as evidences of a divine mission, by some who plead that such works may, on other occasions, be performed without the order of God. I. It is urged, "that in case of a contest between two opposite parties working miracles for victory, the party which works the most and greatest miracles may reasonably be supposed to be assisted by God; and therefore that his doctrine should be received as divine." To this we answer, 1st, That if supernatural operations were brought to support opposite missions, it would be difficult to determine which of them required the greater degrees of power. Scarce, perhaps, would any two persons pronounce the same judgment concerning them. The driving the traders out of the temple is called by St. Jerome the most wonderful of all the miracles which Jesus performed: and yet a very learned modern† scarce allows it to be any miracle at all. To change the form of a creature is pronounced by Dr. Lightfoot‡ the greatest miracle; and he applies the observation to that wrought at Cana; but Dr. Lardner § calls it "one of the least miracles any where ascribed to Christ." How can miracles of a different kind be brought into a comparison with each. other? Were this difficulty overcome, there still remains a greater. For, 2dly, It would be impossible. to shew, on the principles we are here examining, that those miracles which carried marks of a superior: *In Matt. tom. ix. p. 31, ed. Bas. 1516. + The Miracles of Jesus vindicated, by Dr Pearce, p. 26. Vol. i. p. 504" §Vindication, p. 26. E 5 power power were really divine. The most learned Dr. Clarke seems indeed to have thought, that where superior power appeared, "there it was necessarily to be believed that the commission was truly from God:" and the ingenious and acute bishop Sherlock affirms†, "that miracles are an immediate and direct proof of what they are brought to assert, the supremacy of God: for, when the single question is, who is the Mightiest, must it not be decided in his favour who visibly exerts the greatest acts of power?" But if created spirits of very different ranks and orders are at liberty to work miracles without any commission from God, who can determine the limits of their respective capacities, and take upon him to say how far the power of the highest created spirit may extend? Dr. Clarke tells us, "that (unless we knew the limit of communicable and incommunicable power) we can hardly affirm with any certainty, that any particular effect, how great or miraculous soever it may seem to us, is beyond the power of all created beings in the universe to have produced." I admit, that in case of such a contest as is supposed above, the party which performs the most and greatest miracles is superior to the opposite. But I am not able to discern how this superiority of the one to the other necessarily proves an infinity of power, or an absolute supremacy over all other beings. On the principles of Dr. Clarke, the miracles on both sides, separately considered, might be performed by beings inferior to + Discourses, vol. i. p 285. * Sermons, vol. ii. p. 700. Vol. ii. p. 697. God, God, and are proofs only of the interposition of some invisible agents superior to man: how then can the circumstance of their being performed in a contest for victory demonstrate that they could have no other author than God? 3dly. On the contrary, this circumstance would incline us to believe that both parties were assisted only by created intelligences superior to one another in power; for it seems much more likely, that there should be a contention for power and supre-macy between different created agents, than between any creature and his omnipotent Creator. With whom would the Almighty maker and sovereign of the universe deign to enter into a contest? And superior spirits (as Dr. Clarke* himself allows) "could not possibly be so absurdly ignorant, as to imagine that finite could prevail by force against infinite, or not know that the Almighty could, if he pleased, annihilate them swift as thought." From hence it seems to me to follow, that, if opposite missions were supported by miracles, the supreme Being could have no concern in: the dispute. 4thly. According to the rule of judging concerning the divinity of miracles, here laid down, these works will, at different times, both prove anda disprove the divine commission of their performer.. While the contest is continued between two opposite parties working miracles for victory, he who to-day,. by working more and greater miracles than his rival, is received as a divine messenger, must be rejected as an impostor. to-morrow, if his rival should then exceed him in the number and greatness of his miracles.. Sermons, vol. i. p. 60, folio edition, and p. 587. At favour of all sorts of doctrines, I would not ascribe any of them to God; I should be unable to persuade myself that infinite wisdom employed any works as the distinguishing test of its own extraordinary interposition, which may be performed by inferior beings; or that the Deity would use that as a seal of truth, which the devil uses to gain credit to imposture. And therefore, if miracles may be performed by created: agents of different and opposite characters, and in support of falsehood as well as truth, I am not able to perceive how any doctrine can be proved by miracles*, or at least any such doctrine as wants the attestation of these works. It is necessary to observe farther, that the making the doctrine the test of the divinity of the miracles is to make the doctrine the rule of judging concerning the miracle, not the miracle the rule of judging con-cerning the doctrine. The proper and immediate de-sign of miracles is to establish some truth unknown: before, and such as is not demonstrable by reason, or * In confirmation of what is urged above to shew that, on the principle maintained in the objection we are now examining, no doctrine whatever can be proved to come from God by miracles, it may be observed, that if the doctrine be such as natural reason can clearly and certainly discover to be true, the miracles are unnecessary and superfluous, and for that reason cannot be divine. And if the doctrine be such as reason can clearly prove to be false. it will be still more impossible to ascribe the miracles to God. If the doctrine be doubtful, and natural reason be unable to determine whether it be true or false, it must be equally doubtful who the author of the miracles is. But it is sufficient to have shewn that, if miracles are not pe.. culiar to God, no doctrine that wants the attestation of these works can be proved by them. capable capable of other evidence besides that of miracles; to prove, for example, the mission of the prophet by whom they are performed, and the divine original of his message or doctrine, and to engage men to receive and comply with it, however contrary it may be to their prejudices and passions. But according to some learned men, the doctrine must first be examined without passion or prejudice, and then employed to prove the divinity of the miracles. But is not this repugnant to the proper use and intention of miracles? It is making the whole force of the proof to depend upon the doctrine to be proved. It is of importance to add, that miracles are intended more especially for the conviction of the ignorant and unlearned, who are easily imposed upon by the sophistry of science, and the specious disguises of error, as well as utterly disqualified to determine by abstract reasonings concerning the absolute necessity, or the fitness and propriety, of special divine interpositions. It is necessary therefore that miracles, when they are offered as evidences of a divine commission, should contain in their own nature a clear demonstrative proof of their divine original; for otherwise their special design could not be answered. It is quite unnatural to suppose that the doctrine must first establish the divinity of the miracles, before the miracles can attest the divinity of the doctrine; and it is absurd to expect that a new revelation and offensive truths (which are not received without reluctance even where there is a prior conviction of the divinity of the miracles attesting them) should themselves effectually engage men to ascribe |