To the unbiased thinker along these lines the rationale of miracles is at once apparent, and their possibility or even probability pre sents no serhms lint the credibility of the so called miraculous events car be estab lisped only by satisfactory evidence. Faith is not credulity, and it presents a reasonable de mand for proofs. The Apostles clearly lunl no prejudice in favor of the resurrection and ascen sion of their master. They had everything to use and nothing to gain, trout a worldly point of view, by sticking to their stories. So the Gospel evidence cannot be simply ignored. New Testament criticism. moreover, scents unable to find. any thmry by tvhic•li the miraculous can be entirely eliminated, and the historicity of the Gospels still preserved.
Passing from the Gospels to the Epistles, the great authority in support of the resurrection is held to be Saint Paul, especially L Cor. xv., the genuineness of which is unchallenged by im partial criticism. His citation of the manifes tation of the risen Christ to "above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part re main unto this day." remains a strong argu ment. Owing to the proximity of Corinth to the Syrian coast, it could easily have been chal lenged, but it does not appear that it was. It would follow, then, that within twenty-tive years after the Crucifixion there were living over two hundred and fifty persons who had seen Christ alive after His death at one time and place.
The evidence for apostolic miracles, as con tained especially in a number of passages of the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians. is of a kind which, for the special purpose for which it was written, is particularly valuable. This evidence. Ivhich gains force from being incidental and not didactic, shows (in Sanday's words) that the Apostle "was conscious of the power of miracles, and that he had actually wrought them; and it shows that he assumed the existence of the same power in others besides himself. and that he could appeal to it without fear of being challenged." The evidential value of miracles does not hold so prominent a place in Christian apologetics as it once did. The tendency to-day is to put Jesus Christ and His claims to recognition as a Teacher and Saviour in the forefront of the Christian position. Ile was His own greatest miracle, an evidence of Christianity the force of which can be estimated without special critical train ing. His miracles were according to the law of His being 'in rational sequence' with the character of His person and mission. Works (frya) and powers (Suva/Acts) were natural to flint. as "the unique manifestations of His unique personalit?." Hence, we are told that the unique revelation of God made in the person of Jesus Christ must be its own evidence. The appeal is made to men to believe ill the Christ primarily on moral and spiritual grounds. Ills miracles are not credentials: they are manifestations of and inseparable from Himself. Belief in His person and character will ultimately lead to a belief in His miracle-working. The fact that
miracles are of the very substance of the Gos pels is but the reflection of the deeper fact that they are of the very essence of Christ's manifes tation of Himself.
The apostolic miracles may be viewed from the same standpoint, as the flashing forth after Pentecost of the more glorious divine life when an opening was made for it. They were coupled with and the power to work them was trans mitted by the "laying on of hands," and it is widely held that no real miracles have been per formed since the death of the last of those upon whom the Apostles laid their hands. To take this position, is to challenge the genuineness If not to deny the possibility of what are known as 'eeclesia'ticaI' miracles. Some of their advo cates admit that the great mass of them were a IleW dispensation, but insist that no strong ante cedent improbability can be entertained against such a dispensation, because the Scripture mir acles had already borne the brunt of hostile at tacks and 'broken the ice' for their successors. It may fairly be said, too, that the claim for the cessation of mirac•ies in subapostolie days, or, as some hold, the Church was established by the civil power under C011Stailtille. al111, there fore, did not need supernatural assistance, is but a part of the nuts• generally exploded idea that miracles were given for evidential purposes. on the other hand. it is noticeable that during the second and third centuries Christian writers have comparatively little to say about contemporary wonder-working, except in three forms, viz. cur ing disease, casting out demons, and prophesying. They seem to recognize that the extensit e porters resident in Christ and the Apostles have ceased to operate. But in the fourth century, and on through the Aliddle Ages, constant reference is made to miracles of all kinds and full descrip tions of their uc'c•urrruee are given. The school men bent their energies to setting forth the doc trine of the Church with regard to these records of the supernatural. and reconciling them with what was then believed concerning the world and God. Thomas Aquinas taught that a miracle something, altogether outside the natural order. while Albertus :Magnus held that God has woven the miraculous into the order of nature. as one of its possibilities. Abcdard freely criticised the accounts of alleged miracles in the ago in which he lived, yet he believed that divine power might alter even the nature of things, whence miracles were possible. The Roman Catholic Church has always maintained that the 'spiritual gift' of working miracles (cf. I. ('or. xii. 10) has not "eased, but resides in the Church forever. It does not, how-ever. require a belief in the truth of any particular one of these later miracles, leaving the evidence in the individual ease to be the cri terion. Proof of the power to work miracles is an essential prerequisite to canonization.