve in miracles
and therefore disbelieve in priests ; but he was
carried away by what seemed to be a liberal
movement of the time, and he disbelieved in
miracles because he wanted to get rid of priests.
It must be recognized, then, that negative
criticism has no particular claims upon us as
representing an unbiassed spirit of research in
contrast with more orthodox tradition. It has
its pre-suppositions just as much as orthodox
belief has its pre-suppositions. In fact, many
orthodox theologians probably represent more
than any other people the spirit of fair research.
Many of them have passed through a period of
disbelief, some of them have been converted
even against their will, all of them have felt
that in a matter of such importance they must
be true to their rational convictions. Sometimes
one side, sometimes another may be biassed.
It will be better for us at the beginning of our
investigation to assume the genuineness of all
alike, to realize that pre-suppositions may influ-

58 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
ence all men equally, and to try to solve our
problems on the merits of the arguments rather
than in the spirit of controversy.
It may be remarked in conclusion about
Strauss that his mythical theory of the Gospels
has not prevailed in the world of scholarship.
Later critical and historical research has under
mined his foundations, and hoAvever the problems
he touched may be solved, his own solutions
have passed aAvay. VII
Since the time of Strauss the principal dis
cussions on the origins of Christianity have
centred in the long succession of critical studies,
which go back for their inspiration to the
writings of Ferdinand Christian Baur, and have
been the product either of his example or of
opposition to him. In these discussions miracles
have played a part of secondary importance.
The tendency has been to be more and more
historical, and to aim at greater soundness and
objectivity of method. The results we will
consider later. At present, in order to complete
our historical survey, we shall consider briefly
four writers who represent different points of
view from which miracles have been examined
during the last half century.
The work entitled Supernatural Religion:

SUPERNATURAL RELIGION 59
an Enquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation,
was first published in 1874. The preface to
the sixth edition is dated 16th March 1875,
and the complete edition which, we may presume,
represents the author's final conclusions, is dated
1879. It is the most complete and thorough
attack on the reality of the Christian revelation
which has appeared in recent years ; it is written
with a considerable appearance of learning, and
covers the whole field of enquiry. Its scope
may be realized from its author's conclusions. A
divine revelation could only be necessary for the
purpose of communicating knowledge otherwise
undiscoverable, and such knowledge can only be
attested by miraculous signs : " by no rational
being could a just and benevolent life be accepted
as proof of such astonishing announcements."
But as a matter of fact, miracles are of little
value as evidence for divine revelation, as it is
equally possible they may be due to Satanic
agency. When either ignorance or superstition
has prevailed, miracles have always existed, and
therefore must in all cases be due to the same
causes. An attempt has been made to justify
them on the assumption of a belief in "an
Infinite Personal God," and "a Divine design
of revelation." There are no adequate reasons
for believing in either. Whatever definition
be given to miracles, such phenomena are as a
matter of fact incredible. The evidence for the

60 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
uniformity of nature must be infinitely greater
than can be the testimony of any alleged ex
ception to it.
When we turn to the Gospel narratives and
examine them, we find no reason for making
any exception to this general statement. Our
four Gospels are strictly anonymous works : we
do not know who wrote them, we have very
little evidence for their existence until far into
the second century. Neither external nor
internal evidence gives us any adequate grounds
for accepting them as sound historical documents.
"We were compelled," he says, "to pro
nounce the evidence for the Resurrection and
Ascension absolutely and hopelessly inadequate
to prove the reality of such stupendous miracles,
which must consequently be unhesitatingly
rejected. There is no reason given, or even
conceivable, why allegations such as these, and
dogmas affecting the religion and even the
salvation of the human race, should be accepted
upon evidence which would be declared totally
insufficient in the case of any common question
of property or title before a legal tribunal." 1
The work was remarkably clear and trenchant
in its style, and created at the time when it
was published considerable sensation. That
part of it that was concerned with historical
investigation was severely criticized by Light-
1 Supernatural Religion, vol. iii., p. 578

MATTHEW ARNOLD 61
foot and Westcott, and the subsequent course of
investigation has made it of little value. More
over the writer Aveakens his case by the extreme
confidence he has in the correctness of his views,
and the determination he shews to prove his
case so many times over. If, as he states,
miracles are incredible, there is no need for all
these elaborate investigations, and the ordinary
reader cannot help having a feeling of suspicion
at investigations undertaken on the assumption
that they can only have one conclusion. The
author is clearly prejudiced before he begins
to prove his statement, if he has already said
that under no circumstance could a miracle
be possible. His investigations, therefore, would
seem otiose and hardly likely to be of value.
As a matter of fact it has become apparent that
that is the case.
A writer of a different and more attractive
character is Matthew Arnold. Literature and
Dogma : An Essay towards a Better Apprehen
sion of the Bible, Avas published first in 1873. The
aim was throughout to make the Bible the
vehicle of culture. Philistinism, against which
Matthew Arnold carried on such a determined
crusade, might be represented equally by popular
Protestantism, by uneducated science, or by an
uncouth and rationalistic criticism. While he
does not feel able to accept the normal religious
teaching' of the Bible, while he thinks much

62 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
of it erroneous, and some of it harmful, the
Bible itself, if we will only treat it as literature,
has a high vocation to fulfil, and for that jt_
must be reserved. As for miracles, we dis
believe them, not from any argument, not
because their historical character can be dis
proved, but because we knoAV how they come
into existence. They naturally attract the human
mind. "It is almost impossible to exaggerate the
proneness of the human mind to take miracles
as evidence, and to seek for miracles as evidence ;
or the extent to which religion, and religion of
a true and admirable kind, has been, and is
still held in connexion with a reliance upon
miracles. . . . To pick scripture-miracles one
by one to pieces is an odious and repulsive
task ; it is also an unprofitable one, for what
ever we may think of the affirmative demonstra
tion of them, a negative demonstration of
them is, from the circumstances of the case,
impossible. ... It is what we call the
Time Spirit which is sapping the proof from
miracles — it is the Zeit-Geist itself. Whether
we attack them or whether we defend them,
does not much matter. The human mind, as
its experience widens, is turning away from
them. And for this reason : it sees as its
experience widens, how they arise. It sees that
under certain circumstances they always do
arise, and that they have not more solidity
in one case than another. . . . Imposture is
so far from being the general rule in these cases,

HUXLEY 63
that it is the rare exception. Signs and wonders
men's minds will have, and they create them
honestly and naturally ; yet not so but that
we can see how they create them." a
There is no doubt that no one of culture or
historical insight could, in the present day,
accept either the criticism of Woolston and
Voltaire or the rationalism of Paulus. But is
this position of simply saying that we cannot
believe a thing, whether it be demonstrated or
whether it be not, really a defensible one ?
Wkat it means is that we have certain
pre-suppositions in our minds ; that a certain
scheme of history, of human nature, and of the
universe, has groAvn up, and that that makes
our belief impossible. But are these pre-supposi
tions really true and sound ? Have they
creative value ? A man of strong religious
temperament finds it equally easy to believe
in miracles. Does not the creatiA^e and con
structive genius of S. Paul appear to be nearer
the truth than the cultivated literary criticism
even of a Matthew Arnold ?
The third writer we may select as bringing
some originality into the study of miracles is
Huxley. He deals with the subject first in
his Essay on Hume published in 1879, and
then in a number of controversial essays
1 Matthew Arnold, Literature and Dogma, pp. 132-134.

64 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
which were republished together as " Science
and Christian Tradition." His attitude is of
interest, because of the definite and decisive
manner in which he denies the scientific character
of the conception of " the laAvs of nature," and
condemns the pseudo-realism Avhich he finds so
often, both in those Avho defend and those who
attack the belief in the supernatural. On the
other hand, he is equally emphatic that the fact
that makes us disbelieve miracles is the absence
of evidence. While it is unscientific to say that
miracles are incredible or impossible, it is
imperative that for events so contrary to
ordinary experience we must have strong and
conclusive evidence if we are to believe them.
To him the evidence was clearly inadequate.
It must be noticed, however, that in his
controversy with Dr Wace, he, with great
ingenuity, confines the whole question at issue
to one single miracle, isolated from the rest,
which undoubtedly presents considerable diffi
culty — the story of the Gadarene Swine. It may
be suggested that in a scientific investigation,
the attempt to settle a large and fundamental
question on one instance is entirely unsound.
If we are to arrive at any degree of truth about
the miracles of the Gospels, it must be the
miracles as a whole that we must consider, and
not a particular incident selected because it
happens to suit our controversial purpose.

HARNACK 65
As a typical instance of the attitude of Avhat
we may call the mediating theologian of the
present day towards miracles, we may turn to
Professor Harnack and his lectures, delivered
in 1899-1900, and published in England
under the title What is Christianity ? " His
torical science," he tells us, " has taken a great
step in advance by learning to pass a more
intelligent and benevolent judgement on the
narratives of the miracles." We must recognize
to begin with that "the Gospels come from a
time when the marvellous may be said to have
been something of almost daily occurrence. . . .
No one can feel anything to be an interruption
of the order of nature Avho does not yet know
what the order of nature is. Miracles, then,
could not possess the significance for that age
Avhich, if they existed, they would possess for
ours." To condemn a narrative because it
contains stories of miracles is mere prejudice.
On the other hand, " we are firmly convinced,"
he assures us, " that Avhat happens in space and
time is subject to the general laAvs of motion,
and that in this sense, as an interruption of the
order of nature, there can be no such things as
' miracles.' " Yet, " although the order of
nature be inviolable, we are not yet by any
means acquainted with all the forces working
in it and acting reciprocally Avith other forces.
Our acquaintance even with the forces inherent

66 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
in matter, and with the field of their action, is
incomplete ; while of psychic forces we know
very much less. We see that a strong will and
a firm faith exert an influence upon the life of
the body, and produce phenomena which strike
us as marvellous."1
He would classify miracles as follows : —
1. " Stories which had their origin in an
exaggerated view of natural events of an
impressive character."
2. " Stories which had their origin in
sayings or parables, or in the projection of inner
experiences on to the external world."
3. " Stories such as arose in the interests of
the fulfilment of Old Testament sayings."
4. " Stories of surprising cures effected by
Jesus' spiritual force."
5. " Stories of which we cannot fathom
the secret."2
He notices that our Lord did not lay undue
stress upon the miracles. He bids us study the
narrative without being deterred by the miracle.
" The question of miracles," he concludes, " is
of relative indifference in comparison with
everything else which is to be found in the
Gospels. It is not miracles which matter ; the
question on which everything turns is whether we
are helplessly yoked to an inexorable necessity,
or whether a God exists who rules and governs,
1 Harnack, What is Christianity, pp. 24-27.
3 Op. cit., p. 28.

SUMMARY OF CRITICISM 67
and whose power to compel nature we can move
by prayer and make part of our experience."1
I do not know that Professor Harnack's
position is a very logical one, or one that sheAvs
great depth of either philosophical or scientific
thought, but it is a very fair representation of
the point of vieAV adopted by cultivated people
at the present time, and may be for us a fitting
conclusion of this historical survey.
Looking back on this record of some 1900
years of criticism, the following appear to be
the main questions that have been raised. It
is asserted :
1. That miracles are impossible because they
are violations of the laws of nature.
2. That miracles are inconsistent with the
nature and character of God.
3. That no evidence for miracles can be
sufficient — not because miracles are impossible
in themselves, but because it is more likely that
a witness should be mistaken than that such
events should have happened.
4. That whether or no adequate evidence
could exist, it is clear that the evidence for
belief in Christian miracles is not sufficient.
5. That we cannot believe in miracles because
we know how they arise. The belief in them is
a natural accompaniment of all great religious
1 Harnack, op. cit., pp. 29, 30.

68 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
movements, and there is no reason for accepting
the miracles of Christianity any more than those
of other religions.
It is with these questions that we propose to
deal in the remaining lectures.
And now, in conclusion, looking back over
this long historical survey, one leading fact will
become apparent to our minds, and that is how
very speedily negative criticism goes out of
date. In each successive age of the Church
the Christian apologist and theologian seems to
have been equal to the Avork before him — or
if not that, at any rate the progress of thought
and development has proved that the rationalistic
philosophy which in each age seemed so formid
able and terrible, has been a mere reflection of
the spirit of the time — the Zeit-Geist of Matthew
Arnold — and has passed away with the rise of
a new generation. We are not inclined at
the present time to accept the vieAvs of Celsus,
and the answer of Origen to his arguments would
seem to be quite conclusive. When Butler
wrote he tells us with grave sarcasm how in the
opinion of many people Christianity was done
for, yet Butler's Analogy is remembered when
the work of Collins or Tindall is almost
forgotten. Paley we cannot think of so highly
as of Butler, but no one would doubt that
Paley made out his case against Woolston's
attacks. Hume lives as no other philosopher

CRITICISM OUT-OF-DATE 69
of his time, but it is significant that by his very
philosophy he destroyed the main point of his
argument against miracles. Who would care
to subscribe nowadays to Paulus or even to
Strauss ? Matthew Arnold does not believe in
miracles himself, but he is more scornful of
the rationalistic explanation than of the miracles
themselves. The critical attitude on which the
author of Supernatural Religion prided himself
would be accepted by few even of the most
extreme rationalists of the present day. Huxley
is a little out of date ; and we have already begun
to recognize that even Harnack's reconstruction
of Christianity was but its translation into a
guise that might make it palatable to the par
ticular form of academic Liberalism which pre
vailed while he gave his lectures. The problems
which we have before us are difficult ; we can
not expect or hope that this age any more than
other ages can provide the final solution ; but at
any rate we must realize as part of the argument
which we haAre to consider, that, while the main
outline of the Gospel narrative would be accepted
now frankly and fully by the religious instinct of
the day as true to religion and true to human
nature, the many rival systems and creeds which
have played their pai^ on the stage of human
thought have one and all passed away, and would
be as much condemned by the philosopher or
historian as by the simple Christian.

LECTURE II
MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
Hume's Definition of a Miracle. Huxley's Criticism of
Hume. Laws of Nature as conceived by Hooker and
by Modern Science. The Uniformity of Nature. The
Mechanical Interpretation of Nature. Are Miracles
improbable on the Analogy of the Development of the
World ? The Modification of the Scientific Attitude.
Relation of Science to Theology.
I suppose that the commonest definition of
miracles is that they are violations of the laws
of nature, and the equally common deduction
from that definition is that they are therefore
impossible. For instance, the author of Super
natural Religion writes : " There is absolutely
nothing in the constitution of nature . . .
which does not prove the incredibility of a
divine suspension of physical laws, and does
not create a presumption against it. There is
no instance producible, or even logically con
ceivable, of any power Avhose effects are opposed
to the ultimate ruling of the laws of nature.
The occurrence of anything opposed to these
70

HUME AND HUXLEY 71
laAvs is incredible."1 Hume had previously
defined a miracle as "a violation of the laws
of nature " 2 or as " a transgression of a law of
nature by a particular volition of the deity, or
by the interposition of some invisible agent."3
Nor is this definition confined to those who
disbelieve in miracles. I suppose the commonest
definition of a miracle on the part of those who
believe in them would be that they are viola
tions of the laws of nature and that that is just
the reason why they are of such value as
evidence. It is obvious, therefore, that a part
of our enquiry must be into this expression
'the laws of nature.' We must ask what it
means, whether it is a term correctly employed,
what is the validity of these laws, and whether
there is anything in them of such a character
as to make the violation of them impossible.

It will, I think, be our best introduction to
this branch of our subject if we begin with an
examination of Huxley's criticism of Hume.
Huxley was not only a great exponent in his
own day of natural science, but also one of

1 Supernatural Religion, vol. i. p. 44.
2 Hume, Enquiry, etc., ed. Selby-Bigge, p. 114.
3 Ibid., p. 115 note.

72 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
the most definite defenders of an Agnostic
position. He did not believe in miracles, and
therefore if we make use of his criticism it is
with full knowledge of the fact that he is not
really our ally.
We have just given Hume's definition of a
miracle. Every term in that definition, says
Huxley, is open to objection. A miracle really
means something wonderful, something wonder
ful because it transcends or is inconsistent Avith
ordinary experience. The definition of a
miracle as a 'violation of the laws of nature'
cannot be justified, "for nature means neither
more nor less than that which is : the sum of
phenomena presented to our experience ; the
totality of events past, present, and to come.
Every event must be taken to be a part of
nature, until proof to the contrary is supplied,
and such proof is from the nature of the case
impossible." 1
It is interesting to pause here and remind
ourselves of the similarity of Huxley's language
to that of Augustine and Aquinas. Neither
of these will allow us to speak of a miracle
as contra naturam, for to them nature is the
totality of God's action, and nothing that God
can do can be contrary to His action. Nor is
this merely a matter of words. The error in
1 Hume, 'English Men of Letters,' by Professor Huxley,
p. 130.

MIRACLES AND EXPERIENCE 73
language arises, as will be ultimately apparent,
from an error of philosophy.
At any rate we have to realize that whether
we look at nature from an empirical point
of view as the sum of phenomena or consider
it from a theological point of vieAV as the sum
of God's actions, in neither case can we
make any such distinction as to say that
some things are a part of nature and some
things are not. God's action is one, whatever
different aspects it may have to our minds, and
the sum of phenomena is one, however much
we may, to suit our own investigations, divide
it up and give it different appellations and
different names.
Now Hume has, it will be remembered, gone
on to argue :
" There must be a uniform experience against
every miraculous event, otherwise the eArent would
not merit that appellation. And as a uniform
experience amounts to a proof, there is here a
direct and full proof from the nature of the fact,
against the existence of any miracle ; nor can
such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle
rendered credible, but by an opposite proof which
is superior." 1 " Why is it," he asks, " more
than probable that all men must die ; that lead
cannot of itself remain suspended in the air ;
that fire consumes wood and is extinguished by
water ; unless it be that these events are found
1 Hume, Enquiry, p. 115.

74 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is
required a violation of these laws, or in other
words, a miracle, to prevent them ? " l
To tins Huxley answers :
" The reply is obvious ; not one of these
events is ' more than probable ' ; though the proba
bility may reach such a very high degree that,
in ordinary language, we are justified in saying
that the opposite events are impossible. Calling
our often verified experience ' a laAv of nature '
adds nothing to its value, nor in the slightest
degree increases any probability that it will be
verified again, which may arise out of the fact
of its frequent verification." 2
But Hume himself may be quoted against
his own argument. In his Sceptical Doubts he
had written : " Whatever is intelligible, and can
be distinctly conceived, implies no contradiction,
and can never be proved false by any demon
strative argument or abstract reasoning a
priori."3 Now Huxley points out that " a miracle in
the sense of a sudden and complete change in
the customary order of nature, is intelligible,
can be distinctly conceived, implies no contra
diction and therefore, according to Hume's own
shewing, cannot be found false by any demon
strative argument." And then he goes on to
1 Hume, op. cit., p. 114. 2 Huxley, op. cit., p. 130.
3 Hume, Enquiry, etc., p. 35.

CRITICISM OF HUME 75
shew how Hume " in diametrical contradiction
of his own principles," says, "it is a miracle that
a dead man should come to life : because that
has never been observed in any age or country."
But language like this must ultimately lead
to a position which is absurd : There is a uni
form experience against an event ; therefore if it
occurs it is a violation of the laws of nature.
" Or to put the argument in its naked
absurdity, that which never has happened, never
can happen, without a violation of the laws of
nature. In truth, if a dead man did come to
life, the fact would be evidence, not that any
law of nature had been violated, but that these
laws, even when they expressed the result of
a very long and uniform experience, are neces
sarily based on incomplete knowledge, and are
to be held only as grounds of more or less
justifiable expectations."
And he sums up his discussion as follows : —
" The definition of a miracle as a suspension
or contradiction of the order of nature is self-
contradictory, because all we know of the order
of nature is derived from our observation of
the course of events of which the so-called
miracle is a part. On the other hand, no event
is too extraordinary to be possible ; and there
fore if the term miracle means only * extremely
wonderful events,' there can be no just ground
for denying the possibility of the occurrence." :
1 Huxley, op. cit., p. 133.

76 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
The real fact of the matter is that Hume
was using the term ' law of nature ' in a manner
inconsistent with his own philosophy or with its
current use at the present day in physical science.
Unfortunately his fallacious method of argument
is still widely prevalent. People still talk of
miracles as violations of the laws of nature,
still think that the laws of nature have a real
existence, still think that they imply the ideas
of necessity and cause, and still say that viola
tions of the laws of nature are impossible. It
Avill be remembered, for example, that in a
passage quoted in our first chapter, that Avas
the statement of Professor Harnack. It will
be necessary, therefore, to examine more
particularly this phrase, "the laws of nature."

II

As an illustration of the term ' laws of
nature ' as it was understood in the pre-scientific
days, and as it is still conceived at the present
time by a vast number of people, we may turn
to the magnificent exposition of law in the first
book of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity. Nature
is there of course represented as created by God
and ordered by the law that He has imposed
upon it.
"That law Avhich, as it is laid up in the

LAWS OF NATURE 77
bosom of God, they call Eternal, receiveth
according unto the different kinds of things
which are subject unto it different and sundry
kinds of names. That part of it which ordereth
natural agents we call usually Nature's law ;
. . . Wherefore to come to the law of
nature : albeit thereby we sometimes mean that
manner of working Avhich God hath set for
each created thing to keep ; yet forasmuch as
those things are termed most properly natural
agents, which keep the law of their kind un
wittingly, as the heavens and elements of the
world, which can do no otherwise than they do ;
and forasmuch as we give unto intellectual
natures the name of Voluntary agents, that so we
may distinguish them from the other ; expedient
it will be, that we sever the law of nature
observed by the one from that which the other
is tied unto."
And then he goes on to describe this natural
law: " God did then institute a law natural to be
observed by creatures, and therefore according
to the manner of laws, the institution thereof
is described, as being established by solemn in
junction. His commanding those things to be
which are, and to be in such sort as they are,
to keep that tenure and course which they do,
importeth the establishment of nature's law.
. . . And as it cometh to pass in a kingdom
rightly ordered, that after a law is once published,
it presently takes effect far and wide, all states
framing themselves thereunto ; even so let us

78 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
think it fareth in the natural course of the
world : since the time that God did first proclaim
the edicts of His law upon it, heaven and earth
have hearkened unto His voice, and their labour
has been to do His Avill."1
Now with such a conception of the universe
the use of the term ' laws of nature ' is quite
legitimate. Hooker conceives the universe as
ruled by the laws and commands of God. The
orderly procession of events in the world is due
to His will. " He hath given them a law which
shall not be broken." If we explain natural
phenomena by such an ideal reconstruction, then
the conception of miracles as in a sense violations
of law is also justified, and such a violation by
the direct will of God who suspends His own
laws is conceivable. Although I should still my
self prefer to say that it was not a violation of
law but rather the emergence of one more funda
mental. At any rate the conception implied in
such a term as ' laws of nature ' can only really
be justified on a theistic basis, and on that basis
the interference with or suspension or neutral
ization of natural laws is not an impossible, or
even necessarily an improbable, contingency.
The laws of nature are but the will of God, their
universality and necessity depend upon His
will, and if it be His will to suspend any law He
1 Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, book i. chapter iii. 1, 2
[pp. 205-207, ed. 1845].

HOOKER AND HUXLEY 79
can do so. From such a point of view a miracle
is neither improbable nor incredible.
Now let us turn to the modern teaching of
physical science and find out in Avhat sense and
with what meaning the term 'law of nature'
is there used. And here again we may ask in
the first place for the assistance of Huxley.
The following is his definition : —
" A law of nature, in the scientific sense, is
the product of a mental operation upon the
facts of nature which come under our observa
tion, and has no more existence outside the
mind than colour has. The law of gravitation
is a statement of the manner in which experience
shews that bodies, which are free to move, do,
in fact, move towards one another. But the
other facts of observation, that bodies are not
always moving in this fashion, and sometimes
move in a contrary direction, are implied in the
Avords, ' free to move.' If it is a law of nature
that bodies tend to move towards one another
in a certain way, it is another and no less true
law of nature that if bodies are not free to move
as they tend to do, either in consequence of
an obstacle or of a contrary impulse from other
source of energy than that to which we give
the name of gravitation, they either stop still or
go another way.1 . . . The tenacity of the
Avonderful fallacy that the laws of nature are
agents, instead of being as they really are, a
mere record of experience upon which we base
1 Huxley, Science and Christian Tradition, p. 76.

80 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
our interpretations of that which does happen
and our anticipation of that which Avill happen,
is an interesting psychological fact ; and would
be unintelligible if the tendency of the human
mind towards realism were less strong." 1
Another and similar definition is given us
by Mr Whetham in his book on the Recent
Development of Physical Science :
" Many brave things have been written, and
many capital letters expended in describing the
Reign of Law. The laws of Nature, however,
when the mode of their discovery is analysed,
are seen to be merely the most convenient way
of stating the results of experience in a form
suitable for future reference. The word ' law '
used in this connexion has had an unfortunate
effect. It has imparted a kind of idea of moral
obligation, which bids the phenomena ' obey
the law,' and leads to the notion that, when we
have traced a law, Ave have discovered the
ultimate cause of a series of phenomena."2
And again,
"We must thus look on natural laws merely
as convenient shorthand statements of : the
organized information that at present is at
our disposal."8
And to take a third instance, a very full
1 Huxley, op. cit., p. 77.
3 Whetham, Recent Development of Physical Science, p. 31.
3 Op. cit., p. 37.

KARL PEARSON 81
and elaborate discussion on the meaning of the
term 'laAvs of nature' and of all the ideas
implied in Cause will be found in Professor
Karl Pearson's Grammar of Science. While
his metaphysical or quasi-metaphysical reason
ing will be found on an examination to be
entirely unsatisfactory and incapable of giving
a logical basis to the science which he is
constructing, that makes for us his testimony as
to the real meaning of ' law ' as applied to nature
all the more valuable.
" The discussion," he writes, " of the
previous chapter has led us to see that law in
the scientific sense only describes in mental
shorthand the sequences of our perceptions.
It does not explain why those perceptions have
a certain order, nor why that order repeats itself ;
the law discovered by science introduces no
element of necessity into the sequence of our
sense-impressions ; it merely gives a concise
statement of how changes are taking place.
That a certain sequence has occurred and
recurred in the past is a matter of experience
to which we give expression in the concept
causation ; that it will continue to r^ecur in the
future is a matter of belief to which Ave giAre
expression in the concept probability. Science
in no case can demonstrate any inherent
necessity in a sequence, nor prove with absolute
certainty that it must be repeated. Science
for the past is a description, for the future a
belief ; it is not, and never has been, an explana- F

82 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
tion, if by this word is meant that science shews
the necessity of any sequence of perceptions." 1
Let us then be quite clear. The term ' law
of nature' is used scientifically to describe
those generalizations in which we sum up the
at present exceedingly imperfect knowledge
that we have of natural things. And if this be
the scientific definition of a law, and if this is
the character of the knowledge that science
gives us of nature — that it is the sum total of
our collective and systematized experience —
two deductions will follow.
Our first deduction is that to say of something
Avhich happens that it is a violation of a law of
nature, and, therefore, impossible, is absurd.
What are called laws of nature are being violated
every day. Supposing that thirty years ago
anyone had asserted that a bone in a man's body
was broken because he had seen photographs
which shewed a fracture, he would probably have
been told that he was a liar or talking nonsense,
because it was impossible to take a photograph
of the interior of the human body. It is quite
conceivable that some of the half-informed
people who write on scientific subjects would
have said that such a feat was contrary to the
laws of nature ; and yet now, owing to our
further knowledge of Avhat nature means, such
1 Karl Pearson, The Grammar of Science, p. 113.

LAWS OF NATURE VARIABLE 83
photographs are taken every day. It used to be
looked upon as a ' law of nature ' that the mass
of all bodies was constant. Now we know that
the greater the velocity the greater is the
mass of an electron and probably of all matter.
When Darwin's Origin of Species was first
published, it seemed to many scientific men to
be overthrowing the whole order of nature.
They had learned to look upon species as fixed.
The fixity of species was one of the 'laws of
nature.' And they did not see how such a law
could be interfered with. I have no doubt that
there are still many people who would laugh at
the attempts of the alchemist to turn lead
into gold, and would say that the experiments
that they made merely shewed the folly of the
Middle Ages. They might even drag in a little
out-of-date science and tell us that in accord
ance with the discoveries of the chemists, the
atoms of lead and gold are different units of
matter, that they are indestructible, indivisible,
and unchangeable ; that therefore, according to
the laws of nature, such a change was impossible.
I do not know whether such a change may
ever be accomplished : if it were possible to do
it with any great degree of facility it would be
most confusing to society ; but there is nothing
in the nature of things impossible in it. The
only reason for believing it impossible would be
that we held a certain theory about atoms, and

84 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
that theory now is to say the least profoundly
modified. When people say that anything is
contrary to the laws of nature, they mean really
either that it is contrary to the particular form
of scientific opinion prevailing at the time, or
that it is contrary to experience ; and the most
complete human experience is very limited.
The second deduction is that as far as science
goes, the idea of necessity in nature is neither
proved nor proveable. Let us take an example.
There is probably no event for which we have
stronger grounds of belief than the rising of the
sun every morning. So far as human records
go, the sun has always risen every morning
at its expected time, and a study of the life-
history of the world would probably enable us
to conclude, with something like certainty,
that it had so risen for some millions of years
in the past. Yet, as a matter of fact, there is
no necessity that it will so rise to-morrow. In
fact, we know that the whole of the Solar System
depends for its cohesion upon a nice adjustment
of forces which might be varied at any moment.
Neither experience nor science, which is syste
matized experience, can tell us anything certain
about the future.
We are, it must be remembered, discussing
this question from the point of view of science.
There is no doubt that most people would think
that the progress of scientific discovery would

LAWS OF NATURE NOT NECESSARY 85
justify us in holding that events contrary to
a law of nature are impossible, and they do not
realize that they are confusing in their minds two
entirely different things. On the one side, there
are the generalizations of modern science which
for convenience we call laws, but which are not
laws, are not certain, fixed, or definite, which
vary continuously as science progresses, and
have no immutability about them. On the other
hand, there are certain metaphysical reconstruc
tions in accordance with which people were in
the habit of explaining nature, for which there
was no scientific proof, and which might or might
not be true. These two conceptions of the
laws of nature have been, and continually are,
confused together, and as a result of that con
fusion, on the one side the ideal reconstruction
is supposed to be proved by the discoveries of
science, and on the other hand, the generalizations
of science which are in reality a purely mental
construction are supposed to have some element
of fixity about them.
The belief then that miracles can on a priori
grounds be proved to be impossible, and that the
progress of science makes it more difficult to
believe in them, appears as a result of this dis
cussion to be due to the confusion together of
tAvo different conceptions of natural law — the
one scientific, the other in its ultimate origin
theological.

86 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE

III

It may, however, be objected that in thus
explaining away the significance of the expres
sion 'laws of nature,' we have really been guilty
of evading the point at issue. All this dis
cussion about laws is largely one of Avords.
What we must recognize is the fact of the
uniformity of nature. The result of all ex
perience and the postulate of all science is,
it may be asserted, that nature is uniform.
The adoption of this postulate has been one of
the great results of the intellectual development
of the race. The original attitude of primitive
man to the order of nature was, on the one
side, a mythological explanation of all the
phenomena with which he was surrounded,
on the other such an instinctive perception
of uniformity as enabled him to regulate his
conduct. The movement of the sea, the Aoav
of the river, the eruption of a volcano, the
produce of the earth — all these were the work
of beings, beneficent or malignant, whose actions
were supposed to be as incalculable as those of
mankind. It was necessary, therefore, that
they should be appeased ; their friendliness must
be secured by gifts and sacrifices, or their actions
neutralized by magic. But while this was the
intellectual attitude of the savage, his natural

UNIFORMITY OF NATURE 87
instincts, sharpened by the struggle with the
conditions by which he Avas surrounded, and by
the need for self-preservation, had taught him
how to regulate his actions in accordance with
his environment. This instinctive expectation
of a uniformity in nature he shared with the
higher animals who, equally with man, regulate
their conduct on the assumption that things
may happen as they expect. The orderly
succession of darkness and light, of summer
and winter, the regular provision of the fruits
of the earth, the alternation of seed-time
and harvest, the trustworthiness of things he
came in contact with — all these were part of
his mental equipment, and helped to build up
this expectation of uniformity quite independ
ently of his intellectual conceptions. It may
be noticed as an interesting change of attitude,
that while the intellectual conception of the
present day is that of the uniformity and order
of nature, it is primarily our instinctive beliefs
that bear witness to the spiritual basis of
life. The growth of science has been the gradual
realization of this uniformity of nature which
lies at the basis of our conduct in the world.
We have generalized from our experience, and
laid down a fundamental principle which we
call the uniformity of nature. We must be
quite clear, however, as to exactly what it means.

88 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
Here is Mr Whetham's description of it which
will serve us as well as any other :
"Physical Science," he writes, "seeks to
establish general rules which describe the
sequence of phenomena in all cases. Under
lying all such attempts is the belief that such
an orderly sequence is invariably present, could
it only be traced. This belief, Avhich is the
result of constant experience, is known as
the principle of the Uniformity of Nature. In
its absence no organized knowledge could be
obtained, and any attempt to investigate
phenomena would be perfectly useless. Unless,
to use the conventional language justified above
as a matter of convenience, like causes always
produce like effects in like circumstances,
science, and indeed all organized knowledge,
would be impossible." 1
In popular language, then, the Uniformity
of Nature means to us that the same cause or
causes produce the same effect ; or dropping
this word ' cause,' which is really metaphysical
and not scientific, it means that the sequence of
events is uniform. Where the antecedents are
the same or approximately the same, the conse
quences will be the same. If we know as a
result of observation that the antecedents abc
are in one case followed by x, they will always
be so folloAved ; but if some new circumstance
1 Whetham, op. cit., p. 30.

LIMITATIONS OF UNIFORMITY 89
were added and the antecedents were abed, the
result would be y.
The point which I wish to emphasize is
this : that this doctrine is entirely limited to
the same sequences of events. There is no
certainty that any particular event will happen
in the world ; there is only the certainty that
that particular event will happen in the same
circumstances. It is not in the least certain
that the sun will rise to-morrow ; it is certain
that it will do so so long as the circumstances
remain the same.
Let us take some instances which will
shew the limitations of this idea of uniformity.
Apply a magnet to some powdered haematite :
it has no effect ; but apply this same to
magnetite and it will bring away a cluster of
grains. Noav both of these substances are
compounds of iron and oxygen. The one is
described chemically as Fe208, the other as
Fe304 ; that is to say, in the one there are
2 atoms of i^on and 3 of oxygen in each
molecule, and in the other there are 3 of iron
and 4 of oxygen. Here the property of each
compound is, of course, uniform, but a very
slight change in the composition produces a
complete change in the properties. Gold is
flexible, but drop a pellet of lead weighing
only the thousandth part of its weight into
the mass and it becomes brittle. Or take the

90 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
case of molten iron. A trace of phosphorus
makes it hard ; more makes it more flexible ;
still more tends to harden it again.1
Or let us take another and more important
instance. Here, as it is difficult for the non-
scientific person to be accurate, I will quote
Mr Whetham's own language :
" In the year 1895, Professor Rontgen of
Munich made the first of the sensational dis
coveries in physical science for which the last
few years have been remarkable. Many other
recent investigations have been as interesting,
and several have more profoundly modified our
outlook on nature, but few have struck so
readily the imagination of the plain man as the
revelation of the skeleton within the living flesh.
The origin of this discovery may be said to have
been almost accidental. Rontgen noticed that
photographic plates, kept under cover in the
neighbourhood of a highly exhausted tube
through which electric discharges were passing,
became fogged, as though they had been exposed
to light. He investigated this effect, and found
that, when cathode rays impinged either on the
glass of the tube, or on the anode, or on any
metallic plate within the tube, a type of radia
tion was produced which would penetrate many
substances opaque to ordinary light. Dense
bodies, like metal or bone, absorbed the rays
more fully than did lighter materials, such as
1 For these instances I am indebted to Professor Bonney's
work on The Present Relations of Science and Religion, pp.
139, 141.

RONTGEN RAYS 91
leather or flesh, and Rontgen, at once putting
this discovery to some purpose, was able to
photograph the coins in his purse and the bones
in his hand." J

What this means is as follows : Supposing
that I have some photographic plates and I
keep them properly covered, I find that they
are not injured in any way. Now I know by
experience that nature is uniform ; therefore, if
I keep my plates covered as they ought to
be, I shall always expect within a reasonable
length of time to find them ready for use
at all times. If I do not I shall probably say
that the plates are bad. But nature is only
uniform if the conditions remain the same.
Here an absolutely new condition is introduced,
quite unexpectedly, and what might be thought,
on a priori grounds, to be entirely impossible,
has happened. We believe in the uniformity
of nature, but that will never justify us in
saying that there is anything that cannot
happen. If we turn to living things the absence
of uniformity is even more marked. No two
individuals of the same species are ever exactly
alike, no individual is exactly the same from
moment to moment: therefore no conclusions
can ever be drawn about living beings which
1 Whetham, op. cit., pp. 163, 164.

92 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
are more than approximate, and it is impossible
to say that any event with regard to them will
necessarily happen. All idea of necessity must
then be eliminated from nature, although we
may believe in the uniformity of nature.
An illustration may help to show how
uniformity in each part is consistent with
freedom in the whole. So long as a motor
car is in good order each separate part must
necessarily do what it is made for ; if you press
the accelerator the engine will work more rapidly,
if you reverse you will inevitably go backAvards,
if you put on the brake you will check the
speed. In all these separate cases the action
is necessary ; but it is just because each of these
things is necessary and can be relied upon, that
the whole car is responsive to the will of the
driver. The inevitableness of each separate
movement when isolated is what conduces to
the freedom of the whole.
We may now apply these conclusions in
relation to miracles. It has been argued that
because nature is uniform, therefore a miracle
cannot happen. A miracle is an event contrary
to ordinary experience, of which the cause is
not known. Now there is nothing in the
uniformity of nature as explained above to
prevent anything happening which is contrary
to ordinary experience, and as a matter of
fact things do constantly so happen, and at

LIMITATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE 93
different periods in the history of the world
they have done so, in a very remarkable manner ;
nor does any conception of uniformity take
away the possibility of some unknown cause
operating in the world. Supposing we were to
compare the conception of the world as it
was held by men of science a hundred years
ago Avith the conception in man's mind now ; we
should be astonished at the number and variety
of new aspects of nature which have been
presented. The curious deduction seems to
have been made from this that it is less easy to
believe in the reality of miracles now than
it was. The real fact is that all these dis
coveries only shew us how inadequate our
previous conceptions of nature were, and they
further suggest to us as a corollary from a
hundred years' experience, how inadequate our
present scientific ideas must be as a true inter
pretation of reality.

IV

There is still another point of view from
Avhich people feel the difficulties of miracles.
They have formed a conception or plan of the
universe, originally drawn from the idea of
mechanical construction in which there seems
no place for any anomaly. They have pictured
to themselves a uniform development of the

94 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
whole of nature ; everything is linked with
what has preceded it in one great far-reaching
scheme. There has been no break in the
continuity, no departure or change from the
order of things arranged in accordance with
laAvs Avhich, if not known, yet may very possibly
be known in the future. This uninterrupted
process of nature has gone on. Here clearly
is no place for miracles. They mar the
symmetry of the whole conception, and it
becomes impossible for any man whose mind is
possessed with such a scheme to believe in them.
The following extracts, which I owe to
Bergson's Creative Evolution,1 will xepresent
this point of view.
" ' An intellect,' says Laplace, ' Avhich at a
given instant knew all the forces with which
nature is animated, and the respective situations
of the beings that compose nature — supposing
the said intellect were vast enough to subject
these data to analysis — would embrace in the
same formula the motions of the greatest bodies
in the universe, and those of the slightest atom :
nothing would be uncertain for it, and the
future, like the past, would be present to its
eyes.' "
And so also Du Bois-Reymond :
" ' We can imagine the knowledge of nature
arrived at a point where the universal process
1 See Bergson, Creative Evolution, E.T., p. 40.

THE WORLD AS MECHANISM 95
of the world might be represented by a single
mathematical formula, by one immense system of
simultaneous differential equations, from which
could be deduced for each moment, the position,
direction, and velocity of every atom in the
world.' "
It is somewhat surprising to find Huxley in
the same company, for it is difficult to harmonize
the following extract with the empirical view
of the world which he has suggested in his
other writings.
" If," he says, " the fundamental proposition
of evolution is true, that the entire world, living
and not living, is the result of the mutual inter
action, according to definite laws, of the forces
possessed by the molecules of which the primitive
nebulosity of the universe Avas composed, it is
no less certain that the existing world lay,
potentially, in the cosmic vapour, and that a
sufficient intellect could, from a knowledge of
the properties of the molecules of that vapour,
have predicted, say the state of the Fauna of
Great Britain in 1869, with as much certainty
as one can say what will happen to the vapour
of the breath on a cold winter's day."
Noav I have no doubt that a position such as
this represents a widely diffused conception of
the universe, which has really been inherited
from the early days of science. The first point
to remember about it is that it is clearly not
anything which science has proved. The grounds

96 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
on which Ave believe it are not proofs that this
must be the case, but a deduction built in our
minds on the basis of some acquaintance with
some operations of the universe.
Nor must it for a moment be supposed that
a conception of the universe, as developed
according to a single plan such as might have
been grasped in the mind of God, is inconsistent
Avith theistic belief or belief in miracles. Those
miracles might have been quite easily part of the
original scheme conceived of from the beginning
and, so to speak, arranged for.
The real question at issue is whether we
have adequate grounds for believing that such
a scheme is mechanistic, and that a sufficiently
good mathematician could create the world
from a knowledge of the original atoms or
molecules out of which it is composed. I do
not think that we should be overstating the
fact if we were to say that there is neither
evidence for such a theory, nor is it consistent
with the progress which science has made.1 The
earliest discoveries of science were mechanical,
and were capable of being easily expressed by
1 See Whetham, op. cit., pp. 19-20, quoting Mach: 'Now,
after a century has elapsed, after our judgement has grown
more sober, the world-conception of the encyclopaedists
appears to us as a mechanical mythology in contrast with
the animistic mythology of the old religions. Both views
contain undue and fantastical exaggerations of an incomplete
perception.'

MECHANICAL PRINCIPLES 97
mathematical formulae. In this way a mental
prejudice or expectation was built up which has
profoundly influenced the later development of
science. In some cases it has led to new dis
coveries being made, and it has only gradually
broken down as a principle of universal applica
tion. To the English Deists or the French
Encyclopaedists working under the influence
of Descartes, such a theory seemed to present
the fulness and completeness of knowledge.
The actual discoveries that had been made, as
is always the case when a great body of new
knowledge has been built up, so overpowered
people's minds that they neglected other
phenomena. Since then it has been realized
that the universe which science has to interpret
is far too complex to be comprehended in any
single conception.
Mechanical principles, of course, are found
everywhere. Not only are the relations of plants
regulated by mechanical principles, but, in so
far as they are characterized by mass and energy,
the tissues of the human body ; presumably also
the physical machinery of the brain is subject
to, though not wholly dominated by, the laws of
mechanics. But after all these laws are them
selves only mental abstractions. No phenomena
in nature are really regulated by them ex
clusively. It is because they are not real that
they seem so inevitable. If Ave work out a
G

98 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
problem of mechanics correctly in our study,
quite clearly only one result is possible. If we
create a machine on mechanical principles, we
are able to eliminate very largely other factors,
and the result is again inevitable. But what
happens in nature is never the result of mechanics
alone, and no result in nature is, from the
mathematical point of view, inevitable.1 Sup
posing an artist paints a picture, mechanical
laws, if we may call them so, are obeyed in all
his mechanical contrivances, in the poise of the
brush and the palette ; chemical laws are obeyed,
if we may use the expression, in his mixture of
colours ; and if he disregards either the laws of
physics or the laws of chemistry he cannot
produce the picture. But the picture itself is
prima facie not produced by laws of physics,
and no evidence has ever been produced which
would suggest that it is. The fact, therefore,
that mechanical principles prevail everywhere
does not prove that the development of the
world has been determined in any such Avay.
No doubt this appearance of inevitableness
comes largely from our use of mathematics ;
1 Cf. Bergson, Creative Evolution, E.T., p. 230. "It is
this merely negative tendency that the particular laws of
the physical world express. None of them taken separ
ately has objective reality ; each is the work of an investi
gator who has regarded things from a certain bias, isolated
certain variables, applied certain conventional units of
measurement.

MATHEMATICS 99
but the apparent inevitableness of everything
connected with mathematics is not due to any
inevitableness in real things. Mathematics is
simply a conceptual science ; it is a convenient
method of summing up a deductive argument,
a form of symbolical logic. The inevitableness
of the result simply arises from the fact that
we are dealing, not with things, not with
phenomena, but with ideas — ideas Avhich we
have formed by a process of abstraction as a
convenient means of dealing Avith certain aspects
of natural things, and of forming our own rules
for guidance in the future. Mathematics is of
the highest value, but it does not give us any
complete insight into things as they happen ; and
it is because our minds have been filled Avith the
mathematical idea, that we have such a tendency
to form a one-sided and imperfect view of what
the universe is like. 1
As a matter of fact we do not and cannot
use mathematics for a large part of science.
Of course, in chemistry, so long as we are
dealing with quantity or with size, mathematics
1 Bergson, op. cit., p. 230. " We cannot insist too strongly
that there is something artificial in the mathematical power of
a physical law, and consequently in our scientific knowledge of
things. Our standards of measurement are conventional, and,
so to say, foreign to the intentions of nature : can we suppose
that nature has related all the modalities of heat to the
expansion of the same mass of mercury, or to the change of
pressure of the same mass of air kept at a constant volume ?"

100 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
will come in. Atoms and molecules are things
that can be measured, at any rate, in theory,
and we can conceive that the properties of these
someAvhat minute and hypothetical particles
may be treated, as they are treated, by
mathematical methods. A large part of the
developments of modern physics have been
arrived at by mathematical calculations, that
enable us with some measure of probability to
discuss the movements of particles, which bear
the same relation in magnitude to an atom as a
speck of dust does to the dome of S. Paul's.
But are there any grounds for saying that Ave
can by mathematics, or any form of foresight
possible to an intelligence of the same nature
as the human intelligence, conceive what would
be the properties of chemical things ? Can we
on a priori grounds conceive that the combina
tion of two gases, oxygen and hydrogen, could
produce a substance with the exceedingly different
characters which Avater possesses ? x
1 I have put this in the form of a question, as I find that
opinions are not fixed on the point. The physicist believes
that all the characteristics of chemical compounds might
be deduced from our knowledge of the characteristics of
electrons : he has, of course, made no steps as yet towards
justifying this belief. That there is a different conception in
the minds of many men of science may be seen from Dr
Haldane's book referred to below. "The main outstanding
fact is that the mechanistic account of the universe breaks
down completely in connexion with the phenomena of life,

EVOLUTION 101
When the principles of Evolution were
first discovered, it was argued that this meant
the application to living things of the same
mechanistic principles which were supposed to
prevail elsewhere, and the whole of Herbert
Spencer's philosophy was built up on this
supposition. It is, of course, true that the
evolutionist philosophy tells us how things
have come to be as they are, and it describes
in convenient language the process which has
been followed. But nothing that has been
discovered yet, or is mentally conceivable in
relation to what has been discovered, would
have enabled anyone to predict that the world
of living things now would be what it is. It is
quite true that in a sense the primitive amoeba,
or whatever the most primitive form of life may
be, has developed into living things as they are ;
but it is using a language which is unreal to
say that the whole of living things are present
Whether it is not also insufficient in connexion with pheno
mena outside what we at present regard as life is a further
question which need not be discussed at present. ... It
may be that the practical failure of vitalism has depended
on the fact that vitalists have accepted without criticism the
physico-chemical account of an experience, and have thus
placed themselves in a position in which they are powerless
to help biological investigation " (Mechanism, Life, and Person
ality, pp. 64, 65). "The ultimate ideal of biology is to bring
within the scope of biological conceptions even the phenomena
which we at present interpret as inorganic" (ibid., p. 138).

