Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus I: Demonstratio Christiana

We have shown that miracles are the absolute criterion of revelation, for the confirmation of which they are performed.¹ Now Jesus Christ continually affirms that he works miracles to confirm the testimony borne concerning himself. To the envoys of John the Baptist he answers: "Go and report to John what you have heard and seen: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again ... and blessed is he who is not scandalized in me."² To the apostles he says these words: "The Father abiding in me himself does the works. Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? Otherwise believe because of the works themselves. Amen, amen I say to you, he who believes in me, the works that I do he also shall do, and greater than these shall he do. That the Father may be glorified in the Son."³ He confounds the Jews with the same works: "For the works which the Father has given me to accomplish, those very works which I do bear witness of me ... If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, and you will not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in the Father."⁴ It will be more tolerable for the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for the Jews, who, despising the miracles, remained unbelieving.⁵ There is therefore no doubt that Jesus intends by his miracles to prove the testimony borne concerning himself.

Therefore the disciples of Jesus as well, the apologists of the second century, and all subsequent defenders of the Christian cause establish the messianic character and the divinity of Jesus chiefly from his miracles. The authors of the New Testament, Quadratus, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, all subsequent ones agree with the words of (one) Arnobius: "No greater proof exists than faith in the deeds accomplished by him [Jesus Christ], than the newness of his mighty works."⁶

Nor indeed do the enemies of the faith deny the probative force of the miracles of Jesus, if only they are true miracles. But that Jesus worked true miracles they deny, refusing either the historicity or the supernatural character of the miracles attributed to him. Hence in two articles we shall establish the historical and the philosophical truth of the miracles of Jesus.⁷

That the historical truth of the miracles of Jesus may be fully established, we shall first set forth the evidence for these miracles, and afterwards examine it critically.

The miracles of Jesus are set forth in the Gospels and confirmed by certain extra-evangelical books. Hence there must be presented the exposition and confirmation of the evangelical narratives of the miracles of Jesus.

1. The exposition of the evangelical narratives.

It would be tedious to cite all the passages of the Gospels in which miracles are treated, since they fill no small part of these sacred books. Hence we may give only a brief survey of what the evangelists narrate concerning the miracles of the Lord. And indeed:

a) The works of Christ summarily surveyed. For the most part the evangelists record the miraculous activity of Jesus without describing the individual deeds in detail. E.g.: "And Jesus went about all Galilee ... healing every disease and every infirmity among the people. And his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought to him all the sick, those seized with various diseases and torments, and those who had demons, and lunatics and paralytics, and he cured them."¹ "A great multitude of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast and Tyre and Sidon had come to hear him and to be healed of their infirmities. And those who were vexed by unclean spirits were cured. And the whole crowd sought to touch him, because power went out from him and healed all."² "Many other signs indeed did Jesus also perform, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."³ By these and similar texts⁴ it is established that Jesus, throughout his entire public life, performed very many miracles, of which the brevity of the evangelical volumes did not permit even a list to be drawn up.

b) The works of Christ accurately described. With fuller treatment and added circumstances at least 35 miracles of Jesus are described by the evangelists. Matthew narrates 20, Mark 18, Luke 20, John 8 miracles. Only one is narrated by all the evangelists (the first multiplication of the loaves); eleven are described by all the Synoptics, one by Matthew, Mark and John, three by Matthew and Mark, two by Matthew and Luke, one by Mark and Luke; seventeen are found in only one evangelist.⁵ The individual miracles are related by the individual evangelists in such a way that, the essence of the narrative remaining intact, they differ considerably in circumstances of lesser moment.⁶ From this diversity of the narratives, both material and formal, we conclude that the individual evangelists selected and described the narrated facts not slavishly but freely; nay, that each of them, over and above the common tradition, drew upon sources proper to himself. And thus at last the miraculous accounts of the Gospels rest not on the word of one, but of four witnesses.

c) The works of Christ distributed into classes. The miracles of Jesus belong to four classes: the healing of the sick, the raising of the dead, the casting out of demons, and dominion over the forces of nature.

1°. The healing of the sick: Jesus healed many lame,⁷ blind,⁸ deaf and dumb,⁹ and also lepers.¹⁰ Besides these classes of the sick he freed several individual persons from diseases: the man with the withered hand,¹¹ the woman with the issue of blood,¹² the dropsical man,¹³ the feverish mother-in-law of Simon Peter,¹⁴ the son of the royal official,¹⁵ the bowed-down woman,¹⁶ the man held for 38 years by an indeterminate disease,¹⁷ the dying servant of the centurion;¹⁸ finally, he restored to Malchus his severed ear.¹⁹

2°. Three resuscitations of the dead are enumerated: that of the daughter of Jairus,²⁰ of the young man at Naim,²¹ and of Lazarus.²²

3°. Very many castings out of demons are indicated in summary fashion,²³ while four are described in detail, namely, the deliverance of the demoniac in the synagogue of Capharnaum,²⁴ of the demoniac in the country of the Gerasenes,²⁵ of the lunatic boy,²⁶ and of the Canaanite woman's daughter.²⁷

4°. Dominion over the forces of nature: Jesus suddenly stilled the wind and the waves,²⁸ walked upon the waters and upheld Peter as he walked upon the waters,²⁹ changed water into wine,³⁰ twice multiplied loaves for thousands of men,³¹ withered the fig tree by a word,³² and caused a miraculous catch of fish to be made.³³

From all this it is clear that, according to the Gospels, Jesus showed himself the true lord of the world. His works brilliantly confirm the words spoken by Jesus: "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth."³⁴

2. The confirmation of the evangelical narratives.

The miraculous activity of Christ described by the evangelists is confirmed also by extra-evangelical accounts of the apostolic age. And to this point pertain the accounts both of Christians and of non-Christians.

a) The accounts of Christians: of Peter, Paul, Papias, Quadratus.

