RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2156, 23 May 1914, Page 9

RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY.

MIRACLES ■ j QR, HEADLAM'S MOORHOUSE j LECTURES. NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. I In his l'ourtli Moorhouso Seetiu'o on ".Miracles," delivered ii; St. Paul's i\uglicari 'Cathedral, Melbourne, Professor A. C. Ucndkni, of King's College, Lou* don, stated .that "about sonic details rtlicro may be uncertainty, but about tlio .general character ov.ouv Lord's discourses or tlie narrative of His iil'e ther« k on textual grounds no doubt at all." During the) last eighty years, ho continued, early Christian history has been in the niclfhij pot. Every traditional view has been combated. But tho icwilt, as far as the synoptic Gospels \wx-e concerned, had placed traditional opinion on a sounder basis. On one' point, indeed, the traditional'view was rejected. Few would now consider the nr&t Gcspel to have been written, by Matthew. On tho other hand the position of the fourth Gospel \yas at the present moment one of great uncertainty. But it was recognised more clearly than formerly was tho case that tho theological teaching of the book had undergone some translation into tho thoughts and. ideas of a later period, and that the comments of tho Evangelist.were mixed up with th« ■sayings of Jesus- . "Personally, howover,''' oonclfided Dr. Headlaiu, "I aw. of. opinion that' a careful examination of the whole question will ultimately provo that the information contained in 'tho Gospel was derived from au eyewitness, and that that witness was undoubtedly the disciple who testified these- things," We do not, however, know enough to s-ay whether ho was directly the author or only tho source from which tho author derived his. .information. This disciple Was, I believe, John, the son of Zebsdeft, and tho main outline of our Lord's teaching represented in this Gospel is drawn directly from tiio teaching of our Lord," .

The Evidence. In his fifth lecture i)r. Hc-adlan arrived at the following conclusions: — "(1) Ail evidence, without exception, telti us that our Lord's life and activity were characterised by events such' as art* described as miraculous. Wo have various gospels, themselves tho work of writers of tno first and second generations of Christians. Thcso have been in tho process of. criticism analysed, and we' are taken back to certain sources, which iu their turn see-in. to represent a selection from narratives about our Lord which were current in tin: Christian Cltttrch during tiro first generation, ■ As far as w-e kisow, all these, without exception, bear witness to tho miraculous character of <juf Lord's work. It is probable that these writings contained tho testimony of our Lord Himself, while tradition traces two main sources to St. ! Peter and St. Matthew.

"Ci) When analysed, this evidence is complex in character. We have, first of all, Kciwral statements of the miracles wrought by our Lord.- These alone might not be of great val«o_. We have then a number of actual miracles recorded; as far as wo can Sec, tlrese o/n in 110 case more than a selection of all those which have- been described. 'From each fragmentary source wo get new ovidence, and the aim of the writers seems in all cases to have been not comprehensiveness, but the selection of t.ypioal and striking incidents. '.'(3) Tho narrative is built up on and implies miraculous powers. Tho apostles themselves looked upon the miracles as part of the basis of their faith. There is teaching recorded which would be meaningless unless outLord l had,. poW«,. ,t<j'.J '-itork;. miracles. Moreover, He Himself, i« a our documents, claims suck power. "(4) Attempts have been 3ua.de from time to tiffin. to got- back to a nonmiraculous 'Christianity—to ,1 Melons which would represent the pure teaching of Jesus.before it had' been.contaminated with snpcrnaturalism. . None of these efforts has had the slightest success. Objective critical grounds for rejecting the* "miracle's have never been found. On examination; tho criticism is found to assume tho impossibility of miracles as one? of its axioms. Jtt can hardly be said that the reason is adequate, if we first repeet the testimony of a work because it is miraculous,.'and we are assured that miracles do pat happen, and then say wo cannot believe in miracles because'our documents are nil trustworthy,

"to) We find abundant and firsthand ovisienen that th« same in-iraeuTpus power existed in *lw Church fa the apostolm a.Rc. St. Paul himself -claims to liavfl worked miracles, and this power is dcfinitelv and consistently rpprosentrd as derived from a gift of God's.' Spirit." Mental Disease and FaiMi Healing. Sle-ntnl-disease in Palestine in Christ's: time, said Dr. Hcattlmn in Iris sixth lectutOj w;is 'a terrible affliction, • and Clirist's attitude towards it was clear. "[« this, as in all other matters affect'; i:iig the scientific kttowledfc of the ago," i admitted Dr. 1-leadla.ni> ''Christ adopted unreservedly current theories, Hqw- ; ever great a shook tins-may be to -some, wo must recognise that, it is so. Ho caino neither to tench a science nor a. medical knowledge, nor a biblical e-riti-cism, which those whsin He addressed would have been incapable, of grasping. Tlie psychological language- He ii-sad was that of His time, it is possible that, supposing tlio purposo of the- Gospels had been to give a complete theory of demoniacal possession, it might be found as inconsistent with the present stage of medical knowledge as is their actual teaching." It was generally admitten, the lecturer continued, that Christ did heal those possessed with devils; but it was said that no miracle really took place, that it was only natural law. Pn certain eases to it slight degree one mind had the power of in*another—the process was e : ii" tirely spiritual. If, therefore, we found a great development in this power in any particular circunistaaces, surely that was a sign "of a real sift- of spiritual power to humanity. That was tho impression it created' and the explanation Jesus gave.,- Whatever.tlie analogy to phenomena known to us, the- power exhibited was quite abnormal, ai.id.it was a- narrow, conception, of what was miraculous that would refuse to call it a miracle.

Dr. Hi>adlnm then passed tn miracles of healing, admitting to a ■ do-area tho existence of the phenomena called faith healing. Faith healing implied tire influence of the -spiritual 'nature of man on tiro material. This power in > man was heightened and intensified by' religion ami spiritual influence.' That was what faith licnliiist meant. But the ■faith-henlim; which existed to-day in a iicai-i, feeble, and tentative fashion was in Christ a strong, Authoritative power. Here surely was evidence of the existence of a strong abnormal spiritual fores in the world. It was contended that such was not miraculous. That depended upon our definition' of miracles. There was authority in Christ's Broaehin« and teachings bassd upon His Sonship of God, and Christ claimed the miracles as an additional m,n of thr reality of His divine mission. Those, cliiims lmng together consistently, and it was only a purely podnnti-e and academic use of terms which vrovrld deny •that events lifce those were miraculous, or that they bad any evidential value in relation to the mission, work and nature of Jesus Christ.