102 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
potentially in that amoeba. There is really no
justification for such a statement on any
scientific grounds. That amoeba has had the
power of reproducing itself. Each separate
offspring has varied somewhat from every other,
why and how we do not know. Probably they
have been influenced by their environment, but
that we cannot assert. In this way living things
have developed, but no formula can embrace the
manner in which they have done so.1
More different still are the phenomena
Avhich are introduced by the development of
the human race and of the human mind. A
1 The whole question of the mechanical theory of life is
discussed in Mechanism, Life, and Personality : An Examina
tion of the Mechanistic Theory of Life and Mind, by J. S.
Haldane, F.R.S., Fellow of New College and Reader in
Physiology, University of Oxford. " As a physiologist I
can see no use for the hypothesis that life as a whole
is a mechanical process. This theory does not help me in
my work ; and, indeed, I think it now hinders very seriously
the progress of physiology. I should as soon go back to the
mythology of our Saxon forefathers as to the mechanistic
physiology" (pp. 60, 61). He could conceive each living
thing to be an organism — an organism and not a mere
machine. It builds up its body and develops all its living
processes as the 'expression of organic activity.' It does
unconsciously what we as personalities do consciously. " The
apparent physical and chemical changes are the signs of
sensuous data which point to the underlying living activity "
(p. 82). It is not, in fact, certain molecules which come
together to constitute the organism, but the organism which
uses the molecules to express its nature or purpose.

MAN AND NATURE 103
very perceptible change has been made in the
earth's surface by the construction of the
Panama Canal. Have we any scientific proof
that that was the inevitable result of the
arrangement and form of the primitive mole
cule? It has been the result not merely of
the development of the mechanical power of
the human mind, but of a long series of political
events : of the discovery of America, of the
populating of the northern portion by the
Anglo-Saxon race, of the American Civil War ;
and these both in their causes and in their results
are dependent on the idiosyncrasy of individuals,
on the influence, extending far beyond mechanical
possibilities, of great minds.1
It is hardly necessary to discuss these
matters further. The point that I wish to
1 I have to thank Professor Barkla for the following
note : " What it appears to me is here logically necessary is
some sort of proof that processes of mind are not simply
the result of mechanical processes, but may direct mechani
cal processes. An illustration that occurs to me is this :
Two sentences differing only slightly may affect a person in
quite opposite ways. They result in quite different trains
of action. Yet the only physical difference between these
two sentences is a slight difference in the form of the wave
train falling upon the ear. These sentences may neither
have been heard before by either the individual or any
ancestor, so that there can be no connexion between a
particular sequence of sound waves and pain or pleasure.
To my mind it is inconceivable that any purely mechanical
explanations can be given of this."

104 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
emphasize is this : that for a mechanistic
explanation of the plan and development of
the universe we have no evidence at all ; that
the formation of such a view has arisen only
from the fact that the early development of
science was on mechanistic lines, and that men
have approached later problems imbued with
mechanical theories. What is really true is
that in order to study the universe at all we
have to take particular groups of phenomena
by themselves. We study them in isolation,
and the science we create is only true of these
particular phenomena as separated from others.
We have many separate lines on which we
investigate — Mechanics, Physics, Chemistry,
Biology, and so on ; but neither their isolated
nor even their combined testimony enables us
to form a complete idea of the total sum of
phenomena. We are not indeed yet in a position to do
anything towards constructing a scheme of the
universe. Rather our position is this : we are
like explorers tracking in an only partially
known country ; in various directions tracks
have been made into the interior. Each of
them gives us a more or less imperfect view of
the whole ; we attempt to construct a picture
of the country from our imperfect knowledge,
but we must recognize that it is and must, so
far as we can see, always be more or less

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 105
incomplete. And if this incompleteness and
imperfection of our knowledge is a fact, the
conclusion that we must arrive at is that it is
not scientifically or logically legitimate to say
on a priori grounds that anything is possible or
not possible.

We have now examined from different points
of view the various scientific grounds which have
made people think that miracles must be ruled
out of court as things that are impossible. We
have seen that you cannot say that they are
contrary to the laws of nature and therefore
cannot have happened, because the laws of
nature are simply constructions of the human
mind representing the somewhat imperfect
knowledge that we happen to possess at the
moment. We have seen that you cannot say
that they are ruled out by the uniformity of
nature, for the uniformity of nature merely
means that like causes produce like effects,
and no one would conceive that a miracle
would happen unless some new cause were
operative ; only it is believed that that cause
is one remote from ordinary human experience.
We cannot say that nature, and everything
that happens in nature, is inevitable, because
we have no proof that it is so. The idea of

106 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
inevitableness has arisen through the influence
on our minds of mathematical and mechanical
science, and these sciences deal not with things
as we know them, but with abstractions that
our mind makes. Nor are we justified in saying
that miracles are inconsistent with any theory
of the universe we may have formed, for science
is quite incapable of forming a theory of the
universe. All its knowledge is partial and
incomplete. But now there is a further point Avhich may
be urged. It may be said : ' We quite agree that
you cannot say that miracles are impossible,
but at any rate science shews that they are so
improbable, that for all practical purposes we
may consider them impossible.'
Let us consider for a moment how we should
describe the beginnings of Christianity. We
believe that the introduction of Christianity
into the world was accompanied by two great
miracles — the Incarnation or appearance of the
Divine on earth in human form, and the
Resurrection ; that it meant giving new powers
and thoughts to mankind, and that certain events
happened which were inconsistent with ordinary
experience. It meant, in fact, a new starting-
point in the world. Now does the history of
the world as conceived by science at the present
time suggest that such a new departure is
impossible ?

THE UNPRECEDENTED 107
Supposing that there had existed a being
with a mind of limited, but at the same time of
very great intelligence observing this earth from
the time of its first formation, and that he had
been able to study the history of each succes
sive epoch. We can conceive him observing it
during the time when it was still a molten mass
or its outer crust was cooling ; he might form a
very adequate idea of its structure, and the order
by which it was regulated, and the materials out
of which it seemed to be composed. He would
amongst other things see no sign upon it of
life at all. Supposing that some millions of
years later, he again were to study it, he would
find a completely new series of phenomena upon
it — phenomena Avhich we should call life. They
would have entirely transformed the whole
appearance of things. They represent something
inconsistent with his previous experience, and
so far as we can see, incalculable. How this
changed aspect of the world came into existence
is not known, and it does not matter for our
argument. The point is that a series of events
happened entirely contrary to experience. Our
observer may go forward again some millions of
years, and again he will examine the world and
he will find that a race of beings has arisen quite
different in character and power from all those
that preceded them ; they are what we call
men, and they are able to accomplish and to do

108 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
things quite contrary to any experience there
may have been previously.
Now if that be the scientific picture of the
history of the world, and I believe it to be
so, does it not suggest that there is nothing
inconsistent with the teaching of science in the
coming into the world of new forces and powers
contrary to experience ?
It must be pointed out that the value of this
argument is quite independent of any particular
theory that we may hold either of the origin of life
or of the origin of the self-consciousness of man.
As a matter of fact we know nothing as to how
life came into being. It may demand, some
people would hold, an act of special creation ;
it may be the natural development of in
organic matter at a particular period in the
world's history, and amid particular circum
stances : at any rate we know that at some period
or other, living beings, in enormous masses and
quantities, must have appeared in the world.
The conditions of things were quite different
from what they are now. Even if we were able
in an imperfect way to create in a laboratory
something which seemed to resemble the living
organism, it would still mean that quite un
paralleled circumstances existed in the world at a
certain epoch. The same thing is true within
certain limits of another characteristic of the
world — the existence of water. Now here, of

ORIGIN OF MAN 109
course, we have moreknowledge ; we know exactly
what water is, and we are able, to a certain extent,
to produce it ; it is probably produced in limited
quantities in the world at the present time.
But quite certainly there was once a time when
no such thing as water in any form existed,
or could exist, in the world. The original gases
of which it is composed were there in enormous
quantities. Owing to certain conditions that
prevailed at one period, and one period only,
water in enormous quantities was produced, and
the amount of water in the world has probably
remained constant, or approximately constant,
since that time.
We do not know, and we are not likely to
know, how what we call a man came into being.
We recognize that there was a long period of
preparation for man's coming into existence ;
but there must have been a particular period in
the world's history when the special character
istic which we call self-consciousness, for lack
of a better term, first became developed, in
however rudimentary a form. That probably
happened once, and once only ; it is not, as far
as we can see, likely to occur again, and it
produced changes of which there could have
been no experience.
Now, broadly speaking, the claim of Christi
anity is much the same as this. It is that at a
particular time in human history, a time for

110 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
Avhich preparation had been made, there occurred
something of which there had been no experience,
and could be no experience ; that there came a
change in the aspects and powers and capacities
of human nature, and that this change Avas
accompanied by certain events contrary to all
ordinary human experience. The point that I
Avould urge is this : that science does not give
us any grounds for thinking that such a change
is improbable, and that it is quite untrue to say
that events do not happen contrary to experi
ence ; that the whole history and development
and evolution of the world shews that things do
happen quite contrary to any finite experience ;
that the world changes, and that the uniformity,
Avhich as a matter of fact we observe, is only
limited and conditional in character. Judged
by the analogy of nature, there is a reasonable
ground for believing in the occurrence of events
of a remarkable character at a particular time in
the history of the human race.

VI

The purpose of this chapter has been to
discuss the question of the a priori possibility
or impossibility of miracles from a scientific
point of view ; and I would venture to suggest
as a conclusion that science has transgressed its

THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE 111
bounds so far as it has attempted to say in an
authoritative way that anything can or can
not happen. The whole dispute has arisen
from a confusion between scientific investigation,
properly so called, and the ideal reconstruction,
often more or less metaphysical in character,
which people have created on the basis of a
more or less imperfect scientific knowledge.
The object and duty of science is the investiga
tion of all phenomena, past and present, so far as
it is able, by methods which experience has shewn
to be fruitful. And recent years have shewn that
science itself is learning to recognize more fully
both the extent and the limitations of its domain.
Anyone acquainted with recent scientific litera
ture or with the official expositions of scientific
progress put forth at meetings of the British
Association, will realize that a great change has
come over its spirit.
These changes may, I think, be summed up
as follows. In the first place, science has learned
the limitations of the generalizations on which it
has lived in the past. The whole tendency of
the most recent investigations has been to suggest
to us the incompleteness of former theories. It
must cause somewhat of a shock to the ordinary
mind when we find a meeting of the British
Association quietly discussing whether Newton's
laws of Motion are really true, and Ave are told
that if Kepler had only known the imperfection

112 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
and the inadequacy of his theories, he would
have hesitated to publish them. Only a few
years ago we were listening to Lord Kelvin
arguing, with what seemed to be sound, logical
arguments, that the world could have existed
for only eight million years Avhile the geologists
were demanding a thousand million. Now we
are told that all his calculations are vitiated by
the probability that there is stored up in
atoms an enormous amount of energy which
may be set free by the resolution of these
atoms ; and the possibility of nature, when
necessary, having recourse to this storehouse,
must make every form of calculation doubtful.
When Evolution Avas first discovered, the
brilliancy of the new light throAvn on the life-
history of the world hid from us its limitations ;
but suddenly some one asked the question : How
do we account for variation ? And how do
we account for correlative variations ? And we
realize how imperfect our knowledge is.
The second result is a changed attitude in
the minds of many scientific men. They are
far less confident and far less inclined to press
their conclusions to a point further than these
will go. They realize that each line of investi
gation which they undertake is one-sided and
imperfect ; they realize the tentative character of
their results and the limitations of their know
ledge and of the scope of their investigation.

SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY 113
Then thirdly, science has realized how far
wider are the phenomena which should be
studied than was once conceived. It is right
that the facts of human thought and society
should be studied scientifically as much as any
other facts, but the scientific methods of doing
so would not be those of Herbert Spencer, who,
whatever service he may have rendered as a
pioneer by the collection of facts, having con
ceived certain formulae, proceeded to rank the
facts of the universe and of human life into
a systematic philosophy which harmonized
Avith those limited pre-conceptions. Rather we
should recognize that all phenomena must be
investigated so far as is possible without the
prejudice of a priori theories. For example, it
is realized now that religious phenomena demand
special investigation, and Professor William
James' book on the Varieties of Religious
Experience suggests that the actual phenomena
of the religious life when carefully explored will
not fit into any ordinary scientific reconstruction.
I would venture, therefore, to suggest that
our right attitude with regard to miracles is to
banish clearly from our minds any a priori
conception of their impossibility, and to ask
whether these things did happen, and if they
did happen what did they mean. The problems
of life and existence are infinitely larger than
any one branch of science or one branch of
H

114 MIRACLES AND THE ORDER OF NATURE
knowledge — whether Science or Metaphysics or
Theology — can solve by itself. We should
recognize that if each method of approaching
truth keeps to its own sphere and does its
work properly it will help towards a more
perfect solution of the problems of life for
mankind, but if it encroaches on and interferes
with other methods progress will be checked. So
long as theology put any bar on the progress of
science, so long scientific men had a legitimate
ground of complaint ; so long as science, making
exceedingly imperfect deductions on very in
adequate knowledge, tried to claim on any
scientific grounds that what theology taught
Avas impossible, theologians had equal right to
complain. If each works on its own lines,
studying human experience in different ways,
we may hope to make some small steps forward
in solving the many problems that beset our
human life.

LECTURE III
MIRACLES AND GOD
Metaphysical Explanations of the Universe. Sensation
alism, Materialism, Pantheism. The Philosophy of the
Absolute. Mr Moberly in Foundations. Bradley. Bergson.
Theism. Grounds of our Belief. Anthropomorphism. God
not Law but Wisdom, Freedom, Purpose. Revelation. The
Purpose of Miracles. Miracles shewn by Experience to be
necessary for a Revelation.
So far we have confined ourselves to con
sidering the world of nature as revealed to us
by the researches of Physical Science, and the
conclusion at which we arrived was that scientific
investigation is not properly able to say that any
thing is possible or impossible on a priori grounds.
It investigates phenomena as they are presented
to it, and it makes generalizations summing up
its present knoAvledge ; but that knowledge is
always varying, and new possibilities are con
tinuously presenting themselves to its notice.
Moreover, we noticed that the past history of
the earth shews that although its development
has been, in a sense, continuous, at certain
115

116 MIRACLES AND GOD
epochs new and striking phenomena have
appeared ; while the whole process described as
Evolution implies that the unprecedented con
tinually occurs.
It is not, indeed, Natural Science that can
say anything against miracles. It is rather those
systems of philosophy which have claimed to
be based on or to explain the results of scientific
investigation, and it is to these that we must
now turn. While the greater part of this lecture
will be devoted to considering miracles in
relation to Theism, it will be necessary first to
examine certain other explanations of things
which have been put forward. We must ask
whether they have any particular grounds for
denying the possibility of miracles, and what
claim they may have to speak with any authority.
Though we may not be prepared in any way
to accept these systems, it is still necessary to
say something about them, because at different
times they have had a considerable influence
on thought, and a good many difficulties which
have been raised with regard to the miraculous
have resulted from the confusion of Science with
Metaphysics. Metaphysical explanations have
been supposed to represent the results of
scientific teaching.
Now science clearly is not metaphysics, but
it provides some of the problems that meta
physics has to solve, and certain data which

SENSATIONALISM 117
will help towards the solution. Science seems
to assume and to prove that the universe is
rational. The fact that we can with some
considerable accuracy predict and calculate what
will happen in the future implies a system and
reason in things, and also implies the adequacy
of the human mind, at any rate up to that
point. Science too seems to imply that the
universe as we perceive it and know it only
exists as such in relation to the human mind,
and that things in their own nature, even so
far as we can believe they exist, must be very
different from what they appear to be. Science,
in fact, starts from the examination of our
sensations, and it is the main problem of meta
physics to decide what may be the ultimate
cause of these sensations.

But we have had enough of preface The
first system I would touch on is the purely
empirical philosophy of the Sensationalist. He
would have us accept a position in which we
acquiesce in knowing nothing outside our
sensational experience, We must put aside, he
would urge, any belief in matter or in God,
even in things in themselves. We must be
content with accepting the fact that Ave have

118 MIRACLES AND GOD
certain sensations ; Ave must study these and
thus discover for ourselves the best method of
arranging what we call our life. Such a system
does not recognize the existence of any rational
order in the universe. Science is purely the
creation of the human mind, and what is
rational in science comes not from the object
of study, but from the mind that studies. It
follows that if such a system be adopted there
is no particular reason why a miracle should
not happen ; only it is difficult to see exactly
how it would be a miracle ; nor would it have
any meaning did it occur. According to such
a system our only ground of prediction lies in
probabilities, and it is argued that the improba
bility of an event occurring which is unprece
dented or contrary to ordinary experience, is so
great that we may assume that it cannot happen.
Quite a sufficient number of instances might
be given of entirely unprecedented events
happening, and the attempts to bring mathe
matical processes into these calculations might,
if pressed, lead to very strange conclusions.
But, as a matter of fact, the whole of this theory
of the universe is untenable. If the laws of
nature are only the creations of the human mind
without any relation to objective phenomena,
nothing can explain how it is that we can, within
reasonable limits, predict future events. The
existence of Physical Science implies a rational

MATERIALISM 119
order in the universe, corresponding to the
reason in the human mind. Moreover, this
philosophy does not explain in any way what
mind is, or how it can be such as to create the
world in which we live. If the mind is enabled
to create the fabric of material things, what
creates the mind ? x
Equally unsatisfactory is the explanation of
things on the basis of pure Materialism. We
are indebted, indeed, to writers of the purely
1 A system such as is here described seems to be that
taught by Karl Pearson in his Grammar of Science, which
represents the most thorough-going Empiricism with which
I am acquainted. His views of miracles are given on
p. 142 of the second edition. "The odds against a miracle
occurring are so great, the percentage of permanently
diseased or temporarily disordered perceptive faculties so
large, as compared with the percentage of asserted breaches
of routine, and the advantage to mankind of evolving an
absolutely certain basis of knowledge so great, that we are
justified in saying miracles have been proved incredible."
Similarly, a photograph of the interior of a closed box was
entirely contrary to routine, and by this method of argument
would be proved incredible. According to Karl Pearson the
only standard of truth is routine. " Man in the course of
evolution has attained a perceptive faculty which in the
normal condition can only present sequences of perception
in the form of routine. Such routine, being as we have seen
the whole basis of knowledge, is of enormous advantage to
man " (p. 143 note).
A very satisfactory refutation of any such position as that
described in this last sentence seems to be given in Bradley,
Essays on Truth and Reality, chapter iv., pp. 75 seq.

120 MIRACLES AND GOD
Sensational School for reminding us that we
have no more direct knowledge of matter than
Ave have of any other ideal reconstruction of
nature — than we have, shall we say, of God ;
that matter is only a creation of the human
mind to explain and unify our sensations. The
progress of science also has largely tended to
undermine any crude Materialism, and it would
be difficult to construct a tenable materialistic
theory of the universe at the present day which
would differ much from Pantheism.
The claim of Materialism would be this :
that all the phenomena of life and mind are
purely functions of what we, for convenience,
call matter ; that granted certain initial principles,
the universe has been self-evolved. It is the
result of chance. Neither purpose nor cause
exists for anything. Life has no existence apart
from the material body ; nor mind apart from
the material brain. Both alike vanish on the
death of the natural body. Now the relation of
any such theory to miracles is quite clear — if it
be true, miracles cannot happen, and conversely,
if miracles do happen, it cannot be true. More
over if such a theory be true nothing much else
can be true. It is inconsistent with any belief
in freedom or morality, or God or immortality,
and it banishes all idealism from life.
Nor can we say that there are any
adequate reasons for believing that such a theory

FAILURE OF MATERIALISM 121
is true. A theory of the universe will be ade
quate in so far as it gives an explanation of the
facts of experience. Noav a purely materialistic
theory gives no real explanation ; it does not
explain how a universe has been evolved ; it
rules out in fact every possible explanation.
The result has been simply due to chance.
Why the original particles of matter originally
existed, how they came there, how they came
to act as they do, Iioav they came to combine
with one another : none of these things are
explained, they are simply assumed. Further
than that, it attempts to explain mind by
matter. But matter Ave only knoAv through
mind. How then can it explain the existence
of that which for us exists before matter ? No
explanation of the universe will be tenable
which does not explain the whole of experience,
and all experience must start with my
experience of my own mind. Materialism
denies the existence of that which is the
necessary condition of the experience and
therefore of the existence of matter.

II
There is a natural tendency of the human
mind (under certain conditions, at any rate) to
desire unity, and the systems of thought that

122 MIRACLES AND GOD
are probably most in vogue at the present day
are those which appear to satisfy this demand.
Such are Pantheism, and the Philosophies of
the Absolute. The one represents a monistic
system expressed in religious phraseology, the
other is the more philosophical exposition of
the same point of view. It is, I believe,
largely the influence of this type of thought,
whether conscious or unconscious, that makes
miracles for many so difficult to believe.
Pantheism means the belief in one impersonal
spiritual principle, of which all phenomena in
the universe are manifestations. It is seen work
ing in the world around us, in the organic and in
the inorganic alike. The laws or forces of nature
represent it. It is working in all the activities of
the human mind, and the Polytheist may believe
that all the various superhuman beings that his
mythology describes may be different forms of
its activity. What is meant by a spiritual
principle like this may be somewhat difficult to
define. Some might believe in it as force or
will, or law or reason, but the fundamental
characteristic which all would demand would
be uniformity. The manifestations may be
varied, but there must be no break in
continuity. Pantheism claims to postulate a spiritual
principle, but it is somewhat difficult to say
how or in what points it differs from Materialism,

PANTHEISM 123
at least from any form of Materialism that is
philosophically tenable. Spirit we only know
as that which 'knows,' 'wills,' 'feels,' and thus
apart from these attributes of personality it is a
misleading phrase. It really makes very little
difference whether we say that all spirit is matter
or all matter spirit. But there is no doubt that
on the whole a spiritual Monism appears much
more satisfactory to the human mind ; it seems
to admit the use of such terms as God ;
it appears to give a satisfactory account of
the relation of the human mind to nature, and
the reason in us and the reason in things. It
presents a conception of a continuous, unbroken,
harmonious development which would seem a
satisfactory account of the universe.
It may be admitted that in such a con
ception of the universe miracles have no place —
that is, miracles in any sense in which the word
can have a meaning for us. It is, of course,
true that the different manifestations of this
spiritual force may be very varied, that strange
new forms of it may arise and thus produce
novel and unlooked-for events. In that sense
indeed miracles might occur, but they could
not be miracles in the sense in which we
look upon them as signs of the action of a
personal God. For clearly the God of Pantheism
is not personal, and the religious satisfaction that
is gained by the use of the word God in such

124 MIRACLES AND GOD
a connexion is delusive. Nor can Pantheism be
considered to offer an adequate explanation of our
experience. It cannot account for personality,
nor for the distinction between good and evil.
But if we only know things through our own
personality, and if a fundamental fact of our
own personality is the distinction of good and
evil and the capacity of forming moral concepts,
no theory of the universe will be ultimately
tenable which will not account for these facts
of our experience.
There is always some difficulty in knowing
exactly what is meant by a Philosophy of the
Absolute, and the meaning is not always
made clearer by a careful study of the writings
of its exponents. To an outsider a good deal
of modern philosophy undoubtedly raises the
question whether there is any clearness of thought
behind the very obscure language in which it
is presented, or whether the obscurity of the
language does not really imply obscurity of
thought. The particular point, however, of any
such philosophy may be taken to be that it is
an explanation of things in terms of pure
thought. It is arrived at by a logical process,
by an examination of the contents of the human
mind, and it would represent that all our experi
ence is the result of thought. Now the par
ticular point of importance for us is that
underlying all the speculations about the

THE ABSOLUTE 125
"Absolute" is the idea of logical necessity.
Nature and thought are alike the unfolding of
the Absolute. Thought takes the form of the
dialectical method, and therefore all thought is
necessary ; and the counterpart of thought in
nature is the unfolding of reason in the world
of nature, and that too is necessary. All such
philosophical speculation then as would depict
the world as the unfolding or development of
absolute thought brings in the idea of necessity.
It therefore harmonizes with that conception of
the laws of nature as necessary and inevitable
which Ave have shewn that science itself repudi
ates. It sees in mathematical reasoning the real
way in which things happen, and it has thus
helped to build up that conception of the
universe which makes a conception of miracles
an impossibility to human minds.
One of the most sincere attempts that has
been made to find in a philosophy of the Absolute
a basis for Christian Theism is that made by Mr
Moberly in Foundations, but 1 do not think
that it has been generally accepted as successful.
He certainly does not seem to succeed in
explaining how it is possible to admit the
existence of miracles in his system, or of any
discontinuity in the necessary unfolding of things ;
and this difficulty, it must be recognized, means
not merely the absence of a place for what we
may describe as the ordinary miracles of the

126 MIRACLES AND GOD
Gospels, but also for that which, from this point
of view, is as much a miracle as any others, and
from the Christian point of view is so funda
mental — the miracle of the Incarnation. How
can the God who is absolute become incarnate ?
Here is a question which must inevitably be put,
to which he does not, as far as I can see, give an
answer. "Religion," he tells us, "it may be said,
does not demand a God who is the same every
where, who is never here and not there, who
never does anything in particular, never inter
poses at the difficult minute. It demands
miracle and intervention in the older sense ;
in fact, what William James distinguishes as
' crass ' from ' refined ' supernaturalism. Theo
logy may make too great sacrifices, in order to
achieve philosophical ' respectability.' " x
Our criticism may be confined to two
points. In the first place, from the Christian
point of view no system can be satisfactory
which does not explain and admit a real Incar
nation, and surely any incarnation must be a
miracle, and must be an intervention, and can
hardly be included under the term 'refined
supernaturalism ' — whatever that somewhat
peculiar expression may mean. It is difficult,
in fact, to see how anything like an incarnation
is possible from the point of view of any
1 Foundations, p. 492.

BRADLEY 127
consistent philosophy of the Absolute. And
secondly it may perhaps be legitimate to express
a doubt as to the claims which any form of
Monism can make to philosophic respectability.
No such system it may be said, and Ave believe
correctly, can account for all the facts of experi
ence, for our conception of personality, for our
sense of moral obligation, and for the more speci
fically religious conception of God as our Father.
I do not believe that we shall ever ultimately
be satisfied with any such systems as these. The
important point, however, for us to emphasize is
that the fundamental difficulty of believing in
miracles has not arisen from any necessary
logical deduction from the discoveries of Natural
Science, but has arisen from a priori con
ceptions of the universe which have started
with the idea of law — whether as a logical
or as a physical necessity — and have demanded
that the universe should be fitted in to that
conception. I do not think that the preceding exposition
or criticism of the doctrine of the Absolute as it
is often held is unfair. None of it, hoAvever,
would be justified in any way in relation to any
such philosophy as that expounded by Mr
Bradley. He seems, in fact, definitely to con
demn such theories.
" Everywhere on behalf of the real Absolute
I have been warning the reader against that

128 MIRACLES AND GOD
false absolutism which in philosophy is to me
another name for error. And it is an error
which results in a twofold mistake. It takes
some distinction within the whole, and asserts it
as being real by itself and unconditionally ; and
then from this misconceived ground it goes on
to decry or to belittle other complementary
aspects of the same whole. But as against such
absolutism, the very soul of the Absolute which
I defend is its insistence and emphasis on an
all-pervasive relativism. . . . The absolute right
owned by every side of life is, in other words,
conditional on its service, and on its acceptance
of limited value and reality. . . . And this prin
ciple throughout conflicts with what we have
condemned as the vice of abstractionism and
absolutism." 1
Further on he writes :
" One main work of philosophy is to shew
that, where there is isolation and abstraction,
there is everywhere, so far as this abstraction
forgets itself, unreality and error." 2
I do not suppose that Mr Bradley would
agree with the argument of these lectures ; but I
am quite sure that his principles would condemn
all those theories — whether scientific, pseudo-
scientific, or metaphysical — which would assert
on a priori grounds that miracles are impossible.
To me it is just because I try to look at things
1 Essays on Truth and Reality, p. 470.
2 Op. cit., p. 473.

BERGSON 129
as a whole, and to avoid constructing any theory
of the universe, either theistic or scientific, by
abstracting and isolating certain aspects ; because
I try to judge truth by the standard of coher
ence and comprehension ; that I feel that room
must be found for the possibility, even the
probability, of what is called miraculous. I
think even thus much might be considered as a
legitimate application of Mr Bradley's principles.
The philosophy of Bergson is too recent, too
original, and too incomplete, to make it possible
to see its bearings either on religious thought
as a Avhole or on our own particular subject.
What, however, is important for us to note is
the support that it gives to the critical position
which we have been aiming throughout at estab
lishing, that our intellectual conceptions of nature
do not constitute or correspond with the whole
of reality, but only formulate a particular know
ledge which we can grasp at the moment, or the
particular aspect that we may require for our
practical purpose. Our a priori difficulties have
arisen not from the reality of nature, but from
the intellectual conceptions which we have
substituted and confused with this reality.
The unreality of our mental constructions is
what Bergson seems never tired of emphasizing.1
1 Bergson, Creative Evolution, E.T., p. 230. " We cannot
insist too strongly that there is something artificial in the
mathematical power of a physical law, and consequently in
I

130 MIRACLES AND GOD
As for his own conception of an evolution which
is itself creative and is undetermined, it is quite
incompatible Avith any of the a priori concep
tions of God which we have considered ; it is
not in itself perhaps incompatible with God as
He is revealed to us in Christian thought ; but
it is probable that before Professor Bergson has
completed his book he will be compelled to
modify his extreme hostility to any form of
finalism. But it is time that we pass to consider
miracles from the point of view of Christian
Theism.

Ill

By Theism we mean the belief in creation,
the sustaining, and the government of the world
by a Personal God. Whatever intuitions of
such belief there may have been at times in
the world's history, it seems to have come to
our scientific knowledge of things. Our standards of
measurement are conventional, and, so to say, foreign to.
the intentions of nature: can we suppose that nature has
velated all the modalities of heat to the expansion of the
same mass of mercury, or to the change of pressure of the
same mass of air kept at a constant volume ? " Or again,
" None of these (laws of the physical world) has objective
reality ; each is the work of an investigator who has regarded
things from a certain bias, isolated certain variables, applied
certain conventional units of measurement."

THEISM 131
us in any definite form only through revelation ;
but if that be the origin of the belief, we may also
look upon it as the hypothesis which is the best
capable of explaining to us the universe of our
experience. It is not necessary to say now that
proofs of the existence of God of a demonstra
tive character are not possible. We have no
reason for thinking that we can prove in a
demonstrative fashion anything outside the
limits of human experience or that our mental
powers are adequate to say what must be the
nature of things. What we can, I think, say is
that if we take the whole of our experience, the
hypothesis of God as revealed by Christianity
is the most adequate explanation that we can
give of it. It starts from a recognition of human
personality, it explains the moral facts of life,
it helps us to understand the purpose and aim
of the universe.1 The problem before us now is
¦ — granting the existence of such a God, how
far does it allow and justify a belief in miracles.
In what sense, and how far, can we know
the nature of God ? Let us turn back first of
1 An able exposition of the argument for the belief in
a Personal God will be found in lllingworth, " Personality
Human and Divine," Bampton Lectures, lecture iv. I do not
see that his statement is anyway open to the criticisms
made in Foundations, p. 432. See also Lotze, Microcosmus,
bk. ix., chap. iv. A long extract on the 'Personality of
God ' is given in Caldecott and Mackintosh, Selections from
the Literature of -Theism, p. 368.

132 MIRACLES AND GOD
all for two or three minutes to that conception
which comes to us from Spinoza, the outline of
which has already been sketched. It was there
stated that Spinoza's system was really panthe
istic, and as such it might have been treated so
as to illustrate what was said above about the
influence of pantheistic conceptions upon our
beliefs. But as it has been looked upon as
theistic, and as his philosophy has been accepted
as an adequate representation of what we might
conceive God to be, it will be useful for us to
examine it in this connexion. It represents, as
we have already noticed, the philosophy which
inspired the Rationalism of Paulus and other
theologians, especially in the early nineteenth
century. And like all other such conceptions,
it still lives on and influences religious thought.
Now to Spinoza, and to those who think like him,
God is represented as Law and Necessity. By
a process which has the appearance of a demon
strative argument, an attempt is made to prove
this ; but any cogency in the argument only
comes from the fact that it assumes the con
clusion that it wishes to arrive at. His concep
tion of God is mathematical and mechanistic.
We have noticed how, in the early days of
science, mathematical and mechanistic systems
of thought were a natural development, and how
these early speculations have impressed them
selves upon our study of nature. But it is

ANTHROPOMORPHISM 133
equally true to say that similar conceptions
have been read into our idea of God, and that
He too has been made a machine. It is a
good illustration of that tendency which
seems to be inherent in mankind to create
God in its own image, and must make us
hesitate and examine most critically our own
speculations. It is obvious, indeed, that any attempt that
we can make to conceive God must be imperfect,
that we cannot know Him as He is. We can
only approach Him by the analogy of human
nature ; but if we are to approach God from
what we know of man, we must be careful that
we take this human nature in its highest form,
and then we must realize how imperfect and
limited our conception must be. In a sense, in
fact, we must be anthropomorphic. When we
say that God is Personal, we recognize that we
only know personality through ourselves. When
we say that God is good, we recognize that we
argue from moral ideals as we know them
amongst men. When we say that He is reason,
we argue from the reason which we knoAv as
a characteristic of the human mind, and which
we think is exhibited in the nature around us.
But having made use of these epithets we
recognize that they are but an imperfect expres
sion of what must transcend all experience.
Above all, we recognize that we cannot limit the

134 MIRACLES AND GOD
power of God by any limitations that our own
limited intellects create.
For example, we may quite rightly speak of
the laws of nature as God's laws, expressing the
fact that what is to us the beauty and order of
nature is the result of God's work ; but that does
not mean either that our generalizations as to
the world around us are the same as God's laws,
or that law represents the aspect of nature from
the point of view of God.
Many years ago Archbishop Trench wrote
of the laws of God and of nature in a far more
adequate manner than was usual in his day.
" To speak," he says, " of ' laws of God,' ' laws
of nature,' may become to us a language
altogether deceptive, and hiding the deeper
reality from our eyes. Laws of God exist only
for us. It is a will of God for Himself. That
will, indeed, being the will of highest wisdom
and love, excludes all wilfulness — is a will upon
which we can securely count ; from the past
expressions of it we can presume its future, and
so we rightfully call it a law. But still from
moment to moment it is a will ; each law, as
we term it, of nature is only that which we
have learned concerning this will in that
particular region of its activity. To say then
that there is more of the will of God in a
miracle than in any other work of His, is in
sufficient. Such an affirmation grows out of
that lifeless scheme of the world, of which we
should ever be seeking to rid ourselves, but

WISDOM 135
which such a theory will only help to confirm
and to uphold."1
In the same way it is not necessary to think
of miracles from the point of view of God as
contrary to law, that is to say, as a breach of
divine consistency ; for our knowledge of the
divine government of the world must obviously
be imperfect, just as our knowledge of nature is ;
and it is obvious that both the Incarnation itself
and all its attendant circumstances, and those
means by which it was made known to man,
must all have been part of divine fore-knowledge,
the work of divine wisdom in dealing with
mankind. And this word ' wisdom ' probably provides
us with the least inadequate manner of describing
our conception of God in His dealings with
man. At the end of his great argument in
the Epistle to the Romans, justifying so far as
he could see the ways of God to man, the Apostle
ends with the following great ascription of
praise : —
"O the depth of the riches both of the
wisdom and the knowledge of God ! how un
searchable are his judgements, and his ways past
tracing out I For who hath known the mind
of the Lord ? or who hath been his coun
sellor ? or who hath first given to him, and it
shall be recompensed unto him again ? For
1 Trench, Miracles, p. 10.

136 MIRACLES AND GOD
of him, and through him, and unto him, are all
things."1 If then we want a word which may best
express in the highest manner possible for us
what we think of God, it is Wisdom, as that
idea was developed in the Wisdom literature
of the Jews. The term ' wisdom ' seems to
have denoted all that was implied in the divine
Logos of the Greeks ; but wisdom has a personal
connotation, while the Logos primarily was im
personal. The word ' wisdom ' includes within
itself all those lesser qualities which go to make
up our conception of intellectual power. It in
cludes the idea of skill, of knowledge, of reason ;
it includes the idea of moral restraint ; it means
a character which is trustworthy. Wisdom in
fact represents our highest conception of what
is possible for man, and therefore may, to the
exclusion of all other and lesser ideals, be our
starting-point in thinking what God may be.
For it includes the conception of consistency,
order, freedom, goodness, purpose ; it excludes all
idea of rigid law and determinism or impulse
and caprice. It represents the highest point
attainable by man, the least inadequate concep
tion of what God may be.
God we may look upon then as wisdom,
goodness, love. And that means for us certain
1 Rom, xi. 33-36.

FREEDOM 137
conceptions which may help us in understanding
the world.
It means in the first place the freedom of
God, and through God freedom for man. The
idea that God's works were mechanical, and
that He was limited in His power by His own
mechanism was really ascribing to Him less
power than man enjoys in relation to his own
machines. It looked upon God as a superior
artisan who, having constructed the world, was
not in a position to alter or change his model.
Apart from other ideas, the idea of Evolution,
which has more and more given a better grasp
of the nature of things, has profoundly changed
our conception of God's work. We no longer
look upon it as something static, we see in it a
power and growth, we recognize development not
only in human life, but in the whole universe.
God has created the universe, which has the power
of developing freely, because God is free ; and
man is free because God has created him to be
free. Abstract difficulties which have been raised
in people's minds as to the freedom of man have
really arisen from an inadequate conception of
what we mean when we say that God is almighty.
We have- formed a conception of God, as ex
plained above, as a very clever artisan, and we
can conceive Him making a machine which we
call man. Supposing that machine had the power
of voluntary action, of acting independently,

138 MIRACLES AND GOD
we think that it is inconsistent with our belief
in God as almighty, we think that we are
limiting His power. The reverse is really true.
We limit His power by our own human con
ception of what we can conceive He would
be capable of. If God were only a very superior
man, then He might make a man who was not
free ; but if God is, as Ave believe, almighty, if
His power and wisdom transcend that of man,
not only in degree but in kind, then because
He is almighty He can make man free. The
God who cannot make man free is a God created
after our own image.
And then such a conception of God means
purpose in the world. How far we can argue
from the apparent purpose in the world to
God may be doubtful : that we can argue from
a belief in God to a purpose in the world
seems to me undoubted. If we believe in God
as a Personal God, and that He made the world,
it follows as a corollary that there must have
been a purpose in the making of the world.
If then we find, as Ave fancy we do, signs of
purpose everywhere, however that purpose may
have been worked out, we may reasonably
believe that we have some indications of what
the divine purpose is. And as we believe that
God's wisdom far transcends anything that we
can conceive, when we cannot understand that
purpose we may realize that it is our limitations

PURPOSE 139
and not the failure of God that cause our
ignorance. If we believe in God, if we know
enough to see some signs of God's will work
ing in the world, it is a reasonable work of
faith to believe that His will and purpose is
working where we cannot follow. God's ways
are unsearchable.
Nor again have we any difficulty in believing
that God's purpose might culminate in a divine
revelation. If God made man, or to put it
perhaps more correctly, if He made the world
so that it should issue in man, then in the time
and way that His wisdom would suggest, it is
natural that He should reveal Himself to man
kind. And when we look at the history of the
world so far as we can trace it, we can see it
developing gradually up to the revelation of
God in Christ. In our last lecture we depicted
the progress of the universe from the point of
view of science. We did not attempt to argue
from that progress of the universe, except so far
as to point out that it suggested that it was
not improbable that wonderful and unexampled
things should happen in the world. Now we
may look at it from the point of view of a
divine purpose of which we think we can trace
the outline, although we may recognize that our
insight into it is still faint and uncertain.
Out of the undifferentiated nucleus of what
we may still for convenience call matter, the

140 MIRACLES AND GOD
world developed and it reached a stage when
life appeared upon it. It has sometimes been
supposed that a belief in God would demand
or require some special creation of life ; it has
always seemed to me that such a conception is
unnecessary. It is equally marvellous to believe
that the undifferentiated atoms and molecules
should haAre the power to be transformed into
living things, as it is to believe that some act
of divine interference was necessary. What is
important for us is to recognize that in what
ever way it happened, a completely new force
appeared in the world — a new force which we
call life, and that it entirely transformed the
whole of the nature of things.
Then comes the strange and wonderful
development of living things upon the world,
leading up ultimately to the development of
man with his power and reason and self-
consciousness. Again we do not know how
the change happened. How was it possible
that molecules of matter could learn to think ?
But we know that they did — and again we see
another stage in the fulfilment of the divine
purpose. And then comes the long history of
the development of human society through
which we can see a purpose working, until in
the fullness of time God sent forth His Son.
The great fact of the Incarnation was, in a way
which nothing else could be, a miracle. A new

ARE MIRACLES IMPROBABLE ? 141
fact had come into the world, not indeed out of
organic relation with existing thought, but still
a new and stupendous fact in the fulfilment of
the purpose of God — that purpose which was con
ceived of God, as S. Paul tells us, before the
creation of the Avorld, and revealed in these last
days in His Church.
And if God thusgave a revelation to the world,
which meant, of course, the union of the world
which He had created — the offspring of His
wisdom — with His wisdom itself, then it is not
unreasonable to think that He would give an
adequate and sufficient sign of that revelation,
and that that sign would consist of events which
would make those that saw them say, Here
certainly is the power of God.

IV

It has been argued that whether miracles
are possible or not, they are so improbable that
it comes to the same thing as if they were
impossible ; that it is far more likely that men
should be deceived, or deceive, than that events
of such a nature should occur. I would
venture to suggest in answer to this that a
reasonable probability has been established that
events such as are called miracles are not in

142 MIRACLES AND GOD
themselves unreasonable or unlikely to occur.
If Ave look at the Christian miracles from the
point of vieAV of the progress of the world, we
find that it is not unreasonable to expect that
at a definite stage in the development of the
universe events of an extremely wonderful
character should take place. We know that
they have in the past. If, on the other hand,
we look at it from the point of view of re
ligion, it seems reasonable to believe both
that God should reveal Himself to mankind,
and that He should give those men to whom
He revealed Himself adequate proof of His
presence. Now it has been argued that the only
possible proof of a revelation is miracles, that
nothing else can give sufficiently authoritative
testimony. x There are many who would be
inclined to question such a position nowadays.
It would certainly be claimed that miracles alone
are not sufficient ; some would go so far as to
say they are not adequate. Now an a priori
point of view such as the above, whether in
favour of or against miracles, I am not personally
prepared to defend. I have the greatest
suspicion of that type of argument which
undertakes to prove in a deductive manner that
things could only possibly happen in one
1 See, for example, Mozley, Bampton Lectures, lecture i.,
" Miracles necessary for a Revelation."

MIRACLES AS EVIDENCE 143
particular way. All such arguments are most
precarious. I would, however, suggest that
there is another and less uncertain way in
which we can approach things. It is quite
easy for one person to assert that miracles must
happen, if we want evidence ; it is quite easy
for another person to assert that miracles are
not evidence. It would be better for us to
consider how things actually happen in the
world. Now in the first place we must remember
that it is one thing to accept Christianity now,
it is another thing to have accepted it when it
was first preached. We have now the authority
of centuries of Christian life, we have the fact
of the progress and power of Christianity, we
can trace the growing development of a new
conception of life which arose owing to
the influence of Christian teaching. We
have a very large part of mankind on our side,
we can form a conception of what Christianity
has meant for the world, we can see things with
a certain amount of perspective. If we ask a
man now to become a Christian, we ask him to
join what is, at any rate, a large existing society.
But none of these things existed in the first days
of the Church ; there was no external authority
behind Christian teaching ; it came from a body
of poor uneducated men ; it had neither wealth
nor wisdom, nor power nor prestige to back it

144 MIRACLES AND GOD
up. It came making enormous claims upon
the credence of mankind. Surely people might
say some clear indication of God's purpose was
necessary. Then, secondly, whatever may be the a
priori judgement of philosophers or theologians,
the popular mind has always held that it is a
miracle that witnesses to the immediate presence
and work of God. We shall have, at a later
stage of our investigations, to consider the
difficulties which have been raised as to the
credibility of evidence as to miracles owing to
the wide-spread existence of miraculous stories.
At present all I wish to do is to point to the
existence of these as a proof that according to
the universal expectation of mankind, miracles
are looked upon as the natural way in which
God might be expected to witness to His
presence. It was necessary that the first
folloAvers and preachers of our Lord should
have sufficient means for knowing who He was
and what claims He could make. There is
no doubt that some expectation of miracles
existed among people. Would it have been
possible for Jesus to reveal Himself to His
disciples as the Christ unless He had given
evidence of Himself in ways which would appeal
to them and which they would expect.
And then, thirdly, whether we believe that
miracles really happened or not, it is quite

VALUE OF MIRACLES 145
certain that the progress of Christianity from
the beginning was, as a matter of fact, helped
by belief in miracles. It was so believed by
the disciples, by the people, by the Early Church,
and the records of early Christianity told people
that miracles had been worked : S. Paul claimed
himself to have worked miracles. More im
portant still, as we must emphasize later, the
belief in the Resurrection was the belief in a
miracle. It was through events that they
looked upon as miracles that people believed
in it. Now if we believe that Christianity is
in any way true, and accept the fact of God's
revelation through Christ, can we really believe
that God would allow the belief in Christianity
to grow up based on what were illusions. It
is surely more difficult to believe this than to
believe that miracles would happen. At any rate
it is quite clear as a matter of fact and from
the point of view of human nature that miracles
were neither unnecessary, nor useless, nor in
effective. We are now in a position to sum up our
argument so far as it has proceeded. In our
second lecture we examined the teaching of
science, and asked, Can science give any reason
a priori for not believing in miracles ? and we
gave to that question a negative answer. We
then saw that the prejudice against miracles
came from the influence of various hypothetical K

146 MIRACLES AND GOD
reconstructions of nature which were supposed
to represent the result of scientific investiga
tion, but were really based on a most imperfect
view of Avhat science had taught, and could
not put forth on their behalf any scientific
authority.1 We then further asked the question, If there
be a God is it likely that miracles would occur ?
and we shewed that if Ave attempt to interpret
the world from the point of view of divine
purpose, it was clear that at certain stages in
the development of the world striking and
marvellous changes had taken place, and that
it was not unnatural that God should reveal
Himself to mankind, or that He should reveal
Himself in a manner that was marvellous, looked
at from the point of view of ordinary experience.
We then asked what would be the natural
incidents of a revelation, and we saw that what
ever a priori view people nowadays may form
of what a revelation should be, there was a
natural instinct of humanity which looked
upon a miracle as a sign of God's activity in
the world, that some strange and distinct event
was needed to bring home to man the truth
of Christian revelation, and that as a matter of
1 On the whole question of a priori presumptions against
miracles, see Butler, Analogy, part ii., chapter ii., " Of the
supposed presumption against a revelation, considered as
miraculous."

MIRACLES AS SIGNS 147
fact Christianity was undoubtedly based upon
a belief in miracles.
So far we have been dealing with certain
a priori difficulties that have been raised ; we
have now to turn to the question of the
evidence for Christian miracles.

LECTURE IV
THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
Recent Tendencies of Criticism. The Tubingen School.
Schweitzer ; The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Result
of New Discoveries. Constructive Criticism. The
Synoptic Gospels. Their Sources. S. Mark. "Q."
Their Dates. Their Text. Their Trustworthiness. The
Fourth Gospel. The Epistles of S. Paul.
I propose in the present lecture to begin the
examination of the evidence. That is mainly
contained in the books of the New Testament,
and a preliminary question arises as to the degree
of authority that can be ascribed to them. It is
widely if vaguely known that a large amount
of criticism has been directed against these
works, that their authority, their authenticity,
and their historical character have been much
depreciated. It will therefore be necessary to
make some preliminary observations on the
general question of the character and results of
this criticism. The subject is too large to be
treated at all completely, and I propose to
148

RESULTS OF CRITICISM 149
confine myself first of all to considering how
far, generally speaking, it has been successful ;
and secondly to ascertaining what results, if
any, have been arrived at as to the date and
historical character of the New Testament
books. So much is necessary for our purpose.