On the day of Pentecost Peter addresses the Jews thus: "Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as you also know: him ... you have slain."³⁵

Soon afterwards the prince of the apostles at Caesarea again appeals to the Jews concerning the miracles of Jesus known to them: "You know the word which was published throughout all Judea ... Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things that he did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem ... who did eat and drink with him after he arose from the dead."³⁶ Moreover, Peter does not attribute to himself the miracles which he himself performed,³⁷ but to the miraculous power of Jesus. E.g., he heals the lame man at the gate of the temple "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth," and says to the astonished Jews: "Ye men of Israel, why wonder you at this, or why look you upon us, as though by our own strength or power we had made this man walk? The God of our fathers hath glorified his Son Jesus, whom you indeed delivered up."³⁸

Paul likewise ascribes his own miracles³⁹ to Christ: "For I dare not to speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not by me for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders."⁴⁰ But if Christ conferred upon Paul and the other apostles the power of working miracles for the propagation of the faith,⁴¹ then the author of the faith himself without doubt made use of the same means. Indeed, by an extraordinary miracle he converted Saul himself into Paul and endowed him with faith.⁴²

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, "a hearer of John [the apostle], a companion of Polycarp, an old man,"⁴³ writes "that those who were raised from the dead by Christ lived down to the time of Hadrian (117-138)."⁴⁴ The same relates more at length:

Quadratus, bishop of Athens, in the apology which he presented to the Emperor Hadrian about the year 125: "The works of our Saviour were always conspicuous, inasmuch as they were true: namely, those who had been freed from diseases or who had been recalled from death to life. These were seen by all, not only while they were being healed or while they were being recalled to life, but also in the time that followed afterwards. And not only while our Saviour sojourned on earth, but also long after his departure they survived, so that some of them even reached down to our own times."⁴⁵

b) The accounts of non-Christians, namely, of Flavius Josephus, of the Jews, and of the Gentiles.

Flavius Josephus († c. 100 A.D.), a Jew by origin indeed, yet hateful to the Jews because, as a renegade, he favored the Romans, has this to say of Jesus Christ and his miracles: "At that time also there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be lawful to call him a man [ἄνδρα]. For he was a doer of wonderful works [παραδόξων ἔργων], a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure, and he drew to himself many Jews and many also of the Gentiles. This was the Christ [Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν]. And when Pilate, at the denunciation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had first loved him did not cease to love him. For he appeared to them on the third day alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and a thousand other wonderful things about him. And the race of Christians, so named from him, lasts to this day."⁴⁶

The Jews, the contemporaries of Jesus, by no means denied the historical truth of the miracles of Christ, but only their divine origin and cause. For, as the evangelists testify, the Pharisees and scribes attributed the wonderful works of Jesus to diabolical power.⁴⁷ Likewise after the resurrection of the Lord, as St. Justin relates, the rulers of the Jews appointed chosen men and, sending them throughout the whole world, proclaimed through them that Jesus had been "a certain Galilean impostor," i.e., that he had made use of magic to perform his wonderful works.⁴⁸

Afterwards this opinion became common to all the Jews, as we gather from Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine,⁴⁹ and likewise from the Talmudic writings themselves.⁵⁰ Nay, even:

The Gentiles seem to have received from the Jews the opinion that Jesus performed his wonderful works by means of the magic art. Celsus, in the book "Verbum verum" (c. 178), strenuously contended that Jesus worked his miracles by the magical power of the Egyptians;⁵¹ he did not, however, dare to deny the miraculous deeds ascribed to the man of Nazareth.⁵² The same is reported by Porphyry,⁵³ Hierocles,⁵⁴ Julian the Apostate,⁵⁵ and the other Gentile adversaries. None of all those who attacked Christ in the first centuries called the historical truth of his miracles into doubt.⁵⁶

1. The Attack on the Evangelical Narratives.

When rationalism at length arose in the eighteenth century, the miracles of Christ began to be attacked. For since the rationalists denied a priori the possibility of supernatural revelation and consequently of miracles, they rejected a priori the miracles of the Gospels as well. In order, however, to give to this rejection the semblance of historical criticism, they devised in the course of two centuries various hypotheses to undermine the miraculous narratives of the Gospels, namely the hypotheses of fraud, of natural explanation, of myth, of tendency, and of legends.

a) The hypothesis of fraud was devised by Reimarus (1694-1763),¹ who maintained that Jesus favored a purely political messianism, and that in order to stir up the people to sedition against the Romans he feigned messianic miracles. When, however, this political plan was frustrated and Jesus himself had died, the disciples fraudulently declared that their master had professed a religious messianism and had risen from the dead. Moreover, the evangelists fabricated many other miracles of Jesus. This hypothesis of fraud is so absurd that the rationalists themselves repudiated it with one voice. But immediately:

b) The hypothesis of natural explanation was hawked by Gottlob Paulus (1761-1851), who contended that the evangelical history and even the miraculous facts are indeed true, but were so depicted by the evangelists that they appear supernatural without justification. It was the interpreter's task to render the texts in question in such a way that only rational truths and natural facts should remain.² In reality, however, Dr. Paulus, for the sake of this "natural" explanation, corrupted the very miraculous facts and the whole evangelical history, which he had affirmed to be true. Hence by an argument from the absurd he proved his hypothesis to be vain. Therefore, this one having been rejected:

