(d) Lange denominates the last three miracles stimmungswunder, or miracles in the spirit of man. He thinks the hearts of the people were expanded,' rather than the loaves of bread. By the might of his divine Spirit, Jesus raised them into a high state of moral joy and ecstasy. Their drink at the marriage in Cana was indeed to their taste real wine, but their senses were elevated and the wine was heavenly, not earthly. Again, no addition was made to the substance of the bread by creative power; but it was merely set free from sin-imposed limits, and could therefore satisfy thousands. The effect of Christ's power upon it was like that of his real presence in the Eucharist. But the fragments! Lange feels this difficulty, and says: "If we will see in the miracle of feeding the multitude the founding of a New Testament feast, we must before all feel how the hearts of Christ's guests were opened by his festal invitation and thanksgiving,- how large, warm, free and fraternal they were made, so that no one

1 A friend, S. L., suggests that " we may as well suppose their stomachs were contracted." In fact, there is so much of the absurd in most endeavors to set aside the obvious meaning of the gospel narratives of Christ's mighty works, that one is often tempted to treat these endeavors with ridicule.

would keep his own bread for himself, while he shared that of his brother." So the surplus (and how much more?) was furnished by the people a la Paulus!

We cannot deny ourselves the pleasure of giving the following beautiful passage from Westcott, before leaving this first part of our work: "The present laws of force and substance are once for all subjected to the Saviour, that we may look onwards in hope to the glories of a new heaven and a new earth. The veil is raised from the mysterious concurrence of events, that we may learn to work with confidence in the economy of the present world. The signs which are given us are enough to kindle our faith, enough to raise us from a blind idolatry of physical laws, enough to quicken us with the consciousness of some nobler Presence, .of some higher Power, and yet not so frequent as to bring confusion or uncertainty into that order which, however marred, is yet God's work. With a voice of boundless authority and gentlest comfort, they tell us that the creative energy which we find not only in the first origin of things, but also in successive epochs, is not yet exhausted. They tell us that we are not

bound up in a system which is eternal and unchangeable. They tell us that there is yet before us a noble transformation, a higher life. They tell us that the beginning of this is already made, and that it is ours to hasten the end."1

1 Miracles, p. 31.

PART SECOND.

MIRACLES ON MAN.

CHAPTER I.

HEALING MORTAL SICKNESSES.

THE miracles assigned to this chapter are in some respects less remarkable than those which follow. The diseases cured by the word of Christ are such as often yield to the power of medicine. Yet the circumstances related by the evangelists prove beyond controversy that our Saviour made use of no natural remedies, but effected the cure in every instance by his omnipotent will.

54.

§ I. Healing the nobleman's son. John iv. 46

(a) This miracle is not to be confounded with the healing of the centurion's servant, recorded by Matthew viii. 5–13, and Luke vii. 1-10. For while there are but two points of

coincidence, namely, that in both instances the person cured was in Capernaum, and the miracle described was wrought from a distance, there are many points of difference. E. g., in the former narrative (that of John) Christ is said to have been at Cana, but in the latter at Capernaum; in the former, he is said to have wrought the miracle just after his return from the passover through Samaria; in the latter, just after his coming down from the place of his sermon on the Mount; in the former, the person healed is called a son of the petitioner; in the latter, a servant of the petitioner; in the former, the petitioner is denominated a Bariλikós; in the latter, a Karóvтapxos; in the former, he appears to be a Jew; in the latter, he is a Gentile; in the former, he is represented as a man of weak faith; in the latter, as a man of great faith; in the former, Christ virtually refuses to go with him to his house; in the latter, he offers to go thither with him. These points of difference are so many and so important, as to preclude the hypothesis of a single miracle being the basis of narratives so unlike. We must therefore examine the narrative of John by itself.