How far has the negative criticism of the NeAv
Testament justified itself? When a devout
Christian is told that in obedience to the voice
of criticism he must give up much that he has
believed all his life, that has been associated
with his deepest religious feelings, much that
he considers to lie at the foundations of his
creed, he is naturally somewhat slow to listen
to its voice. He demands that its methods
should be sound, that some general agreement
should be arrived at by its advocates, and that
it should shew some authority to compel its
acceptance. He considers that the teaching of
the Christian Church is not only of vital import
ance to every individual, but also to the well-
being of mankind. The records of early
Christianity seem to give adequate proof of the
events recorded. He is conscious of his own
religious experience. He naturally asks : Are
the results of criticism strong enough to over-

150 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
turn this chain of evidence on which my beliefs
are supported ?
The so-called scientific criticism of the NeAv
Testament has now prevailed for somewhere
about one hundred years, and we are able to find
some test of its claims by examining its history.
Does it shew the characteristics of being a
progressive science? Is there that certainty
in its conclusions that would justify the demands
it makes upon us ?
It is natural to turn first of all to the
Tubingen School of Theology. This was not
the first beginning of New Testament criticism,
but it was the first great school of German
theology of a critical character to impress itself
strongly on the world. It had all the appear
ance of approaching its problem by Avay of
careful historical research. Most of us can
remember how some thirty years ago a novel,
which obtained some considerable notoriety at
the time, presented to us the picture of an
earnest and devout clergyman who felt himself
compelled by the claims of the teaching of this
school to start a new organization for preaching
a non-miraculous Christianity. What has the
last twenty years done with regard to the
teaching of the Tubingen School ? It is a
remarkable fact that it is now entirely dis
credited. If you look through the pages of
Baur's Church History you will find a series of

THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL 151
second-century dates ascribed to the books of the
New Testament which would not be accepted by
any serious scholar at the present time. Baur
explained the development of Christianity by
the antagonism of Jewish and Gentile Christi
anity gradually merging into Catholicism.
With the exception of some lingering echoes
of its phraseology, the whole theory has passed
away. Baur's historical investigations were
originally based on a study of the Church
parties in Corinth described in S. Paul's epistles.
Mr Kirsopp Lake, to take an example, himself
an admirer of Continental theology, has in his
book on the early epistles of S. Paul, following
up the work of other investigators, destroyed
the last remnants of the tradition that Baur
created. I only quote that work as an illustra
tion of what almost any scholar of the day
would say.1 There is, in fact, nothing more
remarkable in the history of literary criticism
than the way in which a theory like this which
everyone who prided himself on being in touch
1 Kirsopp Lake, The Earlier Epistles of S. Paul, chapter
iv. See especially p. 116. It is unfortunate that Mr
Lake should speak in a way which is too common of
those who refuse to submit to all the claims of criticism.
It is not the case that those who venture to dissent from an
excessive admiration for the Tubingen School " have usually
never read their books." It is this attitude of those who
claim to be critics which does so much to increase the
irritation felt for their often somewhat arrogant demands.

152 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
with modern thought proclaimed to be the
last great discovery of research, a final bloAv
to traditional Christianity, to which allegiance
was demanded from anyone who would preserve
his reputation as an intelligent thinker, has been
entirely given up. And this, not only as regards
its general claim on history, but also as to most
of its details.
It is pointed out by those who defend criti
cism, that after all Baur was a great man. That
may be true. It may be true that he gave an
impulse to the historical studies because he
seems to go behind the scenes and reconstruct
events as they really happened. If we were
only concerned with the literary study of the
New Testament, we should be prepared to give
Baur the credit due to him ; but we are dealing
with something much more serious than that ;
we are concerned with the claims made by a
critical movement to overthrow the whole of
traditional Christianity. And the result of our
experience in this one case ought certainly to
give us pause whenever we are brought in con
tact with what often are described as "the
assured results of criticism." The writings Baur
produced may be interesting, he may have given
a stimulus to historical research ; but we are
concerned with things that are deeper and
more vital, and we should certainly hesitate
to give them up in response to the demands

THE HISTORICAL JESUS 153
of criticism simply because of its intellectual
pretensions. A similar conclusion is suggested by a
remarkable work published some few years ago
of Dr Albert Schweitzer under the name of
Von Reimarus zu Wrede, and translated under
the title The Quest of the Historical Jesus.
Here we have put before us in a vivid and
interesting style an account of the various
attempts that have been made during the last
one hundred and fifty years in Germany to
write a life of the Founder of Christianity.
The intellectual effort, the industry, the mental
power implied by much of the work is pro
digious ; but when we have finished our study
of this long list of critical investigators we
naturally ask the question, "Where does this
lead us ? " Is there any unity of method or
of result running through this long array of
remarkable writers ? The answer must be
emphatically, "There is not." As Bacon says
of the earlier schools of science Variantur non
augentur. There is variation, there is no progress.
And the reason is, that the method is wrong.
Most of these writers do not construct the life
out of the material before them, they attempt
to fit the material into an a priori conception.
Some of these lives were written under the
influence of Hegelian philosophy — a philosophy
which sought to represent the whole of history

154 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
as the result of an uninterrupted process of
development, and could not therefore admit the
idea of miracle or of the supernatural. Others
were written under the influence of that
dogmatic scientific determinism which has
characterized the development of the study
of Natural Science. Others again under the
influence of that intense hatred of organized
Christianity which was one feature of the
intellectual and political revolt of the French
Revolution and subsequent movements. The
general impression left is that the material has
been fitted into the theory, not the theory
developed out of the material. The criticism
has been used to justify conclusions already
formed. Now we do not wish to maintain that all this
remarkable effort has been wasted. Much of
it if misguided was thoroughly honest, and it
has played its part in helping us to reconstruct
our picture of the historical Christ ; but if we
are asked whether it shews evidence of sound
method or of trustworthy conclusions, we must
answer emphatically that it does not. Criticism
in this instance also gives us no reason for giving
up our traditional theological ideas.
A third method of testing the comparative
value of the destructive and apologetic criticism
of the Gospels is the bearing of new discoveries.
Have they on the whole strengthened our

THE DIA TESSA RON 155
belief in the early date of the books of the
New Testament or have they corroborated the
traditional view ? Let us take one instance —
the Diatessaron of Tatian. This was a work
incidentally referred to in various places by
early Fathers about which we had no certain
knowledge. Its name, however, and such indi
cations as we had of its methods, implied that
it was a harmony of the four Gospels, and
Westcott, for example, wrote of it as follows :
" Not only then was the Diatessaron grounded
on the four canonical Gospels, but in its general
form it was so orthodox as to enjoy a
wide ecclesiastical popularity."1 The author
of Supernatural Religion, however, refuses to
admit these conclusions and proceeds to ex
plain away all the evidence. "No one," he
writes, " seems to have seen Tatian 's Harmony,
probably for the very simple reason that there
is no such work."2 Again, "As we have clearly
seen there is not up to the time of Tatian any
evidence of the existence of three of our Gospels,
and much less of the four, in collected form." 3
Since then the Avork of Tatian has been re
covered, and Westcott's view is justified in
1 Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testaments [ed. 3],
p. 281. 2 Supernatural Religion, ii. 155.
3 Op. cit., p. 156. The whole discussion in Supernatural
Religion is both in character and result most illuminating.

156 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
every detail. It is, in fact, accepted. For
instance, Dr Moffat in his Introduction tells
us that Tatian compiled his Diatessaron during
the last quarter of the second century, and that
it was a harmony based on the four canonical
Gospels.1 Now this is not an isolated instance. The
author of Supernatural Religion makes great
play of his critical examination of the external
evidence of the New Testament and especially
of the Gospels. It was examined at the time
by Bishop Lightfoot ; since then there has been
a considerable amount of literary discovery, and
on almost all points on which definite results
have been arrived at, the opinion of Bishop
Lightfoot has been established. The establish
ment of the genuineness of the Ignatian letters
alone has swept away a great collection of
cobwebs which had accumulated round the
literary history of the New Testament.
During the last one hundred and fifty years
there has been a continued succession of attacks
on the historical character of the New Testa
ment. They have often attracted the world by
their brilliance, they have for a time carried
away a large number of scholars, but one after
another they have been found unsubstantial.
There has not been behind them really sound
critical principles. Each wave of theory may
1 Moffat, Introduction, p. 183.

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM 157
have contributed some little permanent result
to the historical study of the New Testament,
but their conclusions as a whole have not been
established ; and the reason is that their methods
have not been sound. They have not been
built up on a sound induction. They have
largely assumed what they desired to prove.
There are still theories of similar character more
or less in possession. They are forced on us by
a wave of intellectual acceptance. They have
a certain brilliancy that makes them dazzling,
but our experience in the past ought to make
us hesitate in accepting these newer claimants
for destroying the authority of the Gospels and
the traditional character of Christian teaching.

II

So far we have dealt with the negative results
of criticism. But it may well be that some one
will say : You ask us to believe certain remark
able events which you call miracles ; you put
forward in their support the authority of certain
documents ; you say that these were written at
a certain date. Can you give us any good
grounds for believing that what you say is
true? Side by side with the more obtrusive forms
of criticism which have attracted public atten-

158 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
tion and have been so largely negative in
character, there has been silently developing
another school which has sought to bring to the
study of the New Testament a more objective
and critical method. It is represented in
Germany by Zahn and Schiirer and to a
certain extent by Harnack, and has been largely
developed in England. Zahn's work on the
history of the Canon, Schiirer's History of New
Testament Times, Westcott and Hort's Greek
Testament, Lightfoot's Ignatius, the recent
work done at Oxford on the Synoptic Gospels,
especially that by Sir John Hawkins, all these
seek to arrive at results regarding the date,
composition, and history of the New Testament
books by methods which are independent of
the particular opinions of the investigator. To
a certain extent, sufficient I believe for the
purpose of our investigation, results which may
be considered assured have been arrived at, and
may shortly be summed up.
On the general question of the history of
the Canon and the use of New Testament
writings — that is to say, the external evidence —
a position has been attained which makes the
extravagant dates of the older literary school of
criticism impossible. The whole contention,
for example, elaborated by the author of
Supernatural Religion with so much vigour and
dogmatism, to Avhich we have already referred,

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 159
has become impossible. With regard to the
greater number of New Testament writings,
the judgement of Harnack may be quoted, who
in his history of Christian literature assigns to
them approximately the traditional dates.
With the possible exceptions of Jude, 2 Peter,
and James, all the writings of the New
Testament must have been produced not later
than the beginning of the second century.1
Passing to the separate writings it will be
convenient to start with the first three Gospels,
usually called the Synoptic Gospels, and in
close association Avith them the Acts of the
Apostles. On the problems connected with
these books considerable progress has been
made in recent years. There is far greater
agreement, and results appear to have been
obtained which are objective and scientific in
character. The opinions widely held at the
present day are as follows.
It is recognized that the amount of
resemblance between the three Gospels cannot
be explained without presupposing sources in
Greek and those written. The resemblance
not only in language, but in order and arrange
ment, is too great to be accounted for on any
1 Harnack, Die Chronologie der Altchristlichen Litteratur bis
Eusebius, I. viii. ' Die alteste Litteratur der Kirche ist in den
Hauptpunkten und in den meisten Einzelheiten, litterar-
historisch betrachtet, wahrhaftig und zuverlaWg.'

160 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
theory of oral tradition. Of course there was
a period when the Gospel story was told in
Aramaic and when oral tradition helped to
establish it, but that was very early, and the
sources out of which at least two of the Gospels
were composed must have been written, and
written in Greek.
The only method we have of arriving at any
knowledge of these sources is to compare the
Gospels with one another, and the result of this
comparison is as follows. It is agreed that the
First and the Third Gospels are not dependent
upon one another to any considerable extent ; on
the other hand, it is agreed that the common
source of the narrative which is common
to all three Gospels is the Gospel of S.
Mark, or a document very closely resembling
it. But besides those episodes common to the
three Gospels there are a large number of
others common to S. Matthew and S. Luke
only, and it is recognized that for these there
must be a second common written source. The
ultimate result of these investigations is that
the greater part of the subject-matter of the
Synoptic Gospels is derived from two sources,
one of which is S. Mark's Gospel, while the
other, mote hypothetical in character, is gener
ally known as "Q."
As regards the first, it was long customary to
consider that the S. Mark used by S. Luke,

THE SECOND GOSPEL 161
and also perhaps that used by S. Matthew, were
not identical with the one we possess, but were
an earlier edition or editions. Some writers
speak of a " Proto-Marcus," and a "Deutero-
Marcus," some even of a " Trito-Marcus " ; others
were satisfied with an " Ur-Marcus." The
progress of investigation has relieved us from
the strain of believing in all these documents.
The minor differences may be explained by
the ordinary methods of literary composition,
whilst the investigations of Sir John Hawkins
shew us that what is called the " great omis
sion " of S. Luke — that is to say, the omission
of the matter contained in S. Mark vi. 45-
viii. 26 — may be most readily accounted for on
the ground that S. Luke purposely omitted
it as containing matter Avhich seemed to him
less interesting than other information which
he possessed. Both S. Matthew and S. Luke
had a considerable amount of material before
them. They were limited as to the size of
their work by custom and convenience. It should
be the length of the ordinary papyrus roll.1
Therefore in dealing with S. Mark they
shortened considerably the narratives they
derived from him. In addition, S. Luke omitted
1 An extremely interesting discussion of the space
occupied on a papyrus roll by the various New Testament
books will be found in Sir Frederic Kenyon's Textuah.
Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 33 ff. [ed. 2]. L

162 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
those sections which seemed to duplicate the
preceding chapters. It would be beside our
purpose to go further in this direction ; it is
sufficient to recognize that the Gospel of S.
Mark, as we have it, but without the twelve
concluding verses and with perhaps a slightly
different text, lay before the writers of the
First and Third Gospels, and was one of their
principal sources of information.1
The problem of the second source is not so
simple. There is no doubt that the First and
Third Gospels have much in common which is
not derived from S. Mark's Gospel. It is
remarkable, however, that while S. Mark's
Gospel is taken as a framework for both
S. Matthew and S. Luke, and the matter in
it is reproduced very largely in its original order,
the remainder of the common matter appears
in these two Gospels in different orders, and
often even with a different context. It may
further be noted that the great mass of it
consists not of incidents, but of discourses, and
it is now generally believed that this second
source was a collection of speeches, and that
the narratives Avere probably only introduced
as having formed the occasion of striking sayings
of our Lord. Many attempts have been made
1 On the Synoptic problem, see Hawkins, Horae Synopticae;
Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents ; Sanday and
others, Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem.

" Q " 163
to reconstruct this source, but wiser caution
is now beginning to be exercised. It is recog
nized that, supposing Ave did not possess S. Mark's
Gospel, it would be quite impossible to re
construct it with any amount of accuracy from
the other two. It is obvious, therefore, that
the problem of reconstructing the second source
which we do not possess is one to Avhich only
a tentative answer can be given. All that we
can say with any definiteness is that it probably
contained all the matter common to the two
Gospels which is not found in S. Mark. It
is on these lines that it has been reconstructed
by Professor Harnack. Anything beyond this
becomes most precarious.1
This it is important to recognize, for it makes
it impossible for us to say Avhat the source did not
contain. For example, there is a considerable
portion of S. Matthew's Gospel not found in
S. Luke, Avhich bears a very close resemblance
to portions of the "common matter." We may
believe that a considerable part of this came
from the same source ; but to make use of
this as if it did would be unjustifiable. It
would be equally unjustifiable to argue as if it
did not occur in this source. To take an
instance. It is well known that S. Matthew
makes long additions to the eschatological
discourse which is derived from S. Mark, and that
1 See Harnack, Sprucke und Reden Jesu.

164 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
most of these additions do not occur in S. Luke.
Some few do, many do not. We must not,
however, assume that they did not come from the
common source. It is clear that S. Matthew
was interested in such eschatological matter,
while to S. Luke, as a Gentile, it was less
attractive. S. Matthew, therefore, would be
likely to insert it, S. Luke would not. On the
other hand, S. Matthew may have derived it
from some other source. We must, in fact,
recognize the limits of our knowledge. We
must be content with the progress, and it is real
progress that has been made. It is probable
that S. Mark's Gospel was used by the authors
of the other two, and that they also used the
common source which we call " Q." The latter
we may reasonably conclude contained a collec
tion of our Lord's discourses and certain other
matter. It probably did not contain any
narrative of the Passion. Beyond that we
have no knowledge of its contents.
Besides these two sources there can be no
doubt from the statement made by S. Luke in
his preface that there were other documents lying
before him. Both he and S. Matthew have
material derived from sources other than those
we have referred to. We have not any direct
evidence of the character of these sources, and
any conclusions we may arrive at concerning
them is only conjectural. To conclude then

DATE OF THE GOSPELS 165
this part of our investigation, we shall have four
documents to consider : two primary ; two, to a
certain extent, secondary, being constructed out
of the other two.
1. The Gospel of S. Mark.
2. The source we call " Q."
3. The Gospel of S. Matthew.
4. The Gospel of S. Luke.

Ill

Our next step is to ask what is the date of
these writings. A convenient starting-point is
the Gospel of S. Luke ; here again critical
investigation has made definite progress. It is
now recognized very widely, even by writers
who cannot in any way be called conservative,
that the Third Gospel and the Acts of the
Apostles were both compiled by the same
author, that that author was the companion of
S. Paul, and that he was present at the close
of his missionary journeys, and was an eye
witness of what he records on these occasions.
As Dr Moffatt puts it :
" This conclusion [that the we-sections repre
sent the writer's own notes or memoranda] has
now been put practically beyond doubt by the
exhaustive researches of Hawkins and Harnack,
which support the hypothesis that the diarist

166 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
was the author of the Third Gospel and the
Acts, and that the ^ele passages are either bona
fide extracts from his journal or bona fide
reminiscences." a
In fact, it is now established on grounds that are
as sound as anything historical can be, that it
was a companion of S. Paul, and therefore S.
Luke, who wrote the Third Gospel and the
Acts of the Apostles. This gives us a firm
starting-point. It is, of course, compatible with
any date for these documents betAveen the
year 62 and the end of the first century ; at the
same time it makes the latter date very im
probable. Until recently it was customary to
consider that S. Luke's Gospel was written
shortly after the year 70.,. It was thought that
in certain passages the language had been
1 Moffatt, Introduction, p. 295. It is important to empha
size the fact that the investigations which make this con
clusion certain, are primarily those of Hawkins, on which
Harnack's work .*s based. It is one of the humorous
characteristics of some of those who claim to be our guides
in criticism, that they only recognize the value of English
work when it is adopted by Germany. They have no
standard" Uf value of their own. As a matter of fact, the
attitude towards the dates of the New Testament books
which is gradually being reached by many German scholars
has been consistently and intelligently held by English
scholarship. It is Germany that is adopting our conclusions.
But our modern augurs will continue no doubt to demand
an allegiance to the latest German theory without a smile on
their face.

S. LUKE'S GOSPEL 167
modified owing to the fall of Jerusalem. There
have, however, always been a considerable
number of writers who have felt that the natural
date of the Acts of the Apostles was some time
during the life of S. Paul. It is pointed out
that on any other hypothesis the ending is
very difficult to explain. It is really remarkable
that S. Luke could leave S. Paul living in his
own hired house in Rome, and say nothing
about what happened after that date ; in par
ticular, that if, as is universally believed, S.
Paul suffered martyrdom, that event should have
been left unrecorded. This argument has been
pressed by Professor Harnack with his ac
customed vigour ; he shews, and I think correctly,
that there is not a word in the Acts of the
Apostles that implies a later date, and that the
arguments for placing S. Luke's Gospel after
the fall of Jerusalem are in themselves of a
most precarious character. He maintains that
S. Luke wrote his Gospel and the Acts in the
life-time of S. Paul, and that that is the reason
why the Acts ends so abruptly. The only
hypothesis which would carry weight against
this is the suggestion of Sir William Ramsay that
S. Luke intended to write another work. At
the same time I must express my own opinion
that I am not altogether convinced by Professor
.Harnack's argument. The reasons for placing
the Gospel, and therefore the Acts later than

168 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
the year 70, seem to me stronger than he
suggests, and in particular the sense of perspec
tive shewn by S. Luke's narrative in the Acts
of the Apostles suggests a later date.1
Within certain limits we can fix the date of
S. Matthew's Gospel. It is quoted early in the
second century, and on that ground alone it
would not be possible to place it later than the
year 100. If we turn to the subject-matter, its
character suggests that it comes from a time
very close to the events that lead up to the
great overthrow of the year 70. It was probably
written between the year 60 and 70 : in any case
not much later than the latter year.
The fact that we can fix within certain limits
the date of the Gospels of S. Matthew and S.
Luke suggests a date for that of S. Mark. It
must clearly have been earlier than either of
the others. It was written before the fall of
Jerusalem, probably some little time before, and
we have a good and early tradition that it was
written by S. Mark and reproduces the teaching
of S. Peter. In one form this tradition seems
to suggest that it was written while S. Peter
was still living. A second form places it after
1 Harnack, Lucas der Ariz. The position which Professor
Harnack now adopts was defended with great ability some
years ago by the Rev. R. B. Rackham in his edition of the
Acts of the Apostles (Methuen & Co.)— the best modern
edition of that work.

DATE OF "Q" 169
the deaths of S. Peter and S. Paul. The whole
subject has been discussed at considerable length
by Professor Harnack, who is compelled by
his theory concerning S. Luke's Gospel to assign
to it a date about the year 60. At any rate
we may content ourselves with accepting as
sufficiently accurate for our present purpose a
date earlier than the year 70.
There has been much speculation as to the
date and character of the source called " Q."
It could hardly have been written much later
than the year 60, and the tendency of critics is to
put it considerably earlier. Sir William Ramsay
indeed thinks that it was written during the
lifetime of our Lord, but his view has not
obtained general acceptance. His argument is
that a document which contains no reference to
the Passion must have been written before the
Passion. But the object of the work was to
collect discourses of our Lord, and we have to
recognize that we must not expect a writer to
include what was not part of his plan. The
literary character of the contents cannot be
used as an argument in any direction ; nor can
it be argued as some have done that the absence
of the Passion narrative and of narrative gener
ally means that the Early Church thought
little of the death of Christ, or that they
took no interest in the record of our Lord's
life. They undoubtedly already possessed some

170 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
book which contained such information. Some
one, recognizing that, filled up a need by
providing a record of our Lord's discourses.
There has been much discussion as to the
relation of this document to what are called
the " Logia " of S. Matthew. An early writer,
Papias, tells us that S. Matthew wrote the
" Logia " of the Lord in the Aramaic tongue,
and that each one interpreted them as he was
able. There has been considerable dispute as
to the meaning of the word " Logia." Some
have translated it " Discourses," some have
thought that it meant a complete gospel. The
word really means " Oracles " and was regularly
used for Old Testament scriptures. It might,
therefore, be employed equally correctly for a
gospel or for a collection of discourses. Prob
ably the general trend of criticism is in the
direction of a belief that the common source of
the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Luke Avas the
" Logia " of S. Matthew, but that there were
two different but similar translations. Such an
hypothesis will explain both the resemblance
and the difference between them. It is better,
however, to avoid the use of question-begging
names, and therefore we shall adhere to the
somewhat barbarous appellation of " Q " for this
second source.1
We have, therefore, four documents to use
1 " Q " stands for the German word Quelle, a source.

INTEGRITY OF GOSPELS 171
in our investigations. Two we may consider
primary, two derived. We have a collection of
the discourses of our Lord written very early,
translated probably from the Aramaic, and per
haps originally written by S. Matthew. We
have a Gospel written by S. Mark before the
year 70, containing teaching derived more or
less directly from S. Peter. We have two
Gospels, one written by a companion of S.
Paul, the other by an unknown author who
probably resided in Palestine. Neither of these
Gospels can be much later than the year 70.
Both these writers make use of other sources
besides those we have mentioned, and we have
no ground for thinking that these other sources
Avere either later or less valuable than those of
which we have greater knowledge.
The question may be asked, and reasonably
asked : How far can we consider that we
possess these Gospels in at all their original
form ? It may be pointed out that they were
written more than one thousand eight hundred
years ago, that we can have little opportunity
of testing and controlling the text during the
earlier period of their transmission, and we
know that there was some tendency to inter
polate documents. What reason have we for
trusting the text before us. The answer must
lie in the knowledge that we possess of the
history of the New Testament text, and the

172 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
very varied character of the documents by
which it has come doAvn to us. We have far
more evidence for the text of the Gospels as it
has been restored by careful textual criticism,
than for any other ancient work. We have
many early manuscripts. We possess a number
of ancient versions or translations, two of Avhich,
at least, were made in the second century, and
have thus transmitted the text from that period
by independent channels and we have quota
tions made in patristic authorities from the
second century onwards. We can trace the
history of the text back to the second century ;
we know that as early as that there were at
least two types of text in existence, and we
know the limits of time within which they
appeared. There are many thousands of varia
tions recorded, and it is very probable that
most of them go back to a period before the
year 200. When Ave know so much about the
text and its variations in the second century,
we may reasonably conclude that it is unlikely
that many variations exist of which no trace
has been left in our textual authorities. Now
although there are some passages of importance
which are affected by the various readings,
although there are perhaps places where the
existence of a considerable number of variations
may be best explained by what Westcott and
Hort call "primitive Error," yet the limits

ENVIRONMENT OF GOSPELS 173
within which the variations occur shew that
there has been no fundamental change in the
general character of the text. About some
details there may be uncertainty, but about the
general character of our Lord's discourses or
the narrative of His life, there is on textual
grounds no doubt at all.
We have sketched above the main results
of investigations as to the date and composition
of the first three Gospels. We have shewn that
they were written at the beginning of the
second Christian generation, that they were
based, as S. Luke tells us, on information
derived from the original preachers of the
Gospel who had been eye-witnesses of the
events they recorded. There can be no doubt
on critical grounds that we possess the narratives
of the life and teaching of our Lord substanti
ally as they were told to the first Christian
generation. This conclusion is supported by the character
of their contents. There is an eloquent passage
in Dr Sanday's Bampton Lectures in which
he describes the great change made by the
destruction of Jerusalem. The whole life of
Palestine as it had existed before that date
was then swept away. It is that life which
the Gospels — not only the Synoptic Gospels,
but also that of S. John — reflect. So far as
our knowledge goes they present us with an

174 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
accurate picture of Jewish life and thought at the
time when our Lord was upon earth, and by no
power of historical imagination could it have been
derived except from those who had lived that life.1
Here is further strong testimony to that
effect. It comes from Dr Abrahams, Uni
versity Reader in Talmudic and Rabbinic Litera
ture at Cambridge :
" One of the most remarkable facts about the
writings of recent Jewish critics of the New
Testament has been that they have tended on
the whole to confirm the Gospel picture of
external Jewish life, and where there is discrep
ancy these critics tend to prove that the blame
lies not with the New Testament originals but
with their interpreters. Dr Giidemann, Dr
Buchler, Dr Schechter, Dr Chwolsohn, Dr Mar-
morstein have all shewn that the Talmud
makes credible details which many Christian
expositors have been rather inclined to dispute.
Most remarkable of all has been the cumulative
strength of the arguments adduced by Jewish
writers favourable to the authenticity of the
discourses in the Fourth Gospel, especially in
relation to the circumstances under which they
are reported to have been spoken."2
But we have not only the evidence of environ
ment, we have also the evidence of style and
thought. There is in the Synoptic Gospels,
1 Sanday, Bampton Lectures, p. 283 ff.
2 Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 181.

PHRASEOLOGY OF GOSPELS 175
and to a certain extent also in S. John, a
definite form of religious teaching and phrase
ology which is peculiar to them. The earliest
epistles of S. Paul date from a period not
much after the year 50, but they contain only
reminiscences of this phraseology. Take as an
instance the term " Son of Man." It occurs
constantly in the Gospels, it never occurs in
the epistles, only once in the Acts, twice
in the Apocalypse. Take the expression
"Kingdom of Heaven." We have echoes of
its use in the epistles, but the whole of the
Gospel teaching hangs on this phrase. A
regular word used in the Gospels is "disciples."
It is found frequently in certain parts of the
Acts ; it disappears entirely from the rest of
the New Testament. Many similar instances
might be added, and the full force of the
argument might be seen by comparing one of
our Gospels with one of the earliest apocryphal
gospels, that called the " Gospel of Peter." It
is based upon our Gospels and borrows a good
deal from them, but it represents the thought
and language of a later date.
We may pause here one moment to remind
ourselves of the remarkable point which we have
reached. During the last eighty years the
whole of the early Christian history has been
in the melting pot. Every traditional view has
been combated. The composition of all the

176 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
Gospels has been placed in the second century.
Their contents have been described as wholly
mythical. In the above paragraphs we have
sketched briefly the conclusions Avhich have now
been reached on this subject, conclusions with
which the larger number of writers would
probably agree, conclusions arrived at as the
result of critical investigation. The result so
far as regards these books has been to place
traditional opinion on a sounder basis. On one
point, indeed, the traditional view is not accepted.
Few would now consider the First Gospel to
have been written by S. Matthew. That name
probably attached to it because it contained the
Logia written by that Apostle in its most
complete form. But the authorship of the
Second Gospel by S. Mark, of the Third by
S. Luke, the early date of all three and their
general historical character are not only recog
nized increasingly, but defended on critical
grounds.

IV

On the other hand, the position of the
Fourth Gospel is at the present moment one of
great uncertainty. Whatever may be a Avriter's
opinion, he would have no justification for
considering that his conclusions were agreed on.
There has been much conjecture. Many un-

THE FOURTH GOSPEL 177
substantial hypotheses have been built up. But
there has not been sufficient scientific work,
similar to that bestowed on the Synoptic
Gospels, devoted to that of S. John.
Certain points, however, must be emphasized.
Those who are acquainted with the history
of criticism of this Gospel, will remember how
fifty years ago it was customary to believe that
it dated from a period late in the second century.
Since that time there has been going on that
study of the patristic authorities of the second
century to which we have referred. The
methods of that examination have been scientific,
and on one point at any rate, some certainty has
been arrived at. It is now admitted on all
sides that the Gospel must have been in
existence at the beginning of that century. Dr
Moffatt, for example, tells us that " the carefully
marked sequences " of the Fourth Gospel " were
familiar and popular in Asia Minor in the
opening of the second century." 1 It is admitted
now by the majority of critics that it was
known to all the prominent writers of the
second century from Ignatius onwards.2
There is a tendency further to recognize
more definitely the historical value of the work.
For instance, Dr Edwin Abbott now says :
"I find that the Fourth Gospel in spite
1 Moffatt, Introduction, p. 226. 2 Ibid., p. 557.
M

178 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
of its poetic nature, is closer to history than I
had supposed. The study of it, and especially
of those passages where it intervenes to explain
expressions in Mark altered or omitted by
Luke, appears to me to throw new light on
the words, acts, and purpose of Christ, and to
give increased weight to His claims on our
faith and worship."1
It is acknowledged also that the fact that
so much of the scene of our Lord's history
is laid in Jerusalem may be correct. As Dr
Moffatt says :
" There is good evidence to shew that Jesus
had a ministry in Judea, during which He visited
Jerusalem, prior to His final visit, and that the
narrative of the Fourth Gospel on this point
goes back to a nucleus of primitive tradition
from which they have been worked up."2
The evidence also accumulates that the writer
must have had first-hand acquaintance Avith the
topography of Palestine before the year 70, and
that the fundamental basis of thought is Jewish
and not Hellenic. We have already quoted
Dr Abrahams to this effect, and his statements
are corroborated by Dr Oesterley and Mr Box
in their recent work on Judea in the time of
our Lord. If all these statements are true, it
is hardly possible that the Gospel is really what
1 Abbott, The Fourfold Gospel (Dialessarica, x. 1), p. viii.
2 Moffatt, Introduction, p. 541.

THE TWO JOHNS 179
it is asserted by some to be — an imaginative re
construction of the Gospel history.
On the other hand, many critics are deter
mined, if possible, to disprove the Johannine
authorship. It is well known that there is a
remarkable consensus of evidence coming from
writers who lived in the second century, to the
effect that John, son of Zebedee, the beloved
disciple, survived all his contemporaries and
lived to an old age at Ephesus. This statement
is associated with the tradition that he there
wrote the Gospel that bears his name. This
tradition is early, and comes from many
different writers. But an old theory that this
John was not the Apostle, but a certain John
the presbyter, has been revived in recent years,
and some support has been found for it in a
doubtful quotation from Papias preserved in
two writers of the fifth and ninth centuries.
The question will require much fuller investiga
tion than it has yet received. It need only
be said now that the evidence on which this
new theory is supported would be treated with
contempt if it were brought forward in support
of a traditional opinion.
It is recognized more clearly than formerly
was the case that the theological teaching of the
book has undergone some translation into the
thoughts and ideas of a later period, and that
the comments of the Evangelist are mixed up

180 THE RESULTS OF CRITICISM
with sayings of our Lord. Personally, however,
I am of opinion that a careful examination of
the whole question will ultimately prove that
the information contained in the Gospel was
derived from an eye-witness, and that that
witness was undoubtedly " the disciple who
testified these things." We do not, however,
know enough to say whether he was directly the
author or only the source from which the author
derived his information. This disciple was,
I believe, John the son of Zebedee, and the
main outline of our Lord's teaching represented
in this Gospel is derived directly from the
teaching of our Lord.
In the present state of critical opinion, it
would not be legitimate to rely on this or in
fact on any theory about S. John's Gospel as
in any way proved. It is necessary so far as
possible that the testimony we make use of
should be of a character the value of which
is generally recognized ; and the evidence of
S. John's Gospel must therefore occupy a sub
ordinate place in our enquiry.
The final group of documents that we must
refer to are the epistles of S. Paul, and here
again we are on firm ground. It is a common
place in investigations such as that on which we
are engaged to emphasize the universal acceptance
of the four principal epistles. They were
accepted, it is always emphasized, even by Baur,

EPISTLES OF S. PAUL 181
and no serious writer has since doubted their
genuineness and authenticity. Moreover, the
tendency of criticism has been to increase the
number of accepted epistles. For the purpose
of this enquiry, however, the four principal
epistles about which there is no reasonable
doubt are alone of importance.
Our enquiry then will be mainly based on
an examination of the three Synoptic Gospels,
the Acts of the Apostles, and the four principal
epistles of S. Paul.

LECTURE V
THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
The Evidence of " Q." The Character and Evidence of S.
Mark. S. Matthew and S. Luke. S. John. The Epistles of
S. Paul. The Acts of the Apostles. Summary.
In our last lecture we discussed the result of
literary criticism on the history and authority
of the Gospels. To-day, I propose to examine
directly the evidence for miracles ; and, as our
task is a long one, I will begin at once without
further preface.

First let us examine the evidence of " Q."
We shall take for that purpose the reconstruc
tion of it by Professor Harnack. Not that
we consider that this has any particular claims
to represent the original document more than
others, but because it is safe. It confines itself
entirely to matter common to the two Gospels.
All that it contains we may be fairly certain
182

THE TEMPTATION 183
came from the common source ; but we have no
grounds for saying that it contains the whole of
that source : most probably it does not.1 " Q,"
so far as we can judge, was a collection of dis
courses. It might, therefore, very well contain
little or no evidence on the subject of miracles,
and it is remarkable, considering its character,
how much it does contain, and how important
that information is.
At the threshold of our Lord's ministry
comes the story of the Temptation.2 We are
not concerned to defend its historical character
as a narrative of fact to be interpreted literally.
In all probability the story is a purely symbolical
representation of the temptations to which our
Lord was exposed.8 It is the theological
significance that is for us so important. It
implies a consciousness on the part of Jesus of
supernatural powers, and the temptation to
which He is exposed is that of using them in a
way inconsistent with the whole character and
purpose of His mission. He might have used
His powers for gratifying the wants of Himself
and others ; He might have used them for a
thaumaturgic display. He might appear (as
tradition said He would) suddenly in the Temple
1 Harnack, Spruche und Reden Jesu.
2 Harnack, op. cit, p. 89, § 2. S. Matt. iv. 1-11 ; S. Luke
iv. 1-13. 3 See Origen, De Principiis, IV. i. 16 (iii. 1, ed. Koetschau).

184 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
floating down from one of the lofty pinnacles,
and thus giving a clear sign of supernatural
origin. He might, aboAre all things, have been
(as every Jew would expect) a conquering
Messiah to build up that great kingdom with
Jerusalem as its centre, which should embrace
the Avhole of the earth and substitute the rule
of the Chosen People for that of the hated
foreigner. There was no one from whom the
story could have come but our Lord Himself;
no one who would have had the spiritual experi
ence ; no one who would have had the psycho
logical insight to realize in what form the
temptation would come to Him. The story
must have come from Himself, and it shews us
that Jesus was conscious that He possessed
supernatural powers, that His temptation was
to use them in a way that people expected —
'to give a sign,' 'to be King,' to shrink from
subordinating in all cases the power He
possessed to the higher and more spiritual end
of His work. This narrative will be to most
of us strong evidence that Jesus was conscious
of the possession of powers that we call super
natural. We come next to the story of the healing of
the Centurion's servant.1 This is one of the
few narratives which appear to have belonged to
' Harnack, op. cit., § 13, p. 91. S. Matt viii. 5-10; S.
Luke vii. 1-10.

THE CENTURION'S SERVANT 185
this source, and it is reasonable to believe that
it was inserted on account of the remarkable
saying of our Lord to which it gives rise. It
was, however, selected by S. Matthew as an
instance of a miracle, and substituted for one
recorded by S. Mark, which he omitted. The
importance of the story lies not merely in the
actual miracle, but in the evidence that it gives
of the widespread belief in our Lord's miraculous
power. Unless that belief had prevailed the
incident could not have occurred. It shews
that Jesus was believed to be able to heal the
sick, that this belief had spread so widely as to
be accepted by a Roman centurion — a foreigner
— and that this centurion's faith is so strong
that he believes that our Lord can heal at a
distance. His authority in the spiritual world
was that of a Commander of an army — He had
but to speak the word. Even if the miracle had
been invented, incidents and sayings such as
these have an originality quite unlike the ordinary
results of thaumaturgic mythology. What had
Jesus done to impress the people in this way ?
Of course, it is true that attempts have been
made to explain away the story ; but take the
narrative as we have it, excepting the miracle.
Its authenticity would not be doubted. The
only reason for disbelieving it is that people
disbelieve miracles. That is, it is good evidence
for a miracle.

186 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
The next episode that concerns us is the
Baptist's message from prison and our Lord's
answer.1 John in prison has heard of the works
of Jesus. He wonders whether one whom he
has greeted as the Messiah is really what he
had believed Him to be. Has He really shewn
signs of who He was ? So he sends to ask,
" Art thou He that cometh, or are we to look
for another ? " Our Lord's answer is twofold.
He appeals to the miracles He has accomplished,
to the works of mercy He has done, to the
Gospel He has preached, and He does so in an
answer reminiscent of a Messianic passage of
the Old Testament — "The blind receive their
sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed,
the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the
poor have good tidings preached to them."
Here we have our Lord definitely appealing,
as was natural when dealing with John the
Baptist, to the miracles He had accomplished.
The only method of evading the evidence is
to explain the whole episode figuratively ; but
that is difficult, for the story clearly refers to
the works and not to the preaching of our
Lord, and the original passage in Isaiah has
been so altered as definitely to refer to the
miraculous. We can if we will disbelieve this
evidence, because it is evidence in favour of
1 Harnack, op. cit., § 14, p. 91. S. Matt. xi. 2-11; S.
Luke vii. 18-28.

OUR LORD'S CLAIM 187
miracles. If we make up our minds to do so
we can disbelieve anything. But it is hardly
possible to conceive stronger evidence that our
Lord claimed to work miracles, and that in
relation to those who followed Him He was
prepared to base His claims on them. It has
further been remarked that all the miracles
referred to are good works, and that there is
no reference to miracles of a type that the
Pharisees might call " a sign," a mere thauma-
turgic display, and that, as always in our Lord's
ministry, works of mercy are definitely coupled
with His spiritual work.
The next episode is one of similar character
and import. Again our Lord Himself refers
to His miracles : " Woe unto thee, Chorazin !
Woe unto thee, Bethsaida ; for if the mighty
works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which
were done in you they would have repented
long ago in sackcloth and ashes." Here again
our Lord is represented as referring to miracles
that He has wrought, and as condemning those
who have disbelieved them. It is clear that He
meant 'miracles,' or He would not have had
sufficient ground for condemning the cities ; it
is clear, so far as evidence can prove it, that
He believed He had worked miracles in those
cities.1
1 Harnack, op. cit., § 23, p. 94. S. Matt. xi. 21-23 ; S.
Luke x. 13-15.

188 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
The final incident we must refer to is the
story of our Lord healing a man possessed of
the demon of deafness, and a discourse on
demoniacal possession that follows.1 The story
is, as always in this source, only introduced as
being the occasion for a discourse — a discourse
which is found in a somewhat different form
in S. Mark as well as in " Q." We cannot of
course say how much of the discourse as it
exists in S. Mark was also in " Q ; " we must
be content with the evidence that in that source
were passages which represent our Lord as
recognized by His adversaries as well as by
His followers as having remarkable powers of
" casting out devils," and also recognize the
claim which He based upon them of triumphing
over the kingdom of evil. The suffering of
human beings from what was at that time con
sidered to be demoniacal possession was looked
upon as a visible sign of the power and rule of
the Evil one, and there was no part of His
activity which seemed a more definite sign of
the reality of our Lord's spiritual mission than
His poAver of healing those who were possessed
with devils. He claims to cast out devils "in
the Spirit of God," and looks upon what He
has done as a sure sign that the Kingdom of
God has come.
1 Harnack, op. cit., § 29, p. 95. S. Matt. xii. 22, etc. ; S.
Luke xi. 14, etc.

EVIDENCE OF "Q" 189
Our examination of this source has been
more minute and detailed than we shall gener
ally find necessary, for it has been claimed that
" Q " gave no evidence for miracles. According
to the usual hypothesis " Q " was mainly a
collection of discourses. It contained little
narrative. In these circumstances it might
have been quite natural that there should be no
reference to miracles in it at all. As a matter
of fact we find that of the few narratives which
were introduced as providing circumstances
which led to striking sayings of our Lord
the greater number are in some way or other
miraculous in character. Further than that
the discourses themselves shew that our Lord
was believed, and believed widely, to work
miracles, that He himself claimed to do so,
that to a certain extent He rested His claim
to be the Messiah on them, and spoke of them
as a sign of the coming of the Kingdom. Of
course there is nothing to prevent us from
saying if we wish that our Lord was mistaken,
that the people were deceived, that He was an
impostor, or that the documents are untrust
worthy. But we shall only do so because we
do not intend to believe the evidence recorded.
There is no ground at all for doubting them.
The document is admitted to be good, to have
contained a true record of His teaching. It is
by some thought to be the earliest record of

190 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
our Lord's Avords ; it contains many of His
most characteristic and original sayings. The
miracles are in most cases not directly related
but referred to as recognized facts. They
are inextricably bound up with the spiritual
character of our Lord's mission. It is difficult
in fact to find any evidence stronger or more
remarkable than this source gives.

II

We come next to S. Mark's Gospel. It
is undoubtedly for us the most important source,
and we must seek to obtain any information
we can as to its origin or authority.
We learn from the preface to S. Luke that
there were many narratives embodying the
Christian tradition of the life of our Lord as
it had been delivered by eye-witnesses, and it
is quite clear from the use that they make of
it, that both S. Matthew and S. Luke considered
S. Mark to be the most valuable of all these
documents. This may be looked on as some
corroboration of the statement made by Papias,
which in its origin cannot be much later than
the beginning of the second century :
" Mark, who was Peter's interpreter, wrote down
accurately, though not in order, all that he
recollected that Christ had said or done. For

S. MARK'S GOSPEL 191
he was not a hearer of the Lord, nor a follower
of His : he followed Peter, as I have said, at a
later date, and Peter adapted his instruction
to practical needs without any attempt to give
the Lord's words systematically. So that Mark
was not wrong in writing down some things in
this way from memory, for his one concern
was neither to omit nor to falsify anything he
had heard."1
From the preface to S. Luke's Gospel we
also learn that it was customary for Christians
to be instructed in the life and teaching of
our Lord, and this statement is corroborated
in two passages from the Acts which describe
the scope of this teaching. In the speech of
S. Peter at the election of S. Matthias the
qualifications of Apostleship are described as
follows : —
" Of the men therefore which have companied
with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went
in and out among us, beginning from the baptism
of John, unto the day that he was received up
from us, of these must one become witness with
us of his Resurrection." 2
Witness primarily to the Resurrection, more
generally to the life and teaching of Jesus
was a definite function of Apostles. So when
S. Peter is addressing Cornelius and his house-
1 Moffatt, Introduction, p. 186 ; Eus. H.E. III. xxxix. 15.
2 Acts i. 21, 22.

192 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
hold, he is represented as referring to the fife
and message of Christ as something that his
audience is acquainted with.
" The word which he sent unto the children
of Israel, preaching good tidings of peace by
Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), that saying
ye yourselves know, which was published
throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee
after the baptism which John preached: even
Jesus of Nazareth, how that God anointed him
Avith the Holy Ghost and with power : who
went about doing good, and healing all that
were oppressed of the devil ; for God was with
him. And we are witnesses of all things which
he did both in the country of the Jews and in
Jerusalem." 1
These passages seem to be sufficient to prove
that regular instruction in the life of our Lord
was part of the preparation for baptism, and
that there was a recognized narrative based
upon the witness of the Apostles. No doubt
each Apostle would tell his story in his own
way ; but it would be the leading Apostles who
had been in close intercourse with our Lord
whose narratives would be the most attractive,
and gradually an accepted tradition would grow
up. The story would be told in a particular
way which would be remembered. Events would
be dwelt upon if they contained moral or
1 Acts x. 36-38.

THE GOSPEL TRADITION 193
doctrinal teaching. The tradition that S. Mark's
Gospel is based upon this narrative as told by
S. Peter, and that S. Mark has given us this
common Christian tradition in a literary form is
quite in accordance with probability. There is
no reason to think that he may not have obtained
information from other sources as well. In
fact, there is some evidence that he did. It
is sufficient for us to know with reasonable
certainty that we have a good example of the
life of Christ as it was told by the first generation
of Christians. One further question naturally arises. How
far during these thirty years had the narratives
been written, or had they been only transmitted
by memory ? Both methods were available.
Society in Palestine in the time of our Lord
was literary ; there was considerable diffusion
of education and a considerable amount of
popular literature. Not only were the Scriptures
read in every village, but the Apocryphal
literature clearly represents a popular literature,
and it had considerable influence. Christian
communities, we know, quite early communicated
with one another by letters, and it is probable that
they would also have preserved their memorials
in writing, whether the speeches of our Lord
or, as in the Acts, the early speeches of S. Peter.
But there was also a teaching tradition.
Memories were trained. The responses of the
N

194 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
rabbis were learnt by heart and repeated. It
was customary for a pupil to commit to memory
and to teach what he had learned from his
master. Both methods of preservation therefore
existed, and both were probably used ; we have
no evidence to enable us to be more exact in
our conclusions. The most reasonable sugges
tion is that the Gospel traditions had been
transmitted during those thirty years, partly
by tradition, partly in writing, and that a
recognized form had been attained from which
in important particulars it would not be customary
to deviate. S. Mark's Gospel tells us little of its own
composition. If we had only S. Matthew or
S. Luke's Gospel it would clearly be impossible
for us to reconstruct S. Mark, and that should
make us recognize the limits of our power of
literary analysis. The various attempts that
have been made to distinguish different sources
have been, so far, quite unsuccessful ; nor does
it seem likely that objective data Avill be found
sufficient to enable us to do so. Two points,
however, demand some discussion. The first
is the existence of what are called 'doublets.'
The really important question is whether the
stories of the feeding of the five thousand and
the four thousand are different accounts of the
same event. It certainly is not improbable
that they are so, and in that case the reference

PAPIAS 195
to these events by our Lord would again
represent conflation. Certainly the narrative
of the four thousand has much the appearance
of being a shorter account of the same event as
that of the five thousand. Now if this be true,
S. Mark had probably more than one source
written or oral. We cannot get further than
that, for no possibility of separating them has
yet been discovered.
A second point to notice is the statement
of Papias that Mark wrote ' not in order.'
It is generally agreed that this does not mean
' not in chronological order,' but ' Avithout care
ful arrangement,' and it may be suggested that
this exactly corresponds with the character of
the narrative as we possess it. It reads like
a volume of reminiscences. There is no parti
cular attempt to write in chronological order.
The Gospel reads as if it were composed just
in the Avay that reminiscences arrange them
selves ; the stories come from one who had
been connected with Jesus during His lifetime,
and so the events are mainly narrated in the
order in which they occurred, or were re
membered. The events of certain days and
times were more vivid than others. Occasionally
notes of time are given which do not seem
to have any relation to the general arrangement.
But the chronological order is not entirely
adhered to. Events or discourses are grouped

196 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
also according to their subject, or from some
subtle association which we do not know. I
venture to think that it is in some such way
as this that signs of arrangement or disarrange
ment can be explained.
A few more remarks may be added as to
the general character of the narrative. While
the writer clearly intended to Avrite the life
of one whom he looked on as Son of God, he
never makes any attempt to prove a thesis or
make out a case. He believes it is unnecessary
for him to prove. Hence, while the other
Gospels shew clearly a purpose and point of
view in their writer, S. Mark is simply a
chronicler. He gives a narrative which reflected
things as they seemed to have happened. He
makes no attempt at toning down or heightening
effect. He is vivid, picturesque in his language ;
the descriptions read as if they came from one
who had seen the event ; persons are referred
to as if their thoughts and feelings had been
known. The narrative, in fact, must have come
from one who describes what he sees before his
eyes. The picture of the events in which he
had taken part was still vivid.
We now come directly to the question of
the evidence for miracles in this Gospel. And
first let us look at it generally. We are intended
to get the impression that our Lord's ministry
in Galilee was miraculous in the most complete

MIRACLES IN S. MARK 197
sense. The few stories told us are only to be
taken as instances selected possibly for their
striking character. What is described in detail
in one or two cases we are to gather happened
constantly. "At even when the sun did set
they brought unto him all that were sick, and
them that were possessed with devils, and he
healed many that were sick with divers diseases." ]
" He went into their synagogues throughout
all Galilee preaching and casting out devils."2
He enters a boat because the crowds throng
Him, " for he had healed many : insomuch that
as many as had plagues pressed upon him that
they might touch him." 3 When He arrives at
the land of Gennesareth " straightway the people
knew him, and ran round about that whole
region, and began to carry about on their beds
those that were sick where they heard he was.
And wheresoever he entered, into villages, or
into cities, or into the country, they laid the
sick in the market-places, and besought him that
they might touch if it were but the border of
his garment ; and as many as touched him
were made whole." 4
It is this miraculous power that draws
attention to Him. " What is this ? a new
teaching ? with authority he commandeth even
the unclean spirits and they obey him." 6 People
1 S. Mark i. 32, 34. 2 S. Mark i. 39. s S. Mark iii. 10.
4 S. Mark vi. 53-56. 5 S. Mark i. 27.