c) The hypothesis known as that of myth was proposed by David Frider. Strauß (1808-1874). The evangelists, Strauß maintained, had unconsciously and without awareness transferred to Jesus all manner of miraculous fables which the Jews had invented about the Messiah to come or the Christians about the Messiah already come. Hence the Gospels are not true history, but a fabulous history of Jesus. And above all, all the miracles attributed to Christ are to be counted among the fables.³ This opinion at first pleased the rationalists greatly; soon, however, even the unbelievers perceived that the disciples could not have unconsciously written a fabulous life of their master, but that such a deed could have been perpetrated only at a later time and in bad faith. Therefore, in place of the hypothesis of myth: d) The hypothesis of "tendency" was invented by Ferd. Christian Baur (1792-1860), formerly himself a teacher of Strauß. Baur, together with the Tübingen school, by means of the "higher criticism" concocted a new history of the Christian religion of the first and second centuries. He dreamed, namely, that from the apostolic age the faithful had been divided into two parties most hostile to one another, namely into a Petrine church of Judeo-Christians and a Pauline church of Gentile-Christians. In the second century peace was at length concluded between the quarreling brethren by the composition of the Gospels and the other writings of the New Testament, which, concealing the earlier dissension, fabricated a "tendencious" history of Jesus and the apostles. On that occasion and with that intention the miracles of Jesus were also invented.⁴ But the falsity of this hypothesis escapes no one. For it labors under all the vices with which the hypothesis of fraud of Reimarus was already burdened, and besides, with a ridiculous audacity, it perverts the whole primitive history of the Christian religion and wrongly asserts that the entire New Testament arose in the second century. Therefore, this hypothesis too having been rejected:

e) The hypothesis of legends is cherished by almost all the more recent rationalists, or, as they call themselves, the "historico-critical" scholars⁵. The historico-critical scholars concede — indeed, against the errors of Reimarus, Baur, Strauß and other skeptics they prove invincibly — that almost the whole New Testament is to be ascribed to those sacred writers of the apostolic age to whom it has always been attributed by Catholic Tradition. They maintain, however, that these writers, and above all the evangelists, did not wish to write the life of Jesus according to the rule of history, but depicted a legend of Christ according to the norm of the Christian faith then in vogue. For the faithful, they say, had within a brief interval colored the merely human and natural life of the Lord with a legendary coating.

To the legendary part of the Gospels belong the supernatural doctrines and especially the miraculous events; the natural deeds, on the other hand, constitute the historical part. By means of criticism the miraculous legends are to be removed from the picture of the "Christ of faith", so that the true figure of the "historical Jesus" may appear once more.

2. The Defense of the Evangelical Narratives.

From what has been said it is clear that today the miracles of Jesus are attacked only by the hypothesis of legends, since all the other hypotheses put forward in the course of two centuries have been destroyed by the rationalists themselves. That the miraculous narratives of the Gospels are by no means legendary, but historical, is proven by their adversaries, their character, their writers, their contemporaries.

a) The adversaries of the narratives by no means prove that those texts of the Gospel which relate miracles are less historical than those which contain natural facts. Rather, the "historico-critical" scholars confess that the miraculous texts are adjudged to legend by pure arbitrariness, according to the saying: "Sic volo, sic iubeo; stet pro ratione voluntas."⁶ Indeed, some add that the miraculous texts are so necessarily interwoven with the historico-natural texts of the Gospels that, once the former are removed, the latter too are irreparably destroyed.⁷ Therefore, on the testimony of the adversaries themselves, the miraculous narratives, if examined without a preconceived opinion, are of the same historical weight as the Gospels as a whole.

Notwithstanding this, the rationalists contend that the miracles of Jesus are not historical, for the sole philosophical reason that they simply deny that a miracle can happen. Against this we do not insist upon the possibility of miracle demonstrated elsewhere,⁸ but we appeal to the principles of sound criticism, which ordain that historical questions are not to be treated in an a priori manner. It belongs to historical criticism to examine seriously the evangelical documents of the miracles. And if these documents are found to be truthful, one must stand by the historicity of the miracles of Jesus, whatever the preconceived philosophy of rationalism may prattle. For: "Contra factum non valet argumentum." Since, however, as has been said, the evangelical documents of the miracles have neither been weakened by the assault of so many enemies nor can be weakened, the very adversaries of the works of Christ, whether they will or not, are their most zealous defenders. But come, let us ourselves see whether:

b) The character of the narratives is historical or legendary.

The literary genre of the Gospels, as the Introduction demonstrates, is the historical genre. This holds above all for those parts of the Gospels which contain miracles. For the miraculous texts are distinguished by a simple and sober diction, a concrete and vivid exposition, an exact and accurate description.

The miraculous narratives of the Gospels excel in simple and sober diction. Whereas poetic legends are wont to affect a certain luxuriance of language, the evangelists relate the unheard-of works of Christ in that bare style customary to history, indeed to chronicle and almost to statistics. They attempt nothing to move the feelings; nowhere do they display their own emotions stirred; they utter no words of admiration or of exclamation.

Nevertheless they make use of a concrete and vivid exposition. Whether they touch in passing upon the works wrought by Jesus Christ or relate them accurately, they always place the matter before the eyes with remarkable clarity. This concrete and vivid mark of style belongs not only to the miraculous narratives of the Synoptics, but also to the last evangelist, who wrote only toward the end of the first century, far removed from the events narrated. Compare e. g. the Johannine account of the marriage at Cana, of the healing of the sick man afflicted for 38 years, of the healing of the man born blind, of the raising of Lazarus.⁹ This manner of writing is not that of a fabled legend, but of strict history.

