to God, bears witness to God's freedom in relation to Nature.1 And seeing that no epoch is free from the danger of confounding God-consciousness and world-consciousness, wellattested miracles have significance for later times as well. Moreover, by means of facts, recognized as miracles, the true theory of the world is securely established on the purely historical side, and that theory is precluded which endures no miracle, because the only God it knows is one identical or intertwined with Nature. Rothe rightly says, that for one who deems miracles impossible, the consciousness of a living, personal God is out of the question. An independence of the world, that excludes miracles, must end in the world's deification. 3. But the denial of miracle, e.g. by Hume, and especially Renan, bases itself on the question as to their cognizableness. Their real cause is confessedly invisible. The possibility always remains, that they are the effects of natural causes. But if they are incognizable, they are without reason and aim." But those who speak thus do not know how, on the other hand, to insist with sufficient emphasis on the strangeness of and want of analogy for miracle. But this implies the admission that miracle is very definitely distinguished from everything not miraculous. And granting that miracles were incognizable, they might still be possible, although not on teleological grounds, yet as the natural expression of a will peculiarly invigorated by the spirit of revelation, though for the rest subject to ethical laws. The teleological relation is not the causal basis of miracles, the miraculous powers depending on a communication of spirit. J. Müller rightly says: "Miracles, like raising the dead, changing water into wine, proclaim themselves without further ado as miracles, the explanation of which by physical forces is renounced by cautious physical science." It is true that miracle can merely of itself suggest an invisible higher power, but by this very means it serves to emancipate the spirit from Nature, to extend its horizon and lead it to something higher. Now what this higher power is, miracle cannot say of itself. learned from the mouth of the miracle-worker, and his testimony must gain credibility from his character. Supposing This must be 1 This holds good most directly of miracles of the first class, but indirectly also of the others. both elements to be present, the trustworthy testimony of the miracle-worker respecting what he does serves to guide to the right understanding or cognition of its cause. From this it follows, that miracle is not meant to be considered apart, but that it dovetails spontaneously into a vaster system. Miracle by itself, as a human act, has not the power and is not meant to demonstrate the truth of a revelation, but is the spontaneous manifestation of a revelation already made, and can therefore only be understood in association with the person of the religious founder. But it can be understood. For, in the first place, the miracle-worker is conscious to himself of doing the miracle, not in the power of his finite will, but in union with God, to which union he will then bear witness. In the second place, the astonishment excited by his act will co-operate with his testimony and the impression of his entire person in producing faith in his higher mission, because in the Tépas a onμeîov is recognised, a symbolical fact, the effect of which is to produce a comprehension of the dúvaus from which the miracle flowed, and which leads in this way up to the divine influence operating in the miracle-worker, as well as to faith in his power. In the next place, personal participation being gained in the spiritual revelation brought by the miracleworker, the astonishment comes to an end, because now the miracle no longer appears strange, but adequately grounded in the power of the miracle-worker and his mission, and to this extent natural. Therewith it is also seen to pertain to the field of conservation. Thus, in miracle, as analogously in human life generally, a movement in a circle is observable. As, for example, the word of the gospel must have been apprehended and have exerted somehow an attractive influence, in order that its internal presence might become a fact in the spirit by means of the external, while on the other hand the same word is first rightly understood and known to be truth when the Christian standpoint is reached, so is it in the case of miracle. As a onueîov exciting a feeling of wonder, miracle leads to Christianity, and on the other hand can only be perfectly understood from the standpoint of Christianity, i.e. so understood as to appear a manifestation of natural power (dúvaμis), regarded from the point of view of Christianity and the miracle-worker. But this circle involves no contradiction, but is in harmony with the universal law of human progress. The movement begins with a stimulus from without, in order to reach its goal within; but the vehicle or medium having done its work, the opposite movement begins from within outwards. The light of the internal revelation that has been assimilated now sheds light on the external, so that the latter loses its strangeness. SECOND POINT: DOCTRINE OF THE FORM OF INTERNAL REVELA- FOUNDING OF RELIGION, OR § 57. Revelation imparted to the spirit is, as regards its forın, Inspiration. Luther's Werke, ed. Walch, viii. 2140, 2161, xiv. 172. Joh. Gerhard, Loc. de Inspiratione, T. ii. Quenstedt, Systema Theol. I. 55 ff. Calov, Syst. I. 484 ff. Heidegger, Corp. Theol. II. 34. Exercitationes Biblica, 1700 (in opposition to Spinoza, Capellus, R. Simon). G. Calixtus, Responsio ad Theologos Moguntinos de Infallibilitate Rom. Pontificis, Thes. 72-77. HISTORICAL: Sonntag, Doctrina Inspirationis ejusque Ratio Historica, Heidelberg, 1810. Rudelbach, Luth. Zeitschr. 