198 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
came to Him from all parts hearing what great
things He did. While it attracts some, it has
not always that effect. "Whence hath this
man these things ? and what is the wisdom
that is given unto this man ? And what mean
such mighty works wrought by his hands ? Is
not this the carpenter, the son of Mary ? . . .
and they were offended in him." 1 Some
of His friends said that He was beside himself.2
The people of Gerasa besought Him to depart
from their borders.8 The scribes that came
down from Jerusalem said, " He hath Beelzebub,
and by the prince of the devils casteth he out
devils." 4 Herod when he heard of the marvels
said, " John the Baptist is risen " ; so Jesus
retires into solitude.6
Now Ave have to notice throughout that
particular stress is laid on the miraculous. His
teaching indeed attracted also, and that too
might also have the contrary effect ; but it was
the miracles that most conspicuously attracted
and repelled. Their reality was never in ques
tion ; people had no doubt that they happened,
no doubt that they implied supernatural power,
but the problem was : Did they come from
heaven or from hell ? Those who were opposed
to the teaching argued the latter.
But Jesus Himself also appealed to the
1 S. Mark vi. 2, 3. 2 S. Mark iii. 21. * S. Mark v. 17.
4 S. Mark iii. 22. 6 S. Mark vi. 14.

THE PARALYTIC MAN 199
testimony of the miracles. Take the story of
the paralytic man. Jesus is represented as
impressed by the faith of those Avho were so
determined to bring the man near to Him.
But He does not immediately heal him. His
first promise to him is, "Thy sins are for
given." It is natural that such a remark
should call forth questions. Jesus perceives
the drift of their thoughts, and immediately
goes straight to the point : " Why reason ye
these things in your hearts. Whether is easier,
to say to the sick of the palsy, thy sins are
forgiven ; or to say, Arise and take up thy bed
and walk? 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) Arise, take
up thy bed and go unto thy house." 1
Now the whole narrative as Ave have it is
well worth pondering over. As it is told us, it
is entirely inconsistent with any other theory
than that our Lord claimed divine powers, and
justified that claim by an appeal to something
which His hearers must have looked on as
miraculous. He acts with dignity and certainty.
There is no misgiving or hesitation. It is
not a question of undisciplined utterances, or
vague and uncertain powers. It is a confident
claim to spiritual authority exhibited both in
the moral region of forgiveness and the material
i S. Mark ii. 1-12,

200 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
region of cure. And if Ave study other
narratives we find just the same confidence.
Jesus is always represented as clear, definite, and
decisive in all His actions.
If this story is not true it must have been
definitely written to express an idea ; we are
clearly not in the region of unconscious myth.
The story is given us to shew that Jesus claimed
to do what God alone could do, and that He
justified His claim. Apart from difficulties that
might be raised on a priori grounds because of
these claims as to miracles, the narrative bears
all the mark of ' vraisemblance.' It is narrated
with such vividness that we can see the events
happening ; it has detail which is most unlikely
to have been invented ; it is strong, clear,
and simple. It is as difficult to believe that
the story was definitely invented as that it
grew up unconsciously ; and it is difficult if we
accept it, to be satisfied with any compromise.
Jesus claimed to be divine and to work miracles,
and people believed that He did work them.
We cannot go through all the miracles
recorded in detail ; we can only sum up the
general points of evidence. The great majority
of the stories will be found to bear just the same
character as the one we have described. They
are vivid and picturesque in detail ; they are
performed with a quiet calm and dignity, and
almost invariably are associated with the

WONDER 201
spiritual side of our Lord's mission. They
have been divided into ' miracles of healing ' and
' wonders.' Twelve of the former are recorded,
and they give the impression of having been
selected or remembered as typical. Three of
them are described as "possession by unclean
spirits," four as defects of sight, hearing, or
speech, two paralysis, one fever, one leprosy,
one issue of blood. It is now generally
admitted by most writers that the evidence for
these events is good, but it has been urged that
they must be explained as the result of natural
processes. Mr Thompson, for example, writes :
"The evidence for works of healing is good
evidence, but is not evidence for miracles." 1 We
shall deal more fully in a later lecture with the
explanations offered ; at present we will simply
point to the narrative of the paralytic as
shewing that our Lord Himself, at any rate,
believed that the works He did were signs of
His divine authority.
The other miracles are classed as "wonders."
They are the calming of the wind and sea, the
bringing to life of the daughter of Jairus, the
feeding of the five thousand (and the four
thousand), the walking on the lake, and the
making of the fig-tree wither. Now with regard
to these, so far as regards the evidence that we
have considered at present, they are on exactly
1 J. M. Thompson, Miracles in the New Testament, p. 41.

202 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
the same level as the other stories. They are
narrated in the same vivid and simple way ;
they are accepted and looked on as miracles.
The difference between them and miracles of
healing is not one of evidence, but lies in the
character of the event. If the one is believed,
and not the other, it is on a priori grounds.
And this is particularly true of the narrative of
feeding the multitude. If, as is widely believed,
the two stories are doublets, that throws the
evidence back to a very early period in the
development of Gospel narrative. We have
two accounts, clearly independent, differing
from one another as independent accounts will
in detail, but both bearing witness to the
important fact. There is no more sign in one
than in the other of a mythical origin.
A marked characteristic of the miracles is
the insistence laid on faith. " Jesus seeing their
faith," in the story of the paralytic. " Why are
ye fearful ? Have ye not yet faith ? " He says
to the disciples in the storm. " Daughter, thy
faith hath made thee Avhole." " All things are
possible to him that believeth." "Have faith
in God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up
and cast into the sea ; and shall not doubt in
his heart, but shall believe that what he saith
cometh to pass ; he shall have it."
And as faith seems to be the condition of

POWER OF FAITH 203
miracles being wrought, so absence of faith
prevents them. When Jesus came to His own
country the people did not believe on Him ;
they considered His works to be impostures
or the result of demoniacal agency ; they are
offended at Him. Jesus says that a prophet is
only without honour in his own house. " And
he could there do no mighty work, save that
he laid his hands upon a few sick folk and
healed them. And he marvelled because of
their unbelief." This passage is remarkable.
With a boldness which is characteristic of a
Gospel which has the appearance of representing
things just as they happened, we are told of a
case where Jesus could not work miracles, and
this frankness emphasizes to us the truthful
character of the whole narrative. Had the
author of the Gospel been trying to make out
a case, had he been doing anything else but
representing things as they were remembered,
he would certainly have omitted this. Here
and elsewhere he is speaking the truth. It
certainly seems somewhat arbitrary on the part
of Schmiedel to be prepared to accept this state
ment, and to argue from it that our Lord
never performed miracles. To most people this
narrative of failure will make them give greater
credence to other statements. Similar in
character is the story of the failure of the
disciples : " And I spake to thy disciples that

204 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
they should cast it out ; and they were not able.
And he answereth them and saith, ' O faithless
generation, how long shall I be with you ; how
long shall I bear with you.' "
Similar in character seems the command so
often given to those who were healed not to
reveal the fact. The leper is told to say nothing
to any man but to go shew himself to the
priest. When Jairus' daughter is raised, He
charges them that " no man should know this.'
When the devils recognize Him, He charges
them that they should not make Him known.
Although He works miracles, although He
appeals to them at times for evidence of His
spiritual power, He always avoids on all
occasions any appearance of thaumaturgic or
magical display. His miracles are part of
His spiritual work : they are part of His
teaching as works of mercy, as giving spiritual
help in accordance Avith the character of His
mission. He feeds the multitude, when they
need it, because He has compassion on them.
He will never work a sign — that is something
so public, so clear and decisive that no one
can doubt that He is the Messiah. "And
the Pharisees came forth, and began to question
with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven,
tempting him. And he sighed deeply in his
spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation
seek a sign ? Verily I say unto you, There

S. MARK'S TESTIMONY 205
shall be no sign given unto this generation." x
This is not a fragment of true history embedded
in a legendary narrative, as we have been told,
but an indication of the limits within which
our Lord restrained the powers that He
possessed. It harmonizes entirely with the
story of the Temptation. The self-restraint and
reticence of Jesus in relation to His miracles is
not the least important of the characteristics
which distinguish the Gospel narratives from
all the many legendary accounts of miraculous
display. To sum up. In S. Mark's Gospel we have
an early source for our Lord's life which has
the appearance of being a simple, vivid, and
truthful picture, as it was narrated by one who
had been present at the events. It represents
Him as being divine, as the Son of God, as
claiming to have more than human poAver. It
represents Him as working miracles. The
people believe that He does so. Friends and
enemies alike do so. He claims to do so, or
rather appeals to His miracles as part of the
corroboration of His mission. The narratives
are of various kinds ; they are told in a natural
manner — they are closely interwoven with
the whole fabric of the Gospel. We cannot
separate the miracles from the non-miraculous.
No one would hesitate to believe the stories
1 S. Mark viii. 11, 12.

206 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
except for their remarkable character. As they
depend upon human witness, no doubt there
may be mistakes here as elsewhere, but the
evidence is good.

Ill

We may, I think, couple together the two
Gospels of S. Matthew l and S. Luke, since from
our point of view they have much in common.
They are both literary productions, the works
of writers who had definite purposes and
arranged their material in accordance with those
purposes. While in S. Mark or " Q " we are deal
ing with chroniclers or recorders, in these two
Gospels we are dealing Avith historians or
theologians. S. Luke tells us that he had various sources
before him, and that he had constructed his
narrative with a view as far as possible to
accuracy. S. Matthew equally clearly had
various sources. But while both had a purpose
before them, it was not the same. S. Luke is
primarily a historian, S. Matthew is rather a
theologian. We can study S. Luke's characteristics
best in connexion with the work in Avhich he
1 It is unnecessary to say that the First Gospel is for
convenience called S. Matthew's, without implying any
theory of authorship (see above, p. 176).

S. LUKE'S METHODS 207
has wider scope. In the Acts of the Apostles
he has clearly conceived the development of the
Church. He marks out the stages of its progress.
He exhibits to us the characteristics of various
types of teaching. He shews an accurate
acquaintance with local government and other
similar matters. So also in the Gospel he brings
his narrative into contact with secular history
wherever possible, perhaps not altogether accur
ately. In particular he has collected informa
tion about the Herods. As regards, however,
any development of our Lord's ministry, he does
not add to, but rather confuses, what Ave may
learn from S. Mark. He preserves, indeed, the
chronological order of that Gospel better than
does S. Matthew, who is indifferent to chronology
and influenced by other motives ; but, except
as regards the difference of place, he does not
seem to see any development in the character of
the ministry. This is a significant fact. S. Luke
had undoubtedly attempted to get the best
information both from writings and from eye
witnesses ; he had visited Jerusalem, he had
talked with those who had seen the Lord, he
was clearly an acute and intelligent man. He
had grasped the idea of historical development ;
but neither in what is called the development of
the Messianic consciousness, nor in the growth
of opposition, nor in stages of progress, had any
idea of development impressed itself upon the

208 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
narrators. They may have only gradually learnt
to know their Master, but they looked back on
the life as throughout that of the Messiah, the
Son of God, always in opposition to a section
of the people. The signs of development we
find in S. Mark are photographed unconsciously.
We seem to see certain stages in progress, and
are probably right in doing so, because the narra
tive simply represents things as they happened.
But this was hardly obvious to the disciples
themselves, and the additions and re-arrange
ments of S. Luke and S. Matthew obscure rather
than emphasize what appears in S. Mark. The
marked characteristics, then, of the Acts do
not appear in the Gospel, but S. Luke had
clearly purposed to write a history as a scientific
Greek historian would.
S. Matthew was rather a theologian. He
was primarily interested in the words rather than
the Avork of our Lord, and he is particularly
anxious to shew that our Lord fulfilled Old
Testament prophecy. He therefore from time
to time stops in his narrative to shew hoAV
different prophecies had been fulfilled. He
groups together discourses, and to a certain
extent events, in accordance with the subject-
matter. A conspicuous instance is the Sermon
on the Mount ; here we have concentrated a
large amount of material which in the Third
Gospel is scattered through the ministry and is

S. MATTHEW'S METHODS 209
connected with different circumstances. S.
Matthew cares about the teaching, S. Luke
about the historical situation in which the Avords
were spoken. Moreover, a desire to place at
the beginning of the Gospel a general survey of
our Lord's teaching leads to a departure from
the recorded chronological order. The whole
process is, in fact, exactly similar to what might
be followed by a modern historian who opened
an account of the ministry with a sketch of the
main features of the Gospel, and would be con
sidered to increase rather than diminish his
merits by doing so. Other instances are the
charge to the Apostles, the Parables of the
Kingdom, the denunciation of the Pharisees,
and the eschatological discourses.
Such are the main characteristics of these
two writers, and the questions we have to ask
are Itoav they used their sources, and whether in
addition to the information to be obtained from
those sources which we have examined, they
give additional and valuable evidence about
miracles. The first question is an important one. We
know now that both used S. Mark. Did they
use it in a way that leads us to trust them ?
The question becomes of greater importance
as it has been made the ground of accusation
against them. It has been stated that, " In
Matthew and Luke — Gospels based upon Mark
o

210 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
— most of these stories reappeared, but in a more
miraculous guise. On examination we find that
the editors of both these Gospels were in the
habit of heightening the miraculous element
in the old tradition, and of omitting or mollifying
features that clashed with it. This at once
weakened their evidence, and suggested that
a similar process had been at work in the case
of Mark. In the new miracles that they added,
Matthew and Luke went even further in the
same direction."1 It is this statement that
we have to examine.
Let us first see how S. Matthew uses
S. Mark. In the first place he uses it very
completely. There are, in fact, only about seven
paragraphs of importance that he omits, but
of these four deal with miraculous evidence.
This does not look prima facie like an excessive
desire to accumulate stories of the miraculous.
But apparently to omit a miracle is as bad as
to insert it. Mr Thompson, for example,
writes :
" S. Matthew felt himself justified, without any
fresh evidence, but simply from a particular
standpoint of devotional and theological develop
ment, to omit some incidents from the account
of our Lord's life which seemed to be unedifying.
He thus encouraged the tendency to set up
ideas as to what Jesus ought to have done,
1 Thompson, op. cit., p. 209.

S. MATTHEW AND S. MARK 211
instead of the plain tradition as to what He
did or was." 1

There seems to us really no justification for
this statement. We have no evidence that
S. Matthew thought the stories unedifying ;
what seems to be the case is that he collected
together a certain number of instances of
miracles as illustrations of what our Lord did.
The majority of these he takes from S. Mark,
but he substitutes in one or two cases stories
from other sources which he preferred, the chief
being the story of the centurion's servant, which
we have already considered. The others he
omits as not necessary. There was, when
S. Matthew wrote, ample evidence of the
miracles, and he did not think it necessary to
take up space by inserting every story that
came to him. But critics are hard to please.
If the author of the Gospel inserts a miraculous
incident it shews a tendency to exaggerate ; if
he omits one it shews a tendency to set up
ideas as to what Jesus ought to have done.
But at any rate, so far, we have not found any
great desire to exaggerate miracles.
How does he treat the narratives of S. Mark
that he gives us ? Let us ask first, What do we
expect him to do ? Do we expect him to take
a pair of scissors and cut out a story, or do we
1 Thompson, op. cit., p. 64.

212 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
expect him to tell it in his own words ? The
latter is what any modern historian would do,
and it is what S. Matthew does. He tells the
story to a large extent in his own words, and
therefore he changes the style. A second
point is that he abbreviates. This we must
emphasize, for it gives the most natural explana
tion of the greater number of changes which
are made. S. Matthew was limited in the
size of the Gospel that it was convenient
he should write. He had a large amount
of material before him ; he was far more
interested in the discourses than in the miracles ;
he therefore considerably shortens the miracles.
And this becomes clear by comparison of the
two narratives. The majority of those in
S. Mark have a vivid picturesqueness of detail
Avhich may imply an eye-witness, and certainly
implies a gift of story-telling. S. Matthew
omits all these vivid details which give life, and
contents himself with the salient facts. His
procedure is clearly that of a second-hand
narrator. Perhaps he occasionally corrects what
seem to him errors, sometimes he adds explana
tions or details ; in some cases he may have
had another account, although that is not often
the case ; generally he simply shortens. Take
the story of the healing of the leper. In
S. Matthew it is told in 63 words, in S. Mark
in 97. In the healing of the paralytic there are

BREVITY/ OF S. MATTHEW 213
in S. Matthew 97 words, in S. Mark 196 ; in
the story of the Gadarene swine in S. Matthew,
136 words, in S. Mark 285. This difference in
length holds good generally of the narratives ;
on the other hand, the discourses are, where-
ever possible, lengthened, and information
accumulated. This being S. Matthew's usual procedure,
it naturally leads to omission of personal detail,
and makes us hesitate to ascribe a ' tendency '
to him. It is widely stated, for example, that
he omits what is discreditable to the disciples.
Now it is quite true that some things that he
omits might be considered so, but whatever force
there may be in this is taken away if, as we find,
he inserts other statements which might be con
sidered discreditable, or if he fails in other cases
to omit. For example, in the description of
the walking on the sea he does omit the
comment : " For they understood not concerning
the loaves, for their heart was hardened," but
he does so to make room for the story of
S. Peter's attempt, and that contains a much
more severe rebuke : " O thou of little faith,
wherefore didst thou doubt ? " 1
The story of S. Peter's confession is, from
this point of view, of great interest. S. Matthew
clearly has a second source, and he amplifies
the narrative considerably ; and it is true that
i S. Matt. xiv. 22-33.

214 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
from this source he adds the famous words,
" Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona " and all
that follows. But had he had any purpose such
as to spare the disciples, he would surely have
omitted the very stern rebuke that folloAvs ;
instead of that he amplifies it. " But he turned
and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me
Satan : for thou art a stumbling-block unto me :
for thou mindest not the things of God, but
the things of men." 1 The stern words " thou
art a stumbling-block " are added by S. Matthew,
and the historian who records this saying cannot
have had any great desire to omit what was
discreditable to the Twelve. It is true that on
one occasion he omits the words : " they dis
puted with one another who was the greatest,"
but not long afterwards he does not hesitate
to say that " they were moved with indigna
tion."2 In fact, so ineffective and half-hearted
would have been the way in which S. Matthew
carries out this supposed tendency, that we
cannot really believe that it exists.
Again it is asserted that out of motives of
reverence words are omitted that ascribed to
our Lord human emotions ; and, in particular,
questions which might seem to imply ignor
ance. The instances again are not very con
clusive, and if we study what is not omitted
we shall hardly feel inclined to lay stress on
1 S. Matt. xvi. 23. 2 S. Matt. xx. 24.

CHANGES IN S. MATTHEW 215
the motives. It is true, for example, that in one
place the words " he marvelled at their unbelief"
are omitted, but elsewhere in S. Matthew we
read, " when Jesus knew it he marvelled." 1
It is true that in one account the words
"How many loaves have ye" are omitted, but
in the other account the words are retained.2
It is true the words "looking upon him he
loved him" are omitted, but several times we
are told that "Jesus was moved with com
passion."3 He may omit the words, "he
sighed deeply in spirit," but he does not scruple
to say, "he began to be sorroAvful and sore
troubled." 4 In fact, we doubt whether anyone
reading the two Gospels with care would notice
any difference between the two conceptions of
Jesus' human nature. And similarly with
regard to miracles it is true that S. Mark says,
"they brought unto him all that were sick
and them that were possessed with devils. . . .
And he healed many that Avere sick with divers
diseases, and cast out many devils " ; while in
S. Matthew we read, "they brought unto him
many possessed with devils ; and he cast out the
spirits with a word, and healed all that were
sick."5 But I do not believe the alteration
to be an exaggeration, conscious or unconscious ;
1 S. Matt. viii. 10. 2 S. Matt. xv. 34.
8 S. Matt. ix. 36. 4 S. Matt. xxvi. 37.
5 S. Mark i. 32-34 ; S. Matt. viii. 16.

216 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
it simply comes from running together two
sentences. If there were a tendency to
exaggerate miracles there would be other in
stances ; but the tendency is to shorten, not
exaggerate such passages.
The real fact is, I believe, that the whole
of this criticism is based on an erroneous con
ception of the primitive Church. There is an
assumption that in order to make Christ such
as they desire, the Evangelists found it necessary
to alter the actual portrait of Him that they
possessed ; that there was the consciousness of
difficulty, and the uncertainty of belief which
characterizes modern critics. Neither S. Mark
nor S. Matthew had any such difficulties. They
both believed that Jesus was the Son of
God, and wrote their Gospels on that assump
tion ; they both believed that He worked
miracles and found them recorded in various
sources before them. They had no need either
to heighten the effect or to exclude anything.
It is the absence of exaggeration concerning
miracles throughout which is most striking,
and there seems to us no evidence for the
following statement of Mr Thompson :
" It is doubtful whether any of the evidence
is quite free from a tendency to exaggerate the
miraculous element. This tendency was natural
but disastrous ; in place of the rich reality of
the facts it sets up a one-sided theory. In the

METHOD OF S. LUKE 217
name of reverence it disparages the soul of
reverence, which is truth."1
As a matter of fact the result of our compari
son of S. Matthew and S. Mark shews us that
S. Matthew omits four stories containing miracles,
and in almost every case where he records them
he shortens his narrative considerably, so as to
obtain more space for discourses which seem
to him of so much importance. As a result
of this procedure many vivid touches are lost.
His other source contains evidence as to miracles
which he uses Avithout laying any particular
stress on them. It is on the teaching that
he always lays stress, and he uses the miracles
as a portion of the facts which shewed him
that Jesus was the Messiah ; but he neither
exaggerates nor lays undue stress on them.2
We may deal with S. Luke more briefly.
His method of treating S. Mark's Gospel is to
leave out a large section, and he has less need
therefore to shorten the several narratives. He
omits seven miracles recorded by S. Mark. In
dealing with the individual stories he aims chiefly
at reconstructing the circumstances in which
they occurred. He is more concerned with the
historical situation than is S. Matthew, and
1 Thompson, op. cit., p. 71,
2 On the relation of S. Matthew and S. Luke to S. Mark,
I may refer to a paper by Dr H. J. White, which will
shortly be published.

218 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
where possible he reconstructs it from the
narrative. This can be seen, for example, in
the story of the paralytic.
S. Luke had probably three main sources.
In addition to S. Mark's Gospel and to "Q,"
there was also probably a special source of great
interest and value for reconstructing our picture
of Jesus. For instance, Professor Bacon writes
of it as follows :
" But how little should we have from Mark
alone to explain the popular support Avhich
gave to the movement of Jesus its Messianist
character, and afterwards recruited to the
standard of the crucified Nazarene a great
following from the 'people of the land,' were
it not for the Special Source of Luke, with its
constant depiction of Jesus as the champion of
the ' little ones,' the unrecognized ' sons ' or
' daughters of Abraham,' the spiritually disin
herited masses, publicans, women, Samaritans,
outcasts from the synagogue, scattered sheep,
lost ones ! " . . . " We need even more the
Special Source of Luke, with its humanitarian
view of Jesus : His championship of the cause
of the lost sheep, the house of Israel, His yearn
ing ' to seek and to save that which was lost.' " *
Now as regards the miracles, this source ,
exactly resembles the others which we possess ;
generally it describes our Lord's ministry as
1 Bacon, Beginnings of Gospel Story, p. xxxvii.

MIRACLES IN THE SPECIAL SOURCE 219
miraculous. Amongst those who followed our
Lord were " certain women which had been
healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary that
was called Magdalene, from whom seven devils
had gone out." x When the Seventy are sent
forth the injunction is : "And into whatsoever
city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such
things as are set before you : and heal the sick
that are therein, and say unto them, The
Kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." 2
And we have on their return a special warning
against pride in miraculous power : " HoAvbeit
in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject
unto you ; but rejoice that your names are
written in heaven." 3 We have also the special
message of our Lord to Herod : " Go and say
to that fox, Behold I cast out devils and per
form cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third
day I am perfected."4 We have also seven
narratives of a miraculous or quasi-miraculous
character. Six correspond in character to those
contained in S. Mark and in " Q," and the signi
ficance is this, that here we have the support
of an independent report of tradition about our
Lord's life, and it contains just the same type
of evidence as do the other sources.
As a result of examining S. Matthew's and
S. Luke's Gospels, we arrive at the conclusion
1 S. Luke viii. 2. 2 S. Luke x. 8, 9.
3 S. Luke x. 20. 4 S. Luke xiii. 32.

220 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
that when they are using a source which we
possess, so that we can follow their methods,
they act as honest historians, impressing, of
course, as all historians do, their own character
istics upon the material they employ ; that they
do not alter the conception of our Lord's person
ality or exaggerate the miraculous ; and that S.
Matthew, in particular, shews comparatively
little interest in that side of our Lord's activity.
They both had other sources of information.
From these they derived a certain number of
narratives similar in character to those obtained
from the known sources, and all these narratives
alike represented naturally and simply our
Lord's ministry as miraculous in character.
We can find no evidence of a non-miraculous
nucleus from which the miraculous element has
grown, nor can we find in any New Testament
historian, whose writings we possess, any attempt
to exaggerate or invent miracles.

IV

For those who believe that S. John's Gospel
was written by the Apostle of that name, the
son of Zebedee, and is intended to be an
historical work, and that the Apostle was an
honest man, there can hardly. I think, be any

S. JOHN'S GOSPEL 221
problem concerning miracles, so far as evidence
goes. The Gospel explicitly tells us that Jesus
claimed to be the Son of God, and that the
works that He did bear witness to Him. Only
seven miracles, or, including the miraculous
draught in the last chapter, eight, are recorded ;
but they are selected with care, are told with
great picturesqueness of detail, and are inter
woven with our Lord's most spiritual teaching.
It will hardly, I think, be Avorth while to
discuss further the critical question of the
authorship or the historical character of the
Gospel ; we must recognize that a great diversity
of theories exists, that negative critics feel great
uncertainty, that there are some Avho believe
that the Gospel is in no way an historical
work, but is to be looked upon as symbolical
from beginning to end, and that it is spiritual
teaching alone that we are intended to gain
from it. It will, I think, be more helpful to
our purpose if I confine myself to examining
two of the miracles recorded : one, the feeding
of the five thousand — an account of which is
contained in the other Gospels, and which there
fore was clearly not an invention of the author ;
the other, the raising of Lazarus, to which there
is no parallel.
The author of the fourth Gospel seems to
have selected the feeding of the five thousand
for narration both as a remarkable sign and

222 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
because it was the basis of the discussion on the
bread of life. The story is told in a vivid and
picturesque manner. We cannot lay very much
stress upon that, but it certainly seems more
natural that when the names of the Apostles are
indicated it should imply actual reminiscences
rather than symbolism. What we cannot help
feeling about so much of this symbolical inter
pretation of S. John's Gospel is how great a
misfortune it is that the writer took so little
trouble to give any indication of what he meant,
and that it has remained undiscovered all these
years.1 The interesting feature in S. John's
account is that he clearly makes this miracle
a great crisis in our Lord's history. If things
happened as they are described to have done
this is the one occasion when anything like a
sign which might be looked upon as Messianic
was worked. It had a natural and remarkable
effect. It made the people determined to
accept Him. " When therefore the people saw
the sign that he did, they said this is of a truth
that prophet that cometh into the world," and
as an inevitable result of this they are desirous
of making Him king. Jesus sees what is likely
to happen, and avoids it. He withdraws Him
self and sends His disciples away, as Dr
1 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, i. 20. O Christe, patient-
issime domine, qui tot annis interversionem praedicationis
tui sustinuisti, donee scilicet tibi Marcion subveniret.

FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE 223
Latham suggests, lest they should be contamin
ated by this worldly movement. Equally natur
ally many of those who had followed Him were
so disappointed with His refusal to take the
position that was demanded of Him, and
with His use of a somewhat unintelligible
spiritual teaching instead of having courage
enough to take upon Himself His kingdom,
that they went back and walked no more with
Him ; this again naturally gives occasion to
the test of faith implied in the confession of
S. Peter. Now all this is very natural ; it suggests that
S. John had a considerable interest in history,
and a far clearer conception of events than S.
Mark. Moreover, it may be quite reasonably
held that there is a reference to this miscon
ception in the rebuke which S. Mark tells us
was administered to the disciples because they
could not understand the meaning of the loaves.
They, like the Jews, were inclined to see only
the marvellous event : they interpreted it in
accordance Avith the current Jewish expectation
of the Messianic kingdom. Many affirm that
the hope of Israel is that " Messias shall come
and raise the dead, and that they shall be
gathered together in the garden of Eden, and
shall eat and drink and satiate themselves all the
days of the world." Do not these considerations
suggest that possibly in S. John we may have

224 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
an account with far greater insight than that
given us by the other Gospels.1
And now let us turn to the story of Lazarus.
It is needless to say that it has been exposed to
much criticism, and we are hardly prepared,
1 Cf. with this Abbott, The Fourfold Gospel, p. 47
( Diatessarica, x. i.). " Now this misunderstanding, according to
John, did actually possess the great mass of the Jews who
partook of the mystery of the Feeding of the Five Thousand.
They entirely missed its meaning. John alone describes the
failure that followed, and the attempt to make Christ a
king, and His consequent withdrawal from the multitude.
We shall have to consider whether John is not right, and all
the Synoptists wrong — Mark being the only one of them
who retains a vestige of the truth. If we decide in favour
of John, we shall have to go further and reject the Marcan
and Synoptic view — or at all events the view that would be
naturally attributed to the Synoptists, if John had not
written — that Jesus never spoke of the mystical Bread of the
brethren till the night on which He was delivered up.
"Not, indeed, that we must consequently accept, as
coming from the lips of the historical Jesus, every word of
that long discourse about the mystical Bread which John
puts into His mouth as being uttered in the synagogue at
Capernaum, almost immediately after the Sign of the Five
Thousand. But, though we reject the words, we shall be
prepared to accept the thought. Piecing together Marcan
scraps of tradition with the aid of what we call John's
Targumistic exposition of it, we shall (I believe) arrive at
the conclusion that a Eucharistic doctrine expressed in a
Eucharistic practice was inculcated by Jesus at an early
period, and only repeated with special emphasis — not
introduced as quite a novel thing — on the night of the
Last Supper."

RAISING OF LAZARUS 225
nor do I think that my readers would be
prepared, to wade through all the suppositions
and possibilities which are suggested to explain
it. I will content myself with considering
what is, I believe, the strongest argument, as
it is put forward by Professor Burkitt. How
did it come to pass that the Synoptists left
out this — the most conspicuous of all miracles ?
Can we find room for it in the other narratives ?
So Mr Burkitt writes :
" But where are we to put the scene into the
historical framework preserved by S. Mark ?
Can any answer be given, except 'there is no
room ' ? If the events occurred as told in the
Fourth Gospel, if they were as public as the
Fourth Evangelist insists, so fraught with influ
ence upon the action both of friends and foes, they
could not have been unknown to a well-informed
personage like ' Mark,' nor could he have had
any reason for suppressing a narrative at once
so public and so edifying. It is true that
'Mark' does not record the Lord's Prayer or
many of the most noteworthy sayings of Jesus,
but these were not public events like the
Raising of Lazarus. Is it possible that anyone
who reads the continuous and detailed story of
Mark from the Transfiguration to the Entry
into Jerusalem can interpolate into it the tale of
Lazarus and the notable sensation which we
are assured that it produced ? Must not the
answer be, that Mark is silent about the raising
of Lazarus because he did not know of it ? And

226 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
if he did not know of it, can we believe that,
as a matter of fact, it ever occurred? For
all its dramatic setting it is, I am persuaded,
impossible to regard the story of the raising of
Lazarus as a narrative of historical events." x

Now let us turn to the Synoptic Gospels.
They tell us that Jesus came to Jerusalem, and
they represent Him as welcomed by great crowds
of people and led in in a triumphal entry ; they
tell us on the other hand how the leaders of the
Jews made up their minds to seize Him. How
was it that all this happened so ? They do not tell
us that he had ever been at Jerusalem, but we
find a long triumphal procession from Jericho
to the city. There were men waiting by the
roadside to see Him ; there were preparations
made for His coming, the ass and the colt were
ready ; He was known and looked for. Now
these events as described in the Synoptic Gospels
hardly seem possible if their story is complete ;
but if Jesus had already visited Jerusalem, if
He was known there, above all, if the story of
the raising of Lazarus be true, we have a
natural sequence of events.
And does not this harmonize with what we
have already learnt about S. John ? If our
arguments with regard to the feeding of the
multitude are right, we find that S. John had a
1 Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 222.

HISTORICAL SENSE OF S. JOHN 227
far more correct conception of the course of
events than the writers of the other Gospels. He
has remembered and described things as they
happened. The ordinary Synoptic narrative does
not trouble itself about crises ; it contains a
number of stories as they were told as part of
their teaching by the Apostles. Its object is
evangelistic. A philosophical or historical concep
tion did not trouble the Apostles when they were
preaching the Gospel. But behind the Fourth
Gospel there is a better tradition and a deeper
interest. If that is true in one case, then may it
not be true in others ? The raising of Lazarus
is represented as leading up to the Crucifixion.
Does it not fit into a natural sequence of events ?
We study the account in S. John, and we see
how the opposition to our Lord grows. Jesus
has been teaching in Judaea ; He has aroused
great opposition there ; He is well known.
The story of Lazarus increases this opposition :
"Many, therefore, of the Jews, which came
to Mary and beheld that which he did,
believed on him. But some of them went
away to the Pharisees, and told them the things
which Jesus had done. The chief priests
therefore, and the Pharisees gathered a council,
and, said What do we ? For this man doeth many
signs. If we let him thus alone, all men will
believe on him : and the Romans will come
and take away both our place and our

228 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
nation. ... So from that day forth they took
counsel that they might put him to death."1
Then comes the triumphal entry, and again we
get the progress of events recorded : " The
Pharisees therefore said among themselves,
Behold how ye prevail nothing : lo, the world is
gone out after him."2 Clearly here S. John's
Gospel seems to supply a hiatus in the narrative
of the Synoptists.
And the silence of the other Gospels is not
so significant as has been represented. All
of the accounts of the life of Jesus are
fragmentary. Only a selection of the miracles
which Jesus was reported to have worked are
recorded. A considerable amount of evidence
shews us there must have been a Jerusalem
Ministry as well as a Galilean Ministry. The
Synoptic Gospels are concerned only with the
Galilean Ministry, and therefore this narrative
would naturally not occur in them. Nor, if the
other miracles of raising the dead — Jairus'
daughter, and the widow's son at Nain — were
recognized as true, would this appear so much
more remarkable. In relation to Jerusalem
the raising of Lazarus was of supreme im
portance ; not necessarily so to the Galilean
disciples. The disciples, curiously enough, are
hardly referred to in S. John vii. and viii.,
1 S. John xi. 45-53. 2 S. John xii. 19.

THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 229
not at all in chapter x. In chapter vii.
His brethren are represented as suggesting
to our Lord that He should go up and shew
Himself to — we may presume — His Jerusalem
disciples. It is probable that many of the
Galilean disciples, and among them perhaps S.
Peter, were not with Jesus on this visit to
Jerusalem. A miracle described by S. John
is told in such a way as to make it appear far
more important than equally wonderful events
quoted in the other Gospels. We have, then,
a Johannine, not a Petrine, tradition. That
does not imply that the Marcan narrative is
false ; it may be inadequate. It was certainly
incomplete, and it did not realize the full
sequence of events, or the most important
causes of the final catastrophe.
I have said that the criticism of the Fourth
Gospel is in a transition state. I do not,
therefore, wish to put forward any opinion too
dogmatically ; but I Avould venture to suggest
that it is a little difficult to believe that these
stories were narrated by the author of the
Gospel not as historical facts, but as allegories ;
that he had no good means of information and did
not desire them. It is true that he emphasizes
the spiritual teaching of our Lord, and the
spiritual significance of the miracles, as do the
other evangelists ; but he believes that he is
relating what is historical. And if the sugges-

230 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
tion made above be correct, there will be
considerable grounds for thinking that his
historical information may be better than that
of the other Gospels.1

V

We have now examined the evidence of the
Gospels, but that does not exhaust the New
Testament. We have also the evidence of S.
Paul, and of the Acts of the Apostles. That of
S. Paul, at any rate, appears to be first hand.
There is no doubt as to the genuineness of
the writings. They are not anonymous or
pseudonymous. They bear on every page marks
of the character of the writer. They are the
1 In the above remarks I have been considerably indebted
to Mr Brooke's essay in the Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 329,
and to Dr Abbott's remarks in the work quoted above. Atthe
same time it is interesting to me to find that I used the
same arguments some thirty years ago in lectures that I
gave at Oxford. See Abbott, pp. 155-163.
It may be noted that a tradition in the Babylonian
Gemara runs as follows : " Tradition reports that Jesus was
crucified (hanged) on the evening of the Passover, an
officer having during the preceding forty days publicly
proclaimed that this man who, by His imposture, had seduced
the people ought to be stoned, and that anyone who could
say aught in His defence was to come forward and speak ;
but no one doing so, He was hanged on the evening of the
Sabbath."

WITNESS OF S. PAUL 231
evidence of a man who, by what he accom
plished, shewed that he had the character and
power which demand that we should receive
what he says with respect. His witness seems
to prove that he considered miracles a regular
and recognized phenomenon of the Christian
life, that he claimed himself to work miracles,
and looked upon them as part of the signs of
an apostle. The first passage to be considered is one in
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. " For
in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles,
though I be nothing. Truly the signs of an
apostle were wrought amongst you in all
patience, by signs, and wonders, and mighty
deeds." x You will notice in the first place that
here we are introduced to the regular phrase
ology of the New Testament. The combination,
" signs and wonders," is that habitually used to
describe what we speak of conventionally as
miracles. There can be no doubt at all that
S. Paul means to refer to miracles, and that this
regular phraseology of the New Testament
means what were looked upon by the writer as
marvellous occurrences.
The second passage, very similar in character
but varied in phraseology, occurs in the Epistle
to the Romans : " For I will not dare to speak
of any things save those which Christ wrought
i 2 Cor. xii. 11, 12.

232 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
through me, for the obedience of the Gentiles,
by word and deed, in the power of signs and
wonders, in the power of the Holy Ghost."1
An attempt has been made to destroy the
authority of this passage, by suggesting that
there are some doubts as to the genuineness
of the two last chapters of the Romans. This is
not correct. There are some doubts, it is true,
as to whether they formed part of the original
edition of the Epistle to the Romans or were
added at a later date, but there are none at all
as to their being the work of S. Paul. The
only difference in this passage from that we
have already considered is that S. Paul definitely
states that the miracles were worked by himself,
and that he varies the expression slightly, saying
that these marvellous events had been wrought
in the power of signs and wonders, and he parti
cularly ascribes them to the power of the Holy
Ghost. The third passage occurs in the Epistle to
the Galatians. " He therefore that ministereth
to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among
you, doeth he it by the works of the Law or by
the hearing of faith ? " 2 This passage is not
quite so explicit as those we have considered,
and it is to a certain extent ambiguous. It may
be interpreted in a more objective sense to mean
working miracles among you, or it may mean
1 Rom. xv. 18, 19. 2 Gal. iii. 5.

EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 233
rather giving inward power. In the one case
it implies that God had given the Galatians the
gift of the Spirit, and that the reality of the
gift had been shewn by miracles worked among
them. In the other case it means that the
reality of the gift had been shewn by their
consciousness of more than ordinary powers
that had been given them. The regular use of
the word implies in any case that that which
was given them was looked upon as miraculous.
It may be convenient in this connexion to
refer to one more passage. The writer of the
Epistle to the Hebrews — a Christian of the
second generation — tells us how the Gospel had
been received from those who first heard it :
" God also bearing witness with them, both by
signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and
by the Holy Ghost according to his own will."1
Here we have a second witness confirming the
claim made on his own behalf by S. Paul.
The remaining group of passages which we
are to consider occur in S. Paul's discussion
on spiritual gifts in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians. Gifts which are there described as
given by the one Spirit, are the word of wisdom,
the word of knowledge, faith, gifts of healing,
workings of powers, prophecy, discernment of
spirits, and the interpretation of tongues ; 2 and,
again, God is said to have set in the Church
1 Heb. ii, 4. 2 1 Cor. xii. 8-10.

234 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
apostles, prophets, teachers, powers, gifts of
healing, helps, governments, and kinds of
tongues.1 You will notice that in these
passages the same word — " powers " — is used that
we have come across elsewhere, that it is used
regularly throughout the New Testament to
imply miraculous working, and that these
powers appear to be distinguished from gifts
of healing. Now if we put all these passages together, it
becomes evident that S. Paul was quite clear
that through him or his agency, direct or in
direct, what both he and those to whom he was
writing regarded as miracles Avere worked, and
were the signs of his apostleship. He looks upon
powers and healings as signs of the work of the
Spirit in the Church. So confident is he of the
reality of what he refers to that he speaks of it
as something which will be recognized by others
as a proof and sign of his apostolic mission.
The force and power thus exhibited had been
part of the motive which had induced his
hearers to accept the message which he brought
them. It is unnecessary to say that various attempts
have been made to disparage this testimony.
For example, the author of Supernatural
Religion has devoted a lengthy chapter to
examining it. It will be apparent at first
i 1 Cor. xii. 28.

CRITICISM OF S. PAUL 235
sight that his argument, like many other
arguments in the same work, loses very much
effectiveness by its excessive vehemence. He
is always trying to prove too much in order to
make out his case. For instance, if we remember
the regular usage of the New Testament, it
becomes futile to try and prove that signs and
wonders and powers do not mean miracles. It
is curious how much there is in what are called
critical writers which makes them ready to
accept any argument, however indifferent, and
be prepared to explain away any passage, how
ever clear and definite. They are often quite as
unintelligent as the least instructed champions
of orthodoxy. A good deal of this work, in fact,
need not be discussed, but one particular point
must be touched upon, for it is not only this
writer that makes use of it ; it is becoming a
commonplace of criticism.
It is claimed that the temperament of S. Paul
was such that his evidence on points of this sort
could be of no value. " The History of Christi
anity after the death of its Founder," says this
writer, " would sink almost into commonplace if
the grand figure of Paul were blotted from its
pages. But it is no detraction to recognize that
his nervous temperament renders him peculiarly
susceptible of those religious impressions which
result in conditions of ecstatic trance, to which,
as we actually learn from himself, he was ex-

236 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
ceptionally subject. The effects of this tempera
ment probably first made him a Christian ; and
to his enthusiastic imagination we owe most of
the supernatural dogmas of the religion which
he adopted and transformed." x You will notice
that the last statement is somewhat beside our
purpose. This description of S. Paul demands some
consideration. It is pointed out that he describes
a vision, whether in the body or out of the body,
and that that was clearly an hallucination ; it was
equally an hallucination that he could work
miracles. Further, it is argued that S. Paul
believed in the genuineness of the supernatural
origin of the divine Charismata, and that he in
like manner believed in the reality of his visions
and revelations. " He has equal reason or want
of reason in both cases." 2 Now a moment's con
sideration will shew that the two events do not
stand at all on the same level. It is quite true
that S. Paul describes a vision that he had, and
it is possible that that vision may have been a
dream or hallucination, but the evidence in the
two cases is entirely different. In the one case
S. Paul has only described his own experience,
whether real or not. In the other he is appeal
ing to events which were known and understood
by his readers. It is difficult to believe that
1 Supernatural Religion, edition 1879, iii. 394.
2 Ibid., iii. 395.

S. PAUL'S TEMPERAMENT 237
S. Paul was such a deluded person that he could
write to the Roman and Corinthian Christians
and remind them of miracles which had taken
place among them when, as a matter of fact,
nothing of the sort had happened, and they
would not in the least understand what he was
referring to. Of course we do not know very
exactly what his readers thought of the letters
except this, that they considered them of such
value that they preserved them, and that the
Church almost immediately began to treat them
as inspired. But supposing that S. Paul had
been such a mistaken and deluded person as he
is made out to be, it is difficult to believe that
his influence would have been what it was, that
he would have been able to accomplish what he
did accomplish, and that the result of his life's
work would have been as great as it was.
Of one thing, I think, we may be quite clear :
that both S. Paul and his readers believed firmly
that these miracles had taken place, and looked
upon them as a sign of the workings of the
Divine Spirit.
There is a further point on which I should
like to dwell. The author of Supernatural Re
ligion denies S. Paul's evidence just because he
appears to have been not quite normal. But
surely the whole claim of those who believe in
the divine character of the Christian revelation
would be that S. Paul was not quite normal ;

238 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
that he had received, in a way which he regarded
as supernatural, the gift of the Spirit ; that this
gift had been so powerful as to enable him to be
a great missionary of the new religion, and had
enabled him to win souls to Christ where Chris
tianity had never been preached before, in city
after city. Our claim is that we are dealing with
phenomena which were not normal ; that S. Paul
was in a real sense inspired with the gift of
God's Spirit ; that it transformed his person
ality, and worked in him and through him ; and
that it was this that enabled him to do what he
did. Looking at his testimony, in fact, from an
objective point of view, we find that it is of
value not only because it represents his sincere
belief, but also because it was corroborated by
the general conceptions of the apostolic age as
to missionary activity. Looking at it from the
subjective point of view, we see that S. Paul
was clearly a man of abnormal temperament ; that
it was just because he was carried away by the
Spirit that he was able to preach the Gospel
as he did. The result of the evidence, in fact,
is to make us feel that S. Paul, like the rest of
the Church, believed in the reality of the miracles
that he claimed to work ; that these were in
their eyes part of the supernatural sign of his
teaching, and they were ascribed to the power
which came from the gifts of the Spirit.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 239
With the narrative of S. Paul we must
compare that of the Acts of the Apostles. It
was written by a companion of the Apostle ;
quite possibly it was written at Rome during
his imprisonment, and it was the work of a
man of culture and understanding and historical
sense. Here is a writer who possesses a supreme
historical faculty. He was a philosopher, an
acute observer, a clear-headed Greek physician,
who became a Christian and accompanied
S. Paul in many of his voyages ; he shared his
perils and dangers with him ; even in the
Apostle's last imprisonment he remained faithful.
He depicts from the inside the history of what
he realizes to be an extraordinary movement ;
he believes that the whole history is the
result of the supernatural work of the Holy
Spirit, and that the miracles which he knows to
have happened are a normal expression of the
indwelling energies of that Spirit. Is not this
belief of his a strong evidence that he was right ?
Here we have given the testimony of an eye
witness, a participator in the scenes he describes,
bearing witness to the truth of what he tells us.
Of course we may say he Avas mistaken, but there
must be some limit to such incredulity. It is
difficult to see the reason for not accepting his
testimony. Some attempt has been made to
suggest that in the latter part of the narrative
there are fewer miracles than in the earlier. It

240 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
is a little difficult to harmonize this language
with the accusation made against the author of
inventing a parallelism between the story of S.
Peter and S. Paul. His evidence consists first
of all of a general statement with regard to
miracles on the lines of such statements in the
Gospels, and then of some twelve accounts of
different miraculous events, as to which it may
be noted that one half occur in the earlier part
of the book, and the other half in the latter.
These are partly miracles of healing, partly
what S. Paul would have called "powers." And
a review of this evidence shews us that the
conception of apostolic history which we find
in the Acts corresponds exactly to that which
we obtain from a study of S. Paul's epistles.
From them we learn that S. Paul himself
claimed to work miracles, and looked upon them
as a sign of his apostleship ; that he believed
that his life was under the special guidance
of God ; that he was directed by warnings and
by visions. The supernatural environment in
which he seemed to live is clearly depicted for
us in the story of his companion given in the
Acts, and by both alike it is referred to the
real gift of God's Spirit.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 241

VI
We have now finished our survey of the
New Testament, and our study of it will suggest
the following conclusions : —
1. All evidence, without exception, tells us
that our Lord's life and activity were character
ized by events such as are described as miracu
lous. We have various gospels, themselves
probably the work of writers of the first and
second generations of Christians. These have
been, in the process of criticism, analyzed, and
we are taken back to certain sources, which in
their turn seem to represent a selection from
narratives about our Lord which were current
in the Christian Church during the first genera
tion. So far as we know, all these, without
exception, bear witness to the miraculous
character of our Lord's work. It is probable
that these writings contain the testimony of
our Lord Himself, while tradition traces two
main sources to S. Peter and S. Matthew.
2. When analyzed this evidence is complex
in character. We have, first of all, general
statements of the miracles wrought by our
Lord. These alone might not be of great value.
We have then a number of actual miracles
recorded ; so far as we can see, these are in
no case more than a selection from those which
Q

242 THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
had been described. Each source we have in
a fragmentary form. From each source we
get new evidence, and the aim of the writers
seems in all cases to have been not compre
hensiveness, but the selection of typical and
striking incidents.
3. But further than this the narrative is
built up on, and implies, miraculous powers.
The Apostles themselves looked upon the
miracles as part of the basis of their faith. It
was by miracles, we are told, that the crowd ,
was attracted, while it was from disappointment
at the absence of anything sufficiently striking
that many left our Lord. There is teaching
recorded which would be meaningless unless
our Lord had power to work miracles. More
over, He Himself, in all our documents, claims
to have such power.
4. Attempts have been made from time to
time to get back to a non-miraculous Christianity
— to a nucleus which would represent the pure
teaching of Jesus before it had been contaminated
with supernaturalism. None of these efforts
has had the slightest success. Objective
critical grounds for rejecting the miracles have
never been found. When the criticism comes
to be examined, it is found to assume the
impossibility of miracles as one of its axioms.
It can hardly be said that the reason is adequate,
if we first reject the testimony of a work because

MIRACLES IN APOSTOLIC AGE 243
it is miraculous, and are assured that miracles
do not happen ; and then say we cannot believe
in the miracles because our documents are un
trustworthy and the evidence is insufficient.
5. We find abundant and first-hand evidence
that the same miraculous power existed in the
Church in the apostolic age. S. Paul himself
claims to have worked miracles, and this power
is definitely and consistently represented as
derived from a gift of God's Spirit.

