ebb of the sea, would be excluded from the category of the miraculous; while such a very likely occurrence as the blinding of King Zedekiah by Nebuchadnezzar, being a direct attestation of the truth of the prophet who had warned the King of Judah not to submit, would properly come within the definition.

It is, however, perfectly simple to point out, from the words of the Pentateuch, and from the careful provisions of the Synhedral law of the Jews, the limit and the essence of the miraculous according to the ancient law. No other definition can be held as binding on theology; and it is as to the theological use of the word that the inquiry arises. Whatever be the original date of the Book of Deuteronomy, there is no doubt of its existence, substantially in its present condition, at least 270 years before the Christian era, at the date of the LXX. translation. The law regarding prophets is laid down in the 13th and 18th chapters of that book. A sign, or a wonder, which is the primary meaning of the word miracle, is there mentioned as given by a prophet in attestation of the truth of his message. The highest kind of sign, it is implicitly indicated by the passage, and is fully declared by the Synhedral legislation, is the predicting a future event, which subsequently comes to pass as predicted. Wonders of another nature, such as the healing of the sick, were attributed to holy men ; but they had not the accepted worth or weight of this one wonder of true prediction, which has come, in time, to monopolise the sense which we attach to the far more general word, prophecy. Even that chief miracle, however, was to be rejected, as a "lying wonder," if the prophet who produced it as the seal of his mission

counselled any departure from the Law of Moses. As at a later date a teacher familiar with the entire code of Jewish law insisted that the spirits of the prophets were subject to the prophets, so, from the time of the close of the Book of Deuteronomy, miracle, as a token of Divine truth, was subject to the primary condition of the accordance with Divine law of the message of him who appealed to its sanction.

We are thus bound to define miracle, as a theological term, as the occurrence of an event of a nature antecedently so improbable as to be considered impossible, apparently at the will, command, or prayer of a human being who claims a Divine mission, for proof of which he appeals to the miracle. And further, in order to be accepted such message must be in`accordance with the Law of Moses. That wonders of a nature SO similar that that they could only be discriminated by the use of this test, might occur at the will or invocation of false prophets and teachers, is the doctrine alike of the Jewish Scriptures, of the Synhedral law, and of the Catholic Church. The truth or falsehood of these miracles, therefore, was not to be ascertained by the nature of the miracle itself, so much as by the orthodoxy of the doctrine of the worker of the miracle. Miracles, then, are called true or false, not so much in virtue of the phenomena they exhibit as in virtue of their accordance with, or derogation from, the Law of Moses. And these wonders or signs, in either case, have the intent the only intent which we are authorised by the literature of the subject to attribute to them,of avouching the truth of the message which the worker of the miracle declares that he has been commissioned to give.

Accurately speaking, therefore, no great or wonderful event, however unprecedented, can be called miraculous in the theological sense of the word, unless it be apparently produced, or foretold, by a human agent, who refers to it as a proof of his own authority. That events occur, and have occurred, in history, which may not improperly be regarded with awe, as appearing to be the immediate result of supernatural action, is not hereby questioned. But such events, if unconnected with the announcement of a prophet, are not theological miracles.

III.

It is evident from the examination of the ancient literature bearing on the subject, that nothing can be more wide of the mark than the definition of a miracle as a suspension of the laws of Nature. Such a definition bristles with fallacies. In the first place, it confounds, under the term laws of Nature, rules and sequences of the most varied kind. In the second place, it assumes on the

part of the definer an exhaustive acquaintance with natural law, of which ever category it may be a question, which no human being possesses. In the third place, it confounds what is perfectly well known to Mechanics as the resolution of forces, with the impossible predication of the suspension of a law.

Thus, under the term laws of Nature we may imply either the highest ultimate facts at which the human intelligence has yet arrived, such as the unvarying force of gravity, or the relation of the diagonal to the side of a square, or of the periphery to the radius of a circle; or the inference we draw from a certain series of observations, such as the probability that a certain form of moth

will issue from a certain chrysalis. Sometimes, in the latter case, from one of the rarest and largest of the English pupa, issues not a moth, but a fly. In former times. this would have been regarded as a marvel, and a departure from natural law. We now know that it only arises from the selfish prevision of the ichneumon fly, which pierces the living caterpillar to lay an egg beneath the skin. But the interruption of ordinary sequence is one thing, and the fact of our ability or otherwise to account for it, another.

