may be admitted, as our author observes, that if the doctrines of Christ himself could not have borne this test of light and purity, they could not have been rationally received.' But then, at the same time, it may also be certainly concluded from the wisdom and goodness of divine providence, that if this had been the case, Christ would never have been enabled to work such illustrious miracles in confirmation of his divine mission, much less would God have raised him from the dead. It can, in no consistency with the divine perfections, be supposed, that God would have given, or suffered to be given, such a series of illustrious attestations, bearing all the marks of divinity, in confirmation of an imposture, and to favour the cause of idolatry, false doctrine, vice, and licentiousness. The apostle Paul, in his epistle to the Galatians, chap. i. 8, puts the case, that if he himself, or an angel from heaven,' should preach a different gospel from that which he had preached to them, they were not to regard it. This is only a vehement form of asseveration, to show, that on no pretence whatsoever should they swerve from the gospel they had received from him. But why were they so firmly to adhere to the gospel he had taught them? it was, because it was the gospel he had received by revelation from Jesus Christ;' see ver. 12, and which was confirmed by the most illustrious miraculous attestations, and gifts of the Holy Spirit; see chap. iii. 2. 5. So that he is so far from intending by this to insinuate, that inspiration and miracles can be no proof of doctrines, that on the contrary he produces these as manifest and incontestable proofs of the truth and divinity of that gospel, from which they were never under any pretence to depart. CHAPTER III. The miracles wrought by Moses vindicated against the author's objections. The case of the Egyptian sorcerers, and their miracles, considered. His attempt to prove that Moses might have been assisted by some supernatural evil power, because his miracles were wrought, not for the good, but for the destruction, of mankind, and were done out of a particular partiality to the Israelites. The nature of those miracles, and the end for which they were wrought, prove they could not be the work of an evil being. The miracles of Jesus Christ vindicated. Not merely wrought to procure attention from the people, but designed as proper proofs and attestations to his divine mission, and the truth and divine authority of his laws and doctrine. The wonderful effects of Christ's miracles not owing to the strength of imagination. The extraordinary miraculous facts wrought in attestation of the Mosaical and Christian dispensation come to us with sufficient evidence to make it reasonable for us to believe the truth of these facts. HAVING considered what this writer offers on the general question about miracles, I shall now proceed to examine what he hath concerning the miracles of Moses and our Lord Jesus Christ. I had endeavoured to show, that, supposing those miracles to have been really done as they are represented in Scripture, they were of such a nature, that it cannot reasonably be supposed that they could be done, or that God would have suffered them to be done in attestation of an imposture. See divine authority, p. 19-23. This the author represents as a 'building the whole proof upon a petitio principii, and as a taking the miraculous facts, with regard to Moses as well as Christ, for granted.' p. 48. He cannot it seems, or will not, distinguish here between two questions which are of very distinct consideration. The one is, whether, supposing the miracles wrought by Moses and our Lord Jesus Christ to have been really done as represented in Scripture, they might justly be regarded as sufficient credentials of their divine mission, and as sufficient attestations to the truth and divine original of the doctrines and laws they published in the name of God. The other is, what reason we have to believe that those miracles were really wrought as they are represented, and the accounts given of them, may be safely depended upon. It is the former of these that comes properly to be considered in this place. And it highly concerns this author to consider it, because, if this can be proved, the main question is determined against him, viz., That there may be miracles of such a nature, and so circumstanced, as to yield a proper proof and attestation to the divine mission of persons, and authority of doctrines. He is not insensible of this; and therefore, after having made a flourish about the petitio principii, as he calls it, he is willing, it seems, to 'give me all possible advantage in the argument, and to suppose the truth of the facts themselves,' and yet denies 'the use I made of it, and the consequences drawn from it: that is, he denies, that supposing the facts were true, they could furnish a sufficient proof of the divine mission of those by whom these miracles were performed, and sufficient attestations to the truth and divine original of those doctrines and laws, in confirmation of which they were wrought. One would have expected here, that he would have undertaken to prove this from the nature or circumstances of those miracles; but nothing of this appears in this place, where it might naturally be expected; nothing but a repeating what he had said on the general question, that the intrinsic excellency of the doctrines themselves is the only possible proof, and that no miracles can be a proof. But as there are several hints loosely scattered after the author's manner