LECTURE VI
THE RESURRECTION
Character of the Evidence. Testimony of S. Paul. The
Empty Tomb. The Appearances. The Moral Evidence.
Explanations. Theory of Harnack. Fraud or Deception.
I propose in the present lecture to discuss the
evidence for the Resurrection of our Lord. It
is, of course, the most conspicuous and striking
of the miracles of the New Testament ; it is
also that for which there is the strongest
evidence. It is bound up with the Avhole con
ception of Christianity as it is commonly under
stood, and it is consequently exposed to the
most searching attacks of criticism.
There are two primary points which I would
ask you to notice. The first is that, whatever
may have been the grounds for it, the belief in
the Resurrection was universal in the Early
Church. It was clearly looked upon as the
fundamental fact on which the Christian message
is based, and as the ground of Christian hope.
Our Lord is represented as foretelling His
2U

WITNESS OF THE APOSTLES 245
Resurrection, and all four Gospels contain
narratives about it, but it occupies even a higher
place in the other writings of the Apostolic
Church. The author of the Acts of the Apostles
considered that the main function of an apostle
was to be a witness of the Resurrection.
When Matthias was appointed S. Peter says :
" Wherefore of these men which have companied
with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went
in and out among us, beginning from the
baptism of John, unto that same day that he
was taken up from us, must one be ordained to
be a witness with us of his resurrection."
Through all the early speeches in the Acts
S. Peter is represented as proving the Messiah-
ship of Jesus by the fact of the Resurrection.
" This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all
are witnesses." Equally clear is the character
of S. Paul's teaching : " but God raised him
from the dead : and he was seen for many days
of them that came up with him from Galilee to
Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the
people." Similar evidence is given by S. Paul's
epistles. S. Paul himself bases his claim to
the title of apostle on the fact that he was a
witness of the Resurrection. " Am I not an
Apostle ? " he says ; " have I not seen the
Lord?" In two or three minutes we shall
analyze the evidence that he has collected as

246 THE RESURRECTION
to the fact. At present I ask you to notice
that he looks upon the preaching of the
Resurrection as one of those fundamental
beliefs that he shared with all other Christian
preachers. " Whether then it be I or they, so
we preach and so ye believed." All depends
upon the belief in the Resurrection. " If Christ
hath not been raised then is our preaching vain,
your faith also is vain. Yea and we are found
false witnesses of God ; because we witnessed of
God that he raised up Christ : whom he raised
not up, if so be that the dead are not raised.
For if the dead are not raised, neither hath
Christ been raised ; and if Christ hath not been
raised your faith is vain." So far as our evidence
goes the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus
Christ was an essential part of the preaching
of Christianity, one of those doctrines about
which there was no question or difference of
opinion in the Church as a whole.
Then, secondly, I would ask you to notice
the character of the evidence on which it was
believed. It was based on two facts : on the
one hand, the fact of the empty tomb, on the
other the appearance of the Risen Lord. It
was that combination that gave particular
cogency to the argument. Supposing, for
example, that the curious reconstruction of
the history which we owe to Professor Kirsopp
Lake was true, that the two beliefs were inde-

CHARACTER OF EVIDENCE 247
pendent in their origin, that the earliest appear
ances were in Galilee to the Apostles who had
fled thither without any knowledge of what the
women had discovered, that it was only later
when they returned to Jerusalem that the
women gave the account of their discovery, it
would make the coincidence even more remark
able. I have referred in a previous lecture to
criticisms which have attempted to estimate
mathematically the evidence against a miracle.
What are the mathematical chances against a
coincidence that the women should think the
tomb empty, when it was not empty, and the
disciples should think they had seen the risen
Lord when they had not seen Him, and that
these two blunders combined should produce
the Christian Church.

I

We now come to the evidence, and we will
begin with that of S. Paul. The First Epistle to
the Corinthians is one of the earliest books of the
New Testament. It is not an anonymous work,
nor one that comes to us without credentials.
Its authenticity cannot be seriously disputed.
We know what type of man S. Paul was ; we
know that, while he was a man of intense
religious zeal and earnestness, he was also a

248 THE RESURRECTION
man of intellectual power. He was not likely
to believe without adequate grounds, and his
belief was so strong that it had compelled
him to change completely his creed and life.
To turn Saul the persecutor into Paul the
Apostle demanded very genuine and real
evidence. The basis of his belief was twofold :
his own experience, and the information that he
had received from the Early Church. He
himself had seen the risen Lord in a vision on
the way to Damascus ; that vision had been so
strong and clear that it had transformed his
whole life. But although he was thus convinced,
he was not satisfied without collecting evidence
from other sources, and he narrates various
appearances of which he gives us an account.
Here is his evidence :
"Now I make known unto you, brethren,
the gospel which I preached unto you, which
also ye received, wherein also ye stand, by which
also ye are saved, if ye hold that word, in which
I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in
vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that
which I also received, that Christ died for our
sins ac ording to the Scriptures ; and that he
was buried ; and that he rose again the third
day according to the Scriptures ; and that he
was seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve ; there
after, he was seen of about five hundred brethren
at once, of whom the greater part remain until
now, but some have fallen asleep ; then he

EVIDENCE OF S. PAUL 249
was seen of James, then of all the apostles ;
last of all he was seen of me also as of one
born out of due time. For I am the least of
the apostles that am not meet to be called
an apostle because I persecuted the church
of God. But by the grace of God I am what
I am : and his grace which was bestowed
upon me was not found vain : but I laboured
more abundantly than they all : yet not I but
the grace of God that was with me. Whether
then it be I or they, so we preach, and so
ye believed."1 Now with regard to this evidence there are
certain points which I would wish to emphasize.
We may, I think, in the first place be quite
confident that S. Paul knew of the empty
tomb. For some time it was the custom to
maintain that he did not. Now it seems to be
more generally accepted that he did. It is true
that he does not specially and definitely
mention it, but when he says that the Lord rose
" on the third day " he implies the belief, for the
only reason that the Church had for dating the
Resurrection was the fact that on the third day
the tomb was found empty. Various other
explanations have been suggested, but they are
not of a character to win acceptance. It has
been suggested that as S. Paul says our Lord
rose again on the third day, according to the
il Cor. xv. 1-11.

250 THE RESURRECTION
Scriptures, it means that this belief was a
deduction from the Old Testament and not
based on fact ; but apart from the fact that the
reference to the Scriptures qualifies the whole
sentence, no text could be cited which could
have caused this belief to grow up. S. Paul
speaks of the Death, the Burial, the Resurrec
tion of our Lord as according to the Scriptures :
in no case does he mean that the evidence for them
was the Old Testament prophecy. He means
that these facts were the fulfilment of prophecy.
Still less convincing are the attempts made to base
the belief on folklore, or on a calculation of the
time which was supposed to elapse before the
body would become corrupt. There is not the
slightest trace of evidence for any such theory,
nor of the influence of such methods of thought ;
and they are obviously only suggestions made
to explain away the historical account. We
may take it, therefore, that S. Paul implies by his
reference to the Resurrection on the third day
that he knew the story of the empty tomb.
This story is also implied in S. Paul's
theory of the Resurrection. He believed that
Jesus had risen, the first-fruits from the dead,
and his conception was that at the Resurrection
our natural bodies would be transformed into
spiritual bodies. "We shall not all sleep, but
we shall all be changed." The day will come —
S. Paul believed very soon — when our Lord

THE RESURRECTION BODY 251
would come down from heaven ; the dead in
Christ would rise from their tombs, but with
their bodies changed and glorified ; all those who
were alive on earth would be caught up in the
sky and experience the same transformation.
The particular point of importance for us is
that as he believed that the dead would be
raised with their bodies transformed, so he
believed that our Lord had risen, and that His
body had become a spiritual body. He had no
conception, nor was it in the least in accordance
with his manner of thought, that the body
should remain in the grave, and the soul or
spirit should survive apart from it like a
disembodied ghost.
The second point of importance to notice
is the stress that S. Paul lays on the fact that
our Lord had appeared to five hundred brethren
at once, of whom the greater part remain unto
this present, but some are fallen asleep. Here
he is clearly emphasizing the fact that he is
appealing to the evidence of living persons.
There were eye-witnesses to be seen if anyone
would like to consult them. There is a second
reason why emphasis must be laid on the appear
ance to five hundred brethren. It has been
maintained that these appearances were subjec
tive, of the nature of psychological hallucina
tions. S. Paul, it is said, included the appearance
to himself with the others. Now clearly that

252 THE RESURRECTION
appearance might be some sort of subjective
hallucination : a person so constituted as S. Paul,
with a highly strung nervous temperament,
subject to visions, might have imagined the
experience which he recounts. But any sort of
explanation of such a character is excluded in
relation to an appearance, whether to twelve or
to five hundred people at once. There must have
been some objective cause for a crowd of people
having the same impression at the same time.
To conclude, S. Paul shared with the Early
Church the belief that the tomb had been found
empty, and that the risen Christ had appeared
on various occasions to His disciples. He had
undoubtedly received information from eye
witnesses. He believed that the appearances
were real, that Christ appeared in such a way
that He might be recognized. His body was
spiritualized and transformed, but it bore all the
marks and characteristics of His human body.
It was not merely a vision.

II

We now turn to the evidence of the Gospels.
There is one point of considerable importance
about this. It may be accepted as certain that
S. Mark as we possess it is mutilated. Accord
ing to the oldest manuscripts it ended with the

EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPELS 253
eighth verse, and the last twelve verses were an
appendix containing a summary of the evidence
of the Resurrection written at a later date and
inserted to take the place of something which
was obviously missing. Moreover, it appears as
if the copy which S. Luke had before him, and
perhaps even that of S. Matthew were both
imperfect. The result of this is that while the
accounts in the first three Gospels of the burial
and of the finding of the empty tomb were
based on a known source, there is no known
original source for the Resurrection appearances
mentioned in the four Gospels.
The evidence of the Gospels divides itself
under two headings — the empty tomb, and the
Resurrection appearances. It is around the
empty tomb that controversy has circled during
recent years, and that we must consider first.
Our conclusion as to the whole question of the
credibility of the Resurrection narratives, as of
other narratives in the Gospel, depends upon
the extent to which minor discrepancies may
be held to vitiate a narrative. It is obvious as
we read them that there are differences between
the narratives. It is probable also that some
imaginative and legendary details have crept in,
and as is often the case in history, especially
when we are dealing with narratives of an
extraordinary character — such as stir up people's
minds — it is a little difficult to reconstruct

254 THE RESURRECTION
the exact course of events. But on no ordinary
canon of criticism should we be justified in
rejecting evidence on the grounds of variation in
detail, if the fundamental facts are such as all the
writers agree upon.
Now all the Gospels give a definite and clear
account of the finding of the tomb empty. The
narratives in the three Synoptic Gospels are
primarily based on that of S. Mark ; but as each
adds details which clearly they would not have
been likely to invent, they must have known the
story also in other forms, whether written or
oral. The account in S. John is more independ
ent, and places the weight of the evidence on
S. Peter and another disciple (as generally
believed, S. John himself), and the narrative, like
the narrative of the Fourth Gospel generally,
has a simplicity and minuteness which must
imply very great imaginative art if it is not
based on historical reminiscences.
S. Matthew also gives the story of the
sealing of the tomb and the setting of a
watch. Now that incident appears to be one
of those later additions to the narrative con
tained in S. Matthew's Gospel which must be
looked upon as less certain, and having, perhaps,
grown up in the Jewish controversy. But the
important fact for us is the indirect evidence
that it gives that the story of the empty tomb
was early and widely circulated ; for such an

THE EMPTY TOMB 255
explanation would never have developed unless
the rumour had also been widely circulated that
the disciples had come by night and taken away
the body of Jesus. But such a rumour would
never have grown up unless Christians had
asserted their belief in the empty tomb, nor if
the tomb had not been empty would it have
been necessary to invent such an explanation.
If it had been possible to point to an unopened
tomb, no such story would have arisen. It must
be recognized as a fact that there was an empty
tomb known, or there would have been no reason
to invent other stories to account for the dis
appearance of the body.
Further evidence for the belief of the Church
may be found in the speech put into the mouth
of S. Peter in the Acts, in a narrative which
was almost certainly based upon an early
document. Our Lord's body had not been
allowed to see corruption. It has already been
pointed out that S. Paul implies this belief ; and
its universal existence in the Early Church may be
learnt not only from the traditional formula, " He
rose again on the third day," but also from the
fact that from a very early period the Christian
Church celebrated the Lord's Resurrection on
the first day of the week. When S. Paul wrote
to the Corinthians, the first day of the week
was the day of importance to the Church. It
was on the first day of the week that the Church

256 THE RESURRECTION
was gathered together at Troas to break bread,
and very soon " the Lord's Day " took the place
of the Sabbath. Now, some event of great
importance must have been necessary to lead
the Church to substitute another day for the
Sabbath, and the cause that all our evidence
suggests is that on the first day of the week
the tomb was found empty, and that therefore
that was the day on which our Lord was
believed to have risen from the dead.
It is now widely recognized how strong this
evidence is, and the tendency is not to deny
the fact, but to explain it away, and various
explanations are suggested. Professor Lake
thinks that the women made a mistake, they
went to the wrong tomb : someone or other,
who must have known what they were about,
told them that our Lord was not there but
in some other tomb. They did not take the
trouble to make any further investigation, but
jumped to the conclusion that the Lord was
risen, and were so frightened that they immedi
ately went away. Later they imagined the
rest of the message. I cannot help thinking
that this Avill be looked upon as a most extra
ordinary suggestion. Mr Streeter, in Founda
tions, writes as follows : —
" The discovery of the empty tomb, assuming
the story to rest on adequate historical evidence,
which personally I believe to be the case, is

EXPLANATIONS 257
often supposed to determine the decision in
favour of the traditional theory. This, however,
is not really so, for with a little ingenuity it is
not difficult to imagine more than one set of
circumstances Avhich might account on purely
natural grounds for the tomb being found
empty. Various suggestions have been put
forward, as, for instance, that the Romans, fearing
a possible disturbance, took advantage of the
Sabbath quiet to remove the body out of the
reach of the disciples. Of course neither this
nor any other one definite suggestion has any
claim to be regarded as in itself particularly
probable, but where a natural explanation of
an event is at all possible, there must be very
special reasons for falling back upon an explana
tion of a supernatural character.1
I cannot help thinking again that these
statements are of a most remarkable character.
It is admitted that the evidence is good ; it
is admitted that there is no evidence for any
explanation that is offered, but it is suggested
that as the fact is one of an extraordinary
character, we must assume that there must be
some explanation which is possible. Now this
statement is at any rate sufficient to convince
us that we are not dealing with an event for
which there is no good historical evidence. The
only ground for contesting it is that it is difficult
to believe. But if we accept Mr Streeter's
1 Foundations, p. 134. R

258 THE RESURRECTION
position, and remember what he believes about
our Lord, he surely lands us in an argument
of a very extraordinary kind. He is quite
prepared to believe in the Resurrection as a
spiritual fact ; he is prepared to believe that it
was made known in some way or other to the
disciples ; he is prepared to accept generally the
belief that our Lord Jesus Christ was the
Son of God, and the truth of the Christian
religion as built up on these facts. But he
believes at the same time that something which
was either a fraud or a blunder or a miscon
ception was the cause of the belief of the
disciples, to whom we owe all the evidence on
which our religion is based. I venture to think
that such a belief is quite impossible. The
real difficulty which underlies the position of
Mr Streeter and various other writers may be
shewn from the following quotation given by
Mr Lake from an unpublished Avork of
Dr Rashdall. We have no right to talk of
" suspension of natural law."
" The disappearance or absolute annihilation,
the reanimation, or the sudden transformation
into something not quite material and yet not
quite spiritual, of a really dead body, would
involve the violation of the best ascertained
laws of physics, chemistry, and physiology.
Were the testimony fifty times stronger than
it is, any hypothesis would be more possible

THE RESURRECTION AND NATURAL LAW 259
than that. But in the present state of our
knowledge of the kind of causality which is
discovered in the relation between mind and
mind, or between mind and body, there is
nothing to be said against the possibility of an
appearance of Christ to His disciples, which was
a real, though supernormal, psychological event,
but which involved nothing which can properly
be spoken of as a suspension of natural law." 1
We have already dealt at sufficient length
with the whole of this conception of natural
law, but we must point out what inconsistency
Dr Rashdall is involved in. If any naturalistic
theory of the universe which would make a
miracle impossible were true, it would be just
as difficult for a " supernormal psychological "
experience to take place as any of the other
events which he considers so difficult. Either
the world is subject to the sway of fixed
and rigid laws, in which case no miracle
is possible, or it is possible for God to reveal
Himself to mankind, to become incarnate in
the world, and to shew by visible signs that
He is risen from the dead. We have evidence,
and strong evidence, for certain events. If
that evidence is true, then we have sufficient
1 The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus
Christ, by Kirsopp Lake, M,A. (Oxon), Professor of New
Testament Exegesis and Early Christian Literature in the
University of Leiden, p. 269.

260 THE RESURRECTION
grounds for believing in the truth of the
Christian religion and all that it involves. But
Dr Rashdall would have us reject all the
evidence that is before us because of a priori
theories, and then suggests that we can believe
the religion on grounds which he has invented
himself, and for which there is no authority
at all. We cannot play fast and loose with
our evidence in this Avay.
I would therefore venture to suggest to
you as a result of this discussion, that that event
which formed some of the strongest evidence
on which the disciples were ultimately convinced
that the Lord had risen — the discovery of the
empty tomb- — was a real event for which we
have good historical evidence, and that the
reasons for not believing in it are not the failure
of the evidence, but the difficulty created by
a priori conceptions.

Ill

The second point which we have to consider
with regard to the Gospel narratives is the
account of the Resurrection appearances. Now
here the historical difficulty is in one aspect
much greater than regards the empty tomb.
There is undoubtedly a difficulty in harmonizing
the narratives, in particular the relation between

RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 261
the appearances in Galilee and those at
Jerusalem. It is difficult to be quite clear as
to the movements of the disciples. It would
be impossible to go into this subject minutely,
nor is it, from our point of view, of much
importance ; for it is admitted that undoubtedly
appearances — whatever may have been their
character — took place. Supposing that all the
accounts harmonized completely, we should at
once say that all came from the same source,
probably from one original document, and that
would carry little weight. The impression that
these stories of the appearances of our Lord
gives us is that they come from those who
had had experience of the events, that they
were afterwards written down, while later an
attempt was made to construct a connected
narrative. S. Paul gives a summary of the
more important appearance of which he had
information, but, it must be remarked, with no
determination of locality at all. What S. Mark
originally contained we do not know ; the
present ending is a later summary based prob
ably on S. Luke and S. John, or at any rate
agreeing with them. S. Matthew gives a
Galilean appearance. S. Luke in his capacity
as an historian has formed a clear idea of how
the Gospel arose in Jerusalem. He confines the
appearances entirely to that city, and he ignores
if he does not entirely neglect the possibility of

262 THE RESURRECTION
any having happened in Galilee. S. John in
the Gospel gives us an exact account of appear
ances at Jerusalem, in the Appendix of events
in Galilee, and his story reads like an inde
pendent and direct reminiscence. There were
undoubtedly a large number of clear and
definite stories narrated by those who had seen
the risen Lord, and the Apostles believed that
they had good evidence for the faith that they
preached. Now the corroborative line of argument
which makes us believe that these stories repre
sent a real experience is that something must
have happened to explain and account for sub
sequent events. We know that the arrest and
death of their Lord and Master had been almost
too much for the faith of the disciples ; they
forsook Him and fled. They were overwhelmed
with a sense of failure and defeat. Something
happened which transformed their thoughts,
which changed their lives, and turned them into
enthusiastic preachers of a living Christ. What
was the cause of this change ? The reason
which they give is one that appears sufficient
and adequate. They had seen the risen Lord,
they knew that He who was crucified lived.
The Resurrection had power to change those
timid Galilean peasants into fearless Evangelists.
If you take away the Resurrection you cannot
account for the preaching of the Gospel. If

THE RESURRECTION EXPLAINED 263
you leave the Resurrection, you have adequate
and sufficient cause for Avhat happened after
wards. It is needless to remark that every attempt
has been made to explain away the evidence.
It would not be possible, and it would hardly
be profitable, to go into all the criticism which
has been applied to the Resurrection narratives.
What I Avould draw your attention to is hoAV
mutually destructive of one another are the
various theories put forth. There is one set
of critics who are so impressed by the reality
of the evidence for the empty tomb and the
character of the stories of the risen Lord, that
they suggest that He had not really died upon
the Cross, that His disciples had recovered His
body, and that He had revived and afterwards
made appearances to His disciples in a dramatic
and striking manner. It is really impossible in
the face of the story of the Crucifixion, the
Death, and the Burial of our Lord, to believe
that this is true. It is still more impossible to
believe it on moral grounds. But the chief
value of drawing attention to these theories is
that they serve to bring out how striking the
evidence for the Resurrection really is. The
existence of such an hypothesis shews that its
authors do not feel that the ordinary explanation
of subjective appearances in any form is sufficient
to account for the facts. The story of the

264 THE RESURRECTION
discovery of the empty tomb is too strong,
the appearances are of such a character, the
evidence is so wide and varied, the circumstances
attending them are such, that no theory of sub
jective vision is sufficient. An hypothesis to be
accepted must be one that will give an adequate
explanation of the facts, and will account for
the origin of the different narratives. Neither
of the tAvo lines of explanation is capable of
doing that.
Nor will any of those which would suggest
what we may call a modified supernaturalism.
There are some people who are willing to believe
in the supernatural if it is not too obviously
asserted. Such a position is that of Professor
Harnack as put fonvard in his lectures on
the Nature of Christianity. He would have
us distinguish the Easter Faith and the
Easter Message. We are to accept the faith
whatever difficulties we may have about the
message. " The Easter message tells us of that wonder
ful event in Joseph of Arimathaea's garden,
which, however, no eye saw ; it tells us of the
empty grave into which a few women and
disciples looked ; of the appearance of the Lord
in a transfigured form — so glorified that His
own could not immediately recognize Him ; it
soon begins to tell us too, of what the Risen One
said and did. The reports became more and
more complete, and more and more confident.

HARNACK'S THEORY 265
But the Easter faith is the conviction that the
crucified one gained a victory over death ; that
God is just and powerful ; that he who is the
firstborn among many brethren still lives. Paul
based his Easter faith upon the certainty that
' the second Adam ' was from heaven, and upon
his experience, on the way to Damascus, of
God revealing His Son to him as still alive.
God, he said, revealed him ' in me ' ; but this
inner revelation was coupled with ' a vision '
overwhelming as vision never was afterwards." :
And then later, he goes on : " Either we must
decide to rest our belief on a foundation unstable
and always exposed to fresh doubts, or else we
must abandon this foundation altogether, and
with it the miraculous appeal to our senses.
But here, too, the images of the faith have their
roots in truth and reality. Whatever may have
happened at the grave and in the matter of the
appearances, one thing is certain : This grave
was the birth of the indestructible belief that
death is vanquished, and that there is a life
eternal."2

It is a little difficult to follow accurately
what Professor Harnack means, but apparently
he would have us accept the belief that Jesus
lives, and the hope of immortality based upon
that belief, but dispense with all the evidence
in favour of this belief in the Gospel. But on
1 Harnack, What is Christianity, p. 161.
2 Op. cit., p. 162.

266 THE RESURRECTION
Avhat evidence do Ave base our belief if we discard
the evidence given ? No doubt the Apostles as
ourselves had such spiritual experience as helped
them to believe, and they found that their
life in the faith corroborated that faith. But
clearly and undoubtedly the Church believed
that its Master had risen because they had seen
Him, had spoken Avith Him, and even touched
Him. The tomb was empty and He had come
to them. 1 do not think that we have grounds
for accepting the belief if we reject the evi
dence given, and the evidence has been rejected
because the belief has been held to be impossible.
S. Paul believed not only because of his own
personal experience, but because he had behind
him the belief of the Church. The belief of
the Church existed and was known to him before
his conversion. The conversion did not mean
accepting an individual opinion, but joining a
number of persons who had like faith with him,
and then he found that they had good grounds
for that faith. We cannot, of course, interpret
the facts of Christianity in terms of spiritual
experience unless we have real experience of our
own. Neither the testimony of a book nor that
of a society can make faith real unless there
be a reality in ourselves ; but the religious ex
perience necessary for that reality is condi
tioned by the experience of the Church and
by the body of facts which are necessary

IMPOSTURE 267
to give the intellectual basis which makes it
possible. I have not thought it necessary to consider
one line of argument. In the early days of
attacks upon Christianity, when people's minds
were more crude perhaps than they now are,
it was suggested that the whole story arose
from the deception of the disciples. There are
few persons who would have the courage to
hold, or at any rate to teach, such a theory now
adays, for we have learned that certain things
are morally impossible. If we have any belief
in divine providence, it would be quite im
possible on any theory of the divine government
of the world to believe that a religion which had
had such a transcendent influence on the human
race could be built up on direct and conscious
fraud, nor would it be consistent with what we
know of human nature. There are some things
which are impossible.
We read how some power came which trans
formed those Galilean peasants into great
preachers of the Gospel of Christ, which sent
them out into the unknown world with this
new message, which gave them courage to lay
down their lives for what they believed to be
the truth. To suggest that such a history should
be built up on conscious fraud, that men's lives
should be transformed by what they knew to be
untrue is to make impossible demands on our

268 THE RESURRECTION
credulity. The reality of the preaching of
Christianity and the lives of its preachers is
sufficient evidence that they believed what they
taught, and the evidence that they give us is
sufficient to convince us that they had good
grounds for their belief.

LECTURE VII
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
Character of the Evidence. The Text of the Narratives.
Importance of the Gospel Testimony. The Argument
from Silence. The Church Tradition. Ignatius.
Aristides. Justin Martyr. The Ascension of Isaiah.
The Odes of Solomon. Jewish Calumnies. Explana
tions. The Place of the Virgin Birth in Christian
Theology.
The miracle of the Virgin Birth differs from
that of the Resurrection in two important points.
The testimony for it is not so good, and it never
had the same evidential value for Christianity.
All the Apostles were witnesses of the Resurrec
tion ; they had, as they believed, good grounds
for accepting what they taught. If the facts
as reported are true, they had good grounds.
The tomb was empty, they had seen the risen
Lord in His glorified body. He had spoken
with them in a manner that could leave no
doubt in their own minds as to His identity.
As regards the Virgin Birth there was not, and
there could not be, any such evidence. We
369

270 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
believe it not for the particular evidence in its
favour, but because it comes to us as part of
the Christian tradition, and harmonizes with
that tradition.
Nor did the belief play any part in the
preaching of Christianity. The Apostles could
put forward the Resurrection as good ground
for believing that Jesus was the Messiah. It
Avas not the only reason for which men accepted
its message, but it formed a part — and an im
portant part — of the body of evidence which
influenced people's minds. Few, or none,
accepted Christianity because of the Virgin
Birth. It was not part of the ordinary preaching ;
but converts Avould learn of it during the period
of instruction, and it was enshrined in the Creed
into which they were baptized. It came to them
Avith authority as part of the Church's teaching,
but they did not believe because of it.
I am not sure that its value as a witness has
not been greater as time has gone on, and that the
beautiful figure of the Virgin Mother appealing
to and arousing some of the highest human
sentiments has not been one of the strongest
influences in creating religious devotion and
elevating the purity of human life.

TEXTUAL QUESTIONS 271

The evidence for the Virgin Birth is
primarily the witness of the two Gospels, S.
Matthew and S. Luke, which give an account
of the Nativity. We must, to begin with, refer
to certain textual questions that have been
raised concerning each narrative.
In the Sinaitic MS. of the Syriac Version —
the discovery of which, some twenty years ago,
attracted so much attention — the concluding
verse of the genealogy in S. Matthew runs as
follows': — " Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary
the Virgin, begat Jesus who is called the Christ."
Now it has been argued that this variant, which
harmonizes with some others known, probably
implies an original which simply stated that
Joseph begat Jesus, and that in any case the
use of the word ' begat ' implies that the
compiler of the genealogy did not accept the
story of the Virgin Birth. On the first point
it may be noted that while we cannot be quite
certain as to the original form of the reading,
there is not the slightest evidence of its ever
having existed in any form which did not call
Mary the Virgin ; while secondly no stress can
be laid on the term 'begat,' for it is clearly
used throughout the genealogy to imply legal
relationship. The whole genealogy is official ;

272 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
many links are left out, and in all cases the
word is used without any reference to its
physical meaning. But there is a further reason
that suggests that the compiler of the genealogy
believed in the Virgin Birth. We will quote
Dr Moffatt's Introduction :
" A further apologetic motive is evident in
the introduction of the women's names,
especially of Rahab, Tamar, and Bathsheba.
They reflect the Jewish slanders which the
author desired to rebut, not only by stating
what he believed to be the truth about Mary,
but by arguing that, even on the Jewish level,
Avomen of irregular life played an honoured role
in the history of the Davidic lineage. Mary's
character, he proceeds to argue, was not
irregular. Hoav much less, therefore (the
inference is), are Jewish objections to her and
to Jesus justified ! " l
The genealogy thus harmonizes with and is a
fitting introduction to the story in the first
chapter, and that story is of such a character
that the belief in the Virgin Birth cannot be
eliminated from it. " No hypothesis," says Dr
Moffatt, " of literary criticism or textual
emendation can disentangle the conception of a
virgin birth from a story which is wrought
together and woven on one loom."2
1 Moffatt, Introduction, p. 251 ; see Allen, Expository
Times, xi. 135 f . ; Zahn, Einleitung, 271-275, 290 (E. T., ii.
533-539, 563). 2 Ibid.

STORY OF S. LUKE 273
If the suggestion that the reference to the
women in the genealogy arose from the existence
of Jewish calumnies be at all well founded, it
will shew how early these calumnies came into
existence, and by consequence that the story of
the Virgin Birth is not, as has been asserted, a
late introduction into Christian history.
A similar attempt has been made, in this
case with even less external justification, to
eliminate the Virgin Birth from the story in S.
Luke. It is argued that verses 34 and 35 in
the first chapter may be omitted, and that to do
this will improve the story. The words are,
" And Mary said unto the Angel, How shall this
be, seeing I know not a man ? And the Angel
answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost
shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Most High shall overshadow thee : wherefore
also that which is to be born shall be called
Holy, the Son of God." Now, it must be stated
at once that there is no reason for omitting
these words except alleged internal evidence.
There is no external authority of any value for
doing so. It is true that verse 34 is omitted in
one Latin MS. ; that seems to arise from a
confusion of the text, and on no theory of
textual criticism would it be legitimate to
omit a verse on such authority. Not only is
there no evidence for omitting verse 35, but
it is one of the earliest supported verses in
s

274 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
the New Testament, being quoted by Justin
Martyr. *
But a careful study of the context will shew
that the verses cannot be omitted, and even if
they were omitted the Virgin Birth is implied
in the rest of the narrative. If Mary had not
been known as the Virgin the word would not
have been used, as it is twice in verse 27, "to
a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was
Joseph, of the house >of David; and the
virgin's name was Mary," nor Avould there be
any point in verses 36 and 37, which imply
that a miraculous event is happening in the
case of Elizabeth as in the case of Mary : " And
behold Elizabeth thy kinswoman, she also hath
conceived a son in her old age : and this is the
sixth month with her that was called barren.
For with God no word shall be impossible."
I think we may add also that Mary's words in
verse 38 are exactly consistent with the
announcement made to her : " And Mary said,
Behold the handmaid of the Lord ; be it unto
me according to thy word." For the angelic
message implied that she would have to endure
suspicion and reproach from those who were
ignorant. If it had not been for the prejudice which
is felt in many minds against the idea of the
Virgin Birth, I am quite sure that no one would
' See page 283.

CHARACTER OF NARRATIVES 275
have attempted to eliminate the evidence from
either Gospel on textual grounds ; and this
investigation will furnish an instance of the
manner in which critics feel themselves justified
in playing with texts to prove their point. If
in the case of orthodox doctrine such essays
at textual criticism were made, they would be
treated with contempt, and we have an equal
right to be contemptuous. There are certain
recognized rules of evidence, and within certain
limits scientific principles of textual criticism have
been established. It is not legitimate to depart
from these principles even for the sake of dis
proving an article of the Christian creed.
I do not think that there is any real doubt
that both the Gospels contained from the
beginning the story of the Virgin Birth, and
it is important to emphasize how early this
evidence must be. In the first place the two
narratives are clearly independent. It has been
asserted that in some points they are inconsistent
with one another. That inconsistency is only
gained by reading into one or other narrative
statements that are not made. For example,
it is never asserted in S. Matthew that Bethlehem
was the original home of Joseph and Mary,
nor is it necessarily implied. For our purpose
that does not matter, for the important point
to us is that the belief in the Virgin Birth, which
is contained in two quite independent documents,

276 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
must be older than either, and independent of
them both. Had the belief been of later
growth, it would have been developed in one
particular circle, and in one particular form.
As it is, clearly it is not dependent on either
of these sets of stories.
For that reason it is not necessary to discuss
the credibility generally either of S. Matthew
or S. Luke's account, for whether they are
true or not in some of their details, does
not affect the point. The belief in the Virgin
Birth is independent of the details of the two
stories. There has, of course, been a large
amount of discussion about the taxing of
Quirinius, and that is just one of those points
which exercise the ingenuity of the classical
scholar. But it does not touch the heart of
the question. It may be that S. Luke was
mistaken. In that case his method is clear.
He was anxious when he could to connect
his narrative with the course of general
history. He inserts names and details where
he could. If in some of his calculations
regarding the secular history he is mistaken,
this does not take away from the credibility
of his sources. Then he is also anxious to
account for the birth at Bethlehem. He knew
that Joseph and Mary had lived at Nazareth.
How did it happen that the birth took place
at Bethlehem ? He suggests an explanation.

ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE 277
But it was an explanation of facts which he
knew on other grounds. The birth at Bethlehem
is known to us from an independent source —
the Gospel of S. Matthew. S. Luke, then,
did not invent the birth at Bethlehem as part
of the story, but he received it as part of
Christian tradition, and then tried to harmonize
it with facts of secular history. These two facts,
then — the Virgin Birth and the birth at
Bethlehem — are part of Christian tradition
independent of the particular form that the
story assumes whether in S. Matthew or in
S. Luke. There is no reason to doubt their
truth, even if there may be difficulties about
any special Nativity story.
To conclude — the two Gospels which alone
contain any account of our Lord's birth witness
to an early Christian tradition which stated
that He was born of the Virgin Mary.

II

Great stress has been laid on the argument
from silence. It has been pointed out that
nothing is said on the subject in S. Paul's
epistles, in the earliest Gospel, or even in
S. John. It is argued, therefore, that the
Virgin Birth is a late tradition that gradually
grew up.

278 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
Now the argument from silence is always
precarious. How little stress can be laid on
it in this case a single instance will shew. There
is no reference to the Virgin Birth in the Acts
of the Apostles. This is really quite natural,
because it was not part of the ordinary apostolic
missionary preaching. It would not be likely
that it should be. It did not give any proof
to outsiders. It was something that the convert
would learn later, and would then harmonize
with his other beliefs ; but it was not part of
the missionary preaching of the Apostles such
as S. Luke gives in the Acts. There was there
fore no need for it to be mentioned ; but we
know that S. Luke also wrote the Gospel, and
he wrote it before the Acts. Therefore he
clearly knew of the Virgin Birth as part of
the Christian teaching. If we had not the
Gospel but only the Acts, it would at once
have been argued that the author of that book
had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth. This
is an instance which brings out how little stress
can be laid on the argument from silence. The
writers of the books of the New Testament
composed their works to meet the needs of
their own day, and did not write to assist people
in the twentieth century in the particular
controversy in which they might be engaged.
A slight consideration will shew that neither
in S. Mark nor in S. John would an account of

S. MARK AND S. JOHN 279
the birth of Jesus be natural. S. Mark's Gospel
is based upon the preaching of the Apostles,
the witness that they gave of the things that
they had seen and known from the time of the
baptism of John, and in all probability it was
on the particular witness of S. Peter that it
mainly rested. Now he could not be a witness
as regards the birth, and therefore it would
not be part of his normal teaching ; and it is
significant that S. Luke himself recognized
these limits when describing the election of
Matthias and the qualifications of an Apostle.
In the same way the Gospel of S. John claims
to contain the special witness of " the beloved
disciple." There again a story of the Nativity
would be quite out of place, nor can either
Gospel be quoted against the belief even if we
cannot lay stress on the passages which have
been adduced in its favour. Nor again would
it, we believe, be legitimate to lay stress on
the various reading of S. John i. 13, "who
was born not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,"
although it is accepted by many leading critics
of the present day, and would undoubtedly be
a more natural statement than the ordinary
reading. It is difficult to understand what is
meant by saying that ordinary human beings
were born " not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man." We must

280 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
content ourselves with asserting that there is
nothing in either Gospel which could make
us doubt the story of the Virgin Birth, and
that it was not in accordance with the plan
of the writers that they should give any
account of the Nativity. All the books of the
New Testament are very short, and it is obvious
that the writers in producing them must in
each case have confined themselves to the
particular purpose they had in view.
Similarly it is never safe to argue from the
silence of S. Paul. His letters were in all
cases occasional documents. They assume the
ordinary Christian preaching and the ordinary
knowledge of the Gospel history. They were not
Avritten to provide future ages with a complete
idea of what Christianity was, and in a sense it
must be considered accidental that any particular
point of early Christianity is found in them.
Supposing that 1 Corinthians had not survived,
it would have been the customary thing to argue
that S. Paul knew nothing at all about the Lord's
Supper. S. Paul's Christological doctrine was
of such a character that it would be natural for
him to believe that our Lord was born in a
remarkable manner. Stress is by some kid on
the words "born of a woman, born under the
law," but the phrase ' woman-born ' is so pro
verbial that it would hardly be legitimate to
base anything on this expression. It is more

TESTIMONY OF TRADITION 281
important to emphasize the general statement
of S. Paul that the Second Man was from
heaven, and his conception of our Lord as free
from any taint of Adam's sin such as might be
engendered by ordinary human birth. We
may not have sufficient evidence to assert that
S. Paul must have known the story and must
have accepted it, although the fact of his
relation to S. Luke would make it extremely
probable. We can argue quite definitely that
he had such a conception of the person of
Christ, of His heavenly origin, of His freedom
from sin, as might seem to justify the belief
in His supernatural birth.

Ill

The belief in the Virgin Birth is one of
those historical facts in relation to which tradi
tion corroborates and strengthens the testimony
of the New Testament. It appeared in the
earliest form of the Roman creed, which is
placed by Kattenbusch as early as the year 100
and cannot be much later, the words being,
" He was born of the Holy Ghost from the
Virgin Mary." This corresponds with the fact
that we find it part of the regular Church tradi
tion from the beginning of the second century.
So Ignatius, writing to the Ephesians :

282 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
" For our God, Jesus the Christ, was con
ceived in the womb by Mary according to a
dispensation, of the seed of David but also of
the Holy Ghost ; and He was born and was
baptized that by His passion He might cleanse
water. And hidden from the prince of this
Avorld were the virginity of Mary and her child-
bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord
— three mysteries to be cried aloud — which were
wrought in the silence of God." 1
And again in his letter to the Smyrnaeans :
" Fully persuaded as touching our Lord that
He is truly of the race of David according to
the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and
power, truly born of a virgin and baptized by John
that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him." 2
One of the earliest Christian Apologists was
Aristides, the discovery of whose work about
twenty years ago created so much interest. He
says :
" The Christians, then, reckon the beginning
of their religion from Jesus Christ, who is named
the Son of God Most High ; and it is said that
God came down from heaven, and from a Hehrew
virgin took and clad Himself with flesh, and in
a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God." 3
1 Ign. ad Eph. 18, 19. 2 Ign. ad Smyr. 1.
8 Aristides, Syriac Version, chapter ii. In the Greek
(chapter xv. ed. Robinson) the text is as follows : " Kai Ik
Trapdevov aytas ytvvijdets, dcriropoys re Kal afydopm, o-dpKa
avtAa^Se, Kal dve<j>dvn dvdpoyKois, ottcus e/c t^s iroXvdiov irXdv-ni
avrovs avaKaAt'oTjTai."

JUSTIN MARTYR 283
The third testimony may be selected from
the writings of Justin Martyr, in particular
because of the testimony it gives to the verses
of S. Luke referred to above.
" The words, then, ' Behold a virgin shall con
ceive' signify that the Virgin should conceiA^e
without intercourse ; for, if she had had inter
course with any one whatsoever, she would
have been no longer a virgin. But the Power
of God coming upon the Virgin overshadowed
her, and caused her, being a virgin, to conceive.
And the Angel of God, who was sent to the
virgin herself at that time, brought her good
tidings saying, 'Behold thou shalt conceive
in thy womb of the Holy Ghost, and shalt
bring forth a Son, and He shall be called the
Son of the Most High, and thou shalt call His
name Jesus, for He shall deliver His people from
their sins,' as they who have related all the
things about our Saviour Jesus Christ taught." 1
It is unnecessary to continue our quotations
later. These are sufficient to shew that this
was a regular part of the normal Christian
teaching as far back as we have evidence to
go upon. There are, however, two writings
of a more Apocryphal character which are
worth referring to.
Among the many curious Apocryphal writings
preserved, one is the Ascension of Isaiah. It is
a composite work. The following passage seems
1 Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 33.

284 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
to have been proved to belong certainly to the
original Greek form of the work, and probably
also to its archetype. I do not, hoAvever, feel
certain as to the statement of Dr Charles that
it must have been known to Ignatius. The
following is the quotation : —
" After this I saw, and the angel who spoke
with me, who conducted me, said unto me :
' Understand, Isaiah son of Amos ; for this
purpose have I been sent from God.' And
I indeed saw a woman of the family of David
the prophet, named Mary, a virgin, and she
was espoused to a man named Joseph, a
carpenter, and he also was of the seed and
family of the righteous David of Bethlehem
Judah. And he came into his lot. And when
she was espoused, she was found with child,
and Joseph the carpenter was desirous to put
her away. But the angel of the Spirit appeared
in this world, and after that Joseph did not
put her away, but kept Mary and did not
reveal the matter to any one. And he did not
approach Mary, but kept her as a holy virgin,
though with child. And he did not live with
her for two months. And after two months
of days while Joseph was in his house and Mary
his wife, but both alone, it came to pass that
when they were alone Mary straightway looked
with her eyes and saw a small babe, and
she was astonied. And after she had been
astonied, her womb was found as formerly before
she had conceived. And when her husband
Joseph said unto her : ' What astonied thee ? '

ODES OF SOLOMON 285
his eyes were opened and he saw the infant,
and praised God, because into his portion God
had come. And a voice came to them: 'Tell
this vision to no one.' And the story regarding
the infant was noised abroad in Bethlehem.
Some said : ' The Virgin Mary hath borne a
child, before she was married two months.' And
many said : ' She has not borne a child, nor
has a midwife gone up to her, nor have we
heard the cries of pains.' And they were all
blinded respecting Him, and they all knew
regarding Him, though they knew not whence
He was. And they took Him, and went to
Nazareth in Galilee." 1
Very similar testimony is that given in
the newly discovered Odes of Solomon. It is
particularly remarkable that this passage should
occur in one of the odes for which we have
not only the testimony of the newly discovered
Syriac Version, but also that of Lactantius,
who not only quotes it, but gives its number
in the collection. The following is the passage : —
"The Spirit opened the womb of the
Virgin, and she received conception and brought
forth ; and the Virgin became a Mother with
many mercies ; and she travailed and brought
forth a Son, without incurring pain ; and because
she was not sufficiently prepared, and she had
not sought a midwife (for He brought her to
1 The Ascension of Isaiah, ed. Charles, xi. 1-15; see
Introduction, pp. xxii., xxiv.

286 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
bear), she brought forth, as if she were a man,
of her own will ; and she brought Him
forth openly, and acquired Him with great
dignity, and loved Him in His swaddling clothes,
and guarded Him kindly, and shewed Him in
majesty." 1
Dr Rendel Harris is of opinion that the
Odes of Solomon should be placed in the First
century, but when he comes to this passage
he feels inclined to date it later. It is impossible,
he says, that the doctrine of the miraculous
birth should be so highly developed in the
first century, and he suggests, therefore, that
it would be necessary to depress the date of
this ode to the second century. There is, of
course, underlying this, the assumption that the
belief in the Virgin Birth was a later addition
to Christianity, since it would have been quite
impossible for such a legendary amplification
to be introduced earlier. Personally I am
not of opinion that the Odes of Solomon
should be put so early as Dr Rendel
Harris would place them. I believe that they
date from early in the second century, and
that they represent just the same fantastic
development of Christianity of which we find
some trace in Ignatius, and which grew later
into the Apocryphal Gospels. But the important
point for our purpose is to note that if in quite
1 The Odes of Solomon, ed. by Rendel Harris, xix. 6-10.

