THE SCKIPTUEAL IDEA OF MIRACLES. 



71 



§ 8. The Question of Evidence. 



In considering the evidence of the truth of the sacred record 

 which contains the miracles, it is manifest that testimony has to 

 do with the actual phenomena observed ; not with their hidden 

 causes. Also whole series of phenomena bearing on the 

 mission of Christ have to be considered together. Each book 

 which contains or implies such phenomena has to be studied 

 in itself and in connection with the other books. Each event 

 has to be examined in the light of the whole divine interven- 

 tion of which it professed! V forms a part. Also, certain central 

 or champion phenomena have to be selected for special study. 

 This is necessary because few things which happened 

 2,000 years ago can be verified by ordinary historical investiga- 

 tion. Of course, a scientific student does not lightly accept 

 testimony to an event whicli he cannot verify : nevertheless, 

 evidence to the series as a whole, or to leading events in the 

 series, may be of such a character that he is compelled to yield. 

 Even Hume admitted that evidence might be so strong that 

 the rejection of it would be more difficult than the rejection of 

 the supernatural. Eenan and Huxley were of the same 

 opinion.* History must be allowed to tell its own tale in its 

 own way, if only the canons of historical truth are satisfied. 

 The question of questions asked in the twentieth century was 

 asked with equal urgency by men who staked their lives on 

 the answer in the second century. It is this : May we trust 

 the mission of Christ as narrated with substantial agreement, 

 though with more or less variation as to detail, by the four 

 Evangelists ? In answer, it must be said that whilst the 

 genuineness of the Gospels as a whole is accepted by all or 

 almost all students of history numerous efforts have been made 

 to eliminate the supernatural from them. 



Thus, it has been suggested that the so-called miracles were 

 wrought by natural agencies ; or, that they were illusions and 

 were effects of a strong will dieting on excited nerves; or, that 

 they are a misinterpretation of Oriental hyperbolical language ; 

 or, that they are legendary accretions whicli did not exist in 

 the lost original Gospel. 



The last is the fashionable theory just at present in some 

 quarters, but the burden of proof manifestly lies with the 

 upholders of it. They have yet to produce the original 

 Gospels; or to distinguish (say, in St. Mark, which is 



* See Barnes' Christian Evidences, pp. 147 and 149. 



F 