There is added the exact and accurate description by which the place, time, persons, and circumstances of many miracles are indicated: at Capernaum, in the synagogue that still exists, Jesus cast out demons;¹⁰ in the house of Simon, whose inhabitants were still living, he healed Peter's mother-in-law lying in a fever;¹¹ at Capernaum he healed the paralytic servant of the centurion and raised from the dead the daughter of Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue;¹² beside the Sea of Galilee, in the desert, he fed four thousand men, besides little children and women, with seven loaves and a few small fishes, seven baskets full of fragments remaining;¹³ etc. With such an exhibition of truth there are not reported imaginary fictions, but historical events, and indeed by competent witnesses. In truth:

c) The writers of the narratives could and would transmit the works of Christ according to historical truth, not according to legendary embellishment.

Matthew and John knew from their own experience and wrote the life and miracles of the Lord. John, speaking of his whole Gospel, says: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of the Word of life ... we declare unto you."¹⁴ Toward the end of the Gospel, moreover, we read: "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book... This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true."¹⁵ The same manifestly holds of Matthew, who also, as an eye- and ear-witness, knew and reported the miracles of Jesus.

Mark and Luke do not indeed speak supported by autopsy, because they had not been with Jesus from the beginning. They rely, however, upon the moral testimony of those who themselves knew the miracles of Jesus by physical experience. Mark composed his Gospel to the exact standard of the catecheses of Peter,¹⁶ the most faithful "interpreter of Peter; whatsoever he had committed to memory he wrote down diligently ... For this one thing he strove, that he should omit nothing of what he had heard, nor affix anything false to them."¹⁷ The miraculous narratives of Mark without doubt savor of the magisterium of Peter.¹⁸ Luke retains with his pen the catecheses of Paul.¹⁹ Moreover, with the greatest diligence he collected the testimonies of the first disciples handed down both in writing and by word of mouth. For he says: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."²⁰

It is clear, therefore, that the evangelists did not conceive miraculous legends, but, supported by certain knowledge and the most unimpeachable veracity, narrated the miracles of Jesus, which and in the manner in which they were done. Had it been otherwise, they would have been refuted by:

d) The contemporaries of the narratives. The evangelists could not palm off miraculous legends while innumerable witnesses were still alive who had heard and seen Jesus teaching and working throughout all Galilee and Judea. But at the time when the Gospels arose, almost innumerable witnesses of the life of Jesus were still surviving. When John at length wrote, the generation of the contemporaries of the Lord was not yet dead;²¹ while when the Synoptics wrote, a greater number of those who had beheld him discharging the messianic office still lived.²²

In the presence of all these the evangelical miracles are daily preached. Nay, I say, the very Jews and Gentiles who had been contemporaries of Jesus are appealed to concerning the miracles. The native city of Jesus and the neighboring towns are reproached: "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes ... And thou, Capernaum, if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day!"²³ It is objected to the whole Jewish people, gathered at Jerusalem in the presence of the Gentiles: "Ye men of Israel, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: him ye slew!"²⁴ There are publicly produced those very persons who had been healed by miracle or restored to life. And some of them were still surviving at the beginning of the second century and were seen by all.²⁵ Yet none of the Christians, Jews, or Gentiles dared to deny or call in question the miracles objected to; rather, as we have shown, all with unanimous consent proclaim the historical truth of the miracles of Jesus.

To count these miracles, therefore, among legendary inventions betrays a frivolous mind. But it is the height of recklessness to assimilate the evangelical miracles to certain fables and myths drawn from the "comparative history of religions". The marvels related of Aesculapius, Buddha, Zarathustra, Confucius, Apollonius of Tyana, Mohammed, and other pagan gods or heroic men are as plainly portents of mythology as the miracles of Jesus are documents of history.²⁶

Once the historical truth of the miracles of Jesus is established, the question now arises concerning their philosophical explanation, namely, whether they were wrought by a natural, a preternatural, or a supernatural cause. Christ himself and all Christians, the rationalists excepted, trace the Gospel miracles back to a supernatural, divine cause. The Jews—joined in this by certain spiritists—attributed them to a preternatural cause, fancying that Jesus worked by a demonic or magical power. The rationalists, finally, insofar as they retain any miraculous deeds of Jesus, ascribe them to merely natural causes.¹ Since the opinion of the Jews is manifestly false² and has been rejected by all, the only point in controversy is whether Christ performed his works by a strictly natural power or by a strictly supernatural, that is, divine, power. That we may prepare an indubitable answer, the four species of the miracles of Jesus must be brought to the scales: the healing of the sick, the casting out of demons, the raising of the dead, and the dominion over the forces of nature.

Jesus healed neither by physico-medical nor by psychico-medical power, but by divine power.

1. Jesus did not heal by physico-medical power.

Not a few of the older and of the more recent rationalists¹ maintain that Jesus healed all, or at least many,² of the sick in the manner and by the means with which pharmaceutical medicine is wont to cure. But to anyone who inspects the Gospel healings, however briefly, it is evident that Jesus neither acted as a physician nor could have acted as one. Of the countless sick persons who were cured, let those be recalled whose cure is described by the evangelists in greater detail.