ORIGEN AND CELSUS 287
early documents like the Ascension of Isaiah
and the Odes of Solomon we find these develop
ments, it is an additional testimony that the
belief dates from the early days of Christianity,
and was not, as has been suggested, a later
addition. Still more important for our purpose are
the Jewish calumnies which were noticed by
Celsus in his argument against Christianity, and
are referred to by Origen in his Avork against
that philosopher. The following are the
passages : —
"After these things he introduces a Jew
disputing with Jesus Himself and refuting Him,
as he thinks, on many points ; first of all, as
having invented the birth from a virgin. He
reproaches Him as having been born in a Jewish
village, of a woman in the country who was
poor and worked with her hands. He says she
had been turned out of his house by her husband,
a carpenter by trade, having been convicted of
adultery. Then he says that she, having been
thus cast out by her husband, and wandering
about in disgrace, brought forth Jesus in secret :
and that He, having hired Himself out into Egypt
owing to His poverty, and there having learned
certain magic rites on which the Egyptians
prided themselves, returned to His own country
highly elated with this, and by means of them
proclaimed Himself God." 1
1 Origen, Contra Celsum, I. xxviii,

288 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
Again, later, he returns to the same subject :
" But let us return again to the place where
the Jew is introduced, where it is recorded that
the Mother of Jesus was thrust out by a carpenter
who was betrothed to her, as having been con
victed of adultery and bearing a son to a
certain soldier named Panthera, and let us see
whether those who have blindly invented these
stories of the adultery of the Virgin and of
Panthera, and of the carpenter who thrust her out,
did not invent all these things to overthrow the
miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost ; for
they could have falsified the history in some
other way owing to its marvellous character,
and not have unconsciously joined in establish
ing that Jesus was not born of an ordinary
marriage. It was naturally to be expected that
those who could not believe in the marvellous
birth of Jesus would invent some false story ; but
they did not do it in a plausible manner, for
by preserving the tradition that the Virgin did
not conceive from Joseph, they made clear the
falsity of their position to those accustomed to
criticism."1 There can, I think, be no doubt that Origen
is right and that this story which Celsus reports
as a Jewish calumny was invented because of
the belief in the Virgin Birth in order to throw
contempt and discredit on the story. The name
of the soldier ' Panthera ' was clearly a corruption
of Parthenos (virgin). Hoav early this calumny
1 Op. cit., I. 32.

OPINIONS OF HERETICS 289
arose we cannot tell ; certainly it Avas not late
in arising, and it implies, of course, that the
Christian story of the Virgin Birth was earlier.
It is interesting to notice that here, as in the
case of the Resurrection, the false reports spread
by the Jews have strengthened the evidence for
the Christian tradition.1
There are only two instances so far as I am
aware of any disbelief among Christians of the
Virgin Birth. It Avas accepted not only by the
orthodox but by the great body of heretics as
well. There were, however, certain Ebionites
or Jewish Christians who denied it. There Avere
some Jewish Christians who accepted the belief
that Jesus was God ; others, on the other hand,
allowed that He was the Messiah, but said that
he Avas only a man born of Joseph and Mary.
These latter seem to have been a small and
unimportant body of people, and represented
the extreme wing of Jewish Christianity. There
is, however, no evidence at all for the belief that
they represented, as has been asserted, a more
primitive Christianity. They represented rather
the opinion of certain Jews who tried to com
promise between Judaism and Christianity, but
wished to preserve all their Jewish habits and
their Jewish prejudices. Cerinthus also is stated
1 It is I think quite possible that this tradition arose
from the knowledge that our Lord was not the son of Joseph.
See Church Quarterly Review, October 1914. T

290 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
to have held that the man Jesus was the son of
Joseph and Mary. That was because he believed
that it was only at the baptism that the Christ
descended upon Him.
To sum up this part of our investigation.
There can be no doubt that the Virgin Birth
Avas part of the orthodox tradition of the
Christian Church throughout the second century,
and that it was looked upon as part of the
Christian creed. It was accepted not only by
the orthodox, but by the great body of heretics.
Already legendary details similar to those which
we find in the late Apocryphal Gospels are
beginning to grow up round it, while the attacks
upon it made by the Jews, and the calumnies
that they circulated, combine to strengthen our
belief in its early date and its original character
as part of the primitive Christian tradition.

IV

Various theories have been put forward to
account for the belief in the Virgin Birth. It
has been suggested that it arose from a desire
to find a fulfilment for the well-known passage
in Isaiah, and attention has been drawn to the
stress laid by S. Matthew on the fulfilment of
prophecy. It is, of course, quite true that the
author of the First Gospel is most anxious to

FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY 291
impress on us the fact that Jesus as the Messiah
of the Jews fulfilled the Old Testament ; but
there is sufficient evidence to shew in almost
every case that it Avas not the prophecy that
suggested the narratives, but the narratives
came first and were found to be the fulfilment
of the prophecy selected.
If we study the Gospel as a whole, we shall
see that S. Matthew, in those parts of the
narrative which he derived from S. Mark, in
various cases appends passages from the prophets
to incidents which he thinks were the fulfil
ment of them. And if we examine the
passages quoted in the first two chapters, it
will make it very difficult to believe that the
story was invented to fulfil the prophecy.
It was, for example, quite natural and in
accordance with the then prevailing views about
the use of Scripture for anyone who knew of
the flight into Egypt to quote the well-known
passage from Hosea, " Out of Egypt have I
called my Son," as a prophecy fulfilled ; but it
would have been hardly natural for him to
invent the narrative in order to find a fulfilment
of that prophecy, for the original passage does
not refer to the personal Messiah but to Israel :
" When Israel was a child, then I loved him and
called my son out of Egypt." A student of the
Old Testament who kneAV of the massacre of the
Innocents might naturally find an analogy in the

292 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
well-known text in Jeremiah about Rachel
weeping for her children. But it is not a passage
which prima facie has any Messianic bearing, and
it would not have been natural to invent the
narrative in order to find a fulfilment to that
prophecy. And so again if the story of the
Magi had arisen to fulfil the Isaianic prophecy,
they would have been made kings, as in fact later
Christian tradition made them, and not Magi.
We haAre further to remember that in the
passage from Isaiah, which is quoted in relation
to the Virgin Birth, the word used in the
original does not mean a virgin, but a young
woman of marriageable age ; that there was
no expectation so far as we can judge of a
Virgin Birth ; and that it was, so far as we can
judge, inconsistent with ordinary Jewish expecta
tions and prejudices. Naturally, if the story
of the Virgin Birth were known, a passage
which might be so quoted would be selected as
representing an analogy from the Old Testa
ment. The Christian controversialist who
searched the Old Testament for proofs and
prophecies, seeking to find them according to
Jewish methods of exegesis, would bring
forward passages which were not completely
relevant, or would impose on them a more or
less unnatural interpretation ; but such passages,
which are so obviously misquoted and had not
originally a Messianic reference, Avould not be

GREEK MYTHOLOGY 293
likely to create such a story when that fulfilment
was not expected.
Another source for the growth of this story
has been sought in the analogy of Greek
mythology. Now it was quite natural that this
analogy should come to be pressed later, and
we see references to it in Justin Martyr, where he
points out the difference between the two
conceptions ; but to find traces of any Hellenic
influence in S. Matthew or in the early chapters
of S. Luke is exceedingly difficult. The First
Gospel bears all the traces of having been
written under undoubtedly Jewish influences ;
the author of it seems to look only to the
fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. The early
chapters in idea and thought are essentially
Jewish. The genealogy, the story of the Magi,
the birth at Bethlehem, the lamentations of
Rachel, shew no traces of Hellenic ideas. To
find Hellenic influence in these entirely Hebraic
surroundings would be most strange. It is
true, of course, that S. Luke was probably a
Greek, and his Gospel is more universalist in
character than any of the others ; but it is
particularly remarkable that the early chapters
shew throughout an Aramaic colouring. They
are written throughout from a Jewish point
of view ; they are full of references to Jewish
customs. Whether this came from tradition or
from the use of an early Aramaic source we do

294 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
not know ; what is clear is that there seems to
be no trace in the chapters as a whole of Greek
influence. Greek mythological influences and
conceptions were entirely different in character
from the ideas which are present in the Gospels,
and just those sections which give an account of
the Virgin Birth are the ones where there is the
least trace of any other than JeAvish influence.
The attempt to find an analogy with the
Buddhist birth-stories, which are really late in
origin and have most probably grown up under
Christian influence, seems far-fetched ; as also
does the industry with which stories of other
analogies are sought out. It is curious how
the very slightest and most obscure analogy
is raked up from any mythical source and
supposed to have influenced the narrative of
the Gospel. The analogy is generally so slight
that it rarely succeeds in convincing any but
those who have discovered it, and each new
investigator puts forward some new theory.
But a sort of vague idea is created that, where
there are so many suggested analogies, some
one or other must hold good. So we shall find
when we investigate the different explanations
of miracles or methods of explaining them away
which have been suggested, it is argued that
some one of the suggestions made must be true.
All this represents a very unconvincing type of
argument. It obtains any cogency that it has

VALUE OF THE BELIEF 295
because the assumption is made that the story
in the Gospel is not historical, that, therefore,
it must have grown up in some way, even if we
do not know how. But is it not possible that
the simplest and truest explanation is that the
story is true ?

V

We stated at the beginning that the evidence
for the Virgin Birth is not of the same character
as that for the Resurrection, that it could not
be so widely knoAvn, and that we accepted the
belief as part of the Christian revelation as a
whole. But if the evidence could not be so
cogent as in some cases, so far as it goes it is
good, and I would suggest that so far from our
having any reason for discrediting it, the fact
of the hold of the story on the Christian con
sciousness, and its connexion Avith Christian
theology, are good reasons for accepting it.
I would suggest first of all that the extra
ordinary hold that the birth-stories of Jesus
have had on the Christian mind is some evidence
for them. Christianity was to be a religion for
all peoples ; it is a religion, not a philosophy ; a
religion capable of being embodied in simple
stories which appeal to the human mind, to the
simple and untaught as well as to the educated
and thoughtful. It may be argued that the

296 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
stories have had their day. I think not. I
think that probably most of us will feel that
however lofty may be the theological and
philosophical conceptions which have been built
up round Christianity and appeal to our intel
lectual needs, it is still the simple Gospel
narratives which have the greatest hold upon
our heart. Our own religion is simple, and a
simple story means much more for us than an
elaborate dogmatic statement. A Christmas
hymn can stir us far more than many a Christmas
sermon. Of course it might be argued that we
are dealing with myths, true in idea but not in
history. I do not think it likely that such
prominent parts of the Gospel would be untrue,
nor do I see any particular grounds for thinking
that they are.
For they are not the sort of story which the
ordinary mythopoeic tendency would build up ;
what the natural human consciousness might
invent may be seen in the Apocryphal Gospels
and Acts, and there is no part of the story
where the contrast between the Gospels and
Apocryphal writings is more conspicuous than
in the stories of the Nativity. Even the two
specimens of incipient Apocryphal development
which have been referred to above will be
sufficient to mark the contrast, and anyone
who desires to see how great it is should study
the Protevangelium of James, or the summary

ITS THEOLOGICAL VALUE 297
of all the Apocryphal stories given in the
Annals of Baronius. If God teaches mankind
through stories why should not the birth of
Jesus and the incidents attending it have been
such as to give these lessons. The Gospels are
throughout on the plane of the simplest and
purest human nature, and are not influenced by
any ideas of academic propriety.
And as the stories appeal to the natural
religious instincts of man, so it has always been
felt that they harmonize with Christian theology.
I am not prepared to say as some would say
that the Incarnation could only have happened
in the way that it has done. I do not personally
care for those a priori methods of argument ;
but 1 think we may simply say that we feel
the Virgin Birth does take its natural place in
the scheme of Christian theology.
It emphasizes in the first place the Avay in
which the Incarnation is a new departure in the
history of mankind. We have shewn that such
a conception is quite in harmony with the
analogy of nature, that there have been periods
when something new has come into the world.
This is what we believe happened at the
Incarnation, and it is not out of harmony with
that thought that when human nature took a
new step in development, as a sign of the neAv
departure an event such as the birth of our
Lord in a marvellous way should take place.

298 THE VIRGIN BIRTH
And then it has created the whole of the
Christian ideal of motherhood. It is very
remarkable that there has never been anything
which we may call Manichean in the Christian
aspect of the Virgin Birth. The emphasis has
always been on the birth of our Lord and on
the figure of the Virgin Mother, and what
this belief has done for mankind has been to
emphasize the fact that motherhood is the end
and aim and ideal of Christian marriage. It
is this conception which, working throughout
Christian history, has built up the Christian
ideal of marriage, nor, I believe, is there any
thought or ideal more necessary than this at
the present day.
And then, lastly, it harmonizes with the
conception of the sinlessness of Jesus. What
we learn about Him is that He took human
nature to Himself, but human nature without
any touch of sin ; and Christian theology has
felt that the fact that He was born not
as we are, suits such a belief. It is not
possible of course to say that He must have been
born in that way, that He could not be sinless
if He were not ; but it is possible for us to feel
that if He as God came in the world taking
upon Him our human nature, but taking it
upon Him not in its stained and corrupted
form, His birth from the Virgin Mary is a
fitting accompaniment of such theology.

THE BEAUTY OF THE BELIEF 299
To those Avho do not believe in the Incarna
tion, I am not now speaking. Before we ask
them to accept the Virgin Birth they have
much to learn about Christianity as a whole ;
but there are some who are prepared to accept
the belief in the Incarnation but cannot be
lieve in the Virgin Birth. I would suggest to
them that they are really being led astray by
their imagination. The Incarnation itself, the
thought of God taking upon Him human nature,
is a miracle so stupendous as almost to be
impossible to realize. The additional fact that
this event took place through the Virgin Birth
makes little further demand upon our faith. From
the naturalistic point of view it is really one of
the least difficult of miracles ; from the Christian
point of view it is one of the most beautiful.
It has been one of the greatest inspirations of
Christian art, one of the purest influences on
Christian life. The Church has, therefore,
wisely retained it in her creed.

LECTURE VIII
EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
Character of our Evidence. Possibility of Explanations.
Theory of Matthew Arnold. Problem of Possession.
Miracles of Healing. The Mythopoeic Faculty. Coinci
dence. Symbolical Interpretation. The Feeding of
the Five Thousand. Conclusion.
So far we have been examining the evidence
for the miraculous occurrences in the New
Testament, and the conclusion we have arrived
at is that the evidence is good. That is to say,
if the events recorded were not such as to cause
us difficulties in accepting them, we should
give them credence as we should other events
recorded in history. That does not mean that
every event must necessarily have happened
exactly as it is recorded. We know that there
are differences between the narratives in the case
of events which are not miraculous, and therefore
we cannot tell exactly how any event happened.
We do not claim any other authority for the
writers than that of being good historians, and
they would therefore be subject to the same
800

MATTHEW ARNOLD 301
chance of error as other witnesses. They may
have made mistakes in some cases, or there
may have been some mistakes made by their
authorities ; but so far as we can judge they are
good witnesses, and the evidence they give us
is good evidence.
We have to come, then, to the statement
made by Matthew Arnold that it really does
not matter whether the evidence is good or
not ; we know how miracles came into existence.
They are the natural product of the mythopoeic
faculty of the human mind, and therefore we
do not believe them. A moment's consideration
will shew how very dangerous such a method
of argument is. Supposing we were to apply it
to history generally. We know how great the love
of legend is ; it is always creating picturesque
events, and loves striking and interesting details.
If for that reason we were, without any examina
tion, to rule out from history everything which
might be legendary, we should present a very
jejune affair to our readers. There are some
historians wfiose scepticism has been carried to
a point almost as extreme as the above : they
have eliminated a large amount of history. It
is recognized now that such methods are not
sound. We have no right to assume before
hand that events did not happen. We must
examine the evidence carefully in all cases.
And so with regard to miracles, we cannot

302 EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
assume that they are necessarily the result of
the mythopoeic faculty, and can thus be ex
plained away. We must examine the evidence
to see Avhether it is adequate, and the explana
tions to see whether they are reasonable.

I propose first of all to examine one particular
class of miracles, the problems in connexion
with which demand our special attention —
namely, the casting out of devils.
We may take it as generally admitted that
the expression " possessed Avith devils " or " with
a devil " was the ordinary term used to describe
that class of disease which we now designate
as ' nervous,' or more commonly group together
under the heading 'insanity.' There was prob
ably much at that date which intensified these
evils. We must realize what would be the
character of life in this country at the present
day, if all those now confined in asylums
were wandering at will over the country-side.
Neglect, cruelty, contempt would all intensify
the evil. The result must have been in many
cases appalling. Whether or no there were
special circumstances in that age, in the break
ing up of the fabric of society and the failure
of religious life, which increased the prevalence

DEMONIACAL POSSESSION 303
of insanity, is a further question. There are
undoubtedly stages of civilization and conditions
of society in which all mental evils seem to
be intensified. At any rate it is quite clear
that mental disease Avas in Palestine in the time
of our Lord a terrible affliction.
Our Lord's attitude towards it was clear.
In this as in all other matters affecting the
scientific knowledge of the age, He adopted
unreservedly current theories. HoAvever great
a shock this may be to some, we must recognize
that it is so. And if we are prepared to do this,
it will become clear that there Avas no other
attitude that would have been consistent with
the character and purpose of our Lord's ministry.
He came neither to teach a science nor a medical
knowledge nor a biblical criticism which those
whom He addressed would have been quite
incapable of grasping. The psychological
language which He used was that of His time.
And have those who expect us to believe any
thing else ever asked themselves Avhat He could
have taught ? Was it to be the psychology
and medical knowledge of our oavii day ? But
do we really imagine that the last word has been
said on any of these subjects, or that the theories
of to-day will be the theories of to-morrow?
Our knowledge and practice are most imperfect.
We hardly know or can do more — in some cases
Ave can do less, perhaps — than people did eighteen

304 EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
hundred years ago. It is possible that we may
still find, we have perhaps begun already to find,
that for the cure of such cases a powerful
spiritual principle is the one thing needed. At
any rate of one thing we are certain. Our
knowledge at present is most imperfect, and
it is possible that supposing the purpose of the
Gospels had been to give a complete account
of demoniacal possession, it might be found to
be as inconsistent with the present stage of
medical knowledge as is their actual teaching.
Our attitude towards the personality of evil
in any form must be at present one of suspension
of judgement. The essential thing for us to
realize is that in this, as in other respects, the
message of our Lord was clearly and inevitably
given in the language, and according to the
ideas, of those to whom He preached.
May I be allowed in this connexion to refer
for one or two moments to the profoundly
interesting book on the teaching of Christ by
your own Bishop Moorhouse, in whose memory
the lectures I am now giving were founded.
He is one of those men of vigorous and able
mind who, although throughout his life engaged
in practical work, has done much to help us to
meet the many and difficult theological problems
which the new ideas of the generation to Avhich
he belongs created for us. He points out
how largely indebted our Lord was "for the

THEORY OF DR MARTENSEN 305
forms in which He clothed His thought to the
religious symbolism which was in use among
His countrymen ; and thus, at times, it becomes
exceedingly difficult to determine how far He
adopted contemporary modes of thought as His
own, and how far He simply employed them as
a vehicle of instruction, which would be intelli
gible to those who heard Him." x He suggests
that the real explanation of Satanic influence
is the theory put forward by Dr Martensen,
Bishop of Seeland. " He believes that primarily
the Satan of Scripture is a principle, and not a
person, a spirit and a power which seeks to
realize itself in persons."2 The evil principle
becomes incarnate in personalities human and
superhuman, and this theory it is suggested
"illuminates for us some of the obscurest say
ings of our Divine Master." 3
Now I am not prepared to say that I would
accept this theory, but I think it is one we must
ponder over. What I would put before you
is that those possessed with devils were men
subject to nervous diseases, some of which take
now, as they did then, very strange forms ; that
the extent to which moral and spiritual causes
have been at work is at present unknown ; that
1 The Teaching of Christ, its Conditions, Secret, and Results,
by the Right Rev. J. Moorhouse, Bishop of Manchester
[sometime Bishop of Melbourne], p. 114.
2 Op. cit., p. 128. 3 Op. cit., p. 129. U

306 EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
our Lord simply adopted the current theory in
relation to them, and that this was in accord
ance with His normal methods ; that no really
satisfactory theory of these phenomena has yet
been attained, and Ave must be prepared to
widen our methods of investigation if we would
learn what is the spiritual origin of spiritual
disease. It was the custom in our Lord's time to
deal with these diseases by exorcism. Some
times that was effective. It was here that
His power appeared most striking. We are
repeatedly told that He cast out unclean spirits.
Many typical instances are given, and the poAver
that He exercised Avas recognized as something
different from anything that people had
experienced. " What is this ? A new teach
ing ? With authority he commandeth the un
clean spirits and they obey him." So great
was His success that some believed or pretended
to believe that He was leagued with Beelzebub,
the prince of the devils. This accusation roused
His indignation more than any other that was
made. For the power by which He worked was,
He said, the power of the Holy Ghost, "and
whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy
Spirit hath never forgiveness but is guilty of
eternal sin."
There is one more fact that Ave must notice,
and that is the testimony which the devils are

THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEMONIACS 307
stated to have given concerning Jesus. " And he
cried out, saying, What have we to do Avith
thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth ? Art thou come
to destroy us ? I know thee who thou art, the
Holy One of God." " And he suffered not the
devils to speak, because they knew him." And
again, "And the unclean spirits, whensoever
they beheld him, fell down before him, and
cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And
he charged them much that they should not
make him known." And again, "What have
I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the
Most High God?" It is difficult to believe
that we are not reading an account of things
just as they happened. But I prefer leaving
these facts without further explanation. At the
same time we must realize that it is part of Avhat
Ave have to include in any satisfactory theory
that we may formulate.
Now it is generally admitted that these
things happened, and that our Lord did heal
those who were possessed with devils ; but it is
said that no miracle really took place, and we
are told that it was only an instance of ' natural '
law. We have already recognized that this
phrase does not help us : it only means ' in
accordance with experience.' Here were certain
persons afflicted with diseases which were in
various forms mental. We know that in certain
cases such diseases could be cured by the influ-

308 EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
ence of other minds on them. Both the disease
and its cure were mental, not material. In
certain cases to a slight degree one mind has the
power of influencing another — the process is
entirely spiritual. If therefore we find that there
is a great development of this power in any
particular circumstances, surely this is a sign to
us of a real gift of spiritual power to humanity.
That was the impression it created, and the
explanation Jesus gives. Whatever analogy
there may be to phenomena we are acquainted
with, the power exhibited was quite abnormal,
and it is only by having a very narrow concep
tion of what is miraculous that we can refuse
to call it a miracle.
Before concluding this subject I may just refer
for one minute to the attacks which Professor
Huxley has made on these stories of the healing
of the possessed, and in particular that of the
Gadarene swine. Now with regard to that
particular instance on which he lays such stress,
I will frankly confess that I do not feel
altogether able to satisfy myself about it.
There are particular difficulties in the story
Avhich I cannot explain, and I am glad to take
this opportunity of suggesting that we should
recognize that there will always be some things
we cannot understand, but that that is no reason
why we should allow particular difficulties to
overthrow a belief which has been built on a

THE GADARENE SWINE 309
broad and substantial basis ; nor should we be
anxious to accept inadequate explanations, but
rather we should learn to exercise in certain
things suspension of judgement. As regards the
accusations, as a whole, that Huxley brings
against the narrative of the Gospel, I would
say, that I cannot personally conceive our Lord
approaching these phenomena from any point
of view but that of His own times ; that nervous
diseases could only be dealt with through the
mind of the sufferer; that our Lord probably
in no other direction did more to heal misery
than in this ; and that the spiritual power of the
Christian Church, which has undoubtedly enabled
it to cast out devils, has been one of the most
powerful vehicles for suppressing mental suffer
ing. It gradually overpowers the spiritual evils
of the world and makes us feel how much
mental suffering is owing to the failure of
spiritual life. There are many cases where
medical skill can do little for the minds of
those afflicted, and I am sure that wise, spiritual
power wisely exercised does much more in the
world than anything else to save lives from
being wrecked.

II

I would next deal with miracles of
healing. In relation to these it is said that

310 EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
the evidence for the works of healing is not
good evidence for miracles, the reason alleged
being that these so-called miracles represent
faith-healing, and that faith-healing is natural
law, and not miraculous. Now these statements
will, I think, make us reflect. For a long time
it Avas the endeavour of rationalistic critics to
shew that the evidence for these works of
healing was not good. The Gospel of S. Mark
was placed late, largely because it contains so
many miraculous cures. Renan, for example,
tells us quite simply that these things could
not be true because they were miracles.
Now quite suddenly the whole of the criticism
changes ; we are told that the evidence which
has been so long condemned is good, but it is
not evidence for the miracles. Does not this at
once suggest to us how worthless is much of
this criticism Avhich claims to be historical ? It
Avas not really historical ; it simply attempts to
justify a position which is assumed on a priori
grounds. A further observation presents itself
to us. The evidence offered for other miracles is
exactly the same as that for miracles of healing.
We have been told that the former is not good,
and that the latter is good. When we come to ask
the reason, it is not because of any defect in the
evidence in the former case, but simply because
there are difficulties in believing the events re
corded. It is not evidence but speculation.

FAITH-HEALING 311
Now we come to this question of faith-
healing. It may be allowed that there are some
phenomena which may be so described. There
can be no doubt that in certain cases people
who were ill, or fancied they were ill, have been
cured by a visit to Lourdes. There are cases
where the mental attitude of the patient has had
a considerable influence on their cure. There
is, then, a certain analogy between the miracles
of healing recorded of our Lord and certain
events which have happened within recent experi
ence. Therefore, it is argued, these miracles are
more credible ; because they are more credible,
therefore, the evidence is satisfactory ; but since
they are credible, they are not miracles. It will
be noticed how, underlying all these discussions,
is the assumption consciously or unconsciously
made that a miracle cannot happen. Practi
cally, the evidence is believed if the miracu
lous character of the event can be explained
away. We may admit to a certain extent the
existence of the phenomena called faith-healing,
but what are their characteristics ? So far as
we are acquainted with them, what they imply
is the influence of the spiritual nature of man
on the material. If we accept the materialistic
explanation of the human mind, and believe
that the whole of our mental equipment is
merely a function of the brain, then we may

312 EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
be right in explaining these phenomena as con
forming to what is called natural law. But of
course if that assumption is true, there is no
place either for miracles or for religion in any
form. But if, as a vast number of persons
believe, and on good grounds, the spiritual
nature of man, his will, his mind — whatever we
may call it — is something which is not material
in its origin, but is representative in man of
that spiritual principle which is the ultimate
cause of material things, then the attempt to
bring all these phenomena within the sphere
of natural law (in the ordinary sense in which
the word is used), is entirely unjustified. They
represent in fact the influence of mind or spirit
on matter. Those who are so wedded to the
word ' law ' may talk if they like of ' spiritual
law,' but that is not really a phrase with much
meaning. What really happens is that the
spiritual nature of man influences the material
nature somewhat abnormally. The influence
of the spirit on matter is of course something
which is continuously taking place. When
ever the mind acts through the medium of the
brain and the body, it is spirit working upon
matter. Whenever this spiritual power working
in us on the body leads to some variation in
physical phenomena, it is the influence of spirit
upon matter. Whenever the mind is so strongly
excited that it is able to help the body to throw

THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT 313
off disease, whether functional or otherwise,
again it is the influence of spirit upon matter.
Now what is clear, and the evidence and
instances given shew it, is that this power is
heightened and intensified by religion and
spiritual influence. That is what is meant by
faith-healing. The faith may be more or less
imperfect, but it intensifies the spiritual power
of every individual. It enables men to over
come the restraints and restrictions of their
material environment, and it increases their power
in a way which is sometimes normal, sometimes
abnormal. Now all this exists, we are told, at
the present day ; if it does so it is in a weak,
tentative, and uncertain manner. Religious
faith is slight, and exercises little power, and
there is also a certain amount of imposture
connected with this. But these instances
represent in a feeble manner what Jesus did.
Again and again He appeals to the power of
faith in His disciples. The power to do works
of healing or to cast out devils depended upon
their faith. So far the analogy is exact, but
the difference is also profound. If we are to
believe in any way at all the stories which are
told about Jesus, what exists at the present
time in a weak, feeble, and tentative fashion
existed in Him as strong, authoritative power.
He is confident of what He can do, and He
acts with authority.

314 EXPLANATIONS QF MIRACLES
If this be the case surely we have here real
evidence of the existence of a strong spiritual
force in the world abnormal in its character.
We are told that this is not miraculous. That
depends entirely upon what definition we have
given of miracles. What we do say is that it
is something which in its manifestations, judged
from the point of view of ordinary experience,
is abnormal. It represents a power analogous
perhaps to events which have happened at other
times, but exhibited in a manner of which we
have no record in the other cases. It harmonizes
with all else that we are told about our Lord.
We are told that there was authority in His
preaching and teaching ; that we can see for
ourselves from what we read of Him. We are
told that He Himself based this authority upon
the fact that He was the Son of Man ; we
are told that He claimed that these miracles
were an additional sign of the reality of His
divine mission. Surely all these corroborate
one another. They represent a consistent whole,
and it is only a purely pedantic and academic
use of terms which would deny that events like
these are miraculous, or that they have an
evidential value in relation to the mission, the
work, and the nature of Jesus Christ.
I would suggest then that the confession
that is now made that the evidence for these
miracles is good, is good and decisive evidence

ECCLESIASTICAL MIRACLES 315
of the reality of the miraculous. We are not
at liberty on any scientific grounds to assume
that this or that particular miracle could not
have happened. We do not know on any
grounds of experience what spiritual power
can or cannot accomplish in the world ; and if
this spiritual power represented the presence
among mankind of Him who was the author
of all spiritual life, then any attitude of
incredulity on general grounds is illogical and
unscientific. It may be quite right to admit
that in this or that point a mistake may have
arisen, but we are not justified in saying this
could or could not have happened.

Ill

The second explanation which is given
miracles is something as follows. In all times
of religious excitement or religious movements
miracles have been said to occur. There is plenty
of evidence of their alleged occurrence in history.
There is nothing really to distinguish miracles
of the Gospel from any other miracles, and,
therefore, as we are not prepared to accept the
ordinary ecclesiastical miracles of history, we
should not accept the Gospel miracles. Now
if the theory which we have developed above be
at all true, there is no reason why within certain

316 EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
limits we should not be prepared to accept what
are called ecclesiastical miracles. That is to
say, we are quite prepared to believe that in
times of religious movements when man's
spiritual nature is strengthened, the influence of
their spiritual nature on their material environ
ment will be intensified. Some ecclesiastical
miracles may have happened ; but we venture
to say that in no way is the analogy either as
regards evidence or character between the two
classes of miracles really sound.
To survey the whole field would be
impossible, but by good fortune our attention
has been draAvn in particular to the miracles
recorded of S. Thomas of Canterbury, and we
have been told that as regards both character
and evidence they present a striking analogy
to the Gospel narrative. It is, we think, hardly
possible to maintain this statement after a
careful study of the question. In the first place
no miracles were recorded of Thomas Becket
at all during his lifetime. In the earlier lives
we are particularly told that there were none, and
it is only in quite late documents that any
reference occurs. The life of S. Thomas was
that of a zealous, religious man defending the
ecclesiastical position in the country with
earnestness and zeal ; no doubt making mistakes,
no doubt with his faults. Then his career
ended in a manner which increased his influence

MIRACLES OF S. THOMAS 317
by his martyrdom. He became, in consequence,
the champion of the ecclesiastical cause, and all
the religious fervour of the later Middle Ages,
in the peculiar manner in which it was wont to
express itself, centred throughout Western
Europe in his name. It was to him, or through
him, that prayers were offered in times of
danger, stress, or emergency. It was to his
shrine that people came to seek his aid in curing
disease. The cathedral at Canterbury was, we
are told, at times of pilgrimage filled with those
who came from all parts of England and
Western Europe. There is still a road
across the Downs known as 'the Pilgrims'
Way.' Some of those who filled the cathedral
at times of pilgrimage were cured. Books were
written containing accounts of the cures : some
of them edifying, some of them not so. We
have, in fact, exactly the same phenomena as
occur at Lourdes. Unless our idea of the
universe is so materialistic that we do not
believe in answer to prayer, we can still believe
that many of the events thus recorded are true.
We have seen that the influence of religious
fervour may, and does, cure disease of various
types. The whole phenomenon is in fact just
what we have described above. But in dignity,
in edification, and in power, the narratives are
completely different from those of the Gospel.
They do not represent a real analogy, and their

318 EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
value is of exactly the same character as other
records of answer to prayer and of faith-healing.

IV

The third way of explaining away miracles
is that of coincidence. This is particularly
applied to the healing of the centurion's servant
as recorded in S. Matthew and S. Luke. The
circumstances, it will be remembered, are very
striking, and the incident is recorded because
it represents an instance of faith in one who was
not an Israelite. It was introduced into the
collection of discourses called ' Q ' as an
introduction to a very remarkable saying of
our Lord. So widespread was the belief in
His power that a Roman soldier came to Him
to ask Him to heal his servant. He does not
even think it necessary for Jesus to come to him,
because he believes that His spiritual power is
as great in its sphere as that of the Roman
centurion, who can issue his orders to his
subordinates and knows that they will be
obeyed. Jesus comments on the greatness of
the faith shewn. He emphasizes the fact that
it is not by a Jew but by a Gentile, and
promises that what is asked shall be done.
When the centurion reaches home he finds
his servant restored to life.

COINCIDENCE 319
Two explanations are offered of this event.
One is that the record of the success of the
miracle which is contained in somewhat different
language in S. Matthew and S. Luke is not
historical, and that no miracle ever happened.
We venture to think that it is hardly credible
that this story should have been remembered
and recorded if it was one from which no
successful result issued. It is making demands
which are somewhat excessive on our credulity
to ask us to believe in so much simpleness on
the part of those who followed and narrated
the acts of our Lord.
The other explanation is that here we have
a coincidence, and stories are given to support
this of what are called coincidences which have
happened in life at other times. These other
coincidences represent in one form or another
the power of prayer ; and are we as religious
people willing to admit that prayer has no
power in the world ? If there be any reality in
the spiritual order of the universe, prayer must
have power. Of course it is quite possible that
on any one occasion a coincidence might occur,
but the chances against it are enormous, and
chances against coincidences of this sort happen
ing often in the life of our Lord or existing to
such an extent as to create the belief in His
miraculous powers, become incredible. It really
makes a greater strain on our belief to ascribe

320 EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
miracles to pure coincidences than to believe
that our Lord could exercise spiritual power in
the world.

The fourth explanation which is offered is
that miracles are symbolical. A very good
instance of this is the story of the Avalking on
the sea. This is described as folloAvs : —
" However this may be, it seems likely that
S. Peter's confident undertaking to walk on the
sea, the failure of his faith, his rescue by Jesus,
and his return to establish the belief of his
brethren that Jesus is 'of a truth the Son of
God,' are a symbolical representation of S.
Peter's readiness to go with Jesus 'both to
prison and to death,' of his subsequent denial,
of his restoration and commission by the risen
Christ, and of the confirmation of the Early
Church in the faith of the Resurrection. If
such be the symbolism of the story, Ave shall
attach less importance to it in its present form,
as evidence for a fact of history." l
This same principle we find applied to other
miracles, and in particular in S. John's Gospel.
The turning of the water into wine at the
marriage feast in Cana of Galilee, the five
porches at Bethesda, the five husbands of the
1 Miracles in the Neio Testament, by the Rev. J. M.
Thompson, p. 74.

SYMBOLICAL INTERPRETATION 321
woman of Samaria, are all given a spiritual
interpretation. It has always been remarked
that one of the characteristics of the miracles
of our Lord is that they were not only means
of doing good in His lifetime, but often formed
the basis of some of His most spiritual discourses.
That has generally been accepted as corrobora
tive evidence of the reality of the miracles.
Jesus was not a mere magician or thauma-
turgist ; He did not merely try to influence
people by the Avonders He was able to accom
plish. With perhaps one or tAvo apparent
exceptions His miracles were always adapted to
the spiritual character of His mission. He had
come to seek and to save the lost, to shew the
love of God to man. He drew His spiritual
teaching from His miracles as from other
incidents in His daily life. Now Ave are asked
to reverse the process. The miracles are really
parables, whether parables of Jesus or parables
of the Early Church. They were not intended
to be looked upon as actual events. It Avas not
the spiritual teaching which was to be derived
from the miracle, but the miracle was created
by the teaching.
If we wish to find out whether any such
method of explanation is the true one, our aim
should always be to ascertain how far the
principle is capable of application. It will
generally be found that such an explanation

322 EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
when adopted will explain in a way which is not
unnatural one or more miracles, but so soon as
we attempt to carry it out completely at all
it becomes frigid and unreal. No doubt the
story of S. Peter's walking on the Avater is
entirely in accordance wTith his character. With
his usual impulsiveness he rushes to his Master
at once, then the sea overwhelms him and it is
only through Jesus that he is saved. But surely
the fact that the story harmonizes with a person's
character does not prove that it was invented.
In this case the story is natural ; but when we
get elaborate symbolical meanings attached to
such stories as the healing of the sick man at
Bethesda — to take an instance — we see how
unreal and frigid the general method is. It is
possible, of course, that the desire to be edifying
may have helped occasionally to mould the
story. We do not expect infallibility in any
record which comes to us through human hands ;
but once apply the principle of symbolical inter
pretation at all fully, and its unreality becomes
apparent. In particular it will not help us to
explain the general evidence for the miracu
lous character of our Lord's life. It Avas
because people believed that our Lord worked
miracles that they came to Him, and they
recorded miracles of Him because they believed
that He Avorked them. The general belief in
His miraculous character could not have been

THE FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE 323
created by symbolism, although symbolism
might make use of the belief. The idea of
symbolism would only extend to later possible
developments, and even then it generally appears
very far-fetched.

VI

There is one miracle to which we must
refer more particularly, namely, the miraculous
feeding in the wilderness. That is, of course,
one of the most difficult of the miracles in the
New Testament. At the same time it is also
one of the best supported. If, as is possible,
the feeding of the four thousand and the feeding
of the five thousand are doublets, being in
dependent records of the same event, it is
obvious that the story must go back to the
very beginnings of the formation of the Gospel
narrative, and the record in S. John, with
the additional details that he gives makes the
event more probable. Now as to the explana
tions of it. They have been collected for us
by Schweitzer in his work on the Quest of the
Historical Jesus, and Mr Thompson gives us
a convenient summary of them :
" To the school of Bahrdt and Venturini it
is a trick carried out by a secret society. Paulus
explains it as the sharing of supplies among a

324 EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
crowd of people, encouraged by Jesus' example.
Hase suggests that there is nothing more un
natural in the sudden increase of bread, than in
the gradual growth of corn from seed-time to
harvest. Strauss believes that the story is a
myth, based on Old Testament parallels (the
manna in the desert, or the miracle of Elisha).
A disciple of Venturini suggests that rich friends
sent an unexpected supply of food into the
desert." 1
How extraordinarily unreal and incredible
are explanations such as these, inconsistent with
one another, and all alike repugnant to common-
sense ! Nor do we think that later sugges
tions are more credible. Let us hear what
Mr Thompson says :
" What really happened was that Jesus, in
a parable analogous to that of the Sower,
compared His teaching to food — not to ordinary
food, but to miraculous food, which satisfies all
who receive it, and increases, instead of diminish
ing, as it is more widely distributed (this explains
the twelve basketfuls left over, Avhich otherwise
add a quite unnecessary miracle). The change
of such a parable into a real event is not difficult
to understand."2 Then he goes on to suggest that the most
valuable clue to the meaning of the narrative
is supplied by the Eucharist :
1 Thompson, Miracles in the New Testament, p. 45.
Ov. cit., p. 46.

EXPLANATION OF THE FEEDING 325
" Suppose an original incident, the exact
nature of which we cannot now determine, but
which must have been remarkable enough to
impress itself upon the memory of the Apostles,
to be compared with the stories of the Old
Testament prophets (1 Kings xvii. 8-16 ; 2
Kings iv. 42-44) ; and to be regarded at a
comparatively early date as a miracle. This
incident may have been transformed, by the
pious imagination of a later generation, into
the original institution of the Agape and
Eucharist. Then the account of it would be
assimilated to the actual experience of Christian
worship." And he concludes, "It is difficult
to see why, unless there was some such eccles
iastical motive for its preservation, the story
of this miracle should have appeared six times
in the Gospels, and always with such an amount
of detail. The fact that it is so often described
is not a sign that the Evangelists were par
ticularly sure that it happened, but rather that
it was particularly appropriate to the needs of
those for whom they wrote." 1
It is really very difficult to believe that
things should have happened in this way. As
a matter of fact so far as historical evidence
goes, the spiritual explanation comes second,
and the miracle first. The miracle was widely
known. The spiritual explanation comes only
in S. John's Gospel, and the discourse in which
it is contained is generally said by critics
Thompson, op. cit., p. 47.

326 EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
to be unhistorical. Now we are asked to believe
that there was unknown spiritual teaching
which was somehow or other transformed into
a miracle, and that then later new spiritual
teaching was derived from it. But would
such spiritual teaching, or such a possible
institution of the Eucharist, of which we have
not the slightest evidence, have had the effect
upon the development of our Lord's career
which this event appears to have had ? It was
clearly an epoch in its development, and that
because of the expectations which its miraculous
character created. What we feel throughout
is that again and again a strain is put upon our
powers of belief by the attempt to explain away
a straightforward and natural story.
We have reviewed in this chapter the various
explanations which have been put forward for
these miracles of our Lord. The ultimate
question is whether the explanations or the
miracles are the more probable under the con
ditions under which these events occurred. We
have to remember that we are dealing with the
beginnings of a religion which has had a most
profound influence on the world. We have to
remember the belief which the Church has
always held as to the Person of our Lord. If
this belief be true, the difficulty of believing
in the miracles will for many persons at any
rate cease, the difficulty in believing in these

FALLACY OF EXPLANATIONS 327
explanations will always be equally great ; they
Avill only gain an appearance of probability if
we have already made up our minds that the
miracles cannot have happened. It is argued
that the miracles are not true, therefore it is
necessary to find some origin for these stories,
and the result is the folloAving curious posi
tion : —
" It would be a mistake," says Mr Thompson,
"to rely entirely upon any one method of
interpretation where the subject-matter is so
obscure. The tendency to transform natural
events into supernatural, the love of assimilation,
the ease with which an editor can give a neAv
turn to a passage, and the influence of present
interests upon the representation of the past —
all these have played their part in the formation
of the miracle stories as they now stand. If
there is the greater difficulty in choosing the
best method of interpretation, there is the greater
confidence that by one or other it will be
possible to arrive at an approximate reconstruc
tion of the original non-miraculous facts."1
No passage can illustrate better than this
the assumption underlying these explanations.
It is assumed that the miracles are untrue, and
therefore it is necessary to discover a theory
which will explain how the stories greAV up.
It is only under such conditions that these
1 Thompson, op. cit., p. 51.

328 EXPLANATIONS OF MIRACLES
explanations are likely to appear credible. They
are not the reasons which have led to the
miracles being disbelieved ; they are arguments
Avhich are discovered to support a belief which
is already assumed.

LECTURE IX
THE NATURE OF MIRACLES
Summary of Preceding Lectures. Definition of Miracles.
What are They ? Other Classes of Miracles. Miracles
of the Old Testament. Miracles of Church History.
Modern Miracles. The Evidential Value of Miracles.
At the Beginning of Christianity. Value of Miracles
at the Present Day.
We have covered in the preceding lectures a
considerable amount of ground, and discussed
the question before us from various points of
view. It remains in our concluding lecture to
attempt to bring together the different threads,
and arrive at some conclusion as to the meaning
and purpose of miracles.

In our first lecture we suggested five main
lines on which miracles had been criticized.
First of all miracles are impossible because they
are violations of the law of nature. We dis-

330 THE NATURE OF MIRACLES
cussed this question from the point of AaeAV of
modern science, and shewed that 'laws of
nature ' could mean nothing more than the sum
of our experience. Therefore to say that
miracles were contrary to the laws of nature
only meant that they were contrary to experi
ence ; but this they must be or they would not
be miracles. Nor because anything is contrary
to experience is it therefore impossible, because
every new discovery means something which is
contrary to experience. The uniformity of
nature means only that like causes produce
like effects. If therefore any new cause of
whatever nature intervenes, a new effect will be
produced. Nor is there any reason for eliminat
ing freedom from nature ; what indeed may be
the origin or cause of phenomena we do not
know, but there is no evidence to prove that the
progress of the world has been the inevitable
result of the forces existing from the beginning.
New and incalculable forces and new phenomena
have appeared as the world has developed.
The whole idea of inevitableness in the laAvs
of nature has arisen from confusing the dis
coveries of science Avith philosophical systems
which were supposed to be developed from it.
All such reconstructions of nature are only
attempts, generally quite inadequate, to explain
the world from a particular point of view. The
minds of men have been filled with mathematical

ARE MIRACLES IMPROBABLE? 331
and mechanical ideas. They have constructed
a world on that basis, and have imagined that
it is the real world. So it has been with the
conception of God. They have constructed a
mathematical and mechanical God, and then
said that miracles were not consistent with His
nature. But if we look upon God as Wisdom,
if we realize that what we call the order of nature
is merely the expression of His will, then there
is nothing inconsistent in the idea of miracles
with Him as we know Him. They would
represent, if you like to put it so, the law of the
divine Avisdom.
Is it then improbable that there should be
miracles ? We can attempt to ansAver this
question from two points of vieAV. We can
ask, Does the course of this world suggest that
at any period new and strange events should
happen ? We ventured to suggest that it does ;
that as a matter of fact there have been com
pletely new departures in the history of the
world. There was such a neAv departure when
life appeared, there was such an one when the
human being — a man with the power of thought
— first came into existence. So it was not un
reasonable to think that there should be a new and
higher departure at a certain stage in the history
of the human race accompanied by events which
might seem marvellous. If, on the other hand,
we look at it from the point of view which

332 THE NATURE OF MIRACLES
our conception of God would suggest, it was
congruous that He, inasmuch as He loved
mankind, should in His own time reveal Him
self to man, and should give adequate signs of
such a revelation. Moreover miracles would
in relation to mankind be a natural means
of accrediting a revelation. There is no
reason, then, to think on a priori grounds
that miracles could not take place. The real
question was whether they had. We must
examine the evidence without prejudice.
We then turned to the evidence for Christian
miracles and found that it was good evidence,
that criticism had failed to account on a
naturalistic basis for the rise of Christianity,
that the Gospels were early documents capable
of giving good evidence, and that there was no
sign of a primitive non-miraculous Christianity.
Miracles harmonize with the spiritual message
of Jesus. They were acts of mercy, they always
conveyed a spiritual message. There was great
self-restraint exhibited throughout our Lord's
career, and the narratives harmonize with the
conception of His person suggested by the story
of the Temptation. So far as we could judge,
these miracles, and particularly that of the
Resurrection, had had a direct influence on
the founding of the Church of the Apostles.
Historically we found that a large part of the
criticism of miracles had arisen because, on other

EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES 333
grounds than historical evidence, people ceased
to believe them. Although we had no reason
for believing in the infallibility of the Gospels,
they gave good evidence for the life of our
Lord, and for miracles as part of His life. It
might be, however, possible that in particular cases
mistakes had arisen in relation to this or that
miracle, as in regard to other historical facts.
We then finally discussed the question
whether we could explain the way in which
New Testament miracles had arisen. To say
that because some miracles were false therefore
all must be false, or because evidence in some
cases was bad therefore all must be bad, was,
we held, an unsound method of argument. We
must ask whether, as a matter of fact, we can
explain the miracles. With regard to the
explanations offered, we noticed that that of
faith-healing practically admits the miracle, and
therefore the value of evidence for miracles ;
that in other cases the explanations were as
improbable as the miracles, while the co
operation of so many different explanations
seem exceedingly improbable. We may con
clude in this connexion with a passage from
Mr Knox in that work of his called Some
Loose Stones, which hardly seems to be an
over-statement. " Orthodox theology explains all the miracles

334 THE NATURE OF MIRACLES
recorded of our Saviour under one single
hypothesis, He was omnipotent God. But the
enemy of miracle is forced to give a variety of
different explanations ; that the healing of the
sick Avas faith-healing, the stilling of the storm
coincidence, the feeding of the five thousand
a misrepresented Sacrament, the withering of
the fig tree a misrepresented parable, the
raising of Lazarus a case of premature burial,
and so on. Certainly it does seem odd that all
these non-miraculous events should have com
bined to create a presumption of the
miraculous." 1
I think that a study of all these varied
methods of eliminating the miraculous Avill
convince us that they have been adopted to
support a belief already formed against the
miraculous. Men do not reject the stories
because of the explanations, but they find out
the explanations because they already disbelieve
the stories. And in the ultimate analysis it is
not reason Avhich causes this disbelief but a
limited imagination. Our minds are so clogged
and warped by the overwhelming influence of
ordinary experience that we cannot imagine
or realize or believe what so completely tran
scends our experience. Once let a man's life
be illuminated by the reality of faith which will
lift him above the prejudice which sense creates,
and he finds no difficulty in believing, for the
' Some Loose Stones, by Ronald Knox, p. 49.