in several parts of his book, particularly in his first section, to show that neither the miracles of Moses, nor those of Christ, taken as represented in Scripture, were proper proofs or attestations to their divine mission, or to the divine authority of the doctrines and laws they published in the name of God, I shall draw them together, and distinctly consider them. And, first, I shall begin with what he saith concerning the miracles of Moses. One objection, which he repeats again and again, is drawn from the miracles wrought by the Egyptian sorcerers. He observes, that nothing can be plainer than this, "that the bare power of working miracles is no proof at all, either of the truth of doctrines, or any authority, or special commission, that the persons have from God. The Egyptian sorcerers, if the accounts be true, wrought great miracles; and they who could create a living creature, and turn a rod into a serpent, might as well have made a world, raised the dead, or done any thing else within the compass of power. It can signify nothing, to say that these sorcerers only wrought false or counterfeit miracles, but the miracles wrought by Moses were true and real; since nothing appears from the story itself, but that the miracles were of the same kind, and equally true on both sides. And though Moses wrought greater miracles than they, this can only prove his greater power or skill; and that the magicians were fairly out-done in their own way. But it can no more prove any commission or divine authority of Moses, than if he had conquered them by force of arms,' &c. pp. 26, 27. In examining this passage, I shall first consider of what kind the miracles were, that were wrought by the Egyptian sorcerers, and then I shall inquire into the justice of the inference drawn from it; whether it follows, that because they wrought such miracles, therefore the miracles wrought by Moses could not 'prove any commission or divine authority of Moses.' With regard to the Egyptian sorcerers, he observes, that 'if the accounts be true, they wrought great miracles. And they who could create a living creature, and turn a rod into a serpent, might as well have made a world, raised the dead, or done any thing else within the compass of power.' And I must own, that though I will not carry it so far as to say with this author, that the turning a rod into a living creature would have been as great an exertion of power as creating a world, yet it would have argued so great a power, that I think, no created being, much less an evil one, can be reasonably supposed to have really done it. I am therefore persuaded that it was done only in appearance. It may reasonably be conceived, that supposing evil spirits to have been concerned, they might easily have snatched away the magicians' rods, and have substituted serpents in the room of them, of which there were enough to be had in or about Egypt. And that they might do this by so quick and slight a conveyance, as not to be observed by the spectators, as jugglers often perform their tricks. But to this the author objects, that 'it signifies nothing to say, that these sorcerers wrought false or counterfeit miracles, but the miracles wrought by Moses were true and real; since nothing appears from the story itself, but that the miracles were of the same kind, and equally true on both sides.' To which I answer, that supposing the miracles of the magicians were wrought in appearance only in the manner now described, not by a real conversion of a rod into a serpent, but by a quick and dexterous substitution of a serpent instead of a rod; and that in Moses's case there was a real conversion of a serpent into a rod; yet it was proper, in relating the story, to relate the fact as it appeared to the spectators. If it had been said in the story itself, that Moses really turned his rod into a serpent, but the magicians did not really turn their rods into serpents, but only appeared to do so; this might, and no doubt would have been, objected against as a manifest proof of the great partiality in the historian. The spectators thought their rods, as well as that of Moses, were turned into serpents, and it was proper to relate the matter as it appeared to them. But it may further be urged, why may it not then be supposed, that Moses also wrought his miracles in appearance only, by some slight of art and cunning, or by the agency and confederacy of evil spirits, and therefore was only a greater magician than they were? I answer, this might possibly have been suspected, if Moses had wrought only such miracles as the magicians seemed to work as well as he. It might, in that case have been imagined, that there was some trick in it, though the spectators could not find it out; or that it was only some strange unaccountable thing that had happened, from which no inference could be drawn in proof of his divine mission. But the amazing succession of wonders that followed, put it beyond all reasonable doubt, that his miracles were real, and incomparably grand, exceeding the power of any creature. And many of them were of such a nature, that by the reality and greatness of their effects, left no room for supposing or suspecting an imposture. If it be said, If the magicians imitated some of Moses's miracles so well, why might they not imitate others of his miracles too in the same way; e. g. why might they not pretend as he did, to turn the dust into lice, and to have managed this as they did in the other case, by a conveyance, of lice into the place of the dust; which would have been no very difficult