Paralytics: the centurion's paralytic boy, absent afar off, is cured by the sole command of a word:³ another paralytic lying on his bed is raised by a mere voice: "Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house."⁴ What physician raises paralytics in this way? Jesus heals four blind men by touching their eyes;⁵ He gives sight to a man blind from birth by smearing clay upon his eyes and commanding him to wash in the pool of Siloam.⁶ Touching, smearing, washing are not ophthalmic remedies. Congenital blindness, moreover, was incurable then, nor even today can it be cured except by surgical operation.⁷ — A boy deaf and epileptic ("lunatic") from birth and at the same time possessed Jesus heals by rebuking the demon.⁸ In the same way He heals one deaf-mute,⁹ and another by touching his ears and tongue and saying: "Ephpheta, be opened."¹⁰ These things are certainly foreign to the medicine of the mute and the deaf. — He cleanses ten lepers by commanding, "Go, show yourselves to the priests";¹¹ He frees another leper with the word: "I will; be thou made clean."¹² By the mere nod of His will, therefore, He removes that dread disease, to the curing of which modern physicians are still unequal.¹³ — A woman suffering a flow of blood (menorrhagia) for 12 years is healed by the touch of the fringe of Jesus' garment, although she had before spent all her substance on physicians,¹⁴ and in fact she could naturally have been cured only by surgical operation and medicinal therapy.¹⁵ — A man having a withered hand (atrophie, Muskelschwund) Jesus heals with the words: "Stretch forth thy hand,"¹⁶ a woman bowed down (by an affection of the joints and by resorption) for 18 years He raises with the words: "Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity";¹⁷ a dropsical man He restores by a simple touch;¹⁸ a man infirm for 38 years He restores to health by commanding: "Arise, take up thy bed, and walk."¹⁹ No one will deny that no physico-medical art heals in this manner.

2. Jesus did not heal by psychico-medical power.

Very many modern critics, since they cannot explain the healings of Jesus by physical therapy, invoke psychotherapy. They maintain, namely, that Jesus was endowed with such psychic power, that is, with such natural force of will and of soul, that He was able to heal the sick by hypnotic or even post-hypnotic suggestion.²⁰ But Jesus neither used suggestion nor could He use it for healing the sick.

He did not use suggestion. Psychotherapists cure but few of the many sick persons offered to them, and those only by short sessions frequently repeated, and with such success that very often, or almost always, they relapse. Jesus, however, healed all the sick, as many as were offered to Him; He healed them without loss of time and labor: by a word alone, a nod, a command of the will; finally He healed them with lasting success, and not even one relapsed into his former state of infirmity. Therefore He in no way acted the psychotherapist.

The adversaries strive to prop up the psychotherapeutic thesis by saying that Jesus, before He healed, demanded faith from the sick. Hence they simply call the Gospel healings healings of faith (faith healing, guérisons de foi, Glaubensheilungen), i. e., healings whose cause was a fiducial faith in the medical skill of Jesus. But they argue thus without justification. For Jesus did not seek faith for a medical end, but for a moral and religious end, since all His works looked to the salvation of souls²¹ and especially to confirming the testimony of His messianity and divinity.²²

Moreover, this faith, although it was a condicio sine qua non under which Jesus worked, was nevertheless not the cause of the miracles. This is clear, since very often He did not demand faith from the sick, but from the persons standing around. E. g. He heals the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman from afar because of the faith of the mother who asked;²³ He heals the pagan centurion's boy at a distance, asked by the boy's master himself;²⁴ He heals Malchus, destitute of all faith;²⁵ He repeatedly comes miraculously to the aid of His disciples at a time when they are of little or of no faith.²⁶ Hence unbelievers gratuitously assert that Jesus used suggestion. Rather:

He could not use suggestion to bring about healings. Suggestive therapy, as we have proved in another place,²⁷ removes only hysterical diseases, i. e., diseases which have arisen either by autosuggestion or by heterosuggestion; organic diseases completely elude the efficacy of psychotherapy. Now it is at least evident that not all the sick offered to the Lord suffered from hysteria, unless perhaps almost the whole Jewish people at the time of Christ was deranged. Nay, it is certain that very many of the sick healed by Jesus did not suffer from hysteria. Who, for example, would accuse the centurion's paralytic boy of hysteria? who the dropsical man? who the man with atrophy? who the lepers? who Malchus wanting an ear? Finally, those versed in neurological medicine attribute the marks of hysteria to none of the sick of the Gospel.²⁸

Therefore the healings could be effected by Christ no more by psychic power than by physical force. Hence they are supernatural works, nay, immediately divine, since God alone rules over infirmities and health with supreme dominion. Therefore Jesus Christ, endowed with infinite power over infirmities and health, is true God.

Rationalism likewise strives to explain the castings out of demons by psychotherapy or rather by psychiatry. For since it calls the sick persons of the Gospel hysterics, it contends that the demoniacs were hysterics of the highest degree, afflicted, namely, with imaginary dementia (hystero-paranoia). "For dementia and its like, psychoneurotic illnesses, were commonly attributed to the baneful influence of demons," says rationalism. "Under the instigation of this popular superstition, the so-called demoniacs of the Gospel falsely suggested to themselves diabolical possession. Jesus healed them by suggesting the illusion of the expulsion of demons." Thus the older rationalists, almost all the more recent Protestants, and the modernists as well.¹