DEFINITION OF MIRACLES 335
belief is rational. But we alloAV our minds to
be so overpowered by the prejudice Avhich
sensuous and material things create that Ave
cannot imagine anything happening contrary to
Avhat Ave perceive, and therefore Ave do not
believe. But our disbelief is not rational. It is
the result of the tyranny of an imagination
limited by what our sense can teach it.

II

It Avill be remembered that at the beginning
of these lectures Ave decided to postpone the
question of definition until the end of our
enquiries. I do not know that I am yet
prepared to give a formal and precise definition
of what a miracle is, but I think that it may be
possible to go so far as to suggest a description
of what we mean by the miraculous on the
lines to which the preceding lectures have been
leading up. I would like to do it in the words
which I used some time ago when discussing
this subject at the Church Congress at Middles-
borough — "A miracle means really the supremacy
of the spiritual forces of the world to an extra
ordinarily marked degree over the mere material."
Now I would point out, to begin with, that
this definition seems to be in accordance with
the language of the New Testament. Through-

336 THE NATURE OF MIRACLES
out, it is to the work of the Holy Spirit that
miracles are ascribed. According to S. Matthew
Mary was " found with child of the Holy
Ghost." According to the Avord of the angel
in S. Luke, " The Holy Ghost shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Most High shall
overshadow thee." Jesus will " baptize with
the Holy Ghost and with fire." He "was led
up of the Spirit into the wilderness." It is " by
the Spirit of God " that He " casts out devils,"
and to say that it is by Beelzebub is blasphemy
against the Spirit. It was through the Spirit
that our Lord was raised, and that same Spirit
will quicken our mortal bodies. Miracles are
worked in the power of the Spirit.
Now this truth will, I believe, best enable
us to understand what we mean by miracle,
and how God works miracles. Of course, it is
simple enough to say that miracles are worked
by God. God can do all things ; therefore, to
say that they are His work is sufficient. So
perhaps in a sense it is, but we must recognize
that God's revelation is intended to be rational
and will suggest to us an explanation of things
which is rational. Nor do hard and dogmatic
assertions of what God must do really tend to
win assent.
We believe that there is a spiritual nature
in man responsive to the divine Spirit, and the
spiritual nature can influence what we call our

THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT 337
material nature. It often does So ; in our own
experience we have probably known cases where
its influence has been very great. It is not
therefore unreasonable or irrational to believe
that that spiritual nature can be so strengthened
and inspired by God's Spirit as to make its
powers more effective, and enable it still more
to overcome weakness or cure the ills of our
natural bodies. It is something that we believe
as being in harmony with all that we know
of spiritual life ; only through God's Spirit
working in and through Jesus Christ it is much
intensified. Nor is it out of harmony with all we know
of the working of God in nature to believe that,
as even Paulus thought, " Through holy in
spiration Mary receives the hope and the power
of conceiving her exalted Son, in whom the
Spirit of the Messiah takes up its dwelling."
Her nature was inspired and strengthened by
God's Spirit, so that she could become the
mother of Him who was the Son of God.
But as God is also the creator and sustainer
of the universe, and as the Spirit of God works
in the world, it is that Spirit which must
represent the fundamental cause of all things.
We know, in fact, nothing more of the material
Avorld than that it is the manner in which the
universe is revealed to our senses. It is
not therefore impossible or unreasonable that
Y

338 THE NATURE OF MIRACLES
miracles should take place in nature, as well
as in man. God's Spirit is working in nature.
He who was incarnate as Jesus Christ was
Himself the Word of God through whom all
things were made. It was Tertullian, as we
saw in our first lecture who first realized that it
was not inconsistent with the nature of Jesus
Christ that He as the Word of God should
reveal Himself in and through His power over
nature. We can, I think, then give a perfectly
rational explanation of nature - miracles. A
miracle is not inconsistent with the ordinary
manifestations of phenomena, because it repre
sents simply the ultimate nature of things
asserting themselves.
I would here add one thing more. 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 anyone incredible, there is no reason
why a man should feel compelled to say or think
that he believes it. This is surely one of those
cases for the exercise of suspension of judgement.
We have only to realize how limited our know
ledge is, how very much our imagination is
shackled by the particular experience to which

THE SPIRIT AND THE RESURRECTION 339
we have been subject. If, then, to us the
message of the Gospel and the revelation through
Jesus Christ seems reasonable and true, I do
not feel that we should trouble ourselves if
some particular incident causes us difficulties.
I have frankly confessed throughout, that while
the evidence that we have for miracles as a
whole is good, the character of the Gospel
narrative is not such as to enable us to be certain
that every event took place exactly as it is
reported. There are discrepancies in some cases
between the narratives, which make us feel that
neither account can be absolutely accurate. What
the limits of error may be, it may not be possible
to judge, but no difficulty about any detail
ought to prevent us from accepting the general
teaching of the Gospel.
And then finally, it is, we believe, through
the Holy Spirit that Jesus was raised from the
dead in a spiritual body, and that we too, like
Him, shall be raised. It is sown a natural body ;
it is raised a spiritual body. With all that
representation of ourselves in a concrete form
by which we are known, through which our
character is expressed, in relation to Avhich all
our human functions are developed, shall we be
raised. Our Lord did not appear to His
disciples as a disembodied spirit, but clothed
with a spiritual body, and our resurrection
must be not as a mere disembodied spirit, but

340 THE NATURE OF MIRACLES
clothed with such a body as will express our
personality.1

Ill

I would venture to suggest that a conception
of miracles such as that given above may help
us in our attitude towards other miracles than
those of the New Testament. And first, what
is our attitude towards Old Testament miracles ?
Here the fundamental point undoubtedly is that
the evidence for Old Testament miracles is not
good. If we compare it for a moment with that
for the New Testament miracles, the difference
1 In connexion with the above view of miracles, I may
perhaps refer to an article in the Church Quarterly Review,
vol. lxx. 1910, April, p. 117, by the Rev. Robert Vaughan,
a theologian whose work is less known than it should be.
He has thus summed up his views :
"Miracle is a revelation of the latent possibility of
things — of what they can become by divine activity within
them. The whole of nature is by its creation so constituted
that it can, according to its very nature, become what it is
not in itself. It has a capacity to receive what it does not
contain, and the isolated miracles, of Christ in particular, are
to reveal this capacity. Such changes are not from the
thing as it is in itself — and therefore not properly products
of ' nature,' nor are they contradictions of the natural — for
things of nature are created with a fitness for such trans
formation and evolution ; but they are supra-natural by
virtue of a communication to their nature of a fresh activity
from their source."

OLD TESTAMENT MIRACLES 341
in character is very great. The books of the Old
Testament, those for example which narrate the
miracles of Moses, were in their present form
probably produced nearly a thousand years after
the events they describe, and it is very doubtful
how far back the material out of which they
were put together reaches. The testimony for
the miracles of Elijah and Elisha is somewhat
better. The books in which they occur were
compiled within a few hundred years of the
events. They were undoubtedly put together
out of much older material, and these narratives
are written in the best style of Hebrew prose
and appear to be largely historical. But even
this testimony is very different from that for
the New Testament miracles. Broadly speak
ing, then, we can say that the evidence is not
good. But having said that, there are other points
we must notice. The great body of Old Testa
ment miracles, certainly those which would
claim to be accepted, centre round two epochs.
The one, the departure from Egypt and the
first religious creation of the nation ; the other,
the great religious revival connected with the
names of Elijah and Elisha. The events con
nected with the departure from Egypt are so
far back in history that it is very difficult for us
to know what really happened. But of this we
can be certain, that there was an original

342 THE NATURE OF MIRACLES
creative period for the religion of the Jews,
which first separated them from other nations,
and set them on that strange line of develop
ment which had such a far-reaching effect on the
future of mankind. Our difficulty in knowing
what really happened is concerned as much with
the non-miraculous as with the miraculous
events ; but there is no reason for not believing
that such an epoch in the history of what we
believe to be true religion might involve the
working of God's Spirit in the world in a
particular manner, and that the events need
not have been always quite normal.
The names of Elijah and Elisha again are
associated with another great crisis in the
religious history of the nation. They represent
the prophetic activity in its highest stage before
the creation of written prophecy ; they guarded
the belief in the God of Israel against the
insidious attacks of nature-worship ; they repre
sented the beginnings of the movement which
created the sublime monotheism of later Israel.
Then, too, I can believe that there was a great
outpouring of God's Spirit in Israel.
For if we doubt the evidence for the
particular miraculous manifestations of the
history of Israel, there can be no doubt of the
miraculous character of the history as a whole.
The selection of one nation to be the vehicle
of God's revelation to mankind, the teaching

ECCLESIASTICAL MIRACLES 343
through it of a lofty ethical monotheism, the
building up of an elaborate cult which would
enshrine and teach these ideals, the creation of
a strong moral rule of life, the preparation for
the coming of the Messiah, all would seem to
imply the divine purpose running through the
history of Israel and working on the principles
of selection. God's Spirit was teaching man
kind in the history of Israel.
And our position would be somewhat similar
with regard to the miracles of the Christian
Church. The Holy Spirit has always Avorked
in the Church. His power has been shewn in
the moral, the spiritual, and the religious sphere,
in the sanctity, the purity, the self-sacrifice, and
the devotion of countless numbers of Christians.
It has been shewn also in the silent spiritual
life of many. It has enabled them to overpower
the weakness of their bodies. It was shewn
undoubtedly in the days of the Early Church
in spiritual power over those possessed with
diseases ; it has probably been shewn in all ages
to a greater or lesser degree by the power
of the sanctified human mind over the body.
To what further degree miracles may have
happened must be a question of evidence.
What I would put before you is that on no
grounds is it necessary for us to bar out
miracles or to make a sharp distinction between
the time of our Lord and other periods in the

344 THE NATURE OF MIRACLES
Christian Church, or to say that miracles in
the Church could not happen. In a very
large number of cases undoubtedly the evidence
is poor and unsatisfactory ; in some cases it is
obviously legendary. There are many cases in
which we should feel inclined to exercise some
sort of suspension of judgement. What I
would ask is that the possibility of miracles
should not be ruled out. Nor even at the
present day should we doubt that the human
mind strengthened and inspired by God's Spirit
has great power over the human body and over
other minds. We know that faith must play a
large part in life, that it plays a large part, too,
in reco\Tery from sickness. Because undoubtedly
there is a good deal of superstition and eA'en
fraud connected with theories of faith-healing
and so on, that is no reason for doubting either
the poAver of the mind over the body, or still
less the power of the sanctified mind OArer the
body. IV
It remains to consider the evidential value
of miracles. This is a subject on which the
most varied opinions have been held. While
Spinoza thought that miracles could not give
any evidence of the nature of God, Paley, and
to a certain extent Butler, were prepared to

VALUE OF MIRACLES 345
rest the evidence for revelation upon them ; and
Mozley argues that they are necessary. A less
trenchant position is occupied by Dr Ming-
worth. He insists on the fact that miracles
never are, nor were, a primary proof of the
Incarnation. That is a spiritual fact, and there
fore must be spiritually discerned. " No conceiv
able amount of evidence that was merely material
could prove it." But although miracles are not
proof of the Incarnation, the Incarnation makes
miracles credible, and the miracles strengthen
the evidence.
"This then was the original evidence on
which the Incarnation was received. It was
the gradual self-revelation of a Person to
spiritually minded persons. But among the
attributes of this Person was included the
power of working miracles : and there cannot
be a shadow of doubt that this was an integral
element in the total impression which He
produced. His miracles do not prove His
character, but they essentially confirmed the
claim which His character meanwhile pre
disposed men to accept."1
In dealing with the evidential value of
miracles we must distinguish between their
value in the first days of Christianity and that
at the present time. As regards the beginnings
1 Divine Immanence, by J. R. Illingworth, chapter iv., p.
90. Ed. 1900.

346 THE NATURE OF MIRACLES
of Christianity, it is a question of fact. How
did the disciples come to believe in their Master ?
To believe was, we must remember, something
that made great claims on their insight and
imagination. Here was one quite unlike
prophet or sage such as Israel had known, one
quite unlike the Christ that they expected.
How did they come to believe on Him ? The
answer is that His personality gradually
impressed itself upon them, and by miracles was
the true nature of His personality revealed. It is
quite true that it was not the miracles alone that
attracted men to Him. It is quite true that
alone they might not have been effective, that
they were able to repel as well as to attract.
His authority, His power, the dignity of His
claims, the beauty of His nature, the truth of
His teaching, all these joined in the general
impression created. We may recognize to the
full other influences, but we shall always have to
recognize that miracles were an essential
element in this impression, and we may well
ask whether His followers could have come to
Him first if He had not worked miracles.
That is one of the questions which we naturally
ask, and cannot answer. Yet the fact remains
that the only account we have of how men
came to Him puts miracles in the forefront
of His credentials.
And equally is it the case with the miracle

THE RESURRECTION 347
of the Resurrection. We have simply to ask
the question : What, as a matter of fact,
was it which gave the disciples courage to
believe in Jesus in spite of His death on the
cross ? The answer must be definite and
decisive. They believed in Him because they
believed in a miracle, namely, the Resurrection,
and that they had good grounds for their belief.
We may recognize, of course, that this Avas not
the only cause : there were the memories of the
Master, there were their own spiritual experi
ences, there was the gift of the Spirit, there was
the testimony of the Old Testament studied in
the light of newer revelation. All these
elements helped to strengthen their belief,
but the fact remains that only by a miracle,
and because of a miracle, had they courage to
believe. Statements, then, such as that miracles
cannot prove anything do not really count ;
they are contradicted by fact. The first disciples
preached Christianity because they believed that
miracles had taken place.
Nor can I quite subscribe to the remark of
Dr Illingworth that a miracle is something
material. It is something, of course, that comes
to us through a material environment, as in fact
everything which appeals to our senses and all, or
almost all, our knowledge must come. But the
whole essence of a miracle is that it is spiritual :

348 THE NATURE OF MIRACLES
it is a sign of the working of God's Spirit, and
therefore takes its place with all the other
spiritual evidence. So it is able to appeal to
us in relation to spiritual things. Our answer
then to the first question as to the evidential
value of miracles at the beginning of Christianity
must be that they were, as a matter of fact, a
part, and a very important part, of what made
people believe in Christianity.
But now what of our own time ? We are
clearly in a very different position. On the
one hand, we can only have second-hand evidence
of the miracles of the past ; on the other
hand, we are able to know what Christianity
is very much better than those to whom
it was first preached. They had nothing to
go on : Christianity had no authority, no
prestige, no apparent power or position. It
seemed to contradict many of the religious
prejudices and habits of the time. Now it
comes to us with the authority, the history, the
experience of nearly nineteen centuries. Most
people accept Christianity nowadays because of
the fact of its existence, because of the authority
of the Church (however people may define that
term), through which it comes. And then
secondly, because it responds to their spiritual
needs and experience. It is only later that
they investigate its claims, and then, of course,
only some people do so. And when we come

EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF MIRACLES 349
to the investigation of claims, the number of
lines of study are many. There is the connexion
of the Old and New Testament, there is the
transformation of the human mind in Christianity,
there is the growth and power of the Church,
there is the work that Christianity has done.
But all the same ultimately we come to the
fact of a revelation, and in relation to that
miracles seem to take a natural place.
Here are events certainly very remarkable
in their character, and in what was accomplished.
From small, apparently insignificant beginnings,
there came a new departure in the history of
the world. How great was the change may
be seen by comparing any typical Christian
literature with anything that had preceded it.
The transformation of the possibilities of human
nature is enormous. How great the change
is we can see from the different points of view
from which we approach Christian history. No
doubt there was failure, disappointment, dis
illusionment. It is not what we might look
for as an ideal ; but consider what it is compared
with any other history in its hopes, its ideals,
and aspirations.
Now what was the cause of this change in
history ? The answer that Christianity gives is
first of all the Incarnation, the coming to earth
of God in human form. Here we have a great
miracle — an event abnormal from the point

350 THE NATURE OF MIRACLES
of view of human experience, although not
from the point of view of divine wisdom, for
it Avas part of the purpose and fore-knowledge
of God. The Incarnation itself is what Butler
calls 'a secret miracle' — one that took place
without any knowledge of it being possible ; but
it was witnessed to by a series of events which
in their totality are quite unprecedented : the
appearance of a unique personality, a new and
inspired teacher, a great outpouring of spiritual
power, shewn in an abnormal and miraculous
supremacy of the spiritual over the natural, and
the intensification of the spiritual experience
of human life : all these form part of one self-
consistent series of phenomena. They seem
to corroborate one another, to witness to the
unique event of which they tell us, and to
be in harmony with it.
Now here, surely, we have an adequate cause
for all that comes afterwards. And I would
ask you in conclusion quietly to think of all these
phenomena, and ponder over them, to consider
whether they do not harmonize together and
form in their harmony very strong evidence.
The marvellous manifestation of spiritual life
is witnessed to by its effect in the world, and
is the natural result of the life of Him who
came amongst men. Clearly there was some
thing that happened, something which had
an immense influence on the history of man-

THE INCARNATION 351
kind. The answer which Christian history
gives to the question, What was it ? is : ' The
Manifestation of Jesus Christ the Son of God,
and the new power that He brought into the
world.'

INDEX

N.B. — References in thick type (159) refer to passages where the
subject mentioned is fully discussed.

Arnold, Matthew, 61, 69, 301
Ascension of Isaiah, 60, 283
Astronomy, 35
Atoms, 83
Augustine, S., 17 et seq., 19,
72
Averroes, 21

Abbott, Dr Edwin, 177, 224
230
Abrahams, Dr, 174
Absolute, the, 122, 124 et seq.
Abstractionism, 128
Acts of the Apostles, the, 165
207, 239
Agapg, the, 325 B
Alchemists, 83
Allegorical interpretation of Bacon, Francis, 34, 153, 218
miracles, 37, 320 Bahrdt, Karl Friedrich, 323
Allen, W. O, 272 Barkla, Professor, 103
American Civil War, the, 103 Baronius, 297

Amoeba, the, 101
Anthropomorphism, 133
Antichrist, 8, 12
Apocalypse, the, 175
Apocryphal Gospels, 16, 296
literature, 193
Apollonius of Tyana, 15 et seq.
Apologists, the, 10
Aquinas, S. Thomas, 21 et seq.,
72
Arabian philosophers, 21
Aramaic character of Gospels,
294
Aristides, 282
353

Baur, Ferdinand Christian, 57,
58, 150-52, 180
Beelzebub, 306
Bergson, Henri, 94, 98, 99, 129
et seq.
Bethesda, 320
Bethlehem, the Birth at, 275-77
Bethsaida, 187
Bonney, Rev. Thomas George,
90
Box, Rev. G. H., 178
Bradley, F. H., 119, 127 et seq.
Brooke, A. E., 230
Biichler, Dr, 174 Z

354

INDEX

Buddhist birth stories, 294
Burkitt, F. C, 225
Butler, Bishop Joseph, 48, 68,
146, 344, 350

C
Caldecott, Dr A., 131
Cana in Galilee, marriage at,
320
Canterbury, 317.
Cause, 81, 88. See also Nature
Celsus, 12 et seq., 68, 287
Centurion's servant, the, 185,
318
Cerinthus, 230, 289 ¦
Charles, Dr R. H., 284
Chemistry, 100
Chorazin, 187
Christianity, difficulty of be
lieving in, 143
Church Congress, the, 335
Church Quarterly Review, x.,
289, 340
Chwolsohn, Dr, 174
Coincidence, 318
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 25
Collins, T., Deist, 68
Contra naturam, 24, 72. See
also Nature
Corinth, Church parties in, 151
Cornelius, 191
Criticism, constructive, 157
how far unbiassed, 56
our Lord's relation to, 303
results of, 149

D
Darwin, Charles, 83
Deductive reasoning, 30

Deists, the English, 84 et seq.,
43, 97
Demoniacal possession, 188,
802, 307
Descartes, 34
Determinism. See Necessity
Devils, casting out. See Demon
iacal possession
Diatessaron, 155
Diocletian, 16
Discoveries of Christian docu
ments, 154
Doublets, 194
Du Bois-Reymond, 94
E
Easter Faith, 264
Message, 264
Ebionites, 289
Ecclesiastical miracles, 815
et seq., 343. See also
Miracles
Edghill, Ernest A., 15
Egypt, the exodus from, 341
our Lord's flight into, 291
Elijah, 341, 342
Elisha, 341, 342
Eucharist, 324, 325
Evolution, 101, 112, 115, 130,
137
Exorcism, 306
Experience, 73, 84, 101, 108

Faith, 202
Faith-healing, 311
Farrar, Dr Adam Storey, 32
Feeding of the multitude, 48,
194, 231, 323-25

INDEX

355

Finalism, 130
Five thousand, feeding of the.
See Feeding of the multi
tude
Foundations, 125
Freedom, 137

G
Gadarene swine, the, 64, 308
German criticism, 46
Gibbon, Edward, 40
God, Almighty, 18, 137
as Law and Necessity, 132
as Purpose, 138
as Reason, 133
as Wisdom, 185 et seq., 331
Creator, 19
freedom of, 137
Good, 133
mathematical conception of>
132
miracles natural for Him, 332
our conceptions anthropo
morphic, 133
our knowledge of Him im
perfect, 133
Personal, 180 et seq.
proofs of His existence, 131
Spinoza's conception of, 29,
132
the, of Pantheism, 123
will of, 134
Gospels, the, 60
the Synoptic, 159
environment of, 173
integrity of the, 171
mythical theory of the, 54 et

phraseology of, 175
text of the, 172

Gospel of S. Matthew, 168 et
seq., 206 et seq.
use of S. Mark, 209
method of composition, 211
Hebraic affinities, 293
its brevity, 213
its arrangement, 209
interest in prophecy, 291
Gospel of S. Mark, 160 et seq.,
168, 190 et seq.
summary of its testimony,
205
Gospel of S. Luke, 165 et seq.,
206 et seq.
relation to S. Mark, 217
its special source, 218
Aramaic colouring, 293
Gospel of S. John, 53, 176 et
seq., 220 et seq.
divergent opinions concern
ing, 179, 221
historical character, 223, 227
symbolism in, 320
its testimony to the mir
aculous, 221
Gospel of Peter, 175
Gospels, Apocryphal, 16, 175,
296
Greek mythology, 293
Giidemann, Dr, 174

H
Haematite, 89
Haldane, Dr J. S., 100, 102
Harnack, Adolf, 65, 69, 76, 158,
159, 166, 167, 168, 169, 182,
183, 264
Harris, Dr Rendel, 286
Hase, K. A. von, 324

356

INDEX

Hawkins, Sir John, 158, 161,
162
Healing, miracles of, 809
Hebrews, Epistle to the, testi
mony to miracles, 232
Hegel, 51, 153
Hellenism and the Gospels, 293
Herod, the Tetrarch, 198
Hierocles, 16
Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit. See
Spirit
Hooker, Richard, 76, 78
Hume, David, 36, 41, 63, 68, 71
definition of miracles, 72
Huxley, T. H., 68, 69, 79, 95,
308
his criticism of Hume, 71

Jesus, the historical, 153
Jesus Christ, His personality,
345
His authority and power, 313
relation to human knowledge,
303
claims to work miracles, 314
Johannine tradition, the, 229
John, S. See Gospel of S. John
John, son of Zebedee, 179, 180
John the Baptist, his message
to our Lord, 186
John the Presbyter, 179
Joseph, 190, 289
Justin Martyr, 283

K

Ignatian letters, the, 156
Ignatius, S., 177, 281, 282
Illingworth, Dr J. R., 131, 345,
347
Imagination, influence of the,
334
Incarnation, the, 106, 126, 135,
140, 297, 349
a new departure in human
history, 298
Innocents, massacre of the, 291
Isaiah, 292
Israel, miraculous character of
history, 343

James, William, 113, 126
Japan, civilization of, 2
Jerusalem ministry, the, 228

Kattenbusch, 281
Kelvin, Lord, 112
Kenyon, Sir Frederic, 161
Kepler, 34, 111
Kingdom of Heaven, the, 175
Knowledge, limitations of our,
21
our Lord's attitude to, 303
Knox, Ronald, 333

Lactantius, 285
Lake, Professor Kirsopp, 151
Laplace, 94
Law, 80, 127
and God, 132
of Nature. See Nature
Laws of God, 134
of Motion, 111
Lazarus, the raising of, 38, 224,
334

INDEX

357

Life, origin of, 108
Lightfoot, Bishop, 60, 156,
158
Logia, the, 170
Logos, the, 11, 136
Lotze, 131
Lourdes, 317
Lucian of Samosata, 9
Luke, S., 208, 256, 258. See
Gospel of S. Luke
Lyttelton, A. T., 10

M
Mach, 96
Mackintosh, Dr H. R., 131
Magi, the, 292
Magicians, 13
Magnetite, 89
Mahomedanism, 2
Man, origin of, 109
Manichean, 298
Mark, S. See Gospel of S.
Mark
Marmorstein, Dr, 174
Martensen, Dr, Bishop of See-
land, 305
Mary, the Virgin, 50
conceives through the Spirit,
337
Mass of bodies not constant, 83
Materialism, 119 et seq., 122,
123
Mathematics, 96
influence on Spinoza, 31
limitations of, 98
Matthew, S. See Gospel of S.
Matthew, Logia
Mechanical theory of nature,
33, 35, 94, 96

Messiah, the, 289, 291
Metaphysics, relation to science,
117
Middlesborough Church Con
gress, 335
Middleton, Conyers, 36, 37
Miracles, the problem of, 3
New Testament teaching on,
4
names of, 4
definition of, 24, 885
classification of, 66, 200
of healing, 309
discussion of their improba
bility, 106, 128, 141,
331
and the uniformity of nature,
19, 52, 93
and God, 23, 25, 135
and experience, 73
Miracles, evidence for, exam
ined, 14, 42, 182 et seq.,
241, 332
testimony of our Lord, 186,
199, 314
reticence concerning, 204
in " Q," 182 et seq.
in S. Mark, 197 et seq.
in S. Matthew and S. Luke,
206 et seq.
not exaggerated in S.
Matthew, 216
in S. Luke's special source,
219
in S. John, 220 et seq.
in S. Paul's Epistles, 280
et seq.
in Epistle to the Hebrews,
233
in the Acts of the Apostles,
239
in the Fathers, 9 et seq.

358

INDEX

Miracles, explanations of, 48,
300 et seq.
allegorical interpretations,
37
explained by symbolism,
320
result of imposture, 40
explained by coincidence, 818
et seq.
explained by the Zeit-Geist,
62
due to Satanic agency, 59
Miracles and the Holy Spirit, 6,
836
Miracles, the belief in, injuri
ous, 55
evidential value of, 7, 143,
145, 344
as a proof of a revelation, 48,
142, 844 et seq.
witness to God's work, 144
value at the present day,
349
Miracles, summary of criticism
on, 67
Miracles of the Old Testament,
340
of the Apostles, 7
ecclesiastical, 10, 11, 40, 315
et seq.
Miracles, false, 8, 10
Moberly, W. H., 125
Moffatt, Dr James, 156, 165,
166, 177, 272
Monism, 32, 123, 127
Monotheism of Israel, 342
Moorhouse, Bishop, 304
Moses, 341
Mozley, Dr J. B., 10, 142,
345
Mythology and the Virgin
Birth, 293

N
Nativity, stories of the, 295,
296
Nature, 18
contra naturam, 19
vastness of, 44
our ignorance of, 65
Spinoza's account of, 27
its order cannot be inter
rupted, 65
necessity in, 66
Nature and God, 73
Nature, laws of, 25, 27, 28, 41,
64, 71 et seq., 330
the laws of God, 78, 134
the will of God, 78
Nature, uniformity of, 20, 21,
33, 60, 86 et seq., 330
origin of conception, 86
limitations of, 88
meaning of, 89
and freedom, 92
Nature-worship, 342
Natural law, 20, 307
Natural religion, 34
Necessity, 84, 120, 123, 127, 132,
154
Newman, John Henry, 57
Newton, Isaac, 35, 111

O
Oesterley, Dr W. O. E., 178
Old Testament miracles, 340
Oldenburg, 29
Oral tradition, the, 160, 193
Origen, 68, 183
and Celsus, 12 et seq., 287
Oxford Studies in the Synoptic
Problem, 162

INDEX

359

E

Palestine, extent of education
in, 193
Paley, Archdeacon William, 43,
46, 68, 344
Panama Canal, the, 102
Pantheism, 21, 30, 120, 121 et
seq.
Panthera, 288
Papias of Hierapohs, 179, 190,
195
Paralytic man, healing of the,
199
Paul, S. : Epistles of, 181
character and temperament,
235
evidence on the Eesurrection,
247
his witness to miracles, 230
Paulus, H. E. S., 47, 63, 69, 132,
323, 337
Pearson, Karl, 81, 119
Personal God, belief in, 59
Peter, S., 190, 191, 193, 320, 322
rebuke of, 214
Petrine tradition, the, 229
Philostratus, 15
Physiology, 102
Pilgrims' Way, the, 317
Presuppositions, theological, 57
Prophecy in S. Matthew's
Gospel, 291
Protevangelium of James, 296
Purpose in the world, 138

Eabbis, 194
Eachel, 292
Eackham, Eev. E. B., 168
Eaising the dead, 228
Eamsay, Sir William, 167, 169
Rashdall, Dr, 258
Eationalism, 132
Eelativism, 128
Eenan, Ernest, 54, 310
Eesurrection, the, 53, 60, 106,
145, 244 et seq., 332, 347
apostolic witness to, 191
belief of Church universal,
244
character of the evidence, 247
evidence of S. Paul, 247
evidence of the Gospels, 252
influence on the disciples, 262
Jewish reports concerning
the, 255
possibility of imposture, 267
the appearances of our Lord,
260
the empty tomb, 249, 253
explanations of the, 49, 263
the Eesurrection body, 251
Revelation, 35, 139
miracles as evidence for, 59,
332
signs'of a, 141
Revolution, the French, 46, 154
Eickaby, Eev. J., 22
Rontgen rays, 90

Q
" Q," 100, 168, 169, 188 et seq.
Quadratus, 11
Quirinius, 276

S
Samaria, woman of, 320, 321
Sanday, Dr William, 173
Schechter, Dr, 174

360

INDEX

Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 51
Schmiedel, Prof. P. W., 203
Schoolmen, the, 21
Schiirer, Dr Emil, 158
Schweitzer, Dr Albert, 47, 51,
158 et seq., 323
Science, our Lord's attitude toi
303
limitations of its domain,
111
relation to metaphysics, 116,
117
relation to theology, lis
Scientific knowledge, limita
tions of, 104
Scientific spirit, changes in the,
111
Sensationalism, 117 et seq.
Sinaitic MS., the, 271
Solomon, Odes of, 285
Son of Man, 175
Spencer, Herbert, 101, 113
Spinoza, 26 et seq., 34, 47, 51,
132, 344
criticism of his system, 30
Spirit, the Holy, 232, 238
the power of the, 312, 338
gifts of the, 233
and man, 336
in the universe, 337
in the Christian Church, 343
sin against the, 306
miracles worked by, 885 et
seq.
and the Resurrection, 339
Stanton, Prof. V. H., 162
Stephen, Sir Leslie, 40
Strauss, David Friedrich, 54
et seq., 69, 324
Streeter, B. H., 256
Supernatural Religion, 59, 69,
70, 155, 158, 234

Suspension of judgement 344
Symbolism, 320 et seq.
Synoptists, the, 53. See Gospels

Tatian, 155
Temptation, the, 183, 332
Tertullian, 10, 222, 338
Theism, 125, 180 et seq.
Thomas, S., appearance of our
Lord to, 49
of Canterbury, miracles at
his shrine, 316
Thompson, J. M., 201, 210, 211,
216, 323, 324, 327
Tindall, M., the Deist, 68
Tradition, the Gospel, 193
Trench, Archbishop, 5, 6, 47,
51, 134
Tubingen School, the, 150

U
Uniformity. See Nature, Uni
formity of
Universe, development of, 139
history of the, 107
mechanical idea of, 93
purpose of, 138
the, rational, 117, 118, 119
theory of the, 106
Unprecedented, the, 107

Vaughan, Rev. Robert, 340
Venturini, K. H., 323, 324

INDEX

361

Virgin Birth, the, 50, 269 et
seq.
evidence of S. Matthew
and S. Luke, 271 et
seq.
textual questions, 271 et
seq.
the argument from silence,
277 '
S. Mark and S. John,
279
Acts of the Apostles, 278
Epistles of S. Paul, 280
evidence of tradition, 281
opinions of heretics, 289
Jewish calumnies, 287
the fulfilment of prophecy,
290 et seq.
value of the belief, 295
and Christian purity, 298
in Christian art, 299
Voltaire, 37, 63

W
Wace, Dr, 64
Walking on the sea, the, 320
Water, origin of, 108
Wendland, Dr Johannes, 6, 10,
51
Wesley, John, 46
Westcott, Bishop, 61, 155
and Hort, 158, 172
Whetham, W. C. D., 80, 90, 96
White, Dr H. J., 217
Wisdom, 136
God as, 331
Wonders, 201. See Miracles
Woolston, T., 86 et seq., 68
World, age of the, 112

Zahn, Dr Theodor, 158, 272
Zeit-Geist, the, 62, 68

PRINTED BT
OLIVER AND BOYD
EDINBURGH

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

St Paul and Christianity
Crown 8vo. 5s. net.
The purpose of this book is to examine the writings of
St Paul as a whole in the light of other early Christian
teaching, and to show, as the writer maintains, that
Paulinism does not represent any new departure in
Christian thought, but the natural development of
fundamental Christian principles, the germs of which
are to be found in the teaching of Christ, and of the
Primitive Church.
"We have pleasure in recommending this study of St Paul as
an independent analysis of his writings, giving a valuable estimate
of their teaching as it appears to a scholar of recognised standing
among ourselves. It will help to correct the extravagances of
some of the theories that have appeared on the Continent." —
Church Family Newspaper.

History, Authority, and Theology
Large Crown 8vo. 6s. net.
I. The Sources and Authority of Dogmatic Theology.
II. The New Theology.
III. The Athanasian Creed.
IV. The Church of England and the Eastern Churches.
V. The Teaching of the Russian Church.
VI. Methods of the Early Church.
VII. The Church of the Apostolic Fathers.
" There is a calm frankness, an obviously deep sincerity, and a width
of view about the writer's method which is eminently reassuring. His
wide and deep learning gives a sound foundation, and on that foundation
he builds with a combination of enthusiasm and common sense which is
too rare among the theologians of to-day." — Guardian.
LONDON: JOHN MURRAY.

SOME PRINCIPLES OF LITURGICAL REFORM.
A Contribution towards the Revision of the Book of Common
Prayer. By the Rev. W. H. Frere, D.D., of the Community of the
Resurrection. New and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. net.
ENGLISH CHURCH WAYS. Described to Russian
Friends in Four Lectures delivered at St Petersburg in 1914. By
W. H. Frere, D.D., of the Community of the Resurrection. Crown
8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
A CHAIN OF PRAYER ACROSS THE AGES. Forty
Centuries of Prayer, B.C. 2000 — A.D. 1912. Compiled and Arranged
for Daily Use by Selina FitzHERBERT Fox, M.D., B.S. Square
Demy 8vo, is. net.
ROME, ST PAUL AND THE EARLY CHURCH,
showing the Influence of Roman Law on St Paul's Teaching and
Phraseology, and on the Development of the Church. By the
Rev. W. Stephens Muntz, D.D., Vicar of St John's, Upper
Holloway. Large Crown 8vo. Ss. net.
THE MOVEMENT TOWARDS CATHOLIC REFORM
IN THE EARLY SIXTEENTH CENTURY. By G. V.
JOURDAN, D.D., Rector of Rathbarry Castlefreke. Large Crown
8vo. Is. 6d. net.
THE CANON LAW IN MEDIAEVAL ENGLAND. An
Examination of William Lyndwood's " Provinciale," in Reply to the
late Professor F. W. Maitland. By the Rev. ARTHUR Ogle, M.A.,
Rector of Otham, Maidstone. Large Crown 8vo. 6s. net.
LANDMARKS IN .THE HISTORY OF THE WELSH
CHURCH. By the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of St Asaph. With
Illustrations. Large Crown 8vo. 6s. net.
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. By
George SALMON, D.D., sometime Provost of Trinity College,
Dublin. New and Cheaper Edition. Large Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. net.
LONDON : JOHN MURRAY.

THE BIBLE TO-DAY. The Second Part of a Charge
Delivered at his Primary Visitation, 1912. By the Rt. Rev.
Bertram Pollock, C.V.O., D.D., Bishop of Norwich. Demy 8vo.
2s. 6d. net.
The BISHOP OF LONDON in a letter says :— " I have read this book
with great delight. It will do much good."
HOURS OF INSIGHT and other Sermons. By the late
William Edward Collins, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gibraltar.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. net.
A CAMERA CRUSADE THROUGH THE HOLY
LAND. By Dwight L. Elmendorf. With 100 Illustrations
from Photographs by the Author. 4to. 10s. td. net.
SOME FRENCH CATHEDRALS on French Gothic,
Bourges, Chartres, Amiens, Beauvais. The Times Series of Reprints.
is. net.
"Five admirable articles which appeared in The Times are now
gathered into a dainty little volume." — Church Times.
MURRAY'S DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN BIO
GRAPHY AND LITERATURE to the End of the Sixth Century.
With an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies. Edited by the
Very Rev. Henry WaCE, D.D., Dean of Canterbury, and the Rev.
William C. Piercy, Dean and Chaplain of Whitelands College.
In I Vol. 1040 pages. Medium 8vo. 21s. net.
MURRAY'S ILLUSTRATED BIBLE DICTIONARY.
Combining Modern Research with Ancient Faith. Written by
Leading Scholars of To-day, and including the Results of Modern
Research. Edited by the Rev. Wm. C. Piercy, M.A. With
numerous Illustrations and Maps. 211. ; leather, 2^s.
A SMALLER DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE. By
Sir Wm. Smith, D.C.L., LL.D. With Maps and Illustrations.
Large crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. net.
LONDON : JOHN MURRAY.

THREE WORKS ON THE BIRTH OF THE ENGLISH CHURCh
By Sir HENRY H. HOWORTH, K.G.I.E.
With Illustrations. Demy 8vo, 12s. net each volume.
SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT.
"Sir Henry Howorth has written a life of 'Gregory the Great'
which is marked with all the qualities of breadth of view, calm impar
tiality, soundness of judgment, accuracy of statement, and unfailing
discrimination of outstanding facts and principles. No students of the
beginnings of the Church of England can afford to neglect such a book,
and much may be learned from it." — Church of Ireland Gazette.
SAINT AUGUSTINE OF CANTER
BURY.
"Learned, lucid, and always interesting." — Athenaum.
"The book is doubly valuable in that it not only throws light upon
the work of the Augustine Mission, but also gives us an excellent and
learned account of contemporary Christendom. — Outlook.
THE GOLDEN DAYS OF THE EARLY
~ ENGLISH CHURCH.
Two volumes.
These volumes will complete the series on the Birth of the English
Church, of which "St. Gregory the Great" and "St. Augustine of
Canterbury" were the first parts. The authority with which these
works have been written has been acknowledged by the leading and
best-qualified scholars.
THE PSALMS IN HUMAN LIFE. New and Enlarged
Edition. By Rowland E. Prothero, M.V.O. 2s. 6d, net.
THE TRUTH AND ERROR OF CHRISTIAN
SCIENCE. By M. Carta Sturge, Moral Science Tripos
(Cambridge). 2S. 6d. net.
THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. From
its Foundation to the End of the Fifth Century. Rendered into
English from the Fourth Edition. By Monsignor L. Duchesne.
Vol. I. gs. net. Vol. II. $s. net.
LONDON : JOHN MURRAY.

WORKS BY THE RIGHT REV.
CHARLES GORE, D.D., D.G.L., LL.D.
Bishop of Oxford.
ORDERS AND UNITY. 3*. 6d. net.
THE NEW THEOLOGY AND THE OLD RELIGION.
5*. net.
THE BODY OF CHRIST. An Inquiry into the Insti
tution and Doctrine of the Holy Communion. 2s. 6d. net.
THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH. Four Lectures
delivered in the Cathedral of St. Asaph. 2s. 6d,
THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD.
Bampton Lectures for 1891. 2s. 6d. net.
DISSERTATIONS ON SUBJECTS CONNECTED
WITH THE INCARNATION. 2s. 6d. net.
THE PERMANENT CREED AND THE CHRISTIAN
IDEA OF SIN. Two Sermons preached before the University
of Oxford. Paper covers, 6d. net.
SPIRITUAL EFFICIENCY. The Primary Charge de
livered at his Visitation to the Clergy and Churchwardens of his
Diocese of Birmingham, October 1904. Paper covers, is. net.
THE QUESTION OF DIVORCE, is. net.

A Series of Simple Exposition of Portions of the
New Testament.
Crown 8vo, green cloth, 2s. 6d. net each.
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. Paper covers,
6d, net. Also in Murray's Shilling Library.
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 2 vols.

LUX MUNDI. A Series of Studies in the Religion of the
Incarnation. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d, net.
LONDON: JOHN MURRAY.

WORKS BY THE VERY REV.
ARTHUR PENRHYN STANLEY,D.D.
Late Dean of Westminster.
LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE JEWISH
CHURCH, from Abraham to the Christian Era. 3 vols. 2s. 64.
net each.
LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE EASTERN
CHURCH. With an Introduction on the Study of Ecclesiastica
History. 2s. 6d. net.
HISTORICAL MEMORIALS OF CANTERBURY.
2s. 6d. net ; also is. net.
CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. Essays on Ecclesiastical
Subjects. 2s. 6d. net.
SINAI AND PALESTINE IN CONNECTION WITH
THEIR HISTORY. 5*. net ; also is. net.
THE BIBLE IN THE HOLY LAND, being Extracts
from the above work for Young Persons, is. net.
LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH
OF SCOTLAND. Js. 6d.
ESSAYS CHIEFLY ON QUESTIONS OF CHURCH
AND STATE FROM 1850 TO 1870. 6s.
LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF THOMAS
ARNOLD, D.D. 2 vols., 12s. Also 1 vol. 2s. 6d. net.
LETTERS AND VERSES OF ARTHUR PENRHYN
STANLEY. Edited by Rowland E. Prothero. 16s.
RECOLLECTIONS OF ARTHUR PENRHYN
STANLEY. By Dean Bradley. 3s. 6d.
HISTORICAL MEMORIALS OF WESTMINSTER
ABBEY. From its Foundation to the year 1876. l$s.
*„* Arrangements have been made with Booksellers enabling them to
offer special terms for the above work.
LONDON: JOHN MURRAY.

m

CATALOGUE OF
THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE

PUBLISHED BY
MR MURRAY
AT 5oA ALBE
MARLE STREET
LONDON, W.
1914

NEW AND RECENT
PUBLICATIONS

NEW AND ENLARGED EDITION
THE PSALMS IN HUMAN LIFE
By ROWLAND E. PROTHERO, M.V.O.
Large Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
The reception which has been given to "The Psalms in Human
Life " since the first publication of the book in 1903, is itself a striking
illustration of the sway which the Hebrew Psalter continues to exercise
over the hearts of men. The significance of the Psalms in human
experience may probably be realised in various ways. The object
of this book has been to bring out the fact by cumulative evidence,
drawn from a wide range of history. In this enlarged edition of the
original book, the structure and many of the chapters remam unaltered,
But some general illustrations have been added, as well as upwards
of forty instances of the use of the Psalms either by famous men, or
In famous books, or on famous occasions. Among the most important
of these added instances are those associated with the Emperor Julian,
St. Severinus of Vienna, St. Brendan and his Voyage Benvenuto
Cellini, Pizarroin Peru, Joseph de Maistre, Thackeray, F. H. W. Myers,
Hazlitt and Northcote, Sir Henry Taylor, Sir Harry Smith, the
Franco-German War, Gladstone, President Lincoln, and President
Garfield.
ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY
By the Rev. A. G. HEADLAM, D.D.,
formerly Principal of King's College, London
Crown 8vo, 5s. net.
The purpose of this book is to examine the writings of St. Paul as
a whole in the light of other early Christian teaching, and to show
that Paulinism does not represent any new departure in Christian
thought but the natural development of fundamental Christian princi
ples, the germs of which are to be found in the teaching of Christ
and of the Primitive Church.

NEW AND RECENT PUBLICATIONS

THE MOVEMENT TOWARDS
CATHOLIC REFORM IN THE EARLY
SIXTEENTH CENTURY
By G. V. JOURDAN, B.D.,
Rector of Rathbarry, Castlefreke
Large Crown 8vo. Js. 6d. net.
The period (1496-1528) dealt with is one which has been impressing
itself in an increasing degree upon the minds of the present generation,
and, accordingly, the movement of which an account is here given
is actually exerting a profound influence over the religious ideals
and conceptions of our time. No one, indeed, can estimate the
beneficial results that are likely to flow from a study of the lives,
aspirations and struggles of the noble Catholics of the early sixteenth
century. The restoration of a true, perfect Catholicity in the Christian
Church appears to be attainable only along the lines indicated by their
teachings.
MOTHER MABEL DIGBY, 1835-1911
SUPERIOR GENERAL OF THE SOCIETY OF THE SACRED HEART
By ANNE POLLEN
With a Preface by Cardinal BOURNE
With Illustrations. Demy 8vo. 12s. net.
This is the history of a personality, striking to an unusual degree
from the force of her character, the sanctity of her life, and her astonish
ing power of organisation and control. Her career was remarkable
from the beginning. The biography should attract an attention not
confined to the co-religionists of the subject. The book, in the course
of setting forth the details of the life of Mother Digby, throws light
on the recent expulsion of the Orders from France ; a tale which,
in its fulness, will be a revelation to many.
SOME FRENCH CATHEDRALS
ON FRENCH GOTHIC, BOURGES, CHARTRES, AMIENS, BEAUVAIS
The Times Series of Reprints, is. net.
' ' Five admirable articles which appeared in The Times are now
gathered into a dainty little volume." — Church Times.

NEW AND RECENT PUBLICATIONS

THREE WORKS ON THE BIRTH OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH
By Sir HENRY H. HOWORTH, K.C.I.E.
With Illustrations. Demy 8vo, 12s. net each volume.
SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT
"Sir Henry Howorth has written a life of 'Gregory the Great'
which is marked with all the qualities of breadth of view, calm im
partiality, soundness of judgment, accuracy of statement, and unfailing
discrimination of outstanding facts and principles. No students of
the beginnings of the Church of England can afford to neglect such a
book, and much may be learned from it." — Church of Ireland Gazette.
SAINT AUGUSTINE OF CANTERBURY
" Learned, lucid, and always interesting." — Athenaum.
"The book is doubly valuable in that it not only throws light upon
the work of the Augustine mission, but also gives us an excellent
and learned account of contemporary Christendom." — Outlook.
THE GOLDEN DAYS OF THE EARLY
ENGLISH CHURCH
2 Volumes.
These volumes will complete the series on the Birth of the English
Church, of which "St. Gregory the Great" and "St. Augustine of
Canterbury ' ' were the first parts. The authority with which these
works have been written has been acknowledged by the leading and
best- qualified scholars.

ROME, ST. PAUL AND THE EARLY
CHURCH
SHOWING THE INFLUENCE OF ROMAN LAW ON ST. PAUL'S
TEACHING AND PHRASEOLOGY, AND ON THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE CHURCH
By the Rev. W. STEPHENS MUNTZ, D.D.,
Vicar of St. John's, Upper Holloway
Large Crown 8vo, $s. net.
" The author . . . offers valuable suggestions for further inquiry
by New Testament students. He has provided a thoughtful work
deserving their attention." — Times.

NEW AND RECENT PUBLICATIONS

BUDDHIST CHINA
By R. F. JOHNSTON,
Author of "From Pekin to Mandalay," "Lion and Dragon in
Northern China "
With numerous Illustrations. Demy 8vo, l$s. net.
This book embodies the results of wide travel in unfrequented parts
of China, and much research in Chinese Buddhist literature. It
contains historical and topographical accounts of some of the most
famous religious centres in the empire. The author has lived as a
guest in many of the monasteries and hermitages described, and has
made himself intimately acquainted with their legendary and romantic
as well as their religious and historical associations. He deals with
the religious problems arising from the new political and social con
ditions and prospects brought about by the Revolution, and the book
is therefore of special value to all who take an interest in the religious
future of the Chinese people.