Again, if, 1,400 years ago, a man had asserted that he could cause a block of iron weighing a quarter of a ton to fly for five miles through the air, and to alight within a given perch of land, the reply would probably have been that of course this might be done by miracle, by magic, or by the aid of the devil, but in no other way. If at the same time it had been stated that the priest who was conducting the service of a church had been raised, while in prayer, three feet from the ground on which he knelt, by invisible power, this would have been accepted as a not unlikely occurrence, greatly testifying to the sanctity of the priest, but far less surprising than the more rapid and distant movement of the heavier material. The former wonder, unattainable in the fifth century, is wrought in our own times by magicians called Whitworth and Armstrong. The occurrence of the latter is matter of dispute. In the case of the flight of the iron, we know how the phenomenon is produced. In the case of the levitation of St. Francis, or of Mr. Home (if either of these events occurred, as the Earl of Dunraven says that he saw the latter do), the cause is not yet understood. In the language of a man of such

calibre as to be able to talk of a suspension of the law of Nature," the law of gravitation is suspended in either case. But the mechanist knows that the power of gravitation is as unsleeping in the flying bolt as it is in the Great Pyramid itself, or in the movement of any celestial body in its orbit. From the moment when the projectile leaves the mouth of the gun to that in which it strikes the earth, the course of its trajectory is limited by the regular action of the law of gravitation. A known motive impulse has been given by a chemical agent. The path of the bolt is then a matter of calculation. It results from the combined, and to some extent opposed, action of ascertainable forces. But in order to believe the latter marvel, the physicist would insist on very definite proof. He might still be in ignorance, if such proof were given, as to the source of the elevating power. But he would be the last man to stultify himself by assuming the movement to be impossible, or to attribute it to a suspension of the laws of Nature. To convince himself that it actually occurred, he would require an amount, and an accuracy of evidence which would be unnecessary in order to lead him to accept any more probable statement. But he would be aware that the assertion was one to be proved or disproved by direct testimony, not by an a priori statement of its possibility or impossibility.

IV.

It will appear from the foregoing considerations that the idea of a miracle is thus to be distinguished from that of a marvel. A miracle, according to rules laid down by the authority to which the earliest definition of the subject is due, is an event contrary to probable

expectation, occurring at human instance, or in accordance with human prediction, as an attestation of a supernatural message. Under this generic description rank the opposite species of miracles contemplated by the author of the Pentateuch. In the absence of either of the elements specified, we may admit the occurrence of a marvel, or the display of supernatural power. But the express character of a sign given in attestation of a prophetic message or injunction is the central idea of the miracle as contemplated by the Jewish Law.

The most characteristic instance of a miracle, on this view, will be found in the account of the Sacrifice of Elijah, the memorial of which yet lingers in the name of the Maharaka on the heights of Carmel. Apart from any question of literary or historic authentication, there were present on that occasion all the essential elements of the miraculous. There was the message of the prophet; the appeal to heaven for a sign; and the public occurrence of an event contrary to all probable expectation, in accordance with the instance of the prophet. And as the appeal made by Elijah obeyed the controlling rule which was to decide on the species of miracle, and was in accordance with the provisions of the law, all the conditions prescribed by the Book of Deuteronomy for the proof of the truth of the prophetic mission were accomplished.

If we contrast the account of this event with that given by Josephus of the passage of Alexander the Great into Asia, we shall see at once the difference between a prophetic sign and a mere marvel, according to the Jewish definition. The retirement of the sea may be regarded as an event as appropriate at the mo

ment, and as contrary to probable expectation. as the fall of a bolt of fire on the altar. Those who believe in the guidance of God's providence by extraordinary as well as by ordinary means, may with equal propriety refer each occurrence to the former category. But the voice of the prophet was absent in the latter case. All that can be said, if we accept the account of Josephus as literal, is that Alexander was counselled in a dream to invade Asia, and that the way was unexpectedly opened for his army. But no doctrine was announced. no message delivered, no truth attested by the marvel. It was, as Josephus records it, a marvel-supernatural, if you will, in its origin-but not a miracle, in the sense of being the seal of the mission of a prophet.

