In adopting this argument, we do not, as is sometimes said, reason in a circle, employing the character of Christ as a testimony in favour of the miracles, and the miracles again as a testimony in favour of the character of Christ. For the cha racter of Christ is contemplated in two distinct aspects ; first, as regards his human perfectness ; and secondly, as regards his superhuman mission and power. The first bears witness to the miracles, the miracles bear witness to the second. When our Lord represents himself as a human example, to be imitated by his human followers, he lays stress on those facts of his life which indicate his human goodness : Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me ; for I am meek and lowly in heart.' When, on the other band, he represents himself as divinely commissioned for a special purpose, he appeals to the superhuman evidence of his miracles as authenticating that mission : 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.' It is true that the evidence of the miracles, as addressed to us, has a different aspect, and rests on different grounds, from that which belonged to them at the time when they were first performed. But this change has not diminished their force as evidences, though it has somewhat changed its direction. If we have not the advantage of seeing and hearing and questioning those who were eye witnesses of the miracles, the deficiency is fully supplied by the additional testimony that has ac crued to us, in the history of Christianity, from their day to ours. If we have stricter conceptions of physical law, and of the uniformity of nature, we have also higher evidence of the existence of a purpose worthy of the exercise of God's sovereign power over nature. If the progress of science has made many things easy of performance at the pre sent day, which would have seemed miraculous to the men of the first century, it has also shown more clearly how inimitable and unapproachable are the miracles of Christ, in the maturity of science no less than in its infancy. And when it is objected, that if miracles were, in the estimation of a former age, among the chief supports of Christianity, they are at present among the main diffczelties and hindrances to its acceptance,' we may fairly ask, What is this Christianity which might be more easily believed if it had no miracles? Is it meant that the gospel-narrative, in general, would be more easy to believe were the miracles taken out of it ? The miracles are so interwoven with the narrative, that the whole texture would be de stroyed by their removal. Or is it meant, that the great central fact in the apostolic preaching—the resurrection of Christ—would be more natural and credible if he who thus marvellously rose from the dead had in his lifetime exhibited no signs of a power superior to that of his fellow-men? Or is it meant that the great distinctive doctrines of Chris tianity—such as those of the Trinity and the Incar nation—might be more readily accepted were there no miracles in the Scripture which contains them ? We can scarcely imagine it to be seriously main tained, that it would be easier to believe that the Second Person of the Divine Trinity came on earth in the form of man, were it also asserted that, while on earth, he gave no signs of a power beyond that of ordinary men. In short, it is difficult to understand on what ground it can be maintained that the miracles are a hindrance to the belief in Christianity, except on a ground which asserts also that there is no distinctive Christianity in which to believe. It may with more truth be said, that the miraculous element, which forms so large a portion of Christianity, has its peculiar worth and service at the present day, as a protest and safeguard against two forms of unchristian thought to which an intellectual and cultivated age is liable—pantheism, the danger of a deeply speculative philosophy ; and materialism, the danger of a too exclusive devotion to physical science. Both these, in different ways, tend to deify nature and the laws of nature, and to obscure the belief in a personal God distinct from and above nature ; against both these, so long as the Christian religion lasts, the miracles of Christ are a perpetual witness ; and in so witnessing they perform a service to religion different in kind, but not less important than that which they performed at the beginning.
The miracles of the O. T. may be included in the above argument, if we regard, as Scripture requires us to regard, the earlier dispensation as an anticipation of and preparation for the coming of Christ. Many of the events in the history of Israel as a people are typical of corresponding events in the life of the Saviour; and the earlier miraculous history is a supernatural system pre paring the way for the later consummation of God's supernatural providence in the redemption of the world by Christ. Not only the occasional miracles of the O. T. history, but, as Bishop Atterbury remarks, some of the established institutions under the law—the gift of prophecy, the Shechinah, the Urim and Thummim, the Sabbatical year—are of a supernatural character, and thus manifest them selves as parts of a supernatural system, ordained for and leading to the completion of the super natural in Christ.
