DISSERTATION III.

A SOLUTION OF THE QUESTION, WHETHER MIRACLES

ARE A CERTAIN EVIDENCE OF TRUTH.

a

When we last year publicly disputed concerning the truth of the miracles recorded in the sacred Scriptures ; among the various questions agitated among the learned on this point, none appeared to me more important than this—Whether or not miracles are a certain evidence of the truth and divinity of a doctrine. To the difficulties which have been urged, I gave such a reply as at the time seemed sufficient to remove them. The question, however, as it is one on which the proof of Christianity in a great measure depends, deserves a somewhat fuller and more careful solution than is commonly given in regard to such matters as are not avowedly the subject of discussion in these scholastic disputations. Let those who are competent judges determine if the following remarks be satisfactory.

Miracles in regard to us are extraordinary works of divine power, obvious to the senses, and productive of admiration in

, the spectators. I call them works of divine power, to distinguish them from all those works, which, however wonderful, proceed from some power less than divine. I call them extraordinary works, not on account of their infrequency, but to distinguish them from the works of common providence, in which God acts according to the usual order of nature and those constant rules which at other times he observes in his ordinary works. On this ground every remarkable and wonderful work of God, which would not have occurred, if God, in working, had acted agreeably to the ordinary laws of nature, is miraculous.

I know indeed that the Hebrew and Greek terms employed in Scripture to denote that which we call a miracle, have a greater latitude of meaning, and sometimes signify any works, whether of God or of other beings, which are worthy of admiration, especially those which require, or seem to require in the general estimation of men, a greater than human power, of

, whatever kind it may be. But in this question we understand the term miracle as expressive of those extraordinary works, which in Scripture are ascribed only to God. Theologians are accustomed to make a distinction between wonders and miracles, understanding by the latter, extraordinary works peculiar to God, by the former, works proceeding from another and inferior power, a distinction which, as it is highly useful, we shall retain.

Having premised these things respecting the definition of the term, I would divide the question we are to discuss into two branches, so that we may inquire, first, Whether miracles abstractly considered, are of such a nature that the truth and divinity of the doctrine in confirmation of which they are wrought may be positively concluded from them ? and secondly, Whether it is possible for men accurately to distinguish true miracles from what are simply called wonders, and what are the marks by which they are to be distinguished ? On the explication of these two inquiries the solution of the whole question depends.

The first inquiry I do not consider a difficult one. I think it may simply be affirmed that the truth of a doctrine may be positively concluded from miracles, and that for the following reasons.

1. Because it seems to be wholly repugnant both to the holiness and to the truth of God to say, that he would lend the sanction of his power to establish and to propagate the impositions of designing men ; which would certainly be the case, if at their desire he should perform miracles which could only tend to confirm their imposture. This we cannot maintain without affirming that God conspires with men to deceive the simple; nay, that he contributes more to this end than the impostors themselves, by lending the sanction of his power to give authority and influence to the falsehoods of men; a sentiment which, how it can be entertained without blasphemy, I do not perceive.

2. Because, on the one hand, there is nothing which more powerfully impresses men, and constrains them to yield assent to others, than such kind of miracles; and, on the other, there

a

is nothing by which God can more clearly indicate, more effectually demonstrate, confirm and inculcate to the majority of mankind the true worship of himself than miracles. Wherefore it does not seem consistent with the divine goodness to do any thing by which he sees that the best of men, and those who are most ready to believe and obey him, would infallibly be deceived ; nor with the divine wisdom to employ in confirmation of a falsehood the means best adapted to establish the truth, nay, absolutely necessary in regard to all who cannot by the exercise of reason alone acquire a knowledge of religion ; and thus to render those means ambiguous and uncertain.

3. If the truth of a doctrine could not with certainty be inferred from miracles, those who have from them inferred the truth of a doctrine would be chargeable with vicious reasoning; as for example, those who from miracles have concluded that the law of Moses is divinc, nay, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Those moreover who were commanded to believe on the ground of the miracles they witnessed, were laid under obligation to reason illogically. And those, in a word, who would not believe, however many and great miracles they witnessed, were unjustly condemned, nay, were unjustly subjected to a more aggravated punishment than would otherwise have been inflicted on them.*

4. To these things we may add, that the confusion which does not exist in the kingdom of the devil cannot by any means be supposed to exist in the kingdom of God. In the judgment of Christ, the kingdom of Satan would be divided against itself, if the devil were to perform miracles which tend to the destruction of his kingdom.t Who then will maintain that God does perform real miracles, which are made use of by impostors to advance the kingdom of the father of lies, and to subvert the kingdom of God ?

