(1) Christ regarded the ])ower with which He associated Himself and His activities and their effects as moral, and as having its ultimate source in God. He conceived God as a moral Being, and to Him as such He ascribed the power alluded to (Mt 22=» 26«*, Mk 91 14«2, Lk 22=9).— (2) But, again, such being Christ's view. He never conceived of Himself as possessing and exercising power independently of God. His feeling of absolute dependence on God for power had a deep and controlling place in His consciousness. It was the feeling He gave unreserved and clear expression to when He said, for instance, ' The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do' ; 'I can of mine own self do nothing' ; and, again, ' The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth
the works ' (Jn 5"- '^ 14'").— (3) It was, therefore, through His dependence on God tliat our Lord olitained the power by means of wliich He was enalilcd to attain to His perfect moral self-realiza- tion, and by means of which He was enabled to finish tlic work His V-.ahrv ha,l .^iven Him to do. And the (|nc>[i.in llni- ;inM.., as to how He was kept in p<is>r,--i(iii C.I .-I rnnlinnuus suniily of power for the great i,,.,ial ta>k and s.ivice of His life. The answer to this question is to be found in the Gospels. The secret of His strength lay in His inner life of perfect, never - broken union and fellowship witli His Father in all things. But this life of union and fellowship with His Father needed itself to be lontinually iLiaintaincd ; and the Gospels also show how this w.as ilonc by Him. He did it by i>ayimj ]irvte(( li.\alty lo His (lepencl- ence on His i'al'h.v ; \.y siiiviii- in e\.Mv situation of His life freely and I'l.il.rtl y to i.leiLlily Himself with His Father ,-. w ill an.l ].nri.<i?^e fur His life and His mission ; by means of habits of self -discipline and prayer (Lk 3-i- -- 41-'^ 6'= i)-»-'^ 22"''-'« Jn 3"'' 8=«. =9).
(4) Christ, moreover, believed that His disciples needed the same Divine power that was His strength, in order to be able to fulfil the moral task in life to which He called them ; and He be- lieved that this power would be available for them as it had been for Himself during His life on earth. His Spirit in them would be the \-ery power {dum)u$) that had been His own. And in tlieir task of overcoming temptation, of moral self-realization, of achieving good in service for the kingdom of God, they would find His Spirit's iiower all-suHi- cient for them. But they would need to remember that the servant was not gTeater than his I,ord. They would need to depend on Him as He de- pended on God. They would need to abide in union and fellowship with Him. They must keep His words as being the Father's words. And they must also follow Him in the path of humility, self- discipline, prayer, and self-denial (Mt 10^» nisi-si 26^1, Lk IP" 223'- 3- 24®, Jn 12=^-26 13"-" 14'»-i8 15^ 17"->", Ac 1'- 5).
(5) It was, finally, in the exercise of the Divine power here referred to that our Lord performed those extraordinary works of His to which the name ' miracle ' has been given. In some of the Gospels they are called ' mighty works ' {e.c/. Mt ll'", Mk 6*, Lk 198'). These works of power (Si'cd/ieis) were only special forms in which was manifested the sai'iie power ili.it was revealed in so many other ways in the mmal activities of Christ's life. He wronL'lit Hi- miiacles by the same power that enabled Him [.erfectly to over- come all the temptations of His life, and to accom- plish all those other things in which He fulfilled His Father's will and purpose.
Again, it never occurred to Him that in the doing of His mighty works lie contravened or suspended any of those uiiiforniities of nature to wliich the term ' law ' is applieil by modern science ; though with many of those uniformities He was quite familiar, and, liesides, .-ittached to them great importance. The c|uestion raised for science by His mighty works is in reality not a question of natural lain ; it is a question of natural force or energy. Are the forces inherent and operative in the physical or moral order of the world of such a nature as to render it impossible for the miracles p.scribed to Christ's jiower to have happened ? That is the real point at issue as between the testi- mony of the Gospels and Science. And the man of science who has the most extensive and the dee)>est kiK.wledu'e of the energy or forces of the Uni\ei>e, ami who has therefore entered furthest into (he pie-eiire of the luai'vels and the mysteries of these forces and their modes of manifestation.
FORERUNXER
FORESIGHT
would be the last person to answer the question in the affirmative.
Once more, the mighty works ascribed to Christ in the Gospels are not the most wonderful of His achievements. It is often pointed out in defence of these mighty works, and rightly, that they were wrought to serve beneficent ends, that they were manitestations of power and love ministering in various ways to human well-being ; and that as so viewed, they wore originally and homogeneously related to all tlio other beneficent activities of our Lord's ministry. It is also argued in favour of the possibility and the histmical truth of the miracles in question, that His perft'Lt ]iprsonal sinlessness and holiness was a moral miracle as great as, if not greater than, any of the miglity works reported bj the Ev.angelists as performed "by Him. There is justice in this argument. It was by the power of God immanent and operative in Him, and by His own free co-operation therewith, that He achieved His perfect moral self-realization in which He was morally as perfect as God. Tliat was a miracle indeed ; and, to say the least, there is no mightier work on record in the Gospels and represented there as wTought by Him in the exercise of the Divine power of which He was a personal organ. See, further. Miracle.