A question has sometimes been raised, chiefly with a view to disparaging the value of miracles as evidences of a religion, whether it is not possible that miracles may be wrought by evil spirits in sup port of a false doctrine. The question, so far as it affects us at present, is rather a theme for argu mentative ingenuity than an inquiry of practical im portance. In relation to the Christian evidences, the only question that can practically be raised is whether the Scripture miracles—supposing them not to be pure fabrications—are real miracles wrought by divine power, or normal events occur ring in the course of nature, or produced by human means. The possibility of real miracles other than
divine is a question rather of curiosity than of practical value. An able discussion of this subject will be found in Farmer's Dissertation, though the author has weakened his argument by attempting too much. So far as he undertakes to show that there is no sufficient evidence that miracles actually have been wrought by evil spirits in behalf of a false religion, his reasoning is logical and satisfac tory, and his treatment of the supposed miracles of the Egyptian magicians is in this respect highly successful. But when he proceeds from the his torical to the theological argument, and maintains that it is inconsistent with God's perfections that such miracles ever should be wrought, he appears to assume more than is warranted either by reason or by Scripture, and to deduce a consequence which is not required by the former, and appears difficult to reconcile with the latter. That there may be such a thing as the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders,' and that such working will actually be manifested before the last day in support of Antichrist, is the natural interpretation of the language of Scripture. That such a manifestation has as yet taken place is, to say the least, a conclusion not established by existing evidence. What will be the criterion of such miracles, should they hereafter be exhibited, and what amount of temptation they will be per mitted to exercise over men, are questions which, with our present knowledge, it will be the wisest course not to attempt to answer.
A more practical question is that which relates to the means of distinguishing between true and false miracles, meaning by the latter term, phenomena pretended to be miraculous, but in fact either natural events or human impostures or fabrications. Various rules for distinguishing between these have been given by several authors, the best known being the four rules laid down in Leslie's Short and Easy Method with the Deists,' and the three given in Bishop Douglas's ' Criterion,' and to some extent the six given by Bishop Stillingfleet in Bk. ii., ch. to of Origines Sacra; to which may be added the very acute observations of a similar kind in a work remarkably differing from a later publi cation by the same author, The Life of Apol lonius Tyanssus,' by J. H. Newman, published in the Encyclopedia Metropolitans.' Yet the prac tical value of these rules, though considerable as compared with the inquiry previously noticed, is available rather for particular and temporary phases of controversy than for general and perpetual edifi cation. A more permanent principle in relation to this question is suggested by Leslie in his remarks on the pretended miracles of Apollonius, where he shows that the assumed miracles, even if admitted, have no important connection with our belief or practice. But now,' he says, to sum up all, let us suppose to the utmost that all this said romance were true, what would this amount to? Only that Apollonius did such things. What then ? What if he were so virtuous a person as that God should have given him the power to work several miracles ? This would noways hurt the argument that is here brought against the Deists, because Apollonius set up no new religion, nor did he pretend that lie was sent with any revelation from heaven to introduce any new sort of worship of God ; so that it is of no consequence to the world whether these were true or pretended miracles ; whether Apollonius was an honest man or a magician ; or whether there ever was such a man or not. For lie left no law or gospel behind him to be received upon the credit of those miracles which he is said to have wrought.' To this it may be added, that there is an enormous d priori im probability against miracles performed without any professed object, as compared with those which belong to a system which has exercised a good and permanent influence in the world. This im probability can only be overcome by a still more enormous mass of evidence in their favour ; and until some actual case can be pointed out, in which such evidence exists, the unimportance of a reported series of miracles is a valid reason for withholding belief in them. The Scripture mira cles in this respect stand alone and apart from all others, as regards the evidence of their reality com bined with their significance if real.
Among works of importance written specially on the subject of the Scripture miracles, besides those which incidentally notice it in connection with a more general treatment of theology or Christian evidences, may be mentioned the follow ing : — Fleetwood, Essay upon Miracles, 1701 ; Locke, A Discourse of Miracles, 1701-2 ; Pearce, The ;Viracles of Jesus Vindicated (in reply to Woolston), 1729 - Smallbrook, A Vindication of our Saviour's Miracles (in reply to Woolston), 1729 ; Lardner, A Vindication of three of our Blessed Saviour's Miracles (in reply to Woolston), 1729 ; Sherlock, The Trial of the Witnesses, 1729 ; Douglas, The Criterion, 1734 ; Campbell, A Dis sertation on Miracles, 1763 ; Farmer, A Disserta tion on Miracles, 1771 ; Penrose, A Treatise on the Evidence of the Scripture Miracles, 1826; Le Bas, Considerations on Miracles, 1828; Newman, Life of Apollonius 7yanaus, in Entycloperdict Me trapolitana ; J. Disputatio de Mfraculorum 7esu Christi Natunz etNecessitate, Partic. I., 1839 ; II. 1841 ; Nitzsch, in Studien and Kritiken, 1843; Rothe, in Studien and Kritiken, 1858 ; Trench, Notes on the Miracles of our Lord, 6th ed., 1838 ; Koestlin, De Miraculorum, qua Christus a primi Dies fecerunt, nature et ration, 1860 ; M 'Cosh, The Supernatural in relation to the Natu ral, 1862 • Bushnell, Vature and the Supernatu ral, English ed., 1863.—H. L. M.