5. Finally, the avowed object of miracles which were performed with the view of confirming a preached doctrine, and have been recorded that those who read may believe, demands our assent to this conclusion. For if God, knowing that this was their object, should accompany a false doctrine with miracles, he would confirm it, and wish it to obtain credit; which it were blasphemy to affirm.

These remarks are sufficient, and in my opinion more than

cer

sufficient to shew that the truth of a doctrine

may

with tainty be inferred from miracles.

No valid objection to this conclusion can be urged from Deut. xiii. 1–3. For we have already seen that the words which in the sacred Scriptures signify miracles, are used also in a more extensive acceptation, to denote those other works which are commonly called wonders. Of this class are noin, nix, σημεια, τέρατα, δυνάμεις, &c. With regard to the assertion that God would try the Israelites by the miracles of false prophets ; this is not to be understood as if it implied that God tries his people by performing miracles opposed in their design to those which he has previously wrought, which would be a snare and deception unworthy of God; but he tries them by permitting the performance of such wonders as may deceive unstable men who are not steadfast in their adherence to a doctrine already confirmed by many and great miracles. God, it is elsewhere affirmed, tempteth no man to evil.

Nor can any valid objection be urged from the example of the Egyptian magicians. For we deny that the wonders performed by them were true miracles, although in appearance, and to some extent, they were similar to the miracles of Moses. We would not however determine, whether the works performed by these magicians were realities, or whether all that they did were mere delusion and jugglery ; as it is not exactly known to man how far the power of demons, under the permission of God, can proceed, or how much these spirits can accomplish by means of their instruments. This is certain, that these works were not from God; nor can it be proved that they were so, from the fact that God often declared that he would harden Pharaoh's heart; for if the magical works of the Egyptians contributed any thing to the hardening of his heart, they can be ascribed to God only to this extent, that he permitted the performance of these things which combined their influence

th others to prevent the hardness of Pharaoh's heart from being removed by real miracles.

The same judgment must be formed respecting the false Christs and the false prophets, of whom it is foretold, that “they shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect ;"* as also respecting Antichrist, “ whose coming," it is said, " is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders.”+ For to none of them is the power of performing true

miracles ascribed ; nor is it said that they would shew miracles by the operation of God himself. From terms which, as we have noticed, are used in a great latitude of meaning, nothing can be inferred. The miracles of Antichrist are explicitly called régata foudous, which properly denotes, not miracles wrought in support of what is false, but, as is more agreeable to the usage of the Hebrew language, false miracles. It is moreover expressly added, that he would come “ with all deceivableness of righteousness,” which seems to refer, not only to a delusive doctrine, but also to delusive miracles. With regard to the assertion that God should “send them strong delusion;" it is not to be understood as if he would secure respect and efficacy to error by the performance of miracles; but it implies that he would permit Satan to exert all his power to deceive those who perish, not receiving the love of the truth. This is evident from the fact that the “strong delusion,” (erézia wháms) which it is said God would send, is in ver. 9 called “ the working of Satan.” (¿végyera tou gatavā.)

Nor, finally, can it be objected to us, that it is said of the wicked that they will boast that they have prophesied, and cast out devils, and done many wonderful works in the name of the Lord.* For it cannot be denied that many who were not true followers of Christ, abused his name to cast out devils.+ That this was done, even by the children of the Pharisees,” some have inferred from Matt. xii. 27. The tendency of this, however, abstractly considered, was not to confirm an imposture, but to secure respect to the name of Jesus. Besides, those who were lawfully called to the work of the ministry by Christ, and who, on that account were invested, as the first ministers of the gospel generally were, with the gift of miracles, were not all pious and elect, as we learn from the example of Judas. This gift was profitable to the church in general, confirming it in the truth ; although frequently it did not profit him who possessed it; a circumstance observable also in the distribution of the ordinary gifts granted to the ministers of the church. Many of them, by the excellent gifts which they have received from God, do more good to their pious hearers than to themselves, and having preached to others, are themselves “ castaways." This we remark, by the way, in opposition to certain fanatics, who deny that an unregenerate person can be a lawful minister of the church; an opinion which, though pious in ar

• Matt. vii. 22.

+ Luke ix. 49. See Note XI. # Matt. x. 1-4. Compare I Cor. xiii. 2. SI Cor. ix. 27.