once satisfied of that fact, and that there is no deception in the matter, we cannot but admit that the claim is sustained. The man comes before us with a claim to divine authority, and appeals to the divine omnipotence to establish that claim. The appeal is sustained. Works which are beyond the course of nature, and which only divine power can accomplish, are wrought in confirmation of the claim, and of the doctrine. It cannot be that God would interpose in behalf of imposition and a lie. It must be, therefore, that the man and the doctrine are, as they profess to be, from God.

“But

Now this is precisely the case with the first teachers of Christianity. They appeal to their works, as evidence of their divine commission and authority. So did Christ himself. He expressly places his claim on this very ground. "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me," etc. "Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth." I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." 1 And again, on another occasion: "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him."2 Accordingly we find the Jews themselves acknowledging the justness and force of this principle. "Rabbi," says Nicodemus, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. "3 "And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done? 194 So the man who was restored to sight: "Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners," etc. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.” 5

1 John v. 31-33, 36.

3 John iii. 2.

5 John ix. 30, 31, 33.

2 John x. 37, 38.
4 John vii. 31.

In like manner the disciples, wherever they proclaim the doctrines of the new religion, are able to appeal to the miraculous powers conferred upon them, as evidences of their divine commission; and that not without success. Great fear, we are told, falls upon all, in view of the signs and wonders wrought by them, and multitudes, in consequence, are added to the number of believers. Now this is precisely what we might expect in such a case; nor is it possible to see how, in any other way, the claims of the new system, and of its teachers, could possibly have been substantiated.

It is objected by those who would place the evidence of the Christian system upon the internal rather than the external ground, that the miracles of our Saviour and his apostles cannot possibly be regarded as substantiating their doctrine, or even their mission, inasmuch as miracles are sometimes wrought by bad men and deceivers, and if we admit the force of the argument in the one case we must also in the other. We fear that too much has been conceded to the enemies of Christianity by some of its best friends and advocates, in respect to this matter. Thus, Olshausen affirms" that the scriptures assert not merely holy, but also evil, power to be the cause of miracles," and that in fact "two series of miracles extend throughout scripture history"; and refers us in proof to the works of the Egyptian magicians as opposed to those of Moses, and also to the signs and wonders which false prophets, and which antichrists are said in scripture to be able to make use of, in order to deceive, if possible, the very elect.

And we regret

to find that so able and judicious a writer as Trench, whose Notes on Miracles blend so happily the true scholarly with the true Christian spirit, has but too closely followed the less reliable German in this view. "This fact," he says, "that the kingdom of lies has its wonders no less than the kingdom of truth, would alone be sufficient to convince us that miracles cannot be appealed to absolutely and simply, in proof of the doctrine which the worker of them proclaims; 1 Com. Vol. I. p. 336. 31

VOL. XIX. No. 74.

and God's word expressly declares the same (Deut. xii. 1 -5). A miracle does not prove the truth of a doctrine, or the divine mission of him that brings it to pass.' 991

But do the scriptures present two indepedent lines of miracles running parallel with each other, those of the kingdom of light, and those of the opposite kingdom, as Olshausen affirms, and as Trench seems to admit? Do they anywhere assert, or imply, that evil power is ever the efficient producing cause of a miracle; or that the wonders performed by evil men are real miracles? These wonders. are examples of the mirabile; but are they examples of the miraculum? They were wrought for the purpose of convincing, and hence not improperly are termed onμeîa; but were they real miracles, or only false and deceptive appearances? Now it seems to us they are clearly of the latter sort; and that this is plainly implied in the scripture narratives. The works of the magicians are expressly ascribed to the power of their enchantments. They were the tricks of conjurers, hardly more remarkable than many of the wonders performed at this day by the skilful jugglers of Egypt and India. As to the signs wrought by the false prophets, the same may be said; while those of antichrist are expressly termed false or lying wonders.2 There is no evidence that any of these were miracles, save in appearance only; nor is there any evidence from scripture that either bad men or devils have in any instance performed miracles, except as mere instruments of divine power.3

66

Indeed, Olshausen himself, in his commentary on the passage last referred to (2 Thess. ii. 9), expressly admits that as satan himself is a created being, although a mighty one, the wonders also which he performs through antichrist can be merely mirabilia, not true miracula." They are "mere

1 Notes on Miracles, p. 27.

2 2 Thess. ii. 9.

