me more wonderful than another (although even in this region there is never a complete harmony between the feelings of individuals), but the 'miracula' never. The healing of the mother-in-law of Peter is, in the same 'sensus strictus et rigorosus,' a miracle, just as much as the increasing of the bread. It is impracticable in the one case to state it as the mere effect of the powers of nature, and in the other as the work of the immediate interposition of God. It is difficult to contradict the saying of Löscher: 'Diligenter distinguendum est inter naturæ vires, quæ nobis cognitæ nondum sunt, et inter ordinem naturæ, de quo nobis sufficientes constat.' The healing of the mother-in-law of Peter did not result 'secundum ordinem naturæ;' at least the witnesses present did not understand it in this way, nor did the evangelists relate it in this sense.

A second attempt has been made to explain the miracles of Jesus, by employing the intervention of psychology. The miracles of Jesus appeared a troublesome and difficult problem to Schleiermacher, in whose theology there was no place left for the conception of a miracle, but who, nevertheless, firmly held to the authenticity of the fourth Gospel. For the sake of the biblical narratives, but certainly also on deeper grounds, he was not averse to allow them in some sense ('We have a presentiment,' as he characteristically says in his Glaubenslehre, ii. § 103,—' we have a presentiment that, in relation to the Redeemer, there was a higher order than the natural one-that extraordinary powers must have been at His command'); and yet he did not feel himself able to acknowledge them in the sense of the narrator. How he escaped from this dilemma, is evident from the lately published Vorlesungen über das Leben Jesu, Berlin 1864.1 In the

1 The publication of these essays has pleased no one so much as Strauss. The real admirers of Schleiermacher were deeply grieved by it. It is cer

first place, he, by the employment of various means, puts aside from consideration the most inconvenient narratives: some on account of the 'natural explanation' (quite unworthy and peculiar to him); others by the fact that the representation of the evangelists is destitute of completeness and of probability, in such a degree that an hypothesis is justifiable (Vorlesungen, p. 238 and following). Thus there remains to him only the healing of the sick and of the demoniacs. But he succeeded in showing these as the effects of a dominating over an oppressed will, as assertions of the power of the spiritual over the psychical and physical, so much the easier, the more he took into account the specific worthiness and peculiarity of Jesus. Thus, he justified his 'presentiment,' that the power of working miracles was at the command of the Redeemer, without destroying the foundations of his theology, in which there was no place for the conception of a miracle.1 And thus here is, in fact, a point where he nearly approaches Strauss, notwithstanding the diversity of their premises and of their points of issue.

It would be a useless labour to prove what violence is done, by this attempt at explanation, to the evangelitainly not to be justified in the interest of science, and any consideration of piety must be withheld from it. It must certainly have pleased Strauss to have another precursor in his way of understanding the life of Jesus-at least as regards miracles-besides Reimarus. The opinion has hitherto been held, that Schleiermacher, in his History of the Development of Theology, had effected a conversion of rationalism in the direction of faith, and that opinion is partly correct. However, Strauss asserts that Schleiermacher was in advance of his age, in so far that he, though perhaps he had no clear conception of it, has aimed at the standpoint advanced by himself, without being able to attain it. The lectures on the life of Jesus now published give an appearance of probability to this assertion; for, as regards the working of miracles of our Lord, considering the actual results, we can discover no difference between the two authors.

1 Schleiermacher, in his practical exposition of Scripture, expresses himself more favourably with regard to miracles. In his explanation of Acts ii. 22 (Sermons, iii. p. 448), he is indignant against those who take objection to the miracles of our Lord, and complain of them as a hindrance to