We do indeed concede that dementia and illnesses similar to it (hypernervous, hysterical, hystero-epileptic conditions) can easily be confounded with diabolical possession by the incautious and superstitious. For between insanity and possession there exists a certain affinity. For just as the insane (and likewise the hystero-insane and the hypnotized) almost entirely lose the dominion of reason over the lower part of the soul and over the bodily organism, so the possessed are deprived of the dominion of reason over their physical and psychical powers, while their free will alone remains unimpaired. Just as, e. g., the hypnotizer governs the hypnotized person, so the indwelling demon governs the demoniac. Hence certain morbid states and acts appear in the demoniacs. Moreover, possession is for the most part united with genuine psychical or physical illnesses, whether these precede the diabolical habitation or follow it.²

Nay more, we concede that the incautious and superstitious have often confounded dementia and illnesses similar to it with diabolical possession and subjected them to vain exorcisms. This has happened in every part of the world and at every time, but most of all of old in the East. To say nothing of the magical cures of the Chaldeans and the Egyptians,³ the rabbinical Jews sought to remove possession, whether real or imaginary, by absurd incantations.⁴

These things being conceded, we nevertheless deny that the demoniacs of the Gospel were merely insane persons, who suffered from the suggestion of possession and of the expulsion of the devil. For that this opinion of the rationalists is false is proved by the condition, the number, the knowledge, the bearing, and the deliverance of the demoniacs.

a) The condition of the demoniacs in the Gospels is by no means to be identified with illnesses either physical or psychical. For the possessed are set over against those men who suffered from various ailments,⁵ even mental ones,⁶. Even in the case of the possessed themselves the Gospels distinguish possession from the physical and psychical illnesses with which the demoniacs were at the same time afflicted. For of several demoniacs not only is possession recorded, but other illnesses as well are expressly reported: two demoniacs were mute,⁷ one was mute and blind,⁸ one was a lunatic, i. e. an epileptic,⁹ one was a paralytic,¹⁰ two were catatonic, i. e. seized with furious madness.¹¹ Whence it is clear that the demoniacs of the Gospel were not merely insane.

b) The number of the demoniacs.

The Gospels record demoniacs of both sexes and of every age, even of infantile age,¹² who appeared in very great numbers in almost every part of Palestine and especially of Galilee.¹³ "Behold an epidemic of suggestion among insane persons, who in their religious madness believed themselves to be possessed by a demon!" exclaim the rationalists. Sound psychiatry, however, refutes them, teaching that hysterical epidemics are found only in closed places, e. g. in schools, boarding houses, and prisons. Psychiatry neither knows nor conceives of a hysterical pestilence affecting whole regions and consequently invading as many free-living persons as the demoniacs numbered in the Gospels.¹⁴

On the contrary, we readily understand that at the time of Christ many possessed persons appeared everywhere in the world and especially in Palestine. For Christ came to destroy the kingdom of Satan and to cast out the prince of this kingdom, as He Himself says: "Now is the judgment of the world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out."¹⁵ Therefore it is no wonder that Satan tried everything in order to preserve his dominion over men. And the more Satan was straitened by the presence of Christ, the more he assailed men by seducing, obsessing, and possessing them.¹⁶

c) The knowledge of the demoniacs. As soon as the demoniacs see Jesus, they recognize Him and confess Him to be the Messiah and the Son of God: "The unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him and cried out, saying: Thou art the Son of God."¹⁷ ...And devils went out from many, crying out and saying: Thou art the Son of God."¹⁸ "What have we to do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know who thou art, the Holy One of God."¹⁹ ...What have I to do with thee, Jesus, Son of the most high God?"²⁰ This christological knowledge and confession of the demoniacs is assuredly not that of insane persons. For neither the Jews of sound mind — nay, not even the apostles, as yet separately instructed by the Lord — thought so perfectly and so supernaturally about Jesus. Out of the demoniac men, therefore, a superhuman being speaks, the evil spirit dwelling in them.

d) The bearing of the demoniacs. When Jesus drew near, the demoniacs were violently tormented,²¹ trembling, they cast themselves down at His feet,²² they cried out with a loud voice,²³ they piteously entreated and adjured Him not to destroy them, not to torment them, and to have nothing to do with them.²⁴ Thus indeed the demons had to behave when the Messiah, the Son of God, drew near; on the contrary, hysterical demoniacs, i. e. those who falsely suggested possession to themselves, would have approached Jesus humbly asking for help.

When, however, they are delivered, the demoniacs are torn asunder and thrown into the midst by the unclean spirit,²⁵ nay, sometimes they are dashed to the ground as if dead.²⁶ Once also, at Jesus' permission, the demons on going out entered into a herd of swine, and behold, the whole herd rushed with impetuosity down a steep place into the sea, and about two thousand of the animals perished.²⁷ No illness, either organic or hysterical, produces such phenomena at the very moment when it is removed. These phenomena, therefore, are without doubt signs of demoniacal possession.

e) The deliverance of the demoniacs. This very deliverance of the demoniacs Jesus accomplishes at every encounter, by a mere command, and even by action at a distance. At every encounter: for whether He comes upon single demoniacs or upon crowds of demoniacs, He delivers them all immediately. And indeed by a mere command: He delivers the Gerasene demoniac by saying: "Go out of the man, thou unclean spirit."²⁸ He delivers the lunatic boy by threatening the unclean spirit: "Thou deaf and dumb spirit, I command thee, go out of him, and enter no more into him";²⁹ He delivers the demoniac in the synagogue of Capharnaum by rebuking the devil: "Hold thy peace and go out of him,"³⁰ He delivers crowds of demoniacs by casting out the evil spirits with one word.³¹ Nay, sometimes He delivers demoniacs by action at a distance: for to the Syrophoenician woman, who asked that He cast the demon out of her daughter, He says: "Go, the demon is gone out of thy daughter." She, being far away, was delivered at that very moment.³² In this manner neither do the suggesters heal, nor are the suggested healed. By psychiatric suggestion hysterics can be healed only when actually present, and only by continued therapy, and under the condition that they be treated singly, one by one and apart from the others.³³ The demoniacs delivered by Jesus, therefore, did not suffer from the suggestion of possession, but from true demoniacal possession.