8 The question whether miracles are ever wrought by any other than divine power, is very ably discussed by Dr Taylor, of New Haven, in opposition to the views of Dr. Chalmers, who takes the ground that it is presumption to affirm that Omnipotence alone can set aside the laws of nature. (See Revealed Theology, Vol. III. p. 396, et seq.)

1

magical monstrosities." And in the passage first cited, as if by way of furnishing the correction of his own previous remarks, he adds in a foot-note on the very same page, that "In so far as evil is merely a product of created powers, we may say that the satanic miracles are merely apparent miracles; since miracles can be performed by God's omnipotence alone." What then becomes of the assertion that, according to the scriptures "not only holy but also evil power" is "the cause of miracles?" What becomes of the "two series of miracles" extending through scripture history? And what becomes of the objection to the evidential force of the miracles of Christianity? Is a real miracle of no force to confirm a true message, because a sham miracle may be wrought to confirm a false one? 3

1 Com., Vol. V. p. 331.

2 Com., Vol. I. p. 336.

The position of Olshausen is singularly inconsistent as regards the true force of the Christian miracles. "It cannot possibly," he thinks, "be the end of miracles to establish the truth of any affirmation. In the sense of scripture, too, this is by no means the intention of miracles. It was only the people that so viewed them, because they allowed themselves to be influenced in their judgment by the impression of power, or the excitement of the senses; for which reasons they attached themselves to false prophets as willingly, and even more so, than to the true. The Saviour, therefore, severely rebukes this eagerness for sensible miracles (John iv. 48). But when our Lord, in other places (e. g. John x. 25; xiv. 10, 11), calls for faith in his works, and connects them with his dignity and his holy office, this is not done in order to establish the truth of his declarations; truth, as such rather proclaims itself irresistably to impressible minds by its inward nature." For what then, we ask, were the miracles intended? "They were intended rather," replies Olshausen, “to demonstrate his character as a divine messenger, for those in whom the impression of the truth, conveyed by the spirit and language of the Saviour had wrought its effect." But in establishing his character as a divine messenger, do they not also establish the truth of his message; and is not this really what they were designed to do? For what purpose is it sought to establish the character of the messenger, but to make good the truth of the message. To establish the truth of his declarations is the very thing in view. Even Olshausen himself admits this, in the sentences which almost immediately follow. In the human teacher, he says, though truth may greatly pre dominate, error cannot be conceived as wholly excluded. God, therefore, invested particular individuals, as his instruments, with higher powers, in order to distinguish them from merely human teachers, "and to accredit them before mankind as infallible instruments of the Holy Spirit, as teachers of absolute truth." Hence, he continues, "the gift of miracles is one of the necessary characteristics of true prophets, and serves to witness their superior character, - -to prove that they areto be regarded as teachers and guides of the faith, and free from all error.”

More consistent, though we think not more correct, is the position of Trench, who regards these wonders of satan and his false prophets as real miracles, and therefore as weakening, if not destroying, the prima facie evidence of the true miracles in favor of the mission or the divine doctrine of him who performs them. Yet in answer to the question, of what use then are the real miracles, he affirms,' that when once the doctrince has proved itself to be true and good by commending itself to the conscience, the miracles may then come in as "the credentials for the bearer of that good word; signs that he has a special mission for the realization of the purposes of God in regard of humanity."

Even as thus employed do not the true miracles prove both the message and the man to be from God? But is this the whole force of the scripture miracles? Must the doctrine first be proved true before the miracles wrought in connection with it can be admitted as evidence in the case? Is it not enough that there is in the doctrine or system nothing manifestly untrue, or inconsistent with the supposition. that it is from God? This granted, do not the miracles come in with a positive force to substantiate the claim that man and message are divinely sent? We would, by no means, contend that the miracle is to be taken in proof of the doctrine entirely irrespective of the character of that doctrine; nor, on the other hand, would we require the doc trine first to prove itself, and then to prove the miracle, which, in turn, once proved, is to come in as collateral security for the very foundation on which itself reposes.

We would by no means disparage or undervalue the internal evidence of Christianity. It is good in its place. To the humble, believing disciple it comes with convincing power. It is to him the best and strongest of all evidences. that the system is from God. To one already convinced,

Precisely so. In other words, to establish the truth of their declarations and doctrines. The truth is, the object or end of the miracle is twofold, - primarily to attest the divine character and claims of the messenger; ultimately and chiefly, to attest the truth of his doctrine; the former with a view to, and for the sake of, the latter.

1 Notes on Miracles, p. 28.