a token and indication of the near presence and working of God. In this word the ethical end and purpose of the miracle comes out the most prominently, as in "wonder" the least. They are signs and pledges of something more than and beyond themselves; (Isaiah vii. 11; xxxviii. 7;)* they are valuable, not so much for what they are, as for what they indicate of the grace and power of the doer, or of the connection in which he stands with a higher world. Oftentimes they are thus seals of power set to the person who accomplishes them, ("the Lord confirming the word by signs following," Mark xvi. 20; Acts xiv. 3; Heb. ii. 4;) legitimating acts, by which he claims to be attended to as a messenger from God. We find the word continually used in senses such as these: Thus, "What sign showest thou?" (John ii. 18,) was the question which the Jews asked, when they wanted the Lord to justify the things which he was doing, by showing that he had especial authority to do them. Again they say, "We would see a sign from thee;" (Matt. xii. 38;) "Show us a sign from heaven." (Matt. xvi.

round him again, “Ye seek me not because ye saw the miracles, &c." But rather should it be, 'Ye seek me not because ye saw signs," (onμeia without the article,) "not because ye recognized in these works of mine tokens and intimations of a higher presence, something which led you to conceive great thoughts of me: they are no glimpses of my higher nature, which you have caught, and which bring you here; but you come that you may again be filled." The coming merely because they saw miracles, in the strictest sense of the word-works that had made them marvel-the coming with the expectation of seeing such again, would have been as much condemned by our Lord as the coming only for the satisfying of their lowest earthly wants. (Matt. xii. 39; xvi. 1-4.)

* Basil upon this passage: Εστι σημεῖον πρᾶγμα φανερόν, κεκρυμμένου τινός καὶ ápavovs év tavtÿ tùv dýhwoiv Exov. (SUICER's Thes., s. v.) And Lampe is good here (Comm. in Joh., v. 1, p. 513): Designat sanè onμeïov naturâ suâ rem non tantùm extraordinariam, sensusque percellentem, sed etiam talem, quæ in rei alterius, absentis licet et futuræ significationem atque adumbrationem adhibetur, unde et prognostica (Matth. xvi. 3) et typi (Matth. xii. 39; Luc. xi. 29) nec non sacramenta, quale est illud circumcisionis, (Rom. iv. 11,) eodem nomina in N. T. exprimi solent. Aptissimè ergo hæc vox de miraculis usurpatur, ut indicet, quod non tantùm admirabili modo fuerint perpetrata, sed etiam sapientissimo consilio Dei ita directa atque ordinata ut fuerint simul characteres Messiæ, ex quibus cognoscendus erat, sigilla doctrinæ quam proferebat, et beneficiorum gratiæ per Messiam jam præstandæ, nec non typi viarum Dei, earumque circumstantiarum per quas talia beneficia erant applicanda.

The Latin monstrum, whether we derive it with Cicero (De Divin., 1. 1, c. 42) from monstro, or with Festus from moneo, (monstrum=monestrum,) though commonly used as answering most nearly to répas, is in truth by either etymology more nearly related to onueiov. Thus Augustine, who follows Cicero's derivation (De Civ. Dei. L. 21, c. 8): Monstra sanè dicta perhibent à monstrando, quòd aliquid signifi cando demonstrant; et ostenta ab ostendendo, et portenta à portendendo, id est præostendendo, et prodigia quod porrò dicant, id est futura prædicant.

1.) St. Paul speaks of himself as having "the signs of an apostle," (2 Cor. xii. 12,) in other words, the tokens which should mark him out as such. Thus, too, in the Old Testament, when God sends Moses to deliver Israel he furnishes him with two "signs." He warns him that Pharaoh will require him to legitimate his mission, to produce his credentials that he is indeed God's ambassador, and equips him with the powers which shall justify him as such, which, in other words, shall be his "signs." (Exod. vii. 9, 10.) He "gave a sign" to the prophet whom he sent to protest against the will-worship of Jeroboam. (1 Kin. xiii. 3.)*