matter, supposing the assistance of invisible agents? I answer, that I doubt not, they might have imitated that as well as they had done some of the former miracles, if they had been permitted to do so; but Providence would not suffer them, or the evil spirits that assisted them, to go so far as to imitate the other miracles of Moses even in appearance; but ordered it so, that there was an entire triumph over them; and they themselves were forced to acknowledge that Moses's miracles were real, and owing to the power of God. And their being thus stopped and hindered from going any farther, even in a matter that seemed not to be more difficult than the other wonders they appeared to perform, might give the people just ground to conclude, that all their feats before were owing to delusion and imposture, and that they had not really effected what they had seemed to do.* *It must be observed, that even with respect to some of the miracles in which the magicians seemed to imitate Moses, he still preserved a manifest superiority, and the miracles, as performed by him, left no reasonable room for suspicion of a juggle or imposture, though theirs justly might. e. g. The magicians pretended to imitate the miracle of Moses in turning water into blood, and in bringing frogs upon the land. But there was evidently a vast difference between them; from whence it appeared, that an imposture might take place in the one case, but not in the other. Moses by only stretching forth his rod, turned the river, and all the 'streams and pools, and all the waters, in vessels of wood and of stone, throughout all the land of Egypt, into blood, so that the fish that was in the river died, and the river stank.' The reality and great extent of the effect, showed the truth and divinity of the miracle, and that there was And now it is manifest, that the author's inference will not bear, that because the magicians wrought such miracles, therefore the miracles wrought by Moses could give no attestation to the divine authority of his mission. For the miracles of the Egyptian sorcerers were very few in number, and those immediately controlled by a superior power. In this case, there is no absurdity in supposing, that God may suffer evil beings to exert their utmost power and art to deceive and impose upon the spectators, in behalf of error, and idolatry, and vice; because there is a remedy at hand. The superior miracles, by which they are controlled and overpowered, open a way for detecting the delusion, and are a sufficient antidote against the bad influence those miracles might otherwise have upon the minds of men. But that he should suffer such an astonishing series of glorious works, so incomparably grand, and bearing all the marks of a divine power, and of a dominion over nature, such as were those which were wrought by Moses, that God should suffer those to be wrought by evil beings (even supposing it in the power of such beings to perform them, which was highly improbable) and that in attestation of falsehood and imposture, for a course of years together, without ever controlling them by any contrary or superior miracles; this is a quite different case, and cannot possibly be reconciled to the wisdom and goodness of a superintending providence. And to suppose (as this writer does) that the vast superiority and amazing grandeur of Moses's miracles above those of the magicians, was no more a proof of his being sent of God than if he had overcome them by 'force of arms,' is a banter on the common sense of mankind; except he could prove that there is nothing more extraordinary in the one case than in the other. But the author further objects against the miracles of Moses, that 'he might have been assisted by some supernatural evil power, since his miracles were commonly wrought not for the good, but the destruction of mankind.' p. 27. And elsewhere he asks, 'for what good end were Moses's miracles done, supposing them to have been really wrought? And he pronounces, that 'it was only to destroy one nation, the Egyptians, and to enable the Israelites to destroy another nation, the Canaanites, by putting them all nothing of juggle and delusion in it. For where could a quantity of blood be found at once sufficient to do all this, except we suppose a real transmutation of it? But with respect to the magicians, the case was otherwise. A small quantity of water must have been brought to them, that probably was got by digging; which was the way the Egyp tians took to get water to drink, Exod. vii. 24. If this was brought to them in a vessel, it was no hard matter, supposing the assistance of invisible agents, to convey that water away, and by a quick conveyance, put blood in the stead of it, which was then easily to be had every where. In this case there was room for a juggle and imposture, but not in the former. In like manner, with regard to the miracle of the frogs, Moses at once brought an immense quantity of frogs out of the river, streams, and pools of water, which filled the whole land at once, and even all the houses and chambers of the Egyptians; and such an instantaneous production of so vast a quantity showed that it was not mere juggle, but that there was a creating power exerted in the production of them, and that the God of nature was concerned in it. But when this was done, the magicians might imitate this miracle by causing some frogs to come upon the land, which they might easily bring, by a quick and artificial conveyance, when frogs abounded every where, in the place where they pretended to work the miracle. |