A CHAIN OF PRAYER ACROSS
THE AGES
FORTY CENTURIES OF PRAYER— B.C. 2000-A.D. 1912
Arranged for Daily Use
By SELINA FITZHERBERT FOX, M.D., B.S.
Revised Edition. Square Demy 8vo, $s. net.
"The collection is in every way suited to accomplish the author's
pious purpose of helping to render prayer a greater reality in daily
life." — Athenaum.
"... Gives many prayers of great beauty which are not commonly
accessible, and which deserve not to be forgotten." — Church Times.
AMBASSADORS IN BONDS
A SERMON PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF
CAMBRIDGE ON SUNDAY, MARCH 9, 1913
By the Rev. F. A. SIMPSON,
Fellow and Lecturer of Trinity College, Cambridge
In Paper Cover, 6d.

NEW AND RECENT PUBLICATIONS

A CAMERA CRUSADE THROUGH
THE HOLY LAND
By DWIGHT L. ELMENDORFF
With ioo Illustrations from Photographs by the Author.
4to, 10s. 6d. net.
"... [the illustrations] are beyond praise. Each is a single
photograph of some beautiful or interesting scene extraordinarily well
taken and perfectly reproduced." — Manchester Guardian.
JOHN HUNGERFORD POLLEN,
1820-1902
By ANNE POLLEN
With Illustrations. Demy 8vo, 15*. net.
"This Life of John Hungerford Pollen will revive and keep in
memory the name of a very able and attractive man, whose varied
activities in the worlds of religion, politics, and art ended about ten
years ago. It is not surprising that his family and friends should
have wished for such a memorial, and his daughter's work, a labour
of love, undertaken in a spirit of most loyal affection, has been carried
out with marked literary skill. Several excellent portraits, well
reproduced, do justice to Mr. Pollen's fine features with their expres
sion of mingled earnestness and sweetness, and the charming decora
tive work of his later years is illustrated by plates, some in colour, and
working drawings, which should interest every student of architecture
and its companion arts." — Spectator.
THE BIBLE TO-DAY
By BERTRAM POLLOCK, D.D., C.V.O.,
Bishop of Norwich
Demy 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
"... We hope it may be read very widely. . . . The charge is
written not only, as we need hardly say, with the utmost reverence,
but with admirable lucidity, and with a persuasiveness too often lacking
in the advocates of the higher criticism." — Spectator.
THE WELSH CHURCH BILL
A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
By the
Right Rev. the LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH
In Paper Cover, 6d- net.

NEW AND RECENT PUBLICATIONS

A DICTIONARY OF
CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY, LITERATURE,
SECTS, AND DOCTRINES
Edited by the Very Rev. HENRY WAGE, D.D.,
Dean of Canterbury
And the Rev. WILLIAM G. PIERCY, M.A.,
Dean and Chaplain cf Whitelands College
In One Vol., 1040 pp. Medium 8vo, 21s. net.
His Grace The Archbishop of Canterbury, in a letter to Mr.
Murray, says : — ' ' In my movements backwards and forwards between
Lambeth and Canterbury, I almost fear that I may never have thanked
you for sending me a copy of your one- volume Dictionary of Christian
Biography. If I have already written, pardon this further letter.
But I should like to tell you how greatly I value the book. I have
been using it for some of my work, and am immensely struck by
the way in which it seems to have been found possible to bring into
this smaller compass practically everything of real importance to
the general reader. I am certain that the editors ^and yourself
have done a great public service in placing this book upon our shelves."
LANDMARKS IN THE HISTORY OF
THE WELSH CHURCH
By the
Right Rev. the LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH
With Illustrations. Large Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
" A temperate and convincing statement of the questions at issue,
a retrospect both of the Church and of the four Dissenting bodies in
the past, and a clear exposition of their respective activities in the
present." — The Times.
ENGLISH CHURCH LAW and DIVORCE
PART I.— NOTES ON THE REFORMATIO LEGUM
ECCLESIASTICARUM. By Sir Lewis Dibdin, D.C.L.,
Dean of the Arches. PART II.— NOTES ON THE DIVORCE
AND RE-MARRIAGE OF SIR JOHN STAWELL. By
Sir Charles E. H. Chadwyck Healey, K.C.B., K.C., Chan
cellor of the Diocese of Exeter, Demy 8vo, 5$. net.

f

CATALOGUE OF
THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE

ALEXANDER, the Rev. S. A.,
Canon and Treasurer of St. Paul's.
THE MIND OF CHRIST. Demy 8vo, 6s. net.
The principle which has governed the present selection of
brief and simple addresses, given at various times fn the Temple
Church, is the hope of illustrating, from one side or another,
the supreme need of a deeper realisation by the Church of what
her Founder taught and was, and a more successful effort to
apply His teaching and assimilate His character.
PROGRESSIVE REVELATION. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
These lectures, addressed originally to clergy, and dealing
first with the Bible and then with some of the great movements
of religious history, modern science, and Biblical criticism, are
intended to show, in a popular form, the progressive character
of the Christian Church, with special reference to present-day
subjects such as those of Modernism and Prayer-book revision.
' ' The author has given expression to many thoughts of great
value and importance in striking language and a spirit of con
spicuous earnestness and devotion." — Church Quarterly Review.
BEECHING, the Very Rev. H. C., M.A., D.Litt.,
Dean of Norwich.
THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. Six
Lectures given in Westminster Abbey during Lent, 1908.
Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS  BAPTISM  INFANT BAPTISM
AND CONFIRMATION  THE EUCHARIST  THE LORD'S OWN TEACHING
 THE APOSTOLIC TEACHING  THE PRIMITIVE CELEBRATION.

10 MR. MURRAY'S CATALOGUE OF

BEECHING, the Very Rev. H. C., M.A., D.Litt.
THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. Six Lectures
given in Westminster Abbey. By H. C. Beeching, M.A.,
D.Litt., and Alexander Nairne, M.A., Professor of Hebrew
in King's College, London. Large Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT  THE EPOCH OF THE
PROPHETS — THE LEVITICAL LAW OF SACRIFICE  THE GOSPEL OF
JESUS CHRIST  THE DOCTRINE OF ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES 
ATONEMENT IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
THE APOSTLES' CREED. Six Lectures delivered in West
minster Abbey. Large Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
" Dr. Beeching has succeeded in imparting an astonishing
amount of instruction in his six lectures, and, what is even more
important, has given every one of his readers the chance of ap
preciating the modern standpoint and understanding the position
of the reverent student of Christian theology in this twentieth
century of ours. This it is which gives the book its value." —
Layworker.
BIBLE COMMENTARY.
A COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY BIBLE, Explanatory
and Critical, with a Revision of the Translation. By Bishops and
Clergy of the Anglican Church. Edited by F. C. Cook, M.A.:
late Canon of Exeter.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 6 vols. Medium 8vo.

Vol. I. Genesis — Deutero
nomy. 30s.
Vol. II. Joshua — Kings i.
20s.
Vol. III. Kings ii — Esther.
1 6s.

Vol. IV. Job — Song of Solomon.

Vol. V. Isaiah — Jeremiah. 20s.
Vol. VI. Ezekiel — Malachi. 25s.
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 4 vols. Medium 8vo.

Vol. I. St. Matthew— St.
Luke. 18s.
Vol. II. St. John — Acts of
the Apostles. 20s.

Vol. III. Romans — Philemon.
28s.
Vol. IV. Hebrews — Revela
tion. 28s.

THE APOCRYPHA. By various writers. Edited by the Rev
Henry Wace, D.D. 2 vols. Medium 8vo. 50s.
*»* Arrangements have now been made with the booksellers enabling
them to offer special terms for the above work complete.

THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE

BIBLE COMMENTARY.
STUDENT'S COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY BIBLE
Abridged from the above Work. Edited by John M. Fuller,
M.A., Vicar of Bexley, and Professor of Ecclesiastical History,
King's College, London. 6 vols. Crown 8vo, "]s. 6d. each.
*<,* Arrangements have now been made with the booksellers enabling
them to offer special terms for the above work complete.
BICKERSTETH, the Right Rev. Edward, P.P.,
Late Bishop of South Tokyo, Japan,
OUR HERITAGE IN THE CHURCH. Papers Written for
Divinity Students in Japan. With a Preface by the late Rt.
Rev. B. F. Westcott, D.D. Large Crown 8vo, 5*.
LIFE AND LETTERS OF EDWARD BICKERSTETH,
late Bishop of South Tokyo. With Map and Illustrations.
Cheap Edition. Crown 8vo, 3*. 6d. net. Also an Edition,
Demy 8vo, 10s. 6d. net.
BOYP-CARPENTER, the Right Rev. William, P.P.,
Late Bishop of Ripon.
A POPULAR HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF ENG-
LAND, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. With
Illustrations. Cheap Edition. Large Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
"The title is, perhaps, hardly wide enough for the contents ;
one would almost call the book a history of Christianity in Eng
land. ... He has the true judicial spirit, and is passionately
eager to be entirely fair to every one. His history is impartial
to the last degree. . . . His book should have a very wide cir
culation, and can do nothing but good wherever it is read." —
Morning Post.
BROPRICK, M.

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS CHRIST
OF NAZARETH. 3*. 6d. net.
"The whole volume is intensely interesting, and written with
a candour and a fulness of information which cannot fail to edify
and help." — Glasgow Herald.
BURKITT, F. Crawford,
Lecturer in Palozography in the University of Cambridge.
EARLY EASTERN CHRISTIANITY. St. Margaret's Lec
tures, 1904, on the Syriac-speaking Church. With Illustrations.
Large Crown 8vo, 6s. net.

12 MR. MURRAY'S CATALOGUE OF

CALPECOTT, the Rev. W. Shaw,
Member of the Royal Asiatic Society.
THE SECOND TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM. Its History
and Structure. With Illustrations. Demy 8vo, los. 6d. net.
" The permanently valuable material is in Part II., dealing
with the structure of the Second Temple. . . . The historical
survey in Part I. is full of interest and attraction. It is a real
pleasure to read this freshly written and often picturesque story
of the Exile and Return, and of the reconstruction of the Jewish
State." — Methodist Times.
CARNEGIE, the Rev. W. H.,
Canon of Westminster,
CHURCHMANSHIP AND CHARACTER. Three Years'
Teaching in Birmingham Cathedral. Crown 8vo, 3-r. 6d. net.
" His words always ring with a manly sound. There is not a
syllable of conventional phraseology in them, no display of pulpit
eloquence, no sensational imagery. Yet the sentences swing along
with the ease gained by years of sincere thought, by the activities
of social life for the community, and by intercourse with kindred
spirits." — Birmingham Post.
GHILP CHAPLIN, G. G„ M.P.
BENEDICITE : The Song of the Three Children. Being Illus
trations of the Power, Beneficence, and Design manifested by
the Creator in His Works. Crown 8vo, 3j. 6d.
CLARKE, the Rev. J. Langton.
THE ETERNAL SAVIOUR-JUDGE. With Preface by the
Rev. J. R. Illingworth, D.D. Demy 8vo, 4-r. net.
" His discussion is marked throughout by competent learning,
and by a deeply Christian spirit. The work is well worthy the
study of Bible students of all schools." — Christian World.
COLLINS, Rt. Rev. William Edward, P.P.,
Late Bishop of Gibraltar.
HOURS OF INSIGHT and other Sermons. Crown 8vo,
3*. 6d. net.
"For two reasons at least we welcome the appearance of
' Hours of Insight and Other Sermons,' by the late Bishop of
Gibraltar. In the first place, they are quite beautiful in themselves,
these sermons preached to congregations so various, yet so well
adapted to the particular needs of each. Secondly, the volume
is a fit memorial of a very saintly man." — Church Times.

THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 13

GONTENTIO VERITATIS.
CONTENTIO VERITATIS. Essays in Constructive Theology.
By Six Oxford Tutors. A Revised and Cheap Edition.
Demy 8vo, $s. net.
I. The Ultimate Basis of Theism. By the Rev. H. Rash
dall, D.l.itt., D.C.L.
II. The Person of Christ. By the Very Rev. W. R. Inge.
III. The Teaching of Christ. By the Rev. H. L. Wild.
IV. The Permanent Religious Value of the Old Testament.
By the Rev. C. F. Burney.
V. Modern Criticism and the New Testament. By the
Rev. W. C. Allen.
VI. The Church. By the Rev. A. J. Carlyle.
VII. The Sacraments. By the Very Rev. W. R. Inge, M.A.

CUNNINGHAM, the Venble. W., P.P., F.B.A.,
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Archdeacon of Ely.
EFFICIENCY IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Some
Remarks Occasioned by the Report of the Archbishops' Com
mittee on Church Finance. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
PAVIPSON, the Most Rev. Randall Thomas, P.P.,
Archbishop of Canterbury.
CAPTAINS AND COMRADES IN THE FAITH : Sermons
Historical and Biographical. Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
' ' Should appeal to very many thoughtful and practical minds.
The things most emphasised in them are the things most em
phasised in the Gospels — the fundamental laws of the love of
God and the love of man . . . the sermons reveal also those
qualities of practical wisdom which are necessary in a ruler of
the Church." — The Guardian.
FROM STRENGTH TO STRENGTH. A Sermon preached
in Westminster Abbey on Sunday, May 8th, 1910, the Sunday
following the Death of His Majesty King Edward VII. Paper
covers, 6d. net.

14 MR. MURRAY'S CATALOGUE OF

PUCHESNE, Monsignor L.
THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. From its
Foundation to the End of the Fifth Century. Rendered into
English from the Fourth Edition.
Vol. I. To End of Third Century. Demy 8vo, <)s. net.
Vol. II. Demy 8vo, 9*. net.
Vol. I. — " It will at once take rank as one of the very best
works on the subject." — Guardian.
Vol. II. — " It is a pleasure to welcome this readable translation
of the second instalment of M. Duchesne's elaborate and dis
cerning study of the ecclesiastical embodiments of early Chris
tianity. Based on first-hand use of the sources, and marked by
force of style as well as independence of view, such a history makes
its own place with the many others that have been written ;
the translation offers attractive inducement to the English reader."
— Literary World.
PYKES, the Rev. John Bacchus.

THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF THE REV. JOHN
BACCHUS DYKES, M.A., Mus. Doc, late Vicar of St.
Oswald's, Durham. Edited by the Rev. Joseph T. Fowler,
Vice- Principal of Hatfield Hall, Durham, etc. With Portrait.
Crown 8vo, 7/. 6d.
FRERE, the Rev. W. H., P.P.,
Of the Community of the Resurrection.
SOME PRINCIPLES OF LITURGICAL REFORM. A
Contribution towards the Revision of the Book of Common
Prayer. Crown 8vo, $s. net.
" We would trust Dr. Frere with the reform of the Prayer
Book. His sense of liturgical fitness is so sure, his knowledge of
details so large, that if the task were committed to his free hand
we should sleep peacefully while he did the work." — The Church
Times.
GLAPSTONE, William Ewart.
CORRESPONDENCE ON CHURCH AND RELIGION
OF. Selected and Arranged by D. C. Lathbury. With
Portraits. 2 vols. Demy 8vo, 24*. net
" ... No one can rise from their perusal without a feeling of
admiration for the great Christian statesman whose religious life
they so vividly portray. ... We are given intimate glimpses into
a noble soul. . . . The unreserve and the unconstraint of many
of these letters is remarkable."— Daily Chronicle.

THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 15
GORE, the Right Rev. Charles, P.P., P.C.L., LL.P.,
Bishop of Oxford.
ORDERS AND UNITY. Crown 8vo, y. 6d. net.
"An extremely interesting book. The Bishop has put at its
strongest the case for ' the episcopate considered as a necessary
and divinely given link of continuity and cohesion in the Church
universal.' This is of great value at a time when numerous
and often ill-advised schemes for ' Unity ' at any price are in
the air. The Bishop's own attitude towards unity in England
to-day is given in Chap. VI. It seems to us a wise, sound,
and noble attitude. All theologians, indeed, all Churchmen,
should read this work, and take pains to put themselves in
possession of this point of view, even if they differ from it." —
Cambridge Review.
THE NEW THEOLOGY AND THE OLD RELIGION.
Crown 8vo, $s. net.
' ' This is a work that was much needed. It says, and says
plainly, what we all wanted to hear. And the Author is one
who will claim a wider hearing than any other man in England
on this point. Bishop Gore is more tender to the man troubled
with intellectual doubts than any other teacher." — Church
Times.
THE BODY OF CHRIST. An Inquiry into the Institution
and Doctrine of the Holy Communion. Crown 8vo, zs. 6d.
net.
THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH. Four Lectures de
livered in the Cathedral of St. Asaph. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD. Bampton
Lectures for 1891. Large Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
DISSERTATIONS ON SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH
THE INCARNATION. Large Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
THE PERMANENT CREED AND THE CHRISTIAN
IDEA OF SIN. Two Sermons preached before the University
of Oxford. Large Crown 8vo, paper covers, 6d. net.

16 MR MURRAY'S CATALOGUE OF

GORE, the Right Rev. Charles, P.P.
SPIRITUAL EFFICIENCY. The Primary Charge delivered
at his Visitation to the Clergy and Churchwardens of his Diocese
of Birmingham, October 1904. Demy 8vo, paper covers, is. net.
THE QUESTION OF DIVORCE. Crown 8vo, is. net.

A Series of Simple Expositions of Portions of the
New Testament
Crown 8vo, green cloth, 2s. 6d. net each
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. Paper covers, 6d. net.
Also in Murray's Shilling Library.
The success of this book must constitute a record in modern
sermonic literature. There can be no question, however, that
its success is due to its own intrinsic value. Cultured and
scholarly, and yet simple and luminous, eloquent in tone and
graceful in diction, practical and stimulating, it is far and away
the best exposition of the Sermon on the Mount that has
yet appeared.
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 2 vols.
GORE, the Right Rev. Charles— Edited by.
LUX MUNDI. A Series of Studies in the Religion of the
Incarnation. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
GREEN, the Rev. E. Tyrrell,
St. David's College, Lampeter.
THE EUCHARIST. Devotional Addresses on its Chief Aspects.
Crown 8vo, y. 6d. net.
" Marked by a laudable simplicity, and are full of clear and
admirable teaching." — Morning Post.
" Marked by a pious and scholarly tone and treatment, and,
though not intended for Catholic hearers, will prove interesting
to students of contemporary religious thought. ... A valuable
feature of this beautifully printed volume are the liturgies, given
in an appendix, of the most important Churches, ancient and
modern. The preacher is a man of deep religious fervour, and
his addresses are worthy of careful perusal." — Catholic Times.

THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 17

HARPWICH, the Rev. J. M., M.A., and
Late Scholar of St. John's College, Cambridge,
COSTLEY-WHITE, the Rev. H„ M.A.,
Late Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford.
OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. In Five Periods. Crown
8vo, 2s. each Volume.
Vol. I. — From the Creation to the Crossing of the Red Sea.
Vol. II. — From the Crossing cf the Red Sea to Ruth.
Vol. III. — From the Birth of Samuel to the Death of David.
Vol. IV. — From the Accession of Solomon to the Fall of
the Northern Kingdom.
Vol. V. — From Hezekiah to the End of the Canon.
The following are some of the chief features of the series :
i. The Narrative is given for the most part in the words ol
the Authorised Version. — ii. Brief Historical explanations and
general commentary are inserted in their proper place. — iii. The
chronological order of events has been followed. — iv. Each
period is illustrated by reference to contemporary literature (e.g..
Prophets and Psalms) and monuments. — v. Foot-notes are
added, but only where difficulties of thought or language seem
to demand explanation.
HEAPLAM, the Rev. A. C, M.A., P.P.,
Late Principal of King's College, London.
HISTORY. AUTHORITY. AND THEOLOGY. Large
Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
I. THE SOURCES AND AUTHORITY OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. II.
THE NEW THEOLOGY. III. THE ATHANASIAN CREED. IV. THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE EASTERN CHURCHES. V. THE
TEACHING OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH. VI. METHODS OF THE EARLY
CHURCH. VII. THE CHURCH OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
"There is a calm frankness, an obviously deep sincerity, and
a width of view about the writer's method which is eminently
reassuring. His wide and deep learning gives a sound foundation,
and on that foundation he builds with a combination of enthu
siasm and common sense which is too rare among the theologians
of to-day." — Guardian.

18 MR. MURRAY'S CATALOGUE OF

HOARE, H. W. Hamilton,
Late of Balliol College, Oxford, now an Assistant Secretary to
the Board of Education, Whitehall.
OUR ENGLISH BIBLE. The Story of its Origin and Growth.
With Specimen Pages of Old Bibles. Crown 8vo, is. net.
An historical sketch of the lineage of our Authorised Version,
published in 1901 under the title of "The Evolution of the
English Bible."
The aim of the sketch is to give, in a continuous and narrative
form, a history of our English translations, and to exhibit them
in close connection with the story of the national life.
HORAN, the Rev. F. S„
Late Chaplain Royal Navy.
A CALL TO SEAMEN and other Sermons Preached to Naval
Cadets at the Royal Naval College, Osborne. With a Preface
by the Very Rev. Bishop Ryle, the Dean of Westminster.
Second Edition. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
"A Call to Seamen" is the first collection of addresses issued
for reading to boys on Sunday evenings, or from the pulpit,
which may be considered entirely excellent. Every sentence
arrests, and the sympathy with boy-life, as well as the compelling
earnestness of the diction, must grip any boy-audience in quite
an unusual manner. The style is manly, non-sentimental, and
is suitable for boys aged eleven to sixteen.
INGE, the Very Rev. William Ralph, P.P.,
Dean of St. Paul's.
TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD IN RELIGION. Six Lec
tures delivered at Cambridge to Undergraduates in the Lent
Term, 1906. Crown 8vo, y. 6d. net.
" Anything more calculated than these lectures to aid the
development of religion in the minds of such young men we do
not know. His examination of the Christian essentials, his
presentation of Christianity as a natural culmination, his treat
ment of religion in the individual as a growth subject to well-
designed laws, and his discussion on the relation of Christianity
to natural science and to civilisation are executed in a scholarly
and masterly manner." — Glasgow Herald.
STUDIES OF ENGLISH MYSTICS. The St. Margaret's
Lectures. Fourth Series, 1905. Large Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MYSTICISM  THE AnCfm Riwle AND
JULIAN OF NORWICH  WALTER HYLTON  WILLIAM LAW  THE
MYSTICISM OF WORDSWORTH  THE MYSTICISM OF ROBERT
BROWNING.

THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 19

JOWETT, Benjamin, M.A.,
Late Master of Balliol College.
SELECT PASSAGES FROM THE THEOLOGICAL
WRITINGS OF BENJAMIN JOWETT. Edited by Lewis
Campbell, M.A., LL.D. With a Portrait. F'cap 8vo,
is. net.
SERMONS. Edited by the Very Rev. the Hon. W. H. Fre-
mantle, D.D., Dean of Ripon. Crown 8vo, Js. 6d. each.
Vol. I. — College Sermons.
Vol. II. — Biographical and Miscellaneous.
Vol. III. — On Faith and Doctrine.
THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE THESSA
LONIANS, GALATIANS, AND ROMANS. With Notes and
Dissertations. Edited by Lewis Campbell, M.A., LL.D.
2 vols. Crown 8vo, is. 6d. net each volume.
THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF BENJAMIN JOWETT.
M.A., Master of Balliol College, Oxford. By Evelyn Abbott,
M.A., LL.D., and Professor Lewis Campbell, M.A., LL.D.
With Portrait and other Illustrations. 2 vols. 8vo, 32.?.
THE LETTERS OF BENJAMIN JOWETT. M.A. A
Selection supplementary to the above. Edited by Evelyn
Abbott and Professor Lewis Campbell. With Portrait.
1 vol. Demy 8vo, 16s.
JULIAN, the Rev. John, P.P.,
Late Vicar of Topcliffe, Prebendary of Fenton, Canon of York.
A DICTIONARY OF HYMNOLOGY. Setting forth the
Origin and History of Christian Hymns of all Ages and Nations.
Revised with New Supplement. Medium 8vo, 21*. net.
" A priceless volume." — Methodist Recorder.
"The student of hymnology will find the work, as it always
has been, a rare mine of information, and the additions and
alterations which have now been made to it make it more valuable
than ever." — Westminster Gazette.
" It is, and has always been, something more than a book of
reference. It abounds in matter which touches at many points
the history of Christianity in general, of Christian churches in
particular, and of the individual Christian soul in its inner life.
Thus it is not a work merely for the expert or the curious; it
will profoundly interest every reader who patiently works in its
vast storehouse of information." — Record.

20 MR. MURRAY'S CATALOGUE OF

LUSHINGTON, the Rev. F. de W.,
Headmaster of Dover College.
SERMONS TO YOUNG BOYS. Third Edition. Crown
8vo, y. net
These sermons are primarily addressed to boys at private
schools, before they have entered on the larger world of public-
school life with its difficulties and temptations. Their application,
however, is not confined to these younger boys, and the fact that
the book is now in its third edition is proof that the sermons have
been found useful and are highly appreciated.
LYTTELTON, the Right Rev, the Hon. A. T„ P.P.,
Late Bishop of Southampton.
THE PLACE OF MIRACLES IN RELIGION. The
Hulsean Lectures for 1891. Crown 8vo, 5*-
' ' Crisp definiteness of statement and clear enunciation of
principles . . . will be distinctly welcome to those who feel
that the ultimate test of revelation is not its external credentials,
but its power to stir the conscience." — Guardian.
MACALISTER, Prof. R. A. Stewart, M.A., F.S.A.
THE EXCAVATION OF GEZER, 1902-5 AND 1907-9.
Two Volumes of Letterpress and One Volume of Illustrations.
£4 4s. net. Published for the Committee of the Palestine
Exploration Fund.
MENZIES, the Rev. Allan, P.P.,
Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of
St. Andrews.
HISTORY OF RELIGION. A Sketch of Primitive Beliefs
and Practices, and of the Origin and Character of the Great
Systems. Revised Third Edition. Crown 8vo, 5-r.
MILMAN, the Very Rev. Henry Hart, P.P.,
Late Dean of St. Paul's.
THE HISTORY OF THE JEWS. From the Earliest Period
down to Modern Times. 3 vols. Post 8vo, 12s.
[Vol. II. Out of Print.
THE HISTORY OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY. From the
Birth of Christ to the Abolition of Paganism in the Roman
Empire. 3 vols. Post 8vo, I2.r.

THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 21

MILMAN, the Very Rev. Henry Hart, P.P.,
Late Dean of St. Paul's.
THE HISTORY OF LATIN CHRISTIANITY, including
that of the Popes to the Pontificate of Nicholas V. 9 vols.
Post 8vo, 36s.
*#* Arrangements have been made with Booksellers enabling them to
offer special terms for complete sets of the above works.
A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF HENRY HART
MILMAN, D.D., late Dean of St. Paul's. With Selections
from his Correspondence. By his Son, Arthur Milman.
With Portrait. 8vo, 16s.
MOBERLY, the Right Rev. George, P.C.L.,
Late Bishop of Salisbury.
DULCE DOMUM : BISHOP MOBERLY, HIS FAMILY, AND
FRIENDS. By Miss C. A. E. Moberly, his Daughter. With
Illustrations. Demy 8vo, 10s. 6d. net.
" It is extremely difficult to take a detached view of this re
markable book. Criticism seems wholly out of place. It does
not apply to realities. One would as soon think of criticising
a beautiful view, a spring morning, an autumn sunset — anything
that absolutely enters into and becomes part of oneself, part
of one's highest self. That is what happens to the reader of these
pages." — Evening Standard.
MOBERLY, the Rev. R. C, P.P.,
Late Regius Professor of Pastoral Theology in the University
of Oxford, Canon of Christ Church.
PROBLEMS AND PRINCIPLES. Being Papers Theological
and Ecclesiastical. Edited by the Rev. R. B. Rackham, M.A.
Demy 8vo. Cheap Edition, 6s. net.
CHRIST OUR LIFE. Sermons chiefly preached in Oxford.
Demy 8vo. Cheap Edition, 6s. net.
ATONEMENT AND PERSONALITY. Cheap Edition.
Demy 8vo, 6s. net.
MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD. Six Chapters preliminary
to a Study of the Ordinal. With an Inquiry into the Truth of
Christian Priesthood and an Appendix on the recent Roman
Controversy. Second Edition, with a New Introduction. Cheap
Edition. Demy 8vo, 6s. net.
SORROW, SIN, AND BEAUTY. Three Short Series of
Addresses. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
UNDENOMINATIONALISM, As a Principle ot Primary
Education. Demy 8vo, is. net.

22 MR. MURRAY'S CATALOGUE OF

MURRAY'S ILLUSTRATEP
BIBLE PICTIONARY.
Combining Modern Research with Ancient Faith. Editor : The
Rev. William C. Piercy, M.A., Dean of Whitelands College,
Chelsea. In One Volume. Price 21s. Half-morocco, 25*.
SPECIAL FEATURES
1. A Volume of 1,000 pages.
2. Profusely Illustrated, with Original Sketches, Reproduc
tions from Photographs, Diagrams, and Coloured Maps.
3. Special attention has been paid to Bibliography, which has
not before been attempted in a similar work of this size.
4. Signed Articles by Leading Scholars and Experts.
The size and price of this Dictionary make it available for many
who cannot afford those published in several volumes, or who wish
for a more handy book of reference ; while the addition of Biblio
graphies to all important articles enables those who desire to do so
to pursue any subject further ; and the present volume should
be found especially useful to students at the Universities, Theological
Colleges and Schools, the busy parochial clergy, and the laity.
Special attention has been paid to the illustrations, which it
is hoped are such as will prove a really valuable aid to the
understanding of the Bible.
%* Arrangements have been made with Booksellers enabling them to
offer special terms for ihe above work.
NIELSEN, Pr. Fredrik,
Bishop of Aarhus, and formerly Professor of Ecclesiastical
History in the University of Copenhagen.
THE HISTORY OF THE PAPACY IN THE NINE
TEENTH CENTURY. Translated, with the help of others,
by Arthur James Mason, D.D., Master of Pembroke College,
Cambridge. Demy 8vo, 2 vols., 24J. net.
"The present book does, indeed, support the high opinion
expressed by Dr. Mason in his preface of the spirit of scientific
detachment, warmth of heart, and unfailing good humour dis
played by Danish students in their theological and historical
studies." — Church Times.
" Roman Catholic readers will find nothing in the tone of
these volumes to shock them. . . . Works like these are bound
to help to purify the Church." — Pall Mall Gazette.
*»* Arrangements have been made with Booksellers enabling them lo
offer special terms for the above work.

THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 24

OESTERLEY, the Rev. W. O. E„ P.P.,
Jesus College, Cambridge.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAST THINGS— JEWISH
AND CHRISTIAN. Crown 8vo, y. 6d. net.
What correspondents to the Guardian say : —
" If a book is wanted which is at once cheap, clear, learned, and
up-to-date, ' The Doctrine of the Last Things ' may be strongly
recommended. In it the reader will find the Old Testament, the
Apocalyptic literature, the Rabbinical writings, and the New
Testament most carefully analysed and the results presented in
a simple form. In it there is ample material for many courses
of Advent sermons on modern but reverent lines."
"Will you allow me to make use of your columns to com
mend to my brethren, as an invaluable help in their Advent
preaching, Dr. Oesterley's book ? It is popular and lucid in style,
scholarly in matter, and illuminating in instruction. ... I do
not myself know of any other book covering quite the same
ground or so immediately helpful to the preacher in Advent."
LIFE, DEATH, AND IMMORTALITY. Studies in the
Psalms. Crown 8vo, 3-r. 6d, net.
"Dr. Oesterley traces with great clearness of definition and
logical analysis the development and varying significance of
these doctrines as they appear in the Psalms, reaching in the
case of the Future Life an ultimate development far in advance
of the rest of the Old Testament." — The Times.
OGLE, the Rev. Arthur, M.A..
Rector of Otham, Maidstone.
THE CANON LAW IN MEDI/EVAL ENGLAND. An
Examination of William Lyndwood's " Provinciale," in reply
to the late Professor F. W. Maitland. Large Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
This book goes to the heart of a subject which is of intimate
concern to every Churchman. It is a piece of constructive criticism
and investigation dealing with the relations between the Church
and Realm of England and the Mediaeval Papacy as expressed
in terms of law. It is the first attempt to deal critically with the
late Professor Maitland's famous treatise on " Roman Canon Law
in the Church of England."
PETRIE, W. M. Flinders, P.C.L., LL.P., F.R.S.
THE GROWTH OF THE GOSPELS. As Shown by
Structural Criticism. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
" An able and helpful contribution. . . . Professor Petrie has
dealt with one of the most difficult and important of literary
problems in a novel, striking, and instructive manner, and there
fore deserves the hearty gratitude of students." — Christian World.

POLLOCK, the Right Rev. Bertram. P.P., C.V.O.,
Bishop of Norwich.
FELLOWSHIP WITH THE DEPARTED. A Sermon
Preached in St. Mary Magdalene Church, Sandringham, on the
occasion of the Dedication of the Memorial to his late Majesty
King Edward VII., of blessed and glorious memory, on Sunday,
October 29, 191 1. Printed by command of His Majesty the
King. In Paper Covers, 6d. net.
PRATT, Helen Marshall.
THE CATHEDRAL CHURCHES OF ENGLAND. Their
Architecture, History, and Antiquities. With Bibliography,
Itinerary, and Glossary. A Practical Handbook for Students
and Travellers. Illustrated. Crown 8vo, 10s. 6d. net.
"It fully carries out the promises of the description. As a
useful guide for the traveller we have met with no more suitable
book ; while for the student unable to visit the actual buildings,
the description leaves nothing to be desired." — Outlook.
PRAYER BOOK.
THE CONVOCATION PRAYER BOOK. Being the Book
of Common Prayer, according to the use of the Church of
England, with altered Rubrics, showing what would be the
condition of the Book if amended in conformity with the
recommendations of the Convocations of Canterbury and York
in the year 1879. Post 8vo, y. net.
PROTHERO, Rowland E„ M.V.O.
THE PSALMS IN HUMAN LIFE. Demy 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
Also an Edition, printed on India paper, and bound up with the
Authorised Version of the Psalms, F'cap 8vo, $s. net.
' ' The impression of the continuous influence exercised by ' The
Psalms in Human Life ' is without doubt very striking. But it
is very difficult to give within the compass of a review any notion
of this effect." — Spectator.
"The great subject discussed by Mr. Prothero in his fascinating
book. ' ' — Guardian.

THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 25

ROBERTSON, the Rev. James Craigie,
Late Canon of Canterbury.
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, from the
Apostolic Age to the Reformation. 8 vols. Post 8vo, 6s. each.
{Sold separately. )
*„* Arrangements have been made with the booksellers enabling them
to offer special terms for the above work complete.
ST. MARGARET'S LECTURES.

FIRST SERIES, 1902
CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Large Crown
8vo, 6s. net.
Introduction, on New Testament Criticism, by Prof.
Wm. Sanday, D.D. — Manuscripts, by F. G. Kenyon, D.Litt.,
Ph.D. — Ancient Versions of the New Testament, by F. C.
Burkitt. — The History of the Canon of the New Testament,
by Prof. F. H. Chase, D.D. — The Dates of the New Testament
Books, by the Rev. A. C. Headlam, D.D. — Historical Value
of the Acts of the Apostles, by J. H. Bernard, D.D.
SECOND SERIES, 1903
STUDIES ON ENGLISH RELIGION IN THE SEVEN
TEENTH CENTURY. By the Very Rev. H. Hensley
Henson, D.D., Dean of Durham. Large Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
THE PRjE-LAUDIAN CHURCH OF ENGLAND — SABBATARIANISM —
THE PRESBYTERIAN EXPERIMENT  ERASTIANISM  CASUISTRY —
TOLERATION. THIRD SERIES, 1904
EARLY EASTERN CHRISTIANITY. By F. C. Burkitt,
Lecturer in Palaeography in the University of Cambridge. With
Illustrations. Large Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
THE EARLY BISHOPS OF EDESSA  THE BIBLE IN SYRIAC  EARLY
SYRIAC THEOLOGY  MARRIAGE AND THE SACRAMENTS — BARBAISAN
AND HIS DISCIPLES  THE ACTS OF JUDAS, THOMAS, AND THE HYMN
OF THE SOUL. FOURTH SERIES, 1905
STUDIES OF ENGLISH MYSTICS. By the Very Rev. W.
R. Inge, D.D. Large Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MYSTICISM  THE Ancren Riwle AND
JULIAN OF NORWICH  WALTER HYLTO N  WILLIAM LAW — THE
MYSTICISM OF WORDSWORTH  THE MYSTICISM OF ROBERT BROWN
ING.

26 MR. MURRAY'S CATALOGUE OF
SALMON, the Rev. George, P.P.,
Late Provost of Trinity College, Dublin.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT. Crown 8vo, 9J.
THE HUMAN ELEMENT IN THE GOSPELS. A
Commentary on the Synoptic Narrative. Edited by the Rev.
Newport J. D. White, D.D., Assistant Lecturer in Divinity
and Hebrew in the University of Dublin. Demy 8vo,
iy. net.
SCOTT, the Rev. Joseph John, M.A.,
Canon of Manchester.
THE LIFE OF CHRIST. A Continuous Narrative in the
Words of the Authorised Version of the four Gospels. With
Introduction, Commentary, and Notes. With 2 Maps. Large
Crown 8vo, Js. 6d.
Extract from Canon Scott's Preface :
" It has been pressed upon my attention for some time that
many students and teachers are becoming afraid of the inroads
on the Bible made by Modern Criticism, and shaken in their
belief in its reliability. ¦ . ¦
" The Introduction gives a summary of the conclusions on the
Criticism of the Gospels which are accepted by the best English
scholars. "The work itself has taken the form of a Diatessaron or Har
mony of the Gospels because I was advised a Life of Christ was
needed. ..."
THE MAKING OF THE GOSPELS. Six Lectures de
livered during Lent, 1905, in Manchester Cathedral, is. net.
THE APOCALYPSE ; or, Revelation of St. John the Divine.
Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. net.
" We hope that this volume will inspire those of its readers
to whom the subject is new with a determination to study it
further." — Church Times.
" A thoroughly sane and scholarly contribution." — Scotsman.

THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 27

SCOTT, the Rev. W. Major, M.A.
ASPECTS OF CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM. Large Crown
8vo, y. 6d. net.
An introduction to the study of Christian Mysticism, including
chapters on phases of mystical doctrine as exemplified in typical
mystics, such as Dionysius, Eckhart, Suso, Behmen, St. Teresa,
etc. It is a brief statement of the elements of mystical teaching,
with illustrative extracts from the principal mystics' writings.
SIMPSON, the Rev. W. J. Sparrow,
Chaplain of St. Mary's Hospital, Hford.
ROMAN CATHOLIC OPPOSITION TO PAPAL IN
FALLIBILITY. An Historical Account of the Growth and
Development of the Doctrine and the Opposition met with in
the Roman Catholic Church. Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
SMITH, Preserved, Ph. P.
THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF MARTIN LUTHER.
With Portraits and Illustrations. Demy 8vo, 12s. net.
The story of Luther's epoch-making career told with both
fulness and vigour, with fine historical grasp, and with an unusual
biographic insight. There have been many Lives of Martin
Luther, but this thoroughly sound, scholarly, and interesting
book will take its place among the best.
SMITH, Sir William, P.C.L., LL.P.
A DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE. Its Antiquities, Bio
graphy, Geography, and Natural History. By various writers.
Edited by Sir Wm. Smith, D.C.L. and LL.D., and the Rev.
J. M. Fuller, M.A. With numerous Illustrations and Maps.
3 vols. Medium 8vo, £4 4s.
%* Arrangements have now been made with the booksellers enabling
them to offer special terms for the complete work.
Intending purchasers should make application to their bookseller,
from whom all particulars may be obtained.
A SMALLER BIBLE DICTIONARY. For Schools and
Young Persons. Maps and Woodcuts. Large Crown 8vo.
Cheap Edition, 2s. 6d. net.

28 MR. MURRAY'S CATALOGUE OF

SMITH, Sir William, P.C.L., LL.P.
A DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITIES. The
History, Institutions, and Antiquities of the Christian Church.
By various writers. Edited by Sir Wm. Smith, D.C.L., and
Archdeacon Cheetham, D.D. With Illustrations. 2 vols.
Medium 8vo, ^3 ly. 6d.
This work is intended to furnish a complete account of the
leading personages, the Institutions, Art, Social Life, Writings,
and Controversies of the Christian Church from the time of the
Apostles to the age of Charlemagne. It commences at the period
at which the "Dictionary of the Bible" leaves off, and forms a
continuation of it ; it ceases at the age of Charlemagne, because
(as Gibbon has remarked) the reign of this monarch forms the
important link of ancient and modern, of civil and ecclesiastical
history. It thus stops short of what we commonly call the
Middle Ages.
*** Arrangements have now been made with the booksellers
enabling them to offer special terms for the complete work.
Intending purchasers should make application to their bookseller,
from whom all particulars may be obtained.

STANLEY, the Very Rev. Arthur Penrhyn, P.P.,
Late Dean of Westminster.
LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE JEWISH
CHURCH, from Abraham to the Christian Era. With Por
trait, Maps, and Plans. 3 vols. 2s. 6d. net each.
LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE EASTERN
CHURCH. With an Introduction on the Study of Ecclesiastical
History. With Map. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
HISTORICAL MEMORIALS OF CANTERBURY.
Popular Edition. With 24 Full-page Illustrations and 2 Plans.
Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net ; also is. net.
" Its price astonishes us : 300 pages and 31 full-page illustra
tions for half a crown ! The book is the most delightful which
Dr. Stanley ever wrote, and one of the most instructive. It is
worthy of a great sale ; we hope it will have it." — London Quar
terly Review.
CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. Essays on Ecclesiastical
Subjects. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.

THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 29

STANLEY, the Very Rev. Arthur Penrhyn, P.P.
SINAI AND PALESTINE IN CONNECTION WITH
THEIR HISTORY. Cheap Edition. With Coloured Maps.
Demy 8vo, y. net. Also in Murray's Shilling Library.
THE BIBLE IN THE HOLY LAND, being Extracts from
the above work for Young Persons. With Illustrations.
Crown 8vo, is. net.
LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH
OF SCOTLAND, delivered in Edinburgh in 1872. Demy 8vo,
ys. 6d.
ESSAYS CHIEFLY ON QUESTIONS OF CHURCH
AND STATE FROM 1850 TO 1870. Crown 8vo, 6s.
LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF THOMAS
ARNOLD, D.D. With Portrait. Crown 8vo, 2 vols., 12s.
Cheap Edition. With Portrait and 16 Half-tone Illustrations.
Large Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
LETTERS AND VERSES OF ARTHUR PENRHYN
STANLEY. Edited by Rowland E. Prothero. Demy
8vo, 16*.
RECOLLECTIONS OF ARTHUR PENRHYN
STANLEY. Three Lectures delivered in Edinburgh, in
November 1882. By Dean Bradley. Crown 8vo, 3^. 6d.
HISTORICAL MEMORIALS OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY.
From its Foundation to the year 1876. With Illustrations.
Demy 8vo, iy.
*„* Arrangements have been made with Booksellers enabling them to
offer special terms for the above work.

STURGE, M. Carta,
Moral Science Tripos (Cambridge).
THE TRUTH AND ERROR OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE.
A New and Cheap Edition. Large Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net.
" To disentangle the pseudo-metaphysics of ' Christian Science '
is a work which demands considerable patience . . . but Miss
Sturge does her best to get at the real kernel of meaning and
the substratum of truth which has given this movement its vitality.
Every one who is at all interested in the subject would do well
to secure and study this impartial analysis of it." — Queen.

30 MR. MURRAY'S CATALOGUE OF

TALMAGE, T. PE WITT.
T. DE WITT TALMAGE AS I KNOW HIM. By T. de
Witt Talmage, D.D. With a Concluding Chapter by Mrs.
T. de Witt Talmage. With Portraits. Demy 8vo, 12s. net.
Dr, Talmage enjoyed a world-wide reputation as one of the
most popular preachers of the last century. He was a great
traveller, and wherever he went — in England and even in Russia —
he enjoyed a remarkable popularity, and huge crowds went to
hear him preach. His autobiography has been edited by his wife,
who adds the concluding chapter.
TRENCH, G. H.
THE CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION OF
CHRIST BY THE LIGHT OF TRADITION. Crown 8vo,
3*. 6d. net.
" A clear and connected account of the last days of the Saviour.
. . . The narrative provides every detail of information the
student could desire, comprising the results of the latest research.
A very valuable and scholarly work." — Globe.
WAGE, the Very Rev. Henry, P.P.,
Dean of Canterbury.
CHRISTIANITY AND MORALITY ; or, the Correspondence
of the Gospel with the Moral Nature of Man. The Boyle
Lectures for 1874 and 1875. Crown 8vo, 6s.
THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH: Being the Bampton
Lectures for 1879. Demy 8vo, Js. 6d.
PROPHECY, Jewish and Christian. Considered in a Series of
Warburton Lectures at Lincoln's Inn. Crown 8vo, 3*. 6d. net.
WAGGETT, the Rev. P. N„
Of the Society of St. John the Evangelist, Cowley.
THE HOLY EUCHARIST, with other Occasional Papers.
y. 6d. net.
" The work of a thinker who has in him something of the poet
and the mystic, who yet is no recluse or vague dreamer, but is
in close and living contact with the facts of life and with the
thoughts which men are thinking in the veritable world of to-day.
... It abounds in sentences of rare beauty and insight." —
Guardian.

THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 31

WESTCOTT, the Right Rev. B. F., P.P., P.C.L.,
Late Bishop of Durham.
THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. With Notes and Introduc
tion. Medium 8vo, 10s. 6d.
"The completeness of Westcott's famous volume in the
' Speaker's Commentary ' has become a proverb. When Dr.
Sanday went to lecture on the criticism of the Fourth Gospel
before an American audience he did not hesitate to say that
' we in England have a standard proposed to us by this com
mentary.' " — Times.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. The
Greek Text Revised, with a Revised English Version. 2 vols.
Demy 8vo, 24s. net.
For many years before his death the late Bishop of Durham
had been engaged on a revision of the Greek Text of the Gospel
according to St. John, with Notes. A considerable part of the
Notes are those which already appear in the " Speaker's Com
mentary," but these have been revised and enlarged. The work
is edited by the Bishop's son, the Rev. A. Westcott, Rector of
Crayke, Easingwold.
The Churchman says : — " Westcott on St. John has long been
a familiar and welcome phrase to multitudes of Bible students.
And these two volumes will make it a little more familiar and
welcome, for they represent the latest words of the great scholar on
a subject that was, perhaps, nearest to his heart of all the work
that he was enabled to accomplish."
WOLSELEY-LEWIS, M.
THE SEVENFOLD GIFTS. Introduction and Prayers for
the use of Candidates for Confirmation. l6mo, 2s. 6d.
" We have nothing but praise for this little work. It is written
in a way which proves the writer's knowledge of and sympathy
with young people, and it is commendably free from the technical
phraseology which creeps into most books of its kind, to the
confusion of youthful readers. Above all, it is true and deep in
all its teachings."— Church Times.

32 MR. MURRAY'S CATALOGUE

CATHEPRAL HANPBOOKS.
NORTHERN CATHEDRALS —York, Ripon, Carlisle,
Durham, Chester, Manchester. With Illustrations.
2 vols. 2 1 s.
SOUTHERN CATHEDRALS.— Winchester, Salisbury,
Exeter, Wells, Rochester, Canterbury, Chichester,
and St. Albans. With 130 Illustrations. 2 vols. Crown
8vo, 36*.
WESTERN CATHEDRALS— Bristol, Gloucester, Here
ford, Worcester, and Lichfield. With 60 Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. i6.r.
WELSH CATHEDRALS— Llandaff, St. David's, Bangor,
and St. Asaph's. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 15-r.
*#* Arrangements have been made with booksellers enabling them to
offer special terms for the above Cathedral Handbooks.
GLOUCESTER CATHEDRAL.— 16 Illustrations. 21. 6d.
HEREFORD CATHEDRAL— With 15 Illustrations, is. 6d.
ST. ALBANS CATHEDRAL.— With Illustrations. 6s.
ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL.— With Illustrations. 10s. 6d.
WORCESTER CATHEDRAL.— With 7 Illustrations, is. 6d.

Printed by HatcU, Watson <5- Viney, Li., London and Aylesbury.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 05046 1244