At the same time it may be as well here to cbserve that the "sign" is not of necessity a miracle, although only as such it has a place in our discussion. Many a common matter, for instance any foretold coincidence or event, may be to a believing mind a sign, a seal set to the truth of a foregoing word. Thus the angels give to the shepherds for "a sign" their finding the child wrapt in the swaddling clothes. (Luke ii. 12.) Samuel gives to Saul three "signs" that God has indeed appointed him king over Israel, and only the last of these is linked with aught supernatural. (1 Sam. x. 1-9.) The prophet gave Eli the death of his two sons as (6 a sign" that his threatening word should come true. (1 Sam. ii. 34.) God gave to Gideon a sign in the camp of the Midianites of the victory which he should win, (Judg. vii. 9—15,) though it does not happen that the word occurs in that narration. Or it is possible

* As is natural, the word sometimes loses its special and higher signification, and is used simply as repas. Thus St. Luke (xxiii. 8) says of Herod, that he hoped to have seen some "sign" (onμetov) wrought by Christ. The last thing he would have desired would have been a sign or indication of a present God; but what he wanted was some glaring feat which should have set him agape-a répas,—or, more properly yet, a lavua, in the lowest and meanest sense of the word.

The words répas and onμeiov stand linked together, not merely in the New Testament, but frequently in the Old, (Exod. vii. 3, 9; xi. 9; Deut. iv. 34; vi. 22, and often; Neh. ix. 10; Isai. viii. 18; xx. 3; Dan. iii. 32; vi. 27; Ps. lxxxvii. 43; civ. 27; cxxxiv. 9, LXX,) and no less in profane Greek. (Polyb., 3, 10; Ælian, V. H., 12, 57; Orph. Argon., 27; Joseph., Antiqq., xx. 8, 6.) The distinction between the two, as though the répas were the more wonderful, the onμeiov the less so,—as though it would be a onuɛiov to heal the sick, a répas to open the blind eyes, or to raise the dead, (so Ammonius, Cat. in Joh. iv. 48: Tépas ¿orì tò rapà qúow, olov TÒ ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς τυφλῶν καὶ ἐγεῖραι νεκρόν σημεῖον δὲ τὸ οὐκ ἔξω τῆς φύσεως, οἷον toriv láoaolai üßßworov,) is quite untenable, however frequently it may occur among the Greek Fathers. (See SUICER's Thes., s. v. onuɛiov.) Rather the same miracle is upon one side a répaç, on another a onuɛiov, and the words most often refer not to different classes of miracles, but to different qualities in the same miracles; in the words of Lampe (Comm. in Joh., v. 1, p. 513): Eadem enim miracula dici possunt ga, quatenus aliquid seu occultum seu futurum docent; et prodigia (répa-a) qua

for a man, under a strong conviction that the hand of God is leading him, to set such and such a contingent event as a sign to himself, the falling out of which in this way or in that he will accept as an intimation from God of what he would have him to do. Examples of this also are not uncommon in Scripture. (Gen. xxiv. 16; Judg. vi. 36—40; 1 Sam. xiv. 8-13.)

66

3. Frequently, also, the miracles are styled "powers," or "mighty works," that is, of God.* As in the term "wonder" or miracle," the effect is transferred and gives a name to the cause, so here the cause gives its name to the effect. The "power" dwells originally in the divine Messenger, (Acts vi. 8; x. 38; Rom. xv. 9;) is one with which he is himself equipped of God. Christ is thus in the highest sense that which Simon blasphemously suffered himself to be named, "The great Power of God." (Acts viii. 10.) But then by an easy transition the word comes to signify the exertions and separate puttings forth of this power. These are "powers" in the plural, although the same word is now translated in our version, "wonderful works," (Matt. vii. 22,) and now, "mighty works," (Matt. xi. 20; Mark vi. 14; Luke x. 13,) and still more frequently, "miracles," (Acts ii. 22; xix. 11; 1 Cor. xii. 10, 28; Gal. iii. 5;) in this last case giving sometimes such tautologies as this, "miracles and wonders;" (Acts ii. 22; Heb. ii. 4;) and always causing to be lost something of the express force of the word,-how it points to new powers which have come into, and are working in, this world of ours.