Rightly, therefore, did the frightened crowds exclaim concerning Him: "With power and authority he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they go out."³⁴ But this divine power over the evil spirits Jesus not only exercised Himself, but also upon His apostles and disciples³⁵ He conferred it.³⁶ He promised the same power to His faithful.³⁷ And in fact the apologists of the first centuries publicly testify before Jews and pagans that all Christians cast out demons in the name and by the authority of Christ.³⁸ This supreme power over the kingdom of hell assuredly presupposes the divinity of Christ.

As Christ rules over the rational world of demons, so too does He rule over the irrational world of natural forces: turning water into wine, multiplying bread, walking upon the waters, calming wind and waves.

a) The conversion of water into wine at Cana of Galilee. John relates that Christ, present at the wedding feast when the wine had run out, commanded the servants to fill six water jars (holding 5-7 hectoliters) with water and to bring them, when filled, to the steward of the feast; and that the latter tasted the water turned into the choicest wine.¹ That this came about by miracle is evident from the teaching of nature and confirmed by rationalism. Nature teaches that many successive processes of the physical and chemical order are required for water gradually to be turned into wine; hence a supernatural effect is present, since by a mere act of will the water is suddenly changed into generous wine. This the rationalists tacitly confirm, as they attempt in vain a natural interpretation of the fact. They contend that Jesus secretly brought wine with Him to the wedding and covertly dispensed it for the sake of a jest (G. Paulus), or that He added strong liquors to the water (Woolston, Dulk), or that He suggested to the guests that they should take the water for wine (Neander, B. Weiß). Yet by these insipid opinions the evangelical text is not explained but destroyed. Either, therefore, the historical fact must be denied by fair means or foul, or the philosophical truth of the miracle wrought at Cana must be conceded.

b) The multiplication of the bread, twice accomplished. First Jesus fed about five thousand men, not counting the women and children; and although only five loaves and two fish were at hand, after the meal twelve baskets of fragments remained over.² On another occasion, with seven loaves and a few small fish, Jesus satisfied four thousand men, besides the children and women, and when all had been filled there remained seven baskets full of fragments.³ That these feedings were not effected in a natural way truly stands firm: for with about one kilogram of barley bread⁴ and a few small fish so great a multitude of men could not be fed, and moreover after the meal there could certainly not remain more food than had been present before it. The rationalists, against their will, again confirm this by the absurd hypotheses with which they try to explain the evangelical facts. For they maintain either that Jesus by word and example urged the multitude to take the food abundantly brought in their own baskets and pouches and to distribute it even to the poor (G. Paulus, Hase, Heß, B. Weiß, Furrer), or that the multitude, having received scarcely a morsel, acquiesced most modestly (Renan, O. Holtzmann), or that the apostles brought forth a heap of loaves hidden in a nearby cave (Bahrdt), or that the discourse concerns not material satiety but the spiritual satiety offered by the word of God (Schenkel, Wittichen, Keim). All of which are contrary to the evangelical account. The facts of the feeding, as narrated in the gospels, exclude a natural explanation.

c) The walking upon the Sea of Galilee. After the first multiplication of the loaves Jesus came to the disciples walking Himself upon the sea, and by His word sustaining Peter, who was walking upon the waves, lest he sink.⁵ The fact itself evidently requires a supernatural cause: by walking upon the sea Jesus suspended the law of gravity, and thereby certainly surpasses the order of visible nature. To deny this, the rationalists dream that Jesus either swam to them sporting amid the waves with marvelous dexterity (Lange), or drew near standing upon a beam (Bahrdt), or walked along and around the sea, not upon the sea (G. Paulus, B. Weiß, Furrer); and that Peter either crossed by a ford or, swimming rather boldly, reached safety with the Lord stretching out His hand from the shore (Paulus, Barth). All these explanations are openly rejected by the words and context of the evangelical account. Either the gospel must be corrupted, or the miracle must be conceded; there is no third option.

d) The calming of the storm. While the disciples were crossing the Sea of Gennesaret, a great movement of winds and waves arose, so that the boat was covered by the waves. But Jesus, awakened from sleep, commanded the winds and the sea, and there came a great calm. Whereupon the men, marvelling, exclaimed: „Qualis est hic, quia venti et mare obediunt ei?"⁶ This event is manifestly supernatural, since no man using natural powers can by his command reduce winds and waves to calm. The rationalists assent, while, seeking a natural explanation, they disfigure or destroy the text of the gospel. For some prattle that Jesus calmed not the sea, indeed, but the disturbed minds of the disciples (Volkmar, B. Weiß); others suppose that the sea was calmed gradually and imperceptibly while Jesus spoke about the storm (G. Paulus, Hase, Heß, Furrer); others deny the whole fact, because, they say, „sedatio illa potestatem suprahumanam, immo prorsus divinam supponeret" (Schleiermacher, Schenkel, Io. Weiß).

In truth, the dominion over natural forces which Christ exercised by turning water into wine, multiplying the loaves, walking upon the sea, and calming the storm is altogether superhuman, and hence in itself is at least a miracle of the second order. But to do all these things in the manner in which Christ did them - suddenly, by one word, by the command of His will - is a miracle of the first order, i.e., a work possible only to the lord of nature. Jesus Christ, therefore, is the lord of nature - God.