cal narratives, and especially to the accounts in the fourth Gospel, which is so expressly acknowledged as authentic. On the other hand, the biblical argument, which is always brought forward in its favour, demands a short examination. The circumstance is noticed, that our Lord often demanded faith before He would help-that He was able to perform only a few cures in Nazareth, on account of the 'want of faith' of the inhabitants. The fact is also advanced, that the confidence of the sick in the physician forms an important factor in the cure. But, in the first place, it is not the fact that all who were wonderfully healed entertained such a confidence. Naaman mocked at the means of cure recommended to him by Elisha; he yielded to it only on the solicitation of his servants with the most decided mistrust, even in complete unbelief, and still he became clean. Thus also many, among others the 'impotent' man at Bethesda, who received help from Jesus without in the least surmising in Him a helper. The 'faith' which the Lord requires in the cases which are shown us, has very little to do with the so-called confidence in the benevolent physician. Remarking on the words of Jesus to the woman who had an issue of blood, 'Thy faith hath made thee whole' (Matt. ix. 22), Strauss says: 'He could not have expressed Himself more truly, modestly, correctly, and precisely.' We shall see in proper time that even this singular case will be judged quite otherwise. Besides, the biblical language, especially in places such as John iv. 48, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not

their faith; and he here asserts that they are rather a welcome witness of the satisfaction of the Father in the Son-sensible representations of the heavenly voice: This is my beloved Son.' We can, however, have no real confidence in this exposition, when the speaker at the same time continues, in an extremely energetic, almost overheated manner, to carry out his favourite proposition, that miracles are really of no importance for the planting and cherishing of our faith.

believe,' sanctions the idea that the 'faith' is in a region to which the miracle must first lead the way. In any case, it could not be requisite to the power, but only to the will of Jesus,-not the preliminary to the earthly, sensible result, but only to serve towards the attainment of a higher purpose.

If we decidedly renounce every attempt to make the miracles probable by means of explanation, what other way is there offered for our aim? No one can explain a miracle, but one can and must conceive it. However,

we must not let ourselves be here content with the sense in which Rothe (p. 100 of Dogmatik), while expressly declining the one, requires the other. Certainly the miracle is conceived as soon as it has been acknowledged as an immediate work of God. But even to this end we must also glance into the suppositions on which this work of God every time rests. Löscher with justice remarks, in his Theologia pretiosa: 'Miracula semper supponunt actum interiorem voluntatis divinæ et fundamenta sufficientiæ extraordinariæ actionis Dei.' Twesten has also explained how essential this teleological point of view is for the conception of a miracle: 'The mere inexplicability of an event by any known effective causes is not of itself sufficient to make us see in it a special result of divine causality. It is necessary to a miracle that it should signify some end, and that significance is the divine object recognisable by us' (Dogmatik, ii. p. 117). In its application to the miracles of Jesus, the demand herein founded, that the motive must be shown which moved 1 our Lord to work miracles in general, and then each single miracle which He performed in particular, is left

1 The one-sided accentuation of this view would, however, endanger a weakening, and even destruction, of the conception of a miracle. But if we are first convinced that the miracle rests principally on its relation to the effecting cause, we can then do full justice without hesitation to the question regarding the end in view.

undecided. If these motives are shown, and that not from general considerations, but from the existing text itself, from the 'event' which our eyes perceive, then are the miracles conceived, and therewith are they then brought into the light of a complete probability.

We are confirmed in the accuracy of this method, of which we will make use throughout, by nothing more than by the use made of it by Strauss himself. We see him, in fact, striving not only to show the general grounds on which the authors of the Gospels represented their Messiah as a worker of miracles; but in each special case he makes it his chief business to discover the cause for which they might have imputed to Him this wondrous work. We will also move in the same path, but we will certainly strive after an opposite end. To us the biblical narratives are truth; consequently we seek in Jesus Himself the motives of the miracles related. To the author of the Life of Jesus they are but fictions; he has consequently to search for the motives of the legendary poets who formed them.

III. THE VALUE OF THE SOLUTION.

It is very important that we should show at once the point of view from which we would throw light on the question before us. Our intention is not to measure the value which the justification of miracles can claim for itself. But the measure of the value attached concerns exclusively the proof of the probability of the miracles of Jesus, partly in general, and partly of each single one in particular. Thus, we have not to consider of what profit it is to have caused the acknowledgment of miracles in general; but the question is, What and how much is gained if the miracles of Jesus are made to stand in the light of probability?

The apologetic value of miracles has never been