one

It is essential to bear in mind the cardinal distinction between the attestation of a given message and a wonderful event unconnected with any such mission. Inquiry into occurrences of the latter nature may be highly desirable. but the question is apart from that of miracle, in the strict sense of the term. Thus the ten wonders which are said in the Talmud to have attended on the Temple, or the two most famous examples of what are now called annual miracles, the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius, and the holy fire, are deficient in the essential element of furnishing tests of the truth of a Divine mission. The same may be said of the occurrences which are more fully and unquestionably attested than any other series of marvels, ancient or modern-the recoveries effected among the visitants to the tomb of the Abbé Paris. The belief in the possession of a curative power by certain royal or holy personages, is as old as hieroglyphic records; and was

acknowledged by a solemn ceremonial even subsequently to the accession of the House of Hanover in England. Nor are those absent who attribute the abandonment of the ceremony of touching for the King's Evil to the fact that the healing virtue accompanies hereditary representation and is unaffected by Acts of Parliament. Tales of curative power are not unknown in our own day. But even if they can be verified, the phenomenon is quite distinct from theologic miracle, according to the definition inferred from the Pentateuch.

The form of miracle regarded as the highest by the Jewish Law was prediction of a favourable event which subsequently occurred in accordance with the prediction. The form of seal or attestation most regarded by the common people of the Jews in Herodian times is spoken of by the Evangelists as a sign from heaven, that is to say, a predicted eclipse. Two very famous wonders in the Jewish history are of this class, and the prophetic books contain allusions, more or less intelligible, to certain famous eclipses which occurred within historic times. The prediction of an eclipse, which is now a matter of absolute certitude to the astronomer, was altogether out of the range of the science of a people who were forbidden to regulate their year by a written calendar, and were bound to fix the first day of the first, and of the seventh, month by actual observations of the moon. Supposing, then, the communication to a prophet of the approximate date of a coming eclipse, we have on the one hand a communication of the utmost simplicity (if we admit the possibility of supernatural communication at all), and on the other hand a sign of the most authentic sanction in the opinion of the peo

ple in question. But the effect and virtue of this sign depends to a considerable degree on the ignorance of the people. We are not insinuating that Isaiah or that Joshua had any information from Chaldean astronomers of which they made use in order to win the confidence of their own people. But at the present day the Arabs of Syria would regard a man as a prophet who announced to them with accuracy the details of a coming eclipse, which he had easily acquired himself from the nautical almanack. Thus, the degree of the knowledge or civilisation both of the people addressed and of the messenger who appeals to a sign in sanction of his message, must be understood in order to enable us to form a correct view of any asserted miracle. We must not argue back from an advanced state of knowledge to events occurring in a remote period. The case of our present anticipation of eclipses is directly in point. Neither, on the other hand, must we infer that a discovery of a modus operandi in that which was once considered to be supernatural, diminishes weight of a sign which occurred in a less enlightened time. The cardinal point of the question is the communication to the messenger. If we admit this to be supernatural, other difficulties are trivial. Whether the knowledge imparted be of a nature which now appears simple, or which still seems marvellous, matters little or nothing. All future events share in the conditions that they are vague, shadowy, uncertain in anticipation, but that they become historic by the fact of their occurrence. We are now acquainted, by telegraph, with the bursting of a monsoon in India within a few hours of its occurrence. We are thus able to anticipate a sequence of events depending on that fall of rain.

the

In India itself, it might have been possible to anticipate that rainfall by telegraphic communication with distant stations. Had a priest or a missionary done so (the people being unaware of the existence of a telegraph), he might have been accepted as a prophet. If the intelligence had been given, not by the wire, but by a dream, or by any other impression on the mind of the man who announced it, the circumstance would have been exactly the same, except that the medium of communication would in one case have been physical, in the other metaphysical, or supernatural. Yet the occurrence of the latter cannot be said to be impossible. We have thus ourselves so far advanced in our command of physical elements that we can not only simulate, but in great measure understand, prophetic communications. know what is now occurring at a distance, is to some extent to know the future. But the knowledge of what occurs at a distance may be a very modest acquirement for a disembodied intelligence. The whole question resolves itself into one of communication. Let us once admit the possibility of direct, intelligible communication to man from the invisible world, and the rest is but matter of detail and of evidence.

V.

To

Under the head of communication, it must be borne in mind that both the Bible and the New Testament place communication by dream on the same level as any other kind of Divine message. "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder," are the words of the Pentateuch in the passage that lays down the law of miracle. The accounts of