By raising the dead, Jesus proves Himself the absolute lord both of natural powers and of the human soul. For the resuscitation of a dead man cannot be effected, unless both the collapsed bodily powers are restored and the soul, already entered into the house of eternity, is recalled from it. This work, to be sure, is divine both in itself and is performed by Christ in an altogether divine manner, namely, by an instantaneous command. But in order to deny this, the adversaries contend that Jesus did not raise the dead, but startled by a suggestive address those who were overcome by an apparent death (lethargy, stupor, syncope).¹

But even if this opinion were true, the haters of miracles would gain nothing. For those overcome by "stupor," with many remedies applied and much time spent, at length return to full life. If Jesus had called back those touched by "stupor" at once and by a simple address, He would surely have wrought a miracle almost as stupendous as if He had brought the dead back to life.

Yet those three persons who are related in the Gospel as having been raised were truly dead, and by no means overcome by "stupor."

a) The daughter of Jairus was "at the point of death" when the ruler of the synagogue came to Jesus, beseeching Him earnestly to come and lay His hand upon the dying girl. But while they were on the way, word was brought to Jairus: "Thy daughter is dead: why dost thou trouble the master any further?" Jesus, however, nevertheless continues His journey. "And they come to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and He seeth a tumult, and people weeping and wailing much. And going in He saith to them: 'Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.' And they laughed Him to scorn. But He, having put them all out, taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were with Him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying. And taking the damsel by the hand, He saith to her: 'Damsel, arise.' And straightway the damsel rose up and walked. And she was twelve years old, and they were astonished with a great astonishment."²

The adversaries contend that the girl, afflicted with weakness and nervous depression, suffered a lethargic fainting fit, as even Jesus Himself says: "The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth." Yet Jesus manifestly meant only to say that the girl was not to be lamented as dead, since she was straightway to be roused as from sleep. For the circumstances of the reported fact altogether exclude an apparent death of the girl. Apparent death occurs from violent causes, e.g., poisons, blows, loss of blood, cold, etc. On the contrary, medicine knows of no stupor or lethargy arising from weakened nerves and gradually growing worse in such a way that the sick pass gradually from illness to the danger of death, and from the danger of death to the state of death, as we read of the daughter of Jairus.

b) The young man at Naim. When Jesus drew near to the gate of the city of Naim, "behold a dead man was carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow, and a great multitude of the city was with her. When the Lord saw her, being moved with mercy on her, He said to her: 'Weep not.' And He came near and touched the bier. And He said: 'Young man, I say to thee, arise.' And he that was dead sat up and began to speak. And He gave him to his mother."³

The rationalists readily interpret this event as follows: "Jesus, chancing upon a funeral procession, at once perceived that the young man, who was on the point of being buried, had been seized by lethargy, although he was believed dead by the whole mourning city and by his very widowed mother. Drawing near to the funeral, Jesus detected evident signs of life in the young man, although all those standing around detected only the marks of death. Moreover, He infallibly divined the critical moment at which alone the 'lethargic' man could be roused, and that a single little word sufficed to awaken him. This saving word, therefore, He confidently pronounces — and behold, he who was thought dead descends from the bier in good health and runs to his mother." It is plain that this explanation of the rationalists is utterly ridiculous, and that, having denied the one miracle of the resuscitation of a dead man, it posits two miracles, namely of divine knowledge, whereby Jesus infallibly discerned the lethargy, and of divine power, whereby He suddenly removed the lethargy.

c) Lazarus of Bethany, the friend of Jesus, was sick. On receiving the news of the illness, Jesus nevertheless waited several days before setting out for Judea. "Then He said to His disciples plainly: 'Lazarus is dead, and I am glad for your sakes, that you may believe, because I was not there. But let us go to him.' Jesus therefore came and found him already four days in the tomb ... Now it was a cave, and a stone was laid over it. Jesus saith: 'Take away the stone.' Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith to Him: 'Lord, by this time he stinketh, for he is four days old.' They took therefore the stone away. And Jesus, lifting up His eyes, said: 'Father, I give Thee thanks that Thou hast heard Me. And I knew that Thou hearest Me always, but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me.' When He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice: 'Lazarus, come forth.' And forthwith he that was dead came forth, bound feet and hands with winding bands, and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith to them: 'Loose him and let him go.' Many therefore of the Jews who had come to Mary and Martha, and had seen the things that Jesus did, believed in Him."⁴

How foolishly the rationalists contend that Lazarus was aroused by suggestion from an apparent death, there is no one who does not see. On this hypothesis once admitted, Jesus, far away, knew by prophetic light that Lazarus was not dead, whom He nevertheless affirmed to be dead by a wicked lie! Then, standing at the cave, He evidently detected signs of life in His friend, yet nonetheless fraudulently and impiously announced the impending resuscitation of a dead man as the criterion of His divine mission! Finally, He brought about a semblance of resuscitation, God helping, so that Lazarus, shaking off his stupor, forthwith and miraculously recovered his full health! All these things are so absurd that many rationalists, rejecting the hypothesis of apparent death, declare the whole narrative of Lazarus a fable (Strauß) or an allegory (Volkmar, Furrer), lest they be compelled to acknowledge the philosophical truth of the miracle of resuscitation. By this desperate venture they clearly show that an incredulous criticism attacks in vain the resuscitations of the dead wrought by Jesus. Jesus Christ is truly the lord of death and of life — God.