1840 (History of Dogma). DOGMATIC: Schleiermacher, Christl. Glaube, §§ 28, 132. Twesten, Vorlesungen, 3d ed. vol. i. p. 282 ff. Gaussen, La Théopneustie, 2d ed. 1842. Hengstenberg, Christology of 0. T. (concluding treatise on Prophecy). Philippi, Kirchl. Glaubenslehre, I. 184, 1854. Schweizer, Christl. Glaubenslehre, I. §§ 43–50, p. 138 ff. Von der Goltz, ut supra, p. 84 ff. Beck, Einleitung in das System christl. Lehre, 2d ed. 1876, §§ 82-101; System der christl. Lehre, p. 240 ff. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, vol. i.; Einleit. p. 26 f., II. 1, p. 13. Tholuck, Ueber die Inspirationslehre, Deutsche Zeitschrift of J. Müller, 1850, n. 16 ff., and his article "Inspiration" in Herzog's Real-Encycl. VI. Auberlen, Divine Revelation. Jacobi, Die Kirchliche Lehre von der Tradition u. H. Schrift, 1847. Holtzmann, Kanon u. Tradition, 1859. Krauss, Die Lehre von der Offenbarung, 1868. Köstlin, Der Glaube, 1859. Delitzsch, Chr. Apologetik, 1869, p. 393 ff. Rothe, Zur Dogmatik, pp. 112, 121 ff. Fréd. de Rougemont, Christ et ses Témoins. E. de Pressensé, Revue théologique, Supplement, Nov. 1862, and Bulletin théol. Févr. 1869. A.-Biblical Doctrine. 1. The language used in the O. and N. T. respecting divine inbreathing or inspiration is far more comprehensive in meaning than the phraseology which refers the word chiefly to holy writings. No doubt 2 Tim. iii. 16 justifies the latter usage, whether we translate: God-breathed, or, which is more probable, God-inspired, an inference from which is that a holy writing breathes of God's Spirit. For the founding of the O. T. religion and theocracy, for its firm establishment and higher development, inspiration is everywhere presupposed. Abraham, like Moses, is called a prophet. Nay, all theocratic offices are based on inspiration or participation in the Holy Spirit. A sacred afflatus is ascribed, along with prophets, to artists, poets, judges, kings. But it is in an altogether special sense that the Spirit imparts higher knowledge and the universal outpouring of the Spirit. That all shall be taught of God, is the prophetic hope. Christianity regards itself as the fulfilment of this hope. With the baptism of the Spirit all men are to be made partakers of adoption." The Spirit is the source of all charismata in the Church. Accordingly, notwithstanding the universal outpouring of the Spirit upon. believers, a difference of kind, as well as of degree, in the communication of the Spirit retains its place.? 6 2. As concerns the relation of the objective influence of the Spirit to the inspired bearers of revelation, we often find in the O. T. in the case of the prophets states of transport or ecstasy. This does not imply indeed a loss of self-consciousness, but simply the retirement into the background of world-consciousness, whereas self-consciousness and in it Godconsciousness continue. But still, according to the N. T., it is a higher stage when the man who is ev veúμaтi stands also in vous, and therefore when self-possession remains united with inspiration. Where this is wanting, the cause may be 1 Ex. xxxi. 3 ff., xxxv. 31; Judg. xi. 29, xiv. 6, xv. 14, etc. Joel iii. 1; Ezek. xxxvi. 26; Isa. xi. 9, xl. 3, lxi. 13. 5 Matt. xxviii. 19 f.; Rom. viii. 15. 61 Cor. xii. 2 Isa. xi. 2, li. 13. 4 Acts ii. 7 Matt. x. 19; Luke xxi. 15, cf. xii. 11, 12; in John: xiv. 16, 17, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7-14; in Paul: 1 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 40. 8 1 Cor. xiv. 15 ff. twofold. First, when the Holy Spirit possesses the man merely for a moment, and does not take up His permanent abode in him, it may happen that the man is only able to sojourn in the element of the divine by means of a momentary break with everyday consciousness. But again, the contents of revelation may contribute to the repression of ordinary worldconsciousness; for visions relate not merely to the fundamental facts of salvation, such as bear upon the relation between God and the soul (as in Gal. i. 12; 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff.), but, e.g., even in the N. T., in Peter's case and in the Apocalypse,1 to states of the world not yet present. In this case the world-consciousness, with its present contents, must give place to its fulfilment by the contents of the vision, and therewith the spirit be transported beyond the realities of the present. But seeing that even then the consciousness of God and of self is not extinguished, but on the contrary intensified, there is no ground for the notion that the inspired men of the O. and N. T. existed in a purely passive state. We read also of a searching on the part of the prophets; and even when Christ promises His disciples that not they shall speak, but the Holy Spirit in them, this must be taken along with the context which says, that this Spirit shall give them a mouth and wisdom. Nor is it specified as an effect of inspiration that its recipients possess all knowledge at once, or are elevated morally and intellectually above all possibility of mistake and error. But with the consciousness that personally they are not yet perfect (ov Teтeλeíwμai), there is connected in the prophets and apostles the firm consciousness that they are bearers of God's word, of a divine message, to which divine authority belongs. Accordingly they claim authority for these contents, which they are well able to distinguish from products of their own thought. 3 5 1 Acts x.; Rev. i. 10. 4 3 Luke xxi. 15; Matt. x. 19. 5 1 Cor. vii. 6, 10, 12. 6 21 Pet. i. 10, 11, cf. Rom. x. 20. 4 Gal. ii. 12; 1 Cor. xiii. 12; Phil. iii. 12. 6 Gal. i. 8, iii. 2; 1 Cor. ii. 4 ff.; 2 Cor. v. 20; 1 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Cor. xiii. 10; 1 Pet. i. 12, 25. |