These three terms, of which we have hitherto sought to unfold the meaning, occur thrice together, (Acts ii. 22; 2 Cor. xii. 12; 2 Thess. ii. 9,) although each time in a different order. They are all, as has already been noted in the case of two of them, rather descriptive of different sides of the same works, than themselves different classes of works

tenus aliquid extraordinarium, quod stuporem excitat, sistunt. Hinc sequitur sig norum notionem latius patere, quàm prodigiorum. Omnia prodigia sunt signa, quia in illum usum à Deo dispensata, ut arcanum indicent. Sed omnia signa non sunt prodigia, quia ad signandum res cœlestes aliquando etiam res communes adhibentur. Compare 2 Chron. xxxii. 24, 31; where at ver. 24 that is called a onμetov, which at ver. 31 is a répas (LXX).

With this lovoía is related, which yet only once occurs to designate a miracle. They are termed čvdoğa, (Luke xiii. 17,) as being works in which the dóşa of God came eminently out, (see John ii. 11; xi. 40,) and which in return caused men to glorify him. (Mark ii. 12.) They are pɛyahɛia: = magnalia, (Luke i. 49,) as outcomings of the greatness of God's power.

An example of one of our Lord's miracles may show how it raay at once be all these. The healing of the paralytic, for example, (Mark ii. 1— 12,) was a wonder, for they who beheld it" were all amazed;" it was a power, for the man at Christ's word "arose, took up his bed, and went out before them all;" it was a sign, for it gave token that one greater than men deemed was among them; it stood in connection with a higher fact, of which it was the sign and seal, (cf. 1 Kin. xiii. 3; 2 Kin. i. 10;) being wrought that they might "know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins."*

4. A further term by which St. John very frequently names the miracles is eminently significant. They are very often with him simply "works," (v. 36; vii. 21; x. 25, 32, 38; xiv. 11, 12; xv. 24; see also Matt. xi. 2.) The wonderful is in his eyes only the natural form of working for him who is dwelt in by all the fulness of God; he must, out of the necessity of his higher being, bring forth these works greater than man's. They are the periphery of that circle whereof he is the centre. The great miracle is the Incarnation; all else, so to speak, follows naturally and of course. It is no wonder that he whose name is "Wonderful," (Isaiah ix. 6,) does works of wonder; the only wonder would be if he did them not. The sun in the heavens is itself a wonder, but not that, being what it is, it rays forth its effluences of light and heat. These miracles are the fruit after its kind, which the divine tree brings forth; and may, with a deep truth, be styled "works"§ of Christ, with no further addition or explanation.

* Pelt's definition (Comm. in Thess., p. 179,) is brief and good: Parum differunt tria ista δυνάμεις, σημεῖα, τέρατα. Δύναμις numero singulari tamen est vis miraculorum edendorum; onuɛia quatenus comprobandæ inserviunt doctrinæ sive missioni divinæ: répara portenta sunt, quæ admirationem et stuporem excitant.

The miracles of the Old Testament are called ěpya, Heb. iii. 9; Ps. xciv. 9, LXX. Augustine (In Ev. Joh., Tract. 17): Mirum non esse debet à Deo factum miraculum....Magis gaudere et admirari debemus quia Dominus noster et Salvator Jesus Christus homo factus est, quàm quod divina inter homines Deus fecit.

§ I am aware that this interpretation of Epya, as used by St. John, has sometimes been called in question, and that by this word has been understood the sum total of his acts and his teachings, his words and his works, as they came under the eyes of men; not indeed excluding the miracles, but including also very much besides; yet I cannot doubt that our Lord, using this word, means his miracles, and only them. The one passage brought with any apparent force against this meaning, (John xvii. 4,) does not really belong to the question. For that pyov in the singular, may, and here does, signify his whole work and task, is beyond all doubt; but that in the plural the word means his miracles, the following passages, v. 36; x. 25, 32, 38; xiv. 11 to which others might be added, seem to me decisively to prove.

With regard to the verbs connected with these nouns, we may observe in the

three first Evangelists, onμeia didóvaɩ, (Matt. xii. 39; xxiv. 24; Mark viii. 12,) and still more frequently dvváμɛis moleiv. (Matt. vii. 22; xiii. 58; Mark ix. 39, &c.) Neither of these phrases occurs in St. John, but onμeia moleïv continually, (ii. 11; iii. 2; iv. 54, &c.,) which is altogether wanting in the earlier Evangelists; occurring, however, in the Acts, ( 36; xv. 22,) and in Revelations (xiii. 13; xix. 20). Once St. John bas σημεία